[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And I am positive that the person who wrote it has seen the request and
declined to answer.  Continued insistence on information that has been
declined is fast becoming badgering.

*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 9:24 AM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:

> I have to agree with Mrs Harlos on at least the point about off list
> discussions and lobbying.  Those things happen, are expected, and not
> really the issue.
>
> I also tho agree with Mr Wendt on the usual process of a call for
> co-sponsors first, so discussion and amendments etc can be offered.
>
> There are many issues around this particular motion, but this particular
> one off who wrote it is one of the more minor ones, if it at all.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 7, 2020 7:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.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
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>