[Lnc-business] Fwd: [APRC] APRC Institutional Memory

Joshua Katz planning4liberty at gmail.com
Sun Aug 20 12:42:32 EDT 2017


Joshua A. Katz


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carla Howell <4smallgov at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [APRC] APRC Institutional Memory
To: "aprc at hq.lp.org" <aprc at hq.lp.org>


Note in an addition to Dan's excellent summary below, another policy,
attached, was adopted and approved by the prior Chair. It was adopted right
around the time Wes became ED a year ago and has been in effect since.

It has been working well - I know of no cases of an early release that
caused a problem as we reserved this option only for material we believed
would be non-controversial.

I note that news gets stale fast. Sometimes we invest a non-trivial amount
of time researching and writing a story. This investment can be lost if we
are too delayed  and the news becomes old, which includes missing
reporters' deadlines. So having a release valve for this policy can make a
difference in whether the story will get picked up and our investment gets
a payback.

Nick (or someone) - please advise if the attached should still be in effect.

Thanks,
Carla


Carla Howell

"The (government) designed (by our Founding Fathers) has turned into a
congealed ball of lard that eats money and excretes red tape."
- Scott Adams


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:

> What Dan wrote looks about right to me. In the future, I'd like to see the
> policy written in the official Policy Manual more closely match what we
> actually do in order to make the process easier for all to follow and
> understand. I'm pretty flexible on what the actual policies are and will
> point out if any particular item is causing hardships going forward.
>
> I had a fine working relationship with the previous APRC members and
> welcome the new members.
>
>
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> *New address: 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
>
> On 6/30/2014 6:17 PM, Jay Estrada wrote:
>
> Thank you.
> On Jun 30, 2014 5:03 PM, "Daniel Wiener" <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone (and thank you, Robert, for getting the new list set up so
>> fast).
>>
>> During the 2012-2014 term we had some rather sharp exchanges over the
>> proper boundaries and procedures for the Advertising & Publication Review
>> Committee.  Not everything is spelled out in detail in the Policy
>> Manual, but we ultimately came up with a pretty effective set of guidelines.
>> In the interest of not re-inventing the wheel, and to provide information
>> for the new APRC members, I decided to summarize the results below.  Of
>> course a lot of these items are subject to revision, but I think they at
>> least represent a good starting point.
>>
>>
>>    - Section 2.02 of the Policy Manual is attached below.  Basically it
>>    says that the scope of the APRC’s official authority is limited to assuring
>>    conformity of LP communications with the Platform, Bylaws, and Policy
>>    Manual.  APRC deliberations must be kept confidential, and there are
>>    time limits within which it must act.
>>
>>
>>    - Even though the Policy Manual permits time sensitive communications
>>    to be sent out without prior APRC approval or in the absence of a timely
>>    APRC response, that sometimes meant permitting undesirable items to slip
>>    through the cracks.  So in 2013 the LNC Chair directed staff to seek
>>    affirmative approval from at least three APRC members prior to publication,
>>    unless the Chair authorized a specific exception.  That also made in
>>    incumbent on APRC members to monitor their email on a frequent basis and to
>>    respond rapidly, especially for time-critical matters.
>>
>>
>>    - One viewpoint is that APRC activity should be strictly limited to
>>    evaluating whether an item violates the Platform, Bylaws, and Policy Manual.
>>    That was not the prevailing view last term.  The APRC frequently
>>    caught spelling and grammatical and factual errors, and offered other
>>    feedback to staff (which staff was not required to accept but said was
>>    welcome).  Accordingly, the LNC Chair outlined four general steps for
>>    APRC consideration in order of precedence:
>>
>>
>>    1. Does the submitted publication violate the platform, statement of
>>    principles, etc.  If Yes, explain how and why.
>>    2. Would the submitted publication show the LP in a negative or
>>    undesirable light?  If yes, explain how and why.
>>    3. Did you encounter any grammatical or spelling errors? If yes,
>>    please note.
>>    4. Do you have other feedback?  If yes, please note.
>>
>>
>> Appended below is Policy Manual Section 2.06(5) which describes how the
>> entire LNC can take quick action to block or withdraw public communications
>> which would be detrimental to the LP’s image.  Obviously it’s much
>> better to keep a problematical communication from going out in the first
>> place, rather than trying to remove it from the public sphere after the
>> fact (although if it is embarrassing enough it’s still better to repudiate
>> it than to let it stand).  But APRC deliberations are confidential,
>> which makes it difficult for an APRC member to communicate the problem to
>> the entire LNC prior to publication using this provision.   The LNC
>> Chair’s solution was as follows:
>>
>>    - Since the Chair can direct staff without changing any policy, he
>>    was directing staffing that if any single member of the APRC opposed
>>    publication for reason #2, that the Chair would be consulted, and would
>>    make the decisions regarding reason #2, but not otherwise. In these cases,
