===We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders.=== Yes. Otherwise with elections only two years apart and us addressing this well in advance of a year - nearly anything could be taken that way. Having the position itself also raises public profile. If it's not really direct electioneering then I don't see any issue. And I'm still just guessing that this is what was being referred to or if there is anything else. -Caryn Ann On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:40 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all - The understanding that I have is that any LNC member, State chair, county chair, or candidate can post to the facebook page as long as it passes the APRC and is reasonably in line with the overall strategy of cutting government. In the past, we have essentially begged candidates for content that relates to downsizing government, or candidate events, or whatever else.

If this is the case, then I strongly encourage all those in the above categories to send posts as often as they are able.

If that is not the case, then I would like to make a motion to make it the case.

We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders. I would love it if people were arguing about Ms. Mattson's latest speech, rather than thinking about Rand Paul's. The fact is, our internal officers fill that role right now. We don't have elected senators. I hope that changes, and when it does, I will work to raise their profiles as well.

Anyway, I await input on whether my understanding is correct, or if I should make a motion to make it correct.

-Arvin

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Yes Starchild, it was exactly that sort of thing I mean.

Now... there is absolutely nothing wrong or against the rules. It is allowed. *Just like it is allowed for Arvin as VC to post on FB as allowed by the Chair.*

But certainly - and this came to mind long before this discussion - along with member comments - persons seeking LNC office probably should not be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to seen as an authority.

*But right now it is allowed* and as it is allowed, all qualified people should seek those roles no matter what. But I do think that it is a consideration in the future that it not be allowed.

So to bring around full circle, Arvin is posted as delegated by the Chair - and if the Chair needs to revisit that, it is his prerogative (particularly if he is concerned about what kinds of posts are run), and should not be used as an argument to take control from bottom-up volunteers who passionately love their work to put in on an over-burdened staff.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

...

The secretary appears to be speaking from experience:

http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/last-call-for-lp-platform-comm...

Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF

-----Original Message----- From: lnc-votes@hq.lp.org Sent: May 25, 2017 5:58 PM To: Libertarian National Committee list Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage social media

Alicia,

==A post does not have to say "vote for me at convention" to effectively be gaining special access to a large audience to raise a personal profile.==

But can you please give specifics? This apparently got missed by the APRC and I am not picking up what you are laying down... I am still baffled. Can you please give a few specifics?

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

...

This strikes me as an "Afghanistan attacked us, so let's attack Iraq" type of motion. This would:

1. Not have prevented me or anyone else from speaking bluntly on any topic on personal social media.

2. Not have prevented the first or third "satanic post", which were directly authorized by the chair.

However, this would have the effect of:

1. Massively hampering major social media outlets, as Trent Somes and Matt Geiger explained during the Pittsburgh meeting.

As we evaluate our overall strategy, I would strongly recommend looking at the initial strategies that later, predictably lead to bad reactions. Specifically, the outlandish assumption that the LP should be doing outreach primarily to the most pro-establishment, pro-status quo, pro-government groups on the planet needs to be allowed to die. That method makes no sense.

I know that those are the "most likely people to vote", but they are specifically the most likely people to vote for the ruling parties. I strongly encourage the LNC and state parties to, in addition to outreach to public school teachers and religious conservatives, also at least consider outreach to the rapidly growing, unapologetically anti-establishment groups that have already rejected establishment norms and values.

In Liberty,

Arvin

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I just went back through the scheduling list too and see nothing in the past or in the future list that is promotion (or could be reasonably construed as promotion) of a person for internal party office. Examples are needed - particularly so that the APRC can be made aware.

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

If it comes to a vote, I will oppose for the same reasons I did in Pittsburgh. What I have found so disconcerting about the discussions that sometimes take place on this list is that what appears to be about one thing is often about something else. It is such when a partner gets really mad for the toilet seat being left up and a huge row ensues. But it isn’t really about the toilet seat.

But I digress, since I was alluded to without being referred to, in critical terms, a volunteer did leave after an interaction I was with said volunteer (keeping personal details to a minimum purposefully). There no intention to “drive anyone away” and a misunderstood FB discussion or even a poorly done one on my part in one instance, in which tensions were already really high, does not negate any of my prior points about volunteers and I think everyone knows that. I don’t think all is fair in love and war and I find this to be a pretty cheap shot. I doubt it is news to anyone here that I am not perfect. If it is, consider yourself informed. Follow me long enough, and I will provide ample evidence.

I would also add there iIS review process. The APRC who is aware of the policies noted above. Now obviously there was a hole in the process that allowed that other post to go through. It was a perfect storm in which circumstances all converged that don’t require a nuclear option. And there are less disruptive ways to fix which the Review Committee will recommend I am quite confident. And they may in fact recommend this course. We don’t know. This option was rejected at our last meeting in favour of the committee.

But one thing did draw my attention, because I am genuinely curious and I believe the policy quoted a good one, and if something has ran afoul of that and escaped the review of the APRC - the correct route would be to bring it to the APRC IMHO - that is the procedure already in place. And judging from Whitney’s post, I am not the only APRC member who is completely puzzled and blindsided by this assertion made first here. I think examples are apropos - I am truly curious what posts seem to promoting or could seem to be promoting an internal party candidate? I would like to see if the APRC agrees with that assessment and would modify its review accordingly and accept that this was missed.

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Whitney Bilyeu < whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote:

> "I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal > promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next > convention." > > Are you referring to things that showcase the efforts of > individuals? And are you saying that such showcasing is meant as campaign > fodder to promote said individual for internal office? In looking at the > next 24 scheduled FB posts (scheduled over 6 days), I don't see anything > that fits such a description, but I will certainly be on alert for such > things. > > I disagree that the APRC doesn't have the time to review everything > in advance. I am on the APRC, and I do have the time. While it is not just > my responsibility, I do need to be more vigilant with regard to the FB > queue, but I trust that my fellow APRC members, more adept at FB, are > supporting that effort. We are aware of the recent misstep, and it is being > addressed. > > I spoke against the driving out of staff or other volunteers by > 'leaders' in the design group at the last LNC meeting, and I strongly > oppose such actions. I am under the impression that was addressed by our > Chairman. I also note that at least two if the individuals who were driven > out, are back in business, and making things happen in there :). > > To be honest, I think this motion is unnecessary at this time. > > Whitney Bilyeu > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> I'm asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy >> Manual Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows: >> >> Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as administrators >> of, serve as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s social media >> accounts. Volunteer content creators may submit content for >> approval. >> >> At the LNC meeting there was majority support for the motion to >> both do the above and also to create a committee to review our social media >> processes. I could have supported it, but if we know what we need to do to >> fix the problem, why spend the time to have a committee study it first? >> Just fix it. I thought there was majority support for the other motion to >> simply turn control of our social media back over to staff. Turns out that >> I was mistaken, and one person was not willing to turn control back over to >> staff without the creation of the committee, so then the other motion >> failed. Because I misread the room, an option that actually had majority >> support didn't pass. >> >> Now that we have separately created the committee, I want to go >> back and re-visit turning control back over to our staff. >> >> Please note that the motion welcomes volunteers to submit >> material. It does not eliminate their opportunity to contribute. >> >> I want to add some details to the discussion we had in Pittsburgh, >> with two Facebook PR blow-ups on our minds at the time. >> >> Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster. Granted it >> was not on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was posted to, >> the person's party position was touted right there in the sidebar, and we >> took a lot of damage from it. The Convention Oversight Committee lost two >> very valuable volunteers over this latest disaster -- volunteers who did a >> lot of work for us in Orlando and were again helping for New Orleans. Gone. >> >> There are no group votes before volunteers post on the party's FB. >> One person puts it into the schedule, and unless someone else sees it and >> objects, it goes public. We publish so much material that the APRC doesn't >> always have time to review everything in advance. Though the group has an >> informal rule against people posting their own material, people sometimes >> do it anyway. The comments about the military could easily have been >> posted on our page. >> >> There was a very recent incident in which a new volunteer was >> driven to quit on the same day she joined for the crime of suggesting that >> we post more positive material and less negative material. I don't want to >> hear that the LNC giving final control to staff is somehow disrespecting >> the work of the volunteers, when that new volunteer's desire to contribute >> was so summarily disrespected. >> >> We have some important policies that I don't believe the volunteers >> have even been informed about, and volunteers are not really accountable >> for following policies in the same way that our staff is. >> >> Policy Manual Section 2.09.6: >> >> Party resources shall not be used to provide information or >> services for any candidate for party office unless: >> >> - such information or services are available and announced on >> an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that >> office, or >> - such information or services are generally available and >> announced to all party member >> >> Not all party members have access to post on our Facebook page. >> Not all candidates for internal party office are offered the chance to post >> on our Facebook page. >> >> I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal >> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next >> convention. >> >> There was a time in the past when staff established criteria to try >> to manage application of this policy, with criteria for what constituted >> "news" or "earned media" that involved a candidate, etc. I don't believe >> there is any such attention to his policy right now for our social media. >> Some candidates have already declared. The closer we get to a national >> convention, the more these posts will be perceived as self-promotion that >> unfairly isn't available to their opponents. >> >> So I'm asking for co-sponsors for this motion, to return final >> decision power to our staff, who are expected to know and follow our >> policies, and who are accountable to the LNC. The volunteer groups can >> continue to generate material just like they do now, but staff would >> schedule the actual posts. >> >> If the Social Media Process Review Committee comes back to us with >> suggestions for reasonable ways to manage this later, we can amend this >> policy. >> >> -Alicia >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634 _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

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

Alicia, The vast *majority *of those things you posted about above started on LP.org and were initiated *by staff and not by volunteers.* Volunteers repost everything (or are supposed to) that appears on LP.org. So if you have concerns about any of the items above, it was staff that posted them first on LP.org and *fully approved by APRC.* So your motion would not "fix" any of that (and I really don't think there is anything up there that needs fixing, and the only one that would be remotely questionable is the signed posts you brought up before, but those are under the delegation of the Chair if I understand properly). And there is a huge difference BTW between highlighting actual public events etc that happen to be done by LNC members and giving *hours of stage time in front of the actual delegates to be seen as an authority* in something other than one's LNC role. I legitimately am Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee. I asked the convention committee for some time to give an update to members. I was denied for the reason that I am running for a position. Why the difference? Why shouldn't other committees have time if the work is of sufficient interest to members? Why not the IT committee Chair? Why not the Ballot Access Committee Chair? It should by that any could be qualified if deemed appropriately interesting and relevant by the convention committee or *no LNC prospect should get main stage time outside their LNC role.* The "Meet the LNC" one in particular drew my eye since all LNC members were invited to take part by Jess Mears. Only a few took anyone up on the offer. A lot of this appears to be the kind of rivalry that I think our members would find petty to be honest and elicit "this is what they spending their time on? wrestling and jousting for position?" It doesn't matter ultimately what the ultimate reason is. This is in fact how it appears, and as we know in politics, appearances are importance. We should expect LNC members to be active and doing a lot of things, and we should be giving attention to it. And every LNC member has an opportunity to do so. (as do other Party members, I am constantly on the look out for - as Jess Mears is - members doing extraordinary things). I am glad you gave examples and thank you for it - but I think it is really a reach, and I a bit "wow." -Caryn Ann On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

Though what I address below is only one aspect of a larger picture, I think it supports my request for co-sponsors for a motion to hand these decisions back over to our staff.

