[Lnc-business] Proposed

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

You wrote:


"The fact that this was thrown on the list without the other officers 
being
consulted is another sign.  Was Mr. Merced at least consulted?  Or is he 
as
blind-sided as I am?  What about Mr. Hagan?

The chair is not the sole officer as inconvenient as that may be."

_______________________

Yet, your deal for having expenses cover to go to multiple conventions, 
wasn't told to the LNC officers.  The LNC officers were surprised to 
hear about it.

You and the former ED made a deal, and maybe the chair (Nick) were the 
only one's aware of it.  (Was the chair the sole officer when you did 
your deal?)

So, is it ok for you to bypass officers, and the LNC, when you were a 
Regional Rep? You weren't an officer, yet got a behind-the-scenes deal 
with the ED.

You didn't do an open suggestion to the email list, where everyone on 
the LNC, and the general public can see. (Which is what our new ED has 
done)

______________________________________

If a comparison is made to your past deal with our former ED, and our 
new ED making a SUGGESTION, I'll take suggestion any day.



---
Elizabeth Van Horn



On 2019-07-05 09:57, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> This was sent to the LNC from Starchild, and I support what he said as
> well.  This would represent an internal power refocus - a decision for 
> the
> delegates.  I frankly think it is as terrible as the not-heard prior 
> Bylaws
> Committee proposal to expand the LNC to over 100 persons then 
> consolidate
> power into a small Executive Committee.  I further feel there has been
> already a freezing out of the rest of the LNC with the chair 
> effectively
> treating the officers as non-officers, and the party being subtly ran 
> by
> the chair, the ED (at the direction of the chair so not a criticism of 
> the
> ED), and whoever is the current LNC favourite of the chair.
> 
> Unfair?  Maybe.  But I am not going to mince my words on what I 
> perceive as
> going on.
> 
> The fact that this was thrown on the list without the other officers 
> being
> consulted is another sign.  Was Mr. Merced at least consulted?  Or is 
> he as
> blind-sided as I am?  What about Mr. Hagan?
> 
> The chair is not the sole officer as inconvenient as that may be.
> 
> =====
> 
> Dear LNC members,
> 
> I am frankly appalled to see the message below from the new executive
> director floating a major policy proposal on the LNC list, to have his 
> boss
> (the chair) start being paid at party expense. With all due respect, I
> think the executive director is seriously overstepping his bounds and 
> has
> made a major breach of ethics.
> 
> The chair appoints somebody to a well-paying position, and then this 
> person
> turns around and advocates that the party start to pay the chair? It
> doesn't take a Mueller report to see the huge conflict of interest in 
> that.
> Nor does it stop there – it would likewise be a conflict of interest 
> for
> LNC members to use party funds to start paying a professional salary to 
> a
> member of their own committee.
> 
> But even that doesn't reflect the full extent of the problem with this 
> – I
> don't think the Libertarian National Committee even has the authority 
> to
> make the change he's proposing in the first place. Turning the LP chair
> office into a paid position is something I believe would require a 
> bylaws
> change by convention delegates, and for good reason: Such a move would 
> be a
> significant change in party operations, a major further concentration 
> and
> centralization of power at the top.
> 
> Nick Sarwark is generally doing an excellent job as chair in my view, 
> and I
> supported his reelection. But this is not about him – this is about the
> structure of the party and a proposal to alter that structure in a way 
> that
> would set a terrible precedent. What would come next, paying the 
> Secretary,
> the Treasurer, the rest of the LNC, and making them full-time employees
> too, putting more of our limited resources into overhead and attracting
> people to our party's leadership who are in it for the money or as a 
> career
> opportunity rather than because they want to work for freedom?
> 
> This is the path toward taking power in the Libertarian Party out of 
> the
> hands of grassroots activists, and putting it in the hands of paid
> professionals. Staff members are *not* elected by our membership, and
> really should not even be on the LNC discussion list and debating 
> policy
> proposals in the first place, unless all LP members are able to do the
> same. Paid employees are banned from being convention delegates, and 
> there
> is a good reason for that; senior staff in particular have a
> disproportionate amount of control over party operations as it is.
> 
> Having been on the LNC for two terms, I'm familiar with the pattern of
> committee members seeking to maintain good relations with staff in 
> order to
