[Lnc-business] Secret "informal" LNC Executive Committee conference call - rules violation?

[Starchild]

	At the end of the scheduled LNC Executive Committee teleconference last evening, our chair proposed an "informal" discussion with members of the Executive Committee, to commence on the same number five minutes after the official call concluded. It was not stated that this call would be restricted to members of the Executive Committee, though that was perhaps implied.

	As this second discussion commenced, it turned out I was the only non-ExCom member on the call (LNC member Ed Marsh also called in subsequently, but upon being told it was an informal ExCom discussion, took the hint and exited the call). When I pressed the point, there was initially some hemming and hawing about whether the call – the stated and hardly informal-sounding purpose of which was for the chair to do a Q&A update on the contract negotiations between the LNC and the Gary Johnson campaign – was in fact secret, i.e. restricted to only ExCom members. Eventually however, I was kicked off the call, over my objections. The reassurance was given that there would be no votes or action taken during the call, but that was entirely superfluous, since no such votes or actions may be taken during an "informal conversation", and the LNC's rules for secret meetings already disallow any votes or actions from being taken during secret meetings (see Policy Manual excerpt below).

	All seven ExCom members (the four LP officers plus the three non-officer members  Jim Lark, Bill Redpath, and Sam Goldstein) were present on the call, but only a few weighed in on the controversy one way or the other as it was being discussed. Of those who I heard voice sentiments, vice-chair Arvin Vohra sounded somewhat more open to transparency and allowing me to stay on the call provided I agreed to exercise discretion, while at-large rep. Sam Goldstein came across as strongly opposed to my participation, and regional rep Jim Lark perhaps somewhere in the middle. 

	LP chair Nick Sarwark, who effectively made the decision to restrict the call, did tell me and Ed Marsh that if we called him the next day, he would tell us what he told the ExCom members on the call. Why we as not just LP members but LNC members, couldn't be allowed to hear the information and participate in the conversation on the call along with the ExCom members however, instead of taking more of the chair's time and requiring him to repeat the information a day later, was not explained.

	While the desire for secrecy may have been well-intentioned – reflecting a desire to maintain good relations between the party and the Johnson campaign – I believe that holding this secret call was a violation of our Policy Manual, and against at least the intent if not the letter of the Libertarian Party's Bylaws. 

	The LNC Policy Manual (http://www.lp.org/files/20160526_LNC_Policy_Manual.pdf) states (page 11): 

> "The LNC may enter into Executive Session only in compliance with this special rule of order. The motion to enter Executive Session must list all reasons for doing so. If the list of reasons is solely comprised of the identified topics listed below, a majority of LNC Members voting is required for passage.
> 
> • Legal matters (potential, pending, or past)
> • Regulatory and compliance matters (potential, pending, or past)
> • Contractual compliance
> • Personnel matters (including evaluation, compensation, hiring, or dismissal)
> • Board self-evaluation
> • Strategic issues (only those requiring confidentiality)
> • Negotiations (potential, pending, or past)
> 
> Other topics require a two-thirds vote of LNC. No action can be taken while in Executive Session."

	The Libertarian Party's Bylaws (http://www.lp.org/files/2016_LP_Bylaws_and_Convention_Rules_w_2014_JC_Rules.pdf) state (Bylaw 8, Section 14):

>  "Any person may record the National Committee’s proceedings while in open session". 


	As noted, there was no vote by Executive Committee members to go into a secret meeting. In fact our Bylaws do not actually make any provision for the LNC to even have an "Executive Committee" with special privileges not accorded to all the LNC representatives chosen by the members of the party to represent them. This sub-committee with its special powers is entirely a creation of the LNC itself. Yet this was clearly a pre-arranged meeting of the entire Executive Committee, and the ExCom is clearly a subset of the LNC and therefore, I contend, bound by the same restrictions which the Bylaws place on the LNC as a whole. As such, I believe this call should have been considered an "open session", which any person should have been allowed to record – and obviously (unless one has NSA-like capabilities) one cannot record such a telephone conference if one has been removed from the call.

	Here is the question, as I see it:  Should the LNC, or a subset thereof, be allowed to ignore the above proviso and hold a de facto secret meeting without following the requirements set forth in the Policy Manual for holding such a meeting, under the guise of calling it an "informal conversation"?

Love & Liberty,
                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee 
                        RealReform at earthlink.net
                                  (415) 625-FREE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160712/bb3a6982/attachment-0001.html>