[Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage social media

Thu May 25 10:58:26 EDT 2017

If it comes to a vote, I will oppose for the same reasons I did in
Pittsburgh.  What I have found so disconcerting about the discussions that
sometimes take place on this list is that what appears to be about one
thing is often about something else.  It is such when a partner gets really
mad for the toilet seat being left up and a huge row ensues.  But it isn’t
really about the toilet seat.

But I digress, since I was alluded to without being referred to, in
critical terms, a volunteer did leave after an interaction I was with said
volunteer (keeping personal details to a minimum purposefully).  There no
intention to “drive anyone away” and a misunderstood FB discussion or even
a poorly done one on my part in one instance, in which tensions were
already really high, does not negate any of my prior points about
volunteers and I think everyone knows that.  I don’t think all is fair in
love and war and I find this to be a pretty cheap shot.  I doubt it is news
to anyone here that I am not perfect.  If it is, consider yourself
informed.  Follow me long enough, and I will provide ample evidence.

I would also add there iIS review process.  The APRC who is aware of the
policies noted above.  Now obviously there was a hole  in the process that
allowed that other post to go through.  It was a perfect storm in which
circumstances all converged that don’t require a nuclear option.  And there
are less disruptive ways to fix which the Review Committee will recommend I
am quite confident.   And they may in fact recommend this course.  We don’t
know.  This option was rejected at our last meeting in favour of the
committee.

But one thing did draw my attention, because I am genuinely curious and I
believe the policy quoted a good one, and if something has ran afoul of
that and escaped the review of the APRC - the correct route would be to
bring it to the APRC IMHO - that is the procedure already in place.  And
judging from Whitney’s post, I am not the only APRC member who is
completely puzzled and blindsided by this assertion made first here.  I
think examples are apropos - I am truly curious what posts seem to
promoting or could seem to be promoting an internal party candidate?  I
would like to see if the APRC agrees with that assessment and would modify
its review accordingly and accept that this was missed.

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> "I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal promotion
> of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next
> convention."
>
> Are you referring to things that showcase the efforts of individuals? And
> are you saying that such showcasing is meant as campaign fodder to promote
> said individual for internal office? In looking at the next 24 scheduled FB
> posts (scheduled over 6 days), I don't see anything that fits such a
> description, but I will certainly be on alert for such things.
>
> I disagree that the APRC doesn't have the time to review everything in
> advance. I am on the APRC, and I do have the time. While it is not just my
> responsibility, I do need to be more vigilant with regard to the FB queue,
> but I trust that my fellow APRC members, more adept at FB, are supporting
> that effort. We are aware of the recent misstep, and it is being addressed.
>
> I spoke against the driving out of staff or other volunteers by 'leaders'
> in the design group at the last LNC meeting, and I strongly oppose such
> actions. I am under the impression that was addressed by our Chairman. I
> also note that at least two if the individuals who were driven out, are
> back in business, and making things happen in there :).
>
> To be honest, I think this motion is unnecessary at this time.
>
> Whitney Bilyeu
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy Manual
>> Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows:
>>
>> Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as administrators of,
>> serve as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s social media
>> accounts. Volunteer content creators may submit content for approval.
>>
>> At the LNC meeting there was majority support for the motion to both do
>> the above and also to create a committee to review our social media
>> processes.  I could have supported it, but if we know what we need to do to
>> fix the problem, why spend the time to have a committee study it first?
>> Just fix it.  I thought there was majority support for the other motion to
>> simply turn control of our social media back over to staff.  Turns out that
>> I was mistaken, and one person was not willing to turn control back over to
>> staff without the creation of the committee, so then the other motion
>> failed.  Because I misread the room, an option that actually had majority
>> support didn't pass.
>>
>> Now that we have separately created the committee, I want to go back and
>> re-visit turning control back over to our staff.
>>
>> Please note that the motion welcomes volunteers to submit material.  It
>> does not eliminate their opportunity to contribute.
>>
>> I want to add some details to the discussion we had in Pittsburgh, with
>> two Facebook PR blow-ups on our minds at the time.
>>
>> Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster.  Granted it was
>> not on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was posted to, the
>> person's party position was touted right there in the sidebar, and we took
>> a lot of damage from it.  The Convention Oversight Committee lost two very
>> valuable volunteers over this latest disaster -- volunteers who did a lot
>> of work for us in Orlando and were again helping for New Orleans.  Gone.
>>
>> There are no group votes before volunteers post on the party's FB.  One
>> person puts it into the schedule, and unless someone else sees it and
>> objects, it goes public.  We publish so much material that the APRC doesn't
>> always have time to review everything in advance.  Though the group has an
>> informal rule against people posting their own material, people sometimes
>> do it anyway.  The comments about the military could easily have been
>> posted on our page.
>>
>> There was a very recent incident in which a new volunteer was driven to
>> quit on the same day she joined for the crime of suggesting that we post
>> more positive material and less negative material.  I don't want to hear
>> that the LNC giving final control to staff is somehow disrespecting the
>> work of the volunteers, when that new volunteer's desire to contribute was
>> so summarily disrespected.
>>
>> We have some important policies that I don't believe the volunteers have
>> even been informed about, and volunteers are not really accountable for
>> following policies in the same way that our staff is.
>>
>> Policy Manual Section 2.09.6:
>>
>> Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for
>> any candidate for party office unless:
>>
>>    - such information or services are available and announced on an
>>       equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that
>>       office, or
>>       - such information or services are generally available and
>>       announced to all party member
>>
>> Not all party members have access to post on our Facebook page.  Not all
>> candidates for internal party office are offered the chance to post on our
>> Facebook page.
>>
>> I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal promotion
>> of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next
>> convention.
>>
>> There was a time in the past when staff established criteria to try to
>> manage application of this policy, with criteria for what constituted
>> "news" or "earned media" that involved a candidate, etc.  I don't believe
>> there is any such attention to his policy right now for our social media.
>> Some candidates have already declared.  The closer we get to a national
>> convention, the more these posts will be perceived as self-promotion that
>> unfairly isn't available to their opponents.
>>
>> So I'm asking for co-sponsors for this motion, to return final decision
>> power to our staff, who are expected to know and follow our policies, and
>> who are accountable to the LNC.  The volunteer groups can continue to
>> generate material just like they do now, but staff would schedule the
>> actual posts.
>>
>> If the Social Media Process Review Committee comes back to us with
>> suggestions for reasonable ways to manage this later, we can amend this
>> policy.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170525/be396f59/attachment-0002.html>