It seems that we at least have some agreement that we need to exercise caution in some circumstances regarding publicity for LNC members, but we seem to disagree over what those circumstances are.

The existing LNC policy generally prohibits internal office candidates from doing things beyond their official duties at convention, and requires that any party resources being offered to some candidates must be offered to all candidates on an equal basis.

This thread (though it's coming from 3 different people) seems to be arguing for the exact opposite of the policy -- that we should use the party assets to raise the profile of the incumbents and forbid candidates from performing official duties at convention.

When Caryn Ann argues, "persons seeking LNC office probably should not be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to seen as an authority", the same logic would say that if the LNC Chair is running for re-election, he should not chair the convention even though it's in his job description. Or that the LNC Treasurer should not present his report.

Specific examples have been requested, and I have been mentioned as a specific example, but I want to depersonalize the discussion. I think we should instead look at broad categories of the kinds of things we do, and consider what our policies ought to be for managing our public-facing assets, rather than pointing fingers at individuals.

These are not necessarily easy lines to draw. Perhaps it's easy to say we shouldn't post "Vote for me at convention!" videos / memes / editorials. Beyond that it can get complex.

Perhaps one single post that highlights a person's on-the-job activities, posted nowhere near convention time, might have some merits, but what about if another person gets national attention once per week like a drumbeat right before the convention? So frequency and timing might come into play.

Different wording on the same subject matter can be a distinguishing factor. Is the content focused on the duty related to the person's position, on the members of the party, or is it about the wonderfulness of the person whose name is at the bottom?

What is the reason for our promotion of it? Do we need party members to do something in response? Are we telling them about an event to participate in? Is it touting affiliate success? Promoting candidates? Media coverage of someone working to cut government?

Are those things just listed different from something that touts one person's opinion? A video of me drafting LNC meeting minutes? Here's the Convention Oversight Committee cringing over A/V vendor bids? Doesn't this LNC member look sharp today?

I took the time to review the party's Facebook posts over the past two months to give me a picture of what categories of issues exist here. (By the way, there's a lot of content that doesn't fall into these categories at all.) I've also pondered what sorts of email blasts we do. Perhaps you can add other categories to my list.

- Public communications and media interviews about lots of subjects from the LNC Chair, since he is our designated spokesperson to the public. - Frequent public policy opinion pieces signed by an LNC member. - "Special Events" promos inviting members to training led by LNC members - "Meet the LNC" series of text/photo blurbs about individual LNC members and their party activities - Short video about the Pennsylvania affiliate, includes comments by officers and candidates of the affiliate, includes narrator-type comments by two LNC members who are not from Pennsylvania - Video which is a photo collection of pictures from the April LNC meeting. Because the first photo in the set is of Arvin Vohra with a text caption about the picture, some of the commenters who perhaps didn't watch the rest of the video assume it's a video of Arvin, but it's a photo collection with several LNC members in it. - 1-hour video of an LNC member speaking about the Statement of Principles - Media coverage of someone who is on the LNC but got media coverage for local political activity trying to cut the size of government - Email blasts about LPedia and Historic Preservation Committee work - Email blasts from the LNC Secretary soliciting applicants for appointments to be made by the LNC - Email blasts from chairs of platform/bylaws committees seeking member input

I'm not saying all of these are improper. Maybe some categories should be excluded. Sometimes the category isn't the issue, but it may depend on specific circumstances, content, timing, frequency, etc. How all of these concerns work together with these types of broadcasts is complex.

The volunteer group that runs our social media doesn't have any formal parameters in place to address these matters and their relation to our policies, so it is easy to step into potentially problematic areas. Our staff used to have some guidelines when they were in charge of public communications, and I'm asking that we return to that model.

Candidates are starting to declare intention to run for various internal offices at the next convention. The LNC has a policy saying that candidates for internal office have to be treated equally, and access to the party's Facebook page is a pretty big perk.

When James Weeks declares candidacy for an internal office, and he asks us to post a video of him expressing his opinions on a public policy matter, perhaps while reprising his performance from the last convention, can he argue that we are obligated by our own policy to give him equal time on social media or in email blasts because of what we have previously posted from the incumbent?

These complex issues should not be decided by an unstructured group of volunteers.

-Alicia

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

===We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders.===

Yes. Otherwise with elections only two years apart and us addressing this well in advance of a year - nearly anything could be taken that way. Having the position itself also raises public profile.

If it's not really direct electioneering then I don't see any issue.

And I'm still just guessing that this is what was being referred to or if there is anything else.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:40 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi all - The understanding that I have is that any LNC member, State chair, county chair, or candidate can post to the facebook page as long as it passes the APRC and is reasonably in line with the overall strategy of cutting government. In the past, we have essentially begged candidates for content that relates to downsizing government, or candidate events, or whatever else.

If this is the case, then I strongly encourage all those in the above categories to send posts as often as they are able.

If that is not the case, then I would like to make a motion to make it the case.

We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders. I would love it if people were arguing about Ms. Mattson's latest speech, rather than thinking about Rand Paul's. The fact is, our internal officers fill that role right now. We don't have elected senators. I hope that changes, and when it does, I will work to raise their profiles as well.

Anyway, I await input on whether my understanding is correct, or if I should make a motion to make it correct.

-Arvin

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Yes Starchild, it was exactly that sort of thing I mean.

Now... there is absolutely nothing wrong or against the rules. It is allowed. *Just like it is allowed for Arvin as VC to post on FB as allowed by the Chair.*

But certainly - and this came to mind long before this discussion - along with member comments - persons seeking LNC office probably should not be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to seen as an authority.

*But right now it is allowed* and as it is allowed, all qualified people should seek those roles no matter what. But I do think that it is a consideration in the future that it not be allowed.

So to bring around full circle, Arvin is posted as delegated by the Chair - and if the Chair needs to revisit that, it is his prerogative (particularly if he is concerned about what kinds of posts are run), and should not be used as an argument to take control from bottom-up volunteers who passionately love their work to put in on an over-burdened staff.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

...

The secretary appears to be speaking from experience:

http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/last-call-for- lp-platform-committee-survey/

Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF

-----Original Message----- From: lnc-votes@hq.lp.org Sent: May 25, 2017 5:58 PM To: Libertarian National Committee list Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage social media

Alicia,

==A post does not have to say "vote for me at convention" to effectively be gaining special access to a large audience to raise a personal profile.==

But can you please give specifics? This apparently got missed by the APRC and I am not picking up what you are laying down... I am still baffled. Can you please give a few specifics?

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

...

This strikes me as an "Afghanistan attacked us, so let's attack Iraq" type of motion. This would:

1. Not have prevented me or anyone else from speaking bluntly on any topic on personal social media.

2. Not have prevented the first or third "satanic post", which were directly authorized by the chair.

However, this would have the effect of:

1. Massively hampering major social media outlets, as Trent Somes and Matt Geiger explained during the Pittsburgh meeting.

As we evaluate our overall strategy, I would strongly recommend looking at the initial strategies that later, predictably lead to bad reactions. Specifically, the outlandish assumption that the LP should be doing outreach primarily to the most pro-establishment, pro-status quo, pro-government groups on the planet needs to be allowed to die. That method makes no sense.

I know that those are the "most likely people to vote", but they are specifically the most likely people to vote for the ruling parties. I strongly encourage the LNC and state parties to, in addition to outreach to public school teachers and religious conservatives, also at least consider outreach to the rapidly growing, unapologetically anti-establishment groups that have already rejected establishment norms and values.

