[Lnc-business] Member input/emails

[Ken Moellman]

I agree with the sentiment about the emails -- the ones I have received
while on this body anyway. Almost every message I've received has been
thoughtful and respectful. And I don't even care about respectful,
necessarily, but there was thought behind it. And that's what I want to
see if someone's trying to open my mind to another perspective. 

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

On 2016-10-23 11:06, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: 

> If it is within libertarian principles and debatable, generally yes. If it is advocating a violation of rights, no. And that is how I present it when speaking to my region. 
> 
> And yes, that is the goal Ken. But I get a lot of member emails now (well not as lot as I would like) and the vast majority are not "loud" but thoughtful. 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
> 
> If a majority of constituents (members) support an issue, would you not expect the person elected to represent those constituents (members) to act accordingly, even if it's against their personal viewpoint on the matter? Or maybe a representative isn't sure which way to go -- communication and information might help tip the balance or even swing someone moderately on one side to the other. 
> 
> The goal for a representative is to filter out the loud voices, and instead listen to all of the voices. 
> 
> And from the other side, the trick to winning issues is winning more people over before the vote is taken. 
> 
> ---
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee 
> 
> On 2016-10-23 08:15, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: 
> 
> This is taking up some of Alicia's points in the email thread regarding Assemblyman Moore that as to do with input from the general membership. 
> 
> ==What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? == 
> 
> I left that statement in as necessary for the greater context but not relevant here. We expect Libertarians to have a conscience in line with Libertarian principles however - which is relevant then as follows, LNC members have the same expectation (I am not implying even remotely that anyone does not, just setting up the context). 
> 
> ==That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends.== 
> 
> Every LNC member has to ultimately vote the way they think they should vote. That has nothing to do with whether or not they receive emails. Emails from members can and SHOULD inform their decision, even if their decision does not change. And the fact is that this an unfair characterization of at least this iteration of the LNC. I do not know for certain what other LNC members do, but I am confident I am the most active at soliticing member involvement. And NOT ONCE was it "staged" (whatever that means) - nor was it organized (LOL) - and nor was it from my "friends." I take a bit of an offense at that. I do not merely represent my "friends" in Region 1 or more remotely, anywhere else in the membership. I believe that would be grossly unethical and wrong. I encourage EVERYONE to write. I have encouraged people to write who's position on me was part of the "throw all the bums out of the LNC" mantra. For reference this is how I generally encourage people (with occasional personal
encouragement in meetings I attend): 
> 
> I have a Regional Representative Website that contains this: http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=11 [1] 
> 
> I maintain a Region 1 FB page here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/252474608447206/ [2] 
> 
> I help admin a general member discussion group on LNC Business here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/LNCBusinessDiscuss/ [3] 
> 
> I have a growing mailing that that I send newsletters to. Examples of the newsletters can be found here: http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=13 [4] 
> 
> In some important issues that directly affect membership, I will make a more specific request to make voices known rather than a general statement. 
> 
> == Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?== 
> 
> This seems to be saying that it is okay to change one's opinion merely because constituents feel a certain way. In which case, then one's mind should be changed by members. But that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am saying that we should be willing to listen to and take members' input into consideration. More on that in a bit. 
> 
> ==If I am not persuaded by a particular argument, I do not find it suddenly more persuasive if it is repeated at a louder volume by having 10 other people email me to repeat the exact same argument.== 
> 
> This is UNINTENTIONALLY insulting to members who write. I have found that most of them offer thoughtful new angles on many items, even if it is around a central theme. I have never found bald repeating of the same argument but often times new insight, or just general encouragements or disapproval. And I have changed my mind by such communications, or changed my approach - perhaps not yet on things we have voted on but certainly on anticipated controversies. It certainly gives me appreciation for what the members are thinking and grateful for the ones who take the time to care enough to write. 
> 
> ==It is even less persuasive when the message I receive says "The Radical Caucus told me I was supposed to email you and say X. So here ya go!"== 
