[Lnc-business] Contract issues

Wed Sep 21 15:32:13 EDT 2016

LNC - having heard the feedback from Messrs. Sarwark, Katz, and Goldstein
that the contract provides value to both the campaign and the Libertarian
Party, I am satisfied. There are plenty of things we keep secret (e.g.
donor lists) for strategic reasons, and it seems that we have a strategic
reason to do so here (it gets us a contract). I would obviously prefer
transparency here, but if that is a dealbreaker, then I recommend we move
forward and focus on downsizing government.

However, I will be either making or cosponsoring a motion to allow future
presidential campaigns to sign preliminary contracts with the LNC before
nomination. I will not support making this a strict requirement, but I do
believe that this process should be make easier in the future if possible.

-Arvin

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Nope you are just not in on the secret.
>
> Sam
>
> 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 1:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am horridly out of touch.  I hear they aren't even using the term
>> "dank" any longer,  I can't keep up.
>>
>> --
>> *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 11:55 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

-- 
Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160921/7a3bf756/attachment-0002.html>