LNC Credential Committee Removal – Discussion Thread
From: Todd Hagopian
What is the reason that Jessica Tewksbury is being removed, against her will, from this committee?
From: LP Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos
I am not going to discuss a volunteer in public. I have been to the meetings and have made my own judgment about whether we are being represented well. In my opinion, not. I understand you may disagree. That is all I am going to say on the matter though anyone can speak to me privately. My phone number is public.
———————–
From: Adrian Malagon
Having attended the meeting earlier tonight and seeing some of the correspondence for weeks, I concur; hence the motion.
—————————-
From: Todd Hagopian
Is there video/audio of the latest meeting?
————————–
From: Todd Hagopian
Moving the debate back to the debate thread, where it belongs. My stance here is simple. A vast majority of this board came to the defense of the last person who the LNC successfully removed from their position, against their will, with nothing more than “trust us, but we cannot tell you why”.
I wrote letters to the LNC, spoke up during public comment at meetings, and rallied the troops to rise up against secret trials (or worse yet, no trials at all)
Now, we seemingly are doing the same thing to one of our hard-working volunteers. This is a very authoritarian look, and this LNC (just like previous LNCs) has not earned the right to say “trust us, we know what’s best”.
—————————–
From: Todd Hagopian
Given the email from the credentials committee chair saying that Ms. Tewksbury’s involuntary removal would be a mistake, and that Ms. Graham did not request to be removed, I am urging the committee to vote down all three motions.
————————–
With his permission, I have included some comments from Joshua Hlavka, our Credentials Chair.
We have to start listening to the membership, especially when we have entrusted those people to run important committees for this body. All three of these motions need to be defeated
————————-
Credential Chair’s comments on Tewksbury:
She has volunteered numerous times to take on tasks, assist other committee members with assignments. and has been a amazing voice of reason during disputes or debates among the committee. Jessica is valuable asset to this committee and to regulate her to a third alternate, while within your rights as the LNC who appoints us, would be highly disappointing.
Credential Chair’s comments on Malagon:
I do remember that part of the requirement to being considered for the Credentials Committee was a commitment to attend the National Convention in DC. I also remember having to attest to this fact when being considered for the committee myself. Has Mr. Malagon had a change of heart, and travel plans, to be attending the Convention?
Credential Chair’s comments on Graham:
I believe Ms. Graham may have been misrepresented here. Ms. Graham, while the LNC First Alternate, is also the the PA Rep on the committee. Ms. Graham’s statement that is being used here was to say that in the event of needing to fill a missing LNC Rep position due to absence, she would defer to Mr. Peterson, the LNC Second Alternate. This would be done so as not to create the appearance of the PA delegation having a unreasonable balance on the committee, as Ms. Graham’s PA alternate would fill in for her, and we have another LPPA member appointed by the LNC on the committee. I do not believe that Ms. Graham requested this motion, and I find it disappointing we would try to use a committee member’s discretion against them.
——————————–
From: LP Secretary
Ms. Graham is excellent and I never said she asked for the motion but that it’s a result. I dispute so much of the rest and again, welcome phone calls of which I’ve had many and everyone whom I did understood my point of view. My offer remains.
We are 9 days out.
We must do something.
I’m not into this drama. And am not going to be.
——————————-
From – LP Secretary
———————————
I do feel I need to add a little here. Our appointees serve at our pleasure. That is how committees work. I did invite phone calls for my reasons, but it is our job to make sure our appointees are representing the interests of the Party as we see them. I understand people have different opinions on this but all this discussion of “against will” and the like do not belong. Our appointees serve at the will of the committee and should be open to feedback of the LNC. I have paid close attention and support these motions as I do not feel like the LNC is being properly represented. That is my opinion. I respect others can disagree. And one of those interests is in the rules being followed, which I understand is not everyone’s favorite pastime with no malice. I believe Adrian is best precisely because he has a strong personality – yes, one that can go over the line (but last night things got really over the line and I am grateful, no matter who likes it or not, that Adrian jumped in as my face was getting bit off when I said and did nothing to provoke it). If you were not there, you do not know. It is my observation that there needs to be a balance of strong personalities on the CC and Adrian would bring that counter balance. Just as there needs to be the quiet strong worker bees which the committee also has in spades – and I apologize if my critigues were made like I was just saying no one is doing anything etc, nothing could be farther from from the truth). I too have a strong personality, but I am not a good choice for a primary seat because I have voluntarily conflicted myself out on the Michigan dispute and would even leave the “room” during it. This is not some witch trial for or against someone but what I believe to be best for the credentialling process with my STRONG BIAS being that all rightfully elected and appointed delegates be seated no matter who they are, but any that were not, should be omitted from the credentials report. I believe it is in the interest of the LNC to have appointees who hold that value. Everyone pays good money to be there and has the RIGHT to be assured that all are following not only by the national bylaws but their own rules. That is the contract we Libertarians in this voluntary association have with each other.
I will say that it is somewhat…. And I don’t know the right word, so fill it in because I can’t, for so much interest just when a solution is brought but none, not even inquisitive prods over months, while I have been spending every waking moment living this stuff. Call me elitist, but I do think putting in the time and putting in the work is necessary not just dropping in to have an opinion. I know that will not be popular. Okay. It is my opinion.
I also don’t like it being insinuated that I am doing some wrong to Ms. Graham. I adore her. She is a fantastically hard worker and personally fascinating individual. But I did not misrepresent her position. If an LNC seat was vacant, she would remain in her PA seat and yield to the second alternate. In each and every case. And that is admirable and I respect it, but then we really do not have a first alternate. That is all I was saying, and yes, that comports with her stated desire to put her Pennsylvania appointment first. I had believed that if she had to step in, then her PA alternate would step in for her but I respect she believes that would be too much PA representation. I don’t hold that position, but I respect she does. So she is First Alternate in name only – that is all my motion said, and I would like us to have at least two, preferably three actual alternates.
That is my position, and I don’t recognize the caricature that has been made here. But yes I do have a position, clearly, and it is stated above. The eyes of the world will be upon us, and we absolutely need a lot of discipline to get there. Again, I invite personal calls if desired. I will keep track of votes and the like, but I am stepping away from the LNC list. Please ping me if there is something urgent.
