[Lnc-business] Setting the record straight on another issue

[david.demarest at lp.org]

Innuendo and denial often go hand-in-hand. What I am hearing is outright
denial, the polar opposite of being forthright. Caryn Ann and I don't agree
on everything, but she is forthright to a fault in an admirable way. The
notion that Caryn Ann is making a profit through her LP activities borders
on ludicrous. The suggestion that Caryn Ann is not being forthright and
profiting financially from her LP activities is blatantly motivated by
political opportunism, outright denial notwithstanding. Saying "I don't know
what you are talking about" reminds me of a child throwing a tantrum and
hollering "No, I'm not denying anything!"

Enough already! Running this issue into the ground will only dig a deeper
hole and further interfere with our deliberations. Let's stop wallowing in
destructive internal politics and get on with our important Libertarian
Party responsibilities, like downsizing the coercive sector, upsizing the
voluntary sector, inspiring and empowering individual Libertarians, building
the farm team, getting Libertarians elected to all levels to provide
regulatory relief, and making the world a better and freer place to live in
for all that are not out to hurt people and take their stuff.

Thoughts?

Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less

~David Pratt Demarest
Region 6 Representative

-----Original Message-----
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
Elizabeth Van Horn
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:05 AM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Setting the record straight on another issue

Once again: I'm not using innuendo and insinuation, I'm saying outright,
that the whole incident was inappropriate.  When a person calls out
inappropriateness, don't attack their motives and make it personal, I'd have
said the same if any caucus tried this.  (Although, the LPCaucus wouldn't
have.)


1)  It's inappropriate for caucuses to use the Adobe Connect room. (the one
contracted with the LP)

2)  I personally, think it was inappropriate to ask.

3)  The ask, while inappropriate, was made more so, by not coming straight
to this board to ask.

4)  Offering to pay for something that's inappropriate, doesn't make it
better.  (make it worse in my eyes, as there's a financial incentive)

5)  Opening up to other caucuses doesn't make it better, as none of them
should be using LP assets for their own meetings.

6)  If the LPCaucus had been offered by the LP to use the LP contracted
Adobe meeting platform, we would have declined, as it's inappropriate.


Also, I've had people reaching out to me over this, and other similar, 
to offer support and express astonishment.




---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
http://www.lpcaucus.org/

