Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Letter of Censure

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thank you to the members of the Audacious Caucus for having the audacity to send us this resolution.  :-)   Florid language aside, I can't argue with the basic sentiment either – although I realize that as part of the minority who voted against the expenditure, I leave myself open to the "easy for you to say" charge.

Since we are still in the process of considering the practical extent of our own collective disappointment as a body with John Moore's votes and your caucus appears to be a step ahead of us, I would recommend that you go ahead and convey your disappointment to him directly rather than waiting on us, if you do not consider making this resolution public to have already achieved that effect. According to Nevada state government info I found online, he can be reached at John....@asm.state.nv.us or (702) 482-7676.

Do caucus members have any practical advice for reforming our leadership culture or practices to avoid repeating this sort of mistake?

Love & Liberty,

                                      ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                   (415) 625-FREE

                                     @StarchildSF

On Oct 27, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:

Sadly, I agree. We should have done this better, and will, I hope, do better in the future. -Arvin

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Audacious Caucus <beauda...@gmail.com> wrote:

With 22 in favor, 1 opposed, and 2 abstaining, the following resolution was passed by the Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus:

For trusting a Republican still dripping with old party slime,

For giving away $10,000 without even verifying his membership,

For thinking somebody who hadn't pledged the NAP would stand up for it under pressure,

For totally neglecting to exercise one iota of caution much less the abundance demanded here,

For being complete fiduciary nincompoops, and most importantly,

For not unanimously voting against the expenditure in the first place,

The Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus hereby censures the Libertarian National Committee,

and asks you to convey our deep disappointment to Assemblyman John Moore for failing miserably at his one job, for bringing shame upon himself, our party, and our governing body, and for being the man who pulled the trigger on an armed robbery that is now in progress along with an invoice for $10,000 due upon receipt.

Additionally, "Taxation is Theft" and "Justice for Harambe" received 4 and 3 votes respectively.

--

Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus

FB/TW: @LPAudacious

"If I can't dance, it's not my revolution." - Emma Goldman

--

Arvin Vohra

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I must disagree with the sentiments of my colleague Ken who seemed to find the whole idea silly.  I must commend Arvin in his character to step up and say yes there is an important point here.

It was I who suggested that members and caucuses express their disapproval.  

I disagree with "some" of the sentiments in the letter but fully support the idea to do so.

While not caring one bit for the old parties, i don't find the "slime" comment constructive. Most of us come from somewhere and are not second generation Libertarians.  I for instance was put in a very public facing role with the LPCO (though under supervision) when I was three months out from being a Republican.

I wish to welcome persons who to become Libertarians and don't find that rhetoric helpful.

And while simply calling the LNC names might be fun, it isn't particularly constructive.  And it isn't constructive to miscast events.  We didn't simply roll Alicia's multi-sided die. There was discussion and analysis.  And while one is certainly free to disagree with the conclusions, it is wildly inaccurate to say there was no one iota (great word) of caution.  That is just political rhetoric, fun as that might be. When persons switch in high profile positions there are gambles on both sides. And gambles are inherently risky but must be taken and when a loss incurred - recognized- as the current Motion to Censure does. 

In any event - I'm glad to see members exercising their rights and opinions.  If they wish any constructive feedback - when a piece of writing is produced one must consider their goals.  Does one really want serious consideration by the body? Just to shock?  Just to be insulting?  Each of those goals has its place.  But they are often mutually exclusive and this one, as worded, seems to fall squarely in one quadrant, and that is, to me, disappointing as my desire is to see a real flow of information and feedback beyeeen the LNC and its members.  While we are indeed in servant leadership - we are still volunteers and perhaps I am being too pie-in-the-sky but I believe a truly bottom up feedback loop also includes treating each other with dignity and respect.  And while I believe that no matter how membership communicates, it is our duty to respond with civility- it is helpful for party business and complaints to be conducted with a certain level of personal decorum.  I know some people think it is "audacious" to ignore such niceties.  Well then that is certainly a different goal - and it isn't one of persuasion. 