> 
> Alicia, seriously? Please produce an email even remotely like that from this iteration of the LNC. I have NEVER received anything like that. And I find it interesting that you choose to use the "Radical Caucus" as an example since I do not think we have received one email purported to be from them, NOR DO I make pains to represent them specifically although I am a Board Member on that Caucus as disclosed upon my election to the LNC. My Region does not comprise radicals only, and I was not elected to represent the LPRC (or the Youth Caucus or the Pro-Life Caucus, both of which I also belong to). This is the second time in recent history where it was (the first time it was outright stated) that I have some peculiar interest in merely representing the LPRC. Which is incorrect. In fact the members I referenced above that wanted my head were LPRC members. The only caucus I have ever forwarded anything from was the Audacious Caucus - with whom I have sharp disagreement with their tactics
(and I was deeply mortified that they became personally abusive to you - that is not OKAY in any universe and I condemn that) - and who are highly critical of the LPRC in part because we condemn abusive tactics. 
> 
> That was a bit of a ramble, but in fact we do not receive emails like that in any way to make that a fair characterization. And if they occur rarely, it is rarely. 
> 
> ==To change my mind, I need a more persuasive argument, not louder volume.== 
> 
> That insinuates that members do not send persuasive arguments. I received a very thoughtful email opposing my motion to rescind to which I spent a good deal of time responding. And it raised some points that caused me to think. 
> 
> ==If I disagree with an idea, to have someone twist that into an accusation that I disdain the membership...well, that's the sort of campaign rhetoric misrepresentation that makes most of the public hate politics.== 
> 
> Alicia, I have been the one that has taken issue with the multiple comments over the months about member input. I have never said mere disagreement means disdain. I disagree with the membership and my fellow LNC members on many occasions. My issue comes when member input is characterized as merely "louder volume" or "so and so told me to write, so count me as writing." It isn't. Or the one I previously objected to in which because a comment was made that a caucus sending an email was somehow "secret" when the membership list is public, and a question was raised as to whether any might be Republican operatives. It is that kind of thing that I think does not give proper place to our member comments. 
> 
> ==Rounding up lots of people to email the LNC and repeat the same idea we've already heard== 
> 
> It is comments like that which are problematic. Who is "rounding up" and who is telling them what to email and is it really repetition? How do comments like that make the members feel encouraged to write? That is my issue. The only issue that this might be even close to any reality was my motion to rescind, because members rights were being directly and permanently compromised. Going into groups and generally encouraging members to make their voice known is not "rounding up." I want all members and POVs to write, even the ones that think my POV is rotten. 
> 
> == is essentially asking the LNC to do exactly what that this motion would censure John Moore for doing, voting how he thinks his constituents want him to vote as opposed to what he thinks he should do. == 
> 
> Precisely NOT. It is asking for input to make a decision and to know fully what the membership thinks. Further this statement assumes that all input would require that all options be on the table. Nothing could be further from the truth. We operate within the assumption that we will be operating on Libertarian principles. Even if 90% of the membership emailed urging a non-principled again, should we listen. But if there are various options that have principled arguments, we should welcome them. In this case, Moore was urged to use the state to commit aggression through inappropriate usurpation of powers that do not rightly belong to any government in a Libertarian worldview. No matter how many people urge unlibertarian actions, should a Libertarian do it. This argument makes this a zero sum numbers game, and that is not even remotely close to what I have said. 
> 
> I believe we have to be careful in what we say about member input and do so in a way that encourages them to participate in a productive way. I want an LNC culture that does so and that is the motivation for my attempts, as poor as they may be. 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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 [5] 
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [6] 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [7]

 -- 

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 [5] 
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [6] 

 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=11
[2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/252474608447206/
[3] https://www.facebook.com/groups/LNCBusinessDiscuss/
[4] http://www.lncregion1.com/?page_id=13
[5] http://www.lpcolorado.org
[6] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org
[7] http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161023/ec6624d3/attachment-0002.html>