[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I appreciate your point though I don't agree.  Using the convention issue
as an example, Mr. Sarwark is certainly trying to bring together a majority
-  is he wrong to do so?  Are the LNC members who called me to gather a
majority to oppose an online convention wrong to do so?

I believe Mr. Sarwark is wrong but not due to majority or off-list but due
to the fact we are in the same session and he assumed the chair.  Absent
that, nothing wrong, IMHO.

*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 8:11 AM <dustin.nanna at lp.org> wrote:

> I only have an issue with a majority of members meeting privately. As I
> said, it doesn't seem that was the case. Just pointing out that folks
> (other than myself) look at it as secretive even if though it is not.
>
> I think individual members are free to lobby however they wish outside of
> the list/meetings provided those outside convos don't reach a majority of
> voting members.
>
> (Resent because I accidentally clicked the wrong reply button)
>
> On May 7, 2020 8:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> 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,*
>
> * 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
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
>
>
>