[Lnc-business] Motion to Rescind - Request for Co-Sponsors

Tue Sep 20 03:20:06 EDT 2016

This would be to remove the authority previously granted the chair to sign
the contract, correct?

On Sep 20, 2016 1:59 AM, "Daniel Hayes" <danielehayes at icloud.com> wrote:

> I was told there would be a sunset on the silence after the inauguration.
> If that is not the case, I have to wonder what else I was told that was in
> there might be in there.  I can't find out until I sign away my voice.  I
> am disturbed.
>
> I will cosponsor this motion to rescind something previously adopted.
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Fellow LNC members, it is with great regret that I have to present this
> Motion and ask for support, but I feel this is our duty – our duty to our
> Bylaws, this Party, and its members.  I will give my narrative support
> following.
>
>
>
> *Move to rescind the authority granted to the Chair to negotiate and
> execute a campaign contract and the Joint Fundraising Agreement and rescind
> any signatures already executed.*
>
>
>
> Procedurally, I note I voted to grant this authority and thus have
> standing to bring this Motion.  I note the contract has not yet been signed
> by the campaign, and thus, there is no agreement.  This motion should put
> the campaign on notice that there is a dispute in the LNC, but at least one
> member.
>
>
>
> To recap the events of the last few days.    On Friday we learned that the
> Chair had signed a campaign contract and the Joint Fundraising Agreement
> with the campaign and that he had decided, upon advice of counsel, to keep
> them confidential until Inauguration Day.  When I requested to see the
> documents, I was presented with an NDA, and this whole thing began.  It is,
> to me, without dispute, that we agreed to keep the negotiations
> confidential until they were signed but were silent on any silence
> afterwards.  On these grounds and the over-reach of the NDA, I refused to
> sign it.  I asked if the contract itself required confidentiality until
> Inauguration Day as arguably we granted the authority to negotiate that
> term when we granted this authority to the Chair.  On Saturday, at
> 14:28CDT, the Chair responded to me and us that this provision to keep the
> contract confidential was NOT a provision of the contract but was a
> decision reached unilaterally by him on advice of counsel.  Starchild and I
> objected that the Chair did not have this authority and that such would
> require a vote of the LNC in Executive Session or otherwise.  Starchild in
> fact proposed a Motion for that very thing.  However, a mere forty minutes
> after advising me that the contract did not contain such a provision, the
> Chair advised us that the contract did, in fact, contain an eternal secrecy
> clause, a fact which he verified with counsel today.  When I saw all this
> happening, and in light of my earlier lack of information in which any
> earlier agreements would be rendered null, I formally withdrew my request
> to see the documents until these issues could be resolved.
>
>
>
> This should be very disturbing, because one thing has become patently
> clear.  *The Chair did not know there was an eternal secrecy clause in
> the contract when he signed it. * There is then quite obviously some
> negligence here.  I do not know if it is negligence of the Chair or
> professional negligence of LNC counsel to advise of all the potential and
> reasonable implications, but a contract was signed in complete ignorance of
> one of the key terms.  This is unacceptable and is reason enough for the
> LNC to take control of this situation and rescind the authority and the
> signatures.  I argue that it is our fiduciary duty to do so.
>
>
>
> But let’s put that reason aside, though that is justification enough.
> Let’s stipulate that the Chair and LNC counsel knew full well that there
> was an eternal secrecy provision and went ahead with it.  Such a provision
> must be repudiated as it usurps and abrogates our rights and privileges as
> Committee members to be able to publicly enforce our Bylaws and represent
> our members, and further is in direct conflict with our fiduciary duty to
> this Party, its members, and our Bylaws.  How so?  Well I can think of a
> few ways it is possible, and this is not intended to be exhaustive as the
> unknown can contain quite a few subjunctives.
>
>
>
> Does the contract create potential financial liabilities for the current
> committee, its members, or future committees? If the answer is "I can't
> tell you" unless I waive my rights, the contract makes the budgetary
> process impossible and thus we abrogate our public duties.
>
>
>
> Does the contract create potential liabilities that could be visited on
> state affiliates that are not separately incorporated? If the answer is "I
> can't tell you,” why should that be believed?  Why should the state
> affiliates and members, who can never see it, be assured?
>
>
>
> Does the contract potentially violate the Statement of Principles?  Well
> if I am sworn to secrecy, I have lost my right to press this case to the
> Judicial Committee and through the appeal process in the Bylaws (as well as
> the same right of the membership), then such rights are rendered null and
> void making a mockery of our Bylaws.
>
>
>
> I would also note that this completely hobbles the membership from being
> able to judge for itself if either side is upholding their sides of the
> bargain.  It is opaque and completely unaccountable.  It further prevents
> the members from using the lessons learned from the successes and failures
> of this contract (as all things can be improved on) in negotiating and
> crafting future contracts with future campaigns and thus is a complete
> abrogation of our duty to the future of this Party and the members’ rights
> to ensure the same.
>
>
>
> There is the further issue that I am being ask to agree to a secrecy
> provision in order to see the contract to judge for myself whether it is
> there, in effect having to “pass it, to see what is in it” and to
> proactively waive my rights and bind myself to a repellant stipulation.
> This is the way the corrupt state and duopoly behave, and should not be the
> way the Libertarian Party is conducted.
>
>
>
> Lastly, this is indeed a rumour, but it was told to me, and I have to, in
> the discharge of my duties consider it- no matter how incredible, if there
> is any chance that it could be the case, particularly since I have to waive
> my rights to ascertain for myself, a source, allegedly from within the
> campaign, has relayed that there is a eternal non-disparagement clause in
> the contract.  I find that difficult to believe (but I would have earlier
> thought the idea of an eternal secrecy cause to be ridiculous), and if so,
> absolutely repellant to the Libertarian principles we are supposed to be
> upholding in our modeling of transparency and integrity to the watching
> world, but if there was, I couldn’t tell anyone.  And without waiving my
> rights, I cannot even know if I am supposed to be bound to any such thing.
> And if anything was done by the campaign (and I am NOT alleging anything
> would be) that while legal would be against our principles or our duty to
> the Party, I would be unable to say so to the membership nor pursue any
> redress.   I do not think our Chair would ever agree to such a thing.  But
> .... an eternal secrecy clause was agreed to unknowingly, how do I know
> this wasn't too?  Or what other clause that I cannot even imagine, and once
> I learn of it, I am bound to silence to the grave? This is unacceptable.
>
>
>
> All of this is reason enough.  I have no desire to put a target on my
> back, and I literally am sick about this, but my duty compels me to protect
> rights and duties and the integrity of our judgment and our Party Bylaws,
> and potentially, our Statement of Principles which is the only charter for
> our existence.  I feel I have been put in an impossible situation.
>
>
>
> I want to be perfectly clear here. This is NOT about the campaign. Anyone
> who uses this email to attack or belittle is doing so against my express
> intent. This is ONLY about the LNC, its rights and duties, and the members’
> rights.  This is on our doorstep and no one else.  We have only ourselves
> to praise or blame.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160920/828eaae3/attachment-0002.html>