[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