Re: [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Historical Preservation Committee - Latest revision

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

 

The latest version of the HPC proposal is now updated in Google Docs for review or suggestions. You can review this document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15PTl9Ns-S7MwNs1HwrgTx8kqn-bXkJSsvrsXmpaYBhk/edit

As Caryn Ann has mentioned, we are both open to other ideas.   The new LPedia solution is about to happen, from a technical standpoint, and as such we need to get prepared for someone to actually maintain the solution. 

The current version of the original proposal reads as follows:

 

 

A proposal to create the Historic Preservation Committee, tasked with preserving and publishing all historic documents of the Party.

Add a line item to chart in subsection 1 of section 1.03 of the Policy Manual, which reads (column name in italics):

(Committee name) Historic Preservation Committee
(Size) Two (2) LNC Members or Alternates, plus up to five (5) additional LNC or non-LNC members.
(Member Selection) Two LNC Members or Alternates selected by LNC. Other members selected by the committee, which shall be accepted unless objected to by a majority of the LNC within 14 days of notification.  
(Chair Selection) * Committee Selected

Create a new subsection under section 2.02 of the Policy Manual, which reads:

x) Historic Preservation Committee

The goal of the Historic Preservation Committee is to preserve historic documents of the party.  To that end, the committee shall:

1. With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, maintain all physical historic information in a safe and climate controlled environment.
2. With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, collect all public electronic records.
3. With the assistance of the IT Committee and staff, provide and maintain a permanent public document archive in the form of a publicly-viewable website separate from the Party’s primary website. The committee may permit volunteers to assist in the maintenance of this website, provided that archived historichistroi documents are not removed.
4. Make a good faith effort to preserve and publish all available historic party documents, and transform physical documents into electronic format toward that end.
5. Vote on whether to recommend the destruction of any original document, or document for which no other copy is available. No document shall be destroyed without the consent of the LNC, as outlined in Section 2.07(x).
6. At each LNC meeting, present a summary of physical document preservation mechanisms currently being utilized, and the number of documents preserved in electronic format.
7. Ensure that any non-public information, defined as information covered under Section 1.02(5) and not known to have been made public by the LNC, inadvertently released to the Committee is kept private. Any electronic copy of non-public information shall be reported to the LNC and deleted by the recipient(s). Any physical non-public information shall be securely sealed, marked private, and returned for review by the LNC.
8. Within one business day, inform the LNC of any committee appointments.
9. Publicly announce and permit a public audience for all meetings.

 

Nothing listed in the responsibilities, powers, or scope of this Committee shall be construed to prevent or circumvent the normal operation of the Party’s main website or to interfere in the duties of the Secretary as mandated by the Party Bylaws or this Policy Manual.


Create a new subsection under section 2.07 of the Policy Manual, which reads:

(x) All public agendas, meeting minutes, and records of the Party shall be made available to the Historic Preservation Committee.  No data shall be deleted or destroyed without a vote in the affirmative by no less than two-thirds of the entire LNC.

---

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

 

On 2017-01-10 13:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

We are going to have to deal with LPedia administration etc. sooner rather than later.

 

I don't mind if we create a temporary committee outside the PM as a test run and do it simple.  

 

That might help us know more what to craft for future.

 

Ken (I believe- request his input) and I are open to simpler motions to get started and such an initial ad hoc committee could advise the LNC of specifics needed for a more permanent committee.

 

I have some dedicated volunteers already.   And I have been conferring regularly with Chuck Moulton who has an intense interest. 

 

I believe this could relieve a lot of the tension had about lost website data that is strictly historical like candidate list, past LNC composition...

 

-- 

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 Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:53 AM Sam Goldstein <goldstei...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wes,

 

That is an excellent motion and one I could sponsor and support with a few changes since it looks like

Ms.Harlos would be Chair for Life in the current wording.

 

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 Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.be...@lp.org> wrote:

Staff will do our best to fit in assistance on this project, if

it passes, as we have been already.

