[Lnc-business] Motion to Rescind - Request for Co-Sponsors
David Demarest
dpdemarest at centurylink.net
Tue Sep 20 08:37:24 EDT 2016
Before I take a position on the LNC-Johnson/Weld Campaign contract secrecy
issue, I have a few questions for the chair, counsel or any LNC members who
can answer these questions:
1. Why is secrecy required regarding this contract?
2. Is secrecy required for the entire contents of the contract or just
portions of the contract?
3. Why was the chair not informed of the secrecy requirement before
signing the contract?
4. What are the risks and who are the winners and losers from
maintaining or removing the requirement for contract secrecy?
5. Will LNC members be required to maintain secrecy to be given
answers to questions 1 through 4 above?
6. Are there potential whistle-blower risks from maintaining or
removing the contract secrecy requirement?
One would assume that there are good reasons why secrecy was required for
this contract. However, we don't know what we don't know, which, at a
minimum, leaves LNC members in a murky, uneasy vacuum of information.
Perhaps this incident is fortuitous as it puts the umbrella issues of
transparency and authoritarianism front and center.
It is time for LNC members to do some soul-searching about core Libertarian
principles regarding transparency and authoritarianism before we cast stones
at other political parties about blind allegiance, party before principle
and incipient authoritarianism. It is time to put our money where our mouth
is on how our principles are going to differentiate us from the evil empire
and its apologists.
Questions from another perspective:
A. What position would we take if another political party had the same
contract secrecy requirements?
B. What position would we take if potential whistle-blowers in another
political party were muzzled regarding contract secrecy?
Thoughts?
Libertarianism - Principle Before Party
~David Pratt Demarest
Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND,
NE, WI)
Cell: 402-981-6469
Home: 402-493-0873
Office: 402-222-7207
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
Starchild
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 4:21 AM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org; Nick Sarwark <chair at lp.org>; Caryn Ann Harlos
<carynannharlos at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion to Rescind - Request for Co-Sponsors
Caryn, thank you for taking the trouble to so eloquently lay
this out for us, and for taking the lead on a politically unpleasant duty. I
will co-sponsor along with Daniel.
I'm not sure who if anyone from the Johnson/Weld campaign reads
this list, or who is their preferred contact for these matters, but Gary
Johnson and Bill Weld should be advised that we have issues and they should
not sign the documents yet.
Nick, since you've been in touch with them perhaps it makes
sense for you to pass along that info? I hope you'll do so ASAP or let us
know so an alternate contact can be made; we obviously don't want to take
the candidates' time or engender confusion by their signing something that
may not be final.
Question: Does the clause in the contract that allegedly
requires perpetual(?) secrecy also apply to the Joint Fundraising Agreement
document, or may we at least see that document while we sort out the issues
with the contract?
Who all has seen these documents? If you have seen one or both
of them, please weigh in with your understanding of what they require or do
not require regarding secrecy.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
(415) 625-FREE
On Sep 20, 2016, at 1:06 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Yes Arvin and rescind any signatures already executed
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com
<mailto:votevohra at gmail.com> > wrote:
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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/d416391f/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 00506.txt
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160920/d416391f/attachment-0002.txt>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list