January 2013 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

About the Policy Manual - What Happened to the Missing 4 Pages?
by Starchild 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

Over the past few months I have made several references to the LNC Policy Manual being 72 pages long -- mostly in the context of expressing my concern that the document has been growing out of control and threatens the authority of our convention delegates. Therefore I was quite surprised to notice, when looking at the Policy Manual a couple days ago, that it had only 68 pages. If I somehow subconsciously wished a shorter document into existence, you all have my apologies, and if I can manage to prove my heretofore unsuspected paranormal powers to one of the groups offering reward money for proof of possessing such powers, I promise to share some of the winnings with the LP! Obviously, as thrilling as it might be to me personally, such an explanation is hardly likely. So could my memory have been mistaken? I went to the Internet Archives site, which preserves older versions of websites, to check, and found that as of their last web-crawl of LP.org on December 7, 2012, our Policy Manual did in fact list 72 pages. If you go to http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.lp.org and click on the calendar link for December 7, it takes you to LP.org as it appeared on that date, where you can click on the "Our Party" pull-down menu and select the "LNC Meeting Archives" option, which takes you to a page that includes a 72-page Policy Manual: http://web.archive.org/web/20121103013551/https://www.lp.org/files/LNC%20Po… Deepening the mystery, the web address for the version of the Policy Manual currently on our site -- https://www.lp.org/files/PolicyManualupdated12NOV2012.pdf -- suggests that the document may have been updated in November 2012 . However the last update listed in the document's Log of Changes (p. 66), and the date that appears on the title page of the document, is May 2, 2012. In comparing the version of the LNC Policy Manual from the Internet Archives with the version that currently appears on LP.org, two major differences stand out: (1) In the Dec. 7, 2012 version of the document linked above, the Endnotes [basically footnotes describing how various provisions in the Policy Manual relate to Roberts Rules of Order and to the LP Bylaws] begin on page 67 and continue to the end of the Policy Manual halfway through page 72. In the currently posted version of the Policy Manual, the Endnotes are completely missing. (2) The "Detailed Table of Contents" published in the currently posted version of the Policy Manual is a lot less detailed than the "Detailed Table of Contents" as it appeared on Dec. 7, taking up only a single page whereas it previously encompassed nearly three full pages. Curiously, the currently posted version of the Policy Manual, like the Archived version, contains both a "Condensed Table of Contents" and a "Detailed Table of Contents". However in the currently posted version, both tables of contents appear to be identical! Essentially, the actual Detailed Table of Contents was removed, and the "Condensed Table of Contents" was printed a second time in its place, so that it now appears on two consecutive pages, listed first under the heading "Condensed Table of Contents" and then a second time under the heading "Detailed Table of Contents". Can someone explain what is going on? It's always possible that I overlooked an email or am forgetting something, but I don't recall the LNC being notified of or authorizing the changes to the Policy Manual documented above. The "General Delegation of Authority" provisions in Section I of the document itself appear to indicate that no other body or individual has the authority to make these changes in the absence of such notification or authorization (I've highlighted the relevant language from sections 3 and 4 below in boldface): > Section I.1 GENERAL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY > > 1) Participation by LNC Alternates at Meetings > Free substitution of Alternates for Regional Representatives at LNC meetings is > permitted.iii > > 2) Proposed Agenda > The Chair shall propose an agenda for each session of the LNC.iv > > 3) Executive Committee > The Executive Committee shall exercise all powers of the LNC between LNC meetings > except for the addition, deletion, or amendment of the LNC policy manual or amendment > of the budget beyond the limits specified elsewhere in this Policy Manual. > Notwithstanding, the LNC reserves the right to exercise its authority through electronic > mail ballots.v > > 4) Document Maintenance > The Secretary shall maintain a complete copy of this Policy Manual. > The Secretary is authorized to propose corrections to formatting, spelling, grammar, > capitalization, punctuation, article and section designations, cross-references, and such > other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to the Policy Manual, > provided such changes would have no effect on the meaning of the adopted Terms, > Definitions, Rules, and Orders. > The Secretary may propose adding or amending annotations in the form of endnotes and > introductory language to provide relevant references to authoritative statutes, the Party’s > Corporate Charter and Bylaws, the parliamentary authority, and explanations as to how > Special Rules of Order differ from the parliamentary authority. > The Secretary shall promptly submit such proposals to the LNC, along with any written > opinions provided by the Party’s parliamentarian. These proposals shall be considered > adopted thirty days thereafter or upon the close of the next LNC meeting, whichever is > sooner. The LNC may veto such proposals by majority vote prior to adoption. > The LNC reserves the right to also propose and adopt non-substantive, as well as > substantive, changes.vi Meanwhile, the only changes to the Policy Manual which I at least *do* recall the LNC authorizing this term (based on a ruling of the chair which was not overturned), a dissolution of the pre-existing membership of various LNC-created and Bylaws-mandated committees, so that these committees could be repopulated, is not reflected in the currently published version of the document. Pages 64 and 65 of the Policy Manual still list the persons who served on these committees during the previous LNC term. I do strongly urge that when those committee assignments are updated, that the information of who served on which committees last term be preserved in some other archival section of LP.org for the historical record, rather than simply deleted. In the meantime however, I'm most concerned about the fact of LNC Policy Manual changes apparently being made by staff, or someone with access to the website, without the knowledge of this committee. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE

