[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Request for Co-Sponsors

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Given that the nature of this is no longer as time sensitive, I disagree with the interpretation that it is not a matter we can address, as was pointed out no ruling of the chair was officially given, and I find the situation in general disturbing, I will ask for co-sponsors for the following motion.

"The L.N.C. directs the Executive Director to refund the donation of Royce Corley, and further not accept his membership application until after the National Convention in May of 2020."

This will allow the delegates, if they choose to address it, to make a decision either in specific or in general about such situations, while addressing the current objections of several members of this board and many of the party members currently.

As always I am open to suggestions and motions regarding alternative wording.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I would encourage you to add this to February agenda. The chair has
indicated that discussion of non-public figures is not appropriate for a
public list.

-Caryn Ann

--

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I'll co-sponsor. 

-Joshua 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I'll co-sponsor

---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)

On 2019-12-23 07:58, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:

> Given that the nature of this is no longer as time sensitive, I disagree with the interpretation that it is not a matter we can address, as was pointed out no ruling of the chair was officially given, and I find the situation in general disturbing, I will ask for co-sponsors for the following motion.
>
> "The L.N.C. directs the Executive Director to refund the donation of Royce Corley, and further not accept his membership application until after the National Convention in May of 2020."
>
> This will allow the delegates, if they choose to address it, to make a decision either in specific or in general about such situations, while addressing the current objections of several members of this board and many of the party members currently.
>
> As always I am open to suggestions and motions regarding alternative wording.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Unfortunately, the name of the non-public figure has already been released (I do hope we are more careful/considerate about that in the future). I do think we should avoid using the name out of courtesy in continued email discussion but I do think resolving this later than sooner will only escalate damage and distraction regardless of outcome.

In hopes we can move beyond this and focus on the challenges and opportunities we have in 2020, I’ll co-sponsor this motion.

Alex Merced
Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP

> On Dec 23, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> I'll co-sponsor

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

A point I considered Caryn Ann and Alex, and appreciate.  I considered it moot as someone else had already made the name public, but still had qualms

I agree on not using it going forward.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

On Dec 23, 2019 7:40 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

I would encourage you to add this to February agenda.  The chair has indicated that discussion of non-public figures is not appropriate for a public list.

-Caryn Ann 

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:58 AM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org> wrote:

Given that the nature of this is no longer as time sensitive, I disagree with the interpretation that it is not a matter we can address, as was pointed out no ruling of the chair was officially given, and I find the situation in general disturbing, I will ask for co-sponsors for the following motion.

"The L.N.C. directs the Executive Director to refund the donation of Royce Corley, and further not accept his membership application until after the National Convention in May of 2020."

This will allow the delegates, if they choose to address it, to make a decision either in specific or in general about such situations, while addressing the current objections of several members of this board and many of the party members currently.

As always I am open to suggestions and motions regarding alternative wording.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

--

  

In Liberty,

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Dear All,

I'm going to start with the relevant section of the Bylaws, since it makes
it easier to reference for those reading:
"ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing
that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social
goals.
2. The National Committee may offer life memberships, and must honor all
prior and future life memberships.
3. The National Committee may create other levels of membership and shall
determine the contribution or dues levels for such memberships.
4. “Sustaining members” are members of the Party who: a. During the prior
twelve months have donated, or have had donated on their behalf, an amount
of at least $25; or b. Are Life members."

The person mentioned in the motion has met the conditions set forth in the
bylaws (Art. 4, Sec. 1 and 4) to be a sustaining member of the Libertarian
Party as of the date that the contribution and attached signed
certification were processed.

It may be in order to refund the person's contribution as part of the LNC's
prerogative to issue directives overriding those of the Chair, though it
would not be in order if it had the effect of denying that person a
sustaining membership. Art. 4, Sec. 4 can be read as applying by the fact
of the person making the donation, even if the donation was subsequently
refunded. That's a somewhat strained reading of it, so it would be better
if the motion made it clear that it was a refund without a change in
sustaining
membership status.

