Policy Manual Vote Discussion Thread
My Questions 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?) 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our term? Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the two points above. Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
Thank you Alex. I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members. Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote. Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations. IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this? --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote:
My Questions
1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?)
2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our term?
Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the two points above.
Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure. As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism. This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few. --- As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization. Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300 Sent from my Mobile Device On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alex.
I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members.
Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote.
Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this?
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote:
My Questions
1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?)
2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our term?
Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the two points above.
Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
Thank you for the response, to be clear I am in support of something like this. Apparently what was put up for a vote wasn’t exactly what many of the sponsors wanted, this was my concern with the off list sponsorship (which I don’t think is something that had happen prior this term). I do think it’s often necessary to discuss off list to help hammer out the details on a lot of these proposals I also agree it’s disheartening when people treat any discussion as “backroom dealing” which people assume way too much which saddens me cause I do trust everyone on this board to have the best interest of the party at heart so it is sad to suspicion occur so quickly. Extra disheartening when factions within the party externally stoke those suspicions among us (on all sides of every discussion). The one lesson I think is learned is the sponsorships on list serve a special purpose of allowing sponsors to be clear on why they are signing on to unlike what happened here. One final note my particular questions weren’t out of any suspicion cause the thrust of the motion makes sense, but I wanted clarity on the decisions of the process. So your response and candor is deeply appreciated. Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
On May 6, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alex.
I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members.
Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote.
Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this?
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote: My Questions
1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?)
2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our term?
Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the two points above.
Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts. I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions. For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist. I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alex.
I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members.
Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote.
Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this?
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote:
My Questions
1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?)
2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our term?
Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the two points above.
Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list. *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions.
For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alex.
I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members.
Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote.
Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this?
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote:
My Questions
1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?)
2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our term?
Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the two points above.
Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
I will also add that once something is sponsored it belongs to the sponsors, and it is not german who "wrote" it. Others may disagree, but I find such a request a way to single out one person when multiple people signed on and made it "theirs." I did not write it but I own my sponsorship, and I think an insistence on knowing who wrote it is inappropriate. *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:19 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions.
For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alex.
I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members.
Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote.
Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this?
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote:
My Questions
1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?)
2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our term?
Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the two points above.
Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
I find fellow LNC members wanting to keep secret who writes a motion to be highly inappropriate. The longer it goes, that the writer won't come forward, the more suspect it seems. Because, if an LNC member doesn't want the light of transparency shining on their motion, then that is telling me there's something wrong. I think that there is so much push-back being given by the an LNC officer, over being asked who wrote the motion, is inappropriate. To champion the idea that motions put forth onto this email list, should have the writer be secret is a bad precedent. But, it let's me see that the transparency' cry, is a tool. To be used for the benefit of some, but not all. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) On 2020-05-06 11:22, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I will also add that once something is sponsored it belongs to the sponsors, and it is not german who "wrote" it. Others may disagree, but I find such a request a way to single out one person when multiple people signed on and made it "theirs." I did not write it but I own my sponsorship, and I think an insistence on knowing who wrote it is inappropriate.
IN LIBERTY,
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:19 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list.
IN LIBERTY,
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions.
For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alex.
I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members.
Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote.
Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this?
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote:
My Questions
1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I'm understanding of discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for sponsors on the list since that's public anyways?)
2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our term?
Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the two points above.
Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out. Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the requirements for business to be conducted on the public business listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs. As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules. Respectfully, --- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111 On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions.
For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alex.
I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members.
Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote.
Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this?
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote:
My Questions
1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?)
2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our term?
Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the two points above.
Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
Francis, There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot. Live Free, --- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.
Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the requirements for business to be conducted on the public business listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.
As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.
Respectfully,
--- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111
On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions.
For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alex.
I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members.
Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote.
Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this?
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote:
My Questions
1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?)
2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our term?
Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the two points above.
Alex Merced Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote it is irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability in the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name to it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author does not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed their name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force my preferences on other people. *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Francis,
There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot.
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.
Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the requirements for business to be conducted on the public business listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.
As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.
Respectfully,
--- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111
On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions.
For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alex.
I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members.
Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote.
Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this?
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote: > My Questions > > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for > sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?) > > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our > term? > > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the > two points above. > > Alex Merced > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
Mr. Wendt, your charity is appreciated. Mr. Goldstein is absolutely correct. There have been multiple times in the past where motions have been fully workshopped by people off list and submitted to the Secretary fully sponsored. It has not happened this term so far until now but it happened last term and in terms before that. I would hope the chair would put a stop to the attacking of members (not from you Mr. Wendt) who did not absolutely nothing wrong. It is not appropriate and it way beyond the bounds of decorum. *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:23 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote it is irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability in the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name to it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author does not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed their name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force my preferences on other people.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Francis,
There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot.
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.
Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the requirements for business to be conducted on the public business listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.
As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.
Respectfully,
--- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111
On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions.
For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. > > John Phillips > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative > Cell 217-412-5973 > > On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: > > Thank you Alex. > > I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went > straight > to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile > rumors on social media about LNC members. > > Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. > Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and > introduced straight to a vote. > > Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are > falling prey to rumor and manipulations. > > IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden > reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who > authored this? > > --- > Elizabeth Van Horn > LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) > > > > On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business > wrote: > > My Questions > > > > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of > > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for > > sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?) > > > > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our > > term? > > > > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization > > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just > > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the > > two points above. > > > > Alex Merced > > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP > > >
CAH, I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you. Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like, where you wrote: --> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper." --> "This need to a single person to attack..." Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you like, two can use it.) No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain. If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote it is irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability in the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name to it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author does not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed their name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force my preferences on other people.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Francis,
There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot.
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.
Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the requirements for business to be conducted on the public business listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.
As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.
Respectfully,
--- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111
On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions.
For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. > > John Phillips > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative > Cell 217-412-5973 > > On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: > > Thank you Alex. > > I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went > straight > to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile > rumors on social media about LNC members. > > Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. > Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and > introduced straight to a vote. > > Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are > falling prey to rumor and manipulations. > > IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden > reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who > authored this? > > --- > Elizabeth Van Horn > LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) > > > > On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business > wrote: > > My Questions > > > > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of > > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for > > sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?) > > > > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our > > term? > > > > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization > > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just > > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the > > two points above. > > > > Alex Merced > > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP > > >
Thank you Dustin. I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way. I doubt it would be well received. The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna@lp.org wrote:
For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.
