[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