[Lnc-business] Historical Preservation Committee - Latest revision
Sam Goldstein
goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 19:18:00 EST 2017
Nope. Still entirely too long, detailed and micro-managing. I would
support the
short and sweet version that Wes proposed the other day.
Sam
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
Member at Large
8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
Indianapolis IN 46260
317-850-0726 Phone
317-582-1773 Fax
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes, having LPedia up to snuff technically is of no use to us if we cannot
> "run" it. And we want to do that with little need to no need from staff.
> And the purpose in great part of LPedia is historical. Some of us on our
> own are collecting items ready to put up there. The 1972-1990 LP News will
> be available and old issues of the Liberty Pledge. I have other things
> being sent to me from multiple Party members very excited by the
> possibilities. This I also think will solve some of the "old website"
> consternation on the static pages - so that any archiving or transfer will
> not be simply static pages frozen in time.
>
> I have been doing a good deal behind the scenes with Party members.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The latest version of the HPC proposal is now updated in Google Docs for
>> review or suggestions. You can review this document here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15PTl9Ns-S7MwNs1Hwr
>> gTx8kqn-bXkJSsvrsXmpaYBhk/edit
>>
>> As Caryn Ann has mentioned, we are both open to other ideas. The new
>> LPedia solution is about to happen, from a technical standpoint, and as
>> such we need to get prepared for someone to actually maintain the solution.
>>
>> The current version of the original proposal reads as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> A proposal to create the Historic Preservation Committee, tasked with
>> preserving and publishing all historic 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)
>> additional LNC or non-LNC members.
>> *(Member Selection)* Two LNC Members or Alternates selected by LNC.
>> Other 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 historic
>> 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.
>> 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 separate from the Party’s primary website. The
>> committee may permit volunteers to assist in the maintenance of this
>> website, provided that archived historichistroi documents are not removed.
>> 4. Make a good faith effort to preserve and publish all available
>> historic party documents, and transform physical documents into electronic
>> format toward that end.
>> 5. Vote on whether to recommend the destruction of any original
>> document, or document for which no other copy is available. No 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 non-public information, defined as information
>> covered under Section 1.02(5) and not known to have been made public by the
>> LNC, inadvertently released to the Committee is kept private. Any
>> electronic copy of non-public information shall be reported to the LNC and
>> deleted by the recipient(s). Any physical non-public information shall be
>> securely sealed, marked private, and returned for review by the LNC.
>> 8. Within one business day, inform the LNC of any committee
>> appointments.
>> 9. Publicly announce and permit a public audience for all meetings.
>>
>>
>> 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 under section 2.07 of the Policy Manual, which
>> reads:*(x) All public agendas, meeting minutes, and records of the Party
>> shall be made available to the Historic Preservation Committee. No data
>> shall be deleted or destroyed without a vote in the affirmative by no less
>> than two-thirds of the entire LNC.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-01-10 13:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> 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 *
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170112/2552bdd2/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list