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

Tue Jul 12 12:12:55 EDT 2016

Colleagues, this is troubling to me.  There was no notice given of this
"informal" meeting on a topic that many of us have been asking about, and I
have asked about.  I normally attend all of these EC meeting, and had I
known this was on the agenda for a secret meeting, I would have been right
there attending with Starchild to object.  I had an LPCO meeting but this
is important enough that I would have designated a proxy and did this
instead.

Is this invitation from the Chair to be filled in only open to those
members who were not allowed to attend last night?  I would like to be
filled in.  I believe all LNC members have the right to be filled in.

Calling a secret meeting an "informal conversation" does not cure this IMHO.

*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 Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
[GrassrootsLibertarians] <GrassrootsLibertarians at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
> __._,_.___
> ------------------------------
> Posted by: Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
> ------------------------------
> Reply via web post
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GrassrootsLibertarians/conversations/messages/3044;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbTVwMGJnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0MzY0NzAyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMwMzI5MgRtc2dJZAMzMDQ0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTQ2ODMzNTg5Nw--?act=reply&messageNum=3044>
> • Reply to sender
> <sfdreamer at earthlink.net?subject=Re%3A%20Secret%20%22informal%22%20LNC%20Executive%20Committee%20conference%20call%20-%20rules%20violation%3F>
> • Reply to group
> <GrassrootsLibertarians at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Secret%20%22informal%22%20LNC%20Executive%20Committee%20conference%20call%20-%20rules%20violation%3F>
> • Start a New Topic
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GrassrootsLibertarians/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNWNzanRwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0MzY0NzAyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMwMzI5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0NjgzMzU4OTc->
> • Messages in this topic
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GrassrootsLibertarians/conversations/topics/3044;_ylc=X3oDMTM1MXBqMHFkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0MzY0NzAyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMwMzI5MgRtc2dJZAMzMDQ0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQ2ODMzNTg5NwR0cGNJZAMzMDQ0>
> (1)
> ------------------------------
> Have you tried the highest rated email app? <https://yho.com/1wwmgg>
> With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email
> app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your
> inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email
> again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
> ------------------------------
> Visit Your Group
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GrassrootsLibertarians/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdDBva21xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0MzY0NzAyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMwMzI5MgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjgzMzU4OTc->
>
>
> [image: Yahoo! Groups]
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZDZjcXU5BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE0MzY0NzAyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMwMzI5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2ODMzNTg5Nw-->
> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
> Unsubscribe
> <GrassrootsLibertarians-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> • Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
>

-- 
*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/20160712/f6657bde/attachment-0002.html>