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

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Wed Feb 28 11:16:19 EST 2018


And you managed to be outraged over my request not to be outraged.

Got it.

Off to more productive exchanges.

Elizabeth when you have multiple people on a board you serve with saying
that perhaps you should rethink your personal approach with people there
might be something to it.  You have a group of people who have worked
together for two years and disagreed a great deal of the time without
becoming toxic.

And I will be following the Joshua model of deleting further emails in this
thread.

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:59 AM Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
   And you managed to be outraged over my request not to be outraged.
   Got it.
   Off to more productive exchanges.
   Elizabeth when you have multiple people on a board you serve with
   saying that perhaps you should rethink your personal approach with
   people there might be something to it.  You have a group of people who
   have worked together for two years and disagreed a great deal of the
   time without becoming toxic.
   And I will be following the Joshua model of deleting further emails in
   this thread.
   On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:59 AM Elizabeth Van Horn
   <[1]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:

     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
     [2]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][3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]http://zoom.us/
     >      >>>  2. mailto:[7]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
     >      >>>  3. [8][9]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
     >
     > References
     >
     >    1. mailto:[10]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
     >    2. [11]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
     >    3. mailto:[12]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
     >    4. [13]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
     >    5. [14]http://zoom.us/
     >    6. [15]http://zoom.us/
     >    7. mailto:[16]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
     >    8. [17]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. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
   6. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
   7. http://zoom.us/
   8. http://zoom.us/
   9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  10. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
  11. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
  12. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
  13. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
  14. http://zoom.us/
  15. http://zoom.us/
  16. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  17. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list