[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] "special access to a large audience to raise a personal profile"
Sam Goldstein
goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com
Sun May 28 08:58:57 EDT 2017
Caryn Ann,
I don't remember your request for a HPC report coming before the COC. When
and to whom
did you make this request?
Sam
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 10:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:
> Alicia,
>
> The vast *majority *of those things you posted about above started on
> LP.org and were initiated *by staff and not by volunteers.* Volunteers
> repost everything (or are supposed to) that appears on LP.org. So if you
> have concerns about any of the items above, it was staff that posted them
> first on LP.org and *fully approved by APRC.* So your motion would not
> "fix" any of that (and I really don't think there is anything up there that
> needs fixing, and the only one that would be remotely questionable is the
> signed posts you brought up before, but those are under the delegation of
> the Chair if I understand properly).
>
> And there is a huge difference BTW between highlighting actual public
> events etc that happen to be done by LNC members and giving *hours of
> stage time in front of the actual delegates to be seen as an authority* in
> something other than one's LNC role. I legitimately am Chair of the
> Historic Preservation Committee. I asked the convention committee for some
> time to give an update to members. I was denied for the reason that I am
> running for a position. Why the difference? Why shouldn't other
> committees have time if the work is of sufficient interest to members? Why
> not the IT committee Chair? Why not the Ballot Access Committee Chair? It
> should by that any could be qualified if deemed appropriately interesting
> and relevant by the convention committee or *no LNC prospect should get
> main stage time outside their LNC role.*
>
> The "Meet the LNC" one in particular drew my eye since all LNC members
> were invited to take part by Jess Mears. Only a few took anyone up on the
> offer.
>
> A lot of this appears to be the kind of rivalry that I think our members
> would find petty to be honest and elicit "this is what they spending their
> time on? wrestling and jousting for position?" It doesn't matter
> ultimately what the ultimate reason is. This is in fact how it appears, and
> as we know in politics, appearances are importance.
>
> We should expect LNC members to be active and doing a lot of things, and
> we should be giving attention to it. And every LNC member has an
> opportunity to do so. (as do other Party members, I am constantly on the
> look out for - as Jess Mears is - members doing extraordinary things).
>
> I am glad you gave examples and thank you for it - but I think it is
> really a reach, and I a bit "wow."
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Though what I address below is only one aspect of a larger picture, I
>> think it supports my request for co-sponsors for a motion to hand these
>> decisions back over to our staff.
>>
>> It seems that we at least have some agreement that we need to exercise
>> caution in some circumstances regarding publicity for LNC members, but we
>> seem to disagree over what those circumstances are.
>>
>> The existing LNC policy generally prohibits internal office candidates
>> from doing things beyond their official duties at convention, and requires
>> that any party resources being offered to some candidates must be offered
>> to all candidates on an equal basis.
>>
>> This thread (though it's coming from 3 different people) seems to be
>> arguing for the exact opposite of the policy -- that we should use the
>> party assets to raise the profile of the incumbents and forbid candidates
>> from performing official duties at convention.
>>
>> When Caryn Ann argues, "persons seeking LNC office probably should not be
>> allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage
>> time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to
>> seen as an authority", the same logic would say that if the LNC Chair is
>> running for re-election, he should not chair the convention even though
>> it's in his job description. Or that the LNC Treasurer should not present
>> his report.
>>
>> Specific examples have been requested, and I have been mentioned as a
>> specific example, but I want to depersonalize the discussion. I think we
>> should instead look at broad categories of the kinds of things we do, and
>> consider what our policies ought to be for managing our public-facing
>> assets, rather than pointing fingers at individuals.
>>
>> These are not necessarily easy lines to draw. Perhaps it's easy to say
>> we shouldn't post "Vote for me at convention!" videos / memes /
>> editorials. Beyond that it can get complex.
>>
>> Perhaps one single post that highlights a person's on-the-job activities,
>> posted nowhere near convention time, might have some merits, but what about
>> if another person gets national attention once per week like a drumbeat
>> right before the convention? So frequency and timing might come into
>> play.
>>
>> Different wording on the same subject matter can be a distinguishing
>> factor. Is the content focused on the duty related to the person's
>> position, on the members of the party, or is it about the wonderfulness of
>> the person whose name is at the bottom?
>>
>> What is the reason for our promotion of it? Do we need party members to
>> do something in response? Are we telling them about an event to
>> participate in? Is it touting affiliate success? Promoting candidates?
>> Media coverage of someone working to cut government?
>>
>> Are those things just listed different from something that touts one
>> person's opinion? A video of me drafting LNC meeting minutes? Here's the
>> Convention Oversight Committee cringing over A/V vendor bids? Doesn't this
>> LNC member look sharp today?
>>
>> I took the time to review the party's Facebook posts over the past two
>> months to give me a picture of what categories of issues exist here. (By
>> the way, there's a lot of content that doesn't fall into these categories
>> at all.) I've also pondered what sorts of email blasts we do. Perhaps you
>> can add other categories to my list.
>>
>> - Public communications and media interviews about lots of subjects
>> from the LNC Chair, since he is our designated spokesperson to the public.
