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

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Mon Oct 31 09:05:20 EDT 2016 

And Ken, if you think what happens on the list is the extent of the
information-gathering of people, you are sadly mistaken.  You presume a
great deal.

-- 
*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 Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> A search of my email shows the discussion began on 10/20 at 8:45PM Eastern
> Time, with the request for co-sponsors. The number of required cosponsored
> was reached on 10/21 at 4:01AM Eastern Time. The email ballot was created
> on 10/22 at 1:20AM Eastern Time.
>
> Screenshots attached.
>
> Ken
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-10-31 06:34, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>
> Ken,
> Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some
> emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't
> think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this
> conclusion.  Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions
> surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion.
>
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
> From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not
> information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.
>
> Motion made 10/21
> Ballot created 10/22
> Multiple votes cast 10/22
> Important information provided 10/30
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> 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> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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/20161031/5a8252b5/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list