[Lnc-business] Committee Transparency revived

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun Aug 14 15:09:11 EDT 2016


Sure thing Whitney, here is my amended proposal.



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 be
made 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 member voted. At least 48 hours public notice will be
given for any committee meeting, with the exception of emergency sessions
called as per the committee’s published standing rules.


======



I am going to group the objections by category:



PHONE NUMBER:  As it is worded above, it is not mandatory to list phone
number.  It says email address, phone number,  *or both*.   Right now there
is NO contact information for committee members.  That is what I was
addressing.



EXECUTIVE SESSION: My proposal allows for things that truly must be
confidential to be kept so but requires the Committee to have Standing
Rules so that members could know which areas would be covered.  Some
Committees, such as the APRC, would be excepted in full.  As we learn of
situations in which secrecy (with Sunset provisions) is warranted, then
those get addressed.  The default should be transparency.



The purpose of this proposal is a general rule.  The charter of each
committee would then specify any exceptions from that general rule.  This
alone handles the concerns.  And is already done by the APRC for instance.



Starchild and David very adequately addressed the secrecy issue.  And the
fact is we are already transparent at the LNC level.



NOTICE:  Emergency sessions could be called per the committee’s standing
rules.



OVERARCHING POINT:  Anything that we might refer to a committee right now
would be handled otherwise by the LNC.  And if handled by the LNC would be
fully transparent.  It is not a service to our members to add a layer of
opacity.  If we transfer the authority, we transfer the responsibility for
that authority, including opacity and rules for Executive Session.  Just
like we follow.



CRAMPING COMMITTEE STYLE:  To that, I say, our members are more important
and modeling the way we believe a governing body should be run.  Our
Libertarian culture should be transparent and perhaps committees who cannot
operate that way (with the exception of those that must – again, exceptions
made case by case) should not be Libertarian committees.  Any organization
is going to have rules and guidelines for their committees whether it
cramps their style or not.



MISC POINTS:



LENGTH OF POLICY MANUAL:  I find that a wholly insufficient reason to not
include something needs to be there.  The fact is that if we propose any
permanent committee to handle things, that too will be a Policy Manual
addition, and it would be an awful argument against that committee that it
would add a paragraph to the PM.  I find it a similarly bad argument here.
If there are other things that can be removed from the PM, that is a
separate subject. I personally find the PM lacking and think its need
more.  We are a professional political party and that requires policies.
Members then know their rights and our obligations. We are not in
kindergarten any longer but playing with the adults.


======



As far as Ken’s alternate proposal, I find that wholly insufficient for
member transparency and vests way too much, in secret, to the Party Chair.
It not only removes members, it removes the purview of the rest of the LNC.



Further, allocating money is not the only issue.  Members have a right to
know, for instance, what the Bylaws and Platform Committees are doing.
What the IT Committee is doing, even without funds.  Etc.  There is no true
accountability without transparency and there is little grooming of
outsiders to step up to leadership – leading to an incestuous inner circle
of the same people.  This is a common complaint amongst membership.  And I
say this against self-interest, since I am on the cusp of becoming part of
that inner circle with all its advantages.



I believe every concern is addressed in my proposal which merely creates a
rebuttal presumption towards transparency that I believe every LNC member
should sign onto.


I could write more, but then there are diminishing returns.


