Re: [Lnc-business] [COC 2018-20] Fwd: Request for LNC Consideration
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
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
Nick, How do you intend to implement your decision below in light of the fact that the LNC voted to postpone to a physical convention to be held no later than July 15th? Live Free, --- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell On 2020-05-07 14:36, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business 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
I certainly want to discuss the legal issue of relying upon a non-parliamentarian for a parliamentary opinion. That is beyond reckless. And there is no pending point of order or motion for there to be a ruling. *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 1:40 PM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Dear Mr Chair,
Back in December you stated a ruling of the chair only comes when someone has made an actual motion, specifically in response to me asking what your ruling would be and you not giving it until after the motion was made.
If what you said back then is true we have a problem as there is currently no motion on the table regarding this. So you either misled me, and thus board back then, or this ruling is itself out of order, and very potentially an abuse of authority then or now.
And this is coming from me who AGREES with that ruling.
Which leads into something I was waiting until Saturday for, but with this I will let everyone know that I intend to ask for immediately rising into executive session to discuss sensitive legal matters surrounding our decisions on this issue, and now including your ruling.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 7, 2020 1:49 PM, Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Nick,
How do you intend to implement your decision below in light of the fact that the LNC voted to postpone to a physical convention to be held no later than July 15th?
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-07 14:36, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business 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
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
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
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
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
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
You cannot have a ruling without a pending motion. There is none. What we do know is that our chair has been nonstop trying to undermine the LNC decision since the moment it was made. *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 2:08 PM Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> 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
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
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
Parliamentarians are trained to say, "I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice" when treading near legal-advice territory. Paralegals know to do that also. It seems to me that attorneys also ought to preface with, "I am not a parliamentarian" when they tread in the other direction. -Alicia On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
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 >
And what is being obfuscated is that the issue isn’t over the meaning of “place.” Accepting for sake of argument that it could mean a digital room, absent an express provision allowing for digital conventions they are expressly forbidden. This is not in question whatsoever, and the bait and switch might distract someone not terribly familiar with RONR but not someone who is. No amount of lawyering things up changes that. On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:13 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Parliamentarians are trained to say, "I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice" when treading near legal-advice territory. Paralegals know to do that also. It seems to me that attorneys also ought to preface with, "I am not a parliamentarian" when they tread in the other direction.
-Alicia
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
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 >> >
-- *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. *
I've heard Roberts referenced a lot in terms of no electronic meetings. However, I've never seen anyone with "expert level" knowledge respond to the ratification advisory put out by the folks at Roberts and I may simply missed it. I understand what the rules are and say but everytime they are brought up, I bring up the ratifying change and all discussion on Roberts stops or the ratification argument is ignored. That's not good enough to take it off the table for me. Please explain, someone, anyone, why Roberts says electronic business can be ratified but that our parliamentarians on this committee seem convinced that the authors of Roberts are wrong. Even in talking with others around the party, inxlluding those in favor of poI want to understand why and how the authors are wrong a little better and am not trying to be a thorn or argumentative. For reference, I've attached a screenshot of the decision which seems to indicate electronic meeting is ok with ratification this meaning an electronic setting would be acceptable. Someone please answer this directly and leave any other convoluted argument out. This is a very specific question. 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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 00:45 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
And what is being obfuscated is that the issue isn’t over the meaning of “place.” Accepting for sake of argument that it could mean a digital room, absent an express provision allowing for digital conventions they are expressly forbidden.
This is not in question whatsoever, and the bait and switch might distract someone not terribly familiar with RONR but not someone who is.
No amount of lawyering things up changes that.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:13 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Parliamentarians are trained to say, "I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice" when treading near legal-advice territory. Paralegals know to do that also. It seems to me that attorneys also ought to preface with, "I am not a parliamentarian" when they tread in the other direction.
-Alicia
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
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 >>> >>
--
*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. *
Richard, So what happens if we nominate a POTUS candidate by an electronic meeting then the delegates in convention subsequently choose to not ratify that candidate and nominate someone else? This is the Libertarian Party, you know. --- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell On 2020-05-08 11:04, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
I've heard Roberts referenced a lot in terms of no electronic meetings. However, I've never seen anyone with "expert level" knowledge respond to the ratification advisory put out by the folks at Roberts and I may simply missed it. I understand what the rules are and say but everytime they are brought up, I bring up the ratifying change and all discussion on Roberts stops or the ratification argument is ignored. That's not good enough to take it off the table for me.