In Liberty,

Arvin

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just went back through the scheduling list too and see nothing in > the past or in the future list that is promotion (or could be reasonably > construed as promotion) of a person for internal party office. Examples > are needed - particularly so that the APRC can be made aware. > > -Caryn Ann > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < > carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If it comes to a vote, I will oppose for the same reasons I did in >> Pittsburgh. What I have found so disconcerting about the discussions that >> sometimes take place on this list is that what appears to be about one >> thing is often about something else. It is such when a partner gets really >> mad for the toilet seat being left up and a huge row ensues. But it isn’t >> really about the toilet seat. >> >> But I digress, since I was alluded to without being referred to, in >> critical terms, a volunteer did leave after an interaction I was with said >> volunteer (keeping personal details to a minimum purposefully). There no >> intention to “drive anyone away” and a misunderstood FB discussion or even >> a poorly done one on my part in one instance, in which tensions were >> already really high, does not negate any of my prior points about >> volunteers and I think everyone knows that. I don’t think all is fair in >> love and war and I find this to be a pretty cheap shot. I doubt it is news >> to anyone here that I am not perfect. If it is, consider yourself >> informed. Follow me long enough, and I will provide ample evidence. >> >> I would also add there iIS review process. The APRC who is aware >> of the policies noted above. Now obviously there was a hole in the >> process that allowed that other post to go through. It was a perfect storm >> in which circumstances all converged that don’t require a nuclear option. >> And there are less disruptive ways to fix which the Review Committee will >> recommend I am quite confident. And they may in fact recommend this >> course. We don’t know. This option was rejected at our last meeting in >> favour of the committee. >> >> But one thing did draw my attention, because I am genuinely curious >> and I believe the policy quoted a good one, and if something has ran afoul >> of that and escaped the review of the APRC - the correct route would be to >> bring it to the APRC IMHO - that is the procedure already in place. And >> judging from Whitney’s post, I am not the only APRC member who is >> completely puzzled and blindsided by this assertion made first here. I >> think examples are apropos - I am truly curious what posts seem to >> promoting or could seem to be promoting an internal party candidate? I >> would like to see if the APRC agrees with that assessment and would modify >> its review accordingly and accept that this was missed. >> >> >> -Caryn Ann >> >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Whitney Bilyeu < >> whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> "I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal >>> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next >>> convention." >>> >>> Are you referring to things that showcase the efforts of >>> individuals? And are you saying that such showcasing is meant as campaign >>> fodder to promote said individual for internal office? In looking at the >>> next 24 scheduled FB posts (scheduled over 6 days), I don't see anything >>> that fits such a description, but I will certainly be on alert for such >>> things. >>> >>> I disagree that the APRC doesn't have the time to review >>> everything in advance. I am on the APRC, and I do have the time. While it >>> is not just my responsibility, I do need to be more vigilant with regard to >>> the FB queue, but I trust that my fellow APRC members, more adept at FB, >>> are supporting that effort. We are aware of the recent misstep, and it is >>> being addressed. >>> >>> I spoke against the driving out of staff or other volunteers by >>> 'leaders' in the design group at the last LNC meeting, and I strongly >>> oppose such actions. I am under the impression that was addressed by our >>> Chairman. I also note that at least two if the individuals who were driven >>> out, are back in business, and making things happen in there :). >>> >>> To be honest, I think this motion is unnecessary at this time. >>> >>> Whitney Bilyeu >>> >>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alicia Mattson < >>> agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy >>>> Manual Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows: >>>> >>>> Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as administrators >>>> of, serve as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s social media >>>> accounts. Volunteer content creators may submit content for >>>> approval. >>>> >>>> At the LNC meeting there was majority support for the motion to >>>> both do the above and also to create a committee to review our social media >>>> processes. I could have supported it, but if we know what we need to do to >>>> fix the problem, why spend the time to have a committee study it first? >>>> Just fix it. I thought there was majority support for the other motion to >>>> simply turn control of our social media back over to staff. Turns out that >>>> I was mistaken, and one person was not willing to turn control back over to >>>> staff without the creation of the committee, so then the other motion >>>> failed. Because I misread the room, an option that actually had majority >>>> support didn't pass. >>>> >>>> Now that we have separately created the committee, I want to go >>>> back and re-visit turning control back over to our staff. >>>> >>>> Please note that the motion welcomes volunteers to submit >>>> material. It does not eliminate their opportunity to contribute. >>>> >>>> I want to add some details to the discussion we had in >>>> Pittsburgh, with two Facebook PR blow-ups on our minds at the time. >>>> >>>> Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster. Granted >>>> it was not on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was posted >>>> to, the person's party position was touted right there in the sidebar, and >>>> we took a lot of damage from it. The Convention Oversight Committee lost >>>> two very valuable volunteers over this latest disaster -- volunteers who >>>> did a lot of work for us in Orlando and were again helping for New >>>> Orleans. Gone. >>>> >>>> There are no group votes before volunteers post on the party's >>>> FB. One person puts it into the schedule, and unless someone else sees it >>>> and objects, it goes public. We publish so much material that the APRC >>>> doesn't always have time to review everything in advance. Though the group >>>> has an informal rule against people posting their own material, people >>>> sometimes do it anyway. The comments about the military could easily have >>>> been posted on our page. >>>> >>>> There was a very recent incident in which a new volunteer was >>>> driven to quit on the same day she joined for the crime of suggesting that >>>> we post more positive material and less negative material. I don't want to >>>> hear that the LNC giving final control to staff is somehow disrespecting >>>> the work of the volunteers, when that new volunteer's desire to contribute >>>> was so summarily disrespected. >>>> >>>> We have some important policies that I don't believe the >>>> volunteers have even been informed about, and volunteers are not really >>>> accountable for following policies in the same way that our staff is. >>>> >>>> Policy Manual Section 2.09.6: >>>> >>>> Party resources shall not be used to provide information or >>>> services for any candidate for party office unless: >>>> >>>> - such information or services are available and announced on >>>> an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that >>>> office, or >>>> - such information or services are generally available and >>>> announced to all party member >>>> >>>> Not all party members have access to post on our Facebook page. >>>> Not all candidates for internal party office are offered the chance to post >>>> on our Facebook page. >>>> >>>> I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal >>>> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next >>>> convention. >>>> >>>> There was a time in the past when staff established criteria to >>>> try to manage application of this policy, with criteria for what >>>> constituted "news" or "earned media" that involved a candidate, etc. I >>>> don't believe there is any such attention to his policy right now for our >>>> social media. Some candidates have already declared. The closer we get to >>>> a national convention, the more these posts will be perceived as >>>> self-promotion that unfairly isn't available to their opponents. >>>> >>>> So I'm asking for co-sponsors for this motion, to return final >>>> decision power to our staff, who are expected to know and follow our >>>> policies, and who are accountable to the LNC. The volunteer groups can >>>> continue to generate material just like they do now, but staff would >>>> schedule the actual posts. >>>> >>>> If the Social Media Process Review Committee comes back to us >>>> with suggestions for reasonable ways to manage this later, we can amend >>>> this policy. >>>> >>>> -Alicia >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *In Liberty,* >> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >> >> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >> *We defend your rights* >> *And oppose the use of force* >> *Taxation is theft* >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > *In Liberty,* > *Caryn Ann Harlos* > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. > Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > <http://www.lpcolorado.org> > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee > > A haiku to the Statement of Principles: > *We defend your rights* > *And oppose the use of force* > *Taxation is theft* > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634 _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

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

I made it informally to Daniel, and once the policy manual provision was brought up I didn't ask further as it was a non-starter. I should have worded it that way there. -Caryn Ann On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:59 AM Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote:

Caryn Ann,

I don't remember your request for a HPC report coming before the COC. When and to whom did you make this request?

Sam

Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee Member at Large 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 Indianapolis IN 46260 317-850-0726 Phone 317-582-1773 Fax

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Alicia,

The vast *majority *of those things you posted about above started on LP.org and were initiated *by staff and not by volunteers.* Volunteers repost everything (or are supposed to) that appears on LP.org. So if you have concerns about any of the items above, it was staff that posted them first on LP.org and *fully approved by APRC.* So your motion would not "fix" any of that (and I really don't think there is anything up there that needs fixing, and the only one that would be remotely questionable is the signed posts you brought up before, but those are under the delegation of the Chair if I understand properly).

And there is a huge difference BTW between highlighting actual public events etc that happen to be done by LNC members and giving *hours of stage time in front of the actual delegates to be seen as an authority* in something other than one's LNC role. I legitimately am Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee. I asked the convention committee for some time to give an update to members. I was denied for the reason that I am running for a position. Why the difference? Why shouldn't other committees have time if the work is of sufficient interest to members? Why not the IT committee Chair? Why not the Ballot Access Committee Chair? It should by that any could be qualified if deemed appropriately interesting and relevant by the convention committee or *no LNC prospect should get main stage time outside their LNC role.*

The "Meet the LNC" one in particular drew my eye since all LNC members were invited to take part by Jess Mears. Only a few took anyone up on the offer.

A lot of this appears to be the kind of rivalry that I think our members would find petty to be honest and elicit "this is what they spending their time on? wrestling and jousting for position?" It doesn't matter ultimately what the ultimate reason is. This is in fact how it appears, and as we know in politics, appearances are importance.

We should expect LNC members to be active and doing a lot of things, and we should be giving attention to it. And every LNC member has an opportunity to do so. (as do other Party members, I am constantly on the look out for - as Jess Mears is - members doing extraordinary things).

I am glad you gave examples and thank you for it - but I think it is really a reach, and I a bit "wow."

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Though what I address below is only one aspect of a larger picture, I think it supports my request for co-sponsors for a motion to hand these decisions back over to our staff.

It seems that we at least have some agreement that we need to exercise caution in some circumstances regarding publicity for LNC members, but we seem to disagree over what those circumstances are.

The existing LNC policy generally prohibits internal office candidates from doing things beyond their official duties at convention, and requires that any party resources being offered to some candidates must be offered to all candidates on an equal basis.

This thread (though it's coming from 3 different people) seems to be arguing for the exact opposite of the policy -- that we should use the party assets to raise the profile of the incumbents and forbid candidates from performing official duties at convention.

When Caryn Ann argues, "persons seeking LNC office probably should not be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to seen as an authority", the same logic would say that if the LNC Chair is running for re-election, he should not chair the convention even though it's in his job description. Or that the LNC Treasurer should not present his report.

Specific examples have been requested, and I have been mentioned as a specific example, but I want to depersonalize the discussion. I think we should instead look at broad categories of the kinds of things we do, and consider what our policies ought to be for managing our public-facing assets, rather than pointing fingers at individuals.

These are not necessarily easy lines to draw. Perhaps it's easy to say we shouldn't post "Vote for me at convention!" videos / memes / editorials. Beyond that it can get complex.

Perhaps one single post that highlights a person's on-the-job activities, posted nowhere near convention time, might have some merits, but what about if another person gets national attention once per week like a drumbeat right before the convention? So frequency and timing might come into play.

Different wording on the same subject matter can be a distinguishing factor. Is the content focused on the duty related to the person's position, on the members of the party, or is it about the wonderfulness of the person whose name is at the bottom?

What is the reason for our promotion of it? Do we need party members to do something in response? Are we telling them about an event to participate in? Is it touting affiliate success? Promoting candidates? Media coverage of someone working to cut government?

Are those things just listed different from something that touts one person's opinion? A video of me drafting LNC meeting minutes? Here's the Convention Oversight Committee cringing over A/V vendor bids? Doesn't this LNC member look sharp today?

I took the time to review the party's Facebook posts over the past two months to give me a picture of what categories of issues exist here. (By the way, there's a lot of content that doesn't fall into these categories at all.) I've also pondered what sorts of email blasts we do. Perhaps you can add other categories to my list.