Perhaps a better motion might be along the lines of "The LNC

establishes a Historical Committee to help preserve and publish

historical documents of the party and is granted a starting

budget of $5,000. Caryn Ann Harlos is appointed chair with

authority to appoint up to four others."

Delete all that other stuff.

I support the project in general, but will have to be cautious

against spending too much staff time on it. But, I think I can

work well with Caryn Ann on this, though not always helping as

quick and fast as she would like.

I apologize if I've overstepped my welcome on this topic by

suggesting wording for a motion. I just hate to see the effort

fail due to getting bogged down in unnecessary and unhelpful

bureaucracy.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director

Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

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 1/10/2017 10:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos

wrote:

My copy/paste got mangled:

Thank you Joshua:

==My

question is on the relation between 1 and 1a together, and

2.  What, exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To

give some examples:  is there anything not being stored

that the makers want to see stored?  ==

There are things not being

made available or stored in a meaningful way we would like

to see stored.  For instance, we have all the copies of

past press releases.  What good are they doing in a file

cabinet?  So what we are doing now is storing them (either

physically or electronically) but not preserving them in a

meaningful way - meaning to be of use to members.  And

even the ones we have stored electronically (and this is

one category, I could expand this further) have not been

done reliably - i.e. the "lost" data on the websites that

might be better suited on an LPedia interface.  And this

could happen again.  This would insure a committee

actually provides oversight and responsibility for making

sure these things get done so it doesn't became an LNC

discussion that is too remote to other things we have to

discuss in our limited time.  These records represent the

tangible output that members paid money for.

==So far as I know, there is

nothing stopping volunteers from going into the basement

and scanning things.  At least, that's the impression I

have from the fact that my colleague from Colorado, a

stickler about rules, did so, with another volunteer

member, and there was no suggestion of impropriety. 

What stops us from, without doing anything, having

volunteers do that?==

An

organization to direct them in a meaningful way, and

there is certainly something "official" about

volunteering for an actual committee and having that

organizational power and oversight.  And volunteers can

scan, go off merrily into their own files, and it isn't

preserved for party members at large - which is

something we have already committed to for years with

LPedia, and done it poorly.

==Which brings me to another

question - what, exactly, will this committee decide? 

It seems to me that the answer might be nothing, but I'm

not sure on that.==

It

will make decisions on things to insure are on LPedia

and recommend destruction of preserved items if needed. 

It will decide on best practice for document

preservation and best order of going about the project.

It will also administer LPedia - so that staff will not

have to worry about it.  LPedia hopefully will grow into

something that needs some dedicated management.

==  That is, it looks like it

will not be an empowered committee, and will only make

recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special rules of

order that will make it easier for things to pass (but,

I suggest, might impact the vote threshold for this

motion, as well as make the Policy Manual a bit more

confusing - it might be good to have this motion amend

the Special Rules of Order section of the Policy Manual

as well, and leave the rules of order parts out of the

committee description and scope).  ==

To

the second part, I would like to hear your suggestions

on that.

==Since it was posted, the scope

of those recommendations has been narrowed somewhat (my

understanding of the deleted line about expenditures

seems to have been different from that of several others

- I didn't see it giving the committee unlimited power

to commit us to expenditures, but I did see it as oddly

outside the budget process, as others have pointed out -

I might prefer if a budget line were created for this

purpose, and the committee just incurred the costs

without going to the LNC within that line).  ===

It

is removed with the potential for a budget line, if

needed, but the first source would be to ask for

voluntary donors just like volunteers.

==

I don't want to get into most

of the other points raised at the moment, but I'll add

that volunteer time is, of course, not totally fungible,

but I suspect it is more fungible than we often think.==

In some areas perhaps, but I am

pretty deeply entrenched in the LP History enthusiast

"community" and it isn't there.  For instance I have

volunteers ready to give full days in scanning - these are

not people volunteering to give full days for anything else.

The website issues over two

transitions (this pre-dated Ken, not a slam on Ken) were

botched, and our members are pretty convinced, and it

certainly looks like - we don't care about our history.  Yet

it is also understandable that this coming up at a quarterly

meeting is frustrating amongst all the other business the

LNC handles.  This disposes of both and puts people who want

to spend the time on this and deeply care about it - to

handle it.