On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH,
I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like, where you wrote:
--> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper."
--> "This need to a single person to attack..."
Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you like, two can use it.)
No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote it is irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability in the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name to it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author does not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed their name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force my preferences on other people.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Francis,
There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot.
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.
Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the requirements for business to be conducted on the public business listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.
As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.
Respectfully,
--- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111
On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts. > > I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was > needed, the 'why' for motions. > > For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they > were > getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were > getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they > got > something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for > a > vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist. > > > I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to > circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the > phrase > "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". > But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members > shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a > motion > is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being > considered. > > > > --- > Elizabeth Van Horn > LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) > > > > > On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote: >> As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom >> rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is >> common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest >> provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so >> cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was >> valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with >> amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure. >> >> As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain >> people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that >> we've >> had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. >> When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because >> it is >> not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline >> and >> then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the >> opposite criticism. >> >> This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a >> group >> has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations >> committee >> that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea >> to >> start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few. >> >> --- >> >> As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing >> nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or >> because >> it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to >> play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset >> we >> are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish >> literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this >> committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our >> organization. >> >> Richard Longstreth >> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) >> Libertarian National Committee >> richard.longstreth@lp.org >> 931.538.9300 >> >> Sent from my Mobile Device >> >> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < >> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >> >>> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. >>> >>> John Phillips >>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative >>> Cell 217-412-5973 >>> >>> On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Alex. >>> >>> I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went >>> straight >>> to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile >>> rumors on social media about LNC members. >>> >>> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. >>> Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and >>> introduced straight to a vote. >>> >>> Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are >>> falling prey to rumor and manipulations. >>> >>> IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden >>> reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who >>> authored this? >>> >>> --- >>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business >>> wrote: >>> > My Questions >>> > >>> > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I'm understanding of >>> > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for >>> > sponsors on the list since that's public anyways?) >>> > >>> > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in > our >>> > term? >>> > >>> > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization >>> > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just >>> > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the >>> > two points above. >>> > >>> > Alex Merced >>> > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP >>> >>> >>> >
No business was done. People have private discussions all the time. The business is the debate and vote and that all happens here. If everyone is going to swear off not having any LNC business related discussions ever outside this list, then that would be valid. But people talk all the time. Including on Saturday night before Sunday night's session. Mr. Bishop-Henchman and Mr. Longstreth met with a budget revision and brought it fully fleshed out. No one objected. If we are going to prohibit all that, let's write up a Policy Manual amendment and do it. Otherwise, this seems like a particular witch hunt here. I will co-sponsor such a policy manual amendment - write it up. *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Dustin.
I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way. I doubt it would be well received.
The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna@lp.org wrote:
For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.
On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH,
I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like, where you wrote:
--> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper."
--> "This need to a single person to attack..."
Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you like, two can use it.)
No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote it is irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability in the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name to it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author does not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed their name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force my preferences on other people.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Francis,
There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot.
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.
Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the requirements for business to be conducted on the public business listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.
As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.
Respectfully,
--- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111
On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote: > Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times > there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered > openly > for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. > That > resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone > could > have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the > chair to > workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a > "backroom" > deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not > helpful > nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such > things on > this list. > > *In Liberty,* > > * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome > (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If > anyone > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social > faux > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: > >> Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts. >> >> I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was >> needed, the 'why' for motions. >> >> For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they >> were >> getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were >> getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they >> got >> something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for >> a >> vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist. >> >> >> I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to >> circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the >> phrase >> "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". >> But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members >> shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a >> motion >> is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being >> considered. >> >> >> >> --- >> Elizabeth Van Horn >> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >> >> >> >> >> On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote: >>> As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom >>> rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is >>> common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest >>> provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so >>> cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was >>> valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with >>> amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure. >>> >>> As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain >>> people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that >>> we've >>> had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. >>> When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because >>> it is >>> not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline >>> and >>> then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the >>> opposite criticism. >>> >>> This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a >>> group >>> has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations >>> committee >>> that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea >>> to >>> start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing >>> nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or >>> because >>> it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to >>> play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset >>> we >>> are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish >>> literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this >>> committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our >>> organization. >>> >>> Richard Longstreth >>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) >>> Libertarian National Committee >>> richard.longstreth@lp.org >>> 931.538.9300 >>> >>> Sent from my Mobile Device >>> >>> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < >>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>> >>>> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. >>>> >>>> John Phillips >>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative >>>> Cell 217-412-5973 >>>> >>>> On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you Alex. >>>> >>>> I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went >>>> straight >>>> to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile >>>> rumors on social media about LNC members. >>>> >>>> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. >>>> Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and >>>> introduced straight to a vote. >>>> >>>> Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are >>>> falling prey to rumor and manipulations. >>>> >>>> IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden >>>> reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who >>>> authored this? >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business >>>> wrote: >>>> > My Questions >>>> > >>>> > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I'm understanding of >>>> > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for >>>> > sponsors on the list since that's public anyways?) >>>> > >>>> > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in >> our >>>> > term? >>>> > >>>> > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization >>>> > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just >>>> > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the >>>> > two points above. >>>> > >>>> > Alex Merced >>>> > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP >>>> >>>> >>>> >>
And our chair is having private discussions to try and flip votes. Does anyone have a problem with that? Should we demand he only argue for his case here and not try to influence members? Right now it is the chair, but prior to Saturday's meeting I received several calls from other LNC members doing a nose count to see where I stood. Should those LNC members not called me? This seems more to be as hurt at not being included in one private discussion. I get it. I don't like it when I am excluded which happens as well. But I don't cry foul. I try to figure out why I was not included and if I find a flaw in myself, to work on it, and if not, just shrug and say, that's life. *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:22 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
No business was done. People have private discussions all the time. The business is the debate and vote and that all happens here. If everyone is going to swear off not having any LNC business related discussions ever outside this list, then that would be valid. But people talk all the time. Including on Saturday night before Sunday night's session. Mr. Bishop-Henchman and Mr. Longstreth met with a budget revision and brought it fully fleshed out. No one objected.
If we are going to prohibit all that, let's write up a Policy Manual amendment and do it. Otherwise, this seems like a particular witch hunt here. I will co-sponsor such a policy manual amendment - write it up.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Dustin.
I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way. I doubt it would be well received.
The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna@lp.org wrote:
For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.
