[Lnc-business] Contract issues

Tue Sep 20 10:58:52 EDT 2016

I would like to address this.

I believe this obfuscates the issue rather than clears it up and paints
those of us concerned about the fiduciary duties at stake here as some sort
of odd clique bent on transparency at all costs --- when there are not
duties at stake --- as if we would demand to know the colour of
undergarments at each meeting.  That is not the case.  As laid out in my
Motion to Rescind there are serious issues of duty at play here.  And
series issues of care taken.

== At some point I asked Mr. Hall about the advisability of making the
provisions of the contract public both before and after the election.  His
advice was that it would not be advisable at any point, but definitely
would not be prior to the election.  Based on that discussion, my
preference would be to keep it
confidential until inauguration day.  That was what I communicated to the
list, but that communication was in error.===

Because of secrecy, we cannot properly explore this statement.  The record
gives me very reasonable cause to think this is an issue.  *When* did the
eternal secrecy clause get into the contract?  IF it was there ALREADY (we
need to know this), why would one have to ask about the advisability of
secrecy?  Either it was there already, and LNC Counsel and the Chair did
not know it or it was added afterwards....... and forgotten????

==The actual contract requires confidentiality of the terms.  Mr. Goldstein
pointed out that phrase to me and I sent a correction to the
email list as soon as I realized that I had misspoke.===

If the issue of confidentiiatlity was of such a topic that discussions were
had with LNC counsel about keeping it confidential to Inauguration Day ...
HOW is it that the eternal secrecy clause did not come up?  This is not an
issue of mere misspeaking but of a grave loss of trust in the process and
whether or not other terms were handled with this kind of breach of
attention.  How can we trust this?  My instinct is to simply trust because
I know the Chair personally.  But my fiduciary duty is not to blindly
trust.  My duty is not to a person, it is to our Bylaws, our duties and
privileges, and the members.

==I would like it to be clear that making the contract public was not, to
my knowledge, one of the stated objectives at the LNC meeting
following the convention for our contract with the campaign.==

Not making the LNC wear clown suits was not one of the objectives either.
You cannot make a case on a negation.  You have to make a case on a
positive. Never was it made in the realm of possibility that eternal
secrecy would be on the table..... and apparently was on the table, hidden
under a napkin, so that the Chair wasn't aware it was there.  Eternal
secrecy is a breach of duty to our Bylaws and our members.

==  A very small and vocal minority making it into an absolute requirement
at this late stage of the negotiations is shifting the goalposts in the
final seconds of the game (after, I'm not sure if signatures are already on
the campaign's copies).==

We never waive our right to the duty to our Bylaws and to our members.  And
a small and vocal minority are representatives of a larger body- in  my
case - 9 states.  I have already received support.

==I think the contract negotiated is a good one. ==

Eternal secrecy is not a good term and abrogates our duties and member
rights.  Further there is the issue of not be able to say a contract is
well negotiated when one of the key terms was not important enough to
remember.

== Others who have seen it are probably within their bounds to say whether
they consider it a good or bad agreement, without discussing specific terms
with LNC members who will not agree to keep it confidential.==

My duty is not to trust the subjective opinion of fellow members.  My duty
is to judge what I do for a fact know.  There is an eternal secrecy
requirement that may have been negligently negotiated.  I do not know.  We
need to know.

==The effect of this motion would be to cancel everything negotiated because
I misspoke and/or people value transparency over any other
goal.  If that's what you want to do, you should co-sponsor it and vote for
it.==

That is a mis-casting of my motion and its rationale.  I agree to executive
session.  I have never breached confidentiality of executive session.  The
fact alone proves that I do not value transparency over any other goals.  I
do place our duties to the members over anything else, and eternal secrecy
breaches duties, trumps our Bylaws, and hobbles us and our members.

-- 
*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 8:37 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I want to clear something up.
>
> The LNC authorized me to negotiate a contract and joint fundraising
> agreement between the party and the Gary Johnson campaign.  I have,
> for the past three and a half months, been working with our counsel,
> Oliver Hall, to negotiate a contract that would be in the best
> interest of the Libertarian Party.
>
> During those months, terms have changed during the course of the
> negotiations in both agreements.  At some point I asked Mr. Hall about
> the advisability of making the provisions of the contract public both
> before and after the election.  His advice was that it would not be
> advisable at any point, but definitely would not be prior to the
> election.  Based on that discussion, my preference would be to keep it
> confidential until inauguration day.  That was what I communicated to
> the list, but that communication was in error.
>
> The actual contract requires confidentiality of the terms.  Mr.
> Goldstein pointed out that phrase to me and I sent a correction to the
> email list as soon as I realized that I had misspoke. I understand
> that this misspeaking has created a lack of confidence and a motion to
> rescind the entire authority to execute the contract.
>
> I would like it to be clear that making the contract public was not,
> to my knowledge, one of the stated objectives at the LNC meeting
> following the convention for our contract with the campaign.  A very
> small and vocal minority making it into an absolute requirement at
> this late stage of the negotiations is shifting the goalposts in the
> final seconds of the game (after, I'm not sure if signatures are
> already on the campaign's copies).
>
> I think the contract negotiated is a good one.  Others who have seen
> it are probably within their bounds to say whether they consider it a
> good or bad agreement, without discussing specific terms with LNC
> members who will not agree to keep it confidential.
>
> The effect of this motion would be to cancel everything negotiated
> because I misspoke and/or people value transparency over any other
> goal.  If that's what you want to do, you should co-sponsor it and
> vote for it.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> Nick
>
> P.S. Recognizing that eventual transparency is important to the
> aforementioned small and vocal minority, Oliver and I are actually in
> negotiations with the campaign for some kind of addendum that would
> modify the confidentiality terms to address those concerns.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c8faf206/attachment-0005.html>