October 2016 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
by William Redpath 23 Oct '16

23 Oct '16

I will also co-sponsor, as I was opposed to the $10,000 motion at the LNC meeting in July 2016. Bill Redpath -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 10/20/16, David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net> wrote: Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Cc: david.demarest(a)firstdata.com Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016, 9:20 PM #yiv9175739729 #yiv9175739729 -- _filtered #yiv9175739729 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #yiv9175739729 #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729 li.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;} #yiv9175739729 a:link, #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv9175739729 a:visited, #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729 li.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;} #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-m-7066241125321024756gmail-m637561545514884297m-7093137337385855135gmail-s1 {} #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-im {} #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729EmailStyle20 {color:windowtext;} #yiv9175739729 .yiv9175739729MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv9175739729 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729WordSection1 {} #yiv9175739729 Caryn, I will co-sponsor your motion to censure John Moore and request that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution from the LNC. Mr. Moore’s two votes were egregious. Thoughts? Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE! The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government! ~David Pratt Demaresthttp://www.lpne.org secretary@lpne.orgdpdemarest@centurylink.net david.demarest(a)firstdata.com Cell: 402-981-6469Home: 402-493-0873Office: 402-222-7207 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 7:45 PM To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Subject: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors Multiple party members including region 1 members have acted that the LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally, I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this case, we spent National Party member's direct monies, and thus I do agree this is our responsibility. As someone who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my responsibility to address this once members raised a concern: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -- In Liberty,Caryn Ann HarlosRegion 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

10 23

Re: [Lnc-business] Thank for From a Povertarian!!
by Starchild 23 Oct '16

23 Oct '16

For my part, I must give credit to the Libertarian Party of Nevada and whoever wrote their resolution for them. Their original language noted that the stadium tax will fall on constituents including poor persons renting motel rooms by the week. I did add the reference to the billionaire stadium owner to make the injustice more explicit. A $750 million subsidy at the expense of the taxpayers would be "unfree at any speed" (to paraphrase Ralph Nader), but this particular measure appears even less defensible than most similarly priced government expenditures. Anyway, thank you as always Mike for your vigilance and willingness to stand up and be heard. By the way, I regularly use that Alice Walker quote, which I believe you first brought to my attention! Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF P.S. – Can't recall whether I already said this or not, but I'm puzzled as to how, if it's acceptable for LNC members to deliberately lobby each other directly, it would somehow be deemed inappropriate to encourage others to lobby LNC members. As a rule, I feel that the more involvement there is in the party's governance by folks not on the LNC, the healthier our party's culture is. On Oct 22, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: > Thank you Mike. I was quite - chargrined- as you know - but that "concerted email campaign by friends" comment. I encourage ALL members to write and have made that a goal even prior to my service on the LNC. > > Starchild authored that language - all credit to him. > > PS I did not ask Mike to write. > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Mike Shipley <mikester420(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I saw that there is a motion before the LNC that has some povertarian flair, containing the phrase "" ... a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels ... " and wanted to drop you a quick note of thanks for highlighting the way crony subsidy deals harm the people who can least afford it the most. > > So there you have it: THANK YOU!! > > PS ... This message was NOT solicited by my "friends" on the LNC whom to be quite honest I keep at arm's length these days specifically to preserve the integrity of our voices (I'd rather have no friends than crony friends). However, I have personally suggested that others write you and if they do, I hope you treat them with respect. I'm alarmed by the idea that some members are more equal than others. > -- > Mike Shipley > Phoenix, AZ > > "The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any." > > > -- > In Liberty, > Caryn Ann Harlos > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

