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

Tue Jun 20 20:59:54 EDT 2017

I am happy a motion is proposed which is why I co-sponsored it so we can
just decide it one way or another.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170620/0abde2c6/attachment-0002.html>