[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] "special access to a large audience to raise a personal profile"
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun May 28 10:14:23 EDT 2017
I made it informally to Daniel, and once the policy manual provision was
brought up I didn't ask further as it was a non-starter. I should have
worded it that way there.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:59 AM Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170528/0172d9ac/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list