1 0

Member input/emails
by Caryn Ann Harlos 23 Oct '16

23 Oct '16

This is taking up some of Alicia’s points in the email thread regarding Assemblyman Moore that as to do with input from the general membership. ==What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? == I left that statement in as necessary for the greater context but not relevant here. We expect Libertarians to have a conscience in line with Libertarian principles however – which is relevant then as follows, LNC members have the same expectation (I am not implying even remotely that anyone does not, just setting up the context). ==That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends.== Every LNC member has to ultimately vote the way they think they should vote. That has nothing to do with whether or not they receive emails. Emails from members can and SHOULD inform their decision, even if their decision does not change. And the fact is that this an unfair characterization of at least this iteration of the LNC. I do not know for certain what other LNC members do, but I am confident I am the most active at soliticing member involvement. And NOT ONCE was it “staged” (whatever that means) – nor was it organized (LOL) – and nor was it from my “friends.” I take a bit of an offense at that. I do not merely represent my “friends” in Region 1 or more remotely, anywhere else in the membership. I believe that would be grossly unethical and wrong. I encourage EVERYONE to write. I have encouraged people to write who’s position on me was part of the “throw all the bums out of the LNC” mantra. For reference this is how I generally encourage people (with occasional personal encouragement in meetings I attend): I have a Regional Representative Website that contains this: http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=11 I maintain a Region 1 FB page here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/252474608447206/ I help admin a general member discussion group on LNC Business here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/LNCBusinessDiscuss/ I have a growing mailing that that I send newsletters to. Examples of the newsletters can be found here: http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=13 In some important issues that directly affect membership, I will make a more specific request to make voices known rather than a general statement. == Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?== This seems to be saying that it is okay to change one’s opinion merely because constituents feel a certain way. In which case, then one’s mind should be changed by members. But that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am saying that we should be willing to listen to and take members’ input into consideration. More on that in a bit. ==If I am not persuaded by a particular argument, I do not find it suddenly more persuasive if it is repeated at a louder volume by having 10 other people email me to repeat the exact same argument.== This is *unintentionally *insulting to members who write. I have found that most of them offer thoughtful new angles on many items, even if it is around a central theme. I have never found bald repeating of the same argument but often times new insight, or just general encouragements or disapproval. And I have changed my mind by such communications, or changed my approach - perhaps not yet on things we have voted on but certainly on anticipated controversies. It certainly gives me appreciation for what the members are thinking and grateful for the ones who take the time to care enough to write. ==It is even less persuasive when the message I receive says "The Radical Caucus told me I was supposed to email you and say X. So here ya go!"== Alicia, seriously? Please produce an email even remotely like that from this iteration of the LNC. I have NEVER received anything like that. And I find it interesting that you choose to use the “Radical Caucus” as an example since I do not think we have received one email purported to be from them, NOR DO I make pains to represent them specifically although I am a Board Member on that Caucus as disclosed upon my election to the LNC. My Region does not comprise radicals only, and I was not elected to represent the LPRC (or the Youth Caucus or the Pro-Life Caucus, both of which I also belong to). This is the second time in recent history where it was (the first time it was outright stated) that I have some peculiar interest in merely representing the LPRC. Which is incorrect. In fact the members I referenced above that wanted my head were LPRC members. The only caucus I have ever forwarded anything from was the Audacious Caucus – with whom I have sharp disagreement with their tactics (and I was deeply mortified that they became personally abusive to you – that is not OKAY in any universe and I condemn that) – and who are highly critical of the LPRC in part because we condemn abusive tactics. That was a bit of a ramble, but in fact we do not receive emails like that in any way to make that a fair characterization. And if they occur rarely, it is rarely. ==To change my mind, I need a more persuasive argument, not louder volume.== That insinuates that members do not send persuasive arguments. I received a very thoughtful email opposing my motion to rescind to which I spent a good deal of time responding. And it raised some points that caused me to think. ==If I disagree with an idea, to have someone twist that into an accusation that I disdain the membership...well, that's the sort of campaign rhetoric misrepresentation that makes most of the public hate politics.== Alicia, I have been the one that has taken issue with the multiple comments over the months about member input. I have never said mere disagreement means disdain. I disagree with the membership and my fellow LNC members on many occasions. My issue comes when member input is characterized as merely “louder volume” or “so and so told me to write, so count me as writing.” It isn’t. Or the one I previously objected to in which because a comment was made that a caucus sending an email was somehow “secret” when the membership list is public, and a question was raised as to whether any might be Republican operatives. It is that kind of thing that I think does not give proper place to our member comments. ==Rounding up lots of people to email the LNC and repeat the same idea we've already heard== It is comments like that which are problematic. Who is “rounding up” and who is telling them what to email and is it really repetition? How do comments like that make the members feel encouraged to write? That is my issue. The only issue that this might be even close to any reality was my motion to rescind, because members rights were being directly and permanently compromised. Going into groups and generally encouraging members to make their voice known is not "rounding up." I want all members and POVs to write, even the ones that think my POV is rotten. == is essentially asking the LNC to do exactly what that this motion would censure John Moore for doing, voting how he thinks his constituents want him to vote as opposed to what he thinks he should do. == Precisely NOT. It is asking for input to make a decision and to know fully what the membership thinks. Further this statement assumes that all input would require that all options be on the table. Nothing could be further from the truth. We operate within the assumption that we will be operating on Libertarian principles. Even if 90% of the membership emailed urging a non-principled again, should we listen. But if there are various options that have principled arguments, we should welcome them. In this case, Moore was urged to use the state to commit aggression through inappropriate usurpation of powers that do not rightly belong to any government in a Libertarian worldview. No matter how many people urge unlibertarian actions, should a Libertarian do it. This argument makes this a zero sum numbers game, and that is not even remotely close to what I have said. I believe we have to be careful in what we say about member input and do so in a way that encourages them to participate in a productive way. I want an LNC culture that does so and that is the motivation for my attempts, as poor as they may be. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