- Public communications and media interviews about lots of subjects from the LNC Chair, since he is our designated spokesperson to the public. - Frequent public policy opinion pieces signed by an LNC member. - "Special Events" promos inviting members to training led by LNC members - "Meet the LNC" series of text/photo blurbs about individual LNC members and their party activities - Short video about the Pennsylvania affiliate, includes comments by officers and candidates of the affiliate, includes narrator-type comments by two LNC members who are not from Pennsylvania - Video which is a photo collection of pictures from the April LNC meeting. Because the first photo in the set is of Arvin Vohra with a text caption about the picture, some of the commenters who perhaps didn't watch the rest of the video assume it's a video of Arvin, but it's a photo collection with several LNC members in it. - 1-hour video of an LNC member speaking about the Statement of Principles - Media coverage of someone who is on the LNC but got media coverage for local political activity trying to cut the size of government - Email blasts about LPedia and Historic Preservation Committee work - Email blasts from the LNC Secretary soliciting applicants for appointments to be made by the LNC - Email blasts from chairs of platform/bylaws committees seeking member input

I'm not saying all of these are improper. Maybe some categories should be excluded. Sometimes the category isn't the issue, but it may depend on specific circumstances, content, timing, frequency, etc. How all of these concerns work together with these types of broadcasts is complex.

The volunteer group that runs our social media doesn't have any formal parameters in place to address these matters and their relation to our policies, so it is easy to step into potentially problematic areas. Our staff used to have some guidelines when they were in charge of public communications, and I'm asking that we return to that model.

Candidates are starting to declare intention to run for various internal offices at the next convention. The LNC has a policy saying that candidates for internal office have to be treated equally, and access to the party's Facebook page is a pretty big perk.

When James Weeks declares candidacy for an internal office, and he asks us to post a video of him expressing his opinions on a public policy matter, perhaps while reprising his performance from the last convention, can he argue that we are obligated by our own policy to give him equal time on social media or in email blasts because of what we have previously posted from the incumbent?

These complex issues should not be decided by an unstructured group of volunteers.

-Alicia

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

===We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders.===

Yes. Otherwise with elections only two years apart and us addressing this well in advance of a year - nearly anything could be taken that way. Having the position itself also raises public profile.

If it's not really direct electioneering then I don't see any issue.

And I'm still just guessing that this is what was being referred to or if there is anything else.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:40 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi all - The understanding that I have is that any LNC member, State chair, county chair, or candidate can post to the facebook page as long as it passes the APRC and is reasonably in line with the overall strategy of cutting government. In the past, we have essentially begged candidates for content that relates to downsizing government, or candidate events, or whatever else.

If this is the case, then I strongly encourage all those in the above categories to send posts as often as they are able.

If that is not the case, then I would like to make a motion to make it the case.

We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders. I would love it if people were arguing about Ms. Mattson's latest speech, rather than thinking about Rand Paul's. The fact is, our internal officers fill that role right now. We don't have elected senators. I hope that changes, and when it does, I will work to raise their profiles as well.

Anyway, I await input on whether my understanding is correct, or if I should make a motion to make it correct.

-Arvin

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Yes Starchild, it was exactly that sort of thing I mean.

Now... there is absolutely nothing wrong or against the rules. It is allowed. *Just like it is allowed for Arvin as VC to post on FB as allowed by the Chair.*

But certainly - and this came to mind long before this discussion - along with member comments - persons seeking LNC office probably should not be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to seen as an authority.

*But right now it is allowed* and as it is allowed, all qualified people should seek those roles no matter what. But I do think that it is a consideration in the future that it not be allowed.

So to bring around full circle, Arvin is posted as delegated by the Chair - and if the Chair needs to revisit that, it is his prerogative (particularly if he is concerned about what kinds of posts are run), and should not be used as an argument to take control from bottom-up volunteers who passionately love their work to put in on an over-burdened staff.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > The secretary appears to be speaking from experience: > > > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/last-call-for-lp-platform-comm... > > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee > RealReform@earthlink.net > (415) 625-FREE > @StarchildSF > > -----Original Message----- > From: lnc-votes@hq.lp.org > Sent: May 25, 2017 5:58 PM > To: Libertarian National Committee list > Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have > staff manage social media > > Alicia, > > ==A post does not have to say "vote for me at convention" to > effectively be gaining special access to a large audience to raise a > personal profile.== > > But can you please give specifics? This apparently got missed by > the APRC and I am not picking up what you are laying down... I am still > baffled. Can you please give a few specifics? > > -Caryn Ann > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> This strikes me as an "Afghanistan attacked us, so let's attack >> Iraq" type of motion. This would: >> >> 1. Not have prevented me or anyone else from speaking bluntly on >> any topic on personal social media. >> >> 2. Not have prevented the first or third "satanic post", which were >> directly authorized by the chair. >> >> However, this would have the effect of: >> >> 1. Massively hampering major social media outlets, as Trent Somes >> and Matt Geiger explained during the Pittsburgh meeting. >> >> As we evaluate our overall strategy, I would strongly recommend >> looking at the initial strategies that later, predictably lead to bad >> reactions. Specifically, the outlandish assumption that the LP should be >> doing outreach primarily to the most pro-establishment, pro-status quo, >> pro-government groups on the planet needs to be allowed to die. That method >> makes no sense. >> >> I know that those are the "most likely people to vote", but they >> are specifically the most likely people to vote for the ruling parties. I >> strongly encourage the LNC and state parties to, in addition to outreach to >> public school teachers and religious conservatives, also at least consider >> outreach to the rapidly growing, unapologetically anti-establishment groups >> that have already rejected establishment norms and values. >> >> In Liberty, >> >> Arvin >> >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < >> carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I just went back through the scheduling list too and see nothing >>> in the past or in the future list that is promotion (or could be reasonably >>> construed as promotion) of a person for internal party office. Examples >>> are needed - particularly so that the APRC can be made aware. >>> >>> -Caryn Ann >>> >>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < >>> carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> If it comes to a vote, I will oppose for the same reasons I did >>>> in Pittsburgh. What I have found so disconcerting about the discussions >>>> that sometimes take place on this list is that what appears to be about one >>>> thing is often about something else. It is such when a partner gets really >>>> mad for the toilet seat being left up and a huge row ensues. But it isn’t >>>> really about the toilet seat. >>>> >>>> But I digress, since I was alluded to without being referred to, >>>> in critical terms, a volunteer did leave after an interaction I was with >>>> said volunteer (keeping personal details to a minimum purposefully). There >>>> no intention to “drive anyone away” and a misunderstood FB discussion or >>>> even a poorly done one on my part in one instance, in which tensions were >>>> already really high, does not negate any of my prior points about >>>> volunteers and I think everyone knows that. I don’t think all is fair in >>>> love and war and I find this to be a pretty cheap shot. I doubt it is news >>>> to anyone here that I am not perfect. If it is, consider yourself >>>> informed. Follow me long enough, and I will provide ample evidence. >>>> >>>> I would also add there iIS review process. The APRC who is aware >>>> of the policies noted above. Now obviously there was a hole in the >>>> process that allowed that other post to go through. It was a perfect storm >>>> in which circumstances all converged that don’t require a nuclear option. >>>> And there are less disruptive ways to fix which the Review Committee will >>>> recommend I am quite confident. And they may in fact recommend this >>>> course. We don’t know. This option was rejected at our last meeting in >>>> favour of the committee. >>>> >>>> But one thing did draw my attention, because I am genuinely >>>> curious and I believe the policy quoted a good one, and if something has >>>> ran afoul of that and escaped the review of the APRC - the correct route >>>> would be to bring it to the APRC IMHO - that is the procedure already in >>>> place. And judging from Whitney’s post, I am not the only APRC member who >>>> is completely puzzled and blindsided by this assertion made first here. I >>>> think examples are apropos - I am truly curious what posts seem to >>>> promoting or could seem to be promoting an internal party candidate? I >>>> would like to see if the APRC agrees with that assessment and would modify >>>> its review accordingly and accept that this was missed. >>>> >>>> >>>> -Caryn Ann >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Whitney Bilyeu < >>>> whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal >>>>> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next >>>>> convention." >>>>> >>>>> Are you referring to things that showcase the efforts of >>>>> individuals? And are you saying that such showcasing is meant as campaign >>>>> fodder to promote said individual for internal office? In looking at the >>>>> next 24 scheduled FB posts (scheduled over 6 days), I don't see anything >>>>> that fits such a description, but I will certainly be on alert for such >>>>> things. >>>>> >>>>> I disagree that the APRC doesn't have the time to review >>>>> everything in advance. I am on the APRC, and I do have the time. While it >>>>> is not just my responsibility, I do need to be more vigilant with regard to >>>>> the FB queue, but I trust that my fellow APRC members, more adept at FB, >>>>> are supporting that effort. We are aware of the recent misstep, and it is >>>>> being addressed. >>>>> >>>>> I spoke against the driving out of staff or other volunteers by >>>>> 'leaders' in the design group at the last LNC meeting, and I strongly >>>>> oppose such actions. I am under the impression that was addressed by our >>>>> Chairman. I also note that at least two if the individuals who were driven >>>>> out, are back in business, and making things happen in there :). >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, I think this motion is unnecessary at this time. >>>>> >>>>> Whitney Bilyeu >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alicia Mattson < >>>>> agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy >>>>>> Manual Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as >>>>>> administrators of, serve as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s >>>>>> social media accounts. Volunteer content creators may submit >>>>>> content for approval. >>>>>> >>>>>> At the LNC meeting there was majority support for the motion to >>>>>> both do the above and also to create a committee to review our social media >>>>>> processes. I could have supported it, but if we know what we need to do to >>>>>> fix the problem, why spend the time to have a committee study it first? >>>>>> Just fix it. I thought there was majority support for the other motion to >>>>>> simply turn control of our social media back over to staff. Turns out that >>>>>> I was mistaken, and one person was not willing to turn control back over to >>>>>> staff without the creation of the committee, so then the other motion >>>>>> failed. Because I misread the room, an option that actually had majority >>>>>> support didn't pass. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now that we have separately created the committee, I want to go >>>>>> back and re-visit turning control back over to our staff. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that the motion welcomes volunteers to submit >>>>>> material. It does not eliminate their opportunity to contribute. >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to add some details to the discussion we had in >>>>>> Pittsburgh, with two Facebook PR blow-ups on our minds at the time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster. Granted >>>>>> it was not on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was posted >>>>>> to, the person's party position was touted right there in the sidebar, and >>>>>> we took a lot of damage from it. The Convention Oversight Committee lost >>>>>> two very valuable volunteers over this latest disaster -- volunteers who >>>>>> did a lot of work for us in Orlando and were again helping for New >>>>>> Orleans. Gone. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no group votes before volunteers post on the party's >>>>>> FB. One person puts it into the schedule, and unless someone else sees it >>>>>> and objects, it goes public. We publish so much material that the APRC >>>>>> doesn't always have time to review everything in advance. Though the group >>>>>> has an informal rule against people posting their own material, people >>>>>> sometimes do it anyway. The comments about the military could easily have >>>>>> been posted on our page. >>>>>> >>>>>> There was a very recent incident in which a new volunteer was >>>>>> driven to quit on the same day she joined for the crime of suggesting that >>>>>> we post more positive material and less negative material. I don't want to >>>>>> hear that the LNC giving final control to staff is somehow disrespecting >>>>>> the work of the volunteers, when that new volunteer's desire to contribute >>>>>> was so summarily disrespected. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have some important policies that I don't believe the >>>>>> volunteers have even been informed about, and volunteers are not really >>>>>> accountable for following policies in the same way that our staff is. >>>>>> >>>>>> Policy Manual Section 2.09.6: >>>>>> >>>>>> Party resources shall not be used to provide information or >>>>>> services for any candidate for party office unless: >>>>>> >>>>>> - such information or services are available and announced >>>>>> on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking >>>>>> that office, or >>>>>> - such information or services are generally available >>>>>> and announced to all party member >>>>>> >>>>>> Not all party members have access to post on our Facebook >>>>>> page. Not all candidates for internal party office are offered the chance >>>>>> to post on our Facebook page. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal >>>>>> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next >>>>>> convention. >>>>>> >>>>>> There was a time in the past when staff established criteria to >>>>>> try to manage application of this policy, with criteria for what >>>>>> constituted "news" or "earned media" that involved a candidate, etc. I >>>>>> don't believe there is any such attention to his policy right now for our >>>>>> social media. Some candidates have already declared. The closer we get to >>>>>> a national convention, the more these posts will be perceived as >>>>>> self-promotion that unfairly isn't available to their opponents. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I'm asking for co-sponsors for this motion, to return final >>>>>> decision power to our staff, who are expected to know and follow our >>>>>> policies, and who are accountable to the LNC. The volunteer groups can >>>>>> continue to generate material just like they do now, but staff would >>>>>> schedule the actual posts. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the Social Media Process Review Committee comes back to us >>>>>> with suggestions for reasonable ways to manage this later, we can amend >>>>>> this policy. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Alicia >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *In Liberty,* >>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>>> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >>>> >>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >>>> *We defend your rights* >>>> *And oppose the use of force* >>>> *Taxation is theft* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *In Liberty,* >>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >>> >>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >>> *We defend your rights* >>> *And oppose the use of force* >>> *Taxation is theft* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Arvin Vohra >> >> www.VoteVohra.com >> VoteVohra@gmail.com >> (301) 320-3634 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> > > > -- > *In Liberty,* > *Caryn Ann Harlos* > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. > Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > <http://www.lpcolorado.org> > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee > > A haiku to the Statement of Principles: > *We defend your rights* > *And oppose the use of force* > *Taxation is theft* > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634 _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

