I am not going to discuss a volunteer in public. I have been to the meetings and have made my own judgment about whether we are being represented well. In my opinion, not. I understand you may disagree. That is all I am going to say on the matter though anyone can speak to me privately. My phone number is public.
In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos
LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250
I do feel I need to add a little here. Our appointees serve at our pleasure. That is how committees work. I did invite phone calls for my reasons, but it is our job to make sure our appointees are representing the interests of the Party as we see them. I understand people have different opinions on this but all this discussion of “against will” and the like do not belong. Our appointees serve at the will of the committee and should be open to feedback of the LNC. I have paid close attention and support these motions as I do not feel like the LNC is being properly represented. That is my opinion. I respect others can disagree. And one of those interests is in the rules being followed, which I understand is not everyone’s favorite pastime with no malice. I believe Adrian is best precisely because he has a strong personality – yes, one that can go over the line (but last night things got really over the line and I am grateful, no matter who likes it or not, that Adrian jumped in as my face was getting bit off when I said and did nothing to provoke it). If you were not there, you do not know. It is my observation that there needs to be a balance of strong personalities on the CC and Adrian would bring that counter balance. Just as there needs to be the quiet strong worker bees which the committee also has in spades – and I apologize if my critigues were made like I was just saying no one is doing anything etc, nothing could be farther from from the truth). I too have a strong personality, but I am not a good choice for a primary seat because I have voluntarily conflicted myself out on the Michigan dispute and would even leave the “room” during it. This is not some witch trial for or against someone but what I believe to be best for the credentialling process with my STRONG BIAS being that all rightfully elected and appointed delegates be seated no matter who they are, but any that were not, should be omitted from the credentials report. I believe it is in the interest of the LNC to have appointees who hold that value. Everyone pays good money to be there and has the RIGHT to be assured that all are following not only by the national bylaws but their own rules. That is the contract we Libertarians in this voluntary association have with each other.
I will say that it is somewhat…. And I don’t know the right word, so fill it in because I can’t, for so much interest just when a solution is brought but none, not even inquisitive prods over months, while I have been spending every waking moment living this stuff. Call me elitist, but I do think putting in the time and putting in the work is necessary not just dropping in to have an opinion. I know that will not be popular. Okay. It is my opinion.
I also don’t like it being insinuated that I am doing some wrong to Ms. Graham. I adore her. She is a fantastically hard worker and personally fascinating individual. But I did not misrepresent her position. If an LNC seat was vacant, she would remain in her PA seat and yield to the second alternate. In each and every case. And that is admirable and I respect it, but then we really do not have a first alternate. That is all I was saying, and yes, that comports with her stated desire to put her Pennsylvania appointment first. I had believed that if she had to step in, then her PA alternate would step in for her but I respect she believes that would be too much PA representation. I don’t hold that position, but I respect she does. So she is First Alternate in name only – that is all my motion said, and I would like us to have at least two, preferably three actual alternates.
That is my position, and I don’t recognize the caricature that has been made here. But yes I do have a position, clearly, and it is stated above. The eyes of the world will be upon us, and we absolutely need a lot of discipline to get there. Again, I invite personal calls if desired. I will keep track of votes and the like, but I am stepping away from the LNC list. Please ping me if there is something urgent.
The Policy Manual actually doesn’t say that. I think you are thinking of the Bylaws. And throughout our history, including an appointment last term (by a state party which allegedly has three months to appoint) someone was appointed late. If you thought this was a legitimate point, you should not have voted to appoint Scott Peterson…. Yet you did. We did make our appointments. It does not say someone cannot be removed. It does not say a resignation can be filled. It gives five seats to the LNC to choose how it sees fit and does the same for the top five affiliates. It was obvious last term that the late appointment was done to steer the committee a certain way, and you know what? I didn’t like it (but there was nothing against the rules) and in that case it was done by a state in which the Party Chair was also the state chair. I didn’t see you saying a word about that anywhere.
The fact is that the states and the committees are giving appointment power to represent their point of view. We have every right to do so and I made my point of view explicit. I appreciated the responses by Chair Hlavka but I believe they proved my point. We need strong voices to represent our point of view and help keep things on track properly.
Perhaps someone would wish to move in the future that the LNC gets no credentials appointments. I tend to favor state appointments for top performing states, per capita states, and perhaps some random selection.
But we are the parent appointing body. Our appointees serve at our pleasure. I understand you disagree. I believe the motions were a motivating factor in a lot of very positive movement I see, but I want to insure that things keep in that direction and our voices are considered.
I am not triggered by the way. I see this as our responsibility. I had to fight for the rights of members to attend these meetings, and I fought for that right also on behalf of people I do not always agree with. That means all deliberations will be open unless it involved PII. People can then judge for themselves.
There are incredible hardworking people on this committee. I will use the word “shenanigans,” and that is by people using a legitimate motion and legitimate concerns I have to further their own political goals. I leave that to you and anyone else to decide if that applies to them. I have been very open about my concerns and Chair Hlavka has addressed a great many. But in that address I think he proved my point that we need a strong LNC voice in OUR representatives to keep things on track as I would expect any state to do.
The politicization of this for personal advancement is despicable to me, and I am getting back to work.