[Lnc-business] Functional and transparent committees

Tue Jul 26 08:31:47 EDT 2016

I am sympathetic to both Caryn’s and Ken’s positions. Rules are important but we don’t want to get bogged down in authoritarian bureaucracy. I suggest confining rules to action prohibitions, NAP as a simple example, and reserving actionable social contract “rules”, the Golden Rule as a simple example, for philosophical statements of purpose and guidelines.

Action prohibition rules are typically simple in nature, limited in number and relatively easy to enforce whereas the sky is the limit on actionable social contracts. We can wisely choose individually and collectively which actionable social contracts we can make effective use of without getting mired in the quicksand of authoritarian bureaucracy.

POLITICIANS are for TODAY – INTELLECTUALS are for the AGES!

~David Pratt Demarest

Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

DPDemarest at centurylink.net <mailto:DPDemarest at centurylink.net>  

David.Demarest at firstdata.com <mailto:David.Demarest at firstdata.com> 

Cell:      402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:06 PM
To: ken.moellman at lpky.org
Cc: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Functional and transparent committees

There is nothing magical about considering it in December.  Consideration is exactly what I am proposing.

I fail to see the relevance of the anarchists comment.  Statism isn't bad because they have rules.  It is bad because it has involuntary rights-violative rules.  

Rules are not per se bad.  Voluntary rules and agreements (contracts) are the only way voluntary societies can work.  

Having committees not subject to the same transparency of the LNC is a flaw in our rules.  A rather large one.

How about rather than wondering if the PM is too long we ask the members if they prefer transparency?  I have yet to receive a negative response to this question other than allowing for the potential for executive session or specific exemption - to which I agree.  Do Region 3 members feel otherwise?  My sense of Region 1 is that they favour transparency and I don't think we are atypical.   (Fwiw I think our PM is too short - but I have never been a fan of the brevity caucus in any form- as evidenced by my 41 page Regional Report)

This seems to me to not be dealing with the merits or lack of merits  of the change itself.

It needs consideration - agreed.  That is the goal of my discussion initiation.

On Monday, July 25, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ken.moellman at lpky.org');> > wrote:

I think there's plenty of opportunity to hammer out issues, pass motions, and whatnot.  However, when we start talking about changing the Policy Manual, a document that stands as living proof that the only group with more rules than statists are anarchists, I think it's prudent to consider the matter before adding yet another rule to something only slightly shorter than a Dostoyevsky novel.  I mean, there are governments with fewer rules than what's in that monster. Seriously.

ken

---

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

On 2016-07-25 21:41, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Ken I want to quickly give committees such power (but let me be clear - it is not just spending that propels me to want transparency).  We just empowered ASC with this and our Chair suggested we might want to entertain a Candidate support committee  - this cannot wait in my view.

Our reluctance to only take up things more than four times a year  baffles and frustrates me. I couldn't imagine the LPCO functioning properly that way - much less the LNC.

Why wait?  

On Monday, July 25, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman at lpky.org> > wrote:

As the chair of a committee with no such empowerment, I would note that if there's concern, then perhaps committees shouldn't be given spending power until it is resolved. Alternately, perhaps the policy manual addition should only initially apply to committees with the ability to spend.

ken

On 2016-07-25 21:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

My intent is to try to hash out via email and propose for a Sept meeting if we can't agree via email.  

On Monday, July 25, 2016, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net <mailto:sfdreamer at earthlink.net> > wrote:

I agree there's no reason to wait half a year. Getting functional committees should be a high priority, in my opinion. We've got plenty of time to discuss the issue via email, or at an online meeting in September.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                       RealReform at earthlink.net <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> 

                                (415) 625-FREE

On Jul 25, 2016, at 6:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I would like to try to get this in place sooner.  We are empowering committees to spend money - we need transparency.  Dec is- IMHO- too late.  

On Monday, July 25, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman at lpky.org> > wrote:

Well, I have input on the subject that I'd like to discuss it at the DC meeting. So I guess both go hand-in-hand. :)

---

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

On 2016-07-25 20:49, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Now that everyone has come alive - could I persuade discussion on my committee transparency email thread?

On Monday, July 25, 2016, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com <mailto:goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> > wrote:

Since we are doing the party's business I have no problem with spending members contributions to conduct our meetings in a space designed for that purpose.  LNC members spend their own money and use their valuable time for these meetings and to take us to also 

contribute to paying for meeting space is the height of absurdity.

If certain members object to the practice then I suggest they resign from the committee so as not to violate their principles.

Sam

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 Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman at lpky.org> > wrote:

While I enjoy being outside, I must concur with Mr. Bittner. It might be a little chilly and windy in December for an outdoor meeting in DC.

Now, if we're meeting by a pool in Orlando, or on the beach in Tampa, well...  I'm in!

---

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

On 2016-07-25 20:20, Brett Bittner wrote:

Based on my experiences since moving north from Georgia, it might be a bit chilly to meet outside in December in Alexandria/the DC area.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative 

 <http://lp.org/> Libertarian National Committee

brett.bittner at lp.org <mailto:brett.bittner at lp.org> 

317.699.2611 <tel:317.699.2611> 

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net <mailto:sfdreamer at earthlink.net> > wrote:

It would be nice to be out in the fresh air, and wouldn't waste hundreds of dollars of our supporters' money that could be going toward outreach instead. When people came over and asked what we were doing, it would be an opportunity for staff or observers to give them some literature and turn them on to libertarianism and the LP. But I realize that some of you value comfort and dignity more than saving the party money or advancing the cause of freedom, so I'm willing to compromise and meet in a back room at a restaurant or something. Personally I oppose paying for meeting space when it is unnecessary to do so unless LNC members are willing to spend their own money on it. 

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                       RealReform at earthlink.net <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> 

                                (415) 625-FREE

On Jul 25, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Sam Goldstein wrote:

The Alexandria meetings have been at the Residence Inn Alexandria at 1456 Duke St.  It is about 2 blocks from the LP office.  That is no guarantee that we will have it there again.   Starchild might prefer to stage the meeting on the National Mall. 

Sam Goldstein 

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 <tel:317-850-0726>  Phone

317-582-1773 <tel:317-582-1773>  Fax

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com <mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com> > wrote:

Do we know what hotel the next meeting will be at?  
-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos