[Lnc-business] Committee transparency
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun Sep 25 00:04:08 EDT 2016
Joshua, I will consider these and may except some but I see some I will not.
I THANK YOU for your careful consideration. I will give just as much care
in reviewing prior to our meeting tomorrow.
On Saturday, September 24, 2016, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I will be introducing the motion to amend indicated below. Bold is for
> additions, italics for removal.
>
> Before that, though, I have some comments on this motion. First, not all
> committees have power - in fact, some members of the LNC are likely to
> support this while also believing that no committees, or very few, should
> be empowered. What is the purpose of a non-empowered committee? It
> depends on the committee, but in all cases, the committee is supposed to be
> composed of people with particular knowledge in a particular area or on a
> particular question, and to return recommendations for action. RONR
> differentiates between a few sorts of committees. Standing committees are
> composed of "the strongest possible group for the handling of any task that
> may arise within the province of the committee." Special committees are
> subdivided into types. A special committee appointed to carry out an
> instruction from the assembly should be composed only of those who favor
> the action. When one is appointed for investigation and deliberation, it
> should be larger, and should represent all viewpoints within the
> organization, to the extent possible. This motion, though, treats all
> three of these committees types alike.
>
> When we impose obligations on committee members, we are limiting the pool
> of people willing to serve. We should, therefore, be sure that the
> obligation makes sense and serves a purpose. When a special committee is
> appointed to carry out an instruction, I see no particular purpose to
> compelling committee members to provide their contact information. Their
> task is not aided by being provided with the opinions of various party
> members - the views of the one, or the several, do not prevail over the
> views of the many - in particular, as ordered by the assembly or its
> appointees. The other two sorts it probably makes sense to display contact
> information for - particularly the last type. However, even there, what
> we're doing is politicizing the process of committee deliberation. We're
> purposefully trying to allow for lobbying and email campaigns - in the case
> of the candidate committee, for instance, we're making it easier to get a
> letter-writing campaign on behalf of a candidate whose campaign does not
> advance our strategic objectives. As I said here a few weeks ago, we're
> favoring the most vocal over the decisions made by the delegates as a whole.
>
> Regarding "or within the committee's own published standing rules for
> executive session," why on earth would we require this? We are discussing
> committees appointed by the LNC. The LNC operates under RONR and our own
> rules. Committees we appoint are not permitted, unless we give them
> permission, to adopt their own rules of order. Presumably, we'd interpret
> this rule as us giving them permission to adopt their own rules of order as
> regards executive session, but that misses the point - unless they do, they
> operate under our rules of order, in which executive session is
> well-defined (and limited more than in RONR). What is being achieved here,
> other than forcing a committee to adopt a motion making either our rules or
> RONR's less restrictive rules for executive session their own? These rules
> exist, and are available on our website. RONR is available in any
> bookstore. Exactly what 'transparency' is gained by simply chucking out
> portions of our own rules for committees, and then telling them "if you
> want it, you can adopt it." Furthermore, if a committee is not permitted
> to enter executive session, a standing rule would not be sufficient to
> allow them to.
>
> I agree with Ken that we should not bind our rules to any particular form
> of technology. As concerns all internal email communications, I oppose
> this restriction on committees. Unlike boards, committees produce a
> work-product. Committees often do not keep minutes because their report is
> exactly what they've done. An empowered committee is a bit different, but
> similar in this sense - I'd support everyone being able to know what
> they've done, and the right of the committee to make its reasons public.
> Furthermore, exactly how would this be enforced? If two people are both
> appointed to a committee, are they permitted to email each other separately
> from the "official list?" Are they allowed to call each other and discuss
> how they feel about a topic before the committee, phones being electronic
> devices? True, a phone call isn't a correspondence - how about texts?
>
> As for emergency meetings, I for one am not interested in missing filing
> deadlines or other statutory dates because it is realized 36 hours before a
> meeting that the committee didn't properly file its rules for emergency
> meetings, or didn't think to word them in a way that includes the situation
> in which it finds itself.
>
> Move to Amend Policy Manual Section 2.02 (page 23) to add a new subsection
> (2) and re-number the remaining as follows:
>
> 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*, except
> that the committee member may choose not to disclose contact information*.
> 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 *with the exception of executive
> sessions **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 meetings as defined within the committee's own
> published standing rules., except that a call to meeting agreed to by all
> committee members shall be made available publicly at the time it is
> issued.*
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
--
*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/20160924/c2ff93ff/attachment.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list