We HAVE decided no matter how much our Chair would prefer that we did not. I do respect being peace makers but there comes a time when it turns into Solomon's baby and it ends up gas-lighting those who say, Houston, there is a problem. Our Chair has gone beyond the role of a presiding officer and is having an extended tantrum about not getting his way. *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. * On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:04 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Steven and Alex I love you guys but it clearly says it IS his ruling, not what his ruling would be.
This is in direct contradiction to his statements around my complaint during the membership affair.
I do appreciate you trying to be peace makers though. Much respect.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 7, 2020 8:50 PM, Steven Nekhaila via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Mr. Merced is correct,
The Chair stated what his ruling of the Chair would be, if it came to a vote regarding the subject. Nothing more, nothing less.
As a body, we still need to make a decision according to our rules using our best individual judgements to come to a conclusion.
Nothing has changed.
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Libertarian National Committee
Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt "Those without power cannot defend freedom"
On 2020-05-07 04:08 PM, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote:
From what I understand Nicks post is an indication of a potential ruling not an edict which means...
- it can be challenged if needed
- doesn’t change the motion currently passed last Saturday
- Doesnt force any action by the LNC on Saturday.
So technically nothing has changed yet? Or am I wrong?
Technically does an email declaration of a ruling not yet asked for have any weight? So if we theoretically passed a motion that was challenged, wouldn’t Nick have to make this ruling explicitly again at which point it would be challenged?
If this is correct wouldn’t the previous email really just be Nick making clear how he will rule if that comes to be or am I misreading this?
If it’s an edict unilaterally changing or forcing an action by the LNC that’s a problem (the wording doesn’t say that from my reading), if it’s an indication of how a chair will rule if a particular conflict arises well then it just gives time for those who’d challenge the ruling to be more prepared.
I’m just trying to clarify before we escalate beyond where we are actually at in this process.
Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
On May 7, 2020, at 3:55 PM, joshua.smith--- via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Hello all,
I would ask that the Chairman of this board either resign if he can no longer fairly respect the will of the board with impartiality, or go back to being the impartial mediator that he is elected to be.
The Chairman is not elected to push his own agenda on the board, or the membership, and with each passing day it looks more and more like the Chairman has overstepped the duties entrusted in him by those very people.
In liberty, Joshua
On May 7, 2020 2:41 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: I have a question for the body. I believe that the entire LNC is not being represented by our general counsel but rather Mr. Sarwark is. Do we have any recourse to ask for additional counsel? This is pretty outrageous, that I would join in costs if other LNC members felt we needed representation due to this usurping of power by our Chair. I have said for two years now there are no officers in this party other than our Chair. Now there is effectively no LNC. Figureheads would be a promotion.
*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. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:35 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
I too would like to know how the "vast majority" was determined. Our largest affiliate California has instructed the LNC otherwise. Colorado is nothing to sneeze at and there is nothing preventing us from attending.
Respect the decision of the LNC. You are presiding officer not overlord. If you insist on putting our general counsel in the untenable position of rendering a parliamentarian opinion, I will be moving that the LNC retain and actual PRP.
I do not know what has caused this strange shift of behaviour but this is not the very tempered behaviour of the Chair I have worked with for four years now who knew how to respect the hierarchy in place and accept things he thought were bad decisions. You are free to appeal to the Judicial Committee l like anyone else. You are not free to disregard the LNC and usurp all power to yourself.
*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. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:32 PM Caryn Ann Harlos < caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Our counsel is not a parliamentarian. I am aghast he would offer an opinion outside his area of speciality. No parliamentarian would render that opinion. If anyone decided to sue over this, I firmly believe Mr. Hall would be in danger of malpractice. This LNC is in dereliction of its duty by not retaining a PRP for that determination. Further, you do not have authority as Chair to override the decision of the LNC. This has gone beyond a ridiculous power grab. The LNC has decided. Period.
*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. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:55 PM Whitney Bilyeu via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Nick, how do you intend to demonstrate that it will be "impossible" for a "vast majority" of the delegates to travel to a convention in July?
