[Lnc-business] Setting the record straight on another issue
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Feb 28 11:04:17 EST 2018
Have a good day Elizabeth. I do not care to give a detailed exposition of
each jot and tittle of a one sentence thank you to a friend as I have no
idea what outrage you will read into it.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:51 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
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 <
> 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
>> 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
>> >> <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/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
Have a good day Elizabeth. I do not care to give a detailed exposition
of each jot and tittle of a one sentence thank you to a friend as I
have no idea what outrage you will read into it.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:51 AM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> 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
<[2]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
[3]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
>> <[4]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
>> [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:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
3. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
4. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at 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