The latter half of the motion is out of order as the membership application
has been processed.

The mover has the option to rewrite the motion to fit within my
interpretation of the bylaws outlined above, appeal from the ruling of the
Chair, or ask for time on the agenda in February.

Yours truly,
Nick

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:47 AM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org> wrote:

> *In Liberty,*
>
> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome

> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux

> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I question whether someone who has engaged in child prostitution can legitimately sign the NAP.  Would we have to accept Jeffrey Dahmer or  Timothy Mcveigh's applications?

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Mr. Phillips please allow me to give some history here. The pledge WAS
never intended to be a gatekeeper to exclude people from the Party because
as David Nolan said, bad people will lie. While it legitimately reflects
our beliefs and it is hoped it is signed in sincerity of internal beliefs,
its purpose was to protect the Party from the government and to educate
members. Further, if any evil person reformed themselves, they could
legitimately sign the pledge. I doubt any of us are free from past
aggression. I have no idea of this individual's current state of
repentance, but such difficulties are exactly why that was never the
purpose of the pledge as originally intended.

http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge

Just recently we had a few members calling for the expulsion of any parent
that spanks their children - that is not a fallacious slippery slope, it is
one supported with evidence. I am NAPster purist as they come, but we are
not the judgment throne of God.

-Caryn Ann

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:21 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org> wrote:

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

That question was a cut and paste from a member.  

I see both sides on this.  So I am debating my next step.

My motion was a compromise one to attempt to reconcile both sides.

I will point out that under the logic presented Hitler and Stalin could sign the form and be members were they still alive.  So it is not the weightiest of responses to me, though I will not say it is wrong, just carries less weight.

The question will come, are we a haven for those who prey on children? Or do we flatly reject those actions?

It will also come, do we believe in second chances, and if so what must be done to earn that?

Are we as Libertarians so bound in the dogma of our bylaws that we will not look at interpretations to do what is right?

Those questions will weigh heavily on my soul, and then in which priority do I place them?

If we are to be a haven for predators, I do not know if I will be able to wrap my conscience around that enough to continue to represent this party.

This will take some thought.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

On Dec 23, 2019 3:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org> wrote:

Mr. Phillips please allow me to give some history here.  The pledge WAS never intended to be a gatekeeper to exclude people from the Party because as David Nolan said, bad people will lie.  While it legitimately reflects our beliefs and it is hoped it is signed in sincerity of internal beliefs, its purpose was to protect the Party from the government and to educate members.  Further, if any evil person reformed themselves, they could legitimately sign the pledge.  I doubt any of us are free from past aggression.  I have no idea of this individual's current state of repentance, but such difficulties are exactly why that was never the purpose of the pledge as originally intended.  

http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge

Just recently we had a few members calling for the expulsion of any parent that spanks their children - that is not a fallacious slippery slope, it is one supported with evidence.  I am NAPster purist as they come, but we are not the judgment throne of God.

-Caryn Ann

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

The bylaws limit our power. Just as the constitution was supposed to limit
the state. They have had many good reasons to violate it - and we now see
the result.

I think the mistake you are making is viewing this as about any particular
person rather than the objective action.

Our dogma and everything about our beliefs anathematizes the act of the
victimization of children. The act can be condemned objectively and that
is the Party position.

There are also acts that many of us do in secret that are condemned (from
minor to major).

It is the same way the party doesn’t judge whether someone is libertarian
enough - only whether a particular belief or act is consistent with
libertarianism.

If this were not so, anarchists could theoretically claim the pledge as an
anarchist blood oath as some have claimed and call everyone else a statist.

That is obviously not the correct path.

All membership confers is the status of member in minimal compliance. It
does not declare any person clean.

We must respect that the delegates knew of these kinds of issues for
decades and never gave us that power.

They can choose to do so in Austin.

I will not grasp power not explicitly given to us. That was my raison
d’être for being on the LNC to begin with.

-Caryn Ann

*In Liberty,*

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I'd like to start this email off with a motion appealing the ruling of the chair. 

