August 2016 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] MOTION Re: clarity, please, on gun rights resolution co-sponsors
by Starchild 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

All right, I'll withdraw that then. I was just trying to simplify things, because it does seem to be getting unnecessarily complicated. No drama intended. :-) Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE On Aug 11, 2016, at 2:02 PM, lnc-votes(a)hq.lp.org wrote: > I am not in favour of that Starchild. I would like the opportunity to vote for them both or have one passed and vote to amend. I do not want to have to choose between the two since I am supportive of them both and do not wish to sacrifice one for the other. I am certainly not going to sacrifice my original proposal. > > I have emailed you and the other co-sponsors privately to discuss the options. Of course I could always just ask for the ballot to be run on my submission (Version B) and let you handle the other one (Version C) how you see fit. I think this is being made way too dramatic and complicated. I support it and am getting tired, I am sure the other members are as well. Let's move on (we can discuss off-list if you like) > > There is no downside to two passing simultaneously IMHO. > > -- > 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 > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Looking at Alicia's three proposed ways of resolving this (see her email below), I think the third approach should be ruled out, because we don't really want two different versions of the resolution passing simultaneously. But the other two approaches also seem cumbersome. > > Would it be parliamentarily (is that a word) correct for me to offer a motion that we have a single ballot in which members vote to support either the original wording, the revised wording, or neither? > > If so, then I make that motion. > > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee > (415) 625-FREE > > > On Aug 11, 2016, at 1:17 PM, lnc-votes(a)hq.lp.org wrote: > >> I'm happy to cosponsor both simultaneously >> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Alicia, I intend to co-sponsor both. I was indicating my preference for Version C ultimately but pragmatically also supporting Version B. >> >> I am speaking with my co-sponsors on version C to see which of several of your options (simultaneous ballots or motion to amend something previously adopted) they would support as a methodology. >> >> I will let you know. >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:24 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net> wrote: >> Alicia, thanks for your attempt to un-muddy the waters on this complicated issue. >> >> I will co-sponsor version C (Starchild's more strongly worded version) and will vote in favor of C and/or B pending the outcome of this enlightening discussion. >> >> ~David Pratt Demarest >> Cell: 402-981-6469 >> Home: 402-493-0873 >> Office: 402-222-7207 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Hayes >> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:31 AM >> To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] clarity, please, on gun rights resolution co-sponsors >> >> As I already stated I am Co Sponsoring version B with Libertarian Party removed and LNC inserted. >> >> For clarity, I am not sponsoring version A, which I had originally said I did. >> >> For what it's worth I will NOT vote for version C(like Sam already said he would not) if that makes any difference to people in this matter. >> >> Daniel Hayes >> LNC At Large Member >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Aug 11, 2016, at 12:01 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Well this has gotten messy. Welcome to the world of email ballots. This is the tip of the iceberg for why RONR 11th ed., in the footnote on page 1 states, "A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable." >> > >> > At this point I need clarity for who wants what, and perhaps the co-sponsors wish to re-think how you want this to happen and maybe restructure your motion to achieve that. >> > >> > There was Version A with the "Libertarian Party" terminology, which didn't make it to 4 co-sponsors and was essentially withdrawn by Ms. Harlos in order to put forth Version B. >> > >> > Version B was Version A but with "Libertarian National Committee" terminology instead of "Libertarian Party". Version B clearly has Katz, Hayes, Goldstein as co-sponsors. Harlos and Vohra see below. >> > >> > Then Version C is Starchild's amendment of Version B. Version C has Starchild. Harlos, Vohra, and Demarest see below. >> > >> > If the motions aren't restructured, then I need some final-answer type clarity in a few places: >> > >> > 1) Vohra - You said you'd co-sponsor either. Do you mean you're going to pick one that is your favorite, or you want to co-sponsor BOTH simultaneously? >> > >> > 2) Demarest - Twice you have said that you'll vote in favor of Version C, but voting in favor is a different action from co-sponsoring. I think you probably mean co-sponsor, but I need precise language to make sure. Do you wish to co-sponsor the motion, or you're waiting for others to co-sponsor and then you will vote in favor? >> > >> > 3) Harlos - I need a final answer, as you have changed your mind several times. Without digging back through the chain, working off my perhaps-not-precise-but-close memory it went something like this: you co-sponsored B, liked C but stuck with co-sponsoring B, co-sponsored both, withdrew co-sponsorship of B, then co-sponsored "either". As with Mr. Vohra, when you say "either" do you mean you're willing to co-sponsor whichever one is perceived to be the winner somehow, or you intend to co-sponsor both simultaneously? >> > >> > But don't answer yet! Wait, there's more! Your answers to the above may be moot if you decide to restructure the whole situation. There are several ways this could be done, including: >> > >> > A) The way they are currently phrased, Version C is an amendment to Version B. That means that we'd need 4 co-sponsors of Version B, and 4 co-sponsors of Version C. We run two email ballots with Version B starting on one day and Version C on the next day as an amend-something-previously-adopted. If Version B is adopted, then the next day we find out if Version C successfully amended Version B or whether Version B stays as is. If Version B fails, then Version C becomes out of order because it can't amend something that wasn't previously adopted. >> > >> > B) If you want a chance to pick between B vs. C situation, and then vote on the winner of that contest, you need to re-phrase your motions. This is sorta like a substitution would be in a face-to-face meeting. First you would need a motion that we choose either B or C (but C rephrased as a stand-alone motion rather than a strikeout/insert amendment to B) to become the next mail ballot to consider for adoption. We vote B vs. C and whichever one wins that duel is then offered as a separate email ballot. >> > >> > C) We run two email ballots simultaneously. One is version B. The other is how B would look if amended by C. Maybe both fail. Maybe both pass. Maybe one passes and the other fails. >> > >> > Perhaps some of you talk offline to get aligned on which approach to take and then give me 4 clear co-sponsors for that. >> > >> > -Alicia >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Lnc-business mailing list >> > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > > > > -- > 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 > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-votes mailing list > Lnc-votes(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