On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH,
I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like, where you wrote:
--> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper."
--> "This need to a single person to attack..."
Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you like, two can use it.)
No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote it is irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability in the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name to it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author does not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed their name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force my preferences on other people.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Francis,
There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot.
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote: > In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off > list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose > of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the > full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of > the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen > in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out. > > Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the > requirements for business to be conducted on the public business > listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best > intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not > meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs. > > As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean > that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty > bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is > my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules. > > Respectfully, > > --- > FRANCIS WENDT > LNC Region 1 Alternate > 406.595.5111 > > On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote: >> Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times >> there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered >> openly >> for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. >> That >> resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone >> could >> have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the >> chair to >> workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a >> "backroom" >> deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not >> helpful >> nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such >> things on >> this list. >> >> *In Liberty,* >> >> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome >> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal >> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If >> anyone >> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social >> faux >> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >> >>> Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts. >>> >>> I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was >>> needed, the 'why' for motions. >>> >>> For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they >>> were >>> getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were >>> getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they >>> got >>> something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for >>> a >>> vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist. >>> >>> >>> I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to >>> circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the >>> phrase >>> "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". >>> But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members >>> shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a >>> motion >>> is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being >>> considered. >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote: >>>> As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom >>>> rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is >>>> common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest >>>> provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so >>>> cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was >>>> valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with >>>> amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure. >>>> >>>> As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain >>>> people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that >>>> we've >>>> had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. >>>> When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because >>>> it is >>>> not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline >>>> and >>>> then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the >>>> opposite criticism. >>>> >>>> This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a >>>> group >>>> has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations >>>> committee >>>> that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea >>>> to >>>> start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing >>>> nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or >>>> because >>>> it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to >>>> play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset >>>> we >>>> are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish >>>> literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this >>>> committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our >>>> organization. >>>> >>>> Richard Longstreth >>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) >>>> Libertarian National Committee >>>> richard.longstreth@lp.org >>>> 931.538.9300 >>>> >>>> Sent from my Mobile Device >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < >>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. >>>>> >>>>> John Phillips >>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative >>>>> Cell 217-412-5973 >>>>> >>>>> On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Alex. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went >>>>> straight >>>>> to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile >>>>> rumors on social media about LNC members. >>>>> >>>>> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. >>>>> Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and >>>>> introduced straight to a vote. >>>>> >>>>> Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are >>>>> falling prey to rumor and manipulations. >>>>> >>>>> IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden >>>>> reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who >>>>> authored this? >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > My Questions >>>>> > >>>>> > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I'm understanding of >>>>> > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for >>>>> > sponsors on the list since that's public anyways?) >>>>> > >>>>> > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in >>> our >>>>> > term? >>>>> > >>>>> > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization >>>>> > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just >>>>> > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the >>>>> > two points above. >>>>> > >>>>> > Alex Merced >>>>> > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>
I appreciate your point though I don't agree. Using the convention issue as an example, Mr. Sarwark is certainly trying to bring together a majority - is he wrong to do so? Are the LNC members who called me to gather a majority to oppose an online convention wrong to do so? I believe Mr. Sarwark is wrong but not due to majority or off-list but due to the fact we are in the same session and he assumed the chair. Absent that, nothing wrong, IMHO. *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:11 AM <dustin.nanna@lp.org> wrote:
I only have an issue with a majority of members meeting privately. As I said, it doesn't seem that was the case. Just pointing out that folks (other than myself) look at it as secretive even if though it is not.
I think individual members are free to lobby however they wish outside of the list/meetings provided those outside convos don't reach a majority of voting members.
(Resent because I accidentally clicked the wrong reply button)
On May 7, 2020 8:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
And our chair is having private discussions to try and flip votes. Does anyone have a problem with that? Should we demand he only argue for his case here and not try to influence members?
Right now it is the chair, but prior to Saturday's meeting I received several calls from other LNC members doing a nose count to see where I stood. Should those LNC members not called me?
This seems more to be as hurt at not being included in one private discussion. I get it. I don't like it when I am excluded which happens as well. But I don't cry foul. I try to figure out why I was not included and if I find a flaw in myself, to work on it, and if not, just shrug and say, that's life.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:22 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
No business was done. People have private discussions all the time. The business is the debate and vote and that all happens here. If everyone is going to swear off not having any LNC business related discussions ever outside this list, then that would be valid. But people talk all the time. Including on Saturday night before Sunday night's session. Mr. Bishop-Henchman and Mr. Longstreth met with a budget revision and brought it fully fleshed out. No one objected.
If we are going to prohibit all that, let's write up a Policy Manual amendment and do it. Otherwise, this seems like a particular witch hunt here. I will co-sponsor such a policy manual amendment - write it up.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Dustin.
I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way. I doubt it would be well received.
The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna@lp.org wrote:
For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.
On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH,
I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like, where you wrote:
--> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper."
--> "This need to a single person to attack..."
Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you like, two can use it.)
No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote it is irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability in the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name to it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author does not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed their name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force my preferences on other people.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Francis,
There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot.
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.
Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the requirements for business to be conducted on the public business listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.
As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.
