[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] APRC

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

Okay, I have a few questions.  First of all, I am very grateful to have been appointed to that Committee as I am enjoying it very much and keeps me on my toes.

My question though has to do with its secrecy.  Now that I have participated a bit to have a grasp of what it is that we do, I am not sure I understand the justification for its deliberations and discussions to be secret.

In reviewing the Policy Manual it categorizes the discussions as sounding in employer-employee confidentiality, but I don't see how that is the broad case.  I can imagine a situation in which that might arise, but why make the whole thing secret for a circumstance that would be rare... which seems to me to be like making all LNC meetings secret because a legal matter might come up.... instead we wall off the truly confidential matters.

I am not saying I am opposed to it being secret, but I am saying that I am not sure I understand the necessity and justification and would like to know what it is.  I believe in openness and transparency to the extent possible that will not actively harm the organization.

Realistically there are probably two oddballs like me in the whole Party that would actually read the whole thing.  But that shouldn't stop us from removing the veil from things that do not need to be.  And I think secrecy policies should be re-evaluated regularly.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative 

(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)

Caryn.An...@LP.org

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

I could be wrong, but I've always thought of it this way:

Consider the case where the APRC turns down a publication.  We're saying, in effect "we don't want this to be put out in the name of the party."  The APRC is the way the LNC exercises its obligation to control what is said in our name.  Now, suppose that the proposed publication, together with APRC deliberations, were made public.  The publication we said we don't want to go out in our name, would be out to the public, forwarded and shared as much as desired, with our name stamped on it.  In effect, making the APRC discussion public has the impact of saying we can't turn down anything from being said in our name.  

The employer-employee part I take to mean if, say, some employee were consistently having their proposed publications shot down by the APRC, they wouldn't want that information known to the world.  

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

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

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

Joshua,

===Consider the case where the APRC turns down a publication.  We're saying, in effect "we don't want this to be put out in the name of the party."  The APRC is the way the LNC exercises its obligation to control what is said in our name.  Now, suppose that the proposed publication, together with APRC deliberations, were made public.  The publication we said we don't want to go out in our name, would be out to the public, forwarded and shared as much as desired, with our name stamped on it.  In effect, making the APRC discussion public has the impact of saying we can't turn down anything from being said in our name.  ==

That does not follow at all.  It actually would have it going out as explicitly not being in our name...  don't the members have a right to see how we are controlling messaging? Or should they?  

I sat down and thought of possible reasons this policy might be good--- and one reason was that perhaps making it public would have a chilling effect on some APRC members disapproving items.  If it were known that a publication (let's keep using that example) were turned down but it was from a well known libertarian, then this could be used to damage and split the party, so the APRC member may make some cost-benefit calculations on turning it down based upon weaponized public use that doesn't really have anything to do with the APRC in turning it down.  That does concern me.

But contrary-wise, the members I think need to know how we are controlling messaging... a rouge APRC could be inappropriately excluding items or be too lenient.  The first item has a check and balance of the Chair (but members still should have a right to judge the discretion of the Chair) but the second item has little check or balance.

==The employer-employee part I take to mean if, say, some employee were consistently having their proposed publications shot down by the APRC, they wouldn't want that information known to the world.  ==

I do  not find this to be enough to invoke an employer-employee confidentiality burden.  I can envision a case in which it would be appropriate to be secret in which something was not submitted for approval (either rightly or wrongly), an employee put something out there, and it had to be clawed back... there could be some disciplinary issues there that would have a need to be confidential.

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative 

(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)

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

Not all forwards/shares maintain a full history.  People don't have to forward rejected publications by saying "here's a rejected publication."  Instead, they can label it "look what trash is coming out of LP HQ."  

As for the rogue APRC, you don't need to see rejected items to know if the APRC is being too lenient; you'd see that from what is released.  If the APRC is too strict, on the other hand, there are a number of mechanisms to bring items out anyway.  The main cost of an overly strict APRC is to waste staff time.  Even if the items don't make it out, that doesn't really strike me as a quantifiable harm; I don't think there's a right violated if a message that didn't violate our bylaws, policies, or platform is not published or submitted.  The same is true, in my opinion, for how we manage the image in general.  Want to know how the LNC is managing the message?  What comes out will tell you.  

