[Lnc-business] Compiling agenda for July 17 meeting

Sun Jul 3 18:27:28 EDT 2016

Caryn,

I am not saying that the LNC made the wrong decision, nor am I saying that it made the right decision. It made a valid decision. The LNC had several options available to it and simply preferred that particular method at that particular point in time.  Any one of those options are allowed under our rules. I wouldn’t paint the outcome as being right or wrong in any case.

Had the LNC chose instead to fill those three vacancies in the same manner that the JC had done, should we then argue that it would be a precedent for the rest of the term and that our filling the next vacancy using different criteria would mean that our first decision must have been wrong? Of course not. These types of decisions are based on people’s assessments of facts and circumstances, not some underlying principle.

We are going to come across other decisions during this term where we have leeway to choose a method, any of which are valid.  For example, we may create a committee and instruct the LNC Chair to populate it.  That won’t preclude us from later creating another committee where the LNC selects the members.  The fact that we use a different method later does not make the first decision wrong, inappropriate or disturbing.  It was simply the LNC’s preference at that time and it can be based on any reason. They are all valid, even if that reason is convenience or expediency. 

You are putting forth your preference, and that’s fine. But that’s all it is … a preference; and it is no less valid than any other preference.  The fact that we agreed with your preference the first time is not binding on any of us for all time or even for the remainder of this term. My preference is that we give others the opportunity to apply to fill the vacancy. We may wind up with an applicant who did not previously run and who can contribute significant value. For example, if Richard Winger were to throw his hat in the ring, I would give his candidacy serious consideration. 

There are choices to be made with trade-offs and different members of this body have different assessments of the value of those trade-offs. We are elected to this body to make decisions. If others on this body don’t want to give others the opportunity to apply, that’s also a valid decision; and while I might disagree with that decision if that were the outcome, I wouldn’t find that in any way disconcerting.

Aaron Starr

(805) 583-3308 Home

(805) 404-8693 Mobile

starrcpa at gmail.com

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2016 1:05 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Compiling agenda for July 17 meeting

Aaron,

==Different LNCs have handled vacancies in various ways over time, so I place no value to precedent here. ==

Yet it is *this LNC*'s precedence that is being referred to.  Less than two months ago.  Not another LNC,and not over time.

== Both positions have legitimate arguments and I don’t have a strong opinion either way.==

Agreed.  But one of those was the position of this present group.  I do think the JC reasonable in coming to their decision.  But that is not the one we came to.

==In my opinion, expediency seemed to be the main driver of the recent LNC decision. After a long convention there was pressure to come to an immediate decision and, unlike the JC, we had pending business before us and did not want to conduct it while being short by three people.== 

As someone who voted on that decision, expediency wasn't a driver of my decision whatsoever.  This is a situation entirely of our own making (I am using that as meaning the organization where the buck stops - the LNC - where it was not assured - by us - that the delegates had time to properly vote.)  People ran for these positions.  Delegates voted.

While I do not think that the LNC choosing is per se wrong-- in fact we have that explicit authority-- I find the deviation from our method of less than two months ago deeply disturbing.  If this is the right thing to do, then our prior three appointments were done wrong, and because we were "tired."  Well it is our job to operate well when tired or stressed.  I don't believe we made the wrong decision before, and I believe it is still the right decision today.

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa at gmail.com> wrote:

Different LNCs have handled vacancies in various ways over time, so I place no value to precedent here.  Recently, the Judicial Committee took the position that anyone who ran and did not receive a majority was an indication that they were rejected by the convention, so they chose people who did not run. In contrast, the Libertarian National Committee recently took the position that support by some – though less than a majority – was a sufficient indicator of acceptance, so they chose the next ranking individuals. Both bodies came to opposite conclusions based on the identical scenario.  Both positions have legitimate arguments and I don’t have a strong opinion either way.

In my opinion, expediency seemed to be the main driver of the recent LNC decision. After a long convention there was pressure to come to an immediate decision and, unlike the JC, we had pending business before us and did not want to conduct it while being short by three people. 

That is no longer the environment. I suggest we open up the application process to anyone interested in serving. With only one vacancy we can operate reasonably well, and can afford to go through a recruitment and interviewing process to find the one who can contribute the most to our organization’s future. And if after going through that process that person turns out to be the next ranking vote recipient from the convention, that’s fine with me.

Aaron Starr

(805) 583-3308 <tel:%28805%29%20583-3308>  Home

(805) 404-8693 <tel:%28805%29%20404-8693>  Mobile

starrcpa at gmail.com

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2016 8:25 AM
To: ken.moellman at lpky.org
Cc: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Compiling agenda for July 17 meeting

It is a matter of time and precedent.  The fact is that Dr Feldman himself was appointed in this manner.  We are not even one meeting out.  If this is illegitimate then the three seats filled in this way are- including Dr Feldman.