>>    staff is to NOT publish the piece without the Chair’s input.  [Note
>>    that the Chair is on the APRC email list as an ex officio member.]
>>
>>
>>    - The Chair agreed with the additional suggestion that if an item was
>>    kicked up to him for reason #2, and he in turn was having a very hard time
>>    making a determination, he would direct staff to circulate it to the entire
>>    LNC in draft form.  That wouldn't violate APRC confidentiality, and
>>    yet still allow the LNC to make the decision via Section 2.06(5) with very
>>    few negative repercussions.
>>
>>
>>    - The Chair agreed with yet another suggestion from staff: If an APRC
>>    member objected to an item based on reason #2, and staff was able to modify
>>    it so as to satisfy the APRC member’s objections, it would then not be
>>    necessary to bother the Chair to make a determination.
>>
>>
>> Following the kerfuffle which prompted the above guidelines, I don't
>> believe that any other issues arose which required a decision by the LNC
>> Chair.  I also want to mention that Gary Johnson, the new APRC Chair for
>> 2014-2016, has been especially adept at catching things and providing staff
>> with rapid feedback (which staff appreciated).  And probably 90% of
>> everything sent to the APRC gets rubber-stamped as approved.  I hope we
>> can all have a good working relationship and an effective committee during
>> the next two years.
>>
>>
>> Daniel Wiener
>>
>>
>>
>> *Section 2.02 COMMITTEE SCOPE AND RESPONSIBILITIES*
>>
>>
>>
>> *1) Advertising & Publication Review Committee*
>>
>>
>>
>> The APRC shall review and advise whether public communications of the
>> Party violate our bylaws, Policy Manual or advocate moving public policy in
>> a different direction other than
>>
>> a libertarian direction, as delineated by the Party Platform.
>>
>>
>>
>> Public communications may be defined in either of two categories:
>> time-sensitive or enduring.
>>
>>
>>
>> · Public communications that are of a time-sensitive nature, namely mass
>> e-mails, news releases, twitter posts and blog entries, shall be made
>> available to the APRC upon their publication.
>>
>>
>>
>> · Public communications that are of a more enduring nature, such as LP
>> News, Liberty Pledge News, self-published party literature and fundraising
>> letters, shall be made available to the APRC before the final proof is
>> approved for printing and distribution.
>>
>>
>>
>> Staff may seek advance advice from the APRC on any proposed
>> communication.  Staff may reasonably conclude that the failure of the APRC
>> to provide advice in a timely manner is tantamount to the committee's
>> approval.
>>
>>
>>
>> · In the case of public communications that are of a time-sensitive
>> nature, a response is considered timely if made within six hours of staff's
>> submission of the subject matter to the committee, if submitted prior to
>> its publication; and within forty-eight hours, if submitted after its
>> publication.
>>
>>
>>
>> · In the case of public communications that are of a more enduring
>> nature, a response is considered timely if made within twenty-four hours of
>> staff's submission of the subject matter to the committee.
>>
>>
>>
>> If a majority of the committee concludes that a public communication
>> violates the bylaws, Policy Manual, or advocates moving public policy in a
>> different direction other than a libertarian direction, as delineated by
>> the Party Platform, the committee chair shall report such to the Executive
>> Director and the LNC Chair, citing the specific platform plank, bylaw or
>> Policy Manual section. Official decisions of the APRC which are overridden
>> shall be promptly reported to the LNC without revealing confidential
>> employer-employee matters.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Section 2.02(5) Assuring Quality Communications*
>>
>>
>>
>> If a majority of all LNC members notify the Secretary of their belief
>> that a proposed or actual public communication is detrimental to the image
>> of the Party, such notification to occur no later than 72 hours after the
>> public communication is published, the Secretary shall inform the Executive
>> Director and Chair of this finding, and such communication shall not be
>> further disseminated, and to the extent possible, already-disseminated
>> material shall be promptly removed from the public sphere.
>>
>> --
>> *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
>> guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
>> compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
>> this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
>> the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
>> experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
>> disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
>> to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
>> doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
>> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
>> -- Richard Feynman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aprc mailing list
>> Aprc at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aprc mailing listAprc at hq.lp.orghttp://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aprc mailing list
> Aprc at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
Aprc mailing list
Aprc at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170820/c98a4c2c/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APRC policy.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33280 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170820/c98a4c2c/attachment-0002.doc>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list