[Lnc-business] Letter of Censure

Sat Oct 29 13:37:05 EDT 2016

David, a suggestion has been floated around in several groups about an
agreement or contract with the any prospective recipients.  I think that is
a great idea.  After all, our giving funds is not a "right' it is a
privilege.  This is great groundwork for the Candidate Support Committee
(and another argument for it to be transparent).

-- 
*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/>

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 9:23 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> Caryn, I agree that “We serve, not rule” is an appropriate guideline to
> discourage any incipient authoritarian leanings on the LNC.
>
>
>
> I also like Starchild’s question: “Do [Audacious] caucus members have any
> practical advice for reforming our leadership culture or practices to avoid
> repeating this sort of mistake?”
>
>
>
> I am comfortable with “Audacious” if it represents constructive criticism
> backed up by constructive suggestions rather than just “easy for you to
> say” close-minded Libertarian cheap-shot complaining that identifies
> problems but gets nothing done. I am confident that the Audacious folks
> will step up to the plate with constructive input, solutions and
> implementation action at some point.
>
>
>
> Has Assemblyman Moore weighed in yet to explain his actions? I remain
> committed to a YES vote on the motion to censure but would like to hear
> from John Moore first if he is so inclined.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!*
>
>
>
> *The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of
> Government!*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> 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:* Friday, October 28, 2016 7:51 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Cc:* Audacious Caucus <beaudaciouslp at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Letter of Censure
>
>
>
> 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 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>
> 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
> (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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*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/20161029/23d3069e/attachment-0002.html>