[Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage social media
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Sun May 28 23:53:47 EDT 2017
I agree entirely that personnel matters should not be discussed in open
session, and I don't see any reason not to include volunteers in that
opinion. I have been very uncomfortable with several things we've done in
open session on these matters. I hasten to add, though, that I also think
we should be dealing with fewer personnel matters, period, because we
should delegate more. When it comes to a matter like this one, the board
is particularly unsuited, because boards are not built to be nimble.
However, we do have a board within our board which is far more nimble, and
I'd encourage the EC to take this up (only because, of course, we haven't
built better structures to handle it).
However, we've really hemmed ourselves in on that. Our position is similar
to the position of a town I used to be involved with, under its sunshine
law. (As an aside, I think the Missouri sunshine law does a great job on
this particular issue. It can be found at:
https://www.ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/publications/missourisunshinelaw.pdf?sfvrsn=20
. Note particularly p. 11. Also note that the motion to go into a closed
session, which under the law is essentially an executive session with
certain items disclosed later, must be held by roll call, and that all
votes in closed session must be held by roll call. Thus, when a matter is
concluded and the law requires that the minutes be released, they say more
than those of an open session, which are required only to indicate vote
totals.) Anyway, this town could hold executive sessions to discuss
personnel matters, but not to take action. I was peripherally involved in
a situation where it was discovered that a certain employee (he ran his own
department and so had no direct supervisor) had not been doing his job for,
at least, 5 years. After a lengthy executive session, they returned to
open session, and moved to fire X for not having done his job for the past
5 years. (Because of the nature of his job, the motion had to include
something to this effect - state law made him fireable only for severe
cause.) It didn't seem to me that the executive session had served much of
a purpose.
That said, I seek cosponsors for the following amendment to the policy
manual:
In 1.02.5: insert ",other than on personnel matters," after "No action"
On Mr. Hayes' point: I find it unfathomable that, this long after our last
meeting, we have not given the committee charged with examining our entire
social media apparatus and making recommendations, access to the entire
social media apparatus. I'm less upset by the rest of the LNC in this
regard, since I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about that part of our
decision, but I also call for that commitment to be carried out.
Finally, let me end this on a sad note. I know Libertarians. If I didn't,
though, and this email discussion were my introduction to the party, I can
tell you, as much as I love liberty, I would conclude that I would not vote
for a Libertarian for public office. This is a sad conclusion for me,
because (myself perhaps excluded) I know that our board is a group of
intelligent, capable, reasonable, goal-oriented people, who share, at a
suitable level of generality, common goals and passions. Yet the way we
communicate with each other - and that's a large package, including the
structures we use, the form of our discussions, and what gets said and how
it gets said - often looks, to me, less than ideal. I wonder what
percentage of this board could pass an Ideological Turing Test applied to
our colleagues. I wonder if I could. I often suspect I couldn't, because
many things that get said seem inexplicable to me, and I doubt I am alone
in that. I think we can govern better than this, and I think we can do
better than this.
I have often said that the biggest problem in our society, the problem that
creates an ever-growing government, is an inability to disagree without
putting people into boxes or simply ignoring them. I came to that opinion
after a few people were arrested in NYC for "man-spreading," a problem
created entirely because a) no one will walk up to a person on a train and
say "would you please move your leg, I'd like to sit there", and b) they
won't do that because too many people should scream back "how dare you! I
have rights you know!" So we create social vacuums and ask government to
fill them. Let's model the alternative.
While we're modeling that alternative, what are we going to do about a pile
of false claims directed against one of our directors? Can we, at least,
get it the L off our page?
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Caryn Ann,
>
> I say lots of things at LNC meetings, but that doesn't mean that the LNC
> agreed to everything I said.
>
> So the volunteers, who are supposed to promote the Party on our Facebook
> page, can instead use the Party's public Facebook page and large audience
> to instead launch personal attacks...but because our email list is public
> and a smaller audience of insiders reads it, the LNC can't discuss the
> volunteer who did it? Admins have deleted other posts in the past, but
> this one is still there. There's not even a discussion of it in the closed
> LP Admins and Moderators group. There's no private email list on which the
> board can address this since nobody else is going to.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Everyone, prior to last meeting and at last meeting when the issue of
>> potentially discussing specific volunteers came up, I mentioned it should
>> be in executive session, and though it was dicta, that seemed to be the
>> instruction of the Chair last meeting as well.
>>
>> When a formal request for dismissal or discipline is requested against
>> staff or volunteers, I do believe that is the proper approach, and thus
>> unless the Chair specifically instructs differently, I do not think this is
>> the place.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> 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 <(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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170528/d2b0f0ff/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list