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Caryn

Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>

wrote:

Thank you

Joshua:

It seems to me that there

are 3 (really 4, but see below) categories of

tasks that matter here.  They are:

1.  Things we do now.

1a.Things that can be

done now without a motion, but aren't.

2.  What the makers of

this motion intend to do that isn't done now.

3.  What will be done as

a result of this motion passing, in 10 years,

when few of us are on the LNC.  

Obviously, we want 2 and

3 to be as close to identical as possible.  I'm

getting the sense from some of the discussion that

they aren't, and I will try to make some suggestions

on the document to bring them closer together.  

My question is on the

relation between 1 and 1a together, and 2.  What,

exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To give

some examples:  is there anything not being stored

that the makers want to see stored?  

There are things not being

made available or stored in a meaningful way we would

like to see stored.  For instance, we have all the

copies of past press releases.  What good are they

doing in a file cabinet?  So what we are doing now is

storing them (either physically or electronically) but

not preserving them in a meaningful way - meaning to

be of use to members.  And even the ones we have

stored electronically (and this is one category, I

could expand this further) have not been done reliably

- i.e. the "lost" data on the websites that might be

better suited on an LPedia interface.  And this could

happen again.  This would insure a committee actually

provides oversight and responsibility for making sure

these things get done so it doesn't became an LNC

discussion that is too remote to other things we have

to discuss in our limited time.  These records

represent the tangible output that members paid money

for.

==So far as I know, there is

nothing stopping volunteers from going into the

basement and scanning things.  At least, that's the

impression I have from the fact that my colleague

from Colorado, a stickler about rules, did so, with

another volunteer member, and there was no

suggestion of impropriety.  What stops us from,

without doing anything, having volunteers do that?==

An organization to direct

them in a meaningful way, and there is certainly

something "official" about volunteering for an

actual committee and having that organizational

power and oversight.  And volunteers can scan, go

off merrily into their own files, and it isn't

preserved for party members at large - which is

something we have already committed to for years

with LPedia, and done it poorly.

==Which brings me to another

question - what, exactly, will this committee

decide?  It seems to me that the answer might be

nothing, but I'm not sure on that.==

It will make decisions on

things to insure are on LPedia and recommend

destruction of preserved items if needed.  It will

decide on best practice for document preservation

and best order of going about the project. It will

also administer LPedia - so that staff will not have

to worry about it.  LPedia hopefully will grow into

something that needs some dedicated management.

==  That is, it looks like it

will not be an empowered committee, and will only

make recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special

rules of order that will make it easier for things

to pass (but, I suggest, might impact the vote

threshold for this motion, as well as make the

Policy Manual a bit more confusing - it might be

good to have this motion amend the Special Rules of

Order section of the Policy Manual as well, and

leave the rules of order parts out of the committee

description and scope).  ==

To the second part, I would

like to hear your suggestions on that.

==Since it was posted, the

scope of those recommendations has been narrowed

somewhat (my understanding of the deleted line about

expenditures seems to have been different from that

of several others - I didn't see it giving the

committee unlimited power to commit us to

expenditures, but I did see it as oddly outside the

budget process, as others have pointed out - I might

prefer if a budget line were created for this

purpose, and the committee just incurred the costs

without going to the LNC within that line).  ===

It is removed with the

potential for a budget line, if needed, but the

first source would be to ask for voluntary donors

just like volunteers.

==

I don't want to get into

most of the other points raised at the moment, but

I'll add that volunteer time is, of course, not

totally fungible, but I suspect it is more fungible

than we often think.==

In some areas perhaps, but I

am pretty deeply entrenched in the LP History enthusiast

"community" and it isn't there.  For instance I have

volunteers ready to give full days in scanning - these

are not people volunteering to give full days for

anything else.

The website issues over two

transitions (this pre-dated Ken, not a slam on Ken) were

botched, and our members are pretty convinced, and it

certainly looks like - we don't care about our history. 

