[Lnc-business] Contract issues

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Wed Sep 21 22:26:01 EDT 2016 

	Aaron Starr briefly raised the issue of disclosure of the contract between the LNC and the Johnson campaign with campaign representative Steve Kerbel during this evening's teleconference of the Johnson/Weld Libertarian advisory board, to make the campaign aware that there are ongoing discussions on this issue and that the LNC may seek some kind of addendum to the document. Steve said he was not aware of the campaign wanting perpetual secrecy, and that he thought this would be an issue for the LNC to address. He added the caveat that he had not been involved with negotiations on that particular topic. Aaron, Danny Bedwell, or Arvin Vohra, who were on the call and also on this list, please feel free to jump in here if you have more specific recollection on Steve's wording, as I am not quoting him verbatim. 

	Main takeaway point here (in reference to Arvin's comment in the thread below,"I would obviously prefer transparency here, but if that is a dealbreaker, then I recommend we move forward"), is that it sounds like this may not be a dealbreaker for the campaign, and that they don't necessarily have an issue with more transparency there.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                                (415) 625-FREE


On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> All, 
> 
> I absolutely believe there is value in the contract.  Value was never my dispute.  My dispute is the eternal secrecy clause and the evidence in the public emails that it was not properly considered or properly advised by our counsel.  No amount of value mitigates that concern and the concern, as laid out, that eternal secrecy is invalid and invalidates both member and committee rights.  And my belief that if it was fully apprehended in negotiations that it would not have been agreed to for precisely these reasons.  As wonderful as we all are, we don't get to permanently alienate rights.  I made the argument above, and won't waste anyone's time repeating it, but I wanted it to be clear that value was never the issue.  But I don't get to put a price tag on what is worth such alienation for everyone.  Which is in fact what we are doing, and I will continue to object as an individual member.  
> 
> But the value is not in dispute. Whether it could have been of greater value is.
> 
> As far as pre-nomination contracts, I am sympathetic to Arvin's view.  Making it a requirement removes rights (yes I will constantly harp on rights) from the delegates, and I would consistently oppose that.  And Joshua is right that it would be a Bylaws issues, not within our authority.  I would oppose, as a member, such a Bylaws amendment as potential violative of minority voices.
> 
> And in response to some public comments made, this is absolutely not an issue with the service of our Chair.  We all make mistakes-- as I allege was made here, and I for one, am fully supportive of the service and dedication and the way the Chair has represented and led our Party. Good leadership does not require perfection. If so, I am immediately disqualified since I now regret the authority granted in Orlando and believe I made a mistake.   
> 
> -- 
> 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 Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would favor making it a requirement, at least in ways, but that is not a question for the LNC.  
> 
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
> 
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Sean O'Toole <sean at kingfieldcapital.com> wrote:
> Arvin,
> 
> I too support contract signing prior to the nomination. I'm curious why you would not support making the signing of such a contract a requirement in order to procure our nomination. What incentive would a candidate have to sign pre-nomination?
> 
> Sean
> 
> Sean O'Toole
> sean at kingfieldcapital.com
> (816) 739-2737
> 
> On 21 Sep 2016, at 14:32, Arvin Vohra wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> 
> 
> 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
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arvin Vohra
> 
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160921/05aeae51/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list