[Lnc-business] Letter of Censure

Sun Oct 30 09:18:53 EDT 2016

I agree with Caryn and Starchild. The mere request for secrecy in the
context of the motion to censure, short of being held hostage by statists,
raises a red flag and suggests just more political chicanery typical of our
compulsory authoritarian majority rule.

Unless Assemblyman Moore's documents are released without a secrecy
requirement within the next day or so, I will vote YES on the brute-force
motion to censure.

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
Starchild
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 11:50 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Letter of Censure

            I share Caryn's sentiments. While as I said, I can imagine
circumstances in which such secrecy might be reasonable and I would seek to
uphold it, I did not say I considered such circumstances to be likely, in
fact quite the opposite.

Love & Liberty,

                                  ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                               (415) 625-FREE

                                 @StarchildSF

On Oct 29, 2016, at 9:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Our members are holding us accountable for this decision and the reasons for
public votes should be public.  I will not agree to such secrecy.  Our
politicians must be publicly accountable.

-- 

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 <mailto: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 10:29 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net
<mailto:sfdreamer at earthlink.net> > wrote:

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
<mailto:dpdemarest at centurylink.net> >
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org> ; 'Caryn Ann
Harlos' <carynannharlos at gmail.com <mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com> > 
Cc: david.demarest at firstdata.com <mailto:david.demarest at firstdata.com> ;
'Audacious Caucus' <beaudaciouslp at gmail.com <mailto: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 <tel:402-981-6469> 

Home: 402-493-0873 <tel:402-493-0873> 

Office: 402-222-7207 <tel:402-222-7207> 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
<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 <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
Cc: Audacious Caucus <beaudaciouslp at gmail.com
<mailto: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
<mailto:John.Moore at asm.state.nv.us>  or (702) 482-7676
<tel:%28702%29%20482-7676> .

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
<mailto: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 <http://www.votevohra.com/> 
VoteVohra at gmail.com <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> 
(301) 320-3634 <tel:%28301%29%20320-3634> 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
<mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org

Communications Director,  <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Libertarian Party of
Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator,  <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> Libertarian
Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.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 <mailto: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/> 

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto: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/20161030/2cd8aa55/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 00186.txt
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161030/2cd8aa55/attachment-0002.txt>