[Lnc-business] Historical Preservation Committee - Latest revision
Wes Benedict
wes.benedict at lp.org
Thu Jan 12 19:39:59 EST 2017
I gave Caryn Ann and Susan Hogarth a tour of our basement archives and
our storage unit archives when they were here for the last LNC meeting.
I have since shipped a Microfilm of old LP News issues per request from
Caryn Ann and have assigned Nick D. to bundle up Pledge News to send to
Joe Buchman so he can get it scanned for posting online.
I did all that willingly and eagerly, because I'd like to see the info
preserved and used myself, and I did that without being ordered to and
without a policy manual provision forcing me to or getting in the way.
I think we're all better able to help without having complicated rules
to trip over.
Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
On 1/12/2017 7:35 PM, Wes Benedict wrote:
>
> Staff isn't going to run LPedia. Don't have time. And don't want to be
> involved in the fights over who gets to post what. Ken Moellman's
> working to set up a new account with hosting so the good content can
> be moved there so others can work on it. I almost paid the bill for it
> a couple hours ago but ran into a temporary PayPal hiccup. But it'll
> get done soon.
>
> Staff will try to refuse to control LPedia. My intention is to give
> control to Ken till he gets it moved, and then I expect either I or
> Ken will give control to Caryn Ann and she can open up control to
> whomever barring action from the Chair or LNC to change that (which
> I'd only expect if Caryn Ann is doing something unacceptable).
>
> I think a great scenario is what will happen without a motion. A
> motion (as it goes through the legislative process) is likely to muck
> up the great scenario path we're already on. I've been helping you and
> Ken with this, and that's without motions or even the chair telling me
> I have to do this.
>
>
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232,wes.benedict at lp.org
> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
> Join the Libertarian Party at:http://lp.org/membership
> On 1/12/2017 7:24 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>> ==One of the reasons I suggested a simpler motion to get things
>> started was because as the committee got started working, it could
>> answer some of the implementation questions that would come up as
>> work progressed.==
>>
>> This is definitely a good point. And the simply motion would get
>> that going, but it didn't address at all the running of LPedia which
>> is a concern and right now is in twilight zone. Staff certainly
>> doesn't need that on their hands.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org
>> <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not going to research all my email archives at the moment,
>> but I believe at times the Chair of the Audit Committee has
>> declared all emails to be "documents" in the context of also
>> declaring all board members have the right to view all
>> "documents." And staff has periodically provided batches of
>> emails to the Audit Committee along those lines.
>>
>> I've usually written my emails with the assumption someone was
>> snooping, someone would eventually request them via discovery
>> etc, forward them to try to embarrass me, or they'd one day make
>> it to the web, but not all the "documents" people have sent to me
>> were written with that in mind. I've got some goodies. Having
>> said that, let me think about it for a while, but there's a
>> chance I'd be honored to have all my "documents" posted online,
>> allowing the brilliance I've shared with individuals over the
>> years to be enjoyed by the world.
>>
>> One of the reasons I suggested a simpler motion to get things
>> started was because as the committee got started working, it
>> could answer some of the implementation questions that would come
>> up as work progressed. Definitions of "documents" could be better
>> clarified. Perhaps requirements for "all" would get replaced with
>> lists of priorities "we're starting with LP News, then Pledge
>> News, the Press releases, number 29 on the priority list is Wes's
>> brilliant emails to LNC-Business, followed by number 30, Wes's
>> file cabinet.
>>
>> The item below gives me pause: "5. Vote on whether to recommend
>> the destruction of any original document . . . "
>>
>> I doubt preserving and publishing every email I've ever written
>> is the intent of the motion, but I'm not sure.
>>
>> I also get concerned because we are quite often involved in
>> lawsuits where discovery requires the compilation of "all
>> documents or emails that mention or are related to _______". In
>> theory, I could spend ______ months full time working on a
>> discovery request, and for that reason, a discussion with legal
>> counsel and the LNC about the pros and cons of document retention
>> and duration is probably advisable.
>>
>>
>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <tel:%28202%29%20333-0008>,wes.benedict at lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>
>> facebook.com/libertarians <http://facebook.com/libertarians> @LPNational
>> Join the Libertarian Party at:http://lp.org/membership
>>
>> On 1/12/2017 6:48 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos 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 <mailto: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-S7MwNs1HwrgTx8kqn-bXkJSsvrsXmpaYBhk/edit
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15PTl9Ns-S7MwNs1HwrgTx8kqn-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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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 <tel:%28317%29%20850-0726> Phone
>>>> 317-582-1773 <tel:%28317%29%20582-1773> Fax
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Wes Benedict
>>>> <wes.benedict at lp.org <mailto: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 <tel:%28202%29%20333-0008>,wes.benedict at lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>
>>>>
>>>> facebook.com/libertarians
>>>> <http://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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business
>> mailing list Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_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 <mailto: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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170112/54f61c77/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list