[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun Oct 30 23:57:20 EDT 2016 

I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal
of my reasoning as emotional.  It is not and that is a simplistic way to
dismiss principled objection.

Yes horrified.  And I expect members will be too.  And at your attempt to
dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard.



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





On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ken.moellman at lpky.org');>> wrote:

> Horrified?  I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion,
> without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those
> charged with the management of a national political party.
>
> This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple
> members of this committee voted before all the facts were in.  Members
> were, in fact, encouraged to do so.  The members "can always change their
> vote".  Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well
> known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same
> reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the
> human mind to admit it was wrong.
>
> A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on
> information and analysis.  At a minimum, a better series of events might
> have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including
> speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set
> 10-day timer.
>
> I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a
> decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what
> is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that
> the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the
> long-term.
>
> Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in
> my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going
> to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours.  I only hope that every
> member considers the long-term over the immediate.
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist
> theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can
> ALWAYS seem that way.  It seems like we should just jettison the Statement
> of Principles now.  It isn't selling presently in Peoria.  And THAT is how
> the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to
> true liberty.
>
> So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances
> because anything else will be suicide.
>
> That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what
> the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give
> voice to the Statement of Principles is at.
>
> Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on
> that, we stand for nothing.  I am absolutely horrified at the implications
> of what you saying.
>
> --
> *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
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we
>> out doing something about it?  What did this body do?  What did its members
>> do?  Jack squat.  Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump
>> on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't.  Wow.  How courageous
>> and principled of us.
>>
>> If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then
>> we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip.
>>
>> If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste
>> of time.  Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least
>> then I can get a tax break for my donation.
>>
>>
>> That's pretty much where I'm at on it.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>>
>> We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy.
>>
>>
>> Daniel Hayes
>> LNC At Large Member
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>>
>> If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded
>> elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency,
>> then we are a doomed organization.
>>
>> If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus,
>> then I apologize.
>>
>> Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> Ken,
>>
>> I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly
>> because that is how you treated it.  If you didn't wish to be seen that
>> way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as
>> asking about "spankings."
>>
>> You further mischaracterized a statement of mine.  I did not defend the
>> LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered
>> the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by
>> stating there was certainly that.  The consideration may have been dead
>> wrong, but it was there.  Please do not miscast my statements.
>>
>> And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his
>> constituents?  Yes.  When it is committing state aggression and expanding
>> government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a
>> private interest? *Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes.*
>> With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most
>> certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death
>> of libertarian principle if consistently applied.  I am glad to stand
>> against.
>>
>> The comparison to Oregon is ill placed.  Some members of Oregon asked us
>> to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is
>> absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that
>> WE gave money.  This has been made clear many times. And as to your
>> ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way,
>> yes the LNC should be censured by members.  The assertion of the "No True
>> Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any
>> definitional characteristics of Libertarianism.  Wow.  That is a fallacious
>> use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly
>> definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics
>> definitional.  A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland.  According to your
>> use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head.  Unless
>> funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?
>>
>> As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members.  That is
>> all we should care about.  I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans,
>> trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard.
>> --
>> *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
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fellow colleagues,
>>>
>>> I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in
>>> my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.
>>>
>>> It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an
>>> incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a
>>> decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.
>>>
>>> I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the
>>> sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some
>>> others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings
>>> against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore,
>>> sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and
>>> reviewed those notes repeatedly.
>>>
>>> With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region
>>> 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do
>>> so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.
>>>
>>> Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was,
>>> and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based
>>> on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider
>>> this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local
>>> entities should have control of their own local area.
>>>
>>> I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though
>>> the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a
>>> bit more clear.
>>>
>>> I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV
>>> was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against
>>> taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in
>>> his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in
>>> his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over
>>> 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through
>>> sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the
>>> outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for
>>> this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a
>>> political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in
>>> his district apparently approve of the project.  (Side note: I knew about
>>> the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's
>>> confidential email.)
>>>
>>> Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no"
>>> anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of
>>> it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what
>>> drove me back into politics in 2005.
>>>
>>> Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on
>>> these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to
>>> say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the
>>> election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.
>>>
>>> Should we take our failings public in a very visible way?  Are we
>>> telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"?  What are the optics
>>> here?
>>>
>>>    - Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for
>>>    not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward
>>>    a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP?
>>>    - Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian
>>>    Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be
>>>    representing?
>>>
>>>
>>> In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are
>>> these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was
>>> discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good
>>> defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and
>>> analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he
>>> wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a
>>> rational and functional human being.
>>>
>>> We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.
>>>
>>>    - In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial
>>>    support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with
>>>    those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway.
>>>    - In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these
>>>    bills.
>>>
>>>
>>> We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of
>>> this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of
>>> this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best
>>> interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out
>>> based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or
>>> externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its
>>> own members, or to accomplish something positive?
>>>
>>> Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be
>>> accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?
>>>
>>> Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion
>>> would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others?
>>> Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2
>>> Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of
>>> the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an
>>> active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly
>>> vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are)
>>> pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves
>>> up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and
>>> cripples this party?
>>>
>>> So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it
>>> downright scary.
>>>
>>> What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly
>>> focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization,
>>> rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more
>>> of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?
>>>
>>> Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official
>>> request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made
>>> this request.  Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the
>>> LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, in sum, I find as follows:
>>>
>>>    - I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote.
>>>    - I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support
>>>    our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes.
>>>    - I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally
>>>    within the party, but are horrible outside the party.
>>>    - I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good
>>>    rather than accomplishing something positive.
>>>    - I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective
>>>    action to try to prevent this from happening in the future.
>>>    - I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not
>>>    warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement.
>>>    - Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to
>>>    the long-term health of this organization.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay. *If you
>>> disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go
>>> back to the beginning.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>>
>>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at
>>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time. *
>>> *Co-Sponsors:*  Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein,
>>> Redpath
>>>
>>> *Motion:*
>>>
>>> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in
>>> January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during
>>> the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to
>>> raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops"
>>> tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far
>>> successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to
>>> finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others,
>>> indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and
>>>
>>> Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have
>>> rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and
>>>
>>> Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while
>>> we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who
>>> decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do
>>> not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue
>>> voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;
>>>
>>> Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby
>>> censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax
>>> increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which
>>> the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward
>>> be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party
>>> with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.
>>> -Alicia
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *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
>> <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
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> 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
> 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/20161030/7b5e8e5d/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list