There is no bylaw explicitly saying that we HAVE to accept someone's contribution. There is also not one stating that we cannot return a donation or terminate a membership. 

Do we not frequently refer to RONR for things that may not be covered in the bylaws like pretty much every other major organization or society? If so, this is a dog and pony show, and we have the authority to return the donation and terminate membership because that's covered on pages 643-644, being the first two pages on Discipline in Chapter XX. 

If we must follow those procedures, I will gladly make a motion as well to get that started, but I'm first appealing the ruling of the chair as there was a motion made by Mr. Phillips with a second. 

In liberty, 

-Joshua 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I urge you to get sponsors for electronic meeting or wait until Feb.
appeals cannot be adequately handled by email.

-Caryn Ann

*In Liberty,*

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

This thing is public and causing a lot of our membership to be very upset. To the point of lifetime members threatening to ask for refunds and to be removed from our membership list. I have fielded call after call and message after message today with members upset that we wouldn't do something as basic as protect our organization and membership from associating with a child predator. Several from state chairs. 

It won't wait till February, and I'm not going to watch TWO motions be ignored while some of us are working to represent and protect our membership. 

What part of an appeal to the ruling of the chair cannot be handled adequately through email?

-Joshua 

  

In Liberty,

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

The order of operations for one. In an e-meeting members can attend.

I ask you to please stop mischaracterizing those who disagree in good faith.

-Caryn Ann

*In Liberty,*

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

You'll have to take that characterization up with our membership and the state chairs I've spoken with. Those words did not come from me. 

Thanks,

Joshua 

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

--

  

In Liberty,

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Mr. Smith I too received emails with choice words about LNC overreach.
That does not excuse me to treat you or anyone indecorously.

Keeping one’s cool is an important part of leadership.

I learned that the hard way when I quite literally lost my shit at an LPRC
convention over this same issue (ie nothing triggers me more than harm to
children). I felt I was doing the right thing. That I was on the side of
the angels.

In retrospect I demonstrated immaturity in treating my peers and I’m
thoroughly embarrassed by that memory.

Peers and friends don’t treat each other that way. You and I are both.

-Caryn Ann

*In Liberty,*

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Yes the bylaws limit our power and they should, however I do not believe it is being well applied here.  Boards exist to handle the situations where rules and standard procedures do not quite fit.  I believe this is one of those cases.

As I believe the appeal must be seconded I will do so. 

While the order of operations normal in an appeal is difficult in an email, it is an issue that I believe is negligible.  Mr Sarwark is free to speak whenever he chooses, nor do I believe much in the way of repetition of the same arguments is needed, though of course I welcome anyone to do so.  7 days of time allows ample opportunity.

I believe I will leave it at that, as I am AGAIN disappointed in people's willingness to see the positives of compromise - to be fair much of which was not in this group.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

--

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

--

  

In Liberty,

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

It would require four sponsors in my understanding.

I would seek the chairs guidance however as that is not my call.

*In Liberty,*

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

It requires one second. 

Can you direct me to the section in RONR that says "an appeal to the ruling of the chair requires 4 seconds"?

Thanks,

Joshua 

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

--

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

--

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

--

  

In Liberty,

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I can direct you to where it says email voting is disallowed entirely
unless authorized by bylaws and only under the terms explicitly in bylaws.

I take the position that appeals are not mentioned and can’t be done
electronically.

I took that position as chair of the platform committee last term and I
called an electronic meeting when one of my rulings was appealed.

You’ll get no further interaction from me until the chair weighs in. I
refuse to be chum in this water, and these decisions are not mine.

-Caryn Ann

*In Liberty,*

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Mail ballots have a seconding requirement of four cosponsors (or the
Chair), it would make sense that appealing a ruling of the Chair by mail
ballot would require the same number of seconds.

You could appeal this interpretation of the rules by the Chair, but at some
point this is going to become absurd.

-Nick

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I do not object to that ruling. If we are asking it to be done by email, email rules should apply.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I will point out to those weighing whether to object that it was the actions of the chair that set up this ruling.

