[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Committee Transparency revived

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sat Aug 13 18:05:08 EDT 2016


I hoped to write more today but could not.

I can agree to withdraw the phone number provision though I think phone
should be provided IF the committee member is willing.  I think the same
for LNC members btw but that is a different story.

-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>


On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:55 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> I agree with Starchild.
>
>
>
> From a political perspective, lack of transparency, authoritarianism and
> cronyism go hand in hand.
>
>
>
> From an economic perspective, transparency builds trust.
>
>
>
> From a social perspective, transparency builds relationships.
>
>
>
> From a business perspective, transparency is good business.
>
>
>
> From a communications perspective, transparency results in accurate
> information and knowledge.
>
>
>
> From an organizational perspective, transparency inspires collaboration.
>
>
>
> Hmmmm – Transparency has a lot going for it, doesn’t it!
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee
>
> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus
>
> Secretary at LPNE.org
>
> David.Demarest at LP.org
>
> DPDemarest at centurylink.net
>
> David.Demarest at firstdata.com
>
> http://www.LPNE.org <http://www.lpne.org/>
>
> http://www.LP.org <http://www.lp.org/>
>
> Cell:      402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
> Office: 402-222-7207
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Starchild
> *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2016 8:21 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Committee Transparency revived
>
>
>
>             As most if not all of you are probably aware, I think
> transparency is absolutely vital. Thank you Caryn, for raising the issue in
> relation to our subcommittees. I fully agree and support.
>
>
>
>             Why is transparency vital? Ultimately it is because how we
> handle information is closely related to the issue of *power*.
>
>
>
>             How power functions in an organization or system is something
> that those who have power are often uncomfortable talking about as such.
> Nevertheless I think it behooves us as Libertarian leaders to overcome this
> discomfort and both think about it and talk about it openly and frankly,
> because the nature of power is central to the problem of State aggression
> that we are seeking to address.
>
>
>
>             To my concerns about how the Libertarian Party's structure
> and culture address, or fail to address, the problem of power, I've
> sometimes heard the response, "But Libertarians don't have money or power!"
> That's mostly true, *at this point*. But if and when the Libertarian
> Party does gain the political clout that we would like to see it attain so
> that it will be a more effective vehicle for advancing the cause of
> freedom, it will become a very real issue – and if we wait until then to
> address it, it may be too late. By then we may have proceeded irrevocably
> far down the path taken by the Democrats and Republicans into becoming
> organizations whose movers and shakers are motivated by seeking power and
> money not as means to an end, but as *the* desired ends. I believe we
> should try our utmost to set strong structural and cultural foundations and
> safeguards now, to at least forestall, if not prevent, what I think may
> otherwise be a natural eventuality. Not for nothing has it been said that
> the price of liberty is eternal vigilance!
>
>
>
>             As Libertarians, we are familiar with and generally accept
> the axiom that when it comes to government, power corrupts. While I've
> occasionally heard people in the freedom movement flirt with the idea that
> a benevolent dictatorship might be better for society than democracy, I
> think most of us see the big problem with that:  Dictatorships don't tend
> to *remain* benevolent, for the aforementioned reason that power
> corrupts. But we perhaps have not thought enough about the fact that power,
> with its attendant problems, doesn't exist *only* in governments. While
> not every group is a *government*, every group has *governance*. By this
> I mean that every group has some process by which decisions get made,
> whether that process happens formally in accordance with rules laid out in
> some document such as bylaws or a policy manual, or informally such as via
> a discussion during which a group of colleagues who happen to meet in a
> hotel lobby and form a dinner party decide where to eat.  Thus every group
> must somehow answer this question of how decisions within the organization
> are made, and how it answers that question says a lot about the nature of
> the organization. Naturally the larger and more powerful the group and the
> more significant the decisions it makes, the more crucial the answer
> becomes.
>
>
>
>             As Libertarians, we seek a society where power is radically
> decentralized, down to the level of each individual choosing how to run his
> or her own life so long as it does not involve initiating force or fraud
> against others. Part of the reason we have faced difficulty in persuading
> the public to embrace this vision, I believe, is that people are
> insufficiently accustomed to being independent and empowered in other parts
> of their lives. Take two individuals and put them into a situation where
> someone is making unjust demands upon them, one who was reared as a slave
> and taught to be obedient to authority, and another who grew up in a
> culture where she was encouraged to always think for herself and question
> authority. Which one is likely to be more assertive in standing up for her
> rights?
>
>
>
>             To have the best chances of effectively advancing the
> interests of the freedom movement, an organization like a political party
> which seeks to enlist and mobilize members of the public en masse should
> seek to organize itself so that power is highly decentralized, and
> individuals in the organization empowered from the bottom up, and to
> cultivate an organizational culture which reflects these values. In other
> words, build an institution that will not only fight for freedom directly,
> but will also by more indirect and subtle influences mold those who
> participate in it to be more suited to living as free men and women in a
