[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm

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

I am asking the chair to not preside as his conduct is a main issue of
contention and for a chair pro tem for that meeting be appointed (which per
RONR will need approval from the body). The chair pro tem need not be an
LNC member. I recommend Dr Lark.--

* In Liberty,*
_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes

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

To explain why not the LNC vice chair, all of our debate voices are needed
and would prevent the neutrality required to chair, that is why I’m
recommending a past chair not on the LNC.

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:10 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>
wrote:

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

This is highly improper and not in line with the policy manual. Are we literally making up up rules as we go?

This is starting to look very very bad. LPNH falling to pieces is no reason for us to do the same. In my brief absence it seems as if we just threw the policy manual out the window.

Francis Wendt
LNC Region 1 Representative

________________________________
From: Lnc-business <lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org> on behalf of Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 12:10:20 AM
To: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>
Cc: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>
Subject: [Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm

I am asking the chair to not preside as his conduct is a main issue of
contention and for a chair pro tem for that meeting be appointed (which per
RONR will need approval from the body). The chair pro tem need not be an
LNC member. I recommend Dr Lark.--

* In Liberty,*

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

This is line with RONR and my right. Are we denying member rights now?

This is the proper course. I suggest you talk to a parliamentarian.

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:17 AM Francis Wendt <franci...@lp.org> wrote:

> This is highly improper and not in line with the policy manual. Are we
> literally making up up rules as we go?
>
> This is starting to look very very bad. LPNH falling to pieces is no
> reason for us to do the same. In my brief absence it seems as if we just
> threw the policy manual out the window.
>
> Francis Wendt
> LNC Region 1 Representative
>

> ------------------------------
> *From:* Lnc-business <lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org> on behalf of Caryn

> Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>

> *Sent:* Monday, June 14, 2021 12:10:20 AM
> *To:* Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>
> *Cc:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm

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

Further this is a request to the voting members of the ex comm. I could
have just put this on the EC list but did not. But you quite literally
have no vote here.

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:32 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is line with RONR and my right. Are we denying member rights now?

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

This seems to be on the business list, thus a matter put before the LNC. You should have put it on the excom list if that is who it was intended for.

Francis Wendt
LNC Region 1 Representative

________________________________
From: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 12:34:03 AM
To: Francis Wendt <franci...@lp.org>
Cc: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm

Further this is a request to the voting members of the ex comm. I could have just put this on the EC list but did not. But you quite literally have no vote here.

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:32 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com<mailto:carynan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
This is line with RONR and my right. Are we denying member rights now?

This is the proper course. I suggest you talk to a parliamentarian.

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:17 AM Francis Wendt <franci...@lp.org<mailto:franci...@lp.org>> wrote:
This is highly improper and not in line with the policy manual. Are we literally making up up rules as we go?

This is starting to look very very bad. LPNH falling to pieces is no reason for us to do the same. In my brief absence it seems as if we just threw the policy manual out the window.

Francis Wendt
LNC Region 1 Representative

________________________________
From: Lnc-business <lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org<mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org>> on behalf of Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org<mailto:lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 12:10:20 AM
To: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org<mailto:lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>>
Cc: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com<mailto:carynan...@gmail.com>>
Subject: [Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm

I am asking the chair to not preside as his conduct is a main issue of
contention and for a chair pro tem for that meeting be appointed (which per
RONR will need approval from the body). The chair pro tem need not be an
LNC member. I recommend Dr Lark.--

* In Liberty,*
--

In Liberty,
[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1DeRjq-L8dvRZabgEG94VkkUvjoHatcfP&export=download]

--

In Liberty,
[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1DeRjq-L8dvRZabgEG94VkkUvjoHatcfP&export=download]

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

I put it on the LNC list for transparency purposes. Another case of no
matter what I do certain people will want to villify it so I do what I
think is right. I do find it delicious how there is never any call for
slow deliberation when it comes to attacking me.