The members have the right to know what we're doing - and they do, it's described in the Policy Manual.  They have the right to tell us to do it differently.  They have the right to remove us.  Boards and their committees have rights also - in general, the right to do the job that has been delegated to them without unnecessary impediments.  The board is subject to judgment on how it performs, and should be permitted to do the job it has been asked to do.  For the reasons I've indicated, I think this is an appropriate use of those rights.  

If you disagree, of course, feel free to introduce a motion to amend the Policy Manual.  Then you won't have to worry about me, since I won't be able to vote, but I might have a word or two to say in debate.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

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

==Not all forwards/shares maintain a full history.  People don't have to forward rejected publications by saying "here's a rejected publication."  Instead, they can label it "look what trash is coming out of LP HQ."  ==

That doesn't even at all seem remotely plausible.  By that count, someone could take one of our personal emails and do that.  And such a claim could be easily rebutted.  

==As for the rogue APRC, you don't need to see rejected items to know if the APRC is being too lenient; you'd see that from what is released.==

You couldn't see if some APRC members objected and were ignored or hand-waved away.  You wouldn't know if things were getting released simply because the APRC never bothered to vet... i.e. they were AWOL.

  ==If the APRC is too strict, on the other hand, there are a number of mechanisms to bring items out anyway.  The main cost of an overly strict APRC is to waste staff time.  Even if the items don't make it out, that doesn't really strike me as a quantifiable harm; I don't think there's a right violated if a message that didn't violate our bylaws, policies, or platform is not published or submitted.==

There sure is!  Particularly if we are talking about candidates.  LP sites is prime real estate and to not get things published is a harm to those candidates (I am sure I can come up with other examples).

==  The same is true, in my opinion, for how we manage the image in general.  Want to know how the LNC is managing the message?  What comes out will tell you.  ==

No it really doesn't, because not knowing what was rejected, and the discussion that takes place is not given.  You cannot always reverse engineer thought processes from final product.

==The members have the right to know what we're doing - and they do, it's described in the Policy Manual.  ==

This sounds like all the arguments to keep the LNC Business List private.  And thank goodness, that is not the case. 

==They have the right to tell us to do it differently.  They have the right to remove us.  Boards and their committees have rights also - in general, the right to do the job that has been delegated to them without unnecessary impediments. ==

I do not see members' seeing what we are doing as an "impediment."  That is what I am trying to determine.... what is it that we are legitimately trying to keep secret.  I am not one of those entirely against secret committees or meetings.  I fully agree with the way Executive Session is being currently used. I am trying to find out if this is one of those kinds of cases.

== The board is subject to judgment on how it performs, and should be permitted to do the job it has been asked to do.  For the reasons I've indicated, I think this is an appropriate use of those rights.  ==

You really haven't IMHO other than to say, well we *can* write rules (yes we can) and they can *vote the bums out* (yes they can) but I think as libertarians, we should want to promote as much transparency in our governance model as we would like to see that government do unless we have some compelling organizational reason not to.  I am trying to find this compelling organizational reason.

==If you disagree, of course, feel free to introduce a motion to amend the Policy Manual.  Then you won't have to worry about me, since I won't be able to vote, but I might have a word or two to say in debate.==

I have no desire to do anything half-cocked so I am trying to find out the rationale.  I made certain promises to those who supported me, such as to support transparency wherever possible, and I intend to keep that promise.  And I am perfectly willing to be convinced that such is the case here.  I came up with a credible reason for secrecy that I find compelling... I am not sure if it is enough.

Perhaps I will introduce such a motion but I have a lot of due diligence in research to do first.. and this is the first step.

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative 

(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)

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

There are some strategic reasons. First, APRC often sees press releases, posts, etc. that are scheduled in advance for a critical time. We might not want socialist statists knowing what we're planning and when. I mean, it is a pretty fascinating coincidence that house Democrats pulled a publicity stunt right at the Town Hall time, which actually blocked a replay from making it to CNN.

Another strategic issue: there is no reason to give ammo to opponents when APRC members disagree on something. Those quotes, easily taken out of context, could be an issue.

I support LNC transparency in general, but I think a completely transparent APRC would hurt us. Note that everything approve is still seen by everyone, so it doesn't stay hidden. And when we disapprove, people complain enough that it still doesn't stay hidden.

-Arvin

Arvin Vohra

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

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

Arvin, you give some excellent reasons and that is exactly what I was looking for.  Thank you.  I hope you don't mind me interacting a bit.

