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

Sun May 28 16:25:49 EDT 2017

I think the word people are searching for here is "accountability".

ken

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Candidates aren't, in some sense, staff of the party.  Candidates are
> selected by either affiliates or, in 2 cases, the convention.  Volunteers
> are, in some very broad sense, 'staff.'
>
> I'm probably more surprised than I should be that we're having a
> conversation about this.  In a healthy organization, of course you can
> express productive criticism of both board and management, in ways likely
> to lead to changes in their actions.  On the other hand, in a healthy
> organization, no one should expect to publicly make unfounded accusations
> against board members, with absolutely no constructive component, and
> remain employed.
>
> But I'm disappointed that we're discussing it for another reason.  I think
> it is so far from proper corporate structure for a board to have a
> discussion about an individual volunteer, or to be aware that such activity
> is even going on, that it's hard to even form an opinion.  (Don't worry,
> though, I managed.)  Boards making personnel decisions about people other
> than the highest management-level employees is, in my view, poor form, and
> not helpful.  This is something staff ought to have it completely within
> their power and discretion to handle.  That's why I am cosponsoring a
> motion on that very topic.
>
> In the meantime, it seems like it's going to take board action to do what
> any other organization would do as a matter of course.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can someone explain how a volunteer criticizing a candidate is any
>> different from a candidate criticizing an LNC member, if both identify
>> themselves in ways that include their LP credibility? I have no problem
>> with either, but it seems others do.
>>
>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Sam Goldstein <
>> goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course not, but internal criticism should be internal and not posted
>>> on public comment sites.  Or if it,  is the poster should not identify
>>> him/herself as an official of the LP.
>>>
>>> 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 Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What on earth? Are we suggesting that only staff should be able to
>>>> comment?? Or that now internal criticism is no longer allowed?
>>>>
>>>> I
>>>>
>>>> On May 27, 2017 9:02 PM, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <(317)%20850-0726> Phone
>>>>> 317-582-1773 <(317)%20582-1773> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170528/02e733e6/attachment-0002.html>