[Lnc-business] Historical Preservation Committee Re: Motion:

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

We are going to have to deal with LPedia administration etc. sooner rather
than later.

I don't mind if we create a temporary committee outside the PM as a test
run and do it simple.

That might help us know more what to craft for future.

Ken (I believe- request his input) and I are open to simpler motions to get
started and such an initial ad hoc committee could advise the LNC of
specifics needed for a more permanent committee.

I have some dedicated volunteers already.   And I have been conferring
regularly with Chuck Moulton who has an intense interest.

I believe this could relieve a lot of the tension had about lost website
data that is strictly historical like candidate list, past LNC
composition...


-- 
*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/>





On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:53 AM Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wes,
>
> That is an excellent motion and one I could sponsor and support with a few
> changes since it looks like
> Ms.Harlos would be Chair for Life in the current wording.
>
> 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 Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Staff will do our best to fit in assistance on this project, if
>
> it passes, as we have been already.
>
>
> Perhaps a better motion might be along the lines of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *"The LNC establishes a Historical Committee to help preserve and publish
> historical documents of the party and is granted a starting budget of
> $5,000. Caryn Ann Harlos is appointed chair with authority to appoint up to
> four others." *
>
>
>
>
> Delete all that other stuff.
>
>
>
>
> I support the project in general, but will have to be cautious
>
> against spending too much staff time on it. But, I think I can
>
> work well with Caryn Ann on this, though not always helping as
>
> quick and fast as she would like.
>
>
> I apologize if I've overstepped my welcome on this topic by
>
> suggesting wording for a motion. I just hate to see the effort
>
> fail due to getting bogged down in unnecessary and unhelpful
>
> bureaucracy.
>
>
>
>
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>
> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>
> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <(202)%20333-0008>, wes.benedict at lp.org
>
> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>
> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>
>
>
> On 1/10/2017 10:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My copy/paste got mangled:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you Joshua:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==My
>
> question is on the relation between 1 and 1a together, and
>
> 2.  What, exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To
>
> give some examples:  is there anything not being stored
>
> that the makers want to see stored?  ==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There are things not being
>
> made available or stored in a meaningful way we would like
>
> to see stored.  For instance, we have all the copies of
>
> past press releases.  What good are they doing in a file
>
> cabinet?  So what we are doing now is storing them (either
>
> physically or electronically) but not preserving them in a
>
> meaningful way - meaning to be of use to members.  And
>
> even the ones we have stored electronically (and this is
>
> one category, I could expand this further) have not been
>
> done reliably - i.e. the "lost" data on the websites that
>
> might be better suited on an LPedia interface.  And this
>
> could happen again.  This would insure a committee
>
> actually provides oversight and responsibility for making
>
> sure these things get done so it doesn't became an LNC
>
> discussion that is too remote to other things we have to
>
> discuss in our limited time.  These records represent the
>
> tangible output that members paid money for.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==So far as I know, there is
>
> nothing stopping volunteers from going into the basement
>
> and scanning things.  At least, that's the impression I
>
> have from the fact that my colleague from Colorado, a
>
> stickler about rules, did so, with another volunteer
>
> member, and there was no suggestion of impropriety.
>
> What stops us from, without doing anything, having
>
> volunteers do that?==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> An
>
> organization to direct them in a meaningful way, and
>
> there is certainly something "official" about
>
> volunteering for an actual committee and having that
>
> organizational power and oversight.  And volunteers can
>
> scan, go off merrily into their own files, and it isn't
>
> preserved for party members at large - which is
>
> something we have already committed to for years with
>
> LPedia, and done it poorly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==Which brings me to another
>
> question - what, exactly, will this committee decide?
>
> It seems to me that the answer might be nothing, but I'm
>
> not sure on that.==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It
>
> will make decisions on things to insure are on LPedia
>
> and recommend destruction of preserved items if needed.
>
> It will decide on best practice for document
>
> preservation and best order of going about the project.
>
> It will also administer LPedia - so that staff will not
>
> have to worry about it.  LPedia hopefully will grow into
>
