June 2018 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Email Ballot 2018-06: Add Zoom
by Alicia Mattson 02 Jun '18

02 Jun '18

We have an electronic mail ballot. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by June 2, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Goldstein, Demarest, O'Donnell, Van Horn *Motion:* Amend Policy Manual Section 1.02.7 Electronic Meetings as follows: a) The term “electronic meeting” within these electronic meeting rules shall be construed to include teleconferences and videoconferences. b) The term “committee” within these electronic meeting rules shall be construed to include both the LNC (as the board of the Libertarian Party) as well as committees. c) All videoconferences will be conducted via the Adobe Connect (Citrix) service, hereinafter referred to as Adobe Connect* or via Zoom (zoom.us <http://zoom.us>). These two services are hereinafter referred to as Electronic Meeting Provider(s)*. […] 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. These time limits do not apply to the LNC's Executive Committee, the LNC's Advertising and Publications Review Committee, or the Judicial Committee. […] h) Each participant must provide his own equipment and connectivity, including but not limited to any computer, internet access, web camera, microphone, earphones, or telephone. Members and alternates have the right to participate in an electronic meeting by telephone, however they should use a computer connection if feasible so as to be able to more fully use the Adobe Connect *Electronic Meeting Provider *features. The organization is not responsible for providing a central location for physical attendance of an electronic meeting. For face-to- face meetings, electronic participation is not allowed. i) Each participant must accurately identify himself by name when joining the meeting. Videoconference participants other than members or alternates of the committee must precede their sign-in name with “zz” *(or the group administrator shall do so) *so as to group them at the end of the alphabetical participant list. […] n) If the committee permits, participants other than members or alternates of the committee may observe videoconferences using Adobe Connect *the Electronic Meeting Provider *(and not by a toll-free number) with their web cameras off and their microphones muted. o) The LNC Secretary shall promulgate these rules to all members/alternates of each committee upon notice of their election or appointment. *p) Arrangements for use of the Electronic Meeting Provides must be made through the LNC Secretary who may be required to be present to administer the meeting which might limit available days for use.* -Alicia We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by June 2, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Goldstein, Demarest, O'Donnell, Van Horn Motion: Amend Policy Manual Section 1.02.7 Electronic Meetings as follows: a) The term “electronic meeting” within these electronic meeting rules shall be construed to include teleconferences and videoconferences. b) The term “committee” within these electronic meeting rules shall be construed to include both the LNC (as the board of the Libertarian Party) as well as committees. c) All videoconferences will be conducted via the Adobe Connect (Citrix) service[DEL: , hereinafter referred to as Adobe Connect :DEL] or via Zoom ([1]zoom.us). These two services are hereinafter referred to as Electronic Meeting Provider(s). […] 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. These time limits do not apply to the LNC's Executive Committee, the LNC's Advertising and Publications Review Committee, or the Judicial Committee. […] h) Each participant must provide his own equipment and connectivity, including but not limited to any computer, internet access, web camera, microphone, earphones, or telephone. Members and alternates have the right to participate in an electronic meeting by telephone, however they should use a computer connection if feasible so as to be able to more fully use the [DEL: Adobe Connect :DEL] Electronic Meeting Provider features. The organization is not responsible for providing a central location for physical attendance of an electronic meeting. For face-to- face meetings, electronic participation is not allowed. i) Each participant must accurately identify himself by name when joining the meeting. Videoconference participants other than members or alternates of the committee must precede their sign-in name with “zz” (or the group administrator shall do so) so as to group them at the end of the alphabetical participant list. […] n) If the committee permits, participants other than members or alternates of the committee may observe videoconferences using [DEL: Adobe Connect :DEL] the Electronic Meeting Provider (and not by a toll-free number) with their web cameras off and their microphones muted. o) The LNC Secretary shall promulgate these rules to all members/alternates of each committee upon notice of their election or appointment. p) Arrangements for use of the Electronic Meeting Provides must be made through the LNC Secretary who may be required to be present to administer the meeting which might limit available days for use. -Alicia References 1. http://zoom.us/