* In Liberty,*

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:37 AM Francis Wendt <franci...@lp.org> wrote:

> This seems to be on the business list, thus a matter put before the LNC.
> You should have put it on the excom list if that is who it was intended for.
>
> Francis Wendt
> LNC Region 1 Representative
>

> ------------------------------
> *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, June 14, 2021 12:34:03 AM
> *To:* Francis Wendt <franci...@lp.org>
> *Cc:* lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm

>
> Further this is a request to the voting members of the ex comm. I could
> have just put this on the EC list but did not. But you quite literally
> have no vote here.
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:32 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <

> carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is line with RONR and my right. Are we denying member rights now?
>
> This is the proper course. I suggest you talk to a parliamentarian.
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:17 AM Francis Wendt <franci...@lp.org>

> wrote:
>
> This is highly improper and not in line with the policy manual. Are we
> literally making up up rules as we go?
>
> This is starting to look very very bad. LPNH falling to pieces is no
> reason for us to do the same. In my brief absence it seems as if we just
> threw the policy manual out the window.
>
> Francis Wendt
> LNC Region 1 Representative
>

> ------------------------------
> *From:* Lnc-business <lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org> on behalf of Caryn

> Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>

> *Sent:* Monday, June 14, 2021 12:10:20 AM
> *To:* Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>
> *Cc:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>

> *Subject:* [Lnc-business] Tuesday’s excomm

>
> I am asking the chair to not preside as his conduct is a main issue of
> contention and for a chair pro tem for that meeting be appointed (which per
> RONR will need approval from the body). The chair pro tem need not be an
> LNC member. I recommend Dr Lark.--
>
> * In Liberty,*
>
> --
>

> * In Liberty,*
>
>
> --
>
> * In Liberty,*
>
>

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

I leave that to the chair prerogative and do not join that call. I have not
seen a conflict of interest arise in his comments and a chair is allowed to
indulge the body with his thoughts provided they do not cross a line into
debate. We can obtain his viewpoint and explanation and his integrity as
chair does not need be compromised.

Only someone who has already drawn conclusions or is receiving some sort of
benefit from the situation (financial or otherwise) should recuse
themselves from participation lest we appear to be a kangaroo court of
sorts. If that is any member of the ExComm I would expect them to
professionally declare so prior to beginning our meeting tomorrow.

Richard Longstreth
At Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
richard.l...@lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

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

No one is asking for a recusal. This is standard RONR and required by RONR
and a practice JBH has regularly followed for motions. I am sure the Party
Parliamentarian would be glad to advise the EC on this.

* In Liberty,*

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

Having an opinion already is not a reason for recusal. That is utter
nonsense. Particularly when all opinions are open for revision in debate
or with further information. I bet JBH has an opinion. I am shocked to
hear you think he should recuse himself. I don't.

* In Liberty,*

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 3:25 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>

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

Do not put words into my mouth. I am specifically asking that if someone
has made up their mind on this without any sort of investigation, they
should be forthright with that. Being open to debate is obviously not the
same thing.

Richard Longstreth
At Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
richard.l...@lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 04:27 Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>

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

No one has.

* In Liberty,*

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 4:15 AM Richard Longstreth <

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

Ms Harlos. You do not speak for everyone. It was a general statement put
out to us all. Each can determine their own thoughts and say what they want
for themselves. You are beginning to develop this habit of speaking for
others or implying motives or intents and it has to stop. No response was
needed by anyone until the ExComm meeting, if questioned.

Richard Longstreth
At Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
richard.l...@lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 12:35 Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>

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

While it is generally within the prerogative of the body to remove the
presiding officer, per RONR, I have not yet seen any cause for this action.

We can address the need, if it arises, on the particular call (EC or LNC).
If you believe it is likely, it may be wise to invite Dr Lark
pre-emptively. I have immense respect for him, and would vote in favor IF
the need arises. I would hope the rest of the body would as well.

Speaking of the EC meeting, I want to be sure screen sharing is set up and
that I will be able to present a few documents. I am hopeful that it may
lead to resolution of this matter tomorrow evening, or by EOD Saturday.

Ken

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

Never spoke for everyone Mr Longstreth but you sure seem more concerned
about me than issues at hand.

Mr Moellman I’d like to invite him proactively but would like the chair’s
consent.

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

Okay.

We've not talked individually DO NOT assume anything about me, my motives,
or my thoughts. Over the last several days you have done this to me several
times and each time I have asked you to stop. It is a violation of our
policies. Again, I am asking you not prescribe motive or make assumptions
and to read messages on face value per 2.01.6.2.

My thoughts are so focused on this and have been so thoroughly expressed
here and in conversations in person and on phone that your comment is on
nothing other than a personal attack undermining my efforts. STOP.

Richard Longstreth
At Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
richard.l...@lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 19:04 Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>