1 0

Resignation of the Secretary
by Geoffrey Neale 12 Jan '13

12 Jan '13

Last Sunday afternoon, I received a phone call from Ruth Bennett. In that conversation she informed me that she was resigning, and that she would send notification to the LNC within "a few days". I asked her to get it to us by the end of the week. Perhaps I'm over-stepping something here, because my assumption of "end of the week" meant by Friday, and I'm pretty sure I did NOT say "by Friday". However, I am also quite sure that "a few days" has passed without a formal non-verbal communication, and I need to be able to move things forward. Therefore, I am accepting Ruth Bennett's verbal resignation as a formal resignation, and am declaring that the position of Secretary is as of this point open. I also am appointing Dr. James Lark as secretary pro tem. For the record, Dr. Lark offered his services to the LNC in assistance of the Secretary at our last meeting, and there was no objection to this offer. I do not recall a formal motion, and this was not an appointment. Additionally, Dr. Lark has communicated to the members of the Executive Committee that he is willing to take on this duty in the short-term, until we choose a replacement, but is not interested in taking on the role formally. He is also hopeful of being relieved of this duty as soon as possible, and would like us to fill the position before the next LNC meeting. Therefore, his appointment is effective immediately, and will last until he resigns from the appointment, or until a new Secretary is chosen. It should be clear that there is nothing within our Bylaws that specifically grants me the authority to do this. However, there is also nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits me from doing this. In RONR, it is considered a normal action to do so, in order to keep the operation of the organization moving. While some may question the authority to select a secretary pro tem, I think it is more of an imperative that we do so. Since I am not filling an LNC position, I believe my authority to appoint a volunteer (Dr. Lark) falls within the following: "The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to direct its business and affairs, including hiring and discharging of National Committee volunteers and paid personnel, subject to express National Committee policies and directives issued in the exercise of the National Committee's plenary control and management of Party affairs, properties and funds." During our discussion among the EX members, it was mentioned that there is precedent for the EC making this selection, as was done when Bill Redpath was appointed treasurer pro tem by the EC upon the resignation of James Oaksun. However, there is also precedent for the Chair making the appointment, as was done when Bill Redpath was appointed treasurer pro tem by the Chair upon the resignation of Deryl Martin (2003). It should be noted that the discussions between EC members about Dr. Lark filling this role came down to four in favor (Hagan, Redpath, Wiener and myself), one willful abstention (Dr. Lark) and one abstention by absence of stated opinion (Wrights). Since we now have only six EC members, and one known abstention, a vote in favor of four members of the EC is more than sufficient to formalize the appointment of Dr. Lark. We can still subsequently hold a formal EC vote to confirm my appointment, but my appointment is consistent with what the EC would do if it met, and I'd rather save the time inherent in scheduling and holding an EC meeting. Of course, I recognize that one or more of you could object to my ruling that I have the authority to make this appointment, and I respect your right to do so. However, if you think I do not have the authority, I'm afraid we're in a true Catch 22 scenario. If you believe I have over-stepped my authority, you can get enough others to join in the request for a mail ballot, but such a mail ballot can only be submitted to the LNC by the Secretary. If you do not accept this appointment, then who can submit the mail ballot to the LNC? So I hope that we all accept this appointment and get this train back on the tracks. Now, as to procedure for replacement, I intend to send a notice to the State Chairs list and membership that we have an opening for Secretary, and solicit self-nominations. I propose that we have a submission deadline of January 31, 2013 at midnight Eastern time. As soon as possible after that time, the secretary pro tem will submit a mail ballot on voting for the replacement from the full list of nominees, with our normal mail ballot deadlines. At first I thought this could take several votes, but I now think that this could be resolved in a single vote for the simple reason that any LNC member can change their vote prior to the deadline. If supporters of one or more minority candidates see that their choice is trailing, then they will be open to change their vote to a subsequent choice. I want to send this email to the State Chairs no later than next Monday. If you have suggestions or feedback on better ways to proceed, please get them to me ASAP. Geoffrey Neale Chair, Libertarian Party

3 2

Mail Ballot Ruling
by Geoffrey Neale 12 Jan '13

12 Jan '13

It has been brought to my attention that we had an additional mail ballot that I have not ruled on - the motion to drop all of the new membership levels. I rule that this mail ballot failed. Geoffrey Neale Chair, Libertarian Party

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Motions
by SAM8074＠aol.com 07 Jan '13

07 Jan '13

Arvin, Please see Article 7 Section 0 of the LP Bylaws (_https://www.lp.org/files/2012%20LP%20Bylaws%20and%20Convention%20Rules%20w… (https://www.lp.org/files/2012%20LP%20Bylaws%20and%20Convention%20Rules%20w%… 2012%20JC%20Rules.pdf) ). Does 2/3 of the LNC have the intestinal fortitude to remove Ms. Bennett from her office for cause? That is the only solution we have to this problem other than her stepping and doing the job for which she chose to run and to which the convention delegates elected her. Sam In a message dated 1/6/2013 2:08:47 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time, arvin(a)arvinvohra.com writes: LNC, Is it correct that without the secretary's action, we cannot do ANY mail ballots? All future motions are on hold? If that is correct, as the Chair suggested earlier, that is so astronomically unacceptable that it's hard to know where to begin. -Arvin _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

4 5

Motions
by Arvin Vohra 06 Jan '13

06 Jan '13

LNC, Is it correct that without the secretary's action, we cannot do ANY mail ballots? All future motions are on hold? If that is correct, as the Chair suggested earlier, that is so astronomically unacceptable that it's hard to know where to begin. -Arvin

1 1

Motion, need help with specifics
by Arvin Vohra 05 Jan '13

05 Jan '13

Hi all, Chairman Neale suggested this. "Staff shall be responsible for the development and maintenance of an Editorial Policy. Any changes to the Editorial Policy will require the approval of the LNC." I think this should be done sooner rather than later, and I think it addresses some of the concerns with Starchild's motion as being too vulnerable to a Wayne Root type situation, while also giving flexibility to adjust quickly. Does anything need to be added before this is formally introduced as a motion? -Arvin

2 1

MOTION to relax publishing restrictions
by Starchild 03 Jan '13

03 Jan '13

Arvin, I strongly agree with you and Paulie that our current policies regarding blogging are overly restrictive, and it seems like this problem should be relatively easily addressed. Accordingly, I will make the following motion in line with your call to action. These changes would relax our restrictions of online publication while simultaneously increasing the authority of the Advertising & Publications Review Committee as a safeguard against the publication of inappropriate materials, and by streamlining the language in Section II.6, would actually make the burgeoning Policy Manual slightly shorter despite the expanded role of the committee: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MOVED that Section II.6 of the LNC Policy Manual be revised to read as follows... Section II.6 PARTY COMMUNICATIONS 1) Role of elected leaders The Chair serves as the Party's chief spokesperson and may preempt other LNC members when representing the Party to the public, including the business community, media, elected officials, and government agencies, or when planning or directing investigations or negotiations pertaining to cooperative efforts of the Party with other groups or the acquisition or sale of major assets. LNC members and state affiliate chairs or their designees may publish blog entries on LP.org, with approval of the Advertising & Publications Review Committee (APRC) being both necessary and sufficient for such publication. ...and that Section II.2 of the LNC Policy Manual be revised to read as follows: Section II.2 COMMITTEE SCOPE AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1) Advertising & Publication Review Committee The APRC is responsible for reviewing public communications of the Party and rejecting for publication or distribution any materials it finds to be non-compliant with the LP Bylaws or Platform or contrary to the Non-Aggression Principle. All proposed public communications on behalf of the Party for which written copy, audio, or video exists shall be submitted to the APRC for review. APRC members shall be given at least 24 hours to review submitted materials, unless a communication is extremely time- sensitive and such advance notification is not possible, in which case it may be submitted to the APRC simultaneously with publication or dissemination. However this exception shall not apply to LP News, Liberty Pledge News, proposed party literature, or similar printed materials of a more enduring nature, which shall always be made available to APRC members for review at least 24 hours prior to the final proofs being approved for printing and distribution. APRC members shall review all communications submitted for their approval as quickly as possible while exercising due diligence. If a proposed communication is extremely time-sensitive and the APRC has not reviewed it within 6 hours of submission (24 hours for less urgent matters), it may be published and disseminated prior to APRC review with the approval of the Chair or Executive Director. Rejection of any proposed communication shall require a majority vote of APRC members, and communications shall not be rejected for any reasons other than those listed above. The APRC shall give immediate notice of any rejected communication to the LNC along with the rationale for its decision, citing any relevant Bylaw or Platform planks. Decisions of the APRC may be overturned by majority vote of the LNC. If the APRC rejects a communication after it has been published or disseminated to the public, the committee shall prepare a notice of retraction which shall be issued in as timely a manner as possible via the same medium in which the original communication was issued, unless there is an LNC motion to overrule the LNC, in which case publication of the retraction shall be put on hold pending the outcome of that motion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I invite co-sponsors of this motion, welcome discussion, and resign myself to the inevitable criticisms. :-) Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE On Jan 2, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote: > I agree with Paulie on this. > > BTW, anyone who wants to can already *submit* blog content. The problem is that it has to go through two steps (at least it did last time I checked) > > 1. APRC, to make sure it follows the platform and bylaws, as well as doesn't have any other major problems. > > 2. Staff approval, which is wayyy more restrictive. > > Last I checked, the following were the rules. > > 1. Total word count: 150-600 words. For videos, closer to 150 or even less! Text can be > longer. > > 2. Breakdown: > > •10-40% - what’s wrong with government / damage it does > > •10-30% - proposal and any explanation of how it works that’s needed > > •5-20% - preempt / rebut anticipated objections > > •30-60% - immediate and direct benefits to voters > > These rules have been put forward by Carla, with Geoff's approval and oversight. > > To me, this is not just overly restrictive, but ineffective in some important situations, as well as totally ludicrous in others. I mean, if you write an article about the difference between Libertarians and Constitutionalists (a popular blog post before these micromanagerial restrictions were added), and pontificated for 60% of the article about the immediate and direct benefit to voters about knowing the difference, you would look insane, and also that would heavily decrease the virality in social media. > > From the sense I got, even more specific restrictions were put on video production, which is one reason that video production crawled to a halt in the last months. > > Now that the election is over, the LNC and the State Chairs of this party no longer need to be treated like 6th grade remedial writing students. I would say that APRC approval is enough. That's what the committee exists for. > > We have so far erred on the side of caution that we have turned our website into a dud. It's not the colors that really cripple the site. It is the one-note, heavy handed polispeak, rarely updated content. > > This is one of those cases in which I believe description of the benefits is actually in order: > > Imagine if the particular argument that powerfully resonated with a few passersby at a LP booth could be heard by not just 3 or 4 people, but by thousands. Imagine if people would say, "Hey, I really liked the article I read on LP.org. You guys are much more honest and authentic, and I can get behind that. There were a couple articles I didn't identify with, so I just ignored those." Imagine if the LP members could share varied and interesting articles, with their non-Lib friends. > > Imagine if some articles had a soft touch, and used the soft sell approach that Dr. Lark has used so effectively throughout the libertarian movement. Imagine if others had the hard sell approach that Harry Browne used so brilliantly. Imagine if we had some articles that could help shift the views of our statist friends a drop at a time, and others that called to those in Campaign for Liberty, and got them to register Libertarian. > > Imagine if a single article, not despite breaking the above mold, but because it did, went explosively viral OUTSIDE of libertarian circles. Imagine if our persuasion was no so limited to super-inner-circle stuff like beating the difference in a race that normal people actually wanted to read it. Imagine if we could tap into the thousands of professional writers in this party, and turn LP.org into a site that gets not 30,000 hits a week, but 30,000,000, > > No matter how much we prettify the site, restricted content will always be restricted. > > Now for my call to action: > > We call for the immediate opening of the LP.org blog to all LNC members and state chairs, with approval by the APRC being both necessary and sufficient to get a post on the blog. If this experiment doesn't work, we can reverse the rule change immediately. > > Anyone want to cosponsor a motion? > > -Arvin > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM, <travellingcircus(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Can we make LP News available electronically and/or integrate it better with LP blog? > > A) I would like to share articles on IPR and other places. Other people may want to share them with their friends by email, on facebook, etc. > > B) Even if the answer to (A) is no I would like to be able to receive LP News while I am on the road, which is most of the time. I just received the new LP News and it is much improved over what I have seen in several years. We should make it easy to share the good news. > > C) LP blog is not updated much. LP News stories already exist and are already content that we have sent the membership (ie approved), so they should be an obvious source of LP blog posts that should take very little staff time to post (or I would be willing to post them as a volunteer if I can get them emailed to me and a login to do so). > > D) Can we get a link somewhere that would make it more obvious that people can subscribe to LP News without becoming LP members? If there is already such a link at LP.org I am not noticing it > > E) Now that the election is over I would like to see if we can restore the ability of LNC members and/or volunteers to submit LP Blog content. It's fine if we have to have it go through APRC before it goes out or whatever means we need to use to ensure that we don't embarrass ourselves. > > As much of this as can be done without LNC motions would be awesome. > > If LNC motions are a prerequisite for making any of it happen, I ask that full members please submit motions to make it happen. > > Thanks > > Paul Frankel 415-690-6352 > LNC Alt Region 7 (AL, MS, OK, LA, TX) > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-discuss mailing list > Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org

3 2