[Lnc-business] Motion to Rescind - Request for Co-Sponsors
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Thu Sep 22 22:24:22 EDT 2016
There are now four co-sponsors for this Motion.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:19 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:
> Caryn, I will co-sponsor your Motion to Rescind.
>
> In addition to all the justifications for the Motion to Rescind that have
> been discussed in detail, you made a telling point in one of your more
> recent emails today. To paraphrase your point, the LNC has abdicated our
> collective responsibility for contract approval by throwing it over the
> wall for Nick to deal with on top of his responsibility for assisting in
> the negotiation of contracts. We as a committee need to shoulder that
> responsibility instead of putting Nick into a lose-lose situation between a
> rock and a hard place. At the same time, the LNC also needs to shoulder our
> collective responsibility for cleaning up our umbrella transparency bylaws
> including those that apply to contracts that the LNC as a body enters into.
> Let’s treat this painful moment as an opportunity to learn and grow both
> individually and also collectively as an organization.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> *Libertarianism –Principle and Transparancy Before Party *
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee
>
> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO,
> ND, NE, WI)
>
> Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus
>
> Secretary at LPNE.org
>
> David.Demarest at LP.org
>
> DPDemarest at centurylink.net
>
> David.Demarest at firstdata.com
>
> DPrattDemarest at gmail.com
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
> Office: 402-222-7207
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Caryn Ann Harlos
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 7:49 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Motion to Rescind - Request for Co-Sponsors
>
>
>
> David you raise excellent points. But before it gets buried, as it keeps
> happening (and I am not saying intentionally, it is the nature of a
> complex issue):
>
>
>
> There is ONE overriding reason we must rescind… negligence in
> understanding terms. It is apparent now that there is at least credible
> evidence that the Chair executed a contract, waiving rights and privileges,
> without realizing that term was in there. There are numerous questions
> raised by this. Was he ill-advised by LNC counsel? Did counsel not see?
> Did he and the Chair forget? Was there a lack of proper comprehension on
> the part of LNC counsel as to the needs and issues that affect a
> Libertarian client?
>
>
>
> And was the lack of knowledge of this secrecy provision an issue in the
> negotations? *Might* bargaining have gone differently? More to our
> members’ advantage?
>
>
>
> We cannot and must not waive or shirk our fiduciary duty to explore this.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is in addition to all the other reasons I laid out. And one I
> omitted, the ethics of binding a future committee to this.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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 6:37 AM, David Demarest <
> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>
> Before I take a position on the LNC-Johnson/Weld Campaign contract secrecy
> issue, I have a few questions for the chair, counsel or any LNC members who
> can answer these questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Why is secrecy required regarding this contract?
>
>
>
> 2. Is secrecy required for the entire contents of the contract or
> just portions of the contract?
>
>
>
> 3. Why was the chair not informed of the secrecy requirement before
> signing the contract?
>
>
>
> 4. What are the risks and who are the winners and losers from
> maintaining or removing the requirement for contract secrecy?
>
>
>
> 5. Will LNC members be required to maintain secrecy to be given
> answers to questions 1 through 4 above?
>
>
>
> 6. Are there potential whistle-blower risks from maintaining or
> removing the contract secrecy requirement?
>
>
>
> One would assume that there are good reasons why secrecy was required for
> this contract. However, we don’t know what we don’t know, which, at a
> minimum, leaves LNC members in a murky, uneasy vacuum of information.
> Perhaps this incident is fortuitous as it puts the umbrella issues of
> transparency and authoritarianism front and center.
>
>
>
> It is time for LNC members to do some soul-searching about core
> Libertarian principles regarding transparency and authoritarianism before
> we cast stones at other political parties about blind allegiance, party
> before principle and incipient authoritarianism. It is time to put our
> money where our mouth is on how our principles are going to differentiate
> us from the evil empire and its apologists.
>
>
>
> Questions from another perspective:
>
>
>
> A. What position would we take if another political party had the
> same contract secrecy requirements?
>
>
>
> B. What position would we take if potential whistle-blowers in
> another political party were muzzled regarding contract secrecy?
