[Lnc-business] Platform and Bylaws application

Sun Mar 5 22:49:52 EST 2017

==There are almost always other names placed in nomination at the meeting
for people who didn't apply, and if LNC members find the lack of an
application or lack of particular content in the application to be
inadequate, then they can refrain from voting for that person.==

But it is nice to give them an idea of what at least some LNC members would
like to see.  Empowering applicants rather than making them mind-readers is
more helpful.  The suggestions, and yes they are suggestions, are helpful
guidance to prospective applicants.  To us here dealing with this day and
day out it may seem obvious. But to a lot of members, we work in mysterious
ways.

- Caryn Ann

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> The current text does not say a sample proposal is required.  On the form
> is a text box into which they can write about subject matters of their
> choosing, and they also have the option of uploading a PDF file which can
> contain open-ended content.  There is no sort of review of the content to
> see if it contains a proposal before the form can be submitted.  It could
> be a picture of a dog in a costume, an essay on Lagrange points, or a love
> poem to the Statement of Principles.  It could be one sentence, or it could
> be a hundred.
>
> The nice thing about open-ended submissions is that we get to see whether
> they have a reasonable sense of what factors are important.
>
> There are almost always other names placed in nomination at the meeting
> for people who didn't apply, and if LNC members find the lack of an
> application or lack of particular content in the application to be
> inadequate, then they can refrain from voting for that person.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:20 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170305/de4e302f/attachment-0002.html>