[Lnc-business] Chair's Proposed Agenda - LNC Meeting December 10-11, 2016
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Fri Dec 2 11:46:20 EST 2016
As a warning, I don't have all that much time right now to debate by email,
and I am mostly inclined to wait to debate until next weekend. However,
this is a direct question, so I feel I should answer it.
I admit to being a bit puzzled by this question. It sounds to me like
asking a quarterback why he'd want to call a play, rather than just going
out on the field and waiting for someone to run where he doesn't want them
to. Strategic thinking is pro-active, it's not about waiting for a crisis
but rather crafting a comprehensive strategy for its own sake.
To be clear, I think strategic thinking is valuable even if crises never
emerge. I think a motion like this would be baffling to people outside
this organization simply because they'd be surprised that there is no
strategy set by the board and communicated to staff. However, proceeding
like this, in addition to being suboptimal (and, I'd add, not all that
transparent - if those elected by the membership do not provide such
guidance, the matter is mostly delegated to unelected staff, and the
members are never privy to discussions about the topic), does produce
crises.
Here are some examples. In the last term, at the very first meeting (in
VA, at the Marriott, by the way), a fair amount of time was spent on the
LNC being angry about an urgent-gram. Now, remember that the way we decide
how to present the party is, essentially, to tell staff "have at it," while
5 LNC members check for rules violations, which is an entirely different
matter from strategic thinking. So what was the complaint? Well, we
needed money, and staff had done something that is rather effective for
raising money, but LNC members felt it looked bad. Why not convey that
feeling to staff ahead of a problem, rather than waiting and then
criticizing? A comprehensive messaging strategy could, if the LNC wanted
it to, include some direction about portraying the party as successful and
wanting to build on that success when raising funds, rather than as in dire
straits. Staff could then apply their skills within that instruction. I
see no benefit to failing to give guidance to staff and then yelling at
them later. This is not the way healthy boards function, it's not a
healthy way to interact with staff, and it is, in my view, an abandonment
of the board's responsibility to engage in long-time-horizon, high-level,
strategic thinking.
Or another example - the LNC was once up in arms over a meme suggesting
that people vote for Libertarians rather than the sons of one-time
Libertarians who had long before returned to the Republican Party. The
meme violated no rules, and the LNC hadn't given the social media team any
guidance or directions as to how to portray the party when doing social
media. There would be no reason to suspect that the LNC would be outraged,
just as there would be no reason to suspect that the LNC would be outraged
by an urgent-gram. With a strategy in place, the question is simpler -
either the image we wish to portray is advanced by such a comparison, or it
is not. If we do not have direction from the top, and are instead flying
blind, we instead get pointless arguments - pointless in the sense that
they don't change things moving forward - from time to time.
Strategic guidance from the LNC avoids these issues, while allowing staff
and volunteers not to tread on eggshells. It removes the LNC from a
reactive pose, randomly being outraged by individual communications (from
which, presumably, staff and volunteers could divine some pattern) and
instead would put us in the position of giving high-level guidance and
checking in from time to time.
This link may provide some more information about how I'm visualizing the
role of the board, although I do not subscribe fully to what it describes
(and our bylaws call for a somewhat different board-staff relationship than
it is designed for): http://www.policygovernance.com/pg-np.htm
Joshua A. Katz
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:25 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:
> Joshua,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your explanation of hypothetical LNC messaging issues that
> could be addressed by a messaging committee. Can you be more specific on
> any actual current messaging issues that would necessitate the creation of
> a committee as opposed to LNC proper dealing with messaging issues directly
> as they come up?
>
>
>
> If there are no current LNC messaging issues, I suggest that the LNC
> proper deal with the next actual messaging concern. If we are unable to
> satisfactorily resolve the concern, then we can consider your messaging
> committee suggestion. Why create a committee for a problem that may not
> exist? If there is no immediate LNC messaging concern, is the real intent
> to influence the direction of LNC messaging without the direct involvement
> of the LNC?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *Libertarians – We Stand For FREEDOM, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
>
>
>
> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO,
> ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee
>
> Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee
>
> Board Member and Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>
> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>
> Office: 402-222-7207 <(402)%20222-7207>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Starchild
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 01, 2016 9:18 AM
>
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Chair's Proposed Agenda - LNC Meeting
> December 10-11, 2016
>
>
>
> All of that makes sense to me, Joshua.
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2016, at 7:00 AM, Joshua Katz wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks for asking. Short answer: I envision the committee making a
> recommendation to the LNC. I agree with my colleague from Colorado that a
> comprehensive messaging strategy is a board-level decision, but I often
> think board-level decisions can be aided by asking a small committee to do
> research and report, with the decision reserved to the board.
>
>
>
> There was also a question about my intent. This is my second term, in
> some capacity, on the LNC. It's also my second term on the APRC. Based on
> that small degree of experience, it seems to me that the LNC has, to a
> large extent, not taken all that much of a position on questions like "how
> do we wish to present ourselves to the world?" Instead, we've left it to
> staff with no real direction, and then occasionally said "you're doing it
> wrong." I think it is better to provide overall guidance and instructions,
> followed by accountability, rather than trying to exercise governance by
> looking at progress on a daily basis.
