[Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Committee Transparency revived

[Starchild]

	As most if not all of you are probably aware, I think transparency is absolutely vital. Thank you Caryn, for raising the issue in relation to our subcommittees. I fully agree and support.

	Why is transparency vital? Ultimately it is because how we handle information is closely related to the issue of power. 

	How power functions in an organization or system is something that those who have power are often uncomfortable talking about as such. Nevertheless I think it behooves us as Libertarian leaders to overcome this discomfort and both think about it and talk about it openly and frankly, because the nature of power is central to the problem of State aggression that we are seeking to address.

	To my concerns about how the Libertarian Party's structure and culture address, or fail to address, the problem of power, I've sometimes heard the response, "But Libertarians don't have money or power!" That's mostly true, at this point. But if and when the Libertarian Party does gain the political clout that we would like to see it attain so that it will be a more effective vehicle for advancing the cause of freedom, it will become a very real issue – and if we wait until then to address it, it may be too late. By then we may have proceeded irrevocably far down the path taken by the Democrats and Republicans into becoming organizations whose movers and shakers are motivated by seeking power and money not as means to an end, but as the desired ends. I believe we should try our utmost to set strong structural and cultural foundations and safeguards now, to at least forestall, if not prevent, what I think may otherwise be a natural eventuality. Not for nothing has it been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance!

	As Libertarians, we are familiar with and generally accept the axiom that when it comes to government, power corrupts. While I've occasionally heard people in the freedom movement flirt with the idea that a benevolent dictatorship might be better for society than democracy, I think most of us see the big problem with that:  Dictatorships don't tend to remain benevolent, for the aforementioned reason that power corrupts. But we perhaps have not thought enough about the fact that power, with its attendant problems, doesn't exist only in governments. While not every group is a government, every group has governance. By this I mean that every group has some process by which decisions get made, whether that process happens formally in accordance with rules laid out in some document such as bylaws or a policy manual, or informally such as via a discussion during which a group of colleagues who happen to meet in a hotel lobby and form a dinner party decide where to eat.  Thus every group must somehow answer this question of how decisions within the organization are made, and how it answers that question says a lot about the nature of the organization. Naturally the larger and more powerful the group and the more significant the decisions it makes, the more crucial the answer becomes.
	
	As Libertarians, we seek a society where power is radically decentralized, down to the level of each individual choosing how to run his or her own life so long as it does not involve initiating force or fraud against others. Part of the reason we have faced difficulty in persuading the public to embrace this vision, I believe, is that people are insufficiently accustomed to being independent and empowered in other parts of their lives. Take two individuals and put them into a situation where someone is making unjust demands upon them, one who was reared as a slave and taught to be obedient to authority, and another who grew up in a culture where she was encouraged to always think for herself and question authority. Which one is likely to be more assertive in standing up for her rights?

	To have the best chances of effectively advancing the interests of the freedom movement, an organization like a political party which seeks to enlist and mobilize members of the public en masse should seek to organize itself so that power is highly decentralized, and individuals in the organization empowered from the bottom up, and to cultivate an organizational culture which reflects these values. In other words, build an institution that will not only fight for freedom directly, but will also by more indirect and subtle influences mold those who participate in it to be more suited to living as free men and women in a free society. Or as Gandhi said, be the change we wish to see in the world. 

	The State after all is not just a parasitic organization that is wholly alien and external to society, much as it can seem that way at times. Parasitic it certainly is, but like a cancer it grows out of society itself. The degree to which it metastasizes or is contained depends upon the attitudes that the populace collectively holds toward power – how much they are willing to trust "leaders", how much control they are willing to turn over to those leaders for the sake of convenience, expediency, etc. 

	I'm sure you've all heard the saying, "knowledge is power". If knowledge is power, then those in an organization who have the knowledge, have the power. Therefore if we want power in the Libertarian Party to be decentralized and distributed – if we want a grassroots party truly run by its members, and not by a small, entrenched clique at the top – then knowledge in the party needs to be decentralized and distributed. In particular, knowledge that is empowering with regard to participation in the decision-making processes of the organization.

	Failure to share knowledge may not always carry a readily visible price tag, but I believe the price we pay is a high one. Libertarians – especially those in leadership positions who currently control information – often express concerns about the potential costs of transparency, but meanwhile we pay little attention to the costs of secrecy. I believe secrecy does far more damage to our party on a continual, ongoing basis than transparency would under the hypothetical scenarios in which it has been speculated that our political opponents might find out information about what we're doing that they could somehow turn to their advantage. Among the costs of secrecy:

• It breeds rumors and mistrust

• To the extent we keep secrets from our own members while decrying government secrecy, it makes us look like hypocrites

• It reduces party unity and solidarity by undermining the sense that every pledge-signing LP member is a trusted and valued part of the team

• It impedes the development of a "farm team" of people with the knowledge of how to do the various things that we do

• To the extent we keep secret the amounts we are paying in salaries, to contractors, and for supplies and services, we deny ourselves the cost-savings advantages of competitive bidding, because people who might be willing to offer us equivalent or better goods or services for less than they are currently costing us, lack access to the information needed to make those offers

• Most crucially of all, secrecy interferes with accountability

	To the extent that you don't know what your leaders are doing, you cannot hold them accountable. Allowing a situation in which ordinary LP members cannot or do not hold our leaders accountable is very dangerous. It sets us up to slide gradually down the slope to becoming just another political party run from the top down by people who are in it for power and money.

	I referred above to members who cannot or do not hold our leaders accountable. The "or do not" part is important. We know that the American people could, if they paid attention to what those in power were doing and made wise voting choices and exercised their civic responsibilities accordingly, hold those in power accountable. That premise is the reason for our existence as an organization. But over the past few decades, we've seen how difficult it has been to get them to collectively use that power as they ought to. So why don't they? For many reasons, obviously, but I think some of those reasons have to do with how easy it is to see and understand what is going on.

	P.J. O'Rourke said the following, and I think he was only partly joking:

“The government is huge, stupid, greedy and makes nosy, officious and dangerous intrusions into the smallest corners of life – this much we can stand. But the real problem is that government is boring.  We could cure or mitigate the other ills Washington visits on us if we could only bring ourselves to pay attention to Washington itself.”
	
	To provide truly excellent Libertarian leadership, I think we should not only fully embrace transparency, but actively encourage our members to use it for purposes of empowering themselves and holding us accountable! Let's ask ourselves which operational practices we can implement that will do the most to build a party culture in which knowledge and power are shared and ordinary members are actively engaged in their party's governance, so that some of these habits of individual empowerment and questioning authority will rub off on everyone who has any significant contact with our organization, and they can carry these values with them out into the larger society.

Love & Liberty,
                                   ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                                (415) 625-FREE
 

On Aug 11, 2016, at 8:46 PM, lnc-votes at hq.lp.org wrote:

> 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
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-votes mailing list
> Lnc-votes at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160812/395ee5f7/attachment-0002.html>