[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-10: Rescind Contract Authority

Sun Sep 25 11:39:43 EDT 2016

	We pushed this task onto the chair, Joshua? I don't recall any reluctance on Nick's part to being in charge of negotiating a contract.

	We don't know how the secrecy provision got into the contract. It could have been something the campaign wanted, or not. It could have been boiler-plate legalese that was inserted without much thinking.

	But in any case, this isn't a matter of anyone "turning around" and raising some unexpected objection only after the contract was signed. The fact that there are LNC members who would expect such an agreement to be public and transparent and would object upon suddenly learning of a bid to keep it secret should not have come as a shock to anyone.

	At this point, I'm not seeking changes in the contract, whatever it may say – I'm prepared to approve the contract on condition it be made public, i.e. pass it in order to let Libertarian Party members find out what's in it.   :-(  Because while having one flawed contract would be bad, I think transparency that exposes any flaws to the light of day will do more to help ensure that we have better contracts in the future, than modifying the contract to make it better but keeping the document secret.

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

On Sep 25, 2016, at 7:32 AM, Joshua Katz wrote:

> We gave the chair binding authority to negotiate and execute a contract.  Negotiation, naturally, is just that.  You don't get everything you want because both sides of a negotiation want to get things.  Asking someone to negotiate for you is asking them to navigate those trade-offs for you, to make these decisions.  I don't think we should have done that.  When we were waiting for a contract, I would have supported a rescission - not because I thought the chair was doing a bad job or I was worried about the terms, but because the long wait suggested to me that there was a stalemate, and sometimes you can break a stalemate by putting in a new person.
> 
> That isn't what we're talking about here, though.  Instead, after giving this task to the chair, this is an effort to turn around when the task is done and criticize the priorities chosen and decisions made and say "you could have gotten a better deal without giving anything up."  How do we know that?  We don't, but we'd be banking on it, because if not, we're not going to get a new deal anytime soon.  
> 
> I find it very aggravating that we pushed this task onto the chair, and now want to say "you should have done it differently."  I also see no plan for what will come next here.  Do we select a new negotiator?  What if the LNC doesn't like what they come back with, either?  Surely no one expects this entire body to negotiate a contract, which is not too many cook spoiling the broth - it's 20 cooks trying to flip a pancake.  
> 
> I vote no.
> 
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
> 
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 	Or just have a contract without the secrecy provision. I don't think the campaign is going to want to spend these four or five weeks resisting having a signed contract because they demand secrecy on a document which, if it isn't signed, they would have no guarantee would not be publicly released anyway. Especially because we've seen no evidence that they are demanding secrecy. It seems quite possible there was just some legal boilerplate text put in or something.
> 
> 	Yes, I guess I am saying pass it so that we can see what's in it!    :-(
> 
> Love & Liberty,
>                                ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                             (415) 625-FREE
> 
> 
> On Sep 25, 2016, at 2:15 AM, Aaron Starr wrote:
> 
>> I vote No.
>>  
>> If this motion were to be adopted, we will have no contract at all. The campaign is not going to spend the last four or five weeks of this election cycle trying to negotiate a contract with seventeen people.
>>  
>> Aaron Starr
>> (805) 583-3308 Home
>> (805) 404-8693 Mobile
>> starrcpa at gmail.com
>>  
>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Alicia Mattson
>> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:20 PM
>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> Subject: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-10: Rescind Contract Authority
>>  
>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>  
>> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 3, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>>  
>> Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Hayes, Starchild, Demarest
>> 
>> Motion:  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.
>> 
>> -Alicia
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160925/caf43c64/attachment-0002.html>