[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] would like to cut 1 issue of LP News

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

The LNC discussed and passed a budget planning for 6 issues of LP News
in 2017.

I wanted to see if there was opposition to cutting the number from 6 to
5. I have discussed this with the chair and he was okay with me floating
the proposal to the LNC.

My primary reason for wanting to cut one issue is simply to reduce the
burden on staff and allow us to focus on some other things right now.

The number of issues produced each year has varied, and you can see how
many easily by seeing the archives list here:
https://www.lp.org/lpnews-archive/

While some people have wanted us to produce more issues, and others have
suggested we eliminate LP News, my personal preference is that we do
continue to produce between 4 and 6 issues each year. There are still a
lot of members who don't pay attention to email or visit or website.

Carla Howell has been serving as editor of LP News. Her last day is June
30. She has generated 3 issues of LP News this year (February, April,
and June issues).

Eric Dixon has returned to staff. I plan to have him serve as the editor
of LP News. He has served as editor in the past.

Rather than generate August, October, and December issues, I'd prefer to
generate September and December issues.

However, again, the LNC, passed a budget for 6, and if you want me to
generate 6 issues, I'll do that, which will mean getting Eric to work on
an August issue right away.

Please speak up if you are opposed to me cutting one issue of LP News.
I'll review any opposition and discuss with the chair before making a
final decision on this.

Thanks,

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

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

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

Wes,

I am fine with that. Nick has the authority to direct staff he generally does that through you. This gets a little out of that scope of authority but, we are not spending more money so it shouldn't be a problem and we can amend the budget line in August. If it has to come to a vote, I am going to vote to trim to 5.

Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

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

I think five issues is OK. Bill Redpath
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 6/19/17, Daniel Hayes <daniel...@icloud.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] would like to cut 1 issue of LP News
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Date: Monday, June 19, 2017, 3:35 PM

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

Ken,  

If you take the time to familiarize yourself with the website, you will find the LPNews Archive has all the issues of LP News. 

Just click right there at the bottom of the page on LPNews Archive and enjoy.

You really should check out the LP webpage sometime.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

P.S. How are things going on the IT committee?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 19, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Ken Moellman <lp...@mu-net.org> wrote:

I am fine with this for the moment, while there is reorganization in the office. However, I really do enjoy getting LP News. I don't know why - maybe it's because I can take a moment to stop and read everything important going on without the clutter of social media feeds. I actually do read the whole thing every time, too.  It's also nice to see the latest edition of LP News at outreach booths and in LPO's office.

I do think that, long-term, we should pursue allowing members to opt-in for electronic delivery.  I'd probably read it that way with just as much happiness, but it might cut down on postage and printing over time.

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

I am opposed.

-Caryn Ann

--

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 

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-...@hq.lp.org]

I'm fine with 5 issues.

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

I do not object, in general, to staff not spending the entirety of a budget line where discretion counsels otherwise and the LNC has not explicitly directed that an action be taken.   

Joshua A. Katz

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

I think the context of the LNC discussion was quite clear that we wanted 6 issues.  It was a contentious discussion and a review of the video I think would make it clear.

I object.  

-Caryn Ann

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

I don't dispute that.  I do dispute the idea, if it's being suggested, that what gets said in debates matters when the motion's language is clear.  What we ended up doing, regardless of what we said, was adopting a budget.  We put controls on other lines, such as the proviso on ballot access, and we could have put one on this, but we did not.  

I either mentioned this very concern at the meeting - that we were debating as if we were deciding how many issues to put out when the motion was to set a line item number - or thought to but didn't.  I can't recall which, but I do recall being somewhat disturbed by that very thought.  

Joshua A. Katz

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

There's nothing that says an issue can't be revisited, but it was my sense that we were saying how many times per year we wanted LP News to be published. Staff shouldn't just ignore that budget unless we give new instructions superseding what was previously adopted.

Personally I think LP News ought to be published monthly, as it used to be. But we haven't been told what staff would be working on if they were to skip the issue intended for August. Since we already lack a monthly newsletter, maybe there is some other task that would justify publishing five issues instead of six in order to accommodate it? Wes should let us know what they propose to work on instead, and let the LNC review the situation and make a decision.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                         RealR...@earthlink.net

                                 (415) 625-FREE

                                   @StarchildSF

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

Dicta clarifies intent.  We get rushed along in these meetings and often times presume that intent will be upheld.  That certainly didn't work out well in committee applications and it makes me want to throw everything and the kitchen sink into motions.