> something that needs some dedicated management.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==  That is, it looks like it
>
> will not be an empowered committee, and will only make
>
> recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special rules of
>
> order that will make it easier for things to pass (but,
>
> I suggest, might impact the vote threshold for this
>
> motion, as well as make the Policy Manual a bit more
>
> confusing - it might be good to have this motion amend
>
> the Special Rules of Order section of the Policy Manual
>
> as well, and leave the rules of order parts out of the
>
> committee description and scope).  ==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To
>
> the second part, I would like to hear your suggestions
>
> on that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==Since it was posted, the scope
>
> of those recommendations has been narrowed somewhat (my
>
> understanding of the deleted line about expenditures
>
> seems to have been different from that of several others
>
> - I didn't see it giving the committee unlimited power
>
> to commit us to expenditures, but I did see it as oddly
>
> outside the budget process, as others have pointed out -
>
> I might prefer if a budget line were created for this
>
> purpose, and the committee just incurred the costs
>
> without going to the LNC within that line).  ===
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It
>
> is removed with the potential for a budget line, if
>
> needed, but the first source would be to ask for
>
> voluntary donors just like volunteers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't want to get into most
>
> of the other points raised at the moment, but I'll add
>
> that volunteer time is, of course, not totally fungible,
>
> but I suspect it is more fungible than we often think.==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In some areas perhaps, but I am
>
> pretty deeply entrenched in the LP History enthusiast
>
> "community" and it isn't there.  For instance I have
>
> volunteers ready to give full days in scanning - these are
>
> not people volunteering to give full days for anything else.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The website issues over two
>
> transitions (this pre-dated Ken, not a slam on Ken) were
>
> botched, and our members are pretty convinced, and it
>
> certainly looks like - we don't care about our history.  Yet
>
> it is also understandable that this coming up at a quarterly
>
> meeting is frustrating amongst all the other business the
>
> LNC handles.  This disposes of both and puts people who want
>
> to spend the time on this and deeply care about it - to
>
> handle it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Caryn
>
> Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Joshua:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It seems to me that there
>
> are 3 (really 4, but see below) categories of
>
> tasks that matter here.  They are:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.  Things we do now.
>
>
> 1a.Things that can be
>
> done now without a motion, but aren't.
>
>
> 2.  What the makers of
>
> this motion intend to do that isn't done now.
>
>
> 3.  What will be done as
>
> a result of this motion passing, in 10 years,
>
> when few of us are on the LNC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Obviously, we want 2 and
>
> 3 to be as close to identical as possible.  I'm
>
> getting the sense from some of the discussion that
>
> they aren't, and I will try to make some suggestions
>
> on the document to bring them closer together.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My question is on the
>
> relation between 1 and 1a together, and 2.  What,
>
> exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To give
>
> some examples:  is there anything not being stored
>
> that the makers want to see stored?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There are things not being
>
> made available or stored in a meaningful way we would
>
> like to see stored.  For instance, we have all the
>
> copies of past press releases.  What good are they
>
> doing in a file cabinet?  So what we are doing now is
>
> storing them (either physically or electronically) but
>
> not preserving them in a meaningful way - meaning to
>
> be of use to members.  And even the ones we have
>
> stored electronically (and this is one category, I
>
> could expand this further) have not been done reliably
>
> - i.e. the "lost" data on the websites that might be
>
> better suited on an LPedia interface.  And this could
>
> happen again.  This would insure a committee actually
>
> provides oversight and responsibility for making sure
>
> these things get done so it doesn't became an LNC
>
> discussion that is too remote to other things we have
>
> to discuss in our limited time.  These records
>
> represent the tangible output that members paid money
>
> for.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==So far as I know, there is
>
> nothing stopping volunteers from going into the
>
> basement and scanning things.  At least, that's the
>
> impression I have from the fact that my colleague
>
> from Colorado, a stickler about rules, did so, with
>
> another volunteer member, and there was no
>
> suggestion of impropriety.  What stops us from,
>
> without doing anything, having volunteers do that?==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> An organization to direct
>
> them in a meaningful way, and there is certainly
>
> something "official" about volunteering for an
>
> actual committee and having that organizational
>
> power and oversight.  And volunteers can scan, go
>
> off merrily into their own files, and it isn't
