All: Please find attached a copy of the agenda for this evening's call. I added Mr. Moellman's request regarding the Rules Committee to the agenda. I wanted to express my strong objections to redoing this committee, at this time, in advance of this evening's call (although you will hear it from me again on the call). Before I get into my specific objections, I think everyone needs to understand how we got to where we are today, and some history is in order. My involvement with this party began as its attorney. Specifically, in 2014, I was asked to represent the party in its lawsuit against KET by the Chair at the time, which was Mr. Moellman. And, in strictly a legal capacity, I continued to represent the party in 2016 on some ballot access issues, and in 2015 on the Schickel/Watson campaign finance challenge. In 2016, I joined the party. And, in that year, was involved with interfacing with both Mr. Moellman and Mr. Capano. I went to Orlando and Mr. Moellman helped seat me with the Ohio delegation to the national convention. As you may know, in 2016, Gary Johnson got over 2% of the vote in Kentucky, which gives us ballot access through 2020. In 2017, and maybe in late 2016, I began to hear from Mr. Moellman that LPKY was messed up, and a number of criticisms were lodged, mainly at Mr. Capano (from where I sit today, some of those criticisms were valid, and some not so much). A "Get Stuff Done" caucus was formed by Mr. Moellman. I was recruited, by both "factions" of the party, to sit on the rules committee, with the main focus being a rewrite of our governing documents, mainly with an eye towards complying with state law so we put our candidates on the ballot. I am not proud of this, but at that time, Mr. Moellman pushed for a number of other provisions to be put into the party's constitution. The gist of those changes were essentially to address what he viewed as deficiencies or exploitation by Mr. Capano (or perhaps the rest of the state executive committee). The reason I am not particularly proud of it, was that I had a hand in putting those changed into the governing documents. I did not have the experience with the party, or perhaps the sophistication, to realize the havoc some of those items would cause. But if there was something Mr. Capano did, or was alleged to have done, we got a governing document change or rule to try and deal with it. I have said this before, and I will say it again, and as Libertarians I would hope some would agree with this: you cannot write rules to stop or deter every form of unwanted human behavior. Government tries to do it, with abysmal results. Us doing it internally is no different. The vast majority of those changes, however, were to be reserved for bylaws, which the executive committee would later pass. And, again, by and large, Mr. Moellman pushed for a wide variety of bylaws and by and large, got his way. There were, however, tweaks made in committee, including a series of rules that Mr. Moellman had a complete conniption fit over. With the benefit of perfect hindsight, what I should have done - and the right thing to have done -- was to keep the executive committee completely out of the rules revision process. To leave it to the delegates at state convention to hash things out, with the benefit of transparency and advance notice of changes. After the executive committee passed the bylaws, Mr. Moellman did several disruptive, and in my view, abusive things to the party and its officers at the time - first, he demanded an formal arbitration; and second, he resigned as treasurer. That had the effect of freezing party funds, and tying up Mr. Compton and I throughout the fall of 2017 on the arbitration issue. And, in turn, that made us able to recruit far less candidates than we would have liked in 2018. In fact, those things pretty much killed any momentum we had for the 2018 election cycle coming out of the Gary Johnson 2% ballot access win in 2016. In the meantime, we went into the 2018 convention cycle with a rules committee constitutional revision that literally took the executive committee out of any rules writing process. It also removed from the Constitution several of the problematic things we did in 2017. And so the spin campaign by Mr. Moellman launched itself again. The mantra out there was that the big bad rules committee had usurped members rights (even though the proposal was to do the exact opposite and put all rule items in the hands of the state delegates at convention). And the spin worked, until the presentation of the Rules Committee report, when numerous delegates to the state convention came up to me after the presentation of that report and indicated to me that they had their eyes opened. In any event, there was a stand-off between Mr. Moellman and his proposals, and what I am going to refer to as the Rules Committee report. Harlen Compton, our chair at the time, indicated that he would call a special convention IF, and ONLY IF, there was consensus on the proposals. That got twisted over time to Mr. Compton refusing to honor his promise, because he did not call a special convention. Mind you, there was never consensus. And, in the run up to the 2019 convention, there was even more drama on rules leading into that convention. As a result, we