[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

Wed May 6 11:22:15 EDT 2020

I will also add that once something is sponsored it belongs to the
sponsors, and it is not german who "wrote" it.  Others may disagree, but I
find such a request a way to single out one person when multiple people
signed on and made it "theirs."    I did not write it but I own my
sponsorship, and I think an insistence on knowing who wrote it is
inappropriate.

*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. *

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:19 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Thank you Mr. Longstreth.  And I will note that I noted multiple times
> there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly
> for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded.  That
> resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could
> have helped workshop.  We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to
> workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that.  It is not a "backroom"
> deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations.  It is not helpful
> nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on
> this list.
>
> *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. *
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
>>
>> I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion.  Who decided it was
>> needed, the 'why' for motions.
>>
>> For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were
>> getting one thing, but got another.  One person thought they were
>> getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got
>> something else.  Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a
>> vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
>>
>>
>> I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to
>> circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase
>> "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list".
>> But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members
>> shut-out other LNC members from the conversation.  Then, *bam* a motion
>> is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being
>> considered.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>