[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread
Elizabeth Van Horn
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Thu May 7 08:04:18 EDT 2020
Thank you Dustin.
I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were
voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way.
I doubt it would be well received.
The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna at lp.org wrote:
> For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
>
> I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.
>
> On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> CAH,
>>
>> I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are
>> "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's
>> not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
>>
>> Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like,
>> where you wrote:
>>
>> --> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who
>> just happened to put thoughts on paper."
>>
>> --> "This need to a single person to attack..."
>>
>> Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch
>> hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find
>> your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you
>> like, two can use it.)
>>
>> No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need
>> to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that
>> motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't
>> tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a
>> coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
>>
>> If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send
>> me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may
>> help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not
>> privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
>>
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>>
>> On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>>> EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not
>>> appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote
>>> it is
>>> irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability
>>> in
>>> the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch
>>> hunt
>>> to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that
>>> person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to
>>> name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name
>>> to
>>> it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author
>>> does
>>> not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed
>>> their
>>> name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force
>>> my
>>> preferences on other people.
>>>
>>>
>>> *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 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business <
>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Francis,
>>>>
>>>> There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public
>>>> business list. We do use it for official business but private
>>>> discussions between LNC members are not official business. This
>>>> motion
>>>> met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out
>>>> an
>>>> email ballot.
>>>>
>>>> Live Free,
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Sam Goldstein, At Large Member
>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>> 317-850-0726 Cell
>>>>
>>>> On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list