15 20

Motion - Seeking Cosponsors
by Arvin Vohra 02 Jun '18

02 Jun '18

Fellow Members of the LNC, Over the last decades, we've fought for debate inclusiveness. We've fought against the 15 percent rule, 10 percent rules, 5 percent rules. A few days ago, the Convention Oversight Committee announced a new rule for the Vice Chair debate. The rule is that to participate in the debate, you need 10 percent of the tokens handed out. Given that there are at least 5 bona fide, legitimate candidates, who have participated in debates around the country, and that some percentage of the convention goers will forget to hand in tokens, this rule is essentially guaranteed to eliminate at least one of the options. It will also make it very difficult for non-insiders to be considered by the convention. If this was a congressional debate, we'd fight this rule. If this was a presidential or senate debate, we'd fight this rule. If this was a debate for county council, we'd fight this rule. We should not be holding ourselves to lower standards than we hold politics in general. I get that as a private organization we have the "right" to do so. But why would we want to hold ourselves to such a low standard? In addition to the moral issue, there is a clear strategic issue. When we complain about debate exclusion, our opponents need only point to our own behavior. "The LP complains about our 5 percent threshold, but they use 10 percent threshold, which is functionally a 20 percent threshold, given that so many people don't hand in debate tokens." At least in the polls the CPD uses, people actually have to answer the polling questions. This is the first time in a while that there is major excitement about the Vice Chair debate, and it is also the time when the COC has started acting as a worse version of the CPD, creating an 11th hour exclusionary rule. The LP stands for open debates. I personally stand for open debates. I've had the honor of speaking outside the CPD office in DC, protesting against their actions. Today, I ask the Libertarian National Committee, just as I have asked the Commission on Presidential Debates, to ensure a fair and open debate at our convention. I ask for cosponsors for the following motion: "Direct the COC to change inclusion rules as follows. Any candidate who can get 10 signatures should be included in the debate. Convention delegates may sign more than one petition." Respectfully, Arvin Vohra Vice Chair Libertarian National Committee -- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra(a)gmail.com (301) 320-3634 Fellow Members of the LNC, Over the last decades, we've fought for debate inclusiveness. We've fought against the 15 percent rule, 10 percent rules, 5 percent rules. A few days ago, the Convention Oversight Committee announced a new rule for the Vice Chair debate. The rule is that to participate in the debate, you need 10 percent of the tokens handed out. Given that there are at least 5 bona fide, legitimate candidates, who have participated in debates around the country, and that some percentage of the convention goers will forget to hand in tokens, this rule is essentially guaranteed to eliminate at least one of the options. It will also make it very difficult for non-insiders to be considered by the convention. If this was a congressional debate, we'd fight this rule. If this was a presidential or senate debate, we'd fight this rule. If this was a debate for county council, we'd fight this rule. We should not be holding ourselves to lower standards than we hold politics in general. I get that as a private organization we have the "right" to do so. But why would we want to hold ourselves to such a low standard? In addition to the moral issue, there is a clear strategic issue. When we complain about debate exclusion, our opponents need only point to our own behavior. "The LP complains about our 5 percent threshold, but they use 10 percent threshold, which is functionally a 20 percent threshold, given that so many people don't hand in debate tokens." At least in the polls the CPD uses, people actually have to answer the polling questions. This is the first time in a while that there is major excitement about the Vice Chair debate, and it is also the time when the COC has started acting as a worse version of the CPD, creating an 11th hour exclusionary rule. The LP stands for open debates. I personally stand for open debates. I've had the honor of speaking outside the CPD office in DC, protesting against their actions. Today, I ask the Libertarian National Committee, just as I have asked the Commission on Presidential Debates, to ensure a fair and open debate at our convention. I ask for cosponsors for the following motion: "Direct the COC to change inclusion rules as follows. Any candidate who can get 10 signatures should be included in the debate. Convention delegates may sign more than one petition." Respectfully, Arvin Vohra Vice Chair Libertarian National Committee -- Arvin Vohra [1]www.VoteVohra.com [2]VoteVohra(a)gmail.com (301) 320-3634 References 1. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 2. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

