[Lnc-business] Setting the record straight on another issue
Elizabeth Van Horn
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Wed Feb 28 11:57:31 EST 2018
Caryn Ann, I'm not outraged. I know you don't like your character
attacked, will neither do I. Me pointing out this, isn't being
outraged. (funny that you'd use that word though. *laughing*)
Also, I am having a good day. Although, people saying 'good day' is a
common dismissal technique, I shall see it as you wishing me to have a
good day, as I'm sure you meant that.
---
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 11:16, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> 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