[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

[Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair)]

Thank you for the response, to be clear I am in support of something like this.

Apparently what was put up for a vote wasn’t exactly what many of the sponsors wanted, this was my concern with the off list sponsorship (which I don’t think is something that had happen prior this term).

I do think it’s often necessary to discuss off list to help hammer out the details on a lot of these proposals I also agree it’s disheartening when people treat any discussion as “backroom dealing” which people assume way too much which saddens me cause I do trust everyone on this board to have the best interest of the party at heart so it is sad to suspicion occur so quickly. Extra disheartening when factions within the party externally stoke those suspicions among us (on all sides of every discussion).

The one lesson I think is learned is the sponsorships on list serve a special purpose of allowing sponsors to be clear on why they are signing on to unlike what happened here.

One final note my particular questions weren’t out of any suspicion cause the thrust of the motion makes sense, but I wanted clarity on the decisions of the process. So your response and candor is deeply appreciated.

Alex Merced
Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP

> On May 6, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>>