[Lnc-business] APRC

Thu Jun 23 12:58:38 EDT 2016

Not all forwards/shares maintain a full history.  People don't have to
forward rejected publications by saying "here's a rejected publication."
 Instead, they can label it "look what trash is coming out of LP HQ."

As for the rogue APRC, you don't need to see rejected items to know if the
APRC is being too lenient; you'd see that from what is released.  If the
APRC is too strict, on the other hand, there are a number of mechanisms to
bring items out anyway.  The main cost of an overly strict APRC is to waste
staff time.  Even if the items don't make it out, that doesn't really
strike me as a quantifiable harm; I don't think there's a right violated if
a message that didn't violate our bylaws, policies, or platform is not
published or submitted.  The same is true, in my opinion, for how we manage
the image in general.  Want to know how the LNC is managing the message?
What comes out will tell you.

The members have the right to know what we're doing - and they do, it's
described in the Policy Manual.  They have the right to tell us to do it
differently.  They have the right to remove us.  Boards and their
committees have rights also - in general, the right to do the job that has
been delegated to them without unnecessary impediments.  The board is
subject to judgment on how it performs, and should be permitted to do the
job it has been asked to do.  For the reasons I've indicated, I think this
is an appropriate use of those rights.

If you disagree, of course, feel free to introduce a motion to amend the
Policy Manual.  Then you won't have to worry about me, since I won't be
able to vote, but I might have a word or two to say in debate.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160623/2266e744/attachment-0002.html>