Because we did not give the delegates and candidates what they deserved to have - full opportunity to vote- then we are in the position basically of treating it like ranked choice - and that fault is on is.

These people cared enough to run.  No one else did.

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> 

On Sunday, July 3, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:

Question: when does "the precedent" stop?  What percentage approval is too low?  

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-07-03 10:52, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

We used this method just over a month ago to seat two of our present members.  I strongly urge considering that not even one meeting has passed that we be consistent and use that method in this time.  While definitely imperfect it measures two thing:  the wishes of the delegates and the fact that these persons cared enough to run for the position.  This early from the convention, I would be highly reluctant to vote for someone who had not previously run.  Why not?  These people did run, and the fact is that we do not know the ultimate preferences of the delegates since they were (utterly unfairly in my mind) denied the chance for subsequent ballots.  The next in line candidates are close in number to ones we have seated, and if that was legitimate (and it passed), this is legitimate. I see absolutely no reason not to follow the precedent we set just over a month ago.  If more time had passed, then yes.  And are there issues with our current system?  Yes (though I would solve them differently than Ken suggested... maybe).  But that is a rabbit trail that is neither here nor there to issue before us. 

We have a precedent.  If we torpedo it now, we basically are saying the two seats we filled already in that manner we wrong.  

I object to polling the delegates after the fact as it gives the potential candidates another potential opportunity "to run" and if we are going to do that, it should be open to anyone.  And then we are doing convention via email.

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

I'm with Ken in strongly preferring Instant Runoff Voting, and strongly agree we should ditch Approval Voting. 

As for what to do in the meantime, I think we should poll the 2016 Convention Delegates. We presumably have email addresses for most if not all of them. I believe most of them would rather be asked their opinion, than have the LNC just filling its own vacancies unilaterally. 

Love & Liberty,

                                                 ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (2016-2018)

                                      RealReform at earthlink.net

                                               (415) 625-FREE

On Jul 3, 2016, at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman wrote:

I personally do not feel like just going down the list of people is actually appropriate, given how approval voting actually works. Our bylaws specifically state "The top five candidates receiving a majority vote of the ballots cast shall be elected. Tie votes affecting the outcome shall be decided by lot." (emphasis added).

If the body follows "the precedent", we're literally under 1/3rd convention body approval for the next candidate in line.  I do not know the person personally, and don't mean this to be any sort of personal attack or anything. My concern is that there's a real possibility that given a 1/3rd approval that up to 2/3rds would disapprove; mathematically, it becomes more and more likely that we'd be selecting someone that the convention body actually wouldn't approve of. This "next person in line" methodology fails without being able to track preference.

Given that candidate preference cannot be tracked using Approval Voting, I'm not sure that there's a real mechanism to select someone in accordance with the actual wishes of the convention body. And if we continue this precedent, it's going to break Approval Voting entirely anyway as people begin using strategic bulleted voting more and more.

I very much think we need to switch to another system - I personally prefer Instant Runoff - so we have definitive winners and clear convention body preference for runners-up in the future.

For this and all subsequent vacancies, I suggest a thoughtful deliberation on the appointment and not just an automatic "next in line" strategic, so long as Approval Voting is in place.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-07-03 08:46, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

That is in fact my strong preference as well.  The convention just happened.  The delegates and candidates who cared to run and put effort into it (some of them actively campaigning) were give short shrift, and this rankles me even now.  The only metric we have of their preference is these votes. 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Alicia.  I know the Chair is planning to place the At Large opening on the agenda for the next LNC meeting.  Since I will be  

unable to attend, I'd prefer to address this matter in an e-mail ballot following discussion and nominations.

Our precedent is to look to the At Large voting at the convention and to take the delegate's stated preferences to heart when filling

vacancies of this nature.

Live Free,

Sam Goldstein 

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

Will we be publishing something to advertise the vacancy and invite applicants?

-Alicia

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

Dear All,

I'm putting together a proposed agenda for the July 17 meeting in Las
Vegas.  I am already planning to include time for discussion of
filling the At-Large vacancy created by Dr. Feldman's death,
population of the Audit Committee, and discussion of creating a
national reregistration week (at the request of Mr. Somes).

If you have other items that you would like to add to the proposed
agenda, please email me with a description and the amount of time you
would like on the agenda.  As a reminder, we will only be having a
one-day meeting in Las Vegas, so we will need to be efficient with our
time.  To that end, we will have a working lunch brought in so as to
avoid losing committee members for that time.

Yours in liberty,
Nick

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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

_______________________________________________
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, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> 

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> 

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160703/6078a8ca/attachment-0002.html>