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

Thu May 25 11:13:44 EDT 2017

I just went back through the scheduling list too and see nothing in the
past or in the future list that is promotion (or could be reasonably
construed as promotion) of a person for internal party office.  Examples
are needed - particularly so that the APRC can be made aware.

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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*
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*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/e03859a0/attachment-0002.html>