> free society. Or as Gandhi said, be the change we wish to see in the world.
>
>
>
>             The State after all is not just a parasitic organization that
> is wholly alien and external to society, much as it can seem that way at
> times. Parasitic it certainly is, but like a cancer it grows out of society
> itself. The degree to which it metastasizes or is contained depends upon
> the attitudes that the populace collectively holds toward power – how much
> they are willing to trust "leaders", how much control they are willing to
> turn over to those leaders for the sake of convenience, expediency, etc.
>
>
>
>             I'm sure you've all heard the saying, "knowledge is power".
> If knowledge *is* power, then those in an organization who have the
> knowledge, have the power. Therefore if we want power in the Libertarian
> Party to be decentralized and distributed – if we want a grassroots party
> truly run by its members, and not by a small, entrenched clique at the top
> – then knowledge in the party needs to be decentralized and distributed. In
> particular, knowledge that is empowering with regard to participation in
> the decision-making processes of the organization.
>
>
>
>             Failure to share knowledge may not always carry a readily
> visible price tag, but I believe the price we pay is a high
> one. Libertarians – especially those in leadership positions who currently
> control information – often express concerns about the potential costs of
> transparency, but meanwhile we pay little attention to *the costs of
> secrecy*. I believe secrecy does far more damage to our party on a
> continual, ongoing basis than transparency would under the hypothetical
> scenarios in which it has been speculated that our political opponents
> might find out information about what we're doing that they could somehow
> turn to their advantage. Among the costs of secrecy:
>
>
>
> • It breeds rumors and mistrust
>
>
>
> • To the extent we keep secrets from our own members while decrying
> government secrecy, it makes us look like hypocrites
>
>
>
> • It reduces party unity and solidarity by undermining the sense that
> every pledge-signing LP member is a trusted and valued part of the team
>
>
>
> • It impedes the development of a "farm team" of people with the knowledge
> of how to do the various things that we do
>
>
>
> • To the extent we keep secret the amounts we are paying in salaries, to
> contractors, and for supplies and services, we deny ourselves the
> cost-savings advantages of competitive bidding, because people who might be
> willing to offer us equivalent or better goods or services for less than
> they are currently costing us, lack access to the information needed to
> make those offers
>
>
>
> • Most crucially of all, secrecy interferes with accountability
>
>
>
>             To the extent that you don't know what your leaders are
> doing, you cannot hold them accountable. Allowing a situation in which
> ordinary LP members* cannot or do not hold our leaders accountable* is
> very dangerous. It sets us up to slide gradually down the slope to becoming
> just another political party run from the top down by people who are in it
> for power and money.
>
>
>
>             I referred above to members who *cannot or do not *hold our
> leaders accountable. The "or do not" part is important. We know that the
> American people *could*, if they paid attention to what those in power
> were doing and made wise voting choices and exercised their civic
> responsibilities accordingly, hold those in power accountable. That premise
> is the reason for our existence as an organization. But over the past few
> decades, we've seen how difficult it has been to get them to collectively
> use that power as they ought to. So why don't they? For many reasons,
> obviously, but I think some of those reasons have to do with how easy it is
> to see and understand what is going on.
>
>
>
>             P.J. O'Rourke said the following, and I think he was only
> partly joking:
>
>
>
> *“The government is huge, stupid, greedy and makes nosy, officious and
> dangerous intrusions into the smallest corners of life – this much we can
> stand. But the real problem is that government is boring.  We could cure or
> mitigate the other ills Washington visits on us if we could only bring
> ourselves to pay attention to Washington itself.”*
>
>
>
>             To provide truly excellent Libertarian leadership, I think we
> should not only fully embrace transparency, but *actively encourage* our
> members to use it for purposes of empowering themselves and holding us
> accountable! Let's ask ourselves which operational practices we can
> implement that will do the most to build a party culture in which knowledge
> and power are shared and ordinary members are actively engaged in their
> party's governance, so that some of these habits of individual empowerment
> and questioning authority will rub off on everyone who has any significant
> contact with our organization, and they can carry these values with them
> out into the larger society.
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>                                    ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
>                                 (415) 625-FREE
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2016, at 8:46 PM, lnc-votes at hq.lp.org wrote:
>
>
>
> PS:  That means that most of Ken's concerns are problem he should have
> with the system we have *right now*.  I am not proposing anything new or
> revolutionary.  I am simply wishing to codify that with the transfer of any
> authority the duties of that authority, as it exists *right now*, must
> also be transferred.
>
>
>
> If anyone is truly opposed to that, I am in wonder that no motions or
> attempts to change the LNC rules as they are *right now *hasn't been
> attempted.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your input!
>
>
>
> I will respond in full this weekend (maybe tomorrow) but the elephant in
> the room that is being ignored is this:  these items are being taken care
> of by the LNC *right now.*  It is transparent *right now.*  I am not
> proposing *further transparency than we have right now.  *Since we have
> that *right now* and it is supported by our membership and was passed by
> the LNC, I would find any attempt to shift this to a committee without the *transparency
> we have right now* as a back door attempt to abrogate current policy and
> would oppose.
>
>
>
> That being said, there are some of Ken's points I can agree to or
