May 2017 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members
by Alicia Mattson 31 May '17

31 May '17

We have an electronic mail ballot. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson *Motion:* Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world; Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past; Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends; Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it; Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership. -Alicia

16 24

History project gets media
by Caryn Ann Harlos 30 May '17

30 May '17

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/165618/libertarian-party- archives-colorado -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

1 1

Statement from the Libertarian Party of North Carolina
by James Lark 30 May '17

30 May '17

Dear colleagues: I hope all is well with you. Brian Irving, chair of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, requested that I relay the statement from the Libertarian Party of North Carolina that is enclosed below. As always, thanks for your work for liberty. Take care, Jim James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee ----- Statement from the Libertarian Party of North Carolina: *Controversial Speech Allows Us to Realize the True Value of Liberty* North Carolina has a long and proud history of controversial speech. Our Halifax Resolves, Mecklenburg Declaration, and Liberty Point Resolves laid out the concept of an independent America long before Jefferson’s famous Declaration. North Carolina Quakers included determined and vocal abolitionists in the early 1800s. Even today, communities across our state come together in advocating inclusion and equality. And there have also been times when controversial speech has been untenable. As Libertarians, we understand that a robust marketplace of ideas is an essential element of a free society. And we accept that sometimes speech will surface that stirs controversy or offends even the most deeply held sensibilities. But the promotion of an open and honest dialog between competing points of view allows us, individually and as a society, to discard tired, entrenched ways of thinking and embrace the very best and productive ideas, old or new. Liberty for y’all means liberty for ALL The Libertarian Party of North Carolina works because of our activists, volunteers, donors, candidates and committee members. But it works for the benefit of every individual in North Carolina—the entrepreneur building economic value, the teacher opening young minds, the scientist on the verge of medical discovery, the linesmen restoring electrical service after a hurricane, the parent teaching their children right from wrong, and the men and women serving or who have served in the armed forces. The defense of people, of property and of the natural rights fundamental to a free society is an important part of creating that society and encouraging it to flourish. From the military personnel who are North Carolina natives to those who make our state their temporary or permanent home, we know first hand the positive contribution that these people make in our communities. We thank them, and everyone who stands for the cause of liberty. That is the ideal motivating our party and our candidates. And our efforts will continue until we achieve a free, peaceful and prosperous North Carolina, where every individual has the opportunity to pursue their unique vision of a rewarding and enriching life. /Written by / /Kenneth Penkowski, Executive Committee Member-At-Large/ /On behalf of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina/ / /

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Social Media Proposal
by Starchild 30 May '17

30 May '17

Hi Matthew, Thank you for writing to members of the Libertarian National Committee. I substantially agree with your remarks here, and made some similar observations myself about the problems inherent in trying to pre-screen what goes out on social media. The proposal you mention hasn't gotten enough sponsors for a vote, but if it does come up for a vote I will oppose it. While getting staff involved in pre-approving posts isn't the way to go however, the Libertarian Party does need a better organized and more transparent approach to social media, and I'm glad to say from chatting with you tonight that you seem to be on the same page with that. I'd like to see us bring volunteers like yourself into the LNC's committee structure, so that our social media volunteers are listed along with their contact info on the Committee page (or a new Social Media page) on LP.org, and have that page linked from their social media profiles on the sites where they post stuff in the party's name, so anyone can follow one of these profiles back to LP.org. Once there, visitors should be able to readily learn, for Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any other site where the party has a presence, (1) what the procedures are under which stuff gets posted in the name of the LP, (2) who has what authority or permissions to post, moderate, or admin on our behalf, (3) how to flag any objectionable content for review, and (4) how the review process works and who makes the ultimate decisions (the party's elected leaders or those to whom we've delegated such authority). Something along these lines would go a good way toward having the transparency and level of accountability we need, as well as giving our volunteers the official recognition they deserve. A big part of the goal should be to structure our social media operations so as to facilitate the Libertarian Party tapping into the energy and efforts of all the people out there who want to help us. If someone wants to volunteer with outreach on a particular site or sites, it should be easy for them to see how to get involved and whom to get in touch with to make it happen, so that they aren't frustrated or driven away by an opaque or complicated process or the lack of any established path to volunteering. The description of how the LP's social media presence is handled should make clear to volunteers that they are being given positions of trust and responsibility, and that they will be accountable to the party's elected leadership and may have stuff they post deleted or lose posting privileges if it's felt a poor decision was made or those privileges are being abused. But how this accountability works should be clearly spelled out, so that nobody has to guess what the procedures are or who has what authority. Most importantly, we shouldn't try to pre-screen everything that goes out, because the inefficiency of such an approach would be wholly incompatible with having an effective social media presence. Those are my thoughts, anyway. I'd love to hear specific wording on how a broad outline like this might be implemented in a manner that interfaces smoothly with our presence on specific sites, from folks like yourself who are more familiar with our operations on those sites than I am. Anyway, thanks again for writing and for your efforts in starting and maintaining an Instagram presence for the Libertarian Party, as well as your other social media and offline volunteer work including starting a local affiliate chapter in Maryland and helping organize the LP Youth Caucus. It is awesome to see young libertarians like yourself plunging in and getting involved! Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform(a)earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On May 29, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Matthew Geiger wrote: > Dear LNC members, > > I write this E-mail to you as one of two administrators of the LP Instagram Account, and also as a volunteer on the LP's Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter pages. > > I'd like to call upon all of you to vote nay to a proposed motion which will prevent volunteers from posting and even moderating across all LP social media. This motion will only do harm to the party's progress over the past few years, and will inhibit us further from reaching as many voters as possible. > > We libertarians constantly gripe about media blackouts, but this sort of motion would give us no reason to continue complaining about such, as this motion would significantly impair the main method in which voters receive their news, which is social media. If this motion were to pass, the party would be entrusting a small group of people to manage the entirety of the party's social media, some of whom aren't in any sort of capacity to run any kind of social media whatsoever. > > Social media is a complex tool, which is why many business and institutions (including the GOP & DNC) utilize massive teams to take on the full force of messages, comments, posts, videos, photos, likes, dislikes, and much more. Under this motion, we wouldn't have a team equipped with enough personnel to handle any type of social media, nonetheless any sort of campaign or drive that the LP wishes to run through social media, such as #ReRegister. > > Also, I find it highly hypocritical that the party of "individualism" would be interested in a particular regulation of a collective due to the mistakes of a small minority. The explanation given for the proposal of said motion invokes some of our recent PR hiccups, which are usually derived from one or two people, not the entirety of our volunteer team. This motion would be punishing the hardworking volunteers who have not committed any wrongdoing whatsoever, which is not something any sort of "libertarian" institution would do. > > We as a party must continue to grow and develop, something that this motion wishes to prevent. I ask all of those who are on the LNC, and support the growth of our party, to vote nay on this motion. > > Regards, > > Matthew Geiger > > 240-507-9595 > > mattgeiger(a)lpmaryland.org >

