[Lnc-business] APRC

Thu Jun 23 12:41:40 EDT 2016

Joshua,

===Consider the case where the APRC turns down a publication.  We're
saying, in effect "we don't want this to be put out in the name of the
party."  The APRC is the way the LNC exercises its obligation to control
what is said in our name.  Now, suppose that the proposed publication,
together with APRC deliberations, were made public.  The publication we
said we don't want to go out in our name, would be out to the public,
forwarded and shared as much as desired, with our name stamped on it.  In
effect, making the APRC discussion public has the impact of saying we can't
turn down anything from being said in our name.  ==

That does not follow at all.  It actually would have it going out as
explicitly not being in our name...  don't the members have a right to see
how we are controlling messaging? Or should they?

I sat down and thought of possible reasons this policy might be good--- and
one reason was that perhaps making it public would have a chilling effect
on some APRC members disapproving items.  If it were known that a
publication (let's keep using that example) were turned down but it was
from a well known libertarian, then this could be used to damage and split
the party, so the APRC member may make some cost-benefit calculations on
turning it down based upon weaponized public use that doesn't really have
anything to do with the APRC in turning it down.  That does concern me.

But contrary-wise, the members I think need to know how we are controlling
messaging... a rouge APRC could be inappropriately excluding items or be
too lenient.  The first item has a check and balance of the Chair (but
members still should have a right to judge the discretion of the Chair) but
the second item has little check or balance.

==The employer-employee part I take to mean if, say, some employee were
consistently having their proposed publications shot down by the APRC, they
wouldn't want that information known to the world.  ==

I do  not find this to be enough to invoke an employer-employee
confidentiality burden.  I can envision a case in which it would be
appropriate to be secret in which something was not submitted for approval
(either rightly or wrongly), an employee put something out there, and it
had to be clawed back... there could be some disciplinary issues there that
would have a need to be confidential.

In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative
(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I could be wrong, but I've always thought of it this way:
>
> Consider the case where the APRC turns down a publication.  We're saying,
> in effect "we don't want this to be put out in the name of the party."  The
> APRC is the way the LNC exercises its obligation to control what is said in
> our name.  Now, suppose that the proposed publication, together with APRC
> deliberations, were made public.  The publication we said we don't want to
> go out in our name, would be out to the public, forwarded and shared as
> much as desired, with our name stamped on it.  In effect, making the APRC
> discussion public has the impact of saying we can't turn down anything from
> being said in our name.
>
> The employer-employee part I take to mean if, say, some employee were
> consistently having their proposed publications shot down by the APRC, they
> wouldn't want that information known to the world.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, I have a few questions.  First of all, I am very grateful to have
>> been appointed to that Committee as I am enjoying it very much and keeps me
>> on my toes.
>>
>> My question though has to do with its secrecy.  Now that I have
>> participated a bit to have a grasp of what it is that we do, I am not sure
>> I understand the justification for its deliberations and discussions to be
>> secret.
>>
>> In reviewing the Policy Manual it categorizes the discussions as sounding
>> in employer-employee confidentiality, but I don't see how that is the broad
>> case.  I can imagine a situation in which that might arise, but why make
>> the whole thing secret for a circumstance that would be rare... which seems
>> to me to be like making all LNC meetings secret because a legal matter
>> might come up.... instead we wall off the truly confidential matters.
>>
>> I am not saying I am opposed to it being secret, but I am saying that I
>> am not sure I understand the necessity and justification and would like to
>> know what it is.  I believe in openness and transparency to the extent
>> possible that will not actively harm the organization.
>>
>> Realistically there are probably two oddballs like me in the whole Party
>> that would actually read the whole thing.  But that shouldn't stop us from
>> removing the veil from things that do not need to be.  And I think secrecy
>> policies should be re-evaluated regularly.
>>
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Region 1 Representative
>> (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>> Washington)
>> Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative
(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160623/dea7a65d/attachment-0002.html>