[Lnc-business] Policy citations for our review
Elizabeth Van Horn
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Sat Feb 24 18:38:35 EST 2018
No idea what you're talking about?
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On 2018-02-24 17:34, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> Since the goal was to open up to everyone and a cost was discussed to
> defray the Party’s yearly cost therecead ZERO inappropriateness in
> making the request.
>
> I use the word sinister because you have quite a talent at finding
> hidden meanings in so many things.
>
> Joshua makes a statement and you assume he was making a dig st you.
>
> Nick posts an email from 2015 and you think it’s about you.
>
> I invite people to call me to be personae and you turn it into
> something to be wary off and hypocritical.
>
> I offer to volunteer and that is “odd” and “disturbing”
>
> I look forward to how you will turn this into something else. It’s
> been quite amazing. And by amazing I mean singularly unpleasant.
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:05 PM Elizabeth Van Horn
> <[1]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann, why do you keep using words like sinister? I certainly
> didn't.
> I wrote: "It's inappropriate to let caucuses avail themselves of
> items
> paid for by the LP members."
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> On 2018-02-24 13:45, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> > And here we go again. I asked. There is nothing sinister in
> asking
> > and a resource that sits unused could be made available to
> everyone.
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:56 AM Elizabeth Van Horn
> > <[1][2]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Caryn Ann, you wrote:
> > The deciding factor there was our contractual agreement
> with
> Adobe
> > that
> > you must be present to administer all meetings.
> Libertarians
> > keep
> > contracts and that was unworkable. Nick was perfectly
> > amenable
> > in
> > letting other groups use it and making that widely
> known
> until
> > that
> > came up. You could not be expected to attend all those
> > meetings. I
> > think that personally was a bad deal to sign up for and
> that
> > there
> > are
> > much better conferencing options (and cheaper) that
> could
> be
> > used by
> > more people, but that wasn't the issue then. When
> adobe
> > renewal
> > comes
> > up, there are far better options that don't require
> reliance
> > on
> > one
> > person.
> > -------------
> > Was the possibility of caucuses using the Adobe platform,
> which is
> > contracted with the LP, ever discussed by this board? This
> is
> > another
> > instance where party assets are okd for use, and this board
> should
> > have
> > been made aware. So, I'm asking, was this discussed by the
> LNC?
> > Also, for the record: The LPCaucus would have soundly
> rejected
> > any
> > offer from LP national to use LP assets in this manner. (If
> such
> > an
> > offer had been made) Principles matter, we'd find it wrong
> to
> > compromise
> > our principals, even to benefit our group. The LPC doesn't
> > approve
> > of
> > frivolous use of LP assets. It doesn't matter if there's an
> > ill-advised
> > contract and an item isn't used much. It's inappropriate
> to
> let
> > caucuses avail themselves of items paid for by the LP
> members.
> > ---
> > Elizabeth Van Horn
> > On 2018-02-24 04:56, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> > > ==Earlier this term, Mr. Sarwark instructed staff to
> provide to
> > Ms.
> > > Harlos the login information for the LNC's Adobe
> Connect
> > account
> > > so
> > > that the Radical Caucus could use it for their
> caucus
> > meeting.
> > > Staff
> > > then sent me a request to remind them of the login
> > information.
> > > We
> > > don't have an LNC policy specifically about the use
> of
> > party
> > > assets
> > > by
> > > caucuses, however I objected based on the recurring
> theme
> > of
> > the
> > > other
> > > LNC policies, and this offer was not being extended
> to all
> > > caucuses,
> > > and the idea died there with Ms. Harlos agreeing
> that
> the
> > Radical
> > > Caucus would find another meeting option.===
> > > The deciding factor there was our contractual
> agreement
> with
> > Adobe
> > > that
> > > you must be present to administer all meetings.
> Libertarians
> > keep
> > > contracts and that was unworkable. Nick was perfectly
> > amenable
> > in
> > > letting other groups use it and making that widely
> known
> > until
> > that
> > > came up. You could not be expected to attend all
> those
> > meetings. I
> > > think that personally was a bad deal to sign up for
> and
> that
> > there
> > > are
> > > much better conferencing options (and cheaper) that
> could be
> > used by
> > > more people, but that wasn't the issue then. When
> adobe
> > renewal
> > > comes
> > > up, there are far better options that don't require
> reliance
> > on
> > one
> > > person.
