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

Sat May 27 21:01:51 EDT 2017

This is outrageous and would join Mr. Starr in requesting that Mr. Barton
immediately be
dismissed from any role in our social media platform.  Mr. Starr has a long
history of
service to the party, and while some members many not agree with his
stances or methods,
I don't think anyone on the current or past LNCs would refer to him as a
Republican.

Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
Member at Large
8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
Indianapolis IN 46260
317-850-0726 Phone
317-582-1773 Fax

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
>
>
> While we are on the subject, earlier this week our staff posted this
> television news video clip on Facebook as an example of earned media by a
> candidate opposing a sewer tax increase and spearheading a recall effort
> against those elected officials who voted for that increase (
> https://www.lp.org/california-libertarian-interviewed-local-television-
> water-rate-increases/).
>
>
>
> Please examine these screen shots (cropped to show only relevant
> portions). Note this comment:
>
>
>
> “Starr is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian. Why he hangs out in
> the LP instead of just being a Republican (or joining the Constitution
> Party) is beyond me. This is a dude who regularly tries to use soft bribes
> to get his way in the party. Please, LP members of his region, vote this
> guy out. We don’t need him and folks like him. Not at all.”
>
> -Josh Barton, Social Media Volunteer at Libertarian Party
>
>
>
> I don’t believe I have ever met Josh Barton. When I hover over his name
> with my mouse I see that his Facebook profile states he is one of our
> party’s social media volunteers.
>
>
>
> It’s one thing to disagree with someone over public policy (perhaps Mr.
> Barton favors the Oxnard City Council’s sewer tax increase); it’s quite
> another to lash out with this personal attack.
>
>
>
> I understand we get some negative feedback from the public, but should we
> tolerate that from those who are part of the organizational structure? Who
> here believes that it is appropriate for someone touting himself as a
> social media volunteer for the party to be posting something like this on
> our Facebook page as a representative of the Party?
>
>
>
> Our staff would never post a comment such as this. They are accountable to
> the LNC and have a stake in our organization’s overall success, which makes
> them largely above the factionalism and personality conflicts we witness
> with some volunteers.
>
>
>
> When you agree to wear the party hat, you’ve agreed to a certain fiduciary
> duty to the organization.
>
> If I were the National Chair, I would without hesitation order the
> deletion of such an offensive comment and (absent a sincere public apology)
> would likely fire any volunteer (or member of staff) who wrote anything on
> our Facebook page like this about any of our candidates or board members.
>
>
>
> Aaron Starr
>
> (805) 583-3308 Home
>
> (805) 404-8693 Mobile
>
> starrcpa at gmail.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Sam Goldstein
> *Sent:* Friday, May 26, 2017 7:03 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage
> social media
>
>
>
> Alicia,
>
>
>
> Yes, my concern is that the LNC needs a supervisory presence on social
> media beyond the limited ability of
>
> the APRC.  Ultimately, it is the LNC, not staff, that is responsible to
> the members and delegates in convention
>
> for the public image of the party.
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
> Sam Goldstein
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> Member at Large
>
> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>
> Indianapolis IN 46260
>
> 317-850-0726 <(317)%20850-0726> Phone
>
> 317-582-1773 <(317)%20582-1773> Fax
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sam,
>
> So is your desire to just have LNC members/alternates in a supervisory
> role, or in the role of posting public comment?  If it's just a supervisory
> role, I don't think it should be our job to do that, but I'm okay with
> allowing such access to the page.  But I'm not sure I want LNC
> members/alternates making the postings instead of staff.  If a 4th
> co-sponsor was interested with some tweaks, we could hash out some
> alternate language.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Alicia,
>
>
>
> Would you consider adding "members and alternates"  to your motion
> following "LNC"?  If so I will
>
> co-sponsor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sam Goldstein
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> Member at Large
>
> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>
> Indianapolis IN 46260
>
> 317-850-0726 <(317)%20850-0726> Phone
>
> 317-582-1773 <(317)%20582-1773> Fax
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:38 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170527/6f60d015/attachment-0002.html>