Respectfully,
--- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111
On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote: > Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times > there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered > openly > for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. > That > resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone > could > have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the > chair to > workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a > "backroom" > deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not > helpful > nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such > things on > this list. > > *In Liberty,* > > * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome > (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If > anyone > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social > faux > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: > >> Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts. >> >> I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was >> needed, the 'why' for motions. >> >> For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they >> were >> getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were >> getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they >> got >> something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for >> a >> vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist. >> >> >> I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to >> circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the >> phrase >> "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". >> But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members >> shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a >> motion >> is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being >> considered. >> >> >> >> --- >> Elizabeth Van Horn >> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >> >> >> >> >> On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote: >>> As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom >>> rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is >>> common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest >>> provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so >>> cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was >>> valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with >>> amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure. >>> >>> As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain >>> people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that >>> we've >>> had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. >>> When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because >>> it is >>> not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline >>> and >>> then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the >>> opposite criticism. >>> >>> This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a >>> group >>> has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations >>> committee >>> that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea >>> to >>> start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing >>> nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or >>> because >>> it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to >>> play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset >>> we >>> are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish >>> literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this >>> committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our >>> organization. >>> >>> Richard Longstreth >>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) >>> Libertarian National Committee >>> richard.longstreth@lp.org >>> 931.538.9300 >>> >>> Sent from my Mobile Device >>> >>> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < >>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>> >>>> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. >>>> >>>> John Phillips >>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative >>>> Cell 217-412-5973 >>>> >>>> On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you Alex. >>>> >>>> I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went >>>> straight >>>> to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile >>>> rumors on social media about LNC members. >>>> >>>> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. >>>> Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and >>>> introduced straight to a vote. >>>> >>>> Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are >>>> falling prey to rumor and manipulations. >>>> >>>> IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden >>>> reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who >>>> authored this? >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business >>>> wrote: >>>> > My Questions >>>> > >>>> > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I'm understanding of >>>> > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for >>>> > sponsors on the list since that's public anyways?) >>>> > >>>> > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in >> our >>>> > term? >>>> > >>>> > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization >>>> > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just >>>> > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the >>>> > two points above. >>>> > >>>> > Alex Merced >>>> > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP >>>> >>>> >>>> >>
Hooboy. I'm asking who wrote that motion. Plus, their reason for writing. It's really simple. You could at least try to stay on topic, so I won't have to keep repeating it. (laughing) --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) On 2020-05-07 08:25, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
And our chair is having private discussions to try and flip votes. Does anyone have a problem with that? Should we demand he only argue for his case here and not try to influence members?
Right now it is the chair, but prior to Saturday's meeting I received several calls from other LNC members doing a nose count to see where I stood. Should those LNC members not called me?
This seems more to be as hurt at not being included in one private discussion. I get it. I don't like it when I am excluded which happens as well. But I don't cry foul. I try to figure out why I was not included and if I find a flaw in myself, to work on it, and if not, just shrug and say, that's life.
IN LIBERTY,
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:22 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: No business was done. People have private discussions all the time. The business is the debate and vote and that all happens here. If everyone is going to swear off not having any LNC business related discussions ever outside this list, then that would be valid. But people talk all the time. Including on Saturday night before Sunday night's session. Mr. Bishop-Henchman and Mr. Longstreth met with a budget revision and brought it fully fleshed out. No one objected.
If we are going to prohibit all that, let's write up a Policy Manual amendment and do it. Otherwise, this seems like a particular witch hunt here. I will co-sponsor such a policy manual amendment - write it up.
IN LIBERTY,
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: Thank you Dustin.
I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way. I doubt it would be well received.
The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna@lp.org wrote:
For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.
On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH,
I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like, where you wrote:
--> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper."
--> "This need to a single person to attack..."
Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you like, two can use it.)
No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote it is irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability in the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name to it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author does not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed their name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force my preferences on other people.
And I am positive that the person who wrote it has seen the request and declined to answer. Continued insistence on information that has been declined is fast becoming badgering. *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:24 AM <john.phillips@lp.org> wrote:
I have to agree with Mrs Harlos on at least the point about off list discussions and lobbying. Those things happen, are expected, and not really the issue.
I also tho agree with Mr Wendt on the usual process of a call for co-sponsors first, so discussion and amendments etc can be offered.
There are many issues around this particular motion, but this particular one off who wrote it is one of the more minor ones, if it at all.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 7, 2020 7:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
And our chair is having private discussions to try and flip votes. Does anyone have a problem with that? Should we demand he only argue for his case here and not try to influence members?
Right now it is the chair, but prior to Saturday's meeting I received several calls from other LNC members doing a nose count to see where I stood. Should those LNC members not called me?
This seems more to be as hurt at not being included in one private discussion. I get it. I don't like it when I am excluded which happens as well. But I don't cry foul. I try to figure out why I was not included and if I find a flaw in myself, to work on it, and if not, just shrug and say, that's life.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:22 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
No business was done. People have private discussions all the time. The business is the debate and vote and that all happens here. If everyone is going to swear off not having any LNC business related discussions ever outside this list, then that would be valid. But people talk all the time. Including on Saturday night before Sunday night's session. Mr. Bishop-Henchman and Mr. Longstreth met with a budget revision and brought it fully fleshed out. No one objected.
If we are going to prohibit all that, let's write up a Policy Manual amendment and do it. Otherwise, this seems like a particular witch hunt here. I will co-sponsor such a policy manual amendment - write it up.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Dustin.
I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way. I doubt it would be well received.
The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna@lp.org wrote:
For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.
On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH,
I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like, where you wrote:
--> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper."
--> "This need to a single person to attack..."
Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you like, two can use it.)
No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote it is irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability in the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name to it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author does not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed their name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force my preferences on other people.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Francis, > > There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public > business list. We do use it for official business but private > discussions between LNC members are not official business. This > motion > met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out > an > email ballot. > > Live Free, > > --- > Sam Goldstein, At Large Member > Libertarian National Committee > 317-850-0726 Cell > > On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote: >> In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off >> list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose >> of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the >> full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of >> the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen >> in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out. >> >> Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the >> requirements for business to be conducted on the public business >> listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best >> intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not >> meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs. >> >> As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean >> that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty >> bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is >> my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> --- >> FRANCIS WENDT >> LNC Region 1 Alternate >> 406.595.5111 >> >> On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote: >>> Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times >>> there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered >>> openly >>> for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. >>> That >>> resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone >>> could >>> have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the >>> chair to >>> workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a >>> "backroom" >>> deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not >>> helpful >>> nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such >>> things on >>> this list. >>> >>> *In Liberty,* >>> >>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome >>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal >>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If >>> anyone >>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social >>> faux >>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts. >>>> >>>> I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was >>>> needed, the 'why' for motions. >>>> >>>> For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they >>>> were >>>> getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were >>>> getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they >>>> got >>>> something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for >>>> a >>>> vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist. >>>> >>>> >>>> I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to >>>> circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the >>>> phrase >>>> "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". >>>> But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members >>>> shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a >>>> motion >>>> is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being >>>> considered. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote: >>>>> As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the > backroom >>>>> rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it > is >>>>> common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest >>>>> provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so >>>>> cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt > was >>>>> valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with >>>>> amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure. >>>>> >>>>> As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by > certain >>>>> people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that >>>>> we've >>>>> had a real problem getting some things done over email with this > group. >>>>> When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because >>>>> it is >>>>> not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up > offline >>>>> and >>>>> then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the >>>>> opposite criticism. >>>>> >>>>> This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a >>>>> group >>>>> has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations >>>>> committee >>>>> that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea >>>>> to >>>>> start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing >>>>> nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or >>>>> because >>>>> it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing > to >>>>> play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which > ruleset >>>>> we >>>>> are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish >>>>> literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this >>>>> committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our >>>>> organization. >>>>> >>>>> Richard Longstreth >>>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) >>>>> Libertarian National Committee >>>>> richard.longstreth@lp.org >>>>> 931.538.9300 >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Mobile Device >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < >>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. >>>>>> >>>>>> John Phillips >>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative >>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973 >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Alex. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went >>>>>> straight >>>>>> to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some > vile >>>>>> rumors on social media about LNC members. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. >>>>>> Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and >>>>>> introduced straight to a vote. >>>>>> >>>>>> Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are >>>>>> falling prey to rumor and manipulations. >>>>>> >>>>>> IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the > sudden >>>>>> reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who >>>>>> authored this? >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>>>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > My Questions >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I'm understanding of >>>>>> > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call > for >>>>>> > sponsors on the list since that's public anyways?) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late > in >>>> our >>>>>> > term? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most > organization >>>>>> > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I > just >>>>>> > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on > the >>>>>> > two points above. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Alex Merced >>>>>> > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >
Since you say you're not the person who wrote that motion. There's no need for you to continue badgering me about my requests. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) On 2020-05-07 11:44, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
And I am positive that the person who wrote it has seen the request and declined to answer. Continued insistence on information that has been declined is fast becoming badgering.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:24 AM <john.phillips@lp.org> wrote:
I have to agree with Mrs Harlos on at least the point about off list discussions and lobbying. Those things happen, are expected, and not really the issue.
