Document:LNC Minutes 11-12 August 1990: Difference between revisions

Allard reviewed the  involvement  by  [[Jeniece LaCross]] in activities  of the LP  of Washington State, and  said  that while we had dealt with the  situation properly, we  should  adopt  a

The policy for  use of an  individual's name in a  solicitation letter will be as follows: (a) The names of individuals who have been elected or  appointed  into  positions  in  the  federal,  state,  and  local government and anyone  who has direct influence over government policy may be used  in the letter campaigns; (b) The names of individuals who have become "public  figures" because of  their actions may be used in the letter campaign;  (c) The names of those individuals identified in (a) and (b)  may be used  to emphasize the LP  positions on issues and

the injustice of  the government policy;  (d) The content  of  letters will not state  the feelings or  thoughts of  any  individual  in  the absence of evidence  to support the statement; and (e) All other names of individuals not  identified in (a)  and (b) will be  used only with the written permission of the individual or his/her family.

Ahmad said that this served the purpose of the proposed motion he had distributed prior to the meeting, and that since we all agree with this policy there is no reason not to adopt it.

Alexander objected; he  said that passing  this resolution  would  not satisfy the people who are complaining and might encourage them to ask for  more,  that  this  goes  against  our  effort  to  clean  up  the resolutions, that the policy he has already announced is stricter than this, and that  it is inconsistent  to have a resolution just for this particular case when  there  are  no  resolutions  prohibiting  saying exactly the same thing in anything other than a fundraising letter nor prohibiting saying other kinds of unfavorable things about people in a fundraising letter.

Neale moved to amend by changing  "elected or appointed" to "elected, appointed, volunteered, enlisted,  or otherwise hired";  there was no objection.

Additional points in  the discussion included:  this policy would  not have prohibited a fundraising letter about Lear, we need to be able to rely on people's  good judgment rather  than  depend  on  a  list  of prohibitions, even if  this will not  satisfy LaCross there are  other people who will  wonder why we  don't take a position,  this  proposal would do nothing  about telephone fundraising or items in the LP News, it would be  better to have  a broader policy developed by the Finance Committee, and if  we pass this  it will be clear  that it is  just  a

response to the incident and not something that we really expect to be useful as a guide for the future.

The motion failed on a vote of 6 to 8, with Allard, Thies, and Ahmad voting yes.