However personally satisfying it is to be belligerent - be it by making one's letter unfortunately easier to dismiss by its tone since it doesn't seem to take itself seriously (I realize that making a Harambe to the Federal Court in my civil rights lawsuit isn't likely to persuade anyone)  - or by actually dismissing it as some of my colleagues have done - none of that accomplishes anything.

I am grateful members are watching us.  In this instance - I am aware that an expression of "who cares?" was raised when it was pointed out to this group that the LNC has made corrective action in the pending Motion to Censure.  That is very unfortunate and the lack of mention or encouragement of that pending action does suggest a lack of commitment to a fully fair review.  And that takes away from its potential effect.  Persons will often take constructive feedback if they feel it is balanced and fair.  The lack of mention of the entire story in the missive, unfortunately, indicated otherwise.

But colleagues - members are not happy and we do well to listen and consider.  We serve, not rule.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Caryn, I agree that “We serve, not rule” is an appropriate guideline to discourage any incipient authoritarian leanings on the LNC.

 

I also like Starchild’s question: “Do [Audacious] caucus members have any practical advice for reforming our leadership culture or practices to avoid repeating this sort of mistake?”

 

I am comfortable with “Audacious” if it represents constructive criticism backed up by constructive suggestions rather than just “easy for you to say” close-minded Libertarian cheap-shot complaining that identifies problems but gets nothing done. I am confident that the Audacious folks will step up to the plate with constructive input, solutions and implementation action at some point.

 

Has Assemblyman Moore weighed in yet to explain his actions? I remain committed to a YES vote on the motion to censure but would like to hear from John Moore first if he is so inclined.

 

Thoughts?

 

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

 

The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government!

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

David, a suggestion has been floated around in several groups about an agreement or contract with the any prospective recipients.  I think that is a great idea.  After all, our giving funds is not a "right' it is a privilege.  This is great groundwork for the Candidate Support Committee (and another argument for it to be transparent).

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

And definitely YES a requirement for National Party membership, which would then include the NAP Pledge.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I received a statement from John Moore today. He considers it to be a confidential document to be shared only with the Libertarian National Committee. I will respect his requisition to not disseminate the contents outside of the LNC, and will forward the document to LNC members who request it.

Tim Hagan

---

From: David Demarest <dpdem...@centurylink.net>
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org; 'Caryn Ann Harlos' <carynan...@gmail.com>
Cc: david.d...@firstdata.com; 'Audacious Caucus' <beauda...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 8:23 AM

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Letter of Censure

Caryn, I agree that “We serve, not rule” is an appropriate guideline to discourage any incipient authoritarian leanings on the LNC.

 

I also like Starchild’s question: “Do [Audacious] caucus members have any practical advice for reforming our leadership culture or practices to avoid repeating this sort of mistake?”

 

I am comfortable with “Audacious” if it represents constructive criticism backed up by constructive suggestions rather than just “easy for you to say” close-minded Libertarian cheap-shot complaining that identifies problems but gets nothing done. I am confident that the Audacious folks will step up to the plate with constructive input, solutions and implementation action at some point.

 

Has Assemblyman Moore weighed in yet to explain his actions? I remain committed to a YES vote on the motion to censure but would like to hear from John Moore first if he is so inclined.

 

Thoughts?

 

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

 

The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government!

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

 

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Tim,

What were John's specific words (in writing if he put them in writing) or if orally, to the best of your recollection, regarding this request for secrecy and his reasons for it? 

I am requesting the document. As will probably come as no surprise to anyone reading this familiar with my positions, I am highly skeptical of any supposed need for secrecy here, but can hypothetically imagine a situation in which it might be reasonable and warranted (e.g. one of John's family members was kidnapped and threatened with death if John did not cast the votes in question and refrain from going public about his reasons for doing so, and the family member is still being held hostage).

