[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And our chair is having private discussions to try and flip votes.  Does
anyone have a problem with that?  Should we demand he only argue for his
case here and not try to influence members?

Right now it is the chair, but prior to Saturday's meeting I received
several calls from other LNC members doing a nose count to see where I
stood. Should those LNC members not called me?

This seems more to be as hurt at not being included in one private
discussion.  I get it.  I don't like it when I am excluded which happens as
well.  But I don't cry foul.  I try to figure out why I was not included
and if I find a flaw in myself, to work on it, and if not, just shrug and
say, that's life.

*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 6:22 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

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