[Lnc-business] Letter of Censure

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I must disagree with the sentiments of my colleague Ken who seemed to find
the whole idea silly.  I must commend Arvin in his character to step up and
say yes there is an important point here.

It was I who suggested that members and caucuses express their disapproval.


I disagree with "some" of the sentiments in the letter but fully support
the idea to do so.

While not caring one bit for the old parties, i don't find the "slime"
comment constructive. Most of us come from somewhere and are not second
generation Libertarians.  I for instance was put in a very public facing
role with the LPCO (though under supervision) when I was three months out
from being a Republican.

I wish to welcome persons who to become Libertarians and don't find that
rhetoric helpful.

And while simply calling the LNC names might be fun, it isn't particularly
constructive.  And it isn't constructive to miscast events.  We didn't
simply roll Alicia's multi-sided die. There was discussion and analysis.
And while one is certainly free to disagree with the conclusions, it is
wildly inaccurate to say there was no one iota (great word) of caution.
That is just political rhetoric, fun as that might be. When persons switch
in high profile positions there are gambles on both sides. And gambles are
inherently risky but must be taken and when a loss incurred - recognized-
as the current Motion to Censure does.

In any event - I'm glad to see members exercising their rights and
opinions.  If they wish any constructive feedback - when a piece of writing
is produced one must consider their goals.  Does one really want serious
consideration by the body? Just to shock?  Just to be insulting?  Each of
those goals has its place.  But they are often mutually exclusive and this
one, as worded, seems to fall squarely in one quadrant, and that is, to me,
disappointing as my desire is to see a real flow of information and
feedback beyeeen the LNC and its members.  While we are indeed in servant
leadership - we are still volunteers and perhaps I am being too
pie-in-the-sky but I believe a truly bottom up feedback loop also includes
treating each other with dignity and respect.  And while I believe that no
matter how membership communicates, it is our duty to respond with
civility- it is helpful for party business and complaints to be conducted
with a certain level of personal decorum.  I know some people think it is
"audacious" to ignore such niceties.  Well then that is certainly a
different goal - and it isn't one of persuasion.

However personally satisfying it is to be belligerent - be it by making
one's letter unfortunately easier to dismiss by its tone since it doesn't
seem to take itself seriously (I realize that making a Harambe to
the Federal Court in my civil rights lawsuit isn't likely to persuade
anyone)  - or by actually dismissing it as some of my colleagues have done
- none of that accomplishes anything.

I am grateful members are watching us.  In this instance - I am aware that
an expression of "who cares?" was raised when it was pointed out to this
group that the LNC has made corrective action in the pending Motion to
Censure.  That is very unfortunate and the lack of mention or encouragement
of that pending action does suggest a lack of commitment to a fully fair
review.  And that takes away from its potential effect.  Persons will often
take constructive feedback if they feel it is balanced and fair.  The lack
of mention of the entire story in the missive, unfortunately, indicated
otherwise.

But colleagues - members are not happy and we do well to listen and
consider.  We serve, not rule.



On Friday, October 28, 2016, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Thank you to the members of the Audacious Caucus for having the audacity
> to send us this resolution.  :-)   Florid language aside, I can't argue
> with the basic sentiment either – although I realize that as part of the
> minority who voted against the expenditure, I leave myself open to the
> "easy for you to say" charge.
>
> Since we are still in the process of considering the practical extent of
> our own collective disappointment as a body with John Moore's votes and
> your caucus appears to be a step ahead of us, I would recommend that you go
> ahead and convey your disappointment to him directly rather than waiting on
> us, if you do not consider making this resolution public to have already
> achieved that effect. According to Nevada state government info I found
> online, he can be reached at John.Moore at asm.state.nv.us
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','John.Moore at asm.state.nv.us');> or (702)
> 482-7676.
>
> Do caucus members have any practical advice for reforming our leadership
> culture or practices to avoid repeating this sort of mistake?
>
> Love & Liberty,
>                                       ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                                    (415) 625-FREE
>                                      @StarchildSF
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
>
> Sadly, I agree. We should have done this better, and will, I hope, do
> better in the future. -Arvin
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Audacious Caucus <beaudaciouslp at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','beaudaciouslp at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> With 22 in favor, 1 opposed, and 2 abstaining, the following resolution
>> was passed by the Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus:
>>
>> *For trusting a Republican still dripping with old party slime,*
>> *For giving away $10,000 without even verifying his membership,*
>> *For thinking somebody who hadn't pledged the NAP would stand up for it
>> under pressure,*
>> *For totally neglecting to exercise one iota of caution much less the
>> abundance demanded here,*
>> *For being complete fiduciary nincompoops, and most importantly,*
>> *For not unanimously voting against the expenditure in the first place,*
>> *The Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus hereby censures the Libertarian
>> National Committee,*
>> *and asks you to convey our deep disappointment to Assemblyman John Moore
>> for failing miserably at his one job, for bringing shame upon himself, our
>> party, and our governing body, and for being the man who pulled the trigger
>> on an armed robbery that is now in progress along with an invoice for
>> $10,000 due upon receipt.*
>>
>> Additionally, "Taxation is Theft" and "Justice for Harambe" received 4
>> and 3 votes respectively.
>>
>> --
>> *Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus*
>> FB/TW: @LPAudacious
>>
>> "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution." - Emma Goldman
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Arvin Vohra
>
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','VoteVohra at gmail.com');>
> (301) 320-3634
>
>
>

-- 
*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/20161028/e2c8f1f8/attachment-0002.html>