8 8

Proposal For Debate Protocols
by Daniel Hayes 02 Jun '18

02 Jun '18

It would be refreshing if our colleagues actually picked a phone up and had a discussion with ANY member of the COC about their concerns first instead of making a motion or making a public display on social media. Also, I find it curious that people complain about the 11th hour yet wait DAYS to bring the concern to the board. The COC talked about “rounds” but the time just isn’t abundant at this convention. More than 5 on a stage for a hour is not fair to any of the candidates. Also there is an issue of space. Starting the debates earlier leaves large regions likely caucusing between business on July 1st and the debates with not enough time if that actual election for a LNC seat runs long. Our Regional Caucuses have been paid too little attention to for quite some time. We opted to use tokens after discussing this internally for months and watching how the number of candidates shaped up. We gave a lot of deference to Ken Moellman who was tasked with putting these debates on. I personally thought 10% was too high however the consensus of the committee reached that point. I had initially proposed top 5 candidates with a 25 token minimum. Amounts as high as 15% were mentioned. A consensus was reached of 10% of the delegates. I had an idea after our conference call that I am going to propose in a motion in another email and seek Co-Sponsors. I haven’t word-smithed it yet so it will be a minute but it involves NOTA. Also, Mr. Vorha made an assertion "The LP complains about our 5 percent threshold, but they use 10 percent threshold, which is functionally a 20 percent threshold, given that so many people don't hand in debate tokens." The CPD has a 15% threshold. Also, these tokens are handed in by the people that actually are voting on this. The assertion is misleading. I will begin working on my motion now and hopefully it will be up shortly. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member LNC COC Chairman Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Motion - Seeking Cosponsors
by Starchild 02 Jun '18

02 Jun '18

Would it be any more of a logistical and planning nightmare than administering, collecting, and validating candidates' tokens? I suspect not. The time between debate rounds while votes are being counted could be used for open discussion/debate about the candidates among members of the debate audience. Our election process usually does not allow for that kind of immediate, open feedback during the process, and I think it could be helpful. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform(a)earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Jun 2, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Justin O'Donnell wrote: > Starchild, > > I like the idea in theory, but I hate the logistical and planning nightmare that it would impose upon convention staff. Conducting and validating the results of a straw poll between each round would either limit the time for each round of debate, or require the CoC to readjuat the schedule and eliminate other planned events and speakers to allot more time for the debates. > > Justin O'Donnell > LNC Region 8 Representative Would it be any more of a logistical and planning nightmare than administering, collecting, and validating candidates' tokens? I suspect not. The time between debate rounds while votes are being counted could be used for open discussion/debate about the candidates among members of the debate audience. Our election process usually does not allow for that kind of immediate, open feedback during the process, and I think it could be helpful. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [1]RealReform(a)earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Jun 2, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Justin O'Donnell wrote: Starchild, I like the idea in theory, but I hate the logistical and planning nightmare that it would impose upon convention staff. Conducting and validating the results of a straw poll between each round would either limit the time for each round of debate, or require the CoC to readjuat the schedule and eliminate other planned events and speakers to allot more time for the debates. Justin O'Donnell LNC Region 8 Representative References 1. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net

