[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

Hooboy.  

I'm asking who wrote that motion.  Plus, their reason for writing.  It's
really simple.  

You could at least try to stay on topic, so I won't have to keep
repeating it.  (laughing) 

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

On 2020-05-07 08:25, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> 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, 
> 
> 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, 
> 
> 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. 
>>>> 
>>>>