<div dir="ltr"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Daniel Wiener</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wiener@alum.mit.edu">wiener@alum.mit.edu</a>></span><br>Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM<br>Subject: [APRC] APRC Institutional Memory<br>To: APRC List <<a href="mailto:aprc@hq.lp.org">aprc@hq.lp.org</a>>, Robert Kraus <<a href="mailto:robert.kraus@lp.org">robert.kraus@lp.org</a>><br><br><br><div dir="ltr">
<p>Hello everyone (and thank you, Robert, for getting the new list set up so fast).<br></p>
<p></p>
<p>During the 2012-2014 term we had some rather sharp exchanges over
the proper boundaries and procedures for the Advertising & Publication
Review Committee.<span> </span>Not everything is spelled out in detail in the Policy
Manual, but we ultimately came
up with a pretty effective set of guidelines.<span>
</span>In the interest of not re-inventing the wheel, and to provide
information for the new APRC members, I decided to summarize the results
below.<span> </span>Of course a lot of these items
are subject to revision, but I think they at least represent a good starting
point.</p>
<p></p><p>
</p><ul><li>Section 2.02 of the Policy Manual is attached below.<span> </span>Basically it says that the scope of the APRC’s
official authority is limited to assuring conformity of LP communications with
the Platform, Bylaws, and Policy Manual.<span>
</span>APRC deliberations must be kept confidential, and there are time limits
within which it must act.</li></ul><p>
</p><ul><li>Even though the Policy Manual permits time sensitive communications to be
sent out without prior APRC approval or in the absence of a timely APRC
response, that sometimes meant permitting undesirable items to slip through the cracks.<span> </span>So in 2013 the LNC Chair directed staff to
seek affirmative approval from at least three APRC members prior to
publication, unless the Chair authorized a specific exception.<span> </span>That also made in incumbent on APRC members
to monitor their email on a frequent basis and to respond rapidly, especially
for time-critical matters.</li></ul><p>
</p><ul><li>One viewpoint is that APRC activity should be strictly limited to
evaluating whether an item violates the Platform, Bylaws, and Policy Manual.<span> </span>That was not the prevailing view last
term.<span> </span>The APRC frequently caught
spelling and grammatical and factual errors, and offered other feedback to
staff (which staff was not required to accept but said was welcome).<span> </span>Accordingly, the LNC Chair outlined four
general steps for APRC consideration in order of precedence:<span> <br></span></li></ul><p></p><p>
</p><ol style="margin-left:40px"><li><span>Does the submitted publication violate
the platform, statement of principles, etc. If Yes, explain how and why.</span></li><li><span>Would the submitted publication show
the LP in a negative or undesirable light? If yes, explain how and why.</span></li><li><span>Did you encounter any grammatical or
spelling errors? If yes, please note.</span></li><li><span>Do you have other feedback? If
yes, please note.</span></li></ol><p>
</p><p>
</p><br><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>Appended below is Policy Manual Section
2.06(5) which describes how the entire LNC can take quick action to block or
withdraw public communications which would be detrimental to the LP’s
image.<span> </span>Obviously it’s much better to
keep a problematical communication from going out in the first place, rather
than trying to remove it from the public sphere after the fact (although if it
is embarrassing enough it’s still better to repudiate it than to let it stand).<span> </span>But APRC deliberations are confidential,
which makes it difficult for an APRC member to communicate the problem to the
entire LNC prior to publication using this provision. <span> </span>The LNC Chair’s solution was as follows:</span></p>
<ul><li><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span><span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""></span></span></span>Since the Chair can direct staff without
changing any <span>policy</span>, he was directing staffing that if
any single member of the <span>APRC</span> opposed publication for
reason #2, that the Chair would be consulted, and would make the decisions
regarding reason #2, but not otherwise. In these cases, staff is to NOT
publish the piece without the Chair’s input.<span>
</span>[Note that the Chair is on the APRC email list as an ex officio member.]<span></span></li></ul>
<ul><li><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span><span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""></span></span></span>The Chair agreed with the additional suggestion
that if an item was kicked up to him for reason #2, and he in turn was
having a very hard time making a determination, he would direct staff to
circulate it to the entire LNC in draft form. That wouldn't violate <span>APRC</span> confidentiality, and yet still allow the LNC to make the
decision via Section 2.06(5) with very few negative repercussions.<span></span></li></ul>
<ul><li><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span><span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""></span></span></span>The Chair agreed with yet another suggestion
from staff: If an APRC member objected to an item based on reason #2, and staff
was able to modify it so as to satisfy the APRC member’s objections, it would then
not be necessary to bother the Chair to make a determination.<span></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span><br></span></p>
<p>Following the kerfuffle which prompted the above guidelines, I don't
believe that any other issues arose which required a decision by the LNC
Chair. I also want to mention that Gary Johnson, the new APRC Chair for 2014-2016, has been
especially adept at catching things and providing staff with rapid feedback (which staff appreciated). And probably 90% of everything sent to the APRC gets rubber-stamped as approved.<span> </span>I hope we can all have a good working
relationship and an effective committee during the next two years.<br></p><p><br></p><p>Daniel Wiener
</p><p></p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Section 2.02
COMMITTEE SCOPE AND RESPONSIBILITIES</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:ArialBlack">1) Advertising
& Publication Review Committee</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:ArialBlack"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The APRC shall review and advise
whether public communications of the Party violate our bylaws, Policy Manual or advocate
moving public policy in a different direction other than</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">a libertarian direction, as
delineated by the Party Platform.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Public communications may be
defined in either of two categories: time-sensitive or enduring.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Public communications
that are of a time-sensitive nature, namely mass e-mails, news releases, twitter posts and
blog entries, shall be made available to the APRC upon their publication.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Public
communications that are of a more enduring nature, such as LP News, Liberty Pledge News,
self-published party literature and fundraising letters, shall be made available to the APRC before
the final proof is approved for printing and distribution.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Staff may seek advance advice
from the APRC on any proposed communication. Staff may reasonably conclude
that the failure of the APRC to provide advice in a timely manner is tantamount to the
committee's approval.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the case of
public communications that are of a time-sensitive nature, a response is considered timely if made within
six hours of staff's submission of the subject matter to the committee, if
submitted prior to its publication; and within forty-eight hours, if submitted after its
publication.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the case of
public communications that are of a more enduring nature, a response is considered timely if made
within twenty-four hours of staff's submission of the subject matter to the committee.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">If a majority of the committee
concludes that a public communication violates the bylaws, Policy Manual, or advocates
moving public policy in a different direction other than a libertarian direction, as
delineated by the Party Platform, the committee chair shall report such to the Executive Director
and the LNC Chair, citing the specific platform plank, bylaw or Policy Manual section.
Official decisions of the APRC which are overridden shall be promptly reported to the
LNC without revealing confidential employer-employee matters.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Section 2.02(5)
Assuring Quality Communications</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:ArialBlack"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">If a majority of all LNC members
notify the Secretary of their belief that a proposed or actual public communication is
detrimental to the image of the Party, such notification to occur no later than 72 hours
after the public communication is published, the Secretary shall inform the Executive
Director and Chair of this finding, and such communication shall not be further
disseminated, and to the extent possible, already-disseminated material shall
be promptly removed from the public sphere.</span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div class="gmail_extra"> <br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><font size="1"><i>"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.<font><b> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science.</b></font> It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”</i> -- Richard Feynman</font><br>
</div>
</div></font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Aprc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Aprc@hq.lp.org">Aprc@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></div><br></div>