1 0

MOTION Re: [Lnc-votes] clarity, please, on gun rights resolution co-sponsors
by Starchild 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

Looking at Alicia's three proposed ways of resolving this (see her email below), I think the third approach should be ruled out, because we don't really want two different versions of the resolution passing simultaneously. But the other two approaches also seem cumbersome. Would it be parliamentarily (is that a word) correct for me to offer a motion that we have a single ballot in which members vote to support either the original wording, the revised wording, or neither? If so, then I make that motion. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE On Aug 11, 2016, at 1:17 PM, lnc-votes(a)hq.lp.org wrote: > I'm happy to cosponsor both simultaneously > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Alicia, I intend to co-sponsor both. I was indicating my preference for Version C ultimately but pragmatically also supporting Version B. > > I am speaking with my co-sponsors on version C to see which of several of your options (simultaneous ballots or motion to amend something previously adopted) they would support as a methodology. > > I will let you know. > > > -- > 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 > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:24 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net> wrote: > Alicia, thanks for your attempt to un-muddy the waters on this complicated issue. > > I will co-sponsor version C (Starchild's more strongly worded version) and will vote in favor of C and/or B pending the outcome of this enlightening discussion. > > ~David Pratt Demarest > Cell: 402-981-6469 > Home: 402-493-0873 > Office: 402-222-7207 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Hayes > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:31 AM > To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org > Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] clarity, please, on gun rights resolution co-sponsors > > As I already stated I am Co Sponsoring version B with Libertarian Party removed and LNC inserted. > > For clarity, I am not sponsoring version A, which I had originally said I did. > > For what it's worth I will NOT vote for version C(like Sam already said he would not) if that makes any difference to people in this matter. > > Daniel Hayes > LNC At Large Member > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 11, 2016, at 12:01 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Well this has gotten messy. Welcome to the world of email ballots. This is the tip of the iceberg for why RONR 11th ed., in the footnote on page 1 states, "A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable." > > > > At this point I need clarity for who wants what, and perhaps the co-sponsors wish to re-think how you want this to happen and maybe restructure your motion to achieve that. > > > > There was Version A with the "Libertarian Party" terminology, which didn't make it to 4 co-sponsors and was essentially withdrawn by Ms. Harlos in order to put forth Version B. > > > > Version B was Version A but with "Libertarian National Committee" terminology instead of "Libertarian Party". Version B clearly has Katz, Hayes, Goldstein as co-sponsors. Harlos and Vohra see below. > > > > Then Version C is Starchild's amendment of Version B. Version C has Starchild. Harlos, Vohra, and Demarest see below. > > > > If the motions aren't restructured, then I need some final-answer type clarity in a few places: > > > > 1) Vohra - You said you'd co-sponsor either. Do you mean you're going to pick one that is your favorite, or you want to co-sponsor BOTH simultaneously? > > > > 2) Demarest - Twice you have said that you'll vote in favor of Version C, but voting in favor is a different action from co-sponsoring. I think you probably mean co-sponsor, but I need precise language to make sure. Do you wish to co-sponsor the motion, or you're waiting for others to co-sponsor and then you will vote in favor? > > > > 3) Harlos - I need a final answer, as you have changed your mind several times. Without digging back through the chain, working off my perhaps-not-precise-but-close memory it went something like this: you co-sponsored B, liked C but stuck with co-sponsoring B, co-sponsored both, withdrew co-sponsorship of B, then co-sponsored "either". As with Mr. Vohra, when you say "either" do you mean you're willing to co-sponsor whichever one is perceived to be the winner somehow, or you intend to co-sponsor both simultaneously? > > > > But don't answer yet! Wait, there's more! Your answers to the above may be moot if you decide to restructure the whole situation. There are several ways this could be done, including: > > > > A) The way they are currently phrased, Version C is an amendment to Version B. That means that we'd need 4 co-sponsors of Version B, and 4 co-sponsors of Version C. We run two email ballots with Version B starting on one day and Version C on the next day as an amend-something-previously-adopted. If Version B is adopted, then the next day we find out if Version C successfully amended Version B or whether Version B stays as is. If Version B fails, then Version C becomes out of order because it can't amend something that wasn't previously adopted. > > > > B) If you want a chance to pick between B vs. C situation, and then vote on the winner of that contest, you need to re-phrase your motions. This is sorta like a substitution would be in a face-to-face meeting. First you would need a motion that we choose either B or C (but C rephrased as a stand-alone motion rather than a strikeout/insert amendment to B) to become the next mail ballot to consider for adoption. We vote B vs. C and whichever one wins that duel is then offered as a separate email ballot. > > > > C) We run two email ballots simultaneously. One is version B. The other is how B would look if amended by C. Maybe both fail. Maybe both pass. Maybe one passes and the other fails. > > > > Perhaps some of you talk offline to get aligned on which approach to take and then give me 4 clear co-sponsors for that. > > > > -Alicia > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lnc-business mailing list > > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org > > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