>> - Frequent public policy opinion pieces signed by an LNC member.
>> - "Special Events" promos inviting members to training led by LNC
>> members
>> - "Meet the LNC" series of text/photo blurbs about individual LNC
>> members and their party activities
>> - Short video about the Pennsylvania affiliate, includes comments by
>> officers and candidates of the affiliate, includes narrator-type comments
>> by two LNC members who are not from Pennsylvania
>> - Video which is a photo collection of pictures from the April LNC
>> meeting. Because the first photo in the set is of Arvin Vohra with a text
>> caption about the picture, some of the commenters who perhaps didn't watch
>> the rest of the video assume it's a video of Arvin, but it's a photo
>> collection with several LNC members in it.
>> - 1-hour video of an LNC member speaking about the Statement of
>> Principles
>> - Media coverage of someone who is on the LNC but got media coverage
>> for local political activity trying to cut the size of government
>> - Email blasts about LPedia and Historic Preservation Committee work
>> - Email blasts from the LNC Secretary soliciting applicants for
>> appointments to be made by the LNC
>> - Email blasts from chairs of platform/bylaws committees seeking
>> member input
>>
>> I'm not saying all of these are improper. Maybe some categories should
>> be excluded. Sometimes the category isn't the issue, but it may depend on
>> specific circumstances, content, timing, frequency, etc. How all of these
>> concerns work together with these types of broadcasts is complex.
>>
>> The volunteer group that runs our social media doesn't have any formal
>> parameters in place to address these matters and their relation to our
>> policies, so it is easy to step into potentially problematic areas. Our
>> staff used to have some guidelines when they were in charge of public
>> communications, and I'm asking that we return to that model.
>>
>> Candidates are starting to declare intention to run for various internal
>> offices at the next convention. The LNC has a policy saying that
>> candidates for internal office have to be treated equally, and access to
>> the party's Facebook page is a pretty big perk.
>>
>> When James Weeks declares candidacy for an internal office, and he asks
>> us to post a video of him expressing his opinions on a public policy
>> matter, perhaps while reprising his performance from the last convention,
>> can he argue that we are obligated by our own policy to give him equal time
>> on social media or in email blasts because of what we have previously
>> posted from the incumbent?
>>
>> These complex issues should not be decided by an unstructured group of
>> volunteers.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ===We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP
>>> leaders.===
>>>
>>> Yes. Otherwise with elections only two years apart and us addressing
>>> this well in advance of a year - nearly anything could be taken that way.
>>> Having the position itself also raises public profile.
>>>
>>> If it's not really direct electioneering then I don't see any issue.
>>>
>>> And I'm still just guessing that this is what was being referred to or
>>> if there is anything else.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:40 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all - The understanding that I have is that any LNC member, State
>>>> chair, county chair, or candidate can post to the facebook page as long as
>>>> it passes the APRC and is reasonably in line with the overall strategy of
>>>> cutting government. In the past, we have essentially begged candidates for
>>>> content that relates to downsizing government, or candidate events, or
>>>> whatever else.
>>>>
>>>> If this is the case, then I strongly encourage all those in the above
>>>> categories to send posts as often as they are able.
>>>>
>>>> If that is not the case, then I would like to make a motion to make it
>>>> the case.
>>>>
>>>> We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders. I
>>>> would love it if people were arguing about Ms. Mattson's latest speech,
>>>> rather than thinking about Rand Paul's. The fact is, our internal officers
>>>> fill that role right now. We don't have elected senators. I hope that
>>>> changes, and when it does, I will work to raise their profiles as well.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I await input on whether my understanding is correct, or if I
>>>> should make a motion to make it correct.
>>>>
>>>> -Arvin
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes Starchild, it was exactly that sort of thing I mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now... there is absolutely nothing wrong or against the rules. It is
>>>>> allowed. *Just like it is allowed for Arvin as VC to post on FB as
>>>>> allowed by the Chair.*
>>>>>
>>>>> But certainly - and this came to mind long before this discussion -
>>>>> along with member comments - persons seeking LNC office probably should not
>>>>> be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage
>>>>> time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to
>>>>> seen as an authority.
>>>>>
>>>>> *But right now it is allowed* and as it is allowed, all qualified
>>>>> people should seek those roles no matter what. But I do think that it is a
>>>>> consideration in the future that it not be allowed.
>>>>>
>>>>> So to bring around full circle, Arvin is posted as delegated by the
>>>>> Chair - and if the Chair needs to revisit that, it is his prerogative
>>>>> (particularly if he is concerned about what kinds of posts are run), and
>>>>> should not be used as an argument to take control from bottom-up volunteers
>>>>> who passionately love their work to put in on an over-burdened staff.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The secretary appears to be speaking from experience:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/last-call-for-
>>>>>> lp-platform-committee-survey/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>>> ((( starchild )))
>>>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>> RealReform at earthlink.net
>>>>>> (415) 625-FREE
>>>>>> @StarchildSF
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> Sent: May 25, 2017 5:58 PM
>>>>>> To: Libertarian National Committee list
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have
>>>>>> staff manage social media
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups "lncvotes" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>> send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170528/79f53516/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list