I also tho agree with Mr Wendt on the usual process of a call for co-sponsors first, so discussion and amendments etc can be offered.
There are many issues around this particular motion, but this particular one off who wrote it is one of the more minor ones, if it at all.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 7, 2020 7:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
And our chair is having private discussions to try and flip votes. Does anyone have a problem with that? Should we demand he only argue for his case here and not try to influence members?
Right now it is the chair, but prior to Saturday's meeting I received several calls from other LNC members doing a nose count to see where I stood. Should those LNC members not called me?
This seems more to be as hurt at not being included in one private discussion. I get it. I don't like it when I am excluded which happens as well. But I don't cry foul. I try to figure out why I was not included and if I find a flaw in myself, to work on it, and if not, just shrug and say, that's life.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:22 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
No business was done. People have private discussions all the time. The business is the debate and vote and that all happens here. If everyone is going to swear off not having any LNC business related discussions ever outside this list, then that would be valid. But people talk all the time. Including on Saturday night before Sunday night's session. Mr. Bishop-Henchman and Mr. Longstreth met with a budget revision and brought it fully fleshed out. No one objected.
If we are going to prohibit all that, let's write up a Policy Manual amendment and do it. Otherwise, this seems like a particular witch hunt here. I will co-sponsor such a policy manual amendment - write it up.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Dustin.
I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way. I doubt it would be well received.
The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna@lp.org wrote:
For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.
On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH,
I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like, where you wrote:
--> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper."
--> "This need to a single person to attack..."
Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you like, two can use it.)
No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote: > EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not > appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote > it is > irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability > in > the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch > hunt > to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that > person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to > name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name > to > it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author > does > not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed > their > name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force > my > preferences on other people. > > > *In Liberty,* > > * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome > (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social > faux > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: > >> Francis, >> >> There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public >> business list. We do use it for official business but private >> discussions between LNC members are not official business. This >> motion >> met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out >> an >> email ballot. >> >> Live Free, >> >> --- >> Sam Goldstein, At Large Member >> Libertarian National Committee >> 317-850-0726 Cell >> >> On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote: >>> In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off >>> list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose >>> of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the >>> full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of >>> the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen >>> in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out. >>> >>> Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the >>> requirements for business to be conducted on the public business >>> listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best >>> intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not >>> meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs. >>> >>> As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean >>> that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty >>> bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is >>> my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> --- >>> FRANCIS WENDT >>> LNC Region 1 Alternate >>> 406.595.5111 >>> >>> On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote: >>>> Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times >>>> there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered >>>> openly >>>> for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. >>>> That >>>> resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone >>>> could >>>> have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the >>>> chair to >>>> workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a >>>> "backroom" >>>> deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not >>>> helpful >>>> nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such >>>> things on >>>> this list. >>>> >>>> *In Liberty,* >>>> >>>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome >>>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal >>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If >>>> anyone >>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social >>>> faux >>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts. >>>>> >>>>> I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was >>>>> needed, the 'why' for motions. >>>>> >>>>> For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they >>>>> were >>>>> getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were >>>>> getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they >>>>> got >>>>> something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for >>>>> a >>>>> vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to >>>>> circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the >>>>> phrase >>>>> "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". >>>>> But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members >>>>> shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a >>>>> motion >>>>> is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being >>>>> considered. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote: >>>>>> As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the >> backroom >>>>>> rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it >> is >>>>>> common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest >>>>>> provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so >>>>>> cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt >> was >>>>>> valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with >>>>>> amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure. >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by >> certain >>>>>> people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that >>>>>> we've >>>>>> had a real problem getting some things done over email with this >> group. >>>>>> When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because >>>>>> it is >>>>>> not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up >> offline >>>>>> and >>>>>> then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the >>>>>> opposite criticism. >>>>>> >>>>>> This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a >>>>>> group >>>>>> has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations >>>>>> committee >>>>>> that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea >>>>>> to >>>>>> start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing >>>>>> nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or >>>>>> because >>>>>> it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing >> to >>>>>> play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which >> ruleset >>>>>> we >>>>>> are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish >>>>>> literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this >>>>>> committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our >>>>>> organization. >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Longstreth >>>>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) >>>>>> Libertarian National Committee >>>>>> richard.longstreth@lp.org >>>>>> 931.538.9300 >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my Mobile Device >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < >>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Phillips >>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative >>>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Alex. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went >>>>>>> straight >>>>>>> to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some >> vile >>>>>>> rumors on social media about LNC members. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. >>>>>>> Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and >>>>>>> introduced straight to a vote. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are >>>>>>> falling prey to rumor and manipulations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the >> sudden >>>>>>> reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who >>>>>>> authored this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>>>>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > My Questions >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I'm understanding of >>>>>>> > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call >> for >>>>>>> > sponsors on the list since that's public anyways?) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late >> in >>>>> our >>>>>>> > term? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most >> organization >>>>>>> > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I >> just >>>>>>> > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on >> the >>>>>>> > two points above. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Alex Merced >>>>>>> > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
John, I'm not asking about, nor do I care about off-list discussion, and/or lobbying. That's CAH changing the narrative. I shall repeat: I want to know who wrote that motion which was brought to this list for a vote. I want the writer to explain their reason for the motion. What I'm asking is simple. It's two things. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) On 2020-05-07 11:24, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
I have to agree with Mrs Harlos on at least the point about off list discussions and lobbying. Those things happen, are expected, and not really the issue.