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

You should have full admin access and it should be directed to be given to you immediately IMHO. -Caryn Anm On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 7:46 PM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

By the way, I have no idea who posts what. In Pittsburgh, the Chair said that LNC members would be given admin privileges. I requested it and was told on April 23 that I would be made an "analyst" which is the lowest-level access, less than what many of the volunteers have, but apparently that hasn't happened yet. I can't see any more than the public sees.

-Alicia

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Alicia,

The vast *majority *of those things you posted about above started on LP.org and were initiated *by staff and not by volunteers.* Volunteers repost everything (or are supposed to) that appears on LP.org. So if you have concerns about any of the items above, it was staff that posted them first on LP.org and *fully approved by APRC.* So your motion would not "fix" any of that (and I really don't think there is anything up there that needs fixing, and the only one that would be remotely questionable is the signed posts you brought up before, but those are under the delegation of the Chair if I understand properly).

And there is a huge difference BTW between highlighting actual public events etc that happen to be done by LNC members and giving *hours of stage time in front of the actual delegates to be seen as an authority* in something other than one's LNC role. I legitimately am Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee. I asked the convention committee for some time to give an update to members. I was denied for the reason that I am running for a position. Why the difference? Why shouldn't other committees have time if the work is of sufficient interest to members? Why not the IT committee Chair? Why not the Ballot Access Committee Chair? It should by that any could be qualified if deemed appropriately interesting and relevant by the convention committee or *no LNC prospect should get main stage time outside their LNC role.*

The "Meet the LNC" one in particular drew my eye since all LNC members were invited to take part by Jess Mears. Only a few took anyone up on the offer.

A lot of this appears to be the kind of rivalry that I think our members would find petty to be honest and elicit "this is what they spending their time on? wrestling and jousting for position?" It doesn't matter ultimately what the ultimate reason is. This is in fact how it appears, and as we know in politics, appearances are importance.

We should expect LNC members to be active and doing a lot of things, and we should be giving attention to it. And every LNC member has an opportunity to do so. (as do other Party members, I am constantly on the look out for - as Jess Mears is - members doing extraordinary things).

I am glad you gave examples and thank you for it - but I think it is really a reach, and I a bit "wow."

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Though what I address below is only one aspect of a larger picture, I think it supports my request for co-sponsors for a motion to hand these decisions back over to our staff.

It seems that we at least have some agreement that we need to exercise caution in some circumstances regarding publicity for LNC members, but we seem to disagree over what those circumstances are.

The existing LNC policy generally prohibits internal office candidates from doing things beyond their official duties at convention, and requires that any party resources being offered to some candidates must be offered to all candidates on an equal basis.

This thread (though it's coming from 3 different people) seems to be arguing for the exact opposite of the policy -- that we should use the party assets to raise the profile of the incumbents and forbid candidates from performing official duties at convention.

When Caryn Ann argues, "persons seeking LNC office probably should not be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to seen as an authority", the same logic would say that if the LNC Chair is running for re-election, he should not chair the convention even though it's in his job description. Or that the LNC Treasurer should not present his report.

Specific examples have been requested, and I have been mentioned as a specific example, but I want to depersonalize the discussion. I think we should instead look at broad categories of the kinds of things we do, and consider what our policies ought to be for managing our public-facing assets, rather than pointing fingers at individuals.

These are not necessarily easy lines to draw. Perhaps it's easy to say we shouldn't post "Vote for me at convention!" videos / memes / editorials. Beyond that it can get complex.

Perhaps one single post that highlights a person's on-the-job activities, posted nowhere near convention time, might have some merits, but what about if another person gets national attention once per week like a drumbeat right before the convention? So frequency and timing might come into play.

Different wording on the same subject matter can be a distinguishing factor. Is the content focused on the duty related to the person's position, on the members of the party, or is it about the wonderfulness of the person whose name is at the bottom?

What is the reason for our promotion of it? Do we need party members to do something in response? Are we telling them about an event to participate in? Is it touting affiliate success? Promoting candidates? Media coverage of someone working to cut government?

Are those things just listed different from something that touts one person's opinion? A video of me drafting LNC meeting minutes? Here's the Convention Oversight Committee cringing over A/V vendor bids? Doesn't this LNC member look sharp today?

I took the time to review the party's Facebook posts over the past two months to give me a picture of what categories of issues exist here. (By the way, there's a lot of content that doesn't fall into these categories at all.) I've also pondered what sorts of email blasts we do. Perhaps you can add other categories to my list.

- Public communications and media interviews about lots of subjects from the LNC Chair, since he is our designated spokesperson to the public. - Frequent public policy opinion pieces signed by an LNC member. - "Special Events" promos inviting members to training led by LNC members - "Meet the LNC" series of text/photo blurbs about individual LNC members and their party activities - Short video about the Pennsylvania affiliate, includes comments by officers and candidates of the affiliate, includes narrator-type comments by two LNC members who are not from Pennsylvania - Video which is a photo collection of pictures from the April LNC meeting. Because the first photo in the set is of Arvin Vohra with a text caption about the picture, some of the commenters who perhaps didn't watch the rest of the video assume it's a video of Arvin, but it's a photo collection with several LNC members in it. - 1-hour video of an LNC member speaking about the Statement of Principles - Media coverage of someone who is on the LNC but got media coverage for local political activity trying to cut the size of government - Email blasts about LPedia and Historic Preservation Committee work - Email blasts from the LNC Secretary soliciting applicants for appointments to be made by the LNC - Email blasts from chairs of platform/bylaws committees seeking member input

I'm not saying all of these are improper. Maybe some categories should be excluded. Sometimes the category isn't the issue, but it may depend on specific circumstances, content, timing, frequency, etc. How all of these concerns work together with these types of broadcasts is complex.

The volunteer group that runs our social media doesn't have any formal parameters in place to address these matters and their relation to our policies, so it is easy to step into potentially problematic areas. Our staff used to have some guidelines when they were in charge of public communications, and I'm asking that we return to that model.

Candidates are starting to declare intention to run for various internal offices at the next convention. The LNC has a policy saying that candidates for internal office have to be treated equally, and access to the party's Facebook page is a pretty big perk.

When James Weeks declares candidacy for an internal office, and he asks us to post a video of him expressing his opinions on a public policy matter, perhaps while reprising his performance from the last convention, can he argue that we are obligated by our own policy to give him equal time on social media or in email blasts because of what we have previously posted from the incumbent?

These complex issues should not be decided by an unstructured group of volunteers.

-Alicia

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

===We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders.===

Yes. Otherwise with elections only two years apart and us addressing this well in advance of a year - nearly anything could be taken that way. Having the position itself also raises public profile.

If it's not really direct electioneering then I don't see any issue.

