[Lnc-business] a past-chair's directive about APRC functions

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Alicia, I agree with you on the once three people say okay, it is done even
if the others have not spoken or indicated they don't wish to.  I have been
in the position of being the 4th person, and I have been in the position of
the 3rd person and felt that if all of us could have the time to discuss I
could persuade the first two.  It also allows for "coalitions of the quick"
on the
APRC IF there is ever a split.  That isn't the case now but it could be the
case in the future.

I think a smaller time window (in a certain time of day range - so no 2am
requests) but requiring all approve or abstain would be better. Yes that
would require APRC members to have to be frequent email readers, but that
is what we signed up for.

I usually respond within an hour average unless it is a large piece such as
LP News which I like to print out and examine.

-Caryn Ann

-Caryn Ann

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> I served on the APRC for the second half of last term, filling a vacancy.
> In the final LNC meeting I expressed that some APRC rules need to be
> fixed.  This is just as good a time as any to ask for resolution on one
> specific aspect that I had in mind.
>
> In a previous term, LNC Chair Geoff Neale gave a directive to the staff
> which (because it allows for declaring a vote over before all have had a
> chance to vote) undermines the APRC's ability to do what the LNC has
> directed it to do.  Below I will provide the full text of the directive,
> but the heart of the issue is that as soon as three APRC members approve a
> proposed publication, staff is authorized to publish it, rather than
> allowing a chance for the remaining APRC members to potentially note a
> problem and change other people's minds.
>
> I complained about this process at the time, and staff provided me with
> the text of the directive they had been given during the prior term.  They
> indicated that our current chair had decided to leave the directive in
> place.  Some time has passed since then, but I presume that this directive
> still is the standard operating procedure today.  If that's not the case,
> please let me know.
>
> There is a section of the Policy Manual for standing orders from the
> chair, but this directive was not published there at the time it was
> issued.  I only learned about it from our staff.
>
> An LNC chair can give various directives to our staff, within parameters
> of the bylaws and LNC policy.  I have no objection to the portions of this
> directive which require more APRC notification than is otherwise required
> by LNC policy.  One thing that a chair is not allowed to unilaterally do,
> however, is undermine fundamentals of parliamentary process.
>
> For now, I am merely requesting that the chair revoke the portions
> authorizing staff action as soon as they get 3 yes votes from the APRC.
> Perhaps it wasn't previously obvious why it might be problematic, but
> several times this term we've had discussions about how votes ain't over
> until they're over.  This falls into the same category.  If the person who
> notices a problem is the 4th one to read their email that day, well, it's
> too late!
>
> A voluntary fix would make it unnecessary for me to offer a motion to
> rescind those portions of the directive, which would be my other option to
> address it.
>
> I am requesting an agenda item on this staff directive.
>
> Below is the full text of the directive, as it was told to me by staff
> last term.
>
> -Alicia
>
> --------------------------------
>
> This policy proposal for APRC review is intended to:
>
> 1.     Ensure LP publications are compliant with the party’s bylaws,
> platform and Policy Manual.
>
> 2.     Provide a mechanism for oversight by the APRC.
>
> 3.     Allow for the fact that LP publications are often time-sensitive
> for a variety of reasons, and
>
> 4.     Minimize unnecessary steps that reduce staff productivity.
>
> Definitions:
>
> ·    Violation = statement within an LP publication that contravenes the
> party’s bylaws, platform or Policy Manual.
>
> ·   Publication = LP written public statement including news releases,
> house letters, prospecting letters, literature, blog entries, Facebook
> posts, tweets (Twitter), postings to other websites in the party’s name,
> emails sent to the news media, emails sent to the party’s General email
> list, and emails sent to another constituency list, e.g. lists acquired
> from events such as Paul Fest, lists generated from an online petition. It
> includes other LP.org website pages that contain copy of substance, but not
> content used for administrative purposes such as membership sign-up forms
> or that serve as reference material such as event listings, candidate
> listings, election results (vote totals), approved LNC minutes, etc.
>
> ·   Copy – the text of the publication plus any images that may be viewed
> as controversial or potentially containing a violation. This does not
> include other images that serve for illustrative purposes only, e.g., a
> candidate’s headshot or a picture of an IRS form to go with a publication
> about taxes. It does not include copy changes of a trivial nature such as
> typographical corrections or other editing designed solely to improve
> readability or navigation.
>
> ·    Objection – phone call or email communication from an APRC member
> citing a violation in the copy.
>
> ·    Approval – statement of APRC member indicating copy is devoid of
> violations.
>
> For print publications, staff will transmit copy to APRC for review at
> least 24 hours before final approval of publication for printing. Barring
> any objections, it is approved.
>
> For electronic publications, staff will transmit copy to APRC no later
> than time of publication and will endeavor to transmit copy at least 2
> hours before publishing except where staff believes there is a nontrivial
> downside to delaying publication. Barring any objections, it is approved.
> However if staff believes the copy may contain a violation, regardless of
> the need for immediacy, staff will either (1) obtain the approval of at
> least 3 APRC members prior to publication or (2) will transmit copy to APRC
> at least 4 hours in advance of publication outside of the hours between
> midnight and 9:00 A.M. Eastern Time. Barring any objections, it is
> approved.  .
>
> If an APRC members cites an objection, staff will either correct the
> citation to the member’s satisfaction or seek and obtain the approval of
> copy without correction from at least three APRC members or from the Chair
> before publication. If the copy has already been published and can be
> pulled (from the web site, Facebook page, or any medium where it is
> possible to take the copy down), copy will be taken offline until it is
> approved.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170807/28fc1cfb/attachment-0002.html>