Yet it is also understandable that this coming up at a

quarterly meeting is frustrating amongst all the other

business the LNC handles.  This disposes of both and

puts people who want to spend the time on this and

deeply care about it - to handle it.

--Caryn Ann

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at

7:35 AM, Joshua Katz <planning...@gmail.com>

wrote:

I haven't decided how I will vote

on this, and the debate here hasn't helped

me.  Let me revisit some of the comments I

made on the document itself, but in a more

inquisitive manner, and see if I can get some

light on the matter.

It seems to me that there are 3 (really

4, but see below) categories of tasks that

matter here.  They are:

1.  Things we do now.

1a.Things that can be done now without a

motion, but aren't.

2.  What the makers of this motion intend

to do that isn't done now.

3.  What will be done as a result of this

motion passing, in 10 years, when few of us

are on the LNC.  

Obviously, we want 2 and 3 to be as close

to identical as possible.  I'm getting the

sense from some of the discussion that they

aren't, and I will try to make some

suggestions on the document to bring them

closer together.  

My question is on the relation between 1

and 1a together, and 2.  What, exactly, is

in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a?  To give some

examples:  is there anything not being

stored that the makers want to see stored?  

So far as I know, there is nothing

stopping volunteers from going into the

basement and scanning things.  At least,

that's the impression I have from the fact

that my colleague from Colorado, a stickler

about rules, did so, with another volunteer

member, and there was no suggestion of

impropriety.  What stops us from, without

doing anything, having volunteers do that?

Which brings me to another question -

what, exactly, will this committee decide? 

It seems to me that the answer might be

nothing, but I'm not sure on that.  That is,

it looks like it will not be an empowered

committee, and will only make

recommendations to the LNC, albeit with

special rules of order that will make it

easier for things to pass (but, I suggest,

might impact the vote threshold for this

motion, as well as make the Policy Manual a

bit more confusing - it might be good to

have this motion amend the Special Rules of

Order section of the Policy Manual as well,

and leave the rules of order parts out of

the committee description and scope).  Since

it was posted, the scope of those

recommendations has been narrowed somewhat

(my understanding of the deleted line about

expenditures seems to have been different

from that of several others - I didn't see

it giving the committee unlimited power to

commit us to expenditures, but I did see it

as oddly outside the budget process, as

others have pointed out - I might prefer if

a budget line were created for this purpose,

and the committee just incurred the costs

without going to the LNC within that line).

 

So, in sum, here is what I would like to

know:

What, exactly, will this motion allow to

happen, that cannot happen now?  

Why is a committee needed for this

purpose?

These questions are actually closely

related, because they both get at why this

is a committee, rather than a group of

volunteers doing work.

I don't want to get into most of the

other points raised at the moment, but I'll

add that volunteer time is, of course, not

totally fungible, but I suspect it is more

fungible than we often think.

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Jan 10,

2017 at 6:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>

wrote:

I am at a full screen

computer now, and can get better

address:

With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, maintain all physical historic information in a safe and climate controlled environment.

This is already done. Decisions are already made - either explicitly or implicitly - about what is kept. This does not change that.

With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, collect all public electronic records.

This is already done. When things are made public, they are either electronic or physical. They are already been saved.

Make a good faith effort to preserve and publish all available historical party documents, and transform physical documents into electronic format toward that end.

Historical documents are not kept for mere utility reference, but for their historical value. We don't put out that much "publicly" and what is put out has a historical value in saving. Though this section could be tweaked to give greater discretion to the committee on items.

Make a good faith effort to preserve and, and within its discretion, to publish, all available historical party documents, and transform physical documents into electronic format toward that end.

I would make the point of

volunteer times. Their times is

their to spend. There are

volunteers waiting to be

involved.  Their time is not

fungible, people get involved in

what they are passionate about.

- Caryn Ann

On Tue,

Jan 10, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Caryn

Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>

wrote:

Hi Alicia,

First I would ask if

there is language you

could suggest.

As in the "all" - it is

what we are doing now. 

Nothing is being added. 

