[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] "special access to a large audience to raise a personal profile"

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Fri May 26 15:39:10 EDT 2017


===We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders.===

Yes.  Otherwise with elections only two years apart and us addressing this
well in advance of a year - nearly anything could be taken that way.
Having the position itself also raises public profile.

If it's not really direct electioneering then I don't see any issue.

And I'm still just guessing that this is what was being referred to or if
there is anything else.

-Caryn Ann


On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:40 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all - The understanding that I have is that any LNC member, State
> chair, county chair, or candidate can post to the facebook page as long as
> it passes the APRC and is reasonably in line with the overall strategy of
> cutting government. In the past, we have essentially begged candidates for
> content that relates to downsizing government, or candidate events, or
> whatever else.
>
> If this is the case, then I strongly encourage all those in the above
> categories to send posts as often as they are able.
>
> If that is not the case, then I would like to make a motion to make it the
> case.
>
> We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders. I
> would love it if people were arguing about Ms. Mattson's latest speech,
> rather than thinking about Rand Paul's. The fact is, our internal officers
> fill that role right now. We don't have elected senators. I hope that
> changes, and when it does, I will work to raise their profiles as well.
>
> Anyway, I await input on whether my understanding is correct, or if I
> should make a motion to make it correct.
>
> -Arvin
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes Starchild, it was exactly that sort of thing I mean.
>>
>> Now... there is absolutely nothing wrong or against the rules.  It is
>> allowed.  *Just like it is allowed for Arvin as VC to post on FB as
>> allowed by the Chair.*
>>
>> But certainly - and this came to mind long before this discussion - along
>> with member comments - persons seeking LNC office probably should not be
>> allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage
>> time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to
>> seen as an authority.
>>
>> *But right now it is allowed* and as it is allowed, all qualified people
>> should seek those roles no matter what.  But I do think that it is a
>> consideration in the future that it not be allowed.
>>
>> So to bring around full circle, Arvin is posted as delegated by the Chair
>> - and if the Chair needs to revisit that, it is his prerogative
>> (particularly if he is concerned about what kinds of posts are run), and
>> should not be used as an argument to take control from bottom-up volunteers
>> who passionately love their work to put in on an over-burdened staff.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>      The secretary appears to be speaking from experience:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/last-call-for-lp-platform-committee-survey/
>>>
>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>                                   ((( starchild )))
>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>                         RealReform at earthlink.net
>>>                                (415) 625-FREE
>>>                                  @StarchildSF
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
>>> Sent: May 25, 2017 5:58 PM
>>> To: Libertarian National Committee list
>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have
>>> staff manage social media
>>>
>>> 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*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "lncvotes" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170526/6e56550f/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list