[Lnc-business] Contract issues

[Nicholas Sarwark]

FYI: All the cool kids are using poisoned Skittles as the correct
analogy these days.

-Nick

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>
>
> 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
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>