[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