[Lnc-business] Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

Since you say you're not the person who wrote that motion.  There's no 
need for you to continue badgering me about my requests.



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



On 2020-05-07 11:44, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> 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
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >>
>> >
>> 
>> 
>>