[Lnc-business] Letter of Censure
Starchild
sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Sun Oct 30 00:29:06 EDT 2016
Tim,
What were John's specific words (in writing if he put them in writing) or if orally, to the best of your recollection, regarding this request for secrecy and his reasons for it?
I am requesting the document. As will probably come as no surprise to anyone reading this familiar with my positions, I am highly skeptical of any supposed need for secrecy here, but can hypothetically imagine a situation in which it might be reasonable and warranted (e.g. one of John's family members was kidnapped and threatened with death if John did not cast the votes in question and refrain from going public about his reasons for doing so, and the family member is still being held hostage).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
(415) 625-FREE
@StarchildSF
On Oct 29, 2016, at 6:27 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:
> I received a statement from John Moore today. He considers it to be a confidential document to be shared only with the Libertarian National Committee. I will respect his requisition to not disseminate the contents outside of the LNC, and will forward the document to LNC members who request it.
>
> Tim Hagan
>
>
>
>
> From: David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org; 'Caryn Ann Harlos' <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> Cc: david.demarest at firstdata.com; 'Audacious Caucus' <beaudaciouslp at gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 8:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Letter of Censure
>
> 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
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 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/20161029/371d045e/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list