[Lnc-business] Fwd: [APRC] APRC Institutional Memory

[Joshua Katz]

Joshua A. Katz


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM
Subject: [APRC] APRC Institutional Memory
To: APRC List <aprc at hq.lp.org>, Robert Kraus <robert.kraus at lp.org>


Hello everyone (and thank you, Robert, for getting the new list set up so
fast).

During the 2012-2014 term we had some rather sharp exchanges over the
proper boundaries and procedures for the Advertising & Publication Review
Committee.  Not everything is spelled out in detail in the Policy Manual,
but we ultimately came up with a pretty effective set of guidelines.  In
the interest of not re-inventing the wheel, and to provide information for
the new APRC members, I decided to summarize the results below.  Of course
a lot of these items are subject to revision, but I think they at least
represent a good starting point.


   - Section 2.02 of the Policy Manual is attached below.  Basically it
   says that the scope of the APRC’s official authority is limited to assuring
   conformity of LP communications with the Platform, Bylaws, and Policy
   Manual.  APRC deliberations must be kept confidential, and there are
   time limits within which it must act.


   - Even though the Policy Manual permits time sensitive communications to
   be sent out without prior APRC approval or in the absence of a timely APRC
   response, that sometimes meant permitting undesirable items to slip through
   the cracks.  So in 2013 the LNC Chair directed staff to seek affirmative
   approval from at least three APRC members prior to publication, unless the
   Chair authorized a specific exception.  That also made in incumbent on
   APRC members to monitor their email on a frequent basis and to respond
   rapidly, especially for time-critical matters.


   - One viewpoint is that APRC activity should be strictly limited to
   evaluating whether an item violates the Platform, Bylaws, and
Policy Manual.
   That was not the prevailing view last term.  The APRC frequently caught
   spelling and grammatical and factual errors, and offered other feedback to
   staff (which staff was not required to accept but said was
welcome).  Accordingly,
   the LNC Chair outlined four general steps for APRC consideration in order
   of precedence:


   1. Does the submitted publication violate the platform, statement of
   principles, etc.  If Yes, explain how and why.
   2. Would the submitted publication show the LP in a negative or
   undesirable light?  If yes, explain how and why.
   3. Did you encounter any grammatical or spelling errors? If yes, please
   note.
   4. Do you have other feedback?  If yes, please note.


Appended below is Policy Manual Section 2.06(5) which describes how the
entire LNC can take quick action to block or withdraw public communications
which would be detrimental to the LP’s image.  Obviously it’s much better
to keep a problematical communication from going out in the first place,
rather than trying to remove it from the public sphere after the fact
(although if it is embarrassing enough it’s still better to repudiate it
than to let it stand).  But APRC deliberations are confidential, which
makes it difficult for an APRC member to communicate the problem to the
entire LNC prior to publication using this provision.   The LNC Chair’s
solution was as follows:

   - Since the Chair can direct staff without changing any policy, he was
   directing staffing that if any single member of the APRC opposed
   publication for reason #2, that the Chair would be consulted, and would
   make the decisions regarding reason #2, but not otherwise. In these cases,
   staff is to NOT publish the piece without the Chair’s input.  [Note that
   the Chair is on the APRC email list as an ex officio member.]


   - The Chair agreed with the additional suggestion that if an item was
   kicked up to him for reason #2, and he in turn was having a very hard time
   making a determination, he would direct staff to circulate it to the entire
   LNC in draft form.  That wouldn't violate APRC confidentiality, and yet
   still allow the LNC to make the decision via Section 2.06(5) with very few
   negative repercussions.


   - The Chair agreed with yet another suggestion from staff: If an APRC
   member objected to an item based on reason #2, and staff was able to modify
   it so as to satisfy the APRC member’s objections, it would then not be
   necessary to bother the Chair to make a determination.


Following the kerfuffle which prompted the above guidelines, I don't
believe that any other issues arose which required a decision by the LNC
Chair.  I also want to mention that Gary Johnson, the new APRC Chair for
2014-2016, has been especially adept at catching things and providing staff
with rapid feedback (which staff appreciated).  And probably 90% of
everything sent to the APRC gets rubber-stamped as approved.  I hope we can
all have a good working relationship and an effective committee during the
next two years.


Daniel Wiener



*Section 2.02 COMMITTEE SCOPE AND RESPONSIBILITIES*



*1) Advertising & Publication Review Committee*



The APRC shall review and advise whether public communications of the Party
violate our bylaws, Policy Manual or advocate moving public policy in a
different direction other than

a libertarian direction, as delineated by the Party Platform.



Public communications may be defined in either of two categories:
time-sensitive or enduring.



· Public communications that are of a time-sensitive nature, namely mass
e-mails, news releases, twitter posts and blog entries, shall be made
available to the APRC upon their publication.



· Public communications that are of a more enduring nature, such as LP
News, Liberty Pledge News, self-published party literature and fundraising
letters, shall be made available to the APRC before the final proof is
approved for printing and distribution.



Staff may seek advance advice from the APRC on any proposed communication.
Staff may reasonably conclude that the failure of the APRC to provide
advice in a timely manner is tantamount to the committee's approval.



· In the case of public communications that are of a time-sensitive nature,
a response is considered timely if made within six hours of staff's
submission of the subject matter to the committee, if submitted prior to
its publication; and within forty-eight hours, if submitted after its
publication.



· In the case of public communications that are of a more enduring nature,
a response is considered timely if made within twenty-four hours of staff's
submission of the subject matter to the committee.



If a majority of the committee concludes that a public communication
violates the bylaws, Policy Manual, or advocates moving public policy in a
different direction other than a libertarian direction, as delineated by
the Party Platform, the committee chair shall report such to the Executive
Director and the LNC Chair, citing the specific platform plank, bylaw or
Policy Manual section. Official decisions of the APRC which are overridden
shall be promptly reported to the LNC without revealing confidential
employer-employee matters.



*Section 2.02(5) Assuring Quality Communications*



If a majority of all LNC members notify the Secretary of their belief that
a proposed or actual public communication is detrimental to the image of
the Party, such notification to occur no later than 72 hours after the
public communication is published, the Secretary shall inform the Executive
Director and Chair of this finding, and such communication shall not be
further disseminated, and to the extent possible, already-disseminated
material shall be promptly removed from the public sphere.

-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman

_______________________________________________
Aprc mailing list
Aprc at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170820/5f3653a3/attachment-0001.html>