[Lnc-business] Director of Development

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr Longstreth.  Enough is enough.  I have no more benefit of the doubt to
give.  This isn’t a matter of being 100%, it’s a matter of not even being a
Party member.

Our objections were clear.

The intent of the policy manual is clear.

The fact that we are intentionally blind-sided is clear.

The fact she is not qualified - to me - is clear and to the numerous angry
member phone calls I’ve fielded is clear.

The fact that smoke is being blown up my behind about a MA politico having
no ties to Weld (that’s impossible) is clear.

The fact that this is just another in a long series of completely improper
entanglements never disclosed to the LNC is clear.

Did we give authority to hire a co tractor that would require no approval?

WE DO NOT PLANT LIBERTY SEEDS WITH OUR DONOR LIST.  This is not
evangelism.  I can’t believe I even have to say that.

I’m second guessing remaining a donor at this point, and that’s pathetic.

There’s been too much “oh well what’s done is done.”

You know what’s done? My tolerance for this.

And we’ve never received an answer to whether Mr Fishman was paid to plan
for COAC.  Why even an unpaid was never disclosed?  Either a disclosure or
denial that Mr Sarwark was offered - even if wink wink informally - a job
with Mr Weld prior to trying to get a paid position with the party funded
by unnamed donors.

The cumulative case stinks and I’m done sweeping it under the rug.

And - I’m trying to word this in a non-rude manner - I don’t think Region 1
shares your sentiments.  Perhaps they do.  I’ve been out of the loop.  I am
pretty sure that LPCO is not.  I am medium sure LPWA is not - the two
largest constituencies.

Dan and Nick are not victims here.  And our questioning is not harassing
them.  It is doing our duty and it’s about time we all started doing it.

We were not told the truth about Lauren.  Never forget that.



On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 8:02 PM Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Too many threads out there. I'm going to break this down as simply as I can
> and put it here and here only. I have feelings on all of this but if I take
> a step back, here is how I am seeing things at this point. It is ok if you
> disagree but let's figure out the next steps.
>
> 1) A contract was offered and was sent to the EPCC even though that part of
> the PM deals with 'Directors'. The role in question was changed to a
> contracted director (read contractor) and so there is definitely some grey
> as to how all of this should have been handled. I also note the lack of
> clear definitions. If the contract was required to be submitted, it did not
> receive approval but if it was for a contractor, no approval needed. News
> flash: our policy manual needs some work to fix and clarify these things
> for the future. Mr. O'Donnell had several suggestions at a previous meeting
> and it may be worth revisiting them.
>
> 2) Our new DD is not 100% in line with our philosophies. I agree that this
> is a concern, however, I would also note that very rarely does someone
> score a 10-10 on the Nolan quiz and we still welcome them into our folds
> and plant more liberty seeds along the way. The selected candidate meets
> all of the criteria that we voted on and approved, albeit, the feeling of
> the room was clear, but it was not in our explicit direction. Do I wish she
> was more libertarian, absolutely - I look forward to getting to know her
> more and find out where she disagrees with us and seeing if we can change
> that. Until that time and given where we are at in the process, offer, etc
> now, should we not utilize her skills and experience and trust in our ED's
> selection and Chair's approval? Our only other option is to revoke the
> contract, pay her whatever severance fee and start over. I'm not over the
> moon on that one.
>
> 3) So, where exactly do we go from here? Do we harass Dan until he says he
> has done wrong? Resigns? Do we go after Oliver and Nick for approving? Are
> we just raising flags to bring public attention and if so, what's the
> actual point unless you are campaigning (which is not the purpose of this
> email list)? Do we demand the contract be cancelled and start the search
> over? All of these are options I suppose. Or, as a suggestion, we could
> recognize this opportunity to move our organization forward and ensure that
> future LNCs have a clearer procedure and policy manual? First, I suggest we
> let up and give the new DD a chance. Second, I propose we redirect this
> conversation to policy manual fixes and workshopping a hiring policy. Off
> the top of my head, we need to clarify in a real way what the LNC should be
> involved with at the very least - all hiring at an arbitrary line or, my
> suggestion, should we restrict the LNC to only be involved in employment
> matters concerning the ED and evaluating their performance?
>
> 4) I will say that thus far our discussion has not been largely productive.
> What do we, as the governing body of the world's largest Libertarian Party
> intend to do in an effort to ease the future growth and expansion of our
> Party? How can we use this to set an example for affiliate parties? I am
> happy to take part in any discussion that focuses on where we go. What's
> been done is done and as far as I can tell, nobody actually did anything
> wrong outside of optics and a very large grey area in our policy manual was
> discovered. Let's figure out how to fix it.
>
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 931.538.9300
>
> Sent from my Mobile Device
>
-- 

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *