<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>