[Lnc-business] Contract issues

[Sam Goldstein]

Also having read both agreements, I concur with Mr. Katz.

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 Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> In response to the implied question:  Having read the contract, I find it
> to be a good agreement, and one that delivers excellent value to the Party,
> with the exception of the clause under discussion.  I personally have
> trouble seeing the implications of that clause, even after having it
> explained to me, and so it makes perfect sense to me that those
> implications can be missed during an extended negotiation where the primary
> focus was on protecting the interests of the party and obtaining value for
> the party.
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:37 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160920/133e6a8e/attachment-0002.html>