[Lnc-business] APRC

Thu Jun 23 13:35:24 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."  ==

That doesn't even at all seem remotely plausible.  By that count, someone
could take one of our personal emails and do that.  And such a claim could
be easily rebutted.

==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.==

You couldn't see if some APRC members objected and were ignored or
hand-waved away.  You wouldn't know if things were getting released simply
because the APRC never bothered to vet... i.e. they were AWOL.

  ==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.==

There sure is!  Particularly if we are talking about candidates.  LP sites
is prime real estate and to not get things published is a harm to those
candidates (I am sure I can come up with other examples).

==  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.  ==

No it really doesn't, because not knowing what was rejected, and the
discussion that takes place is not given.  You cannot always reverse
engineer thought processes from final product.

==The members have the right to know what we're doing - and they do, it's
described in the Policy Manual.  ==

This sounds like all the arguments to keep the LNC Business List private.
And thank goodness, that is not the case.

==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. ==

I do not see members' seeing what we are doing as an "impediment."  That is
what I am trying to determine.... what is it that we are legitimately
trying to keep secret.  I am not one of those entirely against secret
committees or meetings.  I fully agree with the way Executive Session is
being currently used. I am trying to find out if this is one of those kinds
of cases.

== 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.  ==

You really haven't IMHO other than to say, well we *can* write rules (yes
we can) and they can *vote the bums out* (yes they can) but I think as
libertarians, we should want to promote as much transparency in our
governance model as we would like to see that government do unless we have
some compelling organizational reason not to.  I am trying to find this
compelling organizational reason.

==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.==

I have no desire to do anything half-cocked so I am trying to find out the
rationale.  I made certain promises to those who supported me, such as to
support transparency wherever possible, and I intend to keep that promise.
And I am perfectly willing to be convinced that such is the case here.  I
came up with a credible reason for secrecy that I find compelling... I am
not sure if it is enough.

Perhaps I will introduce such a motion but I have a lot of due diligence in
research to do first.. and this is the first step.

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

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160623/451b6258/attachment-0002.html>