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

Elizabeth Van Horn elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Wed Feb 28 10:36:30 EST 2018


Does your appreciation include David's attempt to smear me?  As he 
wrote:    "blatantly motivated by political opportunism", as attributed 
to me speaking out.   Which is false and more example of inappropriate 
actions.

---
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 09:39, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> David I appreciate it. You have an awesome day.
>    On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:38 AM Caryn Ann Harlos
>    <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> 
>    Asking the ED who in turn asked the Chair is completely appropriate.
> 
>    I leave the readers to judge by the whole conversation - which 
> included
>    assisting Jess in member conferences.
> 
>    On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:57 AM <[2]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:[3]lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On
>      Behalf Of
>      Elizabeth Van Horn
>      Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:05 AM
>      To: [4]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
>      [5]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][6]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. [7]http://zoom.us/
>      >    2. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>      >    3. [9]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 
> References
> 
>    1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>    2. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
>    3. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>    4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>    5. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>    6. http://zoom.us/
>    7. http://zoom.us/
>    8. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>    9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/



More information about the Lnc-business mailing list