Yes Starchild, it was exactly that sort of thing I mean. Now... there is absolutely nothing wrong or against the rules. It is allowed. *Just like it is allowed for Arvin as VC to post on FB as allowed by the Chair.* But certainly - and this came to mind long before this discussion - along with member comments - persons seeking LNC office probably should not be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to seen as an authority. *But right now it is allowed* and as it is allowed, all qualified people should seek those roles no matter what. But I do think that it is a consideration in the future that it not be allowed. So to bring around full circle, Arvin is posted as delegated by the Chair - and if the Chair needs to revisit that, it is his prerogative (particularly if he is concerned about what kinds of posts are run), and should not be used as an argument to take control from bottom-up volunteers who passionately love their work to put in on an over-burdened staff. -Caryn Ann On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
The secretary appears to be speaking from experience:
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/last-call-for-lp- platform-committee-survey/
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF
-----Original Message----- From: lnc-votes@hq.lp.org Sent: May 25, 2017 5:58 PM To: Libertarian National Committee list Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage social media
Alicia,
==A post does not have to say "vote for me at convention" to effectively be gaining special access to a large audience to raise a personal profile.==
But can you please give specifics? This apparently got missed by the APRC and I am not picking up what you are laying down... I am still baffled. Can you please give a few specifics?
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
This strikes me as an "Afghanistan attacked us, so let's attack Iraq" type of motion. This would:
1. Not have prevented me or anyone else from speaking bluntly on any topic on personal social media.
2. Not have prevented the first or third "satanic post", which were directly authorized by the chair.
However, this would have the effect of:
1. Massively hampering major social media outlets, as Trent Somes and Matt Geiger explained during the Pittsburgh meeting.
As we evaluate our overall strategy, I would strongly recommend looking at the initial strategies that later, predictably lead to bad reactions. Specifically, the outlandish assumption that the LP should be doing outreach primarily to the most pro-establishment, pro-status quo, pro-government groups on the planet needs to be allowed to die. That method makes no sense.
I know that those are the "most likely people to vote", but they are specifically the most likely people to vote for the ruling parties. I strongly encourage the LNC and state parties to, in addition to outreach to public school teachers and religious conservatives, also at least consider outreach to the rapidly growing, unapologetically anti-establishment groups that have already rejected establishment norms and values.
In Liberty,
Arvin
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
I just went back through the scheduling list too and see nothing in the past or in the future list that is promotion (or could be reasonably construed as promotion) of a person for internal party office. Examples are needed - particularly so that the APRC can be made aware.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
If it comes to a vote, I will oppose for the same reasons I did in Pittsburgh. What I have found so disconcerting about the discussions that sometimes take place on this list is that what appears to be about one thing is often about something else. It is such when a partner gets really mad for the toilet seat being left up and a huge row ensues. But it isn’t really about the toilet seat.
But I digress, since I was alluded to without being referred to, in critical terms, a volunteer did leave after an interaction I was with said volunteer (keeping personal details to a minimum purposefully). There no intention to “drive anyone away” and a misunderstood FB discussion or even a poorly done one on my part in one instance, in which tensions were already really high, does not negate any of my prior points about volunteers and I think everyone knows that. I don’t think all is fair in love and war and I find this to be a pretty cheap shot. I doubt it is news to anyone here that I am not perfect. If it is, consider yourself informed. Follow me long enough, and I will provide ample evidence.
I would also add there iIS review process. The APRC who is aware of the policies noted above. Now obviously there was a hole in the process that allowed that other post to go through. It was a perfect storm in which circumstances all converged that don’t require a nuclear option. And there are less disruptive ways to fix which the Review Committee will recommend I am quite confident. And they may in fact recommend this course. We don’t know. This option was rejected at our last meeting in favour of the committee.
But one thing did draw my attention, because I am genuinely curious and I believe the policy quoted a good one, and if something has ran afoul of that and escaped the review of the APRC - the correct route would be to bring it to the APRC IMHO - that is the procedure already in place. And judging from Whitney’s post, I am not the only APRC member who is completely puzzled and blindsided by this assertion made first here. I think examples are apropos - I am truly curious what posts seem to promoting or could seem to be promoting an internal party candidate? I would like to see if the APRC agrees with that assessment and would modify its review accordingly and accept that this was missed.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote:
"I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next convention."