> > > ==Policy Manual Section 2.03.4 : Conventions==
> > > This is speaking about national party conventions and
> > delegates.
> > > == Policy Manual Section 2.03.5 : Credit Card and
> Expense
> > > Reimbursements==
> > > == NOTE: This allows travel reimbursements for
> > "officers".===
> > > That is a good point and a very good catch but in
> context it
> > > certainly
> > > is in the context of the reality that officers will
> have
> to
> > > regularly
> > > do this and there was to be no question that it could
> be
> > reimbursed.
> > > It does not say or imply that others could not be only
> that
> > such was
> > > not an expected guarantee. The main take away here is
> Party
> > related
> > > activities.
> > > == Policy Manual Section 2.03.9 : Related Party
> Reporting==
> > > And the treasurer had all this noted for the next
> report
> > which
> > is
> > > when
> > > it would have been included as per this section.
> > > == Policy Manual Section 2.08.2 : Limitations on
> Party
> > Support for
> > > Public
> > > Office==
> > > Not running for public office.
> > > ==Policy Manual Section 2.09.6 : Limitations on Party
> > Support
> > for
> > > Party
> > > Office
> > > "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=== [emphasis added]
> > > I have not declared and this section obviously again
> means
> > > information
> > > and services related to that campaign. Or does that
> mean you
> > can no
> > > longer ask for services or information that have
> nothing
> to
> > do
> > with
> > > campaigning unless it is offered to me (if I
> declared)?
> Of
> > course
> > > not. This is about providing support for campaigns
> for
> > DECLARED
> > > Party
> > > candidates. I was neither campaigning nor was I
> declared.
> > > == Policy Manual Section 3.03.1 : Affiliate
> Relationships
> > > "Special agreements with states require the
> approval
> of
> > the
> > > LNC."==
> > > I also have no idea what this means, but I cannot
> conceive of
> > any
> > > intent in which it would apply here.
> > > No policies were violated. You can have your opinion
> that
> > wrong
> > > discretion was used and that is fair. And subjective.
> I
> > followed
> > > the
> > > rules and directions and got the appropriate
> approvals.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Alicia Mattson
> > > <[1][2][3]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Below I'm going to quote a number of LNC policies
> that
> > we
> > > should
> > > keep
> > > in mind for evaluating the subject of the day.
> > > There is a large body of LNC policy establishing
> a
> > framework of
> > > keeping
> > > things on an even playing field. Some of the
> policies
> > were
> > > specifically written after real-life experience
> with a
> > > situation
> > > that
> > > generated objections.
> > > Our policies require fairness regarding use of
> party
> > assets by
> > > pre-nomination candidates for public office, or
> for
> > internal
> > > party
> > > office. Our policies forbid giving some national
> > convention
> > > delegates
> > > financial advantages over others. Our policies
> require
> > that
> > > "special"
> > > agreements with affiliates (agreements not
> offered
> to
> > all)
> > > require LNC
> > > approval. Our policies require advance approval
> of
> > related
> > > party
> > > transactions and then various financial
> disclosures
> > beyond
> > just
> > > FEC
> > > reporting.
> > > Earlier this term, Mr. Sarwark instructed staff
> to
> > provide
> > to
> > > Ms.
> > > Harlos the login information for the LNC's Adobe
> Connect
> > > account
> > > so
> > > that the Radical Caucus could use it for their
> caucus
> > meeting.
> > > Staff
> > > then sent me a request to remind them of the
> login
> > information.
> > > We
> > > don't have an LNC policy specifically about the
> use
> of
> > party
> > > assets by
> > > caucuses, however I objected based on the
> recurring
> > theme
> > of
> > > the
> > > other
> > > LNC policies, and this offer was not being
> extended
> to
> > all
> > > caucuses,
> > > and the idea died there with Ms. Harlos agreeing
> that
> > the
> > > Radical
> > > Caucus would find another meeting option.
> > > I think the current situation may run afoul of
> some
> of
> > our
> > > policies
> > > below, but we shouldn't have to write a policy to
> > anticipate
> > > every
> > > potential idea that might arise. There's enough
> > collective
> > > experience
> > > on this board that good judgment should be able
> to
> spot
> > the bad
> > > optics
> > > here.
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.03.4 : Conventions
> > > "The Party shall not directly or indirectly
> compensate
> > or
> > > otherwise
> > > underwrite or subsidize the convention travel,
> lodging
> > > (excepting
> > > room
> > > upgrades which the Party received at no cost),
> > entertainment
> > > costs or
> > > speaker fees/honorariums of any Convention
> delegates.