> have more personal influence with them and how they carry out party
> operations on a day-to-day basis. This is in part because so much power 
> is
> *already* concentrated in the position of party chair, who exercises 
> nearly
> sole control over who is hired and who is let go, that other LNC 
> members
> otherwise have little sway with staff, and consequently tend to be 
> careful
> to preserve what influence they do have by seeking to stay on their 
> good
> side. This is how things have gradually gotten to the point that 
> multiple
> staffers are on the LNC list and increasingly feel empowered to inject
> their personal views into LNC discussions, with the executive director 
> now
> floating a major (and I believe improper) policy proposal.
> 
> I don't want to give the impression that I think this is mainly about 
> poor
> judgement on the part of the executive director – although I do think
> floating such a proposal shows poor judgement, he is also new in the 
> job.
> Probably nobody told him there's anything wrong with his weighing in 
> like
> this, and he may have seen his predecessor and other staff similarly
> getting involved in policy matters. Likely he has a high opinion – 
> probably
> justified – of the chair's fundraising abilities, and may have just 
> thought
> he was offering a sensible, practical idea.
> 
> But there is a *lot* wrong with it. I strongly urge LNC members *not* 
> to go
> down this path, and further to set some institutional guidance for 
> staff
> members to limit their participation in LNC matters, for the good of 
> the
> Libertarian Party and the need to keep it a bottom-up organization, 
> which
> adheres to the highest ethical standards. The LP must not be allowed to
> become another failed, top-down party like the Democrats and 
> Republicans,
> run by those who are in it for the money and the power rather than by 
> their
> grassroots members, because if that happens you can be sure it will 
> also
> move away from being a *libertarian* party.
> 
> Love & Liberty,
> 
> ((( starchild )))
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 7:46 AM Caryn Ann Harlos 
> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> I oppose.  This is a decision for the delegates at convention.
>> Additionally, considering the fact that right now our chair has been
>> engaging in making enemies of particular sub-groups of libertarians 
>> and
>> Libertarians, it would be particularly galling to those Libertarians.
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 6:00 AM Daniel Fishman via Lnc-business <
>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear LNC, As I ponder how to replace one of the best fundraisers I’ve 
>>> ever
>>> known, It occurs to me there is a synergistic opportunity right now.
>>> 
>>> I have thought for a long time that the chair of the LNC should be a 
>>> paid
>>> position.
>>> 
>>> There is a possibility right now to make that happen. Rather than 
>>> going
>>> through a hiring process to replace a head of development, I’d like 
>>> to put
>>> the chair to work full time right now as a contractor. I believe a 
>>> paid
>>> chair can focus full time on major donors and issuing press releases 
>>> --
>>> two
>>> things I would like to see us improve on immediately.
>>> 
>>> Lauren and I talked about the need for a paid chair a few weeks ago, 
>>> and
>>> the serendipitous timing of the current Chair’s availability 
>>> concurrent
>>> with the personnel needs of the organization leads me to believe the 
>>> time
>>> for this proposal is now.
>>> 
>>> I am proposing that the LNC offer the chair a contract to become a
>>> contractor of the LNC. In return for this the chair would undertake 
>>> the
>>> duties of major donor maintenance and recruitment, public appearances 
>>> and
>>> press secretary as required.
>>> 
>>> By making this a contract position, the LNC can terminate the 
>>> contract
>>> with
>>> 30 days notice if there is no longer an organizational need. This 
>>> also
>>> doesn't change the nature of the position for future chairs, which 
>>> would
>>> probably need to be done as a change to the bylaws.
>>> 
>>> The positives are immediately apparent. A chair who can focus on the
>>> business of the party, fundraising and appearances, is critical to a
>>> professional and consistent message.  A chair who can support the
>>> affiliates through meetings and advise is a chair who is growing the
>>> party.
>>> And a chair who is able to focus 100% of their professional effort to 
>>> the
>>> job is an asset to the party.
>>> 
>>> Recognizing the role the chair has in the appointment of the 
>>> Executive
>>> Director I hesitated to make the case -- but this is such a unique
>>> confluence of events, I wanted to at least present the LNC with the
>>> opportunity for you all to give it thumbs up or down.
>>> ---
>>> Daniel Fishman
>>> Executive Director
>>> The Libertarian Party
>>> Join Us <http://www.lp.org/join>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>