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

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

David, I never said that Caryn Ann was "making a profit", and I don't 
know of anyone else who's said that either.  Don't make up stuff.

I wonder how many people will call out your smear of when you wrote:   
"blatantly motivated by political opportunism"   Anyone...???

If you wish to see people focus on doing LP work, then I suggest that 
you stop trying to smear me for speaking up for actions that I see as 
inappropriate.






---
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 2018-02-28 08:57, david.demarest at lp.org wrote:
> 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/