[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

Wed May 6 14:11:26 EDT 2020

I find fellow LNC members wanting to keep secret who writes a motion to
be highly inappropriate.  The longer it goes, that the writer won't come
forward, the more suspect it seems. Because, if an LNC member doesn't
want the light of transparency shining on their motion, then that is
telling me there's something wrong.  

I think that there is so much push-back being given by the an LNC
officer, over being asked who wrote the motion, is inappropriate.  To
champion the idea that motions put forth onto this email list, should
have the writer be secret is a bad precedent.  But, it let's me see that
the transparency' cry, is a tool.  To be used for the benefit of some,
but not all. 

---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) 

On 2020-05-06 11:22, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> 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, 
> 
> 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, 
> 
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>>