[Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage social media

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Thu May 25 20:58:22 EDT 2017


Alicia,

==A post does not have to say "vote for me at convention" to effectively be
gaining special access to a large audience to raise a personal profile.==

But can you please give specifics?  This apparently got missed by the APRC
and I am not picking up what you are laying down... I am still baffled.
Can you please give a few specifics?

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

> This strikes me as an "Afghanistan attacked us, so let's attack Iraq" type
> of motion. This would:
>
> 1. Not have prevented me or anyone else from speaking bluntly on any topic
> on personal social media.
>
> 2. Not have prevented the first or third "satanic post", which were
> directly authorized by the chair.
>
> However, this would have the effect of:
>
> 1. Massively hampering major social media outlets, as Trent Somes and Matt
> Geiger explained during the Pittsburgh meeting.
>
> As we evaluate our overall strategy, I would strongly recommend looking at
> the initial strategies that later, predictably lead to bad reactions.
> Specifically, the outlandish assumption that the LP should be doing
> outreach primarily to the most pro-establishment, pro-status quo,
> pro-government groups on the planet needs to be allowed to die. That method
> makes no sense.
>
> I know that those are the "most likely people to vote", but they are
> specifically the most likely people to vote for the ruling parties. I
> strongly encourage the LNC and state parties to, in addition to outreach to
> public school teachers and religious conservatives, also at least consider
> outreach to the rapidly growing, unapologetically anti-establishment groups
> that have already rejected establishment norms and values.
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Arvin
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just went back through the scheduling list too and see nothing in the
>> past or in the future list that is promotion (or could be reasonably
>> construed as promotion) of a person for internal party office.  Examples
>> are needed - particularly so that the APRC can be made aware.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If it comes to a vote, I will oppose for the same reasons I did in
>>> Pittsburgh.  What I have found so disconcerting about the discussions that
>>> sometimes take place on this list is that what appears to be about one
>>> thing is often about something else.  It is such when a partner gets really
>>> mad for the toilet seat being left up and a huge row ensues.  But it isn’t
>>> really about the toilet seat.
>>>
>>> But I digress, since I was alluded to without being referred to, in
>>> critical terms, a volunteer did leave after an interaction I was with said
>>> volunteer (keeping personal details to a minimum purposefully).  There no
>>> intention to “drive anyone away” and a misunderstood FB discussion or even
>>> a poorly done one on my part in one instance, in which tensions were
>>> already really high, does not negate any of my prior points about
>>> volunteers and I think everyone knows that.  I don’t think all is fair in
>>> love and war and I find this to be a pretty cheap shot.  I doubt it is news
>>> to anyone here that I am not perfect.  If it is, consider yourself
>>> informed.  Follow me long enough, and I will provide ample evidence.
>>>
>>> I would also add there iIS review process.  The APRC who is aware of the
>>> policies noted above.  Now obviously there was a hole  in the process that
>>> allowed that other post to go through.  It was a perfect storm in which
>>> circumstances all converged that don’t require a nuclear option.  And there
>>> are less disruptive ways to fix which the Review Committee will recommend I
>>> am quite confident.   And they may in fact recommend this course.  We don’t
>>> know.  This option was rejected at our last meeting in favour of the
>>> committee.
>>>
>>> But one thing did draw my attention, because I am genuinely curious and
>>> I believe the policy quoted a good one, and if something has ran afoul of
>>> that and escaped the review of the APRC - the correct route would be to
>>> bring it to the APRC IMHO - that is the procedure already in place.  And
>>> judging from Whitney’s post, I am not the only APRC member who is
>>> completely puzzled and blindsided by this assertion made first here.  I
>>> think examples are apropos - I am truly curious what posts seem to
>>> promoting or could seem to be promoting an internal party candidate?  I
>>> would like to see if the APRC agrees with that assessment and would modify
>>> its review accordingly and accept that this was missed.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal
>>>> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next
>>>> convention."
>>>>
>>>> Are you referring to things that showcase the efforts of individuals?
>>>> And are you saying that such showcasing is meant as campaign fodder to
>>>> promote said individual for internal office? In looking at the next 24
>>>> scheduled FB posts (scheduled over 6 days), I don't see anything that fits
>>>> such a description, but I will certainly be on alert for such things.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree that the APRC doesn't have the time to review everything in
>>>> advance. I am on the APRC, and I do have the time. While it is not just my
>>>> responsibility, I do need to be more vigilant with regard to the FB queue,
>>>> but I trust that my fellow APRC members, more adept at FB, are supporting
>>>> that effort. We are aware of the recent misstep, and it is being addressed.
>>>>
>>>> I spoke against the driving out of staff or other volunteers by
>>>> 'leaders' in the design group at the last LNC meeting, and I strongly
>>>> oppose such actions. I am under the impression that was addressed by our
>>>> Chairman. I also note that at least two if the individuals who were driven
>>>> out, are back in business, and making things happen in there :).
