[Lnc-business] update on timing
Craig Bowden
craig.bowden at lp.org
Wed Jul 11 13:20:43 EDT 2018
For the record, I am the one who has aired the most concerns on the
timeline since the requests came from Region 1 while I was acting as
Representative. Three of the eleven states have specifically requested
this. I have not hear from four. The remaining four are interested but
not outright demanding it, just expressing interest.
If you need to put anything on anyone, that is on me.
Craig Bowden
Region 1 Alternate
On 2018-07-11 03:15, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> Hi Alicia,
> == I can't help but notice that you were fine with my tabulation of
> the
> Secretary's race, but then you were happier with the outcome of
> that
> one. You're not rattling the cages about that, only about the
> one
> in
> which you seem to be unhappy with the result. ==
> I am not unhappy with the result. I am unhappy with the way it was
> handled. Please don't make accusations or assumptions. I hope all
> of
> the races are audited and anyone in those races should not be
> involved
> with that. I am sure you agree that margins of less than 20 votes
> are
> significantly different than margins of 150 votes.
> == You have recklessly asserted that "a region 1 candidate was
> pretty
> screwed by this whole process", and that carries some pretty unfair
> implications.==
> The implications are that the At-Large candidates, which include a
> region 1 candidate, were not proper. I have asserted that from the
> beginning.
> == You keep complaining that I'm not done yet, as though heckling
> the person doing the work will make it go faster. ===
> Alicia, now you are going overboard. I am entitled to ask, and that
> is
> not heckling. I already begged your forgiveness if the intent came
> off
> differently but now you are attacking me. I am not complaining you
> are
> not done. I am asking for a timeframe. That is all. You could
> take
> three months and I think that is reasonable.
> == Your offer to "assist" is not practical, as any means for that to
> happen would necessarily make it take longer, and thus it
> contradicts
> your other complaint that it isn't happening fast enough.==
> First I never complained it is not happening fast enough. And
> second,
> it would seem desirable for me to assist to learn what you are
> doing.
> That is part of a standard hand-off practice.
> == You keep asking for a "timeline". I previously informed you when
> I'd get back home so I could start on it. After my first day of
> working on t, I updated on the substantial progress I made,
> indicated
> what was left to do, and assured you that it is my top priority to
> complete as soon as I could. Yet you're acting as though I have
> told
> you nothing and have done nothing so far. ==
> I am getting asked and asked and asked by members for a timeline. I
> think you are reading into things that are not there. I have no
> doubt
> that you have done an immense amount. I am not sure where this is
> coming from, but it is not accurate.
> ==In spite of me describing my progress and approaching the
> finishing
> line, you're portraying this as though the people requesting
> information are being "ignored".==
> The Utah Chair would like a timeline. He feels ignored.
> And I don't think a timeline is unreasonable - such as "Dr. Buchman
> you
> can expect that in two weeks."
> That is all I am asking. I think this going on the attack here is
> not
> appropriate. If *I* have one complaint (that is not transmitting a
> complaint from a member) it would be that I should be included on
> this
> process. That is part of training and handoff. And yes that may
> mean
> things will take a little bit longer and that can be blamed totally
> on
> me.
> There is no need to go on the attack. I am not attacking you. I
> don't
> attack you. I have only the utmost respect and admiration for your
> skills as I have said numerous times which is one reason I do want
> to
> be included in the process for training purposes.
> I am not attacking you. Please stop attacking me. None of this is
> productive. I already apologized if the tone of other requests came
> off wrong. Please accept that.
> However, a timeline is not unreasonable and I am requesting that on
> behalf of members who keep asking me. A request that people
> involved
> in an election not be involved in the recount is not unreasonable,
> in
> fact, I am rather shocked that is not standard practice so I am
> requesting an independent audit of any race in which an auditor was
> also a candidate We would expect this of other organizations.
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:22 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
> <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann,
> I can't help but notice that you were fine with my tabulation
> of
> the
> Secretary's race, but then you were happier with the outcome of
> that
> one. You're not rattling the cages about that, only about the
> one in
> which you seem to be unhappy with the result. You have
> recklessly
> asserted that "a region 1 candidate was pretty screwed by this
> whole
> process", and that carries some pretty unfair implications.
> You keep complaining that I'm not done yet, as though heckling
> the
> person doing the work will make it go faster. Your offer to
> "assist"
> is not practical, as any means for that to happen would
> necessarily
> make it take longer, and thus it contradicts your other
> complaint
> that
> it isn't happening fast enough.
> You keep asking for a "timeline". I previously informed you
> when
> I'd
> get back home so I could start on it. After my first day of
> working on
> it, I updated on the substantial progress I made, indicated
> what
> was
> left to do, and assured you that it is my top priority to
> complete as
> soon as I could. Yet you're acting as though I have told you
> nothing
> and have done nothing so far. Today I finished the dozen
> states
> that I
> didn't get to yesterday. Next I need to write up my notes and
> scan
> some supporting documents. That's where things are, and it's
> where
> I'll pick up later today.
> In spite of me describing my progress and approaching the
> finishing
> line, you're portraying this as though the people requesting
> information are being "ignored". That's just not a rational
> description of the situation.
> All of this just makes me think that this whole conversation is
> more
> about generating noise than anything else. Regardless, I'll
> finish the
> task soon and then move on to the rest of my to-do list.
> -Alicia
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via
> Lnc-business
> <[1][2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> The At-Large results shouldn’t be a one-person audit in
> this
> case.