I also tho agree with Mr Wendt on the usual process of a call for co-sponsors first, so discussion and amendments etc can be offered.
There are many issues around this particular motion, but this particular one off who wrote it is one of the more minor ones, if it at all.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 7, 2020 7:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
And our chair is having private discussions to try and flip votes. Does anyone have a problem with that? Should we demand he only argue for his case here and not try to influence members?
Right now it is the chair, but prior to Saturday's meeting I received several calls from other LNC members doing a nose count to see where I stood. Should those LNC members not called me?
This seems more to be as hurt at not being included in one private discussion. I get it. I don't like it when I am excluded which happens as well. But I don't cry foul. I try to figure out why I was not included and if I find a flaw in myself, to work on it, and if not, just shrug and say, that's life.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:22 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
No business was done. People have private discussions all the time. The business is the debate and vote and that all happens here. If everyone is going to swear off not having any LNC business related discussions ever outside this list, then that would be valid. But people talk all the time. Including on Saturday night before Sunday night's session. Mr. Bishop-Henchman and Mr. Longstreth met with a budget revision and brought it fully fleshed out. No one objected.
If we are going to prohibit all that, let's write up a Policy Manual amendment and do it. Otherwise, this seems like a particular witch hunt here. I will co-sponsor such a policy manual amendment - write it up.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Dustin.
I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way. I doubt it would be well received.
The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna@lp.org wrote:
For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.
On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH,
I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like, where you wrote:
--> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper."
--> "This need to a single person to attack..."
Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you like, two can use it.)
No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote: > EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not > appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote > it is > irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability > in > the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch > hunt > to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that > person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to > name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name > to > it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author > does > not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed > their > name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force > my > preferences on other people. > > > *In Liberty,* > > * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome > (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social > faux > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: > >> Francis, >> >> There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public >> business list. We do use it for official business but private >> discussions between LNC members are not official business. This >> motion >> met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out >> an >> email ballot. >> >> Live Free, >> >> --- >> Sam Goldstein, At Large Member >> Libertarian National Committee >> 317-850-0726 Cell >> >> On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote: >>> In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off >>> list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose >>> of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the >>> full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of >>> the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen >>> in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out. >>> >>> Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the >>> requirements for business to be conducted on the public business >>> listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best >>> intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not >>> meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs. >>> >>> As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean >>> that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty >>> bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is >>> my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> --- >>> FRANCIS WENDT >>> LNC Region 1 Alternate >>> 406.595.5111 >>> >>> On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote: >>>> Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times >>>> there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered >>>> openly >>>> for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. >>>> That >>>> resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone >>>> could >>>> have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the >>>> chair to >>>> workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a >>>> "backroom" >>>> deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not >>>> helpful >>>> nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such >>>> things on >>>> this list. >>>> >>>> *In Liberty,* >>>> >>>> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome >>>> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal >>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If >>>> anyone >>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social >>>> faux >>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts. >>>>> >>>>> I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was >>>>> needed, the 'why' for motions. >>>>> >>>>> For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they >>>>> were >>>>> getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were >>>>> getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they >>>>> got >>>>> something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for >>>>> a >>>>> vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to >>>>> circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the >>>>> phrase >>>>> "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". >>>>> But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members >>>>> shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a >>>>> motion >>>>> is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being >>>>> considered. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote: >>>>>> As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the >> backroom >>>>>> rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it >> is >>>>>> common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest >>>>>> provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so >>>>>> cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt >> was >>>>>> valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with >>>>>> amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure. >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by >> certain >>>>>> people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that >>>>>> we've >>>>>> had a real problem getting some things done over email with this >> group. >>>>>> When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because >>>>>> it is >>>>>> not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up >> offline >>>>>> and >>>>>> then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the >>>>>> opposite criticism. >>>>>> >>>>>> This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a >>>>>> group >>>>>> has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations >>>>>> committee >>>>>> that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea >>>>>> to >>>>>> start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing >>>>>> nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or >>>>>> because >>>>>> it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing >> to >>>>>> play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which >> ruleset >>>>>> we >>>>>> are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish >>>>>> literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this >>>>>> committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our >>>>>> organization. >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Longstreth >>>>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) >>>>>> Libertarian National Committee >>>>>> richard.longstreth@lp.org >>>>>> 931.538.9300 >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my Mobile Device >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < >>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Phillips >>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative >>>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>>>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Alex. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went >>>>>>> straight >>>>>>> to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some >> vile >>>>>>> rumors on social media about LNC members. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. >>>>>>> Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and >>>>>>> introduced straight to a vote. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are >>>>>>> falling prey to rumor and manipulations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the >> sudden >>>>>>> reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who >>>>>>> authored this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>>>>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> My Questions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I'm understanding of >>>>>>>> discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call >> for >>>>>>>> sponsors on the list since that's public anyways?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late >> in >>>>> our >>>>>>>> term? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most >> organization >>>>>>>> usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I >> just >>>>>>>> feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on >> the >>>>>>>> two points above. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alex Merced >>>>>>>> Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>
There you go again. Changing the narrative. Casting aspersions. I'm asking to know who wrote a motion. I'm asking for their reason for writing the motion. Since you say you're not that person, there's no need for you to reply. Unless you just enjoy typing your imagined 'witch hunt". LOL --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) On 2020-05-07 08:22, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
No business was done. People have private discussions all the time. The business is the debate and vote and that all happens here. If everyone is going to swear off not having any LNC business related discussions ever outside this list, then that would be valid. But people talk all the time. Including on Saturday night before Sunday night's session. Mr. Bishop-Henchman and Mr. Longstreth met with a budget revision and brought it fully fleshed out. No one objected.
