[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

Wed May 6 13:28:29 EDT 2020

In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off 
list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of 
this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full 
sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the 
process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the 
call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.

Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the 
requirements for business to be conducted on the public business 
listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best 
intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not 
meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.

As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that 
I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound 
by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only 
avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.

Respectfully,

---
FRANCIS WENDT
LNC Region 1 Alternate
  406.595.5111

On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> 