To clarify, by "our party, not theirs!" in the message below I meant the LP and not the Republicans or Democrats. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Jun 5, 2017, at 5:14 AM, Starchild wrote:
James and Stewart,
I see I wrote my original response somewhat hastily; I meant to ask, "Has Travis McCurry asked the national office to copy him on membership updates for South Carolina when they get sent out?"
Anyway, reading your further correspondence, both of you make points here that seem reasonable to me. In general I am very strongly in favor of transparency and giving our members access to information, but I am mindful that how we handle the personal data entrusted to us by our members falls under a special category of information-handling, because while we should uphold transparency on an institutional level, as libertarians we also believe in the individual right to privacy. The report that a (former, I hope?) county chair in South Carolina recently gave LP membership information to the Trump campaign is troubling. The national party's data-sharing policy as detailed below shows that this could have included significant personal data which I strongly suspect most individuals on that list probably did not want the Trump campaign to have. In such a context, it makes perfect sense to me that South Carolina LP chair Stewart Flood would be cautious lest something similar happen again.
On the other hand, I'm in complete sympathy when activist James Brandmair says, "I just want to reach out to other Libertarians in my area and it really shouldn't be this difficult to get a list.". I agree it should not, and it seems desirable to me that there be clear procedures allowing grassroots activists like him who meet whatever reasonable requirements their state parties choose to establish to safeguard member data, to access that information for legitimate party-building purposes (our party, not theirs!). Such procedures might conceivably include provisions such as:
• requiring member data recipients to sign a statement that they will only use the information for certain specified purposes
• allowing a majority of state central committee or executive committee members to veto a membership data request if they suspect it might be misused (I'm mindful of the Florida LP's situation in which a handful of party members have been widely accused of being associated with fascists or white supremacists – see e.g. http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/04/update-on-augustus-invictus-cr...)
• including a "dummy" listing with each batch of membership data so that anyone using the list inappropriately can be identified (perhaps this practice is already being followed in South Carolina and is how the county chair who shared data with the Trump campaign was exposed?)
However, I do not think it would be appropriate for the Libertarian National Committee to dictate to state affiliates what their data-sharing procedures ought to be. Who can access under what conditions the information passed along to them by the national party should be up to each affiliate. The language in the LNC Policy Manual about affiliate relations pointed to by Alicia Mattson already conveys too much of a tone of the LNC laying down policy to state LP leaders:
------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 3.03 AFFILIATE RELATIONS
1) Affiliate Relationships Special agreements with states require the approval of the LNC.
2) Data Sharing with Affiliates LPHQ will provide all officially recognized state-level affiliates with a list of Constituents residing in the area covered by that affiliate, within the first 5 business days of the month to the affiliate chair, or his designee.
Such list shall include the following data elements (where available and applicable): • A unique ID • First, Middle and Last Name • Postal mailing address • Home and work phone and email address • County of residency, if that information can be obtained via commonly available sources within reasonable cost • Join and Expiration Dates • Donation classification level (basic, life, etc) • Existence of signed certification • Sustaining membership status • Other data elements, at the discretion of LPHQ
The affiliate chair may request that additional people receive copies of the constituent list.
LPHQ will establish and publish formal procedures for state chairs to follow in this regard.
The LPHQ will endeavor to provide the list in the file format requested (PDF, Excel, CSV, etc), but is under no obligation to do so, as it cannot guarantee that all file formats will always be available.
Should the LPHQ desire to change the quantity or order of the data elements, it will provide one month's notice of such change.
The LPHQ makes no further guarantees regarding the format, method of delivery or structure of the data.
All official communications regarding the database export format will be made via the state chairs e-mail list and a moderated database announce e-mail list to be administered by the LNC and that it is the responsibility of the affiliate chair to make sure the appropriate database contacts are on the database announce e-mail list. -------------------------------------------------------------------
I am of a mind to make a motion to revise this section. Besides the overall tone, a few of the specific problems I see with the current language:
• It dictates which state-level LP officials get access [the chair or "his" (sic) designee], rather than letting each affiliate tell the LNC to whom access should be granted,according to that state LP's own policies on the matter
• It mentions a "database announce e-mail list", but provides no information about it such as which database contacts are on it from which states, or how to subscribe or view the list
• It includes a phrase "is under no obligation to do so" which seems off-putting; simply stating that the national party will endeavor to provide lists in the file formats requested is sufficient
• It states that official communications will be made via the "state chairs e-mail list", a list which has so far been kept secret and to which neither LNC members nor state level activists necessarily have access
James and Stewart, if you or any of your South Carolina LP colleagues, or anyone else reading, have any suggested input on how the LNC's affiliate data-sharing policy listed above ought to be revised, please let me know.