3 2

Fwd: COC NOLA Debate
by Daniel Hayes 02 Jun '18

02 Jun '18

Forwarding for Mr. Moellman. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member LNC COC Chairman Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lp.org> > Date: June 2, 2018 at 4:28:27 PM CDT > To: chair(a)lp.org, vicechair(a)lp.org, treasurer(a)lp.org, secretary(a)lp.org, william.redpath(a)lp.org, sam.goldstein(a)lp.org, starchild(a)lp.org, daniel.hayes(a)lp.org, joshua.katz(a)lp.org, caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org, craig.bowden(a)lp.org, ed.marsh(a)lp.org, steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org, elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org, dustin.nanna(a)lp.org, jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org, aaron.starr(a)lp.org, james.lark(a)lp.org, steve.scheetz(a)lp.org, david.demarest(a)lp.org, sean.otoole(a)lp.org, whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org, erin.adams(a)lp.org, justin.odonnell(a)lp.org, Alex Merced <alex.merced(a)lp.org> > Subject: COC NOLA Debate > > Hello everyone. > > I have been made aware that there is a motion from the LNC to demand the COC organize a debate with different criteria than what has been selected by the COC. And there are motions to propose alternatives. I would ask you to please consider the following, in regard to the debate. It's long and it's math, so I apologize in advance. > > As the person who has been tasked with organizing the debate, it was extremely difficult for me to support doing tokens at all. I struggled with this for weeks. I love debate. I'm a high school debate coach. I want people to have their visions and plans to be heard and understood. > > In 2016, I ran 7 hours - yes, SEVEN HOURS - of unofficial debates for the presidential nomination process, with a personal loss of $300 on the event. We ran three rounds for president and a round for VP. Every person got a shot. There were only about 20 people in attendance, besides candidates for the bottom-tier event, with increasing attendance through the day. > > But this year, we only have 1 hour to do each debate. This is the "short" convention year, so there's a day missing. If there was another whole day, where we could run official or unofficial debates, I'd be all over it. I'd gladly run hours of debate again. > > One thing is for sure - you can't put 15 candidates on stage at the same time. That lesson was learned at the unofficial debates in 2008. In that scenario, everyone gets a 2-minute open, answer 1 one-minute question, and a one-minute close. And poof, over an hour is gone. That's not fair to the candidates or the audience. That's why we did tiers in 2016. (Also, there are only 5 podiums.) > > The Chair debate is scheduled to start right after Regional Caucuses, and already conflicts with LPTX karaoke. The Vice-Chair debate is scheduled to start right after the Chair debate, and conflicts with LPTX karaoke, an Adam Kokesh event, and the Outright Masquerade Ball. > > On top of the issue of a lack of time, another logistical problem is that there's been no polling, so doing a tiered debate would present further challenges. Unlike in 2016, where there were a couple of groups doing some sort of polling that helped create the seeding, I have no objective data to even work from to determine tiering. While I could try to do polling myself, I am already stretched for time. > > In trying to strike some sort of balance, and after much discussion, the inclusion rules were determined by the committee: Minimum 10% of tokens to participate, with a maximum of the top-5 candidates. Top candidates get preferred speaking order as a bonus for collecting more tokens. > > Prior to that decision, we discussed multiple options on how to handle all of the variables in this situation. I had originally used math; 1050 divided by six, plus 1 = 176 tokens as a minimum, ensuring there were only up-to 5 people on stage. I think the criteria we chose are more generous to "minority" candidates, and I like that. > > > Here's the math behind the criteria (Algebra ahead. You were warned.): > > C = # of candidates > q = # of questions > > Statement from moderator (2 minutes) > Rebuttal cards: 2 x C x 0.5 min > Opening statements: 2 min x C > Questions from panel, selected from delegates: 2.25 min x q x C > Question from candidate to another candidate: 2.25 min x C > Closing statements: 2 min x C > Closing statement from moderator (1 minute) > > So the math formula is: 2 + C + 2C + 2.25qC + 2.25C + 2C + 1 > > With 5 candidates, that's 2 + 5 + 2*5 + 5*2.25q + 2.25*5 + 2*5 + 1 = 39.25 + 11.25q > 11.25q = 60 - 39.25 > q=1.844 > So that's enough time for 1 (or maybe 2, with rebuttal cards removed) questions from the delegates. > > With 4 candidates, that's 2 + 4 + 2*4 + 4*2.25q + 2.25*4 + 2*4 + 1 = 32 + 9q > 9q = 60 - 32 > q=3.111 > So that's enough time for 3 questions from the delegates. > > With 3 candidates, that's 2 + 3 + 2*3 + 3*2.25q + 2.25*3 + 2*3 + 1 = 24.75 + 6.75q > 6.75q = 60 - 24.75 > q = 5.222 > So that's enough time for 5 questions from the delegates. > > With 2 candidates, that's 2 + 2 + 2*2 + 2*2.25q + 2.25*2 + 2*2 + 1 = 17.5 + 5q > 5q = 60 - 17.5 > q = 8.5 > So that's enough time for 8 questions from the delegates. > > > > Former chair Geoff Neale chimed in with relevant thoughts to the notes posted by Mr. Vohra on Facebook delegate groups, prior to any response being given from me: > > "... any "system" can be gamed, and probably will be. If any announced candidate can participate in a debate, and that debate will be one hour, then a great strategy is to get a lot of people to announce, and thus diminish the time for each candidate. You could even have people announcing just to get their five minutes of face time, to do such things as strip or play a song they wrote. Imagine how meaningful a debate between twenty people would be. Three minutes each? That time would all be taken up with opening and closing remarks, leaving no debate. > > Of course, with tokens, good candidates will try to get as many as possible to shut out competition, and many people (like myself) will give their tokens to "dark horses". > > I'd like to hear an actual viable alternative. > > However, comparing this system to the CPD is flawed. The CPD uses polls of their choosing that are frequently exclusionary in themselves. The current token is "polling" of those who've actually shown up to vote." > > > And the last line, IMO, is the most important. This debate isn't being held for the benefit of candidates, it's for the delegates. > > > Now, I'm open to other ideas. I would have preferred that alternative ideas be discussed with the committee, rather than be run through the LNC to trump the COC. I hope that this message provides the background on why things came to be. > > I am happy to entertain alternative solutions. But if you want more debate, then I must ask: where is the time to accomplish that? Find more time. I'll gladly run more rounds of debate. > > > ken > > > -- > Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Forwarding for Mr. Moellman. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member LNC COC Chairman Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Ken Moellman <[1]ken.moellman(a)lp.org> Date: June 2, 2018 at 4:28:27 PM CDT To: [2]chair(a)lp.org, [3]vicechair(a)lp.org, [4]treasurer(a)lp.org, [5]secretary(a)lp.org, [6]william.redpath(a)lp.org, [7]sam.goldstein(a)lp.org, [8]starchild(a)lp.org, [9]daniel.hayes(a)lp.org, [10]joshua.katz(a)lp.org, [11]caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org, [12]craig.bowden(a)lp.org, [13]ed.marsh(a)lp.org, [14]steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org, [15]elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org, [16]dustin.nanna(a)lp.org, [17]jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org, [18]aaron.starr(a)lp.org, [19]james.lark(a)lp.org, [20]steve.scheetz(a)lp.org, [21]david.demarest(a)lp.org, [22]sean.otoole(a)lp.org, [23]whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org, [24]erin.adams(a)lp.org, [25]justin.odonnell(a)lp.org, Alex Merced <[26]alex.merced(a)lp.org> Subject: COC NOLA Debate Hello everyone. I have been made aware that there is a motion from the LNC to demand the COC organize a debate with different criteria than what has been selected by the COC. And there are motions to propose alternatives. I would ask you to please consider the following, in regard to the debate. It's long and it's math, so I apologize in advance. As the person who has been tasked with organizing the debate, it was extremely difficult for me to support doing tokens at all. I struggled with this for weeks. I love debate. I'm a high school debate coach. I want people to have their visions and plans to be heard and understood. In 2016, I ran 7 hours - yes, SEVEN HOURS - of unofficial debates for the presidential nomination process, with a personal loss of $300 on the event. We ran three rounds for president and a round for VP. Every person got a shot. There were only about 20 people in attendance, besides candidates for the bottom-tier event, with increasing attendance through the day. But this year, we only have 1 hour to do each debate. This is the "short" convention year, so there's a day missing. If there was another whole day, where we could run official or unofficial debates, I'd be all over it. I'd gladly run hours of debate again. One thing is for sure - you can't put 15 candidates on stage at the same time. That lesson was learned at the unofficial debates in 2008. In that scenario, everyone gets a 2-minute open, answer 1 one-minute question, and a one-minute close. And poof, over an hour is gone. That's not fair to the candidates or the audience. That's why we did tiers in 2016. (Also, there are only 5 podiums.) The Chair debate is scheduled to start right after Regional Caucuses, and already conflicts with LPTX karaoke. The Vice-Chair debate is scheduled to start right after the Chair