Please explain, someone, anyone, why Roberts says electronic business can be ratified but that our parliamentarians on this committee seem convinced that the authors of Roberts are wrong. Even in talking with others around the party, inxlluding those in favor of poI want to understand why and how the authors are wrong a little better and am not trying to be a thorn or argumentative.
For reference, I've attached a screenshot of the decision which seems to indicate electronic meeting is ok with ratification this meaning an electronic setting would be acceptable. Someone please answer this directly and leave any other convoluted argument out. This is a very specific question.
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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 00:45 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
And what is being obfuscated is that the issue isn’t over the meaning of “place.” Accepting for sake of argument that it could mean a digital room, absent an express provision allowing for digital conventions they are expressly forbidden.
This is not in question whatsoever, and the bait and switch might distract someone not terribly familiar with RONR but not someone who is.
No amount of lawyering things up changes that.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:13 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Parliamentarians are trained to say, "I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice" when treading near legal-advice territory. Paralegals know to do that also. It seems to me that attorneys also ought to preface with, "I am not a parliamentarian" when they tread in the other direction.
-Alicia
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
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 > >>> > >> > >
--
*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. *
Nearly anything can be ratified. However, bylaws cannot be violated even by unanimous consent. I posted that language up above. The ratification has to be held at an actual convention. The only thing this works for is P/VP not the whole thing because then who will ratify? That is the issue. Further, our bylaws give the BOOK as our parliamentary authority that members can study to know their rights. Not opinions that are not part of the book which would create shifting sands of member rights. Please don't assume something is ignored. That presumes an intent which is improper. I have answered that question in many places that I often forget where. Just ask if something is not answered rather than assume avoidance. *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 Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:11 AM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Richard,
So what happens if we nominate a POTUS candidate by an electronic meeting then the delegates in convention subsequently choose to not ratify that candidate and nominate someone else? This is the Libertarian Party, you know.
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-08 11:04, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
I've heard Roberts referenced a lot in terms of no electronic meetings. However, I've never seen anyone with "expert level" knowledge respond to the ratification advisory put out by the folks at Roberts and I may simply missed it. I understand what the rules are and say but everytime they are brought up, I bring up the ratifying change and all discussion on Roberts stops or the ratification argument is ignored. That's not good enough to take it off the table for me.
Please explain, someone, anyone, why Roberts says electronic business can be ratified but that our parliamentarians on this committee seem convinced that the authors of Roberts are wrong. Even in talking with others around the party, inxlluding those in favor of poI want to understand why and how the authors are wrong a little better and am not trying to be a thorn or argumentative.
For reference, I've attached a screenshot of the decision which seems to indicate electronic meeting is ok with ratification this meaning an electronic setting would be acceptable. Someone please answer this directly and leave any other convoluted argument out. This is a very specific question.
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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 00:45 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
And what is being obfuscated is that the issue isn’t over the meaning of “place.” Accepting for sake of argument that it could mean a digital room, absent an express provision allowing for digital conventions they are expressly forbidden.
This is not in question whatsoever, and the bait and switch might distract someone not terribly familiar with RONR but not someone who is.
No amount of lawyering things up changes that.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:13 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Parliamentarians are trained to say, "I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice" when treading near legal-advice territory. Paralegals know to do that also. It seems to me that attorneys also ought to preface with, "I am not a parliamentarian" when they tread in the other direction.
-Alicia
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
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 >> >>> >> >> >> >>
--
*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. *
That does not answer my question or even attempt to and I am happy to go down that rabbit hole once my question is addressed. Again, why is the authoritative opinion from RONR wrong and violates RONR? 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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 08:11 Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote:
Richard,
So what happens if we nominate a POTUS candidate by an electronic meeting then the delegates in convention subsequently choose to not ratify that candidate and nominate someone else? This is the Libertarian Party, you know.
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-08 11:04, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
I've heard Roberts referenced a lot in terms of no electronic meetings. However, I've never seen anyone with "expert level" knowledge respond to the ratification advisory put out by the folks at Roberts and I may simply missed it. I understand what the rules are and say but everytime they are brought up, I bring up the ratifying change and all discussion on Roberts stops or the ratification argument is ignored. That's not good enough to take it off the table for me.
Please explain, someone, anyone, why Roberts says electronic business can be ratified but that our parliamentarians on this committee seem convinced that the authors of Roberts are wrong. Even in talking with others around the party, inxlluding those in favor of poI want to understand why and how the authors are wrong a little better and am not trying to be a thorn or argumentative.
For reference, I've attached a screenshot of the decision which seems to indicate electronic meeting is ok with ratification this meaning an electronic setting would be acceptable. Someone please answer this directly and leave any other convoluted argument out. This is a very specific question.
