[Lnc-business] Letter of Censure

Sat Oct 29 13:37:38 EDT 2016

And definitely YES a requirement for National Party membership, which would
then include the NAP Pledge.

-- 
*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 11:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*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/20161029/532fff09/attachment-0002.html>