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *Libertarianism - Principle Before Party *
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO,
> ND, NE, WI)
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
> Office: 402-222-7207
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Starchild
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 4:21 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org; Nick Sarwark <chair at lp.org>; Caryn Ann
> Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Motion to Rescind - Request for Co-Sponsors
>
>
>
> Caryn, thank you for taking the trouble to so eloquently lay
> this out for us, and for taking the lead on a politically unpleasant duty. *I
> will co-sponsor along with Daniel. *
>
>
>
> I'm not sure who if anyone from the Johnson/Weld campaign
> reads this list, or who is their preferred contact for these matters,
> but Gary Johnson and Bill Weld should be advised that we have issues and
> they should not sign the documents yet.
>
>
>
> Nick, since you've been in touch with them perhaps it makes
> sense for you to pass along that info? I hope you'll do so ASAP or let us
> know so an alternate contact can be made; we obviously don't want to take
> the candidates' time or engender confusion by their signing something that
> may not be final.
>
>
>
> Question: Does the clause in the contract that allegedly
> requires perpetual(?) secrecy also apply to the Joint Fundraising Agreement
> document, or may we at least see that document while we sort out the issues
> with the contract?
>
>
>
> Who all has seen these documents? If you have seen one or both
> of them, please weigh in with your understanding of what they require or do
> not require regarding secrecy.
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2016, at 1:06 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes Arvin and rescind any signatures already executed
>
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This would be to remove the authority previously granted the chair to sign
> the contract, correct?
>
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2016 1:59 AM, "Daniel Hayes" <danielehayes at icloud.com> wrote:
>
> I was told there would be a sunset on the silence after the inauguration.
> If that is not the case, I have to wonder what else I was told that was in
> there might be in there. I can't find out until I sign away my voice. I
> am disturbed.
>
>
>
> I will cosponsor this motion to rescind something previously adopted.
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
>
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Fellow LNC members, it is with great regret that I have to present this
> Motion and ask for support, but I feel this is our duty – our duty to our
> Bylaws, this Party, and its members. I will give my narrative support
> following.
>
> *Move to rescind the authority granted to the Chair to negotiate and
> execute a campaign contract and the Joint Fundraising Agreement and rescind
> any signatures already executed.*
>
> Procedurally, I note I voted to grant this authority and thus have
> standing to bring this Motion. I note the contract has not yet been signed
> by the campaign, and thus, there is no agreement. This motion should put
> the campaign on notice that there is a dispute in the LNC, but at least one
> member.
>
> To recap the events of the last few days. On Friday we learned that the
> Chair had signed a campaign contract and the Joint Fundraising Agreement
> with the campaign and that he had decided, upon advice of counsel, to keep
> them confidential until Inauguration Day. When I requested to see the
> documents, I was presented with an NDA, and this whole thing began. It is,
> to me, without dispute, that we agreed to keep the negotiations
> confidential until they were signed but were silent on any silence
> afterwards. On these grounds and the over-reach of the NDA, I refused to
> sign it. I asked if the contract itself required confidentiality until
> Inauguration Day as arguably we granted the authority to negotiate that
> term when we granted this authority to the Chair. On Saturday, at
> 14:28CDT, the Chair responded to me and us that this provision to keep the
> contract confidential was NOT a provision of the contract but was a
> decision reached unilaterally by him on advice of counsel. Starchild and I
> objected that the Chair did not have this authority and that such would
> require a vote of the LNC in Executive Session or otherwise. Starchild in
> fact proposed a Motion for that very thing. However, a mere forty minutes
> after advising me that the contract did not contain such a provision, the
> Chair advised us that the contract did, in fact, contain an eternal secrecy
> clause, a fact which he verified with counsel today. When I saw all this
> happening, and in light of my earlier lack of information in which any
> earlier agreements would be rendered null, I formally withdrew my request
> to see the documents until these issues could be resolved.