> And no one who ran should conduct it.
> I continue to offer to assist.
> There was no intent to have an inappropriate tone and if
> anything
> presented that way you have my abject apology.
> What is being asked - by several state Chairs - is a
> timeline. I
> don’t
> think that is unreasonable. They feel like they are being
> ignored.
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:24 PM Richard Longstreth via
> Lnc-business
> <[1][2][3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Thank you for your work Alicia. I appreciate your
> hasty
> efforts
> and
> dedication in getting these items available as soon
> as
> you
> can.
> Richard
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 05:09 Alicia Mattson via
> Lnc-business
>
> <[1][2][3][4]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Ms. Harlos,
> I indicated before that I would be traveling with a
> full
> schedule
> and
> only sporadic internet access, and would not return
> to
> my
> more
> normal
> routine until Monday. I got home from my trip
> Sunday
> night,
> and
> starting in the wee hours of Monday morning you
> started
> the
> "Are
> we
> there yet?" messages about the At-Large details.
> Then
> throughout
> the
> day it became rather unfair characterizations that I
> was
> saying
> "well,
> whenever" as though I'm blowing it off. That tone
> is
> not
> warranted nor
> appreciated.
> Yes, the state-by-state numbers that add up to the
> totals
> I
> sent
> do
> exist, but providing that will not be the end of the
> story.
> If
> all I
> send is that, immediately the questions will begin
> about
> the
> instances
> where those numbers vary from the delegation tally
> sheets
> because
> we
> caught and corrected errors. Then while I am
> researching
> to
> answer
> those questions, we all know the internet gossip
> will
> get
> silly,
> with
> people not being careful to say only things they
> know
> to
> be
> true
> while
> waiting on answers to the questions.
> My usual practice is to do the post-convention audit
> as
> part
> of
> building the convention minutes, which is near the
> end
> of
> my
> to-do list
> after having updated other minutes with timing
> deadlines,
> policy,
> bylaws, platform, etc. Instead, so I can answer
> most
> questions
> on
> at-large before they are asked, because there was a
> very
> close
> outcome
> that involves me, I've prioritized the audit of the
> At-Large
> race
> to do
> it mostly first...though I did also send updated
> minutes
> to
> meet
> a
> posting deadline and update the Policy Manual
> earlier.
> When I provide the state-by-state numbers, I'll scan
> the
> state
> tally
> sheets, plus provide my notes about what's different
> between
> the
> two
> and why so that those questions can be addressed
> simultaneously
> in one
> message, rather than being spread out in different
> places
> at
> different
> times where people might miss some of it.
> You're well aware of how long it took a team of 10
> people
> to
> go
> through
> the Judicial Committee votes after the LNC meeting
> on
> July
> 2nd?
> You
> can deduce from that how long it takes one person to
> give
> the
> At-Large
> the second-pass, fine-tooth-comb treatment. Today I
> spent
> a
> LARGE
> number of hours on the project. I think I have
> about a
> dozen
> states
> left to go, plus tally sheet scanning and writing up
> my
> notes.
> It
> takes only a few seconds for you to ask, "Are we
> there
> yet?", but
> it
> takes a lot longer to actually accomplish it.
> I didn't have the crystal ball at the start of the
> project
> to
> know
> precisely how long I would get to work on it today,
> or
> how
> long
> it
> would take to complete. Rather than emailing the
> LNC
> every
> 30
> minutes,
> (and I haven't even taken time to comment on the two
> email
> ballots yet,
> though I have a bit to say there), I'm focusing on
> just
> getting
> this
> task done so I can move on to the next. It is a
> high
> priority on
> my
> list, and when I finish it, I'll send it.
> To others who have been asking about the rest of my
> to-do
> list,
> I'm
> doing this project first. In the case of adopted
> resolutions,
> please
> recall that our convention forges ahead and adopts
> all
> sorts
> of
> things
> from the floor while the Secretary is trying to
> tally
> election
> results. I suppose I should be flattered that some
> believe
> I can
> document those fully on the fly while I'm
> simultaneously
> aggregating
> election results, and have completed minutes
> immediately
> following
> adjournment, but that's a bit overly optimistic. I
> am
> a
> human
> who is
> constrained by the laws of time and space. I could
> only
> make
> sparse
> notes about the nature of other proceedings while I
> was
> working
> on
> elections, and when I start building the convention
> minutes,
> I'll
> have
> to go back and review the recordings to verify that
> I
> caught
> all
> the
> relevant details. I have a large envelope of lots
> of
> things
> that
> were
> submitted in writing, so I'll fish out what was
> actually
> voted
> on,
> verify that the written submission matches what the
> delegates
> were told
> they were voting on, etc.
> Again, all these items are in the queue, and I'll
> get
> to
> them all
> as
> soon as I reasonably can now that I am back at home
> with
> my
> usual
> workspace, but it is unreasonable to expect it to
> all
> happen
> instantaneously.
> -Alicia
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[3][4][5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
> Secretary
> - [4]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee -
> LPedia at LP.org
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
> References
> 1. mailto:[5][6]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:[6][7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto:[7][8]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:[8]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> References
> 1. mailto:[9]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:[10]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto:[11]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:[12]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 5. mailto:[13]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 6. mailto:[14]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 7. mailto:[15]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 8. mailto:[16]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [17]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 6. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 8. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 10. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 11. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 12. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 13. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 14. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 15. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 16. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 17. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list