> > This
> > > policy
> > > shall
> > > not prohibit the Party from underwriting
> organized
> > convention
> > > events
> > > offered to all donors of a particular level. Nor
> shall
> > it
> > > prohibit
> > > delegates from receiving complementary meals or
> access
> > to
> > > convention
> > > events in rough proportion to their level of
> volunteer
> > work.
> > > All
> > > volunteer compensation must be approved by the
> > Convention
> > > Oversight
> > > Committee, and contemporaneously published when
> actual
> > > compensation is
> > > received."
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.03.5 : Credit Card and
> Expense
> > > Reimbursements
> > > "... Travel expenses incurred by officers for the
> > explicit
> > > purpose of
> > > conducting Party business (excluding those
> incurred
> for
> > the
> > > purpose of
> > > attending LNC meetings) may be reimbursed.
> Business
> > travel
> > > expenses
> > > not pre-authorized by the LNC must be deemed
> necessary
> > and
> > > approved in
> > > writing by the Chair to qualify for
> reimbursement.
> All
> > travel
> > > expense
> > > reports are to be audited by the Treasurer, and
> approved
> > by the
> > > Treasurer and the Chair."
> > > NOTE: This allows travel reimbursements for
> "officers".
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.03.9 : Related Party
> Reporting
> > > "For each related party engaging in one or more
> > financial
> > > transactions
> > > with the Party, all interim financial statements
> shall
> > include
> > > a
> > > report
> > > of the status, nature and current and
> year-to-date
> > amounts
> > with
> > > respect
> > > to such transactions, including contributions,
> expenses,
> > loans,
> > > commitments, guarantees or any other
> transaction."
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.04.3 : Contracts and
> Contract
> > Approval
> > > "All contracts or modifications thereto shall be
> in
> > writing and
> > > shall
> > > document the nature of the products or services
> to
> be
> > provided
> > > and the
> > > terms and conditions with respect to the amount
> of
> > > compensation/reimbursement or other consideration
> to be
> > paid.
> > > ...
> > > No
> > > agreement involving a financial transaction with
> a
> > related
> > > party
> > > shall
> > > be executed unless first approved by the LNC. Any
> such
> > > agreement
> > > shall
> > > be disclosed in a conflict of interest
> statement."
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.08.2 : Limitations on
> Party
> > Support
> > > for
> > > Public
> > > Office
> > > "Party resources shall not be used to provide
> > information
> > or
> > > services
> > > for any candidate for public office prior to the
> > nomination
> > > unless:
> > > * such information or services are available
> and
> > announced on
> > > an
> > > equal basis to all Libertarians who have
> declared
> > they
> > are
> > > seeking
> > > that nomination,
> > > * such information or services are generally
> available
> > and
> > > announced
> > > to all party members, or
> > > * the service or candidate has been approved by
> the
> > state
> > > chair."
> > > Policy Manual Section 2.09.6 : Limitations on
> Party
> > Support
> > > for
> > > Party
> > > Office
> > > "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 members."
> > > Policy Manual Section 3.03.1 : Affiliate
> Relationships
> > > "Special agreements with states require the
> approval of
> > the
> > > LNC."
> > > NOTE: I am not certain the exact motivation for
> adding
> > this
> > > language,
> > > but it may have been one of the following. It
> could
> > have
> > been
> > > during
> > > Project Archimedes in which states with partisan
> voter
> > > registration
> > > were targeted for membership drives because there
> > already
> > > existed
> > > a
> > > list of people in that state who are
> philosophically
> > aligned
> > > with
> > > the
> > > party. It could have been a situation during the
> > Unified
> > > Membership
> > > Program in which an affiliate combined
> state-specific
> > mailings
> > > with LP
> > > News. It didn't cost the LNC additional expense.
> The
> > > affiliate
> > > paid
> > > the marginal cost of the extra postage, and the
> LNC
> paid
> > the
> > > same
> > > postage they would have otherwise incurred for LP
> News.
> > > -Alicia
> > >
> > > References
> > >
> > > 1. mailto:[3][4]alicia.mattson at lp.org
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. mailto:[5]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> > 2. mailto:[6]alicia.mattson at lp.org
> > 3. mailto:[7]alicia.mattson at lp.org
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 2. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 3. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 4. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 5. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 6. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 7. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list