All records that are

public records.

The committee is tasked

with a good faith effort

to publish them yes. 

Nearly everything being

referred to will have been

published previously -

this is making the

permanent archive.

Top level history is

subjective.  The Wiki now

is far from only top

level- histories of some

county parties are

preserved if someone was

interested in them.

What is useful is very

much subjective.  To those

very interested in having

a good complete record of

our history, they are all.

Volunteer time is like

earmarked money. If a

volunteer wants to give

it- that is their choice,

not ours on what we deem

fruitful.  I already know

volunteers willing to be

dedicated. There is a core

of people interested in

historical matters.

A treasure trove of

records exist.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Jan 10,

2017 at 1:53 AM

Alicia Mattson

<agma...@gmail.com>

wrote:

I

think the

scope of this

committee, as

proposed, is

so broad that

it's a

problem.

Am I really

being asked to

be partially

responsible

for preserving

ALL

physical

historic

information

(in #1), and

ALL public

electronic

records (in

#2)?  And the

committee is

additionally

tasked with

publishing ALL

historical

documents (in

#4)?

"All"

is an awfully

large amount

of

information,

and it means

there would

never be

anything

deemed

inappropriate

for inclusion

because it

says "all".

I

thought this

was just going

to be some

top-level

history like

whatever is on

the wiki right

now, but this

proposal is a

massive

expansion in

scope.

Some

historical

documents are

useful to keep

around for

reference. 

Others just

aren't, so why

spend time

preserving ALL

of them?

Are

we going to

spend our

limited

volunteer time

and effort

documenting

the past, or

are we going

to instead

focus on how

to make our

future efforts

have more

real-world

results?

-Alicia

On

Sun, Jan 8,

2017 at 5:56

PM, Ken

Moellman <ken.mo...@lpky.org> wrote:

 

The

following is a

motion seeking

a sponsor and

co-sponsors, to

create the

Historic

Preservation

Committee,

tasked with

preserving and

publishing all

historical

documents of

the Party.








Add

a line item to

chart in

subsection 1

of section

1.03 of the

Policy Manual,

which reads

(column name

in italics):





(Committee

name)

Historic

Preservation

Committee


(Size)

Two

(2) LNC

Members or

Alternates,

plus up to

five (5)

non-LNC

members.


(Member

Selection)

LNC

Members or

Alternates

selected by

LNC. Non-LNC

members

selected by

the committee,

which shall be

accepted

unless

objected to by

a majority of

the LNC within

14 days of

notification.

 


(Chair

Selection)

*

Committee

Selected








Create

a new

subsection

under section

2.02 of the

Policy Manual,

which reads:





x)

Historic

Preservation

Committee





The

goal of the

Historic

Preservation

Committee is

to preserve

historical

documents of

the party.  To

that end, the

committee

shall:


1.

With the

assistance of

staff and the

Secretary,

maintain all

physical

historic

information in

a safe and

climate

controlled

environment.

Any costs for

document

storage shall

be presented

to the LNC and

shall be

accepted

unless

objected to by

the majority

of the entire

LNC within 14

days.


2.

With the

assistance of

staff and the

Secretary,

collect all

public

electronic

records.


3.

With the

assistance of

the IT

Committee and

staff, provide

and maintain a

permanent

public

document

archive in the

form of a

publicly-viewable

website which

is separate

from the

Party's

primary

website.


4.

Make a good

faith effort

to preserve

and publish

all historical

documents, and

transform

physical

documents into

electronic

format toward

that end.


5.

Vote to

recommend the

destruction of

any original

document, or

document for

which no other

copy is

available. No

such document

shall be

destroyed

without the

consent of the

LNC, as

outlined in

Section

2.07(x).


6.

At each LNC

meeting,

present a

summary of

physical

document

preservation

mechanisms

currently

being

utilized, and

the number of

documents

preserved in

electronic

format.


7.

Ensure that

any document

that would

qualify for

discussion

under the

rules of

executive

session for

the LNC, as

outlined under

Section

1.02(5),

remains

private until

such time that

the Executive

Committee, or

the entire

LNC, meeting

in executive

session, votes

in the

affirmative to

make that

information

public.