If he had not directed the E.D. to process the application during ongoing discussion there would not yet be a membership to cause his bylaws interpretation.

The chair is a very intelligent man, and as such it is my OPINION - not known fact - that he knew this would be the case, and did so intentionally.  

In my experience, despite his rebuttal that while Rulings of the Chair only coming after a motion being is technically true, it is customary in every board I have worked with to give one, or at least what it would be, when asked. A custom I have witnessed being followed on this board.  That custom not being followed here supports supports my opinion in my mind. Not only that, but it is my belief that a ruling could and should have been made at the time it was first brought to us.

It is my opinion that we cannot allow this kind of manipulation by the chair to go unchallenged.  Even if I believe his motives were good, which I do, I will never be ok with the means.  Regardless of how you vote on the original motion itself, I ask that you consider the appeal carefully.

This is a large part of my consideration for going ahead with the appeal, as well as my other email.  I find the bylaws in this case open to interpretation.  I see the merits of both sides. I think that the interpretation that the bylaws specify requirements for the member, not require the party to accept is stronger. 

 I think that as a political party we need to keep the political aspect in mind, as much as it sucks.  This could easily be our Epstein moment, do we really want to jump in with both feet?

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I would also like to point out that the prescribed recourse of appealing to the JC is not available to us at this time in practicality although our bylaws REQUIRE that it be. 

If the ruling of the chair can not be challenged here, it would be my inclination to appeal to the non existent J.C. 

What would my recourse be at this time in light of that bylaws mandated remedy not being practically available? 

Especially in light of WHY it isnt available?

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Dear All,

Between preparations for the holidays and "hell week" coming up in the
Florida Keys it has already been a busy week, and with the latest
controversy a troubling past few days.

I have been giving this issue a lot of thought and it has weighed on me
as the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida, the last thing I
want to do is promote an internet lynch mob and attack an individual of
which I am not his judge nor jury.

I want to start off by expressing my sheer dissappointment at the
individuals name becoming public. Here is a man, through whatever
cascading torrent of events in his life, felt the need to dispatch a
signed NAP and a $25 check to the Libertarian Party in the hopes that we
would fight for him in some way or serve as a part of a greater
political purpose in his life. Or perhaps he's mad at the world and
thinks we could make it worse, I do not know. Nor do I know the
circumstances of his case, the only thing I know is the conviction by
the State. Sex trafficking minors, or pimping 16 year old girls on
Backpages. That was his crime, and now he is currently incarcerated, his
name is being spread on social media by an organization he applied for,
an organization which could have simply turned him down or blindly
accepted his money.

It was not the right decision to make this case public, transparency is
not always our best option and not every member needs a say in every
decision the LNC makes. Furthermore, does joining the Libertarian Party
now constitute the fact that your past may be publicly scrutinized and
remain available on an online list forever with strangers who get to
debate about your character?

I am assuming our Executive Director may be more cautious in the future
as to bring certain issues to the board, or simply confide with the
Chair or a few select members on advice before taking action.

Is that the culture we want to set for the board? Where all
controversial issues become public and a point of contention amongst us
and our members? I would think not.

Some day, there will be a point where we cannot afford to vet every
single individual who joins our organization, that point may have
already passed. However, there does come times when we receive a choice,
and that choice should be given the full weight of repercussions and
must not be taken lightly when it does come. Now, the Non-Aggression
Pledge was designed to distance ourselves from people who do do terrible
things in our name if/when it does happen, but what if they've already
done something?

Now, do we allow this individual, who we have made the center of an
avoidable feeding frenzy, to join our organization or do we reject his
membership and/or donation?

After much thought into the issue, I must consider who I owe my
allegiance to, which is the membership. The membership will not benefit
from one convicted and currently incarcerated man from becoming a member
at the expense of the organization's reputation, of which directly
effects the standing of our members. Our reputation is everything, and
must be protected with care and molded like a great artist. We cannot
leave our reputation to chance or gossip. We must not allow the Party to
look weak and allow our membership to suffer because of the consequences
of the LNC making this public (regardless of what our decision would
have been). Many members in Florida believe this is a waste of time, and
I agree. However, to many members, child abuse, despite whatever
arguments may be made that the acts could have been consensual or that
they could have been underprivileged, are just excuses to those who hear
child abuse.

