[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