And I'm still just guessing that this is what was being referred to or if there is anything else.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:40 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi all - The understanding that I have is that any LNC member, State chair, county chair, or candidate can post to the facebook page as long as it passes the APRC and is reasonably in line with the overall strategy of cutting government. In the past, we have essentially begged candidates for content that relates to downsizing government, or candidate events, or whatever else.

If this is the case, then I strongly encourage all those in the above categories to send posts as often as they are able.

If that is not the case, then I would like to make a motion to make it the case.

We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders. I would love it if people were arguing about Ms. Mattson's latest speech, rather than thinking about Rand Paul's. The fact is, our internal officers fill that role right now. We don't have elected senators. I hope that changes, and when it does, I will work to raise their profiles as well.

Anyway, I await input on whether my understanding is correct, or if I should make a motion to make it correct.

-Arvin

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Yes Starchild, it was exactly that sort of thing I mean.

Now... there is absolutely nothing wrong or against the rules. It is allowed. *Just like it is allowed for Arvin as VC to post on FB as allowed by the Chair.*

But certainly - and this came to mind long before this discussion - along with member comments - persons seeking LNC office probably should not be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to seen as an authority.

*But right now it is allowed* and as it is allowed, all qualified people should seek those roles no matter what. But I do think that it is a consideration in the future that it not be allowed.

So to bring around full circle, Arvin is posted as delegated by the Chair - and if the Chair needs to revisit that, it is his prerogative (particularly if he is concerned about what kinds of posts are run), and should not be used as an argument to take control from bottom-up volunteers who passionately love their work to put in on an over-burdened staff.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > The secretary appears to be speaking from experience: > > > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/last-call-for-lp-platform-comm... > > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee > RealReform@earthlink.net > (415) 625-FREE > @StarchildSF > > -----Original Message----- > From: lnc-votes@hq.lp.org > Sent: May 25, 2017 5:58 PM > To: Libertarian National Committee list > Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have > staff manage social media > > Alicia, > > ==A post does not have to say "vote for me at convention" to > effectively be gaining special access to a large audience to raise a > personal profile.== > > But can you please give specifics? This apparently got missed by > the APRC and I am not picking up what you are laying down... I am still > baffled. Can you please give a few specifics? > > -Caryn Ann > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> This strikes me as an "Afghanistan attacked us, so let's attack >> Iraq" type of motion. This would: >> >> 1. Not have prevented me or anyone else from speaking bluntly on >> any topic on personal social media. >> >> 2. Not have prevented the first or third "satanic post", which were >> directly authorized by the chair. >> >> However, this would have the effect of: >> >> 1. Massively hampering major social media outlets, as Trent Somes >> and Matt Geiger explained during the Pittsburgh meeting. >> >> As we evaluate our overall strategy, I would strongly recommend >> looking at the initial strategies that later, predictably lead to bad >> reactions. Specifically, the outlandish assumption that the LP should be >> doing outreach primarily to the most pro-establishment, pro-status quo, >> pro-government groups on the planet needs to be allowed to die. That method >> makes no sense. >> >> I know that those are the "most likely people to vote", but they >> are specifically the most likely people to vote for the ruling parties. I >> strongly encourage the LNC and state parties to, in addition to outreach to >> public school teachers and religious conservatives, also at least consider >> outreach to the rapidly growing, unapologetically anti-establishment groups >> that have already rejected establishment norms and values. >> >> In Liberty, >> >> Arvin >> >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < >> carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I just went back through the scheduling list too and see nothing >>> in the past or in the future list that is promotion (or could be reasonably >>> construed as promotion) of a person for internal party office. Examples >>> are needed - particularly so that the APRC can be made aware. >>> >>> -Caryn Ann >>> >>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < >>> carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> If it comes to a vote, I will oppose for the same reasons I did >>>> in Pittsburgh. What I have found so disconcerting about the discussions >>>> that sometimes take place on this list is that what appears to be about one >>>> thing is often about something else. It is such when a partner gets really >>>> mad for the toilet seat being left up and a huge row ensues. But it isn’t >>>> really about the toilet seat. >>>> >>>> But I digress, since I was alluded to without being referred to, >>>> in critical terms, a volunteer did leave after an interaction I was with >>>> said volunteer (keeping personal details to a minimum purposefully). There >>>> no intention to “drive anyone away” and a misunderstood FB discussion or >>>> even a poorly done one on my part in one instance, in which tensions were >>>> already really high, does not negate any of my prior points about >>>> volunteers and I think everyone knows that. I don’t think all is fair in >>>> love and war and I find this to be a pretty cheap shot. I doubt it is news >>>> to anyone here that I am not perfect. If it is, consider yourself >>>> informed. Follow me long enough, and I will provide ample evidence. >>>> >>>> I would also add there iIS review process. The APRC who is aware >>>> of the policies noted above. Now obviously there was a hole in the >>>> process that allowed that other post to go through. It was a perfect storm >>>> in which circumstances all converged that don’t require a nuclear option. >>>> And there are less disruptive ways to fix which the Review Committee will >>>> recommend I am quite confident. And they may in fact recommend this >>>> course. We don’t know. This option was rejected at our last meeting in >>>> favour of the committee. >>>> >>>> But one thing did draw my attention, because I am genuinely >>>> curious and I believe the policy quoted a good one, and if something has >>>> ran afoul of that and escaped the review of the APRC - the correct route >>>> would be to bring it to the APRC IMHO - that is the procedure already in >>>> place. And judging from Whitney’s post, I am not the only APRC member who >>>> is completely puzzled and blindsided by this assertion made first here. I >>>> think examples are apropos - I am truly curious what posts seem to >>>> promoting or could seem to be promoting an internal party candidate? I >>>> would like to see if the APRC agrees with that assessment and would modify >>>> its review accordingly and accept that this was missed. >>>> >>>> >>>> -Caryn Ann >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Whitney Bilyeu < >>>> whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal >>>>> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next >>>>> convention." >>>>> >>>>> Are you referring to things that showcase the efforts of >>>>> individuals? And are you saying that such showcasing is meant as campaign >>>>> fodder to promote said individual for internal office? In looking at the >>>>> next 24 scheduled FB posts (scheduled over 6 days), I don't see anything >>>>> that fits such a description, but I will certainly be on alert for such >>>>> things. >>>>> >>>>> I disagree that the APRC doesn't have the time to review >>>>> everything in advance. I am on the APRC, and I do have the time. While it >>>>> is not just my responsibility, I do need to be more vigilant with regard to >>>>> the FB queue, but I trust that my fellow APRC members, more adept at FB, >>>>> are supporting that effort. We are aware of the recent misstep, and it is >>>>> being addressed. >>>>> >>>>> I spoke against the driving out of staff or other volunteers by >>>>> 'leaders' in the design group at the last LNC meeting, and I strongly >>>>> oppose such actions. I am under the impression that was addressed by our >>>>> Chairman. I also note that at least two if the individuals who were driven >>>>> out, are back in business, and making things happen in there :). >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, I think this motion is unnecessary at this time. >>>>> >>>>> Whitney Bilyeu >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alicia Mattson < >>>>> agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy >>>>>> Manual Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as >>>>>> administrators of, serve as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s >>>>>> social media accounts. Volunteer content creators may submit >>>>>> content for approval. >>>>>> >>>>>> At the LNC meeting there was majority support for the motion to >>>>>> both do the above and also to create a committee to review our social media >>>>>> processes. I could have supported it, but if we know what we need to do to >>>>>> fix the problem, why spend the time to have a committee study it first? >>>>>> Just fix it. I thought there was majority support for the other motion to >>>>>> simply turn control of our social media back over to staff. Turns out that >>>>>> I was mistaken, and one person was not willing to turn control back over to >>>>>> staff without the creation of the committee, so then the other motion >>>>>> failed. Because I misread the room, an option that actually had majority >>>>>> support didn't pass. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now that we have separately created the committee, I want to go >>>>>> back and re-visit turning control back over to our staff. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that the motion welcomes volunteers to submit >>>>>> material. It does not eliminate their opportunity to contribute. >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to add some details to the discussion we had in >>>>>> Pittsburgh, with two Facebook PR blow-ups on our minds at the time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster. Granted >>>>>> it was not on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was posted >>>>>> to, the person's party position was touted right there in the sidebar, and >>>>>> we took a lot of damage from it. The Convention Oversight Committee lost >>>>>> two very valuable volunteers over this latest disaster -- volunteers who >>>>>> did a lot of work for us in Orlando and were again helping for New >>>>>> Orleans. Gone. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no group votes before volunteers post on the party's >>>>>> FB. One person puts it into the schedule, and unless someone else sees it >>>>>> and objects, it goes public. We publish so much material that the APRC >>>>>> doesn't always have time to review everything in advance. Though the group >>>>>> has an informal rule against people posting their own material, people >>>>>> sometimes do it anyway. The comments about the military could easily have >>>>>> been posted on our page. >>>>>> >>>>>> There was a very recent incident in which a new volunteer was >>>>>> driven to quit on the same day she joined for the crime of suggesting that >>>>>> we post more positive material and less negative material. I don't want to >>>>>> hear that the LNC giving final control to staff is somehow disrespecting >>>>>> the work of the volunteers, when that new volunteer's desire to contribute >>>>>> was so summarily disrespected. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have some important policies that I don't believe the >>>>>> volunteers have even been informed about, and volunteers are not really >>>>>> accountable for following policies in the same way that our staff is. >>>>>> >>>>>> Policy Manual Section 2.09.6: >>>>>> >>>>>> Party resources shall not be used to provide information or >>>>>> services for any candidate for party office unless: >>>>>> >>>>>> - such information or services are available and announced >>>>>> on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking >>>>>> that office, or >>>>>> - such information or services are generally available >>>>>> and announced to all party member >>>>>> >>>>>> Not all party members have access to post on our Facebook >>>>>> page. Not all candidates for internal party office are offered the chance >>>>>> to post on our Facebook page. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal >>>>>> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next >>>>>> convention. >>>>>> >>>>>> There was a time in the past when staff established criteria to >>>>>> try to manage application of this policy, with criteria for what >>>>>> constituted "news" or "earned media" that involved a candidate, etc. I >>>>>> don't believe there is any such attention to his policy right now for our >>>>>> social media. Some candidates have already declared. The closer we get to >>>>>> a national convention, the more these posts will be perceived as >>>>>> self-promotion that unfairly isn't available to their opponents. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I'm asking for co-sponsors for this motion, to return final >>>>>> decision power to our staff, who are expected to know and follow our >>>>>> policies, and who are accountable to the LNC. The volunteer groups can >>>>>> continue to generate material just like they do now, but staff would >>>>>> schedule the actual posts. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the Social Media Process Review Committee comes back to us >>>>>> with suggestions for reasonable ways to manage this later, we can amend >>>>>> this policy. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Alicia >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *In Liberty,* >>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>>> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >>>> >>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >>>> *We defend your rights* >>>> *And oppose the use of force* >>>> *Taxation is theft* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *In Liberty,* >>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >>> >>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >>> *We defend your rights* >>> *And oppose the use of force* >>> *Taxation is theft* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Arvin Vohra >> >> www.VoteVohra.com >> VoteVohra@gmail.com >> (301) 320-3634 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> > > > -- > *In Liberty,* > *Caryn Ann Harlos* > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. > Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > <http://www.lpcolorado.org> > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee > > A haiku to the Statement of Principles: > *We defend your rights* > *And oppose the use of force* > *Taxation is theft* > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634 _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

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

I agree Daniel and editor access would give you that. Please ask Nick to tell Matt Hasty or me to take care of that. -Caryn Ann On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 8:27 PM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:

This reminds me. I had made this point privately already, but nothing further was said about it. I was also given this lowest level of access.