On 2018-02-27 17:15, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> First, once again, I am going to say that amongst very responsible
>    genuine concerns discussed recently, there have been overlays of
>    innuendo and insinuation that are the things we should expect from 
> the
>    old parties.  Not us.  Perhaps I should be thankful since apparently
>    all I care about is "profile building" and the recent events have
>    people who normally are not typically my usual allies have got in 
> touch
>    to express astonishment and support.
>    But to my point-
>    In another email, the fact the LPRC had requested use of the LP's 
> Adobe
>    account was mentioned.  And then spun off into an exposition of how 
> it
>    was unprincipled even if they were allowed and how another 
> particular
>    caucus would have refused (unlike the LPRC apparently).
>    Can we stop this?  Please.  Let me set that record straight and I
>    challenge anyone to make an argument with a straight face that this 
> was
>    unprincipled.  HERE IS THE ORIGINAL REQUEST:
>    ==Wes, would the LP consider renting the use of its Adobe Connect 
> room
>    ( if it is an account that allows up to 100 participants) for a
>    donation?
>    The LP Radical Caucus needs an afternoon for a member meeting and 
> Adobe
>    only licensing by the year for the larger room.  I understand their
>    yearly fee is $500- we would be willing to donate $100 for the one 
> day
>    use.==
>    THE LPRC OFFERED TO PAY FOR IT.  20% of the total cost for ONE DAY 
> OF
>    USE.  And if this COULD BE OPENED UP TO OTHER GROUPS the Party could
>    cover its expenses.
>    Wow, that casts it in another light doesn't it.  As the Proverb 
> says,
>    one man seems right until another presents his case.
>    Nobody volunteers for this job to have their principles impugned.  I
>    certainly don't, and I CERTAINLY DON'T APPRECIATE OR DESERVE IT.
>    So stop. This isn't what the Libertarian Party is all about.
>    And if but for the requirement that Ms. Mattson must administer all
>    meetings, I stand by the idea that if the LP could get its costs
>    covered, or even get additional funds, that is not only not
>    unprincipled, it is SMART.
>    Wes at first expressed reservations and said he would speak with 
> Nick.
>    I said cool.
>    Then, I said this in response to the information that only one 
> person
>    knew how to run it and it could be clunky:
>    ==I will do some test runs to learn it and see.  It is probably a 
> good
>    idea to have someone else who also knows it in the event of an LNC
>    need.  It might not be a bad idea to have someone familiar in case 
> Jess
>    or anyone ever wants to try having an interactive member 
> presentation
>    like we do with the conference calls.  There might be some potential
>    here since we have the license already.  And I love playing with 
> this
>    stuff.  I have done some Adobe training.
>    I am doing some test runs of some new products (like [1]zoom.us) and
>    having a good comparison might good as well in there is a better 
> more
>    cost effective solution for the LNC to consider in the future 
> (though
>    yes I know Adobe Connect is in the Policy Manual). ==
>    Oh... so I wanted to do research to save the Party money?  How
>    terrible. How unprincipled.
>    Wes said:
> 
>    ==Robert, I assume there are no variable charges to the account. In
>    other words, we have a flat $500 per year fee and when Caryn Ann 
> uses
>    it we don't get hit with additional usage fees.  If there are extra
>    usage fees, please let us know about that.
> 
>    Caryn Ann, I don't think we are selling this service. This is 
> offered
>    free of charge. But, if you use it, I do hope someone will 
> contribute
>    $100 in thanks to the party. ==
> 
>    I said:
> 
>    ==Wes, I will test it out and learn it with some small meetings, and 
> if
>    we use it for our yearly member meeting in June (which was the 
> original
>    purpose of the request), I will make sure that a gift is given to 
> the
>    party.
> 
>    I will share any feedback I have regarding any deficiencies and 
> pluses
>    for future consideration of the party when considering our options 
> in
>    next budget.==
> 
>    And get ready here is when the big reveal was given:
> 
>    ==Hi Alicia, I understand how Adobe Connect works and would like the
>    credentials as per Nick's permission to my caucus to use for an
>    upcoming meeting and I would need to do some test runs. This means 
> that
>    I could be available to get online if a subcommittee ever needs to 
> use.
>    I would like to use this as well for the historical preservation
>    committee - in the beginning we are going to be meeting weekly.==
>    At this point the LPRC already was strongly considering something 
> else,
>    and I pursued this SO I COULD BE A BACKUP PLAN TO TAKE LOAD OFF OF
>    ALICIA, HELP SUB-COMMITTEES, AND FOR THE HISTORICAL COMMITTEE.
>    This has been made into a FB nontroversy as well.  Well, now 
> everyone
>    has the entire context and they can judge for themselves what a
>    terrible unprincipled request I made.
>    I have hopes (it springs eternal) that regret would be expressed at
>    this situation.  But I suspect I will instead be scolded for taking
>    offense, its my fault for not caring for being smeared.
>    And also, I will note it is inappropriate for any of us to promote 
> the
>    virtues of one caucus over another.  When I was involved in LPRC
>    leadership (I no longer am, I resigned after the "Libertarian Party
>    Nudist Caucus" post), I was very careful NOT to do that.  This list 
> is
>    a Party asset as well.  We don't use it to promote one caucus over
>    another.  Is it a huge deal?  No. Not really.  But if I had done 
> that,
>    it would have been made to be the Apocalypse (yes that is hyperbole 
> for
>    a point).
>    Caucuses serve and important need in this Party and enrich us.  
> There
>    is something for everyone and they all have good and bad points.  We
>    all should be proud of our involvements in the ones that suit our 
> needs
>    but we should not use our Party position on a Party list to put 
> another
>    one down.
>    --
>    In Liberty,
>    Caryn Ann Harlos
>    Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>    Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, 
> Washington)
>    - [2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>    Communications Director, [3]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>    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
> 
> References
> 
>    1. http://zoom.us/
>    2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>    3. http://www.lpcolorado.org/