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

[Joshua Katz]

I think you need both, and I disagree that this is a "stop the bleeding"
measure.  Of course I agree that we need a comprehensive strategy.  But
suppose we had one.  Would our current governance structures be capable of
implementing it?  I say no - we need to improve our governance structures.
While there are a lot of other steps I'd like to take in that direction, I
see this rather simple measure as a part of doing so.  I don't think
putting one of our most valuable assets in the control of staff will
magically fix things, but I think it is a prerequisite to the other
improvements you mention.

Our messaging issues, in my opinion, are not about 2 or 3 slip-ups.  If we
frame it that way, there is no winning, because regardless of what you do,
there will always be slip-ups.  An attempt to design a system where no
mistakes or dumb decisions are made is, in my opinion, utopian.  I'm much
more concerned about more mundane issues, such as this party speaking in a
clear voice, being able to effectively amplify its voice over separate
platforms, and having a coherent idea of the image we wish to present to
the world.  I don't pretend that there's any way to not miscalculate.  A
polished politician can, suddenly, bodyslam a reporter.  Things happen.  I
don't want to make my battle avoiding bad things happening.

Joshua A. Katz


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:

> I didn't see that this motion had enough seconds for discussion, but I see
> discussion is happening, so I'll add my $0.02.
>
> This motion, standing alone, does not solve the core problem.  It is,
> perhaps, something between a band-aid and a tourniquet, and I'm okay with
> helping to stop the bleeding.  But no matter how many band-aids we apply,
> we still really need an overall marketing strategy.
>
> And I hope that is the finding of this social media committee.  We need a
> strategy that works and also has inherent checks-and-balances that keep us
> from getting burned.
>
> I do not want to "water down" our principles or our message.  Quite the
> opposite.  I am a (Big-L and Small-L) Libertarian, and I want to convince
> more people to be as well.  I want to tailor our messages to match the
> current political landscape and lexicon. I want to invite new people in,
> regardless of their previous or current (arguably horrible) decisions or
> beliefs. In short, I believe that we are right, and that the reason we
> don't have more people agreeing with us is simply the delivery; whether the
> problem is access, pre-existing biases, or packaging.  We must find a way
> to connect with people and bring them in.
>
> I want our leaders to voluntarily buy-in to this; I don't want litmus
> tests by anyone other than the delegates to decide who sits upon this
> board.  And since this ties in loosely with another topic, so I'll add that
> in here, too.  I opposed the censure of our candidates, and I believe that
> it is consistent to oppose censure of our leadership. Unless someone does
> something truly abhorrent, our members should be the ones to make such
> decisions.
>
> I understand the anger over the three significant "mistakes" (for lack of
> a better term at the moment):
>
> 1. Political dynasties are bad; yes. But being someone who lives in KY I
> see it as being stupid and petty to attack Rand Paul instead of the other
> 99 Senators. Let me tell you, the two guys who lost to Rand (in the R
> primary, and then the D in the general) sure as heck weren't a "Liberty"
> guys.  For crying out loud, my other Senator is McConnell, who only because
> he's politically brilliant did he get re-elected with a 60% disapproval
> rating!  Is Rand Paul the best libertarian in the whole wide world? No.  Is
> he better than Mitch McConnell or any of the other establishment pols in
> KY?  Oh heck yeah.
>
> 2. "Timing is everything", they say.  I do believe that this message would
> have went out no matter what, and I don't really "blame" anyone for it.  It
> was bad. It was really bad.  But I honestly wouldn't have thought of it
> being bad because I don't think like that.  A lot of us don't think like
> that.  A marketing person should be doing our marketing because they do
> think like that.  (And that's why I'd support this measure as a first-step,
> and hope that the committee finds this to be the case anyway).
>
> 3. Wording is critical.  Let's take a completely different example.  There
> are feminists who run around screaming angry things, like "mothers are the
> whores of the patriarchy".  Now, is that going to endear any existing
> mothers, or anyone who loves their mother, to join their cause?  Heck no.
> But if they say "the patriarchy tries to train you to be barefoot,
> pregnant, and silent" that's a pretty good rallying cry for those same
> people.  The message, in both examples, is the same: women who become
> mothers are playing into a stereotype created by a male-dominated society.
> But one is a rally cry, and one is hateful and angry. Even if it's not
> meant that way, it doesn't matter; perception is reality in the world of
> politics.
>
> Remember, Howard Dean was destroyed politically because his voice cracked
> while screaming "Yeah!" at a rally of supporters.  The supporters at the
> rally didn't care; they loved him.  But the rest of the country made fun of
> Dean and made him a political joke.  One innocent moment destroyed his
> entire political momentum.  And it happens to us, too, as we saw
> all-too-well in 2016.
>
> So please, let's try to avoid easily-avoided mistakes.  Let's do a better
> job of packaging our principles to help more people see the light.  We know
> in our hearts and in our minds that our way is the best way.  We need to
> help other people understand that, as well.
>
> ken
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Alicia,
>>
>> ==A post does not have to say "vote for me at convention" to effectively
>> be gaining special access to a large audience to raise a personal profile.==
>>
>> But can you please give specifics?  This apparently got missed by the
>> APRC and I am not picking up what you are laying down... I am still
>> baffled.  Can you please give a few specifics?
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This strikes me as an "Afghanistan attacked us, so let's attack Iraq"
>>> type of motion. This would:
>>>
>>> 1. Not have prevented me or anyone else from speaking bluntly on any
>>> topic on personal social media.
>>>
>>> 2. Not have prevented the first or third "satanic post", which were
>>> directly authorized by the chair.
>>>
>>> However, this would have the effect of:
>>>
>>> 1. Massively hampering major social media outlets, as Trent Somes and
>>> Matt Geiger explained during the Pittsburgh meeting.
>>>
>>> As we evaluate our overall strategy, I would strongly recommend looking
>>> at the initial strategies that later, predictably lead to bad reactions.
>>> Specifically, the outlandish assumption that the LP should be doing
>>> outreach primarily to the most pro-establishment, pro-status quo,
>>> pro-government groups on the planet needs to be allowed to die. That method
>>> makes no sense.
>>>
>>> I know that those are the "most likely people to vote", but they are
>>> specifically the most likely people to vote for the ruling parties. I
>>> strongly encourage the LNC and state parties to, in addition to outreach to
>>> public school teachers and religious conservatives, also at least consider
>>> outreach to the rapidly growing, unapologetically anti-establishment groups
>>> that have already rejected establishment norms and values.
>>>
>>> In Liberty,
>>>
>>> Arvin
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Arvin Vohra
>>>
>>> www.VoteVohra.com
>>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>> (301) 320-3634
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170525/4c48d9e3/attachment-0002.html>