[Lnc-business] Platform and Bylaws application

[Alicia Mattson]

In the December LNC meeting, I offered to show my draft email to Ms. Harlos
before I sent it out, as she seemed to be particularly anxious about what
its content would be.

When I did share my draft with her, she first attempted to represent to me
that the LNC had come to some sort of agreement and I was thus obligated to
ask the applicants to opine on their understanding of party ideology.  As a
result, I wrote the following paragraph in one of my responses:

"I don't remember any occurrence during the meeting that could be described
as "we agreed that we would ask them to submit something on their
understanding of Libertarian philosophy", or "that was the reason the LNC
asked you and I to work together to come up with something", or "marching
orders given at the meeting", or "they assigned us two to craft this".  Are
you saying there was some motion adopted which was not in the meeting
minutes?"

I have obtained the attached audio excerpt from the meeting, and the entire
discussion is less than 9 minutes long.  Review for yourself to see what
was or wasn't said.

After confirming that there was no agreement or directive from the LNC,
then the argument became based on the Chair's comment to "work it out
amongst yourselves". It's quite a logical stretch to say that because the
Chair was saying the conversation did not belong in the LNC meeting at that
time, that it represents a common understanding or even a directive that
the ideological request would be included and it was just a matter of
wordsmithing

The applicant solicitation email describes the job, provides them a link to
a webform to apply, and requests (but does not require) submission of a
sample bylaw/platform proposal since that is the nature of the job for
which they are applying.  It is the same approach which has been used in
the past several convention cycles.

I am not inclined to specifically request that the applicants discuss which
ideological faction they belong to.  Nor does my draft ask about their
experience with Robert's Rules (as was also mentioned in that same
discussion).  One or two people expressing their preference during debate
does not equate to an agreement by the LNC that it will be done.

As I previously explained to Ms. Harlos, there is some judgment required on
the part of the applicant to tell us whatever skills/knowledge/features
they possess which are most relevant to the position.  What they choose to
submit tells us something about them, if we don't already know them.  Some
will choose to discuss philosophy, or state party experience, or if they
have Robert's Rules credentials, or whatever else.  We can all assess for
ourselves how their submission meets whatever factors are important to us.

As the Chair correctly noted during the meeting, this duty falls into the
domain of the Secretary. I have given the Executive Director the green
light to send out the applicant solicitation early this week so that they
will have sufficient time to apply before our next meeting.

-Alicia




On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Fellow members
>
> Last LNC meeting we decided to solicit applications for the LNC appointed
> members of the Bylaws and Platform Committees and some discussion arose on
> what should be included in the application request.  The final
> responsibility for getting a notice out and organizing responses lies with
> the Party Secretary but Nick directed that as far as content that we should
> work it out amongst ourselves.  To that end I volunteered to work with
> Alicia.  We have communicated but I am not satisfied that the result was
> working it out amongst ourselves. The result was that nothing was
> substantially changed from years past.
>
> Arvin and I (and I believe at least Starchild and David concur) believe
> that a request for a brief understanding of Libertarian philosophy should
> be included.  I softened that request to be in line with the way the form
> is currently written to be a "suggestion" (rather than a requirement)  for
> such along with other suggestions that the applicant could choose among.
> This was rejected and I just don't think that is a reasonable way to work
> it out amongst ourselves.  The result is no different than if I didn't
> volunteer input.
>
> I would like other members to weigh in on this.  I'm not trying to be
> difficult but I just don't think reasonable requests should be summarily
> rejected.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170305/e9bf2b0d/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 161211 excerpt.MP3
Type: audio/mpeg
Size: 12795988 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170305/e9bf2b0d/attachment-0002.mp3>