On a practical level, I hope the two of you can get along and work something out to your mutual satisfaction. While James may be new to the party, enthusiastic new LP members who jump in and get involved in helping us organize and grow are like manna from heaven, and I expect the South Carolina chair, who is a long-time dedicated activist, wants to encourage this in his state as much as any of us. And of course every new Libertarian who shares our values will understand the importance of having precautions so that the personal data of members like yourselves isn't misused.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF
P.S. – If the information provided by the South Carolina chair is correct, the LNC's Policy Manual provision that "LPHQ will provide all officially recognized state-level affiliates with a list of Constituents residing in the area covered by that affiliate, within the first 5 business days of the month to the affiliate chair, or his designee" is not being consistently followed. I would ask that staff look into the matter and let us all know what you find.
On Jun 4, 2017, at 6:45 PM, James Brandmair wrote:
Tell him this, "I have been going through the Libertarian Leadership Academy and it recommends that I reach out to other Libertarians. From what I can tell there is very little activity and no one is actively recruiting candidates and new activists. I didn't join the LP to sit around in meetings talking, I joined to actually help elect Libertarians to public office. I just want to reach out to other Libertarians in my area and it really shouldn't be this difficult to get a list."
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 9:36 PM Stewart Flood <sff@ivo.net> wrote: Starchild,
Thank you for copying me in your response.
Mr Brandmair is giving you incomplete and inaccurate information regarding our conversation yesterday. We have missed getting data dumps a number of months over the past year, and do not receive them every month or on a specific day of the month. We also stopped getting contact emails a number of months back, but were informed there was a problem that was being corrected. We did start receiving them again recently, but they have started getting marked as spam. I’m not sure which list the party’s server is on, but someone has flagged it as spam. Hopefully they are already aware of this and dealing with it.
When Mr Brandmair asked me about data after yesterday’s meeting, it was at the end of a very stressful and LONG meeting and I did not want to waste time elaborating at that moment why I said the format of the data could be confusing.
Mr Brandmair and his associate are very new to the party. We had a recent case of a county chair asking the party secretary for membership data and then turning around and giving it to the Trump campaign. We do not just indiscreetly give out data now, and I was not going to try to explain to him at that moment all the reasons why I was not going to just hand him our data. He is not the chair of his county party.
Stewart sff@ivo.net
On Jun 4, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
James,
Thank you for sharing your concern, and Arvin for bringing it to our attention. Has Travis McCurry asked the national office to copy you on membership updates for South Carolina when they get sent out? It's my understanding that any elected state LP leader is can receive the data from national for their state if they ask for it, at which point you could presumably get from him the lists of members in your counties, if your chair refuses to provide it for some reason. But I'd like to hear Stewart's response, and what issues(s) he may have regarding the formatting of the list. Not wanting to share membership data with county leaders doesn't sound in keeping with what if I recall correctly has been his usual support for transparency.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF
On Jun 4, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
Hi all - can someone help with this, if doing so is within our purview?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Brandmair <jamesbrandmair@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM Subject: Membership List for South Carolina To: "vicechair@lp.org" <vicechair@lp.org>
Arvin,
Harper Sharp and I have been dissatisfied with the LP in our state so we took it upon ourselves to start being the change we wanted to see. Over the last month and a half we have come to find out that the state party is incompetent and unmotivated. Furthermore we have concluded that the main reason for that is Stewart Flood, our state chair. There's been many instances of him holding the party back for reasons that can only appear as him trying to maintain control over it. The biggest issue being that he isn't fulfilling his duty in membership recruitment by utilizing and distributing the membership list he receives from national. He's made a number of excuses saying that National doesn't send him the list, to when he does get the membership list the formatting is confusing. His vice chair, Travis McCurry, isn't even aware when he gets membership list at times, and he wants to grow the party just as much as we do. Furthermore, our county chairmen are not getting the membership list from Stewart Flood so they can actively recruit in their respective areas. To get to the point of all this, is that we are hoping you can help us get the membership list for our state, South Carolina; or at least Lexington and Richland county, so that we can get out there in the field and start communicating with people to get them more involved in the liberty movement.
Thanks for all you do,
James Brandmair & Harper Sharp
-- Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634 _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org