[Lnc-business] Contract issues

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And to add saying "withe exception of that one clause" is precisely the
issue.  A meal may be delicious with the exception of the few grains of
arsenic.  I will not focus on the savour of the steak but rather the sting
of the poison.

-- 
*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 11:46 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Protecting the interests of the party and its members and us do not
> include eternal secrecy.  While some might have trouble seeing it, no, in a
> contract negotiation, something as huge as that, should not be missed.
> Whether or not it is "understandable" is not the question.  It is
> extraordinarily prejudical and and negligent.
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:31 AM, 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*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/20160920/7c6f7538/attachment-0002.html>