[Lnc-business] Compiling agenda for July 17 meeting

Sun Jul 3 19:00:39 EDT 2016

Aaron,

==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.==

I understand the distinction you are making, but I don't agree it applies
here.  If it is valid, and the reasons for it were valid, there is no
reason for it not to be valid here (and preferable amongst competing
options), and for us to take the reigns of this away from delegates who
voted and candidates who chose to run because we were bad planners for the
party elections (everything else went awesome, and I hesitate to be
negative at all to our convention volunteers - from what I understand this
type of thing is a recurrent problem and should have been solved a long
time ago but I digress).  Nothing has significantly changed from a mere 6
weeks or so ago to make another avenue better.  And while you may not be
saying right or wrong, some of the other comments implied it.  So I am
casting my argument net wide.  I appreciate that you were the only one to
make an argument *why *it is different this time... i.e. rushed, tired,
expedient.  I can only say that absolutely was not the case for my decision
as one of the members who voted.  So from my perspective nothing is
different.  If we had four seats to fill then, we would have done it the
same way.  Now is the fourth.  And this is the way that the very seat we
are looking at was filled.

== 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.==

My opinion of rightness or wrongness isn't based on our rules. Technically
we could hold our breaths and say whoever can hold it the longest gets to
choose the next person.  That would be "right" under our rules, but "wrong"
on other principles.  I am arguing based on other factors.

 ==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.==

This isn't the rest of the term, this is a mere six weeks out to replace
someone who tragically never even got to attend a meeting (rest in peace
Dr. Feldman).  I find no compelling reason to do things differently, and I
think we are in fact not honouring the reasons we did it that way then if
we do it differently now, and in fact, saying we did it wrong then.  With
the passage of time, there ARE other reasons.  That isn't the case.  We
haven't even had one meeting.  And anyone else not on that list (perhaps we
would choose someone else on that list that didn't score as high) is
picking someone who didn't care to run a mere six weeks ago over and above
people who showed the dedication to serve our Party this term by putting
themselves out there.

I am going to skip the rest that deals with things that may happen later in
our term as I think I addressed that.  Except for this:

==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.==

I will disagree vehemently here.  I would hope that we never base weighty
decisions on convenience or expediency.  And yes, I personally deny the
right (not under our rules, but under principle) for the LNC to have
preferences based "on any reason."  I believe our members have the right to
expect certain principled reasons.  I concede that others may have
principled arguments against this - and that is what will sway me.

I, for the record, did not vote the way I did for expediency, convenience,
or for any other reason than I thought it the principled thing to do.  The
very fact that we had to do that and did not give these candidates and the
delegates the opportunity to decide this for themselves in the proper way
is the problem.

*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 4:27 PM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 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 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 <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 <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 <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/20160703/929ac933/attachment-0002.html>