[Lnc-business] APRC

[Joshua Katz]

I could be wrong, but I've always thought of it this way:

Consider the case where the APRC turns down a publication.  We're saying,
in effect "we don't want this to be put out in the name of the party."  The
APRC is the way the LNC exercises its obligation to control what is said in
our name.  Now, suppose that the proposed publication, together with APRC
deliberations, were made public.  The publication we said we don't want to
go out in our name, would be out to the public, forwarded and shared as
much as desired, with our name stamped on it.  In effect, making the APRC
discussion public has the impact of saying we can't turn down anything from
being said in our name.

The employer-employee part I take to mean if, say, some employee were
consistently having their proposed publications shot down by the APRC, they
wouldn't want that information known to the world.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Okay, I have a few questions.  First of all, I am very grateful to have
> been appointed to that Committee as I am enjoying it very much and keeps me
> on my toes.
>
> My question though has to do with its secrecy.  Now that I have
> participated a bit to have a grasp of what it is that we do, I am not sure
> I understand the justification for its deliberations and discussions to be
> secret.
>
> In reviewing the Policy Manual it categorizes the discussions as sounding
> in employer-employee confidentiality, but I don't see how that is the broad
> case.  I can imagine a situation in which that might arise, but why make
> the whole thing secret for a circumstance that would be rare... which seems
> to me to be like making all LNC meetings secret because a legal matter
> might come up.... instead we wall off the truly confidential matters.
>
> I am not saying I am opposed to it being secret, but I am saying that I am
> not sure I understand the necessity and justification and would like to
> know what it is.  I believe in openness and transparency to the extent
> possible that will not actively harm the organization.
>
> Realistically there are probably two oddballs like me in the whole Party
> that would actually read the whole thing.  But that shouldn't stop us from
> removing the veil from things that do not need to be.  And I think secrecy
> policies should be re-evaluated regularly.
>
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative
> (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
> Washington)
> Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160623/01b19bca/attachment-0002.html>