> concede.  More details in my full response.
>
>
>
> I thank you sincerely for your participation.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org
>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I agree with Ken in his analysis of this proposal 100%  We are a political
> party, not a social club and the members and delegates
>
> elect LNC members to do the business of the party.  Committees have enough
> serious work of the party to accomplish without
>
> having to worry about every action or word being help up for criticism.
>
>
>
> I would consider supporting Ken's proposal if there were an amount of
> spending that would trigger a review or approval of the chair.  I
>
> doubt the chair wants to be involved in micro-managing the expenditures of
> several committees for stamps and envelopes.  Either a
>
> set dollar amount or percentage of that committee's budget would be
> acceptable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> So, I'm breaking this down, and I still have a few concerns. (I never
> intended to de-rail before, sorry about that.)
>
>
>
>
>
> First, there are committees with no power to spend, but are strategic in
> nature that would fall under this proposal. Specifically, I can tell you
> that the Ballot Access Committee has discussed important strategies on how
> to achieve ballot access.
>
>
>
> I have already heard from some members that they believe committee
> transparency would expose our strategy, putting us at greater risk of being
> on the wrong end of shenanigans. By the wording, these substantial
> strategies would be required to be exposed.
>
>
>
> And it's not even just the Ballot Access Committee. Look at Affiliate
> Support or Candidate Support; do we really want to let our opposition know
> our next few chess moves?  I foresee a day where our opposition raises
> money to counter the actions of a candidate to be funded by the LNC before
> the candidate even gets the money from the LNC.  Politics is a game of
> chess, and telling your opponent your next 3 moves means you're either
> really good, or really dumb. And I don't see us winning elections, so that
> might narrow such a move into only one of those two categories...
>
>
>
> I'm all about transparency, but only after the information is of no value
> to our opponents anymore, and cannot be used by our opponents to cause harm
> to the party or its candidates.
>
>
>
>
>
> Second, a committee would be able to set their own rules on executive
> session.  What stops a committee from adopting rules that puts them
> permanently into executive session whenever they're in a business meeting?
> Unless, of course, we create special rules for every committee (and clutter
> up the Policy Manual -- sorry, but it's true!)
>
>
>
>
>
> Third, you're talking about creating new mailing lists aliases.  That's
> more work for the LNC staff.
>
>
>
>
> Fourth, the Ballot Access Committee has had one or two emergency meetings.
> There are times when 48 hours notice is not realistic.
>
>
>
>
>
> Fifth, I strongly oppose publishing my phone number on LP.org.  I'm
> already annoyed enough that I get phone calls from petition coordinators
> from around the US. It is great to have my phone going off in the middle of
> the day while I'm trying to be on a conference call, or trying to lead a
> meeting (sarcasm). Maybe some folks like having their phones blown up and
> being put on spammer phone lists. I do not.
>
>
>
>
>
> Finally, I would suggest not hardcoding the "public reflector" language.
> There are better ways to publicize mailing lists that don't involve the
> current configuration which could be examined in the future.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So, now that I'm through everything that I see wrong with it, here's what
> I'd counter-propose:
>
>
>
> *Any committee which has been empowered to expend funds shall notify the
> LNC chair, in writing, of the exact wording of any motion passed by the
> committee to expend funds, and the LNC chair shall be responsible for
> approving those expenditures prior to funds being expended.  All
> expenditures shall be recorded in compliance with the law and this policy
> manual.  All expenditures shall be reported to the full LNC at the next
> in-person LNC meeting.*
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-08-11 22:20, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> As per the request of several committee members, here once again is what I
> like to offer as a Policy Manual Amendment:
>
>
>
> 2) Committee Transparency
>
> The names and contact information (phone number, email address, or
> both)for all committee members shall be posted on the LP.org website.
> Unless otherwise specifically excepted on a committee-by-committee basis or
> within the committee's own published standing rules for "executive
> session," all committee meetings shall be open to any member of the
> National Party to observe or listen and all electronic committee
> correspondences shall bemade available on a public reflector system on the
> LP.org website, the location of which will be published with the
> committee contact information. Notices, minutes, agendas, and call-in
> information of committee meetings shall be published to said reflector list
> or otherwise on the LP.org <http://lp.org/> website, including a record
> of all substantive committee actions and how each membervoted. At least 48
> hours public notice will be given for any committee meeting.
>
>
>
>
>
> My intent for this is that I want to empower committees but will oppose
> that if it adds a layer of opacity that does not presently exist.  Right
> now, we as an LNC are micromanaging things, but at least the members can
> see the decisions.
>
>
>
> I would like some real discussion on this and respectfully ask that any
> discussions about the policy manual being too long, or needing to be
> consolidated, that do not debate or make suggestions as to the merit of
> this specific proposal have their own email thread.
>
>
>
> I want to sponsor with Joshua Katz a Candidate Support Committee.  But I
> cannot/will not unless we have transparency in place either in the
> description of that committee or as a general rule which guides all of our
> committees.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-votes mailing list
> Lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>


-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160813/8560a16b/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list