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I think this motion is unnecessary at this time.
>>>>
>>>> Whitney Bilyeu
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy Manual
>>>>> Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as administrators of,
>>>>> serve as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s social media
>>>>> accounts. Volunteer content creators may submit content for approval.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the LNC meeting there was majority support for the motion to both
>>>>> do the above and also to create a committee to review our social media
>>>>> processes.  I could have supported it, but if we know what we need to do to
>>>>> fix the problem, why spend the time to have a committee study it first?
>>>>> Just fix it.  I thought there was majority support for the other motion to
>>>>> simply turn control of our social media back over to staff.  Turns out that
>>>>> I was mistaken, and one person was not willing to turn control back over to
>>>>> staff without the creation of the committee, so then the other motion
>>>>> failed.  Because I misread the room, an option that actually had majority
>>>>> support didn't pass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that we have separately created the committee, I want to go back
>>>>> and re-visit turning control back over to our staff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that the motion welcomes volunteers to submit material.
>>>>> It does not eliminate their opportunity to contribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to add some details to the discussion we had in Pittsburgh,
>>>>> with two Facebook PR blow-ups on our minds at the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster.  Granted it was
>>>>> not on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was posted to, the
>>>>> person's party position was touted right there in the sidebar, and we took
>>>>> a lot of damage from it.  The Convention Oversight Committee lost two very
>>>>> valuable volunteers over this latest disaster -- volunteers who did a lot
>>>>> of work for us in Orlando and were again helping for New Orleans.  Gone.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no group votes before volunteers post on the party's FB.
>>>>> One person puts it into the schedule, and unless someone else sees it and
>>>>> objects, it goes public.  We publish so much material that the APRC doesn't
>>>>> always have time to review everything in advance.  Though the group has an
>>>>> informal rule against people posting their own material, people sometimes
>>>>> do it anyway.  The comments about the military could easily have been
>>>>> posted on our page.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a very recent incident in which a new volunteer was driven
>>>>> to quit on the same day she joined for the crime of suggesting that we post
>>>>> more positive material and less negative material.  I don't want to hear
>>>>> that the LNC giving final control to staff is somehow disrespecting the
>>>>> work of the volunteers, when that new volunteer's desire to contribute was
>>>>> so summarily disrespected.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have some important policies that I don't believe the volunteers
>>>>> have even been informed about, and volunteers are not really accountable
>>>>> for following policies in the same way that our staff is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Policy Manual Section 2.09.6:
>>>>>
>>>>> Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services
>>>>> for any candidate for party office unless:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - such information or services are available and announced on an
>>>>>       equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that
>>>>>       office, or
>>>>>       - such information or services are generally available and
>>>>>       announced to all party member
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all party members have access to post on our Facebook page.  Not
>>>>> all candidates for internal party office are offered the chance to post on
>>>>> our Facebook page.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal
>>>>> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next
>>>>> convention.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a time in the past when staff established criteria to try to
>>>>> manage application of this policy, with criteria for what constituted
>>>>> "news" or "earned media" that involved a candidate, etc.  I don't believe
>>>>> there is any such attention to his policy right now for our social media.
>>>>> Some candidates have already declared.  The closer we get to a national
>>>>> convention, the more these posts will be perceived as self-promotion that
>>>>> unfairly isn't available to their opponents.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'm asking for co-sponsors for this motion, to return final
>>>>> decision power to our staff, who are expected to know and follow our
>>>>> policies, and who are accountable to the LNC.  The volunteer groups can
>>>>> continue to generate material just like they do now, but staff would
>>>>> schedule the actual posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Social Media Process Review Committee comes back to us with
>>>>> suggestions for reasonable ways to manage this later, we can amend this
>>>>> policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> -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 <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>
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> *We defend your rights*
>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *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>
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> *We defend your rights*
>> *And oppose the use of force*
>> *Taxation is theft*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Arvin Vohra
>
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170525/a3d5940a/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list