debate, and conflicts with LPTX karaoke, an Adam Kokesh event, and the Outright Masquerade Ball. On top of the issue of a lack of time, another logistical problem is that there's been no polling, so doing a tiered debate would present further challenges. Unlike in 2016, where there were a couple of groups doing some sort of polling that helped create the seeding, I have no objective data to even work from to determine tiering. While I could try to do polling myself, I am already stretched for time. In trying to strike some sort of balance, and after much discussion, the inclusion rules were determined by the committee: Minimum 10% of tokens to participate, with a maximum of the top-5 candidates. Top candidates get preferred speaking order as a bonus for collecting more tokens. Prior to that decision, we discussed multiple options on how to handle all of the variables in this situation. I had originally used math; 1050 divided by six, plus 1 = 176 tokens as a minimum, ensuring there were only up-to 5 people on stage. I think the criteria we chose are more generous to "minority" candidates, and I like that. Here's the math behind the criteria (Algebra ahead. You were warned.): C = # of candidates q = # of questions Statement from moderator (2 minutes) Rebuttal cards: 2 x C x 0.5 min Opening statements: 2 min x C Questions from panel, selected from delegates: 2.25 min x q x C Question from candidate to another candidate: 2.25 min x C Closing statements: 2 min x C Closing statement from moderator (1 minute) So the math formula is: 2 + C + 2C + 2.25qC + 2.25C + 2C + 1 With 5 candidates, that's 2 + 5 + 2*5 + 5*2.25q + 2.25*5 + 2*5 + 1 = 39.25 + 11.25q 11.25q = 60 - 39.25 q=1.844 So that's enough time for 1 (or maybe 2, with rebuttal cards removed) questions from the delegates. With 4 candidates, that's 2 + 4 + 2*4 + 4*2.25q + 2.25*4 + 2*4 + 1 = 32 + 9q 9q = 60 - 32 q=3.111 So that's enough time for 3 questions from the delegates. With 3 candidates, that's 2 + 3 + 2*3 + 3*2.25q + 2.25*3 + 2*3 + 1 = 24.75 + 6.75q 6.75q = 60 - 24.75 q = 5.222 So that's enough time for 5 questions from the delegates. With 2 candidates, that's 2 + 2 + 2*2 + 2*2.25q + 2.25*2 + 2*2 + 1 = 17.5 + 5q 5q = 60 - 17.5 q = 8.5 So that's enough time for 8 questions from the delegates. Former chair Geoff Neale chimed in with relevant thoughts to the notes posted by Mr. Vohra on Facebook delegate groups, prior to any response being given from me: "... any "system" can be gamed, and probably will be. If any announced candidate can participate in a debate, and that debate will be one hour, then a great strategy is to get a lot of people to announce, and thus diminish the time for each candidate. You could even have people announcing just to get their five minutes of face time, to do such things as strip or play a song they wrote. Imagine how meaningful a debate between twenty people would be. Three minutes each? That time would all be taken up with opening and closing remarks, leaving no debate. Of course, with tokens, good candidates will try to get as many as possible to shut out competition, and many people (like myself) will give their tokens to "dark horses". I'd like to hear an actual viable alternative. However, comparing this system to the CPD is flawed. The CPD uses polls of their choosing that are frequently exclusionary in themselves. The current token is "polling" of those who've actually shown up to vote." And the last line, IMO, is the most important. This debate isn't being held for the benefit of candidates, it's for the delegates. Now, I'm open to other ideas. I would have preferred that alternative ideas be discussed with the committee, rather than be run through the LNC to trump the COC. I hope that this message provides the background on why things came to be. I am happy to entertain alternative solutions. But if you want more debate, then I must ask: where is the time to accomplish that? Find more time. I'll gladly run more rounds of debate. ken -- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. References 1. mailto:ken.moellman@lp.org 2. mailto:chair@lp.org 3. mailto:vicechair@lp.org 4. mailto:treasurer@lp.org 5. mailto:secretary@lp.org 6. mailto:william.redpath@lp.org 7. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 8. mailto:starchild@lp.org 9. mailto:daniel.hayes@lp.org 10. mailto:joshua.katz@lp.org 11. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 12. mailto:craig.bowden@lp.org 13. mailto:ed.marsh@lp.org 14. mailto:steven.nekhaila@lp.org 15. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 16. mailto:dustin.nanna@lp.org 17. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt@lp.org 18. mailto:aaron.starr@lp.org 19. mailto:james.lark@lp.org 20. mailto:steve.scheetz@lp.org 21. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 22. mailto:sean.otoole@lp.org 23. mailto:whitney.bilyeu@lp.org 24. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 25. mailto:justin.odonnell@lp.org 26. mailto:alex.merced@lp.org