>
> preserved for party members at large - which is
>
> something we have already committed to for years
>
> with LPedia, and done it poorly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==Which brings me to another
>
> question - what, exactly, will this committee
>
> decide?  It seems to me that the answer might be
>
> nothing, but I'm not sure on that.==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It will make decisions on
>
> things to insure are on LPedia and recommend
>
> destruction of preserved items if needed.  It will
>
> decide on best practice for document preservation
>
> and best order of going about the project. It will
>
> also administer LPedia - so that staff will not have
>
> to worry about it.  LPedia hopefully will grow into
>
> something that needs some dedicated management.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==  That is, it looks like it
>
> will not be an empowered committee, and will only
>
> make recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special
>
> rules of order that will make it easier for things
>
> to pass (but, I suggest, might impact the vote
>
> threshold for this motion, as well as make the
>
> Policy Manual a bit more confusing - it might be
>
> good to have this motion amend the Special Rules of
>
> Order section of the Policy Manual as well, and
>
> leave the rules of order parts out of the committee
>
> description and scope).  ==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To the second part, I would
>
> like to hear your suggestions on that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==Since it was posted, the
>
> scope of those recommendations has been narrowed
>
> somewhat (my understanding of the deleted line about
>
> expenditures seems to have been different from that
>
> of several others - I didn't see it giving the
>
> committee unlimited power to commit us to
>
> expenditures, but I did see it as oddly outside the
>
> budget process, as others have pointed out - I might
>
> prefer if a budget line were created for this
>
> purpose, and the committee just incurred the costs
>
> without going to the LNC within that line).  ===
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It is removed with the
>
> potential for a budget line, if needed, but the
>
> first source would be to ask for voluntary donors
>
> just like volunteers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't want to get into
>
> most of the other points raised at the moment, but
>
> I'll add that volunteer time is, of course, not
>
> totally fungible, but I suspect it is more fungible
>
> than we often think.==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In some areas perhaps, but I
>
> am pretty deeply entrenched in the LP History enthusiast
>
> "community" and it isn't there.  For instance I have
>
> volunteers ready to give full days in scanning - these
>
> are not people volunteering to give full days for
>
> anything else.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The website issues over two
>
> transitions (this pre-dated Ken, not a slam on Ken) were
>
> botched, and our members are pretty convinced, and it
>
> certainly looks like - we don't care about our history.
>
> Yet it is also understandable that this coming up at a
>
> quarterly meeting is frustrating amongst all the other
>
> business the LNC handles.  This disposes of both and
>
> puts people who want to spend the time on this and
>
> deeply care about it - to handle it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --Caryn Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at
>
> 7:35 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I haven't decided how I will vote
>
> on this, and the debate here hasn't helped
>
> me.  Let me revisit some of the comments I
>
> made on the document itself, but in a more
>
> inquisitive manner, and see if I can get some
>
> light on the matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It seems to me that there are 3 (really
>
> 4, but see below) categories of tasks that
>
> matter here.  They are:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.  Things we do now.
>
>
> 1a.Things that can be done now without a
>
> motion, but aren't.
>
>
> 2.  What the makers of this motion intend
>
> to do that isn't done now.
>
>
> 3.  What will be done as a result of this
>
> motion passing, in 10 years, when few of us
>
> are on the LNC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Obviously, we want 2 and 3 to be as close
>
> to identical as possible.  I'm getting the
>
> sense from some of the discussion that they
>
> aren't, and I will try to make some
>
> suggestions on the document to bring them
>
> closer together.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My question is on the relation between 1
>
> and 1a together, and 2.  What, exactly, is
>
> in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To give some
>
> examples:  is there anything not being
>
> stored that the makers want to see stored?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So far as I know, there is nothing
>
> stopping volunteers from going into the
>
> basement and scanning things.  At least,
>
> that's the impression I have from the fact
>
> that my colleague from Colorado, a stickler
>
> about rules, did so, with another volunteer
>
> member, and there was no suggestion of
>
> impropriety.  What stops us from, without
>
> doing anything, having volunteers do that?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Which brings me to another question -
>
> what, exactly, will this committee decide?
>
> It seems to me that the answer might be
>
> nothing, but I'm not sure on that.  That is,