If we are going to prohibit all that, let's write up a Policy Manual amendment and do it. Otherwise, this seems like a particular witch hunt here. I will co-sponsor such a policy manual amendment - write it up.
IN LIBERTY,
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:04 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Dustin.
I'd thought about how this would look if a public legislative body were voting. Or, if LP state affiliate leaderships were to operate this way. I doubt it would be well received.
The LNC should try to be better, and this isn't it.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-07 07:38, dustin.nanna@lp.org wrote:
For what its worth, most government bodies in Ohio are restricted from doing business off list or out of the public view due to sunshine/open meetings laws. (If a majority of the body communicates)
I believe the LNC should be bound by similar rules, but I understand that that it is not currently the case. It also doesn't seem like this was a majority of members. I know that the folks who worked on this have the best of intentions, but the appearance to folks outside the body is less than desirable imo.
On May 7, 2020 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
CAH,
I think you're confused. If you get to say my actions are "inappropriate", then I can use the same word about your actions. It's not suddenly "aspersions", if someone else does it, but not you.
Now, if we want to talk about 'aspersions', this is what they look like, where you wrote:
--> " This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper."
--> "This need to a single person to attack..."
Asking questions to inquire about who wrote a motion is not a witch hunt, nor an attack. Yet you're trying to twist it into that. I find your attempt to be inappropriate. (since inappropriate is a word you like, two can use it.)
No one is asking you to force anything on anyone. You don't even need to reply to me, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking who wrote that motion. I'm asking "why" they write that motion. If the motion isn't tied to the vile rumors about certain members of this body, and is a coincidence, I'd like the writer to explain.
If other LNC members are not aware of the rumors I'm referring to, send me a private message, and I'll provide a link and information. It may help you understand the sudden motion, for which the rest of us were not privy to, and only seeing for the first time, when appearing for a vote.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 15:23, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
EVH, I did not write the motion. Your aspersions against me are not appropriate. I however fully own it as if I did write it. Who wrote it is irrelevant as it is just a person who has more time and writing ability in the opinion of the sponsors. This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to attack someone who just happened to put thoughts on paper. If that person wishes to say so on the list they may, but it is not my place to name them, particularly since I fully own this motion as I put my name to it. This need to a single person to attack is probably why the author does not wish to subject themselves to that. Each of the sponsors signed their name. If I wrote it I would say so. But that is me, and I don't force my preferences on other people.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sam Goldstein via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Francis,
There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot.
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote: > In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off > list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose > of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the > full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of > the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen > in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out. > > Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the > requirements for business to be conducted on the public business > listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best > intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not > meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs. > > As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean > that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty > bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is > my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules. > > Respectfully, > > --- > FRANCIS WENDT > LNC Region 1 Alternate > 406.595.5111 > > On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote: >> Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times >> there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered >> openly >> for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. >> That >> resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone >> could >> have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the >> chair to >> workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a >> "backroom" >> deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not >> helpful >> nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such >> things on >> this list. >> >> *In Liberty,* >> >> * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome >> (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal >> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If >> anyone >> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social >> faux >> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >> >>> Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts. >>> >>> I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was >>> needed, the 'why' for motions. >>> >>> For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they >>> were >>> getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were >>> getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they >>> got >>> something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for >>> a >>> vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist. >>> >>> >>> I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to >>> circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the >>> phrase >>> "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". >>> But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members >>> shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a >>> motion >>> is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being >>> considered. >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote: >>>> As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom >>>> rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is >>>> common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest >>>> provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so >>>> cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was >>>> valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with >>>> amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure. >>>> >>>> As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain >>>> people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that >>>> we've >>>> had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. >>>> When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because >>>> it is >>>> not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline >>>> and >>>> then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the >>>> opposite criticism. >>>> >>>> This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a >>>> group >>>> has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations >>>> committee >>>> that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea >>>> to >>>> start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing >>>> nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or >>>> because >>>> it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to >>>> play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset >>>> we >>>> are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish >>>> literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this >>>> committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our >>>> organization. >>>> >>>> Richard Longstreth >>>> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) >>>> Libertarian National Committee >>>> richard.longstreth@lp.org >>>> 931.538.9300 >>>> >>>> Sent from my Mobile Device >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < >>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. >>>>> >>>>> John Phillips >>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative >>>>> Cell 217-412-5973 >>>>> >>>>> On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < >>>>> lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Alex. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went >>>>> straight >>>>> to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile >>>>> rumors on social media about LNC members. >>>>> >>>>> Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. >>>>> Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and >>>>> introduced straight to a vote. >>>>> >>>>> Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are >>>>> falling prey to rumor and manipulations. >>>>> >>>>> IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden >>>>> reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who >>>>> authored this? >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn >>>>> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> My Questions >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I'm understanding of >>>>>> discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for >>>>>> sponsors on the list since that's public anyways?) >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in >>> our >>>>>> term? >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization >>>>>> usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just >>>>>> feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the >>>>>> two points above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex Merced >>>>>> Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>
Yes, after reading Article 13 of the Bylaws, and Section 1.04 of the LNC special rules of order I do see that the criteria has been met. That doesn't preclude my observation that good faith would suggest presenting a product for discussion before forcing a vote. Perhaps this policy is one of the main reasons that we have such underlying resistance to motions in this committee. Oh perhaps we simply rely on email ballots too much when the end results can wait until the next quarterly meeting, such as my opinion of this measure. Just my humble musings, as I do not see the need for this ballot, when we are in active uncertainty in regards to our convention. This is like Congress debating an appointment of the parks director, when the government is shut down. I get that people can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, but it does lend to the callous nature that the members perceive of this committee. --- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111 On 2020-05-06 12:59, Sam Goldstein wrote:
Francis,
There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot.
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.
Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the requirements for business to be conducted on the public business listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.
As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.
Respectfully,
--- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111
On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions.
For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap.
John Phillips Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Cell 217-412-5973
On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alex.
I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went straight to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile rumors on social media about LNC members.
Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and introduced straight to a vote.
Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are falling prey to rumor and manipulations.
IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who authored this?