I think we should honour the context and general intent or vote.  I am not at all okay with saying this is a staff discretion considering the heated debate and member passion on many sides on this issue.

-Caryn Ann

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

Starchild is right.  Number of issues loomed large and I firmly want six or a new vote.

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

I consider it entirely clear that the adoption of a budget is not an instruction to make 6 issues of a newsletter, and so have no need to consult intent.  If members of this board think a) that we should have 6 issues (I tend to agree, all else being equal), and b) that the number of issues of a newsletter should be a board decision (I tend to disagree), then I would encourage making a motion to that effect.

Joshua A. Katz

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

I have no objection to only doing 5 issues.

-Alicia

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

Bittner did it!!! HE took the issue!!

#NeverBittner!!!

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 20, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Brett Bittner <brett....@lp.org> wrote:

I take no issue to only having 5 issues of LP News in 2017.

Brett 

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

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

The discussion was contentious but the decision was clear. It is a matter of record that the LNC voted for 6 issues. The results of that vote should be changed only by another vote of the LNC.

That being said, I think it is appropriate for Wes to request a one-time waiver of a specified number of issues (hopefully just one) to resolve a temporary staffing issue due to a specific need. If the staffing issue is not temporary, a motion should be considered by the LNC that takes staff recommendations into account.

 

I do object to any possible manipulative attempt by LNC members to contravene an official LNC vote by acclamation. If staff is overburdened, we should proactively address the issue, not use manipulation to increase the LNC burden with an attempted acclamation rehash of something we have already voted on.

 

Yes, my contention above violates any possible understood ‘rule’ about not discussing motivations. Any such rule would really amount to an attempt to muzzle discussion of hidden agendas and reasoning behind those agendas. It is my opinion that much of our verbose debate is the result of hidden agendas. For better or worse, I pledge to always try to be upfront about my motivations and supporting logic. Further, I would support any general initiative to minimize endless circular arguments that just beat around the bush instead of getting straight to the point by presenting an open, assertive and transparent representation of our personal views, motivations, intent and supporting logic. Assertive transparency, the polar opposite of manipulation, just might be the key to achieving the otherwise seemingly unreachable goal of LNC and Libertarian institution consensus and enhance the role of our institutions to inspire empowered individual Libertarians.

 

Thoughts?

 

~David

 

2018 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention

 

~David Pratt Demarest

LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

LSLA Vice-Chair

Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee

Cell:      402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Hayes
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:48 AM
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] would like to cut 1 issue of LP News

 

Bittner did it!!! HE took the issue!!

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

The LNC voted on two motions - to reduce the budget line and "plan for" 4 issues, which failed, and to adopt the budget, which passed.  What we're being asked to do is either to recognize, as part of a decision, things said in debate, or to recognize a failed motion as a decision to do something else.  In my opinion, both of these violate basic principles of parliamentary procedure:  that the chair states the motion before it is voted on, that the minutes reflect the exact language of the motion, and that assemblies, including boards, make decisions via motions.  I also don't think these are technicalities - I think they are there for a reason, and setting them aside would make decision making far more difficult than it needs to be.  Members would need to think through every possible consequence of a vote, in terms of what has been said in debate.  That's why every manual embraces these principles, in one form or another.  Speaking of verbose debate serving hidden agendas - the point of these rules is to have a clear object for discussion and to avoid precisely that (the most on-point rule on that matter, though, is the prohibition against debate without a motion).  Finally, tossing aside these principles would require us to not only make decisions, not to then figure out what those decisions mean, a process akin to reading tea leaves and often requiring resort to interpretations of videotape.  The General was wiser than that, in my view.

That being said, I do, in fact, object to the speculation on (my) motives here.  I can't do much about it, but I can at least say I object.  I object to disagreement being labeled "suspicious" as has happened far too many times this term.  I object to the implication, intended or not, that disagreement implies I am being dishonest, that my opinion amounts to manipulation, and now, that this very request for polite disagreement amounts to an effort to muzzle.  While I readily admit that there is no such rule for email, there most certainly is such a rule for meetings, discussed in the section on decorum, and it, too, is there for a reason.  If we insist, though, that speculation on motives is appropriate, then the only motive I can think of for making a bald assertion which fails to address the arguments already made, followed by a suggestion that disagreement with said assertion is manipulative and dishonest, would be to silence others.  Since I assume we do not wish to silence each other with such forms of argument, I ask that such things not be done.

Thoughts?

Joshua A. Katz

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

I am happy a motion is proposed which is why I co-sponsored it so we can just decide it one way or another.

-Caryn Ann