[Lnc-business] Historical Preservation Committee - Latest revision

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I hear you Wes, and my goal is to have this out of your hair.  Having a
committee however does give legitimacy to the effort and will get then
volunteers to assist who are serious and we would have Party
accountability.  Your simply proposed motion (I know you can't propose
motions, perhaps suggested motion is the correct word) would get things
moving but I do think it should include LPedia in some way. I will be
speaking further with Ken about this off-list.

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> 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 <(202)%20333-0008>, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.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> 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 <%28202%29%20333-0008>, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.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>
>> 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 <%28317%29%20850-0726> Phone
>>>> 317-582-1773 <%28317%29%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 <%28202%29%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 listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://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/listi
>> nfo/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 listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://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
>
>


-- 
*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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170112/0bffeda7/attachment-0002.html>