[Lnc-business] Platform and Bylaws application

Whitney Bilyeu whitneycb76 at gmail.com
Sun Mar 5 21:22:14 EST 2017


I ask this, because if it is required, it might be easy to discern the
applicant's understanding of our principles from what they propose there...



On Mar 5, 2017 8:20 PM, "Whitney Bilyeu" <whitneycb76 at gmail.com> wrote:

> With regard to the current text...is the submission of a "sample proposal"
> required?
>
> Whitney
>
> On Mar 5, 2017 6:02 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Okay I am back for the evening:
>
> ==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.==
>
> I don't find that characterization fair.  I wasn't "particularly anxious"
> - I had an opinion and a concern that was shared at least by Arvin, and
> unless I am grossly mistaken, also by David and Starchild.  I wanted to be
> involved, and Nick indicated that this is something we would work out
> amongst ourselves. While I can see that the actual collation and
> coordination of sending falls squarely in the Party Secretary's purview, I
> do not see that the content does, and again, we (the collective we as an
> LNC) were to confer and work it out.  I volunteered.
>
> In my initial emails to Alicia, my recollection on what was decided
> "officially" was flawed and once I reviewed the video, I let her know.
> However, I am not mistaken that there was a definite sense that the content
> would not be declared by fiat by one member but to be a collegial mutual
> enterprise. If others feel really strongly about other items being
> included, they should be given due consideration as well.
>
> The current application says:
>
> "Please indicate your interest on a serving on a committee, submit a
> sample proposal, or whatever else you'd like to share wth the Libertarian
> National Committee."
>
> My request was for it to say:
>
> "Please indicate your interest on a serving on a committee, submit a
> sample proposal, a brief summary of your understanding of Libertarian
> philosophy, or whatever else you'd like to share wth the Libertarian
> National Committee."
>
> How in the world is that unreasonable? We are asking these folks to apply
> to submit changes before our delegates to documents in which an
> understanding of our philosophy is THE primary qualification.  By design,
> submissions from the floor are discouraged, so the only way these things
> get heard is through committee.  We are being asked to decide on people
> without knowing if they have even a basic understanding?
>
> I received no explanation as to why this was summarily dismissed - it just
> was, and the conversation abruptly ended with a statement that it was going
> to Wes for publishing as it is.
>
> I do not think that is what was meant by "working it out amongst
> ourselves."
>
> Do we really have to insist on amendments and motions to cover everything
> and not be able to work together to try address concerns?  I wanted to save
> the committee time by moving on to the next item, but I guess I should have
> just insisted then?  I counted on a good faith working it out. That has not
> happened, and I do not see the authority for one committee member to so
> control the kind of information submitted to the LNC in making these
> decisions.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> *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>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170305/7bcdb146/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list