[Lnc-business] would like to cut 1 issue of LP News

Tue Jun 20 19:53:33 EDT 2017

The LNC voted on two motions - to reduce the budget line and "plan for" 4
issues, which failed, and to adopt the budget, which passed.  What we're
being asked to do is either to recognize, as part of a decision, things
said in debate, or to recognize a failed motion as a decision to do
something else.  In my opinion, both of these violate basic principles of
parliamentary procedure:  that the chair states the motion before it is
voted on, that the minutes reflect the exact language of the motion, and
that assemblies, including boards, make decisions via motions.  I also
don't think these are technicalities - I think they are there for a reason,
and setting them aside would make decision making far more difficult than
it needs to be.  Members would need to think through every possible
consequence of a vote, in terms of what has been said in debate.  That's
why every manual embraces these principles, in one form or another.
Speaking of verbose debate serving hidden agendas - the point of these
rules is to have a clear object for discussion and to avoid precisely that
(the most on-point rule on that matter, though, is the prohibition against
debate without a motion).  Finally, tossing aside these principles would
require us to not only make decisions, not to then figure out what those
decisions mean, a process akin to reading tea leaves and often requiring
resort to interpretations of videotape.  The General was wiser than that,
in my view.

That being said, I do, in fact, object to the speculation on (my) motives
here.  I can't do much about it, but I can at least say I object.  I object
to disagreement being labeled "suspicious" as has happened far too many
times this term.  I object to the implication, intended or not, that
disagreement implies I am being dishonest, that my opinion amounts to
manipulation, and now, that this very request for polite disagreement
amounts to an effort to muzzle.  While I readily admit that there is no
such rule for email, there most certainly is such a rule for meetings,
discussed in the section on decorum, and it, too, is there for a reason.
If we insist, though, that speculation on motives is appropriate, then the
only motive I can think of for making a bald assertion which fails to
address the arguments already made, followed by a suggestion that
disagreement with said assertion is manipulative and dishonest, would be to
silence others.  Since I assume we do not wish to silence each other with
such forms of argument, I ask that such things not be done.

Thoughts?

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:04 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> The discussion was contentious but the decision was clear. It is a matter
> of record that the LNC voted for 6 issues. The results of that vote should
> be changed only by another vote of the LNC.
>
> That being said, I think it is appropriate for Wes to request a one-time
> waiver of a specified number of issues (hopefully just one) to resolve a
> temporary staffing issue due to a specific need. If the staffing issue is
> not temporary, a motion should be considered by the LNC that takes staff
> recommendations into account.
>
>
>
> I do object to any possible manipulative attempt by LNC members to
> contravene an official LNC vote by acclamation. If staff is overburdened,
> we should proactively address the issue, not use manipulation to increase
> the LNC burden with an attempted acclamation rehash of something we have
> already voted on.
>
>
>
> Yes, my contention above violates any possible understood ‘rule’ about not
> discussing motivations. Any such rule would really amount to an attempt to
> muzzle discussion of hidden agendas and reasoning behind those agendas. It
> is my opinion that much of our verbose debate is the result of hidden
> agendas. For better or worse, I pledge to always try to be upfront about my
> motivations and supporting logic. Further, I would support any general
> initiative to minimize endless circular arguments that just beat around the
> bush instead of getting straight to the point by presenting an open,
> assertive and *transparent* representation of our personal views,
> motivations, intent and supporting logic. Assertive transparency, the polar
> opposite of manipulation, just might be the key to achieving the otherwise
> seemingly unreachable goal of LNC and Libertarian institution consensus and
> enhance the role of our institutions to inspire empowered individual
> Libertarians.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *2018 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> LSLA Vice-Chair
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell:      402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>
> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Daniel Hayes
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:48 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] would like to cut 1 issue of LP News
>
>
>
> Bittner did it!!! HE took the issue!!
>
>
>
> #NeverBittner!!!
>
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
>
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner at lp.org> wrote:
>
> I take no issue to only having 5 issues of LP News in 2017.
>
>
>
> Brett
>
> **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.
>
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2017 01:57, "Alicia Mattson" <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have no objection to only doing 5 issues.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> The LNC discussed and passed a budget planning for 6 issues of LP News in
> 2017.
>
> I wanted to see if there was opposition to cutting the number from 6 to 5.
> I have discussed this with the chair and he was okay with me floating the
> proposal to the LNC.
>
> My primary reason for wanting to cut one issue is simply to reduce the
> burden on staff and allow us to focus on some other things right now.
>
> The number of issues produced each year has varied, and you can see how
> many easily by seeing the archives list here: https://www.lp.org/lpnews-
> archive/
>
> While some people have wanted us to produce more issues, and others have
> suggested we eliminate LP News, my personal preference is that we do
> continue to produce between 4 and 6 issues each year. There are still a lot
> of members who don't pay attention to email or visit or website.
>
> Carla Howell has been serving as editor of LP News. Her last day is June
> 30. She has generated 3 issues of LP News this year (February, April, and
> June issues).
>
> Eric Dixon has returned to staff. I plan to have him serve as the editor
> of LP News.  He has served as editor in the past.
>
> Rather than generate August, October, and December issues, I'd prefer to
> generate September and December issues.
>
> However, again, the LNC, passed a budget for 6, and if you want me to
> generate 6 issues, I'll do that, which will mean getting Eric to work on an
> August issue right away.
>
> Please speak up if you are opposed to me cutting one issue of LP News.
> I'll review any opposition and discuss with the chair before making a final
> decision on this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170620/527686e6/attachment-0002.html>