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:36 PM Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues, > > It is my ruling as Chair, and supported by the opinion of the Libertarian > National Committee's special counsel, Oliver Hall, that “place” in the > bylaws can mean a virtual convention in the situation where it is > impossible for the vast majority of the selected delegates in the party to > travel to a physical location. > > As such, a virtual convention held on Memorial Day weekend would be a > proper convention and compliant with the bylaws. > > Yours in liberty, > Nick > > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:26 PM Whitney Bilyeu via Lnc-business < > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: > > > The COC's job is to plan a convention, in accordance with bylaws. The LNC > > is responsible for final decisions. No one is being forced to do > anything, > > especially by the COC. It is not the COC's job to suggest a convention > plan > > that is not in line with bylaws. The COC's job is to put together plans, > > offer options for the LNC to choose, and make suggestions where > applicable. > > > > The LNC could have moved to change plans at any time...it didn't. The LNC > > could have voted this past Saturday to do something other than > > postpone......It didn't. > > > > If an LNC member wants something other than an in-person convention, in > > accordance with bylaws, they should move such. The LNC will > > decide.....again. > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:36 AM BetteRose via Conventions < > > conventions@hq.lp.org> wrote: > > > > > I believe it was the LNC that voted for the in person convention. The > CoC > > > may have 'pushed' for that outcome but we didn't make the final > decision. > > > > > > My concern is, that as deaths continue to rise we may again have to > find > > > another venue and move the convention once again. This will be hard on > > > most of the delegates and won't play well in the press. I see that the > > > Democrats are already having trouble with that same issue. > > > > > > BetteRose Ryan > > > Publisher > > > Bent Briar Publishing <http://www.bentbriarbooks.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Alicia Mattson via Conventions <conventions@hq.lp.org> > > > To: Libertarian National Committee list < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> > > > Cc: Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org>; Convention Oversight > > > Committee <conventions@hq.lp.org> > > > Sent: Sun, May 3, 2020 11:34 pm > > > Subject: Re: [COC 2018-20] [Lnc-business] Fwd: Request for LNC > > > Consideration > > > > > > Well, I meant to send that to the COC email list, but I was going to > come > > > here and say pretty much the same thing. > > > > > > From this forwarded message below, Valerie Sarwark wrote to us: "The > > > Convention Oversight Committee is essentially committing suppression of > > > delegates by attempting to force an in-person convention." > > > > > > Force? Suppression of delegates? Those of differing opinions are > > > attempting to achieve their desired result, too. Is that force? > > > > > > We're getting a lot of email these days, and it's easy to skim and miss > > > details, so I wanted to highlight this. The demonizing of the COC is > as > > > shameful as it is absurd. > > > > > > -Alicia > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 10:28 PM Alicia Mattson < alicia.mattson@lp.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Forwarding for those of you not on the LNC. The rhetoric being spewed > > > about the COC is becoming more and more outrageous. There was quite a > > bit > > > of it flung around during the Bylaws and Rules Committee meeting today > as > > > well... > > > > > > -Alicia > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > > From: *justin.odonnell--- via Lnc-business* < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> > > > Date: Sun, May 3, 2020 at 12:01 PM > > > Subject: [Lnc-business] Fwd: Request for LNC Consideration > > > To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> > > > Cc: <justin.odonnell@lp.org> > > > > > > > > > Attached is a letter to the LNC from a Region 8 Member and New > Hampshire > > > delegate for the LNC's consideration. > > > > > > Justin O'Donnell > > > LNC Region 8 Representative > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Valerie Sarwark > > > Date: May 3, 2020 2:55 PM > > > Subject: Request for LNC Consideration > > > To: Justin.Odonnell@lp.org > > > Cc: Pat.Ford@lp.org > > > > > > Justin, > > > > > > As my regional representative, please forward this letter to the LNC > > > business list. > > > > > > Pat, > > > > > > Thank you for your responsible "no" vote in yesterday's meeting. > > > > > > > > > **** > > > Dear Members of the Board, > > > I am a delegate to the National Convention representing the state of > New > > > Hampshire. This is the third convention to which I have the great > > privilege > > > of serving as a delegate. > > > I would like you to strongly consider retaining the original convention > > > dates and move to an electronic business meeting. The nomination of > > > presidential ticket and LNC positions should be filled as soon as > > possible > > > to ensure we have the strongest start to Election Day (which is only > 180 > > > days from now). > > > The Convention Oversight Committee is essentially committing > suppression > > > of delegates by attempting to force an in-person convention. The > country > > is > > > in the middle of a pandemic with many states not even open for > gatherings > > > of over 10 people. The country is in the middle of an economic collapse > > > with millions unemployed and unable to pay rent. You are now asking > these > > > people to somehow rearrange their schedules, spend more money and > > > potentially put their lives at risk. > > > In addition to the financial constraints on many of our delegates (the > > > majority of which are dues-paying members of the party), you are not > > > considering those affected by scheduling as far as their children. I > have > > > spent YEARS as active as possible and trying to make the party a more > > > welcoming place for families. Although both my husband and I have been > > able > > > to work through this time, it seems financially irresponsible to drag > the > > > entire family to a yet-to-be-determined site. With so many that are in > > the > > > same situation (or potentially worse off), would you feel comfortable > > > asking them to go into debt just so they can have their voices heard? > > > We’ve all blocked this time. We’re all ready for this meeting. We all > > want > > > to participate but we are now being told that we have to reschedule > > > everything within a couple of weeks. We are in the middle of an > emergency > > > and forcing people to shuffle their schedules, lives, and finances > around > > > is quite ridiculous. This isn’t about courage or principles. This is > > about > > > doing the best thing for the delegates that represent the party. Other > > > political meetings with greater participants have already occurred. > > > Shouldn’t we show the world that we are serious, considerate, > innovative > > > and ready to adapt? > > > The best choice for some is not the best choice for all. An online > > > convention, held Memorial Day weekend, will not exclude delegates. You > > need > > > to consider the right thing to do for ALL of the delegates. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Valerie A. Sarwark > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Conventions mailing list > > > Conventions@hq.lp.org > > > http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conventions > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Conventions mailing list > > > Conventions@hq.lp.org > > > http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conventions > > > > > >
-- *Whitney Bilyeu* Libertarian National Committee Region 7 Representative 281.433.4966 LP.ORG