-- 
*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 Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Caryn Ann,
>
> Can you repost your revision?  I have lost it in all the threads we have
> going...
> -----
> Starchild, it is my experience (outside of LNC) that bid proposals are
> often meant to be kept confidential per vendor policies, not necessarily
> the potential customer's policy.  Many vendors will include a
> confidentiality agreement in their bid proposals, to protect their specific
> business/products/contracts.
>
> Vendors don't want to go to the trouble of creating proposals for work
> they can/will provide, just so another company can steal the package and
> sell it as their own for cheaper...  It is common practice in the business
> world, particularly service providers, to protect one's pricing structures
> from competitors...
>
> We win so long as we are accepting the lowest bid, and negotiating as much
> as we can within the limits of the confidentiality agreement made with the
> bidders.
> -----
> It is my understanding that no subcommittee actually makes decisions for
> the Party....they make recommendations.  Such recommendations must be voted
> on by the LNC anyway, so the risk of letting people meet in secret to make
> decisions, spend money, etc...is slim to none...is it not?
>
> I am not against transparency, as some out there are
> insinuating/claiming...
> However, I do not favor authoritarian approaches.
> Case-by-case consideration should be made.
>
> I am definitely in favor of empowering subcommittees to do their work
> effectively and efficiently, and I am in favor of it all being above
> board...but we need to be cautious.
> Exposing everything we do/say/think/consider in subcommittee without
> limits has the potential to be tactically unsound.  Just as there are
> potentially untrustworthy committee members who may seek to do damage on
> these committees, there may be untrustworthy observers who may also seek to
> (or inadvertently) do damage, by misusing/misconstruing what they observe.
> When there are bad actors on the committees, there is recourse...they are
> removed.  When there are bad actors outside the committee, casting
> aspersions, exposing strategy to opponents (with intent or otherwise),
> etc...there is no recourse.
>
> So, my position, as it stands:
>
> Besides the fact that I am an individual person with a full life, and
> professional occupation, outside of the LNC, with rights to the peaceful
> enjoyment of such, and I do not want my personal phone number on the
> website...
>
> I do favor transparency.
> I do favor active communication with constituents.
> I do prefer open meetings to closed meetings, when appropriate.
> I do not prefer top-down authoritarian approaches to micromanaging
> subcommittees.
> I do not prefer increasing the size and scope of the policy manual.
>
> Again, I would like to see the latest version of the proposal.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Whitney Bilyeu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems everyone is hung up on that 48 hours meeting notice thing when I
>> had already revised the proposal to deal with the objections.  How is my
>> revision not sufficient?  I can't propose a correction if I don't know what
>> the problem with the last proposal is.
>>
>> --
>> *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 Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I like your email list idea, Tim. Committee members could all be
>>> subscribed to this list when they join a committee, and then when a
>>> committee schedules a meeting, the committee chair could notify not only
>>> interested party members but all committee members as well in a
>>> single-recipient message posted to the list, instead of having to copy them
>>> individually in an email.
>>>
>>> Having committee members' contact info, or an address that forwards to
>>> all members, included on LP.org, presumably on the Bylaws Mandated
>>> Committees page at http://lp.org/bylaws-mandated-committees , is
>>> something I've long supported. (Incidentally, that page maybe should be
>>> renamed "Standing Committees" or something, since not all of the listed
>>> committees *are* mandated by the Bylaws.)
>>>
>>> While I can see your point about the Awards Committee, if it holds its
>>> discussions secretly, this could make issues such as problems with a
>>> potential awardee, or a conflict of interest involving a committee member
>>> and someone being considered for an award, more likely to go unnoticed
>>> until after the fact. If the committee operated transparently, people who
>>> like surprises could simply refrain from paying attention to the
>>> committee's deliberations (those sitting in on such deliberations could be
>>> asked not to be "spoilers" by publicly announcing recipients ahead of
>>> time). Individuals who would rather not have their records or merits
>>> discussed publicly could just decline to be nominated for an award (as
>>> Barack Obama should have done in response to being considered for an
>>> undeserved Nobel Peace Prize).
>>>
>>> Regarding possible disclosure of campaign plans, I think Mike Shipley
>>> made some good points about this in his email to us to which I responded
>>> earlier in a separate message.
>>>
>>> Bidding seems particularly important to me to have made public, since it
>>> is likely to save us money. Any advantage that transparent bidding might
>>> give a later bidder in being able to underbid an earlier bidder can be
>>> readily addressed by allowing anyone who is underbid the opportunity to
>>> revise their bid downward accordingly. That approach would be fair to all,
>>> no?
>>>
>>> Requiring 48 hours of public notice to hold a committee meeting doesn't
>>> seem problematic to me given that we have an Operations Committee which can
>>> meet any time. Being able to meet quickly and deal with urgent matters on
>>> the drop of a dime is the only real reason I see to have an Operations
>>> Committee rather than just letting the LNC as a whole or more specialized
>>> subcommittees like the Ballot Access Committee make relevant decisions. If
>>> we're going to keep the OpCom around despite the Bylaws not providing for
>>> such an entity, shouldn't we help it justify its existence?
>>>
>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>                                ((( starchild )))
>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>                              (415) 625-FREE
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:
>>>
>>> Certain committees need to have non-public discussions on matters other
>>> than lawsuits or personnel matters, so the openness of meetings needs to be
>>> on a case-by-case basis. Some that came to my mind are when the website
>>> committee solicited bids, the bids could not be published publicly where
>>> later bidders could get an unfair competitive advantage. If a Candidate
>>> Support Committee is formed, candidates and campaign managers may not want
>>> their campaign plans available to their opponents, although any donations
>>> or in-kind contributions can be published since they will end up reported
>>> in publicly available reports.
>>>
>>> Last year the Awards Committee agreed to have confidential discussions.
>>> This allowed us to discuss the pros and cons of award nominees more
>>> frankly, and have the award recipients be surprised when the winners were
>>> announced at the convention. The award winners, but not the Hall of Liberty
>>> inductees, were kept secret until the announcement at the convention.
>>>
>>> Having a webpage where all of the committees can publish contact
>>> information (either for each committee member or an e-mail address that's
>>> forward to all members), minutes, and meeting notices would be good.
>>> Requiring 48 hours public notice before meetings is problematic. Sometime a
>>> committee may need to act fast (I'm thinking Ballot Access) and other times
>>> the most convenient time all committee members are available may be the
>>> next evening. Besides, would party members be checking the page every day
>>> to look for meeting notices? I'm just brainstorming now, but maybe we could
>>> have an e-mail list that anyone can sign up to that would announce all
>>> meeting notices.
>>>
>>> Tim Hagan
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:46 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Committee Transparency revived
>>>
>>> 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/listi nfo/lnc-business_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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160814/6870d3a4/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list