Thus, I have made the decision to co-sponsor the motion on the floor as
well as join in appealing the ruling of the Chair.

Let is be a lesson to us all.

In Liberty,

Steven Nekhaila
Region 2 Representative
Libertarian National Committee

Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
"Those without power cannot defend freedom"

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

As always, a well thought out and thought provoking statement sir.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I support the appeal and the e meeting as long as the e meeting deals SPECIFICALLY with what actions are taken concerning a refund and "expungement" of membership or not. 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I urge the chair to call an e-meeting.

I do not agree, but many are now suspecting that this public shameful
display is politically motivated and designed to set up a social media
campaign against our chair.

I thankfully have little clue what is going on with FB since I have been
avoiding it for a few months now except for very disciplined and limited
sessions.

My life is better for it.

Our ED sent this privately. No one LNC member or even several had the
right to make this into a public shitshow without every attempt to avoid.
The lack of judgement is abysmal.

Discipline for private individuals is private.

How hard is that to understand?

It is not this man that hurt our reputation. It is the reckless acts of a
few that have.

-Caryn Ann

Mr. Nekhaila - we are the Party of individual not collective rights. I
find that collective argument alarming. Who’s next to be sacrificed? The
allegedly tiny percentage of anarchists?

Mark my words. You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 9:45 AM Erin Adams via Lnc-business <
lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org> wrote:

*In Liberty,*

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I also support the appeal and the emeeting, this won’t die down till one of these things happen. I do generally echo the thoughts of Regional Reps O’Donnell and Nekhalia on how this overall was handled.

Alex Merced
Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP

> On Dec 24, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> I urge the chair to call an e-meeting.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Mr. Merced, I need your clarification.

There are two issues here.

One is the appeal over email vote.

The other is the appeal by emeeting.

Those two seem to me to be mutually exclusive. Which of the two are you
supporting?

-Caryn Ann

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 1:40 PM Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Some were not wishing to address the appeal in the emeeting, just the underlying motion.

So I agree clarification would be helpful.

I would go either way.

Also while I think waiting until Reno is too long, I have no objection to holding pushing it off until after new years.  Let everyone drop this garbage for the holiday.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

There is a motion that has been made to appeal the ruling of the chair so we could get back to John'sinitial motion that was called out of order. Is there a motion to amend that motion to add an emeeeting that I'm missing, because that appeal should be the one working in seconds currently. 

Thanks,

Joshua 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

To clarify to clear up social media innuendo: yes it was EVH who
unilaterally made it public.

However she is not to be used as an excuse or scapegoat for everyone who
took it as an open door to throw out all their discretion to the wind and
throw around this name.

That fault is theirs not EVH.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:04 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org>
wrote:

*In Liberty,*

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Well I need clarification on what exactly everyone is sponsoring.

And I will not be dealing with it until after Christmas.

So a list of names and what they are sponsoring will need to be given to
me. It is not my job to guess.

I have sponsored an emeeting for the appeal AND the underlying issue but I
will add my name to either.

The resistance to an emeeting and a rush to email does not look good IMHO.
I have yet to hear a good argument as to how email - completely discouraged
in RONR - is better. It only favours those who have endless time to write
and it provides little more than social media fodder.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:23 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org>

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

There was never a motion to hold an E Meeting Mrs. Harlos. There was a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. I made it. Mr. Nekhaila, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Merced all seconded. So did Erin Adam's, who you said could not second because of her Alt status. They may have said they are not opposed to an E meeting, but that motion was not made, and there is currently another motion on the table with the required amount of support. 

Thanks,

Joshua 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I asked who would support an emeeting in a separate thread.  I believe Mrs Harlos is counting that as a motion.

There was no motion made with specific content that I recall, which I believe is required? There was debate over what the content should be.