==There are some strategic reasons. First, APRC often sees press releases, posts, etc. that are scheduled in advance for a critical time. ==

That is an excellent point.  But our policy manual says that the deliberations are secret due to employer-employee confidences.... which is not that.

==We might not want socialist statists knowing what we're planning and when. I mean, it is a pretty fascinating coincidence that house Democrats pulled a publicity stunt right at the Town Hall time, which actually blocked a replay from making it to CNN.==

Excellent point, see above.

==Another strategic issue: there is no reason to give ammo to opponents when APRC members disagree on something. Those quotes, easily taken out of context, could be an issue.==

As could anything from this list, and in fact, from what I understand that is what was argued in trying to keep this list private.  That isn't a compelling reason IMHO.  Members deserve to know when APRC members disagree on something.

==I support LNC transparency in general, but I think a completely transparent APRC would hurt us. Note that everything approve is still seen by everyone, so it doesn't stay hidden.==

Yet our members do not know if there was a dissenting voice that was unduly quashed.

== And when we disapprove, people complain enough that it still doesn't stay hidden.==

That doesn't make sense to me... the rationale still says hidden, and again, members deserve to know if a dissenting voice was unduly quashed.

I see strategic reasons for the first item and support secrecy on that until such time that the press release etc has gone out.  A secrecy sunset period would solve that issue.

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative 

(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)

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

I think House Democrats staging some kind of publicity thing at the same time as CNN airing the event with Johnson and Weld is, in fact, just a coincidence. I'd bet money on it. The notion that their caucus is that well organized, and in strong enough agreement that more publicity for the Libertarian ticket hurts their presumptive nominee and needs to be counter-acted, to take such a step, rather than basing the timing of their publicity events on Trump/Clinton concerns, or Capitol Hill scheduling needs, etc., seems extremely unlikely.

Anyone paying enough attention to Libertarian Party affairs to stay on top of what a transparent Articles & Publications Review Committee is discussing is also going to be exposed to a lot of pro-freedom content. That's a good thing – in being part of our community in order to spy on us, they will get more exposure to libertarian ideas, and may come to realize that those ideas have merit. Wouldn't be the first time such things have happened. Think of the Soviet diplomats, etc., who came to the West in order to spy and ended up defecting. I say the more spies the 2-party cartel wants to send our way, the better! I doubt any information they get will enable them to hurt our cause more than they hurt the statist cause by having their people filling their time with such activity and being exposed to our ideas instead of being out there promoting statism. 

Finally, we aren't upholding the value of transparency if we only pay lip service to it and are willing to sacrifice it at the drop of a hypothetical/theoretical hat. We should take it seriously, because it is an important value of a free society and as such needs to be reflected in the culture of a grassroots organization seeking to create such a society. Otherwise we are not accurately aiming for the target we seek to hit.

Love & Liberty,

                                          ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (2016-2018)

                               RealR...@earthlink.net

                                       (415) 625-FREE

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

Starchild,

I also think it was a coincidence, but I do think such a thing *could* happen and that certain internal strategy such as that could be a reason at least to delay the release of the discussions.  We could have certain guidelines that would permanently seal certain discussions (ones that were genuinely involved employee discipline for instance which seems to be what the policy manual is obliquely getting at).  But as to the rest I agree, if transparency is a value we claim to hold, then there needs to be very compelling reason not to be.

So far, I have seen a good reason for a possible delay in release and a small niche for permanent sealing.  But not for the current broad secrecy mandate.

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative 

(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)

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

By that logic Joshua, we should not allow any media to cover our presidential nominating conventions, and we should prohibit delegates from talking about any of the candidates other than those who are eventually nominated!

Worrying that by publicly rejecting something we will be tied in the public mind to the thing we reject seems crazy to me. I mean, think about it – we publicly reject statism and big government (and I for one will fight to ensure that we continue to do so)! Is it possible that some confused individuals will associate us with the things that we reject in our platform and communications? Of course. Some people will remain confused no matter what we say or do. But this is not a reason to try to hide the positions we take on stuff.

If an employee were consistently proposing materials for publication that were being rejected by the APRC, that fact should be widely known. Either we would have an APRC making unreasonable decisions, or an employee regularly seeking to publish materials at odds with the party's goals, and in either case our members would deserve to know.

Love & Liberty,

                                         ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (2016-2018)

                             RealR...@earthlink.net

                                       (415) 625-FREE