1 0

Alternate Proposal seeking co-sponsors.
by Justin O'Donnell 02 Jun '18

02 Jun '18

With regards to the Convention Oversight Committee and LNC Officer Debates at convention. "Direct the Convention Oversight Committee to change debate inclusion rules as follows: Any candidate who acquires 35 signatures from credentialed delegates shall be included in the Chair or Vice Chair debates. Convention delegates may sign more than one petition." Justin O'Donnell LNC Region 8 Representative

2 1

draft minutes of 06/01/18 EC meeting
by Alicia Mattson 02 Jun '18

02 Jun '18

Attached are the draft minutes for the 06/01/18 EC meeting. Absent objection from an EC member who attended, these minutes will auto-approve on 06/15/18. -Alicia Attached are the draft minutes for the 06/01/18 EC meeting. Absent objection from an EC member who attended, these minutes will auto-approve on 06/15/18. -Alicia

1 0

EC meeting via Adobe Connect - 06/01/18 at 9:30 pm Eastern
by Alicia Mattson 01 Jun '18

01 Jun '18

The meeting below will use Adobe Connect to accommodate the international travel of one of the EC members. If any of the committee members need to participate by telephone rather than via the computer interface, please contact me *in advance* so I can provide you the dial-in number and know that I need to set up the audio bridge. I have assembled my usual Adobe Connect participant lecture into an attached PDF. -Alicia ----------------------------------------------------------------------- What: electronic meeting of the LNC's Executive Committee When: Friday, 06/01/18 6:30 PM Pacific / 9:30 PM Eastern Purpose: Ohio ballot access To join the meeting: https://lp.adobeconnect.com/lnc/ Adobe Connect will need to install a browser add-on before you can join the meeting. If your computer prompts you to give permission for the installation, you will need to allow it. Some users may need to close and then re-open their browsers after installation of the add-on before you will be able to successfully enter the meeting room. When joining the meeting, each person should reference the instructions in the attached PDF, which explain that you should sign into the meeting as a guest and then run the audio setup wizard to select which microphone to use and test audio input/output levels. If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before, test your connection and software in advance here: https://lp.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm The meeting below will use Adobe Connect to accommodate the international travel of one of the EC members. If any of the committee members need to participate by telephone rather than via the computer interface, please contact me in advance so I can provide you the dial-in number and know that I need to set up the audio bridge. I have assembled my usual Adobe Connect participant lecture into an attached PDF. -Alicia ----------------------------------------------------------------------- What: electronic meeting of the LNC's Executive Committee When: Friday, 06/01/18 6:30 PM Pacific / 9:30 PM Eastern Purpose: Ohio ballot access To join the meeting: [1]https://lp.adobeconnect.com/lnc/ Adobe Connect will need to install a browser add-on before you can join the meeting. If your computer prompts you to give permission for the installation, you will need to allow it. Some users may need to close and then re-open their browsers after installation of the add-on before you will be able to successfully enter the meeting room. When joining the meeting, each person should reference the instructions in the attached PDF, which explain that you should sign into the meeting as a guest and then run the audio setup wizard to select which microphone to use and test audio input/output levels. If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before, test your connection and software in advance here: [2]https://lp.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm References 1. https://lp.adobeconnect.com/lnc/ 2. https://lp.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm

2 1