No need to argue over that.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Yes there was Mr Smith.

Mr Merced both have enough with your vote so you need to choose which one -
sorry

*In Liberty,*

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Oh, that wasn’t clear to me, if I have to choose, hen I prefer an e-meeting and if any appeals can be handled there with the public’s ability to voice their thoughts

Alex Merced
Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP

> On Dec 24, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Yes there was Mr Smith.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

There may however be a defect in the emeeting request in that no date
specified.

I will be writing the chair for guidance today. I will not be dealing with
this until after Christmas.

- Caryn Ann

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:43 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org>

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Mr Merced added his name.

The issue now is a tie between emeeting and email ballot. However I think
the emerging request is defective as it contains no date.

I cannot make that ruling. Thus, I wrote the chair.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:46 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.an...@lp.org>

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Again, there has been no motion for an e meeting, and there was already a motion on the table to appeal the ruling of the chair that is being completely ignored. 

This is now the third time I have stated this motion with the correct amount of support, and according to RONR, I can just call the vote myself if it's not going to be respected. And I am fine with that. 

If we want a motion to hear the main motion (made by John before the appeal) we can make or amend John's motion after the vote for the appeal to be done over an E Meeting. I would support that, but we have to get back to that motion in the first place. Which I think we really should, and hope that my colleagues will support as well. 

-Joshua 

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

--

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

--

  

In Liberty,

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

If we want to be pedantic about forcing an appeal via email, instead of calling an emeeting which qould allow for proper debate, then I'll object to the appeal as being out of order, as the chairs ruling arose out of established rules and operative laws, not judgement, opinion or discretion. As such, under Roberts as explained by Demeter's Manual of Parliamemtary procedure, such an appeal is purely dilatory.

"An assembly cannot contravene a bylaws provision by raising an appeal and voting to interpret the provision to mean something different than its clear meaning. If such an appeal is moved, the chair should rule it out of order immediately, without opening it to debate or putting it to a vote."

- 

Demeter, George (1969). Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure, Blue Book, p. 131–132

Justin O'Donnell
LNC Region 8 Representative

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I believe that Mr. Phillips was counting noses to see if he had enough
support to call for an EMeeting. The policy manual has very specific
requirements for a member to call for an Emeeting that have not been
met:

e) Each committee member calling for an electronic meeting must do so by
emailing the
entire committee and specifying the date of the meeting, time of the
meeting, meeting link
including the identity of the Electronic Meeting Provider, and the
topic(s) to be addressed.
Meetings must be so called no fewer than 2 days in advance for
committees with fewer
than 10 members, or 7 days in advance for committees with 10 or more
members

---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell

On 2019-12-24 17:10, justin.odonnell--- via Lnc-business wrote:

> If we want to be pedantic about forcing an appeal via email, instead of calling an emeeting which qould allow for proper debate, then I'll object to the appeal as being out of order, as the chairs ruling arose out of established rules and operative laws, not judgement, opinion or discretion. As such, under Roberts as explained by Demeter's Manual of Parliamemtary procedure, such an appeal is purely dilatory.
>
> "An assembly cannot contravene a bylaws provision by raising an appeal and voting to interpret the provision to mean something different than its clear meaning. If such an appeal is moved, the chair should rule it out of order immediately, without opening it to debate or putting it to a vote."
> -
>

> Demeter, George (1969). _Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure_, Blue Book, p. 131-132

IN LIBERTY,

__
_ PERSONAL NOTE: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome

(part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social

faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. _

--

IN LIBERTY,

__
_ PERSONAL NOTE: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome

(part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social

faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. _

--

IN LIBERTY,

__
_ PERSONAL NOTE: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome

(part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social

faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. _

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Justin,

The whole reason for the appeal, and the initial motion is that the rule is not clear cut to some on the board. 

But you're free to object. 

I'm not opposed to an E meeting. I said I would support it, but there has been no motion for one as of yet, and there IS a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. If someone would like to amend the motion to hold the debate and vote over an e meeting. I would be fine with it. As I have stated prior to this. 

