[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread
Elizabeth Van Horn
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Thu May 7 12:23:39 EDT 2020
John, I'm not asking about, nor do I care about off-list discussion,
and/or lobbying. That's CAH changing the narrative.
I shall repeat: I want to know who wrote that motion which was brought
to this list for a vote. I want the writer to explain their reason for
the motion.
What I'm asking is simple. It's two things.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-07 11:24, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list