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

[Daniel Hayes]

Dear Ms. Van Horn,

If you feel that caucuses paying for use of Party assets such “rooms” to hold meetings is inappropriate please have  the Pragmatic Caucus chair or representative authorized to handle these sorts of things contact Mr. Goldstein and I, along with Robert Kraus and we will arrange  a refund of the room that was “rented” at the Hyatt in NOLA.  We would prefer they did not but we would not want anyone to do something that they felt was wrong and are more than willing to help rectify this situation.

For the record, I see nothing wrong with other entities inquiring about using(and actually using) LP assets for a reasonable donation .   It may cause some FEC concerns depending on what it is.  But just because something is not allowed  because of a “law” does not make it inappropriate from a moral standpoint.  In the case of a hotel room “rented” for use via a donation, that is allowed under FEC rules.  On use of our adobe connect “room” I think it is also ok but the government tends to be inconsistent with its logic.  I would defer to counsel on that one.

In any event I would suggest the LPC keep their room at the Hyatt for its event.  We want to encourage more activity overall at our conventions and look forward to hosting the group. I look forward to seeing you in Denver and In NOLA.


Daniel Hayes
LNC Convention Oversight Committee Chair








Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> 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/