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

Elizabeth Van Horn elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Wed Feb 28 10:59:21 EST 2018


Caryn Ann, we disagree.  We can disagree and that's ok.  It doesn't mean 
that my saying I disagree, or disapproving of your actions, make my 
speaking out, of ill-intent.

I think you'd like to be accorded the same courtesy of not having your 
intentions smeared when you speak out about issues and actions. 
Likewise, I don't want that done to me.



---
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 10:51, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> Writing the ED to ask how something could be done who then asks the
>    Chair is appropriate protocol.
>    Good day.
>    On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:33 AM Elizabeth Van Horn
>    <[1]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> 
>      Daniel, the Hyatt isn't party assets.  Also, the Convention
>      committee
>      actions are vetted through a process.  The protocol was set prior 
> to
>      the
>      2018 convention, for groups to rent space, advertise, and be at LP
>      national conventions.  Your comparison between actions that have
>      been an
>      established protocol and has been vetted by the LNC, to actions 
> that
>      recently transpired and not vetted by the LNC, is flawed.
>      So, if you think the convention committee has erred in helping
>      groups
>      arrange space, letting groups advertise, and other actions at the
>      national committee, then perhaps the Convention committee should
>      discuss
>      the topic.
>      I maintain that those who are members of this body, if asking for
>      use of
>      party assets, that isn't an already established protocol, that 
> they
>      should bring the request to the body for discussion.  I shall
>      continue
>      to think this, despite the attempts by some to smear me for 
> speaking
>      out
>      on this topic.
>      I see your comment directed to me as a bullying attempt.
>      ---
>      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
>      [2]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>      On 2018-02-28 09:47, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>      > 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
>      >> <[3]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
>      >> [4]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][5]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. [6]http://zoom.us/
>      >>>  2. mailto:[7]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>      >>>  3. [8]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 
> References
> 
>    1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>    2. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>    3. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
>    4. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>    5. http://zoom.us/
>    6. http://zoom.us/
>    7. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>    8. http://www.lpcolorado.org/



More information about the Lnc-business mailing list