>
> it looks like it will not be an empowered
>
> committee, and will only make
>
> recommendations to the LNC, albeit with
>
> special rules of order that will make it
>
> easier for things to pass (but, I suggest,
>
> might impact the vote threshold for this
>
> motion, as well as make the Policy Manual a
>
> bit more confusing - it might be good to
>
> have this motion amend the Special Rules of
>
> Order section of the Policy Manual as well,
>
> and leave the rules of order parts out of
>
> the committee description and scope).  Since
>
> it was posted, the scope of those
>
> recommendations has been narrowed somewhat
>
> (my understanding of the deleted line about
>
> expenditures seems to have been different
>
> from that of several others - I didn't see
>
> it giving the committee unlimited power to
>
> commit us to expenditures, but I did see it
>
> as oddly outside the budget process, as
>
> others have pointed out - I might prefer if
>
> a budget line were created for this purpose,
>
> and the committee just incurred the costs
>
> without going to the LNC within that line).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So, in sum, here is what I would like to
>
> know:
>
>
> What, exactly, will this motion allow to
>
> happen, that cannot happen now?
>
>
> Why is a committee needed for this
>
> purpose?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> These questions are actually closely
>
> related, because they both get at why this
>
> is a committee, rather than a group of
>
> volunteers doing work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't want to get into most of the
>
> other points raised at the moment, but I'll
>
> add that volunteer time is, of course, not
>
> totally fungible, but I suspect it is more
>
> fungible than we often think.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10,
>
> 2017 at 6:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I am at a full screen
>
> computer now, and can get better
>
> address:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, maintain all physical
> historic information in a safe and climate controlled environment.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is already done. Decisions are already made - either explicitly or
> implicitly - about what is kept. This does not change that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, collect all public
> electronic records.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is already done. When things are made public, they are either
> electronic or physical. They are already been saved.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Make a good faith effort to preserve and publish all available historical
> party documents, and transform physical documents into electronic format
> toward that end.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Historical documents are not kept for mere utility reference, but for
> their historical value. We don't put out that much "publicly" and what is
> put out has a historical value in saving. Though this section could be
> tweaked to give greater discretion to the committee on items.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Make a good faith effort to preserve and, and within its discretion, to
> publish, all available historical party documents, and transform physical
> documents into electronic format toward that end.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would make the point of
>
> volunteer times. Their times is
>
> their to spend. There are
>
> volunteers waiting to be
>
> involved.  Their time is not
>
> fungible, people get involved in
>
> what they are passionate about.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Caryn Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue,
>
> Jan 10, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Caryn
>
> Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi Alicia,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> First I would ask if
>
> there is language you
>
> could suggest.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As in the "all" - it is
>
> what we are doing now.
>
> Nothing is being added.
>
> All records that are
>
> public records.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The committee is tasked
>
> with a good faith effort
>
> to publish them yes.
>
> Nearly everything being
>
> referred to will have been
>
> published previously -
>
> this is making the
>
> permanent archive.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Top level history is
>
> subjective.  The Wiki now
>
> is far from only top
>
> level- histories of some
>
> county parties are
>
> preserved if someone was
>
> interested in them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What is useful is very
>
> much subjective.  To those
>
> very interested in having
>
> a good complete record of
>
> our history, they are all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Volunteer time is like
>
> earmarked money. If a
>
> volunteer wants to give
>
> it- that is their choice,
>
> not ours on what we deem
>
> fruitful.  I already know
>
> volunteers willing to be
>
> dedicated. There is a core
>
> of people interested in
>
> historical matters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A treasure trove of
>
> records exist.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10,
>
> 2017 at 1:53 AM
>
> Alicia Mattson
>
> <agmattson at gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I
>
> think the
>
> scope of this
>
> committee, as
>
> proposed, is
>
> so broad that
>
> it's a
>
> problem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am I really
>
> being asked to
>
> be partially
