[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

No business was done.  People have private discussions all the time.  The
business is the debate and vote and that all happens here.  If everyone is
going to swear off not having any LNC business related discussions ever
outside this list, then that would be valid.  But people talk all the
time.  Including on Saturday night before Sunday night's session.  Mr.
Bishop-Henchman and Mr. Longstreth met with a budget revision and brought
it fully fleshed out.  No one objected.

If we are going to prohibit all that, let's write up a Policy Manual
amendment and do it.  Otherwise, this seems like a particular witch hunt
here.  I will co-sponsor such a policy manual amendment - write it up.

*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 Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> 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
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
>