Are you referring to things that showcase the efforts of individuals? And are you saying that such showcasing is meant as campaign fodder to promote said individual for internal office? In looking at the next 24 scheduled FB posts (scheduled over 6 days), I don't see anything that fits such a description, but I will certainly be on alert for such things.
I disagree that the APRC doesn't have the time to review everything in advance. I am on the APRC, and I do have the time. While it is not just my responsibility, I do need to be more vigilant with regard to the FB queue, but I trust that my fellow APRC members, more adept at FB, are supporting that effort. We are aware of the recent misstep, and it is being addressed.
I spoke against the driving out of staff or other volunteers by 'leaders' in the design group at the last LNC meeting, and I strongly oppose such actions. I am under the impression that was addressed by our Chairman. I also note that at least two if the individuals who were driven out, are back in business, and making things happen in there :).
To be honest, I think this motion is unnecessary at this time.
Whitney Bilyeu
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy Manual Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows:
Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as administrators of, serve as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s social media accounts. Volunteer content creators may submit content for approval.
At the LNC meeting there was majority support for the motion to both do the above and also to create a committee to review our social media processes. I could have supported it, but if we know what we need to do to fix the problem, why spend the time to have a committee study it first? Just fix it. I thought there was majority support for the other motion to simply turn control of our social media back over to staff. Turns out that I was mistaken, and one person was not willing to turn control back over to staff without the creation of the committee, so then the other motion failed. Because I misread the room, an option that actually had majority support didn't pass.
Now that we have separately created the committee, I want to go back and re-visit turning control back over to our staff.
Please note that the motion welcomes volunteers to submit material. It does not eliminate their opportunity to contribute.
I want to add some details to the discussion we had in Pittsburgh, with two Facebook PR blow-ups on our minds at the time.
Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster. Granted it was not on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was posted to, the person's party position was touted right there in the sidebar, and we took a lot of damage from it. The Convention Oversight Committee lost two very valuable volunteers over this latest disaster -- volunteers who did a lot of work for us in Orlando and were again helping for New Orleans. Gone.
There are no group votes before volunteers post on the party's FB. One person puts it into the schedule, and unless someone else sees it and objects, it goes public. We publish so much material that the APRC doesn't always have time to review everything in advance. Though the group has an informal rule against people posting their own material, people sometimes do it anyway. The comments about the military could easily have been posted on our page.
There was a very recent incident in which a new volunteer was driven to quit on the same day she joined for the crime of suggesting that we post more positive material and less negative material. I don't want to hear that the LNC giving final control to staff is somehow disrespecting the work of the volunteers, when that new volunteer's desire to contribute was so summarily disrespected.
We have some important policies that I don't believe the volunteers have even been informed about, and volunteers are not really accountable for following policies in the same way that our staff is.
Policy Manual Section 2.09.6:
Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for any candidate for party office unless:
- such information or services are available and announced on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that office, or - such information or services are generally available and announced to all party member
Not all party members have access to post on our Facebook page. Not all candidates for internal party office are offered the chance to post on our Facebook page.
I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next convention.
There was a time in the past when staff established criteria to try to manage application of this policy, with criteria for what constituted "news" or "earned media" that involved a candidate, etc. I don't believe there is any such attention to his policy right now for our social media. Some candidates have already declared. The closer we get to a national convention, the more these posts will be perceived as self-promotion that unfairly isn't available to their opponents.
So I'm asking for co-sponsors for this motion, to return final decision power to our staff, who are expected to know and follow our policies, and who are accountable to the LNC. The volunteer groups can continue to generate material just like they do now, but staff would schedule the actual posts.
If the Social Media Process Review Committee comes back to us with suggestions for reasonable ways to manage this later, we can amend this policy.
-Alicia
_______________________________________________ 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
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@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*
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@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*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- 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
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@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*
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@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*