essentially hashed out, on the convention floor, a complete rewrite to the constitution. It was exhausting. We also attempted to do operating rules that conformed to votes taken by delegates on the floor. Part of the issue is that in many cases, people heard one side of the story going into convention, only to find that there was another side. And, invariably, the floor fight and debate had to occur at convention. We had a Rules Committee, with varying viewpoints and so there was discussion and votes. Which was probably a good thing, because it presented multiple sides of issues for delegates to think about and vote on. The focus on rules, in 2017, 2018, and 2019 was exhausting and time consuming, and resource consuming. I know. I was there. And I can flat out tell you it exhausted volunteer hours that, in my opinion, should have gone towards spreading our message and trying to elect our candidates. And so now we have - again -- Mr. Moellman's request to reconstitute the rules committee. I have issues, and objections, with this request on several levels. First, timing: it's the end of June. We have four statewide candidates, and our Governor/Lt. Governor campaign needs help and assistance. We do not have a website up for them. There is general interest, and we aren't (in my opinion) advancing the ball on that front like we need to be. Even more concerning is that we apparently want to direct volunteer hours and resources towards writing rules, instead of working for our candidates. I think a rules cdebate can wait until after election day. I have said it before. I will say it again. There is a cost to this. Here is my biggest concern: next year is our ballot access retention election. If the LP Presidential candidate does not get 2%, we lose ballot access. Our Governor/Lt. Governor race is, in my opinion, the key towards helping to build grassroots support to getting 2%. If we squander precious time between now and then with a Rules Committee, or a Rules Debate, shame on us. And the work people have put in over the last 5-8 years will largely go to waste. It is not worth it. The Rules debate/fight can wait 4 months. Really, it can. Here is my second concern: part of this is my recognition that Mr. Moellman probably has a list of items he wants changed. He has mentioned some of them. However, I recognize that there are people in this party who probably do not want the things changed Mr. Moellman wants changed, and they may have good reasons, perhaps rooted in the history of the party, behind it. This is not meant to be disrespectful to anyone who has been proposed to be added to the Rules Committee, but Mr. Moellman has suggested a Rules Committee, where, in terms of continuity from the last committee, it is him and Mr. Gailey. Without getting into past Rules Committee debates, there were a number of proposals that Mr. Moellman and Mr. Gailey supported, yet other members of the former committee did not. And, as it turns out, our delegates, on the floor, were not in support of a number of those proposals either. He has proposed to add Ms. Randall, who is new to the party (but is certainly invested and I appreciate her excitement) and Mr. Daniel (also invested and involved), who has a similar perspective in terms of being new. And Mr. Cranley, who stepped away from the party for a while, but is now back. The bottom line is that I do not believe people who should be added are being added. And I think that is going to be a problem. My point here is that substantively, this appears to be little more than an attempt to stack a committee with people that Mr. Moellman believes will support his proposals, perhaps at the expense of members who disagree. Whether they do, in fact, support the proposals is another matter altogether. But having a committee that is comprised of one side of a debate, or one faction, seems to me to be highly problematic. There are a number of people in this party who have a different vision and direction than Mr. Moellman, and have been around long enough to deserve to have their voices heard, that are not being proposed to be added. I suggest that is no accident. There is a time, and a place, to have a rules debate. And to make rules committee appointments. I strongly suggest, for the benefit of this party, its success, and our 2020 ballot access retention, that we wait to do this until after this election cycle is over. At that same time, I know of several people who are highly interested in participating. They, like me, want to focus our efforts between now and then on our candidates and outreach, and not rules debates. And look, its not just about Hicks/Cormican. Its also that I have been through this enough to know that there will be some (maybe a lot of) drama that comes out of this proposal and the rules revision process. And I believe that it is best to confine that drama to 4 months from November to March, rather than dragging this party through it all year. I have said my peace. And, maybe I have been around long enough to know what is coming next - expect Mr. Moellman to get the last word in and argue the contrary. He can't help himself. But please count that as proof that I really have been through enough of this to know what is coming. Thanks, talk to you all tonight, Chris 513-257-1895