2 1

Fixed the email stuff - I hope
by Ken Moellman 29 May '17

29 May '17

FYI - I think I've fixed the issue that Tim was having with emailing the list. This message is more to test that it worked than anything else. ken

4 4

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] "special access to a large audience to raise a personal profile"
by Starchild 28 May '17

28 May '17

6 11

Happy anniversary to regional reps
by Caryn Ann Harlos 27 May '17

27 May '17

Facebook tells me that it is my one-year anniversary to elected to the LNC serving Region 1. So happy anniversary to my regional compatriots. *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

2 1

Re: [Lnc-business] (no subject)
by Tim Hagan 26 May '17

26 May '17

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } I'm a bit confused, and maybe a member of the Bylaws Committee can clear things up. First I read that the Bylaws Committee voted to make either its meetings or its e-mail deliberations secret. However, the Bylaws Committee Chair wrote that the committee has not adopted any motions regarding its conduct. Is it that the e-mail list will be used only for informal deliberations and no votes nor business done on it? I admit that I didn't pay attention to how the Bylaws Committees operated recently, other than filling out the surveys, to know if the custom has changed. But back in the old days when the committee did almost all of its work at in-person meetings just prior to conventions, the meetings were open to all party members to observe. From what I've heard from members of the current Bylaws Committee, they need clarification on what they can repeat of the contents from the e-mail deliberations and from meetings where non-members were not invited. Thanks, Tim Hagan From: Joshua Katz <planning4liberty(a)gmail.com> To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] (no subject) Mr. Hayes, thank you for your questions. First, the bylaws committee has not held a single executive session. It is unlikely to hold a single executive session. If it chose to, it could hold every one of its meetings in executive session, but that would be counterproductive. The rules you cite for executive session are for the LNC, and are found in the Policy Manual. The bylaws committee, as should be easily recognized, is not the LNC. Committees operate under the following rule: "During actual deliberations of the committee, only committee members have the right to be present." (p. 501, emphasis added). Committees may decide to allow non-members to be present, on a meeting by meeting basis, but cannot adopt a rule to that effect due to a rule cited on another thread. That does not make the content of the meetings secret. It does not make the topics considered, or what was said about them, secret. Those are the crucial characteristics of executive sessions, hence, such rules do not describe an executive session. My interpretation of that rule, which is not a ruling since I may only issue a ruling during a meeting, and this is an email, not a meeting, is that members should not reveal to non-members the identities of those making the arguments or how individuals voted at a meeting where the committee has chosen not to invite non-members. If the committee wanted that information known, it would open the meeting to non-members. What about emails? Emails are part of the committee deliberation, and are identified by author. It's a close case, since emails are not meetings. As I've pointed out before, RONR limits its comments on email voting to little more than "its hard, and if you decide to do it, you figure it out." In my opinion, it similarly should not be shared without committee permission. Some confusion seems to have been created by the special rules the LNC has adopted for itself, and those placed into the bylaws regarding the LNC. Let's clarify that. The parent assembly of the bylaws committee, and other bylaws-mandated committees, is the convention, not the LNC. The LNC has some powers in connection with those committees (appointment of members, selection of a temporary chair, and writing rules regarding electronic meetings are those which come to mind). As such, with the exception of the rules adopted by the LNC for the conduct of electronic meetings (which authorize committees to opt in to recording, but do not require recording, and permit committees to allow non-members to attend, but do not require committees to do so), the rules the LNC adopts for its own conduct bear no relation to such committees. Nor may the LNC make rules for such committees, except as specifically authorized in the bylaws. Finally, as noted, such committees may not adopt rules for themselves which conflict with those in the bylaws or, where the bylaws are silent, with our parliamentary authority. The bylaws committee has, in fact, not adopted any motions regarding its conduct. Your inquiry is apparently launched by the committee's failure to do so, and implicit decision (so far) to abide by the rules in RONR without modification. As I pointed out at our last meeting, I disagree with the tendency to consider the choice to abide by our established rules as somehow abnormal or a "screw-up." Having discussed to whom the bylaws committee reports, I will also review the