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

                                   @StarchildSF

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Our members are holding us accountable for this decision and the reasons for public votes should be public.  I will not agree to such secrecy.  Our politicians must be publicly accountable.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I share Caryn's sentiments. While as I said, I can imagine circumstances in which such secrecy might be reasonable and I would seek to uphold it, I did not say I considered such circumstances to be likely, in fact quite the opposite.

Love & Liberty,

                                  ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                               (415) 625-FREE

                                 @StarchildSF

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I agree with Caryn and Starchild. The mere request for secrecy in the context of the motion to censure, short of being held hostage by statists, raises a red flag and suggests just more political chicanery typical of our compulsory authoritarian majority rule.

 

Unless Assemblyman Moore’s documents are released without a secrecy requirement within the next day or so, I will vote YES on the brute-force motion to censure.

 

Thoughts?

 

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

 

The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government!

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Starchild
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 11:50 PM
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Letter of Censure

 

            I share Caryn's sentiments. While as I said, I can imagine circumstances in which such secrecy might be reasonable and I would seek to uphold it, I did not say I considered such circumstances to be likely, in fact quite the opposite.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Caryn, I will support a candidate contract national LP membership as a precondition for endorsement by the proposed transparent Candidate Support Committee.

 

Keep in mind that this measure should be viewed as a quasi-brute-force behavior modification tool that will be useful short-term but should not be used to obstruct our vision of achieving a voluntary governance context that frees our instinctual pro-freedom behavior without external brute-force behavior modification.

 

Thoughts?

 

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

 

The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government!

 

~David Pratt Demarest

http://www.lpne.org

secr...@lpne.org

dpdem...@centurylink.net

david.d...@firstdata.com

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

 

From: Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 12:38 PM
To: David Demarest <dpdem...@centurylink.net>
Cc: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org; Audacious Caucus <beauda...@gmail.com>; Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net>; Demarest, David P. <david.d...@firstdata.com>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Letter of Censure

 

And definitely YES a requirement for National Party membership, which would then include the NAP Pledge.

 

 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

David, a suggestion has been floated around in several groups about an agreement or contract with the any prospective recipients.  I think that is a great idea.  After all, our giving funds is not a "right' it is a privilege.  This is great groundwork for the Candidate Support Committee (and another argument for it to be transparent).

 

 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

 

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thank you David.  And thank you for sharing my commitment to insist on a certain level of transparency within said committee.  Imagine if this decision came out of an opaque committee??  No matter what members may think of our initial decision here, it was done in broad daylight, witnessed by members, with votes recorded.  Let this serve as an example.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

Tim, send it to me, please.

 

I plan on submitting a vote today.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

On 2016-10-29 21:27, Tim Hagan wrote:

I received a statement from John Moore today. He considers it to be a confidential document to be shared only with the Libertarian National Committee. I will respect his requisition to not disseminate the contents outside of the LNC, and will forward the document to LNC members who request it.

Tim Hagan

---

From: David Demarest <dpdem...@centurylink.net>
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org; 'Caryn Ann Harlos' <carynan...@gmail.com>
Cc: david.d...@firstdata.com; 'Audacious Caucus' <beauda...@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 8:23 AM

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Letter of Censure

Caryn, I agree that "We serve, not rule" is an appropriate guideline to discourage any incipient authoritarian leanings on the LNC.

 

I also like Starchild's question: "Do [Audacious] caucus members have any practical advice for reforming our leadership culture or practices to avoid repeating this sort of mistake?"

 

I am comfortable with "Audacious" if it represents constructive criticism backed up by constructive suggestions rather than just "easy for you to say" close-minded Libertarian cheap-shot complaining that identifies problems but gets nothing done. I am confident that the Audacious folks will step up to the plate with constructive input, solutions and implementation action at some point.

 

Has Assemblyman Moore weighed in yet to explain his actions? I remain committed to a YES vote on the motion to censure but would like to hear from John Moore first if he is so inclined.

 

Thoughts?

 

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

 

The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government!

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

 

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Please send the complete statement to me, as well.

Thank you.

Whitney Bilyeu