[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Fwd: [APRC] APRC Institutional Memory

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

Joshua A. Katz

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Wiener <wie...@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM
Subject: [APRC] APRC Institutional Memory
To: APRC List <ap...@hq.lp.org>, Robert Kraus <robert...@lp.org>

Hello everyone (and thank you, Robert, for getting the new list set up so fast).

During the 2012-2014 term we had some rather sharp exchanges over the proper boundaries and procedures for the Advertising & Publication Review Committee.  Not everything is spelled out in detail in the Policy Manual, but we ultimately came up with a pretty effective set of guidelines.  In the interest of not re-inventing the wheel, and to provide information for the new APRC members, I decided to summarize the results below.  Of course a lot of these items are subject to revision, but I think they at least represent a good starting point.

• Section 2.02 of the Policy Manual is attached below.  Basically it says that the scope of the APRC’s official authority is limited to assuring conformity of LP communications with the Platform, Bylaws, and Policy Manual.  APRC deliberations must be kept confidential, and there are time limits within which it must act.

• Even though the Policy Manual permits time sensitive communications to be sent out without prior APRC approval or in the absence of a timely APRC response, that sometimes meant permitting undesirable items to slip through the cracks.  So in 2013 the LNC Chair directed staff to seek affirmative approval from at least three APRC members prior to publication, unless the Chair authorized a specific exception.  That also made in incumbent on APRC members to monitor their email on a frequent basis and to respond rapidly, especially for time-critical matters.

• One viewpoint is that APRC activity should be strictly limited to evaluating whether an item violates the Platform, Bylaws, and Policy Manual.  That was not the prevailing view last term.  The APRC frequently caught spelling and grammatical and factual errors, and offered other feedback to staff (which staff was not required to accept but said was welcome).  Accordingly, the LNC Chair outlined four general steps for APRC consideration in order of precedence:
  

1. Does the submitted publication violate the platform, statement of principles, etc.  If Yes, explain how and why.
2. Would the submitted publication show the LP in a negative or undesirable light?  If yes, explain how and why.
3. Did you encounter any grammatical or spelling errors? If yes, please note.
4. Do you have other feedback?  If yes, please note.

Appended below is Policy Manual Section 2.06(5) which describes how the entire LNC can take quick action to block or withdraw public communications which would be detrimental to the LP’s image.  Obviously it’s much better to keep a problematical communication from going out in the first place, rather than trying to remove it from the public sphere after the fact (although if it is embarrassing enough it’s still better to repudiate it than to let it stand).  But APRC deliberations are confidential, which makes it difficult for an APRC member to communicate the problem to the entire LNC prior to publication using this provision.   The LNC Chair’s solution was as follows:

• Since the Chair can direct staff without changing any policy, he was directing staffing that if any single member of the APRC opposed publication for reason #2, that the Chair would be consulted, and would make the decisions regarding reason #2, but not otherwise. In these cases, staff is to NOT publish the piece without the Chair’s input.  [Note that the Chair is on the APRC email list as an ex officio member.]

• The Chair agreed with the additional suggestion that if an item was kicked up to him for reason #2, and he in turn was having a very hard time making a determination, he would direct staff to circulate it to the entire LNC in draft form.  That wouldn't violate APRC confidentiality, and yet still allow the LNC to make the decision via Section 2.06(5) with very few negative repercussions.

• The Chair agreed with yet another suggestion from staff: If an APRC member objected to an item based on reason #2, and staff was able to modify it so as to satisfy the APRC member’s objections, it would then not be necessary to bother the Chair to make a determination.

Following the kerfuffle which prompted the above guidelines, I don't believe that any other issues arose which required a decision by the LNC Chair.  I also want to mention that Gary Johnson, the new APRC Chair for 2014-2016, has been especially adept at catching things and providing staff with rapid feedback (which staff appreciated).  And probably 90% of everything sent to the APRC gets rubber-stamped as approved.  I hope we can all have a good working relationship and an effective committee during the next two years.

Daniel Wiener

 

Section 2.02 COMMITTEE SCOPE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

 

1) Advertising & Publication Review Committee

 

The APRC shall review and advise whether public communications of the Party violate our bylaws, Policy Manual or advocate moving public policy in a different direction other than

a libertarian direction, as delineated by the Party Platform.

 

Public communications may be defined in either of two categories: time-sensitive or enduring.

 

· Public communications that are of a time-sensitive nature, namely mass e-mails, news releases, twitter posts and blog entries, shall be made available to the APRC upon their publication.

 

· Public communications that are of a more enduring nature, such as LP News, Liberty Pledge News, self-published party literature and fundraising letters, shall be made available to the APRC before the final proof is approved for printing and distribution.

 

Staff may seek advance advice from the APRC on any proposed communication.  Staff may reasonably conclude that the failure of the APRC to provide advice in a timely manner is tantamount to the committee's approval.

 

· In the case of public communications that are of a time-sensitive nature, a response is considered timely if made within six hours of staff's submission of the subject matter to the committee, if submitted prior to its publication; and within forty-eight hours, if submitted after its publication.

 

· In the case of public communications that are of a more enduring nature, a response is considered timely if made within twenty-four hours of staff's submission of the subject matter to the committee.

 

If a majority of the committee concludes that a public communication violates the bylaws, Policy Manual, or advocates moving public policy in a different direction other than a libertarian direction, as delineated by the Party Platform, the committee chair shall report such to the Executive Director and the LNC Chair, citing the specific platform plank, bylaw or Policy Manual section. Official decisions of the APRC which are overridden shall be promptly reported to the LNC without revealing confidential employer-employee matters.

 

Section 2.02(5) Assuring Quality Communications

 

If a majority of all LNC members notify the Secretary of their belief that a proposed or actual public communication is detrimental to the image of the Party, such notification to occur no later than 72 hours after the public communication is published, the Secretary shall inform the Executive Director and Chair of this finding, and such communication shall not be further disseminated, and to the extent possible, already-disseminated material shall be promptly removed from the public sphere.

 
--

"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” -- Richard Feynman

_______________________________________________
Aprc mailing list
Ap...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/aprc_hq.lp.org

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

Joshua A. Katz

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carla Howell <4sma...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [APRC] APRC Institutional Memory
To: "ap...@hq.lp.org" <ap...@hq.lp.org>

Note in an addition to Dan's excellent summary below, another policy, attached, was adopted and approved by the prior Chair. It was adopted right around the time Wes became ED a year ago and has been in effect since.

It has been working well - I know of no cases of an early release that caused a problem as we reserved this option only for material we believed would be non-controversial.

I note that news gets stale fast. Sometimes we invest a non-trivial amount of time researching and writing a story. This investment can be lost if we are too delayed  and the news becomes old, which includes missing reporters' deadlines. So having a release valve for this policy can make a difference in whether the story will get picked up and our investment gets a payback.

Nick (or someone) - please advise if the attached should still be in effect.

Thanks,

Carla

Carla Howell

"The (government) designed (by our Founding Fathers) has turned into a congealed ball of lard that eats money and excretes red tape."
- Scott Adams

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.be...@lp.org> wrote:

What Dan wrote looks about right to me. In the future, I'd like to see the policy written in the official Policy Manual more closely match what we actually do in order to make the process easier for all to follow and understand. I'm pretty flexible on what the actual policies are and will point out if any particular item is causing hardships going forward.

I had a fine working relationship with the previous APRC members and welcome the new members.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.be...@lp.org
facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership

On 6/30/2014 6:17 PM, Jay Estrada wrote:

Thank you.