purpose of committees and why they behave differently from assemblies. While exceptions exist, in general the purpose of committees is to research a topic or question and make recommendations. The bylaws committee is no exception (while several LNC-created committees are). The bylaws committee prepares a report showing its recommendations, which are then adopted, or not, by its parent assembly. The committee decides nothing on behalf of the party. The only decision it makes is to make recommendations, and those recommendations it chooses to make are, of course, fully publicly available. RONR says "When a committee is to make substantive recommendations . . . it should give members of the society an opportunity to appear before it and present their views on the subject a time scheduled by the committee." The committee has every intention to do so, both electronically and in person, and via surveys, as it has done in the past. There is no suggestion that it is useful for members of the society to know who introduced what proposals, who said what in debate, and so on. Sharing such information, in my opinion (and only my opinion - we can't infer the reasons people vote for things) politicizes the committee's work, and causes committee members to picture each comment, such as an attempt to wordsmith a proposal with which they may disagree, being blasted across various social media platforms. Nor is it conducive to delegates making decisions on the merits of the proposals. Knowing that I introduced a proposal tells you nothing about the proposal, yet might be the basis of a campaign to "vote no on the Katz motion." On the other hand, there are arguments for making such things available, and for inviting all to attend our meetings. That's why the committee has to decide - there are arguments for both positions. The LNC does not get to decide because the committee does not answer to the LNC. As chair, I will do as the committee directs. My own opinion is that there is useful transparency, such as the aforementioned hearings, and working to make sure that adopted proposals are available to the public as soon as possible so that useful feedback can be gotten, less useful, and harmful. But then, I only rarely even vote on motions in committee, and hardly ever debate. I am also not particularly persuaded by the fact that different sorts of organizations, which serve different functions, have different sorts of rules, either internally (the LNC, for instance) or externally imposed (such as Sunshine Laws). In particular, pointing out that a committee would not be allowed to act a certain way if it were a government agency strikes me as a little like pointing out that I could not eat chocolate if I were a dog. It's true, but I don't learn anything from it. I have a different internal chemistry. The bylaws committee has no independent power and governs nothing. Joshua A. Katz On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:44 PM, <danielehayes(a)icloud.com> wrote: All, and especially Mr. Katz in his role as chairman of the Bylaws Committee, It has come to my attention and my brain momentarily allotted enough bandwidth to really think about this. Under what authority are our bylaws meetings secret? (No, Starchild has not hijacked my computer). Specifically Ms. Harlos is acting like she just joined Fight Club. Ms. 1000 Emails being mostly clammed shut. I am worried she might end up like the kid from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie that got the experimental candy. These are all the reasons for going into executive session in our rules with a majority vote. • Legal matters (potential, pending, or past) • Regulatory and compliance matters (potential, pending, or past) • Contractual compliance • Personnel matters (including evaluation, compensation, hiring, or dismissal) • Board self-evaluation • Strategic issues (only those requiring confidentiality) • Negotiations (potential, pending, or past) Other topics require a two-thirds vote of LNC. No action can be taken while in Executive Session. Discussion of action which may be taken in Open Session can occur. The reasons for going into Executive session are supposed to be listed if a vote was taken. But when I ask about the vote to go into executive session I am told that there was no vote. I realize that we have rules all over the place and I might be missing something, hence I am asking, Why? Someone enlighten me as to what’s up before I slam big brown(11th ed.) on down. How is this remotely in line with what this organization stands for? I would flip a gasket if the Louisiana Legislature was operating in this manner. This wouldn’t pass muster under Sunshine Laws for government. Let that sink in. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from Mail for Windows 10 ______________________________ _________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/ listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp. org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

8 22

Re: [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage social media
by Starchild 26 May '17

26 May '17

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] cosponsors requested to have staff manage social media
by Starchild 26 May '17

26 May '17

1 0