I think all members of the Social Media Process Review Committee should have access to see the way in which the page is being responded to. We can't give a full evaluation if we can't see it all. I think we should agree to not respond or post unless for some reason requested by other page admins.

Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Social Media Process Review Committee

On May 28, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

You should have full admin access and it should be directed to be given to you immediately IMHO.

-Caryn Anm

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 7:46 PM Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

...

By the way, I have no idea who posts what. In Pittsburgh, the Chair said that LNC members would be given admin privileges. I requested it and was told on April 23 that I would be made an "analyst" which is the lowest-level access, less than what many of the volunteers have, but apparently that hasn't happened yet. I can't see any more than the public sees.

-Alicia

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Alicia,

The vast *majority *of those things you posted about above started on LP.org and were initiated *by staff and not by volunteers.* Volunteers repost everything (or are supposed to) that appears on LP.org. So if you have concerns about any of the items above, it was staff that posted them first on LP.org and *fully approved by APRC.* So your motion would not "fix" any of that (and I really don't think there is anything up there that needs fixing, and the only one that would be remotely questionable is the signed posts you brought up before, but those are under the delegation of the Chair if I understand properly).

And there is a huge difference BTW between highlighting actual public events etc that happen to be done by LNC members and giving *hours of stage time in front of the actual delegates to be seen as an authority* in something other than one's LNC role. I legitimately am Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee. I asked the convention committee for some time to give an update to members. I was denied for the reason that I am running for a position. Why the difference? Why shouldn't other committees have time if the work is of sufficient interest to members? Why not the IT committee Chair? Why not the Ballot Access Committee Chair? It should by that any could be qualified if deemed appropriately interesting and relevant by the convention committee or *no LNC prospect should get main stage time outside their LNC role.*

The "Meet the LNC" one in particular drew my eye since all LNC members were invited to take part by Jess Mears. Only a few took anyone up on the offer.

A lot of this appears to be the kind of rivalry that I think our members would find petty to be honest and elicit "this is what they spending their time on? wrestling and jousting for position?" It doesn't matter ultimately what the ultimate reason is. This is in fact how it appears, and as we know in politics, appearances are importance.

We should expect LNC members to be active and doing a lot of things, and we should be giving attention to it. And every LNC member has an opportunity to do so. (as do other Party members, I am constantly on the look out for - as Jess Mears is - members doing extraordinary things).

I am glad you gave examples and thank you for it - but I think it is really a reach, and I a bit "wow."

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Though what I address below is only one aspect of a larger picture, I think it supports my request for co-sponsors for a motion to hand these decisions back over to our staff.

It seems that we at least have some agreement that we need to exercise caution in some circumstances regarding publicity for LNC members, but we seem to disagree over what those circumstances are.

The existing LNC policy generally prohibits internal office candidates from doing things beyond their official duties at convention, and requires that any party resources being offered to some candidates must be offered to all candidates on an equal basis.

This thread (though it's coming from 3 different people) seems to be arguing for the exact opposite of the policy -- that we should use the party assets to raise the profile of the incumbents and forbid candidates from performing official duties at convention.

When Caryn Ann argues, "persons seeking LNC office probably should not be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to seen as an authority", the same logic would say that if the LNC Chair is running for re-election, he should not chair the convention even though it's in his job description. Or that the LNC Treasurer should not present his report.

Specific examples have been requested, and I have been mentioned as a specific example, but I want to depersonalize the discussion. I think we should instead look at broad categories of the kinds of things we do, and consider what our policies ought to be for managing our public-facing assets, rather than pointing fingers at individuals.

These are not necessarily easy lines to draw. Perhaps it's easy to say we shouldn't post "Vote for me at convention!" videos / memes / editorials. Beyond that it can get complex.

Perhaps one single post that highlights a person's on-the-job activities, posted nowhere near convention time, might have some merits, but what about if another person gets national attention once per week like a drumbeat right before the convention? So frequency and timing might come into play.

Different wording on the same subject matter can be a distinguishing factor. Is the content focused on the duty related to the person's position, on the members of the party, or is it about the wonderfulness of the person whose name is at the bottom?

What is the reason for our promotion of it? Do we need party members to do something in response? Are we telling them about an event to participate in? Is it touting affiliate success? Promoting candidates? Media coverage of someone working to cut government?

Are those things just listed different from something that touts one person's opinion? A video of me drafting LNC meeting minutes? Here's the Convention Oversight Committee cringing over A/V vendor bids? Doesn't this LNC member look sharp today?

I took the time to review the party's Facebook posts over the past two months to give me a picture of what categories of issues exist here. (By the way, there's a lot of content that doesn't fall into these categories at all.) I've also pondered what sorts of email blasts we do. Perhaps you can add other categories to my list.

- Public communications and media interviews about lots of subjects from the LNC Chair, since he is our designated spokesperson to the public. - Frequent public policy opinion pieces signed by an LNC member. - "Special Events" promos inviting members to training led by LNC members - "Meet the LNC" series of text/photo blurbs about individual LNC members and their party activities - Short video about the Pennsylvania affiliate, includes comments by officers and candidates of the affiliate, includes narrator-type comments by two LNC members who are not from Pennsylvania - Video which is a photo collection of pictures from the April LNC meeting. Because the first photo in the set is of Arvin Vohra with a text caption about the picture, some of the commenters who perhaps didn't watch the rest of the video assume it's a video of Arvin, but it's a photo collection with several LNC members in it. - 1-hour video of an LNC member speaking about the Statement of Principles - Media coverage of someone who is on the LNC but got media coverage for local political activity trying to cut the size of government - Email blasts about LPedia and Historic Preservation Committee work - Email blasts from the LNC Secretary soliciting applicants for appointments to be made by the LNC - Email blasts from chairs of platform/bylaws committees seeking member input

I'm not saying all of these are improper. Maybe some categories should be excluded. Sometimes the category isn't the issue, but it may depend on specific circumstances, content, timing, frequency, etc. How all of these concerns work together with these types of broadcasts is complex.

The volunteer group that runs our social media doesn't have any formal parameters in place to address these matters and their relation to our policies, so it is easy to step into potentially problematic areas. Our staff used to have some guidelines when they were in charge of public communications, and I'm asking that we return to that model.

Candidates are starting to declare intention to run for various internal offices at the next convention. The LNC has a policy saying that candidates for internal office have to be treated equally, and access to the party's Facebook page is a pretty big perk.

When James Weeks declares candidacy for an internal office, and he asks us to post a video of him expressing his opinions on a public policy matter, perhaps while reprising his performance from the last convention, can he argue that we are obligated by our own policy to give him equal time on social media or in email blasts because of what we have previously posted from the incumbent?

These complex issues should not be decided by an unstructured group of volunteers.

-Alicia

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

===We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders.===

Yes. Otherwise with elections only two years apart and us addressing this well in advance of a year - nearly anything could be taken that way. Having the position itself also raises public profile.

If it's not really direct electioneering then I don't see any issue.

And I'm still just guessing that this is what was being referred to or if there is anything else.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:40 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi all - The understanding that I have is that any LNC member, State chair, county chair, or candidate can post to the facebook page as long as it passes the APRC and is reasonably in line with the overall strategy of cutting government. In the past, we have essentially begged candidates for content that relates to downsizing government, or candidate events, or whatever else.

If this is the case, then I strongly encourage all those in the above categories to send posts as often as they are able.

If that is not the case, then I would like to make a motion to make it the case.

We should be working to raise the public profile of all LP leaders. I would love it if people were arguing about Ms. Mattson's latest speech, rather than thinking about Rand Paul's. The fact is, our internal officers fill that role right now. We don't have elected senators. I hope that changes, and when it does, I will work to raise their profiles as well.

Anyway, I await input on whether my understanding is correct, or if I should make a motion to make it correct.