>
> responsible
>
> for preserving
>
> ALL
>
> physical
>
> historic
>
> information
>
> (in #1), and
>
> ALL public
>
> electronic
>
> records (in
>
> #2)?  And the
>
> committee is
>
> additionally
>
> tasked with
>
> publishing ALL
>
> historical
>
> documents (in
>
> #4)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "All"
>
> is an awfully
>
> large amount
>
> of
>
> information,
>
> and it means
>
> there would
>
> never be
>
> anything
>
> deemed
>
> inappropriate
>
> for inclusion
>
> because it
>
> says "all".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I
>
> thought this
>
> was just going
>
> to be some
>
> top-level
>
> history like
>
> whatever is on
>
> the wiki right
>
> now, but this
>
> proposal is a
>
> massive
>
> expansion in
>
> scope.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Some
>
> historical
>
> documents are
>
> useful to keep
>
> around for
>
> reference.
>
> Others just
>
> aren't, so why
>
> spend time
>
> preserving ALL
>
> of them?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Are
>
> we going to
>
> spend our
>
> limited
>
> volunteer time
>
> and effort
>
> documenting
>
> the past, or
>
> are we going
>
> to instead
>
> focus on how
>
> to make our
>
> future efforts
>
> have more
>
> real-world
>
> results?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On
>
> Sun, Jan 8,
>
> 2017 at 5:56
>
> PM, Ken
>
> Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The
>
> following is a
>
> motion seeking
>
> a sponsor and
>
> co-sponsors, to
>
> create the
>
> Historic
>
> Preservation
>
> Committee,
>
> tasked with
>
> preserving and
>
> publishing all
>
> historical
>
> documents of
>
> the Party.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Add a line item to chart in subsection 1 of section 1.03 of the Policy
> Manual, which reads (column name in italics): *
>
> *(Committee name)*
>
> Historic
>
> Preservation
>
> Committee
>
>
> *(Size)*
>
> Two
>
> (2) LNC
>
> Members or
>
> Alternates,
>
> plus up to
>
> five (5)
>
> non-LNC
>
> members.
>
>
>
>
> *(Member Selection)*
>
> LNC
>
> Members or
>
> Alternates
>
> selected by
>
> LNC. Non-LNC
>
> members
>
> selected by
>
> the committee,
>
> which shall be
>
> accepted
>
> unless
>
> objected to by
>
> a majority of
>
> the LNC within
>
> 14 days of
>
> notification.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *(Chair Selection)*
>
> *
>
> Committee
>
> Selected
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Create a new subsection under section 2.02 of the Policy Manual, which
> reads: *x)
>
> Historic
>
> Preservation
>
> Committee
>
>
>
>
>
> The
>
> goal of the
>
> Historic
>
> Preservation
>
> Committee is
>
> to preserve
>
> historical
>
> documents of
>
> the party.  To
>
> that end, the
>
> committee
>
> shall:
>
>
> 1.
>
> With the
>
> assistance of
>
> staff and the
>
> Secretary,
>
> maintain all
>
> physical
>
> historic
>
> information in
>
> a safe and
>
> climate
>
> controlled
>
> environment.
>
> Any costs for
>
> document
>
> storage shall
>
> be presented
>
> to the LNC and
>
> shall be
>
> accepted
>
> unless
>
> objected to by
>
> the majority
>
> of the entire
>
> LNC within 14
>
> days.
>
>
> 2.
>
> With the
>
> assistance of
>
> staff and the
>
> Secretary,
>
> collect all
>
> public
>
> electronic
>
> records.
>
>
> 3.
>
> With the
>
> assistance of
>
> the IT
>
> Committee and
>
> staff, provide
>
> and maintain a
>
> permanent
>
> public
>
> document
>
> archive in the
>
> form of a
>
> publicly-viewable
>
> website which
>
> is separate
>
> from the
>
> Party’s
>
> primary
>
> website.
>
>
> 4.
>
> Make a good
>
> faith effort
>
> to preserve
>
> and publish
>
> all historical
>
> documents, and
>
> transform
>
> physical
>
> documents into
>
> electronic
>
> format toward
>
> that end.
>
>
> 5.
>
> Vote to
>
> recommend the
>
> destruction of
>
> any original
>
> document, or
>
> document for
>
> which no other
>
> copy is
>
> available. No
>
> such document
>
> shall be
>
> destroyed
>
> without the
>
> consent of the
>
> LNC, as
>
> outlined in
>
> Section
>
> 2.07(x).
>
>
> 6.
>
> At each LNC
>
> meeting,
>
> present a
>
> summary of
>
> physical
>
> document
>
> preservation
>
> mechanisms
>
> currently
>
> being
>
> utilized, and
>
> the number of
>
> documents
>
> preserved in
>
> electronic
>
> format.
>
>
> 7.
>
> Ensure that
>
> any document
>
> that would
>
> qualify for
>
> discussion
>
> under the
>
> rules of
>
> executive
>
> session for
>
> the LNC, as
>
> outlined under
>
> Section
>
> 1.02(5),
>
> remains
>
> private until
>
> such time that
>
> the Executive
>
> Committee, or
>
> the entire
>
> LNC, meeting
>
> in executive
>
> session, votes
>
> in the
>
> affirmative to
>
> make that
>
> information
>
> public.
>
>
> 8.
>
> Within one
>
> business day,
>
> inform the LNC
>
> of any
>
> committee
>
> appointments.
>
>
> 9.
>
> Publicly
>
> announce and
>
> permit a
>
> public
>
> audience for
>
> all meetings,
>
> other than
>
> those meetings
>
> held for the
>
> explicit
>
> purpose of
>
> discussing
>
> historic items
>
> that would
>
> qualify for
>
> Executive
>
> Session.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nothing
>
> listed in the
>
> responsibilities, powers, or scope of this Committee shall be construed
>
> to prevent or
>
> circumvent the
>
> normal
>
> operation of
>
> the Party’s
>
> main website
>
> or to
>
> interfere in
>
> the duties of
>
> the Secretary
>
> as mandated by
>
> the Party
>
> Bylaws or this
>
> Policy Manual.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Create a new subsection *
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170110/211f78cd/attachment-0002.html>