Not sure I mentioned anyone by name, as there are more than one when it suits them, but hey if the shoe fits, you go right ahead and put it on.I am often blunt and outspoken, which is not the same as rude despite current culture thinking it is. If I am rude (and I admittedly was, I even pointed it out), as I most often am not, perhaps consider the level of crap it took to push me there. Particularly since in my rant I also admitted that much of the time strict adherence is necessary, just not all the time.And in my not so humble opinion not any more rude than the constant obstructionism that causes our meetings to last hours longer than necessary, as well as preventing us from accomplishing many more things.I most often bow to such arguments when they do present a substantive issue, particularly when it affects the rights of others, but when it is nothing more than red tape which is nothing more than a time waster that resembles the over bureaucracy of the bloated government we are supposed to be opposed to I cannot and will not.John PhillipsLibertarian National Committee Region 6 RepresentativeCell 217-412-5973------ Original message------From: Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-businessDate: Sun, Mar 15, 2020 6:52 PMTo: lnc-business@hq.lp.org;Cc: Caryn Ann Harlos;Subject:Re: [Lnc-business] NOTICE OF SPECIAL E-MEETING MARCH 26 9PM-11PM EASTERNMs Mattson I do not believe I was rude. It was not intended to be and written carefully with an intent not to be. So if you were offended I apologize. I however firmly believe my notice is correct and I leave that to the decision of the chair. I appreciate your tutelage. On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 6:07 PM Tim Hagan via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I thought the e-mail system had caught the coronavirus. I'm disinfecting my computer so it won't spread to me.
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2020-03-15 14:52, Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business wrote:
John,
I know from your email that you are tired and irritable, but did you have to send the email 6 times?
Stay Free!
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-03-15 12:34, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
I am tired. I am irritable. I am frustrated. So I probably should not speak at all. But since much of my frustration is with this crap here you go.
The intention was clear to the co-sponsors, suck it up and deal with it.
Stop with the damn rules lawyering obstructionist BS. Are there times it is appropriate, yes, but 90% of the time it is being thrown out there to forward some personal agenda, or just satisfy some deep OCD issues. Give it an effen rest.
It is clear that enough members of the body desire a discussion. It is clear that enough members of the party would like this discussion to happen.
I very personally will suggest that if you spend half or more of your time trying being petty over dotted i's and crossed t's that make no real difference - allowing for the times it actually does - that perhaps every now and then step back and realize that it really doesnt mean a damn thing and you are just being a PITA for nothing.
Yes I am aware of the hypocrisy of this after the crap I gave about civility, but enough is damn well enough.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On Mar 15, 2020 9:27 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
I had today's date wrong in my head as I am traveling lol over the country and barely know what state I am in.
I will let the chair decide if it's correct.
This to me is an example of using the rules to make things difficult for no real purpose. And I simply won't waste time on that. Everyone knows the intent and everyone knows the date was to accommodate the ten day notice period without being wayyyy out. The fact that one angel isn't dancing on the pin head is not relevant IMHO. It is apparent that a certain contingent doesn't want a meeting and that is fine - but some of us do and I stand by my call.
The chair can unilaterally reset at his choice and I would welcome it.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 8:23 AM Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Alicia does have some points in the 12 days and time arena, but I believe the motion itself passed correctly. I believe the secretary may have set the meeting up incorrectly.
In the original ask the time and subject were included. I'm happy to move this meeting two days sooner as we passed. There should be no other
issues
beyond that. The reason I'm not in arms over the date is because it was proposed and passed on the same day with the language of starting 10 days after passing. None of the cosponsors sponsored on a different day so there cannot be any implied confusion on what the cosponsors passed.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 07:17 Richard Longstreth
wrote:
I cosponsored the proposed meeting, time, and subject. Because no changes were made to the original ask, and how email threads work, I thought everything was implied. If the members of this body would rather a minimum of six separate email threads calling for this meeting, with debate occurring in each, I would be happy to comply. Just let me know how formal we would like to be on a call that received 8 cosponsors, all not making changes to the original motion thus implicitly echoing the time, date, subject matter, etc.
I feel the policy manual requirements were met and defer to the chair to make a decision otherwise.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 04:13 Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Besides the detail of the subject matter, Mr. Goldstein already > pointed > out > that our policy requires, "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." > > Yet the co-sponsors were obtained based on the topic, but not with > the > other details specified. In the middle of the process the > original > requestor said the meeting would be set for 10 days from when the > final > sponsor was obtained, at 9-11 pm Eastern on that date. The final sponsor > was obtained on 03/14, but the call of the meeting is for 12 days > later > rather than the 10 days later indicated. There was no way for Dr. > Lark to > know to ask for an earlier time to accommodate his 03/26 schedule conflict > before the meeting call was sent out, given that the information > given to > him previously did not suggest 03/26 would be the resulting date. > Even if > it had been set for 10 days rather than 12, the fact that the date > was not > locked by the sponsors in advance but was instead a floating > relative date > meant that one had to predict when the final sponsor would develop > to > check > their calendar for conflicts. > > This call-to-meeting changes the details after-the-fact. The real impact > of not following the protocol established by our policy is to > interfere > with one member's ability to fully participate. This sort of > thing is > exactly why the policy says the cosponsors must agree to all those > details. > > -Alicia > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 1:54 AM Alicia Mattson >
wrote: > >> I think the subject matter given in this meeting notice is >> improperly >> broad. >> >> The initial sponsor of the idea started an email with a subject >> line >> referring only to "convention" and asked for a meeting to discuss >> this >> matter. Mr. Goldstein asked for clarification of what matter. >> The >> response was, "our contingency plans and status in light of the > pandemic." >> >> That was the given understanding when other LNC members agreed to >> join > the >> call of the meeting. Yet this meeting notice says the subject is again >> just the very broad "convention" topic, rather than the narrowed answer >> which was given in that email thread. >> >> Some other topics that came up in that email thread go beyond the scope > of >> contingency plans and into brainstorming potential bylaws >> amendments on >> other topics not related to the stated purpose of the meeting. I >> am > quite >> concerned that stating the topic as "convention" rather than "our >> contingency plans and status in light of the pandemic" could lead >> to > some >> trying to bring those subjects into the meeting, when that was >> not the >> purpose stated. >> >> I will object to topics other than "our contingency plans and >> status in >> light of the pandemic" as being outside of the scope of the >> special > meeting. >> >> -Alicia >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 5:25 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business >> < >> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >> >>> Here is the Zoom information. This meeting was sponsored by >>> Hagan, >>> Harlos, >>> Longstreth, Merced, Nekhaila, Phillips, Smith, Van Horn >>> >>> Caryn Ann Harlos is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. >>> >>> Topic: LNC Special Meeting Re: Convention >>> Time: Mar 26, 2020 09:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) >>> >>> Join Zoom Meeting >>> https://zoom.us/j/239017962 >>> >>> Meeting ID: 239 017 962 >>> >>> One tap mobile >>> +13126266799,,239017962# US (Chicago) >>> +16465588656,,239017962# US (New York) >>> >>> Dial by your location >>> +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) >>> +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) >>> +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) >>> +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) >>> +1 253 215 8782 US >>> +1 301 715 8592 US >>> Meeting ID: 239 017 962 >>> Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/adyM24yilG >>> >>> * In Liberty,* >>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome >>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal >>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone >>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other >>> social > faux >>> pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me >>> know. > * >>> >> >
--
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
-- *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *