[Lnc-business] Motion to Rescind - Request for Co-Sponsors
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Tue Sep 20 08:49:03 EDT 2016
David you raise excellent points. But before it gets buried, as it keeps
happening (and I am not saying intentionally, it is the nature of a
complex issue):
There is ONE overriding reason we must rescind… negligence in understanding
terms. It is apparent now that there is at least credible evidence that
the Chair executed a contract, waiving rights and privileges, without
realizing that term was in there. There are numerous questions raised by
this. Was he ill-advised by LNC counsel? Did counsel not see? Did he and
the Chair forget? Was there a lack of proper comprehension on the part of
LNC counsel as to the needs and issues that affect a Libertarian client?
And was the lack of knowledge of this secrecy provision an issue in the
negotations? *Might* bargaining have gone differently? More to our
members’ advantage?
We cannot and must not waive or shirk our fiduciary duty to explore this.
This is in addition to all the other reasons I laid out. And one I
omitted, the ethics of binding a future committee to this.
--
*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, Sep 20, 2016 at 6:37 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:
> 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> 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> 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
>
> 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
>
>
--
*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/20160920/df03f9c9/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list