2 1

Libertarian Party TV commercial idea
by Starchild 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

Just wanted to share a random idea I had for a possible LP television ad. This would be kind of a seasons greetings spot to air as close as possible to the holidays while still before the election, ideally on Election Day (Nov. 1) itself. The spot would open with the camera panning over a beautiful scene evoking – the snow-covered streets and buildings at dusk/early night in a quaint small town (perhaps in New Hampshire which has plenty such atmosphere?). Playing in the background is a recording of the instrumental music from John Lennon's Christmas song "War Is Over (If You Want It)". Gradually the sound of people singing another song becomes audible, and grows stronger to become dominant as the camera approaches the source of the sound. The camera comes around a corner and we see a group of Libertarian carolers proceeding down a snow-covered street, dressed up in holiday finery, ringing bells and carrying signs (including signs for Johnson/Weld and one or more candidates local to the actual location where the ad is filmed, along with signs "End the Drug War!" and "Stop the Wars/Troops Home Now!" to subtly match the theme of the Lennon song). The Libertarian carolers would be heard and then seen singing the lines, "We wish you a lot of freedom, we wish you a lot of freedom, we wish you a lot of freedom – and a happy new year!" At the end of which, the whole group would stop and wave their signs, ring their bells, bang on drums, use other noise-makers, etc., facing the camera now, with everyone smiling and laughing and toasting each other with glasses of egg nog or other libations and obviously having a great time. This milieu would be frozen in a final snapshot enclosed in a decorative holiday frame on the screen, and then text would appear across the screen in cursive as if someone were writing it, "Libertarian Party", with a heart symbol (♥ ) appearing in front of the words after the script has fully appeared, to the accompaniment of the sound of a little bell or chime. At the bottom of the screen would be any required legalese (e.g. "Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee"), our website, along with the prominently displayed words, "Please vote responsibly." Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE

3 2

Amended Gun Rights/Watch List Resolution - seeking co-sponsors
by Caryn Ann Harlos 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