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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 00:45 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
And what is being obfuscated is that the issue isn’t over the meaning of “place.” Accepting for sake of argument that it could mean a digital room, absent an express provision allowing for digital conventions they are expressly forbidden.
This is not in question whatsoever, and the bait and switch might distract someone not terribly familiar with RONR but not someone who is.
No amount of lawyering things up changes that.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:13 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Parliamentarians are trained to say, "I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice" when treading near legal-advice territory. Paralegals know to do that also. It seems to me that attorneys also ought to preface with, "I am not a parliamentarian" when they tread in the other direction.
-Alicia
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
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 >> >>> >> >> >> >>
--
*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. *
The opinion is not wrong. But it doesn't help us unless you are speaking only of P/VP with a subsequent in person convention because the ratification has to be done at a proper in person convention. that opinion also presumes impossibility of following their bylaws which is not present for us *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 Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:26 AM Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
That does not answer my question or even attempt to and I am happy to go down that rabbit hole once my question is addressed.
Again, why is the authoritative opinion from RONR wrong and violates RONR?
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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 08:11 Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote:
Richard,
So what happens if we nominate a POTUS candidate by an electronic meeting then the delegates in convention subsequently choose to not ratify that candidate and nominate someone else? This is the Libertarian Party, you know.
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-08 11:04, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
I've heard Roberts referenced a lot in terms of no electronic meetings. However, I've never seen anyone with "expert level" knowledge respond to the ratification advisory put out by the folks at Roberts and I may simply missed it. I understand what the rules are and say but everytime they are brought up, I bring up the ratifying change and all discussion on Roberts stops or the ratification argument is ignored. That's not good enough to take it off the table for me.
Please explain, someone, anyone, why Roberts says electronic business can be ratified but that our parliamentarians on this committee seem convinced that the authors of Roberts are wrong. Even in talking with others around the party, inxlluding those in favor of poI want to understand why and how the authors are wrong a little better and am not trying to be a thorn or argumentative.
For reference, I've attached a screenshot of the decision which seems to indicate electronic meeting is ok with ratification this meaning an electronic setting would be acceptable. Someone please answer this directly and leave any other convoluted argument out. This is a very specific question.
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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 00:45 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
And what is being obfuscated is that the issue isn’t over the meaning of “place.” Accepting for sake of argument that it could mean a digital room, absent an express provision allowing for digital conventions they are expressly forbidden.
This is not in question whatsoever, and the bait and switch might distract someone not terribly familiar with RONR but not someone who is.
No amount of lawyering things up changes that.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:13 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Parliamentarians are trained to say, "I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice" when treading near legal-advice territory. Paralegals know to do that also. It seems to me that attorneys also ought to preface with, "I am not a parliamentarian" when they tread in the other direction.
-Alicia
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
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 > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> > > >
--
*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. *
I want to reiterate, my question has been ignored and that does not imply anything other than it has been asked and not answered. Answering elsewhere in places you cannot recall does not mean I was ever answered, until this morning which I appreciate. Why does the provision only apply to P/VP? I don't see limitations in the opinion to that effect. The deleagtion still would come together and ratify all results so what makes those two offices special and different from other offices in this interpretation. Also, my apologies for turning the direction of two threads to this discussion. If someone wanted to separate this into its own thread so that these two can stay on topic, I'd not object. 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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 08:31 Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
The opinion is not wrong. But it doesn't help us unless you are speaking only of P/VP with a subsequent in person convention because the ratification has to be done at a proper in person convention.
that opinion also presumes impossibility of following their bylaws which is not present for us
*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 Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:26 AM Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
That does not answer my question or even attempt to and I am happy to go down that rabbit hole once my question is addressed.
Again, why is the authoritative opinion from RONR wrong and violates RONR?
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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 08:11 Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote:
Richard,
So what happens if we nominate a POTUS candidate by an electronic meeting then the delegates in convention subsequently choose to not ratify that candidate and nominate someone else? This is the Libertarian Party, you know.
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-08 11:04, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
I've heard Roberts referenced a lot in terms of no electronic meetings. However, I've never seen anyone with "expert level" knowledge respond to the ratification advisory put out by the folks at Roberts and I may simply missed it. I understand what the rules are and say but everytime they are brought up, I bring up the ratifying change and all discussion on Roberts stops or the ratification argument is ignored. That's not good enough to take it off the table for me.
