[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

[Richard Longstreth]

As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom
rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is
common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest
provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so
cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was
valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with
amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.

As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain
people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've
had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group.
When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is
not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and
then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the
opposite criticism.

This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group
has  happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee
that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to
start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.

---

As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing
nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because
it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to
play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we
are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish
literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this
committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our
organization.

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

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you Alex.
>
> I agree with everything you've asked.  This motion, which went straight
> to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile
> rumors on social media about LNC members.
>
> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors.
> Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and
> introduced straight to a vote.
>
> Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are
> falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
>
> IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden
> reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who
> authored this?
>
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>
>
>
> On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business
> wrote:
> > My Questions
> >
> > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of
> > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for
> > sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?)
> >
> > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our
> > term?
> >
> > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization
> > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just
> > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the
> > two points above.
> >
> > Alex Merced
> > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
>
>
>