[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 22:31:48 EDT 2017
I agree Daniel and editor access would give you that. Please ask Nick to
tell Matt Hasty or me to take care of that.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 8:27 PM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
wrote:
> This reminds me. I had made this point privately already, but nothing
> further was said about it. I was also given this lowest level of access.
>
> I think all members of the Social Media Process Review Committee should
> have access to see the way in which the page is being responded to. We
> can't give a full evaluation if we can't see it all. I think we should
> agree to not respond or post unless for some reason requested by other page
> admins.
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
> Social Media Process Review Committee
>
>
> On May 28, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> You should have full admin access and it should be directed to be given to
> you immediately IMHO.
>
> -Caryn Anm
>
>
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 7:46 PM Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> By the way, I have no idea who posts what. In Pittsburgh, the Chair said
>> that LNC members would be given admin privileges. I requested it and was
>> told on April 23 that I would be made an "analyst" which is the
>> lowest-level access, less than what many of the volunteers have, but
>> apparently that hasn't happened yet. I can't see any more than the public
>> sees.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:02 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*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170529/53427da6/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list