Please explain, someone, anyone, why Roberts says electronic business can be ratified but that our parliamentarians on this committee seem convinced that the authors of Roberts are wrong. Even in talking with others around the party, inxlluding those in favor of poI want to understand why and how the authors are wrong a little better and am not trying to be a thorn or argumentative.
For reference, I've attached a screenshot of the decision which seems to indicate electronic meeting is ok with ratification this meaning an electronic setting would be acceptable. Someone please answer this directly and leave any other convoluted argument out. This is a very specific question.
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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 00:45 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
And what is being obfuscated is that the issue isn’t over the meaning of “place.” Accepting for sake of argument that it could mean a digital room, absent an express provision allowing for digital conventions they are expressly forbidden.
This is not in question whatsoever, and the bait and switch might distract someone not terribly familiar with RONR but not someone who is.
No amount of lawyering things up changes that.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:13 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Parliamentarians are trained to say, "I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice" when treading near legal-advice territory. Paralegals know to do that also. It seems to me that attorneys also ought to preface with, "I am not a parliamentarian" when they tread in the other direction.
-Alicia
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 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 > > >> >>> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
--
*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. *
the reason it would only apply to those because those are the only one in which an argument can be made for impossibility. And I am speaking of the bifurcation solution - that opinion does not allow us to do the whole convention online because an in person convention HAS to ratify. The ratification has to take place at an in person convention. tldr; nothing in that opinion allows us to have an entirely online convention as the chair wants *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 Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:44 AM Richard Longstreth <richard.longstreth@lp.org> wrote:
I want to reiterate, my question has been ignored and that does not imply anything other than it has been asked and not answered. Answering elsewhere in places you cannot recall does not mean I was ever answered, until this morning which I appreciate.
Why does the provision only apply to P/VP? I don't see limitations in the opinion to that effect. The deleagtion still would come together and ratify all results so what makes those two offices special and different from other offices in this interpretation.
Also, my apologies for turning the direction of two threads to this discussion. If someone wanted to separate this into its own thread so that these two can stay on topic, I'd not object.
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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 08:31 Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
The opinion is not wrong. But it doesn't help us unless you are speaking only of P/VP with a subsequent in person convention because the ratification has to be done at a proper in person convention.
that opinion also presumes impossibility of following their bylaws which is not present for us
*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 Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:26 AM Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
That does not answer my question or even attempt to and I am happy to go down that rabbit hole once my question is addressed.
Again, why is the authoritative opinion from RONR wrong and violates RONR?
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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 08:11 Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote:
Richard,
So what happens if we nominate a POTUS candidate by an electronic meeting then the delegates in convention subsequently choose to not ratify that candidate and nominate someone else? This is the Libertarian Party, you know.
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-08 11:04, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
I've heard Roberts referenced a lot in terms of no electronic meetings. However, I've never seen anyone with "expert level" knowledge respond to the ratification advisory put out by the folks at Roberts and I may simply missed it. I understand what the rules are and say but everytime they are brought up, I bring up the ratifying change and all discussion on Roberts stops or the ratification argument is ignored. That's not good enough to take it off the table for me.
Please explain, someone, anyone, why Roberts says electronic business can be ratified but that our parliamentarians on this committee seem convinced that the authors of Roberts are wrong. Even in talking with others around the party, inxlluding those in favor of poI want to understand why and how the authors are wrong a little better and am not trying to be a thorn or argumentative.
For reference, I've attached a screenshot of the decision which seems to indicate electronic meeting is ok with ratification this meaning an electronic setting would be acceptable. Someone please answer this directly and leave any other convoluted argument out. This is a very specific question.
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 Fri, May 8, 2020, 00:45 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
And what is being obfuscated is that the issue isn’t over the meaning of “place.” Accepting for sake of argument that it could mean a digital room, absent an express provision allowing for digital conventions they are expressly forbidden.
This is not in question whatsoever, and the bait and switch might distract someone not terribly familiar with RONR but not someone who is.
No amount of lawyering things up changes that.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:13 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Parliamentarians are trained to say, "I am not an attorney, and I am not > giving legal advice" when treading near legal-advice territory. Paralegals > know to do that also. It seems to me that attorneys also ought to preface > with, "I am not a parliamentarian" when they tread in the other direction. > > -Alicia > > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:13 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: > > > 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 > > > >> >>> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
*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. *
participants (11)
-
Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) -
Alicia Mattson -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
john.phillips＠lp.org -
joshua.smith＠lp.org -
Nicholas Sarwark -
Richard Longstreth -
Sam Goldstein -
Steven Nekhaila -
Whitney Bilyeu -
Whitney Bilyeu