3 4

1983 convention
by Caryn Ann Harlos 22 Oct '16

22 Oct '16

Long shot - does anyone have or know anyone who has the 1983 Convention minutes (yes there were odd year conventions then - new to me)? -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore
by William Redpath 22 Oct '16

22 Oct '16

I vote "Yes." Bill Redpath -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 10/22/16, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> wrote: Subject: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Date: Saturday, October 22, 2016, 1:20 AM We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath Motion: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
by Daniel Hayes 21 Oct '16

21 Oct '16

John Moore is someone I have grown to consider to be a friend. He slept on the sleeper sofa in my villa during the LNC meeting in Phoenix when he came down from Las Vegas to first address the LNC. He spoke at the Louisiana State Convention in April of 2016 and I personally ran an impromptu fund raiser for his campaign that garnered close to $2500. I believe I have personally donated somewhere near $500 to his campaign. I strongly advocated for giving his campaign $10,000 from the LNC. I am so disappointed in his current actions that I can not possibly convey how deep that disappointment goes. It leaves me immensely saddened. His actions in these votes don't even line up with how he performed in the past as a Republican assemblyman much less with how he should vote now as a member of the Libertarian Party. I WILL CO-SPONSOR THIS MOTION. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member On Oct 20, 2016, at 05:46 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: Multiple party members including region 1 members have acted that the LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally, I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this case, we spent National Party member's direct monies, and thus I do agree this is our responsibility. As someone who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my responsibility to address this once members raised a concern: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

5 4

Re-register month results
by Ken Moellman 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

I have been tracking LPKY registrations for years. As such, I have also used the historic data to predict growth. These predictions was assuming status quo, steady as she goes. It showed a spike after Rand Paul would lose the Repub primary (which he did, and the spike began). But I am so very pleased to report a huge spike in the numbers over the past 8 weeks. * On 9/15, the KY SoS reported 5861 Libertarians, where the trend had predicted we'd only be at 5655. * On 10/19, the KY SoS is reporting 7456 Libertarians, where the trend had previously only predicted 5844. That's a HUGE jump for us. To put this jump in context, we were supposed to hit 7400+ in December 2017. We're literally 14 months ahead of schedule. The trendline now says we're slated to be over 9000 registered Ls by December 2017. I would attribute this to a number of factors, but one thing for sure is the "re-register month" promotion. My own wife took advantage of this promotion. She said it was easy and with it popping up regularly it was right there when she was ready to do it. I thought you would all like to know this, and maybe you could share some data from other states that do registration by party to compare these results... -- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

1 0

Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
by Caryn Ann Harlos 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

Multiple party members including region 1 members have acted that the LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally, I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this case, we spent National Party member's direct monies, and thus I do agree this is our responsibility. As someone who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my responsibility to address this once members raised a concern: *Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and* *Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and* *Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;* *Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.* -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

2 1

Affiliate Support Committee Reminder
by Daniel Hayes 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

The Affiliate Support Committee will be meeting at it's regularly scheduled time. Date: Thursday, October 20th, 2016, 8PM Eastern Dial in Number:(712)775-7031 Access Code: 571-973-866 The meeting is open to LNC Members, LNC Staff, State Chairs, Party Members, Libertarians, libertarians and invited guests. We are a service oriented committee so we encourage attendees to participate in an orderly manner. If you have a matter you wish us to consider please contact me in advance if possible. I can be reached at Daniel.Hayes(a)LP.Org or by phone at 504-258-6176. TENTATIVE AGENDA: *Minute transparency/distribution policy *Annual affiliate survey update *On going development of membership marketing plan *On going register/reregister project -meme and video stash/archive

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Budget planning
by William Redpath 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

I agree with this email. And, I also have nothing going on on November 31. Bill Redpath -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 10/20/16, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge(a)gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Budget planning To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016, 1:27 PM I doubt staff will have time to work on a proposed 2017 budget before Election Day. I would hope they will be able to present oneto the Ex. Comm. for review and preliminary approval no later than early Thanksgiving Week so the Ex. Comm. can meet sometime the following week to amend/approve a tentative budget. That will give the entire LNC about 10-14 days for review before our next meeting on December 10th. At this time I have nothing scheduled for the week of 11/25 to 11/31 and can attend an Ex. Comm. meeting any evening. Can the other Ex. Comm. members and staff comment on this suggested time frame? Thanks and Live Free, Sam GoldsteinLibertarian National CommitteeMember at Large8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101Indianapolis IN 46260317-850-0726 Phone317-582-1773 Fax On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty(a)gmail.com> wrote: In the past, we've held teleconferences (informal) on the budget prior to the budget meeting, which seemed to save at least a small amount of time. Are there any plans to do this again this year? Joshua A. KatzWestbrook CT Planning Commission, Ret. (L in R seat) ______________________________ _________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/ listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp. org -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

2 1