>
>
>
> I'd like us to be able to ask questions on a quarterly basis like "Are our
> communications presenting the party as we've instructed?" "Has there been
> an impact on X?" "Do we need to adjust our strategy?" I think this would
> be better than periodically freaking out over a FB meme or an urgent-gram.
>
>
>
> Direct, assess, hold accountable. Have a core idea of how we'd like to be
> presented that is known ahead of time, not arising from rejections. This
> would enable this board to focus on large objectives. When we do not have
> such things in place, the tendency is to micro-manage, because that becomes
> the only way we can exert control.
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Actually I meant the net content after your suggested amendment David, if
> you were being serious about that.
>
>
>
> But now that you mention it, I'm not super clear on what Joshua had in
> mind for a hypothetical messaging strategy committee to do either. Would
> you envision this committee having any powers beyond recommending a
> messaging strategy to the LNC, Joshua? If not, I guess I wouldn't have a
> problem with appointing some people to brainstorm on the subject, so long
> as they operated transparently and allowed LP members to participate in
> their conversations.
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2016, at 6:10 AM, David Demarest wrote:
>
>
>
> Ditto Starchild on the content, and, just as important, the *intent*…
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *Libertarianism - Leader Humility, Transparancy, Principle Before Party*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO,
> ND, NE, WI)
>
>
>
> *From:* Starchild [mailto:sfdreamer at earthlink.net]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 01, 2016 7:33 AM
> *To:* David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
> *Cc:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org; david.demarest at firstdata.com; 'Caryn Ann
> Harlos' <carynannharlos at gmail.com>; 'Joshua Katz' <
> planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Chair's Proposed Agenda - LNC Meeting
> December 10-11, 2016
>
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand the net content of what's being
> proposed.
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2016, at 4:03 AM, David Demarest wrote:
>
>
>
> Starchild, I echo your “more serious note” thought. I would suggest
> amending the phrase as follows: “*transparency* messaging strategy”.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *Libertarianism - Leader Humility, Transparancy, Principle Before Party*
>
>
>
> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO,
> ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee
>
> Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee
>
> Board Member and Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>
> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>
> Office: 402-222-7207 <(402)%20222-7207>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
> <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Starchild
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 01, 2016 4:59 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Chair's Proposed Agenda - LNC Meeting
> December 10-11, 2016
>
>
>
> It may be a committee of one, but that won't necessarily stop
> it from expanding if it consumes a lot of BBQ meat at the LNC meeting. :-)
>
>
>
> On a more serious note – what Caryn Ann said about messaging
> strategy.
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2016, at 6:11 PM, Sam Goldstein wrote:
>
>
>
> Mr Hayes is clearly jealous that he does not get his own committee.
>
>
>
> Sam (Committee of one)
>
>
> Sam Goldstein
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> Member at Large
>
> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>
> Indianapolis IN 46260
>
> 317-850-0726 <(317)%20850-0726> Phone
>
> 317-582-1773 <(317)%20582-1773> Fax
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
> I must object. The Sam Committee is clearly out of order!
>
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
>
> LNChili At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2016, at 7:53 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann, I will cosponsor your Sam Committee proposal - J
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
> <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2016 1:08 PM
> *To:* Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Chair's Proposed Agenda - LNC Meeting
> December 10-11, 2016
>
>
>
> I am seeking to propose the Sam Committee.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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 Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Sam Goldstein <
> goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you guys keep proposing new committees we might have to expand
>
> the LNC just to fill all of them.
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
> Sam Goldstein
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> Member at Large
>
> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>
> Indianapolis IN 46260
>
> 317-850-0726 <(317)%20850-0726> Phone
>
> 317-582-1773 <(317)%20582-1773> Fax
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joshua, as I am sure you can anticipate, I am not at all in favour of a
> committee to come up with messaging strategy. If there is one thing that
> the LNC must be able to do on its own and take command of, its that. With
> the (I believe completely inappropriate) messaging agenda without explicit
> LNC approval involved in the new website, I will look with a jaundiced eye
> at shunting that to a committee. And evenmoreso if that committee is
> cloaked in secrecy. Members have a vested interest in seeing that we are
> proper stewards of the Statement of Principles. THAT is our message, and
> thus, any "strategy" about it must be in full sunshine.
>
> --
>
> *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 Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Well, I can live with it, and I apologize for being unclear, but my intent
> was not to have a freewheelin' discussion about messaging strategy, or to
> discuss a messaging strategy at all, to be honest. Instead, my intent was
> to introduce a motion to appoint a committee to come up with one. I would
> ask, if possible, if it can be moved from the lunch to new business without
> previous notice. 5 minutes can suffice.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I've attached a draft proposed agenda for the meeting on December 10
> and 11. I've made efforts to accommodate all requests for time I've
> received and still have the meeting fit within the time available.
> Please let me know if there are requests I've missed or changes you
> would suggest.
>
> Yours truly,
> Nick
>
> <Untitled attachment 03009.txt>
>
>
>
> <Untitled attachment 03271.txt>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161202/d509580a/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list