[Lnc-business] Platform and Bylaws application

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

To be clear- I object to Wes sending this out.  There was no real attempt
to work it out amongst ourselves, unless summary dismissal is that.  I
don't think it is.

-Caryn Ann


On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:44 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Helllo everyone, I am out with family and will respond in full later.
>
> I am troubled that my statement in my follow up email in which I readily
> stated after reviewing the video that I was mistaken that there was a
> directive to be included - there wasn't an "attempt" - I stated I was
> mistaken.
>
> There is no explanation why a reasonable request was summarily dismissed
> and what "working it out amongst ourselves" means when it amounts to
> nothing changing at all.
>
> What someone's understanding and grasp of the job they are selected to do
> - recommend changes to our documents- is unarguably relevant.
>
> Alicia suggested that individual members could just call up applicants to
> ask them.  That is not workable and then requires others to hear second
> hand representations.
>
> Why precisely is it unreasonable to ask for a short understanding?
>
> Arvin nor I asked for an amendment because we are all mature reasonable
> people who should be able to come to an agreement as Nick directed.
>
> Where in the policy manual does it say one LNC member can exert such
> control on the selection process by unilaterally freezing out relevant
> inquiries?
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:28 PM Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/a5d08c2c/attachment-0002.html>