In furtherance of the request from CO and now AZ (and likely WA) for the LNC to consider a resolution similar to the CO Gun Rights and Watch Lists Resolution, and Sam Goldstein's commentary on my prior request, I offer a motion to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, Libertarians affirm that self-defense is an inherent human right; WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party opposes all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition; WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party affirms the right of due process and deny the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”; WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access for firearms and ammunition and may further seek to deprive people who have been convicted of no crime of their inherent right to full self-defense by denying their civil and inherent rights to obtain firearms and ammunition; BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee opposes any policy which would deny access to any firearms or ammunition to any person simply for being placed on any government watch or no-fly list and reaffirms its call to repeal and oppose any existing or proposed firearm and ammunition regulations. -- *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>

9 25

Email Ballot 2016-02: Increase Branding Budget
by Alicia Mattson 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

We have an electronic mail ballot. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by August 8, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsor:* Sarwark *Motion:* Increase budget line 26 - Brand Development Revenues and line 55 - Brand Development Expenses from $100,000 to $250,000. -Alicia

16 17

Gun Rights/Watch List Resolution - seeking co-sponsors
by Caryn Ann Harlos 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

In furtherance of the request from CO and now AZ for the LNC to consider a resolution similar to the CO Gun Rights and Watch Lists Resolution, I offer this and seek co-sponsors WHEREAS, Libertarians affirm that self-defense is an inherent human right; WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party opposes all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition; WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party affirms the right of due process and deny the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”; WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access for firearms and ammunition and may further seek to deprive people who have been convicted of no crime of their inherent right to full self-defense by denying their civil and inherent rights to obtain firearms and ammunition; BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party opposes any policy which would deny access to any firearms or ammunition to any person simply for being placed on any government watch or no-fly list and reaffirms its call to repeal and oppose any existing or proposed firearm and ammunition regulations. -- *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>

4 9

Re: [Lnc-business] Gun Rights/Watch List Resolution - seeking co-sponsors
by Daniel Hayes 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

I will co-sponsor this motion. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member On Aug 09, 2016, at 02:19 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: In furtherance of the request from CO and now AZ for the LNC to consider a resolution similar to the CO Gun Rights and Watch Lists Resolution, I offer this and seek co-sponsors WHEREAS, Libertarians affirm that self-defense is an inherent human right; WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party opposes all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition; WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party affirms the right of due process and deny the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”; WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access for firearms and ammunition and may further seek to deprive people who have been convicted of no crime of their inherent right to full self-defense by denying their civil and inherent rights to obtain firearms and ammunition; BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party opposes any policy which would deny access to any firearms or ammunition to any person simply for being placed on any government watch or no-fly list and reaffirms its call to repeal and oppose any existing or proposed firearm and ammunition regulations. -- 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

1 0

Resolution request from the LPCO
by Caryn Ann Harlos 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

On behalf of Jay North, the Chair of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, I bring his notification that the LPCO has passed the below resolution and his request that the LNC pass a similar resolution. ====== Attached is the LPCO Board resolution made tonight. I request the LNC representative to present this to the LNC to have the LNC make the same or similar resolution. Please email me if you have questions. Jay R North WHEREAS, Libertarians affirm that self-defense is an inherent human right; WHEREAS, the Platforms of the National Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Colorado oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition; WHEREAS, the Platforms of the National Party and the Libertarian Party of Colorado affirm the right of due process and deny the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”; WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access for firearms and ammunition and may further seek to deprive people who have been convicted of no crime of their inherent right to full self-defense by denying their civil and inherent rights to obtain firearms and ammunition; BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Colorado opposes any policy which would deny access to any firearms or ammunition to any person simply for being placed on any government watch or no-fly list and reaffirms its call to repeal and oppose any existing or proposed firearm and ammunition regulations. -- *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 1

approved minutes of 7/17/16 EC meeting
by Alicia Mattson 08 Aug '16

08 Aug '16

Attached are the now-approved minutes from the 7/17/16 Executive Committee meeting. Staff, please post to the website when you get a chance to do so. -Alicia

1 0

Ballot access update
by Sam Goldstein 08 Aug '16

08 Aug '16

I seem to remember that 8/10/2016 is a crucial date for many states. Can we get an update as to how we are going to do on Wednesday? Thanks and Live Free, Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee Member at Large 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 Indianapolis IN 46260 317-850-0726 Phone 317-582-1773 Fax

3 3