McArdle Blasts LNC Public Discussion List

The thread began with a mild discussion of organizing discussion threads.  It ended up someplace else.  The more or less full discussion is at the bottom of this article.

Pat Ford made the highly sensible proposal that in LNC discussions there should be one thread for discussion of a motion and a separate thread that would only be votes on a motion. Caryn Ann Harlos warned the proposal could be abused. Adam Haman agreed. Adrian Malagon condemned the use of the public list for discussions. Pat Ford emphasized that it was difficult to follow votes when they were mixed with discussion. Malagon agreed. Andrew Watkins proposed that most discussion should not be public Harlos reminded the LNC that the bylaws specify what topics may be kept secret. Ford condemned the idea that asking for separate threads implied asking for secrecy.

National Chair McArdle condemned the public list: “We are going to need to change the way we do business on the list.

Here’s what I observe: Tons of energy expended on tying up the LNC, undermining my authority, acting in defiance of my explicit instructions, insulting me, dragging staff into list business, complaints, incomplete JC appeals, meddling in subcommittees and general disruption and chaos. Almost zero energy is being spent on supporting our candidates or fundraising. Every ounce of energy is sucked up into this drama, and it needs to stop. It’s unprofessional, embarrassing, and actively damaging to party operations.”

The start: Pat Ford wrote: In the spirit of Madame Chair’s request, I’ve placed this in a separate thread … While I enjoy the repartee, bon mots, and hijinx, I would like to discuss limiting voting threads to … votes. A separate thread subtitled EMail Vote (title) Discussion would help distinguish votes, from related discussion. Thoughts?

Pat Ford
Regional Representative The Region Formerly Known As Region 8

——————————

From: LP Secretary

It would require a Policy Manual change. Easy change. It’s been both ways but I’ll give the same opposition. That has been used in past to move only votes to public list and put everything else in secret. I opposed this two terms ago for same reason.
——————————–

Adam Haman

I agree with the Secretary here. It’s annoying, admittedly, but it’s very transparent.

——————————–

Adrian Malagon

I’m with Mr. Ford on this one. While I’ve had some bangers over my LNC tenure and I don’t mind people seeing them (lookin’ at you WaPo) I’m not a huge fan of putting everything on the public list. It’s just not necessary and wildly counterproductive. Keeping it to reports, minutes, votes is fine by me. We don’t need to air out all our dirty laundry every time.

————————-

From: Pat Ford

There’s no reason that accompanying discussion can’t be public. And, as our threads currently stand, a flowchart is necessary to follow votes, particularly abstention and vote changes, in a manner that is decidedly opaque.

—————————

From: Adrian Malagon

Sure, that makes sense. I would just again urge fellow Board Members to speak to others or at the very least think before posting.

Shaming the ignorant is exhausting, but someone has to do it.

—————————————

Andrew Watkins

I understand the concerns surrounding transparency and can sympathize with that. Overall, though I don’t think it’s wise to have the majority of our conversations in public. Especially as a political organization. I’m sure we could come to some sort of clear consensus about what can and cannot be disclosed much like we already do with executive session.

—————————————–

From: LP Secretary

It is not a consensus thing. The Bylaws dictate the only things that can be “secret,” and any LNC member can just mirror everything said elsewhere in an environment that I would guess we would like a whole lot less. And right now, it would require a policy manual change. I would urge this LNC not to be the anti-transparency LNC.

—————————————–

From: Pat Ford

Somehow a desire to present a clear cogent voting thread to the public, with a separate thread for vigorous debate, constitutes an attempt at secrecy. That is pure projection, and uncalled for.

——————————–

Angela McArdle

We are going to need to change the way we do business on the list.

Here’s what I observe:

Tons of energy expended on tying up the LNC, undermining my authority, acting in defiance of my explicit instructions, insulting me, dragging staff into list business, complaints, incomplete JC appeals, meddling in subcommittees and general disruption and chaos.

Almost zero energy is being spent on supporting our candidates or fundraising. Every ounce of energy is sucked up into this drama, and it needs to stop. It’s unprofessional, embarrassing, and actively damaging to party operations.

I will provide the least explosive remedy I can think of very soon.

Angela McArdle
Chair, Libertarian National Committee