8.

Within one

business day,

inform the LNC

of any

committee

appointments.


9.

Publicly

announce and

permit a

public

audience for

all meetings,

other than

those meetings

held for the

explicit

purpose of

discussing

historic items

that would

qualify for

Executive

Session.  





Nothing

listed in the

responsibilities, powers, or scope of this Committee shall be construed

to prevent or

circumvent the

normal

operation of

the Party's

main website

or to

interfere in

the duties of

the Secretary

as mandated by

the Party

Bylaws or this

Policy Manual.








Create

a new

subsection

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

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

Yes, having LPedia up to snuff technically is of no use to us if we cannot "run" it. And we want to do that with little need to no need from staff.  And the purpose in great part of LPedia is historical.  Some of us on our own are collecting items ready to put up there.  The 1972-1990 LP News will be available and old issues of the Liberty Pledge.  I have other things being sent to me from multiple Party members very excited by the possibilities.  This I also think will solve some of the "old website" consternation on the static pages - so that any archiving or transfer will not be simply static pages frozen in time.

I have been doing a good deal behind the scenes with Party members.  

-Caryn Ann

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

Nope.  Still entirely too long, detailed and micro-managing.  I would support the 

short and sweet version that Wes proposed the other day.

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

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

I'm not going to research all my email archives at the moment, but I believe at times the Chair of the Audit Committee has declared all emails to be "documents" in the context of also declaring all board members have the right to view all "documents." And staff has periodically provided batches  of emails to the Audit Committee along those lines.

I've usually written my emails with the assumption someone was snooping, someone would eventually request them via discovery etc, forward them to try to embarrass me, or they'd one day make it to the web, but not all the "documents" people have sent to me were written with that in mind. I've got some goodies.  Having said that, let me think about it for a while, but there's a chance I'd be honored to have all my "documents" posted online, allowing the brilliance I've shared with individuals over the years to be enjoyed by the world.

One of the reasons I suggested a simpler motion to get things started was because as the committee got started working, it could answer some of the implementation questions that would come up as work progressed. Definitions of "documents" could be better clarified. Perhaps requirements for "all" would get replaced with lists of priorities "we're starting with LP News, then Pledge News, the Press releases, number 29 on the priority list is Wes's brilliant emails to LNC-Business, followed by number 30, Wes's file cabinet. 

The item below gives me pause: "5. Vote on whether to recommend the destruction of any original document . . . "

I doubt preserving and publishing every email I've ever written is the intent of the motion, but I'm not sure.

I also get concerned because we are quite often involved in lawsuits where discovery requires the compilation of "all documents or emails that mention or are related to _______".  In theory, I could spend ______  months full time working on a discovery request, and for that reason, a discussion with legal counsel and the LNC about the pros and cons of document retention and duration is probably advisable.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
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

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

==One of the reasons I suggested a simpler motion to get things started was because as the committee got started working, it could answer some of the implementation questions that would come up as work progressed.==

This is definitely a good point.  And the simply motion would get that going, but it didn't address at all the running of LPedia which is a concern and right now is in twilight zone. Staff certainly doesn't need that on their hands.

-Caryn Ann

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

I think we know the intent, but the ED is right that these things can get messy in the event of a lawsuit.  Discovery requests are often written broadly.  As you know, we can destroy things in keeping with our document retention policy, but cannot destroy things because of pending litigation, nor can we destroy things when we suspect a suit is coming in violation of our own policies.  If we aren't careful about "documents," we could end up facing legal problems in such an event.  

The law on these things isn't all that clear.  The Supreme Court decided that fish are not "tangible objects" when that term appeared on a list of things like documents and corporate records, despite the fact that fish are, obviously, tangible objects.  

That said, we don't have a document retention policy.  Maybe that's one of the reasons wording this is difficult - we're trying to do some of that work while doing this.  I would suggest it might be helpful to separate internal "business" items, like purchase orders, instructions to staff, etc., from things that are actually party history, which this motion seems to be aimed at addressing.  They really need two different policies.