-Joshua 

On Dec 24, 2019 2:10 PM, "justin.odonnell--- via Lnc-business" <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org> wrote:

If we want to be pedantic about forcing an appeal via email, instead of calling an emeeting which qould allow for proper debate, then I'll object to the appeal as being out of order, as the chairs ruling arose out of established rules and operative laws, not judgement, opinion or discretion. As such, under Roberts as explained by Demeter's Manual of Parliamemtary procedure, such an appeal is purely dilatory.

"An assembly cannot contravene a bylaws provision by raising an appeal and voting to interpret the provision to mean something different than its clear meaning. If such an appeal is moved, the chair should rule it out of order immediately, without opening it to debate or putting it to a vote."

- 

Demeter, George (1969). Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure, Blue Book, p. 131–132

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

--

  

In Liberty,

 Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. 

--

  

In Liberty,

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

It seems enough agrees for an emeeting including Mr. Smith.

If we can get a date set down I can notice the emeeting.

I was planning on simply starting the email ballot after Christmas. But
now there is a point of order over that.

I will make myself available for any date.

Let’s pick one and move forward.

I asked both publicly and privately for this to be paused until after
Christmas as a courtesy. I am a Christian and don’t wish to be dealing
with this now.

But it appears scoring political points is more important than family or
courtesy- so once I know which thing to do, I will commence.

This is a shameful act of discourteousness to peers.

Here is where we stand.

The request for an emeeting (which I did interpret thusly as is obvious
with my comments in that thread that no one bothered to disabuse me of at
the time) is detective and void.

We have a fully sponsored email ballot though I am still unclear as Mr
Merced appears to have given it taken away and give it again?

However there is a point of order pending before I can start that ballot.

No one objected to emeeting including the original maker of the email
request.

The simplest way forward is to pick a date.

I am in a holding pattern until we either pick a date or the chair rules on
Mr O’Donnell’s point of order.

-Caryn Ann

> Demeter, George (1969). *Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and
> Procedure*, Blue Book, p. 131–132

*In Liberty,*

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Did I not suggest earlier postponement until after the holidays?  If I forgot to type it out I apologize. I thought I did.

Please do.  We are not that time sensitive.

Honestly, the rest of us are at your schedule Caryn Ann, if you ignore your email for a couple days we can't do anything anyway.

Go. Do family things.  People won't have anything to respond to then ;)

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I’m available for any date, anytime except January 8th at the moment, an evening would likely make the most sense but I’m wide open till the 8th

Alex Merced
Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP

_______________________________________________

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I apologize Mr. Phillips. That comment was not directed at you.

Unfortunately I don’t have the luxury of ignoring as an oblique threat was
made above to complicate the mess by playing secretary and starting
ballots. That was completely out of bounds for Christmas, and I would hope
an apology would be proferred.

I was elected to do a job and can only take a holiday at the pleasure of my
peers- if one objects, my duty is to comply, no matter how discourteous.

We will look back on this and be ashamed. Ghosts of preconvention rhetoric
of the past is raising their ugly heads and I plead for it to stop before
it’s too late.

We’ve all grown in two years. Don’t throw it all away.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 5:09 PM <john.p...@lp.org> wrote:

> Did I not suggest earlier postponement until after the holidays? If I
> forgot to type it out I apologize. I thought I did.
>
> Please do. We are not that time sensitive.
>
> Honestly, the rest of us are at your schedule Caryn Ann, if you ignore
> your email for a couple days we can't do anything anyway.
>
> Go. Do family things. People won't have anything to respond to then ;)
>

> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>

> On Dec 24, 2019 5:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

No need to apologize I did not take it that way, I was attempting to back you up as far as taking time and letting it go for the holidays.

I must have missed that part of the thread.  Go, enjoy, if anyone tries to burn it down before friday I will object and delay until you have had your family time.

Tell Mr Harlos Merry Christmas.

John Phillips
Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
Cell 217-412-5973

  

In Liberty,