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business wrote: > My Questions > > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for > sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?) > > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our > term? > > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the > two points above. > > Alex Merced > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP
Mr. Wendt consider this - every in person meeting people meet after hours and come to the next session with their support fully in place. This is no different except for the fact that email votes stink for making amendments. This is why I favour having an e-meeting each month and forgoing email ballots entirely. *In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. * On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:30 PM Francis Wendt via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Yes, after reading Article 13 of the Bylaws, and Section 1.04 of the LNC special rules of order I do see that the criteria has been met. That doesn't preclude my observation that good faith would suggest presenting a product for discussion before forcing a vote. Perhaps this policy is one of the main reasons that we have such underlying resistance to motions in this committee. Oh perhaps we simply rely on email ballots too much when the end results can wait until the next quarterly meeting, such as my opinion of this measure.
Just my humble musings, as I do not see the need for this ballot, when we are in active uncertainty in regards to our convention. This is like Congress debating an appointment of the parks director, when the government is shut down. I get that people can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, but it does lend to the callous nature that the members perceive of this committee.
--- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111
On 2020-05-06 12:59, Sam Goldstein wrote:
Francis,
There is no requirement for business to be conducted on the public business list. We do use it for official business but private discussions between LNC members are not official business. This motion met that parameter when it was submitted to the Secretary to send out an email ballot.
Live Free,
--- Sam Goldstein, At Large Member Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell
On 2020-05-06 13:28, Francis Wendt via Lnc-business wrote:
In my assessment, there is no problem of work-shopping a motion off list. In fact I think that would be beneficial to the greater purpose of this committee. What I do see as a bit of a problem is having the full sponsorship declared off list, as there is no tangible record of the process nor opportunity to debate necessity, such as would happen in the call for sponsorship, as EVH has pointed out.
Thus, it seems to me that off-list sponsorship does not meet the requirements for business to be conducted on the public business listing. I trust that those who worked on this proposal held the best intentions for its necessity and benefit to the party, and am not meaning to disparage anyone for their beliefs.
As I am not a voting member of this body, which I construe to mean that I have no standing to object or raise points of order, I am duty bound by my regional agreement to raise my voice in debate as that is my only avenue of recourse in accordance with our rules.
Respectfully,
--- FRANCIS WENDT LNC Region 1 Alternate 406.595.5111
On 2020-05-06 09:19, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
Thank you Mr. Longstreth. And I will note that I noted multiple times there is another resolution being worked on off-list and I offered openly for anyone who wished to be involved and only two people responded. That resolution be be put up today with already three sponsors but anyone could have helped workshop. We have been encouraged in the past by the chair to workshop off-list, and I will continue to do that. It is not a "backroom" deal, and I will continue to ignore such accusations. It is not helpful nor does it make us look professional to immediately jump to such things on this list.
*In Liberty,*
* Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your good-faith efforts.
I'm still wanting to know who writes a motion. Who decided it was needed, the 'why' for motions.
For instance, clearly some of the people co-sponsored thought they were getting one thing, but got another. One person thought they were getting something that may benefit them, and wasn't happy that they got something else. Those areas of who, how, and why a motion is up for a vote matter to me. Asking for that information isn't obstructionist.
I also don't think that because discussion happens, that it's good to circumvent that, for the purpose bypassing discussion. While the phrase "backroom deal" might not be one you like, then I'll say, "off-list". But, call it whatever you like, it means that certain LNC members shut-out other LNC members from the conversation. Then, *bam* a motion is up for vote that the rest of us were unaware was even being considered.
--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
On 2020-05-06 10:44, Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business wrote:
As a cosponsor, I want to be clear that I do not buy into the backroom rumors or anything like that. I sponsored, as Alex noted, because it is common in professional organizations to have a conflict of interest provision like this. I was approached, had no immediate objection so cosponsored. That simple. When argument was pointed out that I felt was valid, I changed my vote to a no.aybe we can get a second ballot with amended language. That's an issue with email ballots for sure.
As far as this being a backroom deal because it was written by certain people or whatever was alleged, I want to remind everyone here that we've had a real problem getting some things done over email with this group. When a resolution or idea is presented, it is picked to death because it is not perfect and those in favor have been encouraged to work up offline and then present. This idea had just that done and now it is getting the opposite criticism.
This killing of ideas and not cultivating and developing them as a group has happened with several resolutions, an ad hoc media relations committee that I tried to start last year, and Pat Ford's ad hoc committee idea to start working on the 2022 and 2024 debates, just to name a few.
---
As an aside, I am not going to vent too much but this policy of doing nothing, whether because a motion is not perfect at first pass or because it is well written, but done off list, is embarrassing. I am willing to play ball however we want, but can someone please tell me which ruleset we are using and stop changing the rules every time we try to accomplish literally anything? There are more obstructionist behaviors on this committee sometimes than there are ones working for the good of our organization.
Richard Longstreth Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY) Libertarian National Committee richard.longstreth@lp.org 931.538.9300
Sent from my Mobile Device
On Tue, May 5, 2020, 08:17 john.phillips--- via Lnc-business < lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
> See my response in the vote thread. Screw this backroom crap. > > John Phillips > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative > Cell 217-412-5973 > > On May 5, 2020 10:13 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business < > lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote: > > Thank you Alex. > > I agree with everything you've asked. This motion, which went > straight > to a vote smells bad. Particularly, after seeing how there's some vile > rumors on social media about LNC members. > > Because this motion smacks of having an origin tied to those rumors. > Which would explain why it wasn't created with transparent and > introduced straight to a vote. > > Further, my objections are that it means that fellow LNC members are > falling prey to rumor and manipulations. > > IF that's not the case, I'd be interesting in hearing about the sudden > reason for this, and why it was handled they way it was. Plus, who > authored this? > > --- > Elizabeth Van Horn > LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY) > > > > On 2020-05-05 11:07, Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) via Lnc-business > wrote: > > My Questions > > > > 1. Why not a public call for sponsors (I’m understanding of > > discussions off-list, but why not go through the traditional call for > > sponsors on the list since that’s public anyways?) > > > > 2. Is it wise or appropriate to bind the following LNC this late in our > > term? > > > > Note: I do agree with the substance of the changes, most organization > > usually have rules like this to prevent conflicts of interest. I just > > feel weird about how this came to a vote and just want clarity on the > > two points above. > > > > Alex Merced > > Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee/LP > > >
participants (8)
-
Alex Merced (LNC Vice Chair) -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
dustin.nanna＠lp.org -
Elizabeth Van Horn -
Francis Wendt -
john.phillips＠lp.org -
Richard Longstreth -
Sam Goldstein