>
> This should be very disturbing, because one thing has become patently
> clear. *The Chair did not know there was an eternal secrecy clause in
> the contract when he signed it. * There is then quite obviously some
> negligence here. I do not know if it is negligence of the Chair or
> professional negligence of LNC counsel to advise of all the potential and
> reasonable implications, but a contract was signed in complete ignorance of
> one of the key terms. This is unacceptable and is reason enough for the
> LNC to take control of this situation and rescind the authority and the
> signatures. I argue that it is our fiduciary duty to do so.
>
> But let’s put that reason aside, though that is justification enough.
> Let’s stipulate that the Chair and LNC counsel knew full well that there
> was an eternal secrecy provision and went ahead with it. Such a provision
> must be repudiated as it usurps and abrogates our rights and privileges as
> Committee members to be able to publicly enforce our Bylaws and represent
> our members, and further is in direct conflict with our fiduciary duty to
> this Party, its members, and our Bylaws. How so? Well I can think of a
> few ways it is possible, and this is not intended to be exhaustive as the
> unknown can contain quite a few subjunctives.
>
> Does the contract create potential financial liabilities for the current
> committee, its members, or future committees? If the answer is "I can't
> tell you" unless I waive my rights, the contract makes the budgetary
> process impossible and thus we abrogate our public duties.
>
> Does the contract create potential liabilities that could be visited on
> state affiliates that are not separately incorporated? If the answer is "I
> can't tell you,” why should that be believed? Why should the state
> affiliates and members, who can never see it, be assured?
>
> Does the contract potentially violate the Statement of Principles? Well
> if I am sworn to secrecy, I have lost my right to press this case to the
> Judicial Committee and through the appeal process in the Bylaws (as well as
> the same right of the membership), then such rights are rendered null and
> void making a mockery of our Bylaws.
>
> I would also note that this completely hobbles the membership from being
> able to judge for itself if either side is upholding their sides of the
> bargain. It is opaque and completely unaccountable. It further prevents
> the members from using the lessons learned from the successes and failures
> of this contract (as all things can be improved on) in negotiating and
> crafting future contracts with future campaigns and thus is a complete
> abrogation of our duty to the future of this Party and the members’ rights
> to ensure the same.
>
> There is the further issue that I am being ask to agree to a secrecy
> provision in order to see the contract to judge for myself whether it is
> there, in effect having to “pass it, to see what is in it” and to
> proactively waive my rights and bind myself to a repellant stipulation.
> This is the way the corrupt state and duopoly behave, and should not be the
> way the Libertarian Party is conducted.
>
> Lastly, this is indeed a rumour, but it was told to me, and I have to, in
> the discharge of my duties consider it- no matter how incredible, if there
> is any chance that it could be the case, particularly since I have to waive
> my rights to ascertain for myself, a source, allegedly from within the
> campaign, has relayed that there is a eternal non-disparagement clause in
> the contract. I find that difficult to believe (but I would have earlier
> thought the idea of an eternal secrecy cause to be ridiculous), and if so,
> absolutely repellant to the Libertarian principles we are supposed to be
> upholding in our modeling of transparency and integrity to the watching
> world, but if there was, I couldn’t tell anyone. And without waiving my
> rights, I cannot even know if I am supposed to be bound to any such thing.
> And if anything was done by the campaign (and I am NOT alleging anything
> would be) that while legal would be against our principles or our duty to
> the Party, I would be unable to say so to the membership nor pursue any
> redress. I do not think our Chair would ever agree to such a thing. But
> .... an eternal secrecy clause was agreed to unknowingly, how do I know
> this wasn't too? Or what other clause that I cannot even imagine, and once
> I learn of it, I am bound to silence to the grave? This is unacceptable.
>
> All of this is reason enough. I have no desire to put a target on my
> back, and I literally am sick about this, but my duty compels me to protect
> rights and duties and the integrity of our judgment and our Party Bylaws,
> and potentially, our Statement of Principles which is the only charter for
> our existence. I feel I have been put in an impossible situation.
>
> I want to be perfectly clear here. This is NOT about the campaign. Anyone
> who uses this email to attack or belittle is doing so against my express
> intent. This is ONLY about the LNC, its rights and duties, and the members’
> rights. This is on our doorstep and no one else. We have only ourselves
> to praise or blame.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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/>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160922/aa417157/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list