Joshua A. Katz

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

Staff isn't going to run LPedia. Don't have time. And don't want to be involved in the fights over who gets to post what. Ken Moellman's working to set up a new account with hosting so the good content can be moved there so others can work on it. I almost paid the bill for it a couple hours ago but ran into a temporary PayPal hiccup. But it'll get done soon. 

Staff will try to refuse to control LPedia. My intention is to give control to Ken till he gets it moved, and then I expect either I or Ken will give control to Caryn Ann and she can open up control to whomever barring action from the Chair or LNC to change that (which I'd only expect if Caryn Ann is doing something unacceptable).

I think a great scenario is what will happen without a motion. A motion (as it goes through the legislative process) is likely to muck up the great scenario path we're already on. I've been helping you and Ken with this, and that's without motions or even the chair telling me I have to do this.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
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 1/12/2017 7:24 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

==One of the reasons I suggested a simpler motion to get things started was because as the committee got started working, it could answer some of the implementation questions that would come up as work progressed.==

This is definitely a good point.  And the simply motion would get that going, but it didn't address at all the running of LPedia which is a concern and right now is in twilight zone. Staff certainly doesn't need that on their hands.

-Caryn Ann

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

I gave Caryn Ann and Susan Hogarth a tour of our basement archives and our storage unit archives when they were here for the last LNC meeting. I have since shipped a Microfilm of old LP News issues per request from Caryn Ann and have assigned Nick D. to bundle up Pledge News to send to Joe Buchman so he can get it scanned for posting online.

I did all that willingly and eagerly, because I'd like to see the info preserved and used myself, and I did that without being ordered to and without a policy manual provision forcing me to or getting in the way.

I think we're all better able to help without having complicated rules to trip over.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
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

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

I hear you Wes, and my goal is to have this out of your hair.  Having a committee however does give legitimacy to the effort and will get then volunteers to assist who are serious and we would have Party accountability.  Your simply proposed motion (I know you can't propose motions, perhaps suggested motion is the correct word) would get things moving but I do think it should include LPedia in some way. I will be speaking further with Ken about this off-list.

-Caryn Ann

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

And in the meantime I am transcribing the original five proposed versions of the Statement of Principles from the 1972 convention.  Fun!  And wow, very Randian.  Hearing Hospers present his version to the delegates is quite the thrill.

- Caryn Ann

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.be...@lp.org> wrote:

I gave Caryn Ann and Susan Hogarth a tour of our basement archives and our storage unit archives when they were here for the last LNC meeting. I have since shipped a Microfilm of old LP News issues per request from Caryn Ann and have assigned Nick D. to bundle up Pledge News to send to Joe Buchman so he can get it scanned for posting online.

I did all that willingly and eagerly, because I'd like to see the info preserved and used myself, and I did that without being ordered to and without a policy manual provision forcing me to or getting in the way.

I think we're all better able to help without having complicated rules to trip over.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
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

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

I just sent a more reasonable version of the motion to the list.

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 Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

I hear you Wes, and my goal is to have this out of your hair.  Having a committee however does give legitimacy to the effort and will get then volunteers to assist who are serious and we would have Party accountability.  Your simply proposed motion (I know you can't propose motions, perhaps suggested motion is the correct word) would get things moving but I do think it should include LPedia in some way. I will be speaking further with Ken about this off-list.

-Caryn Ann

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

 

 

I realize the motion is long, but I think it also addresses every legitimate concern while providing the least effort from the LNC.  Appoint 2 people every 2 years. Veto authority on committee appointments. Vote on destroying stuff before it's destroyed.

 

And it was not my intention to publish staff emails or other operational documents.  This is about the stuff in the basement, LP News, official motions/actions by the LNC, etc. -- public documents.  Put all of that stuff out on LPedia, so it's as public as it always is supposed to be anyway (but actually accessible and organized). 

 

If we decide to do something simpler, I'm okay with that. I just like to look at the long-term.

 

---

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