-Arvin

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes Starchild, it was exactly that sort of thing I mean. > > Now... there is absolutely nothing wrong or against the rules. It > is allowed. *Just like it is allowed for Arvin as VC to post on FB > as allowed by the Chair.* > > But certainly - and this came to mind long before this discussion - > along with member comments - persons seeking LNC office probably should not > be allowed to be chairs of those committees that gives them hours of stage > time and personal contact to the persons most likely to be at convention to > seen as an authority. > > *But right now it is allowed* and as it is allowed, all qualified > people should seek those roles no matter what. But I do think that it is a > consideration in the future that it not be allowed. > > So to bring around full circle, Arvin is posted as delegated by the > Chair - and if the Chair needs to revisit that, it is his prerogative > (particularly if he is concerned about what kinds of posts are run), and > should not be used as an argument to take control from bottom-up volunteers > who passionately love their work to put in on an over-burdened staff. > > -Caryn Ann > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >> >> The secretary appears to be speaking from experience: >> >> >> http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/last-call-for-lp-platform-comm... >> >> Love & Liberty, >> ((( starchild ))) >> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee >> RealReform@earthlink.net >> (415) 625-FREE >> @StarchildSF >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lnc-votes@hq.lp.org >> Sent: May 25, 2017 5:58 PM >> To: Libertarian National Committee list >> Subject: Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to >> have staff manage social media >> >> Alicia, >> >> ==A post does not have to say "vote for me at convention" to >> effectively be gaining special access to a large audience to raise a >> personal profile.== >> >> But can you please give specifics? This apparently got missed by >> the APRC and I am not picking up what you are laying down... I am still >> baffled. Can you please give a few specifics? >> >> -Caryn Ann >> >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> This strikes me as an "Afghanistan attacked us, so let's attack >>> Iraq" type of motion. This would: >>> >>> 1. Not have prevented me or anyone else from speaking bluntly on >>> any topic on personal social media. >>> >>> 2. Not have prevented the first or third "satanic post", which >>> were directly authorized by the chair. >>> >>> However, this would have the effect of: >>> >>> 1. Massively hampering major social media outlets, as Trent Somes >>> and Matt Geiger explained during the Pittsburgh meeting. >>> >>> As we evaluate our overall strategy, I would strongly recommend >>> looking at the initial strategies that later, predictably lead to bad >>> reactions. Specifically, the outlandish assumption that the LP should be >>> doing outreach primarily to the most pro-establishment, pro-status quo, >>> pro-government groups on the planet needs to be allowed to die. That method >>> makes no sense. >>> >>> I know that those are the "most likely people to vote", but they >>> are specifically the most likely people to vote for the ruling parties. I >>> strongly encourage the LNC and state parties to, in addition to outreach to >>> public school teachers and religious conservatives, also at least consider >>> outreach to the rapidly growing, unapologetically anti-establishment groups >>> that have already rejected establishment norms and values. >>> >>> In Liberty, >>> >>> Arvin >>> >>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < >>> carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I just went back through the scheduling list too and see nothing >>>> in the past or in the future list that is promotion (or could be reasonably >>>> construed as promotion) of a person for internal party office. Examples >>>> are needed - particularly so that the APRC can be made aware. >>>> >>>> -Caryn Ann >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < >>>> carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If it comes to a vote, I will oppose for the same reasons I did >>>>> in Pittsburgh. What I have found so disconcerting about the discussions >>>>> that sometimes take place on this list is that what appears to be about one >>>>> thing is often about something else. It is such when a partner gets really >>>>> mad for the toilet seat being left up and a huge row ensues. But it isn’t >>>>> really about the toilet seat. >>>>> >>>>> But I digress, since I was alluded to without being referred to, >>>>> in critical terms, a volunteer did leave after an interaction I was with >>>>> said volunteer (keeping personal details to a minimum purposefully). There >>>>> no intention to “drive anyone away” and a misunderstood FB discussion or >>>>> even a poorly done one on my part in one instance, in which tensions were >>>>> already really high, does not negate any of my prior points about >>>>> volunteers and I think everyone knows that. I don’t think all is fair in >>>>> love and war and I find this to be a pretty cheap shot. I doubt it is news >>>>> to anyone here that I am not perfect. If it is, consider yourself >>>>> informed. Follow me long enough, and I will provide ample evidence. >>>>> >>>>> I would also add there iIS review process. The APRC who is >>>>> aware of the policies noted above. Now obviously there was a hole in the >>>>> process that allowed that other post to go through. It was a perfect storm >>>>> in which circumstances all converged that don’t require a nuclear option. >>>>> And there are less disruptive ways to fix which the Review Committee will >>>>> recommend I am quite confident. And they may in fact recommend this >>>>> course. We don’t know. This option was rejected at our last meeting in >>>>> favour of the committee. >>>>> >>>>> But one thing did draw my attention, because I am genuinely >>>>> curious and I believe the policy quoted a good one, and if something has >>>>> ran afoul of that and escaped the review of the APRC - the correct route >>>>> would be to bring it to the APRC IMHO - that is the procedure already in >>>>> place. And judging from Whitney’s post, I am not the only APRC member who >>>>> is completely puzzled and blindsided by this assertion made first here. I >>>>> think examples are apropos - I am truly curious what posts seem to >>>>> promoting or could seem to be promoting an internal party candidate? I >>>>> would like to see if the APRC agrees with that assessment and would modify >>>>> its review accordingly and accept that this was missed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Caryn Ann >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Whitney Bilyeu < >>>>> whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into >>>>>> personal promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at >>>>>> the next convention." >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you referring to things that showcase the efforts of >>>>>> individuals? And are you saying that such showcasing is meant as campaign >>>>>> fodder to promote said individual for internal office? In looking at the >>>>>> next 24 scheduled FB posts (scheduled over 6 days), I don't see anything >>>>>> that fits such a description, but I will certainly be on alert for such >>>>>> things. >>>>>> >>>>>> I disagree that the APRC doesn't have the time to review >>>>>> everything in advance. I am on the APRC, and I do have the time. While it >>>>>> is not just my responsibility, I do need to be more vigilant with regard to >>>>>> the FB queue, but I trust that my fellow APRC members, more adept at FB, >>>>>> are supporting that effort. We are aware of the recent misstep, and it is >>>>>> being addressed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I spoke against the driving out of staff or other volunteers by >>>>>> 'leaders' in the design group at the last LNC meeting, and I strongly >>>>>> oppose such actions. I am under the impression that was addressed by our >>>>>> Chairman. I also note that at least two if the individuals who were driven >>>>>> out, are back in business, and making things happen in there :). >>>>>> >>>>>> To be honest, I think this motion is unnecessary at this time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whitney Bilyeu >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alicia Mattson < >>>>>> agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy >>>>>>> Manual Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as >>>>>>> administrators of, serve as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s >>>>>>> social media accounts. Volunteer content creators may submit >>>>>>> content for approval. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the LNC meeting there was majority support for the motion >>>>>>> to both do the above and also to create a committee to review our social >>>>>>> media processes. I could have supported it, but if we know what we need to >>>>>>> do to fix the problem, why spend the time to have a committee study it >>>>>>> first? Just fix it. I thought there was majority support for the other >>>>>>> motion to simply turn control of our social media back over to staff. >>>>>>> Turns out that I was mistaken, and one person was not willing to turn >>>>>>> control back over to staff without the creation of the committee, so then >>>>>>> the other motion failed. Because I misread the room, an option that >>>>>>> actually had majority support didn't pass. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now that we have separately created the committee, I want to >>>>>>> go back and re-visit turning control back over to our staff. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note that the motion welcomes volunteers to submit >>>>>>> material. It does not eliminate their opportunity to contribute. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I want to add some details to the discussion we had in >>>>>>> Pittsburgh, with two Facebook PR blow-ups on our minds at the time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster. >>>>>>> Granted it was not on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was >>>>>>> posted to, the person's party position was touted right there in the >>>>>>> sidebar, and we took a lot of damage from it. The Convention Oversight >>>>>>> Committee lost two very valuable volunteers over this latest disaster -- >>>>>>> volunteers who did a lot of work for us in Orlando and were again helping >>>>>>> for New Orleans. Gone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are no group votes before volunteers post on the party's >>>>>>> FB. One person puts it into the schedule, and unless someone else sees it >>>>>>> and objects, it goes public. We publish so much material that the APRC >>>>>>> doesn't always have time to review everything in advance. Though the group >>>>>>> has an informal rule against people posting their own material, people >>>>>>> sometimes do it anyway. The comments about the military could easily have >>>>>>> been posted on our page. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There was a very recent incident in which a new volunteer was >>>>>>> driven to quit on the same day she joined for the crime of suggesting that >>>>>>> we post more positive material and less negative material. I don't want to >>>>>>> hear that the LNC giving final control to staff is somehow disrespecting >>>>>>> the work of the volunteers, when that new volunteer's desire to contribute >>>>>>> was so summarily disrespected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have some important policies that I don't believe the >>>>>>> volunteers have even been informed about, and volunteers are not really >>>>>>> accountable for following policies in the same way that our staff is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Policy Manual Section 2.09.6: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Party resources shall not be used to provide information or >>>>>>> services for any candidate for party office unless: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - such information or services are available and announced >>>>>>> on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking >>>>>>> that office, or >>>>>>> - such information or services are generally available >>>>>>> and announced to all party member >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not all party members have access to post on our Facebook >>>>>>> page. Not all candidates for internal party office are offered the chance >>>>>>> to post on our Facebook page. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into >>>>>>> personal promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at >>>>>>> the next convention. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There was a time in the past when staff established criteria >>>>>>> to try to manage application of this policy, with criteria for what >>>>>>> constituted "news" or "earned media" that involved a candidate, etc. I >>>>>>> don't believe there is any such attention to his policy right now for our >>>>>>> social media. Some candidates have already declared. The closer we get to >>>>>>> a national convention, the more these posts will be perceived as >>>>>>> self-promotion that unfairly isn't available to their opponents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I'm asking for co-sponsors for this motion, to return final >>>>>>> decision power to our staff, who are expected to know and follow our >>>>>>> policies, and who are accountable to the LNC. The volunteer groups can >>>>>>> continue to generate material just like they do now, but staff would >>>>>>> schedule the actual posts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the Social Media Process Review Committee comes back to us >>>>>>> with suggestions for reasonable ways to manage this later, we can amend >>>>>>> this policy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Alicia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *In Liberty,* >>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>>>> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >>>>> >>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >>>>> *We defend your rights* >>>>> *And oppose the use of force* >>>>> *Taxation is theft* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *In Liberty,* >>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>>> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >>>> >>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >>>> *We defend your rights* >>>> *And oppose the use of force* >>>> *Taxation is theft* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Arvin Vohra >>> >>> www.VoteVohra.com >>> VoteVohra@gmail.com >>> (301) 320-3634 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *In Liberty,* >> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >> >> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >> *We defend your rights* >> *And oppose the use of force* >> *Taxation is theft* >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "lncvotes" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> > > > -- > *In Liberty,* > *Caryn Ann Harlos* > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. > Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > <http://www.lpcolorado.org> > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee > > A haiku to the Statement of Principles: > *We defend your rights* > *And oppose the use of force* > *Taxation is theft* > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634 _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

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