[Lnc-business] APRC

Thu Jun 23 20:48:38 EDT 2016

Arvin, you give some excellent reasons and that is exactly what I was
looking for.  Thank you.  I hope you don't mind me interacting a bit.

==There are some strategic reasons. First, APRC often sees press releases,
posts, etc. that are scheduled in advance for a critical time. ==

That is an excellent point.  But our policy manual says that the
deliberations are secret due to employer-employee confidences.... which is
not that.

==We might not want socialist statists knowing what we're planning and
when. I mean, it is a pretty fascinating coincidence that house Democrats
pulled a publicity stunt right at the Town Hall time, which actually
blocked a replay from making it to CNN.==

Excellent point, see above.

==Another strategic issue: there is no reason to give ammo to opponents
when APRC members disagree on something. Those quotes, easily taken out of
context, could be an issue.==

As could anything from this list, and in fact, from what I understand that
is what was argued in trying to keep this list private.  That isn't a
compelling reason IMHO.  Members deserve to know when APRC members disagree
on something.

==I support LNC transparency in general, but I think a completely
transparent APRC would hurt us. Note that everything approve is still seen
by everyone, so it doesn't stay hidden.==

Yet our members do not know if there was a dissenting voice that was unduly
quashed.

== And when we disapprove, people complain enough that it still doesn't
stay hidden.==

That doesn't make sense to me... the rationale still says hidden, and
again, members deserve to know if a dissenting voice was unduly quashed.

I see strategic reasons for the first item and support secrecy on that
until such time that the press release etc has gone out.  A secrecy sunset
period would solve that issue.

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

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

> There are some strategic reasons. First, APRC often sees press releases,
> posts, etc. that are scheduled in advance for a critical time. We might not
> want socialist statists knowing what we're planning and when. I mean, it is
> a pretty fascinating coincidence that house Democrats pulled a publicity
> stunt right at the Town Hall time, which actually blocked a replay from
> making it to CNN.
>
> Another strategic issue: there is no reason to give ammo to opponents when
> APRC members disagree on something. Those quotes, easily taken out of
> context, could be an issue.
>
> I support LNC transparency in general, but I think a completely
> transparent APRC would hurt us. Note that everything approve is still seen
> by everyone, so it doesn't stay hidden. And when we disapprove, people
> complain enough that it still doesn't stay hidden.
>
> -Arvin
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos 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."  ==
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Arvin Vohra
>
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c45e5cb7/attachment-0002.html>