[Lnc-business] a past-chair's directive about APRC functions

[Alicia Mattson]

I served on the APRC for the second half of last term, filling a vacancy.
In the final LNC meeting I expressed that some APRC rules need to be
fixed.  This is just as good a time as any to ask for resolution on one
specific aspect that I had in mind.

In a previous term, LNC Chair Geoff Neale gave a directive to the staff
which (because it allows for declaring a vote over before all have had a
chance to vote) undermines the APRC's ability to do what the LNC has
directed it to do.  Below I will provide the full text of the directive,
but the heart of the issue is that as soon as three APRC members approve a
proposed publication, staff is authorized to publish it, rather than
allowing a chance for the remaining APRC members to potentially note a
problem and change other people's minds.

I complained about this process at the time, and staff provided me with the
text of the directive they had been given during the prior term.  They
indicated that our current chair had decided to leave the directive in
place.  Some time has passed since then, but I presume that this directive
still is the standard operating procedure today.  If that's not the case,
please let me know.

There is a section of the Policy Manual for standing orders from the chair,
but this directive was not published there at the time it was issued.  I
only learned about it from our staff.

An LNC chair can give various directives to our staff, within parameters of
the bylaws and LNC policy.  I have no objection to the portions of this
directive which require more APRC notification than is otherwise required
by LNC policy.  One thing that a chair is not allowed to unilaterally do,
however, is undermine fundamentals of parliamentary process.

For now, I am merely requesting that the chair revoke the portions
authorizing staff action as soon as they get 3 yes votes from the APRC.
Perhaps it wasn't previously obvious why it might be problematic, but
several times this term we've had discussions about how votes ain't over
until they're over.  This falls into the same category.  If the person who
notices a problem is the 4th one to read their email that day, well, it's
too late!

A voluntary fix would make it unnecessary for me to offer a motion to
rescind those portions of the directive, which would be my other option to
address it.

I am requesting an agenda item on this staff directive.

Below is the full text of the directive, as it was told to me by staff last
term.

-Alicia

--------------------------------

This policy proposal for APRC review is intended to:

1.     Ensure LP publications are compliant with the party’s bylaws,
platform and Policy Manual.

2.     Provide a mechanism for oversight by the APRC.

3.     Allow for the fact that LP publications are often time-sensitive for
a variety of reasons, and

4.     Minimize unnecessary steps that reduce staff productivity.

Definitions:

·    Violation = statement within an LP publication that contravenes the
party’s bylaws, platform or Policy Manual.

·   Publication = LP written public statement including news releases,
house letters, prospecting letters, literature, blog entries, Facebook
posts, tweets (Twitter), postings to other websites in the party’s name,
emails sent to the news media, emails sent to the party’s General email
list, and emails sent to another constituency list, e.g. lists acquired
from events such as Paul Fest, lists generated from an online petition. It
includes other LP.org website pages that contain copy of substance, but not
content used for administrative purposes such as membership sign-up forms
or that serve as reference material such as event listings, candidate
listings, election results (vote totals), approved LNC minutes, etc.

·   Copy – the text of the publication plus any images that may be viewed
as controversial or potentially containing a violation. This does not
include other images that serve for illustrative purposes only, e.g., a
candidate’s headshot or a picture of an IRS form to go with a publication
about taxes. It does not include copy changes of a trivial nature such as
typographical corrections or other editing designed solely to improve
readability or navigation.

·    Objection – phone call or email communication from an APRC member
citing a violation in the copy.

·    Approval – statement of APRC member indicating copy is devoid of
violations.

For print publications, staff will transmit copy to APRC for review at
least 24 hours before final approval of publication for printing. Barring
any objections, it is approved.

For electronic publications, staff will transmit copy to APRC no later than
time of publication and will endeavor to transmit copy at least 2 hours
before publishing except where staff believes there is a nontrivial
downside to delaying publication. Barring any objections, it is approved.
However if staff believes the copy may contain a violation, regardless of
the need for immediacy, staff will either (1) obtain the approval of at
least 3 APRC members prior to publication or (2) will transmit copy to APRC
at least 4 hours in advance of publication outside of the hours between
midnight and 9:00 A.M. Eastern Time. Barring any objections, it is
approved.  .

If an APRC members cites an objection, staff will either correct the
citation to the member’s satisfaction or seek and obtain the approval of
copy without correction from at least three APRC members or from the Chair
before publication. If the copy has already been published and can be
pulled (from the web site, Facebook page, or any medium where it is
possible to take the copy down), copy will be taken offline until it is
approved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170806/d6d0dc00/attachment-0001.html>