<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">Carla Howell</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:4smallgov@gmail.com">4smallgov@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM<br>Subject: Re: [APRC] APRC Institutional Memory<br>To: "<a href="mailto:aprc@hq.lp.org">aprc@hq.lp.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:aprc@hq.lp.org">aprc@hq.lp.org</a>><br><br><br><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif">Note in an addition to Dan's excellent summary below, another policy, attached, was adopted and approved by the prior Chair. It was adopted right around the time Wes became ED a year ago and has been in effect since.</font></div>
<div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">It has been working well - I know of no cases of an early release that caused a problem as we reserved this option only for material we believed would be non-controversial.</span><br>
</div><div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">I note that news gets stale fast. Sometimes we invest a non-trivial amount of time researching and writing a story. This investment can be lost if we are too delayed and the news becomes old, which includes missing reporters' deadlines. So having a release valve for this policy can make a difference in whether the story will get picked up and our investment gets a payback.</span></div>
<div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Nick (or someone) - please advise if the attached should still be in effect.</span></div>
<div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Thanks,</span></div>
<div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Carla</span></div><div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Carla Howell<br><br>"The (government) designed (by our Founding Fathers) has turned into a congealed ball of lard that eats money and excretes red tape."<br>
- Scott Adams<br></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Wes Benedict <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org" target="_blank">wes.benedict@lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>What Dan wrote looks about right to me.
In the future, I'd like to see the policy written in the official
Policy Manual more closely match what we actually do in order to
make the process easier for all to follow and understand. I'm
pretty flexible on what the actual policies are and will point out
if any particular item is causing hardships going forward.<br>
<br>
I had a fine working relationship with the previous APRC members
and welcome the new members.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>Wes Benedict, Executive Director<br>
<small><small>Libertarian National Committee, Inc.<br>
<b>New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314</b><br>
<a href="tel:%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232" value="+12023330008" target="_blank">(202) 333-0008 ext. 232</a>, <a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org" target="_blank">wes.benedict@lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://facebook.com/libertarians" target="_blank">facebook.com/libertarians</a> @LPNational<br>
Join the Libertarian Party at: <a href="http://lp.org/membership" target="_blank">http://lp.org/membership</a></small></small><br>
<br>
</div><div><div class="m_6487714242083717226h5">
On 6/30/2014 6:17 PM, Jay Estrada wrote:<br>
</div></div></div><div><div class="m_6487714242083717226h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Thank you.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 30, 2014 5:03 PM, "Daniel Wiener"
<<a href="mailto:wiener@alum.mit.edu" target="_blank">wiener@alum.mit.edu</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<p>Hello everyone (and thank you, Robert, for getting the
new list set up so fast).<br>
</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>
<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>
<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 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>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>a libertarian direction,
as
delineated by the Party Platform.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>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> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span>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> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span>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> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>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> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span>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> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Symbol">· </span><span>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> </span></p>
<p><span>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> </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>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>
<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>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Aprc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Aprc@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Aprc@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Aprc mailing list
<a href="mailto:Aprc@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Aprc@hq.lp.org</a>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Aprc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Aprc@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Aprc@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></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>