[Lnc-business] Hold candidates, staff, and volunteers accountable for anti-libertarian remarks, not personal criticisms
Starchild
sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Sun May 28 19:31:27 EDT 2017
Just because candidates aren't staff doesn't mean they shouldn't be accountable to the Libertarian Party's membership. What they say and do publicly tends to have a greater impact on the party than what volunteers or paid staff say or do. But I think we should hold them accountable for deviations from libertarianism or our party platform and serious breaches of ethics, not try to censor internal criticism. Ultimately it's healthier for the organization if people feel free to speak out when they perceive some kind of personnel problem. Sometimes the criticism may be undiplomatic, arguably inappropriate, or even outright false, but the best rebuttal to free speech is more free speech, not censorship.
If one is accused of being a Republican, or using "soft bribes", I think the most effective response would be to demonstrate by one's conduct and positions on the issues that the accusations are meritless, in which case the credibility of the accuser will tend to suffer accordingly.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
RealReform at earthlink.net
(415) 625-FREE
@StarchildSF
On May 28, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Ken Moellman wrote:
> 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 Phone
> 317-582-1773 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 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 Phone
>
> 317-582-1773 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 Phone
>
> 317-582-1773 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b6327d8a/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list