[Lnc-business] Committee transparency

Sun Sep 25 13:59:10 EDT 2016

To respond:

I will be introducing the motion to amend indicated below.  Bold is for
additions, italics for removal.

==  This motion, though, treats all three of these committees types alike.
==

It does. Because the types of committees do not matter for institutional
transparency. That is intentional.

==When we impose obligations on committee members, we are limiting the pool
of people willing to serve.==

I do not believe that any of these items “limit” the pool. And if anyone is
not willing to do these, I don’t believe they are good institutional fit.
There is “good” limiting.

==  When a special committee is appointed to carry out an instruction, I
see no particular purpose to compelling committee members to provide their
contact information. ==

Highly disagree.  Being accessibly is key to accountability and feedback.
If someone is not willing to be contacted, in a party service role, they
should not be serving.  It is quite simple.  To refuse even having an email
address available  is quite frankly, absurd.

== Their task is not aided by being provided with the opinions of various
party members - the views of the one, or the several, do not prevail over
the views of the many - in particular, as ordered by the assembly or its
appointees. ==

Getting input and being accountable is not having anyone prevail.  It is
how bottom up and transparent organizations work.  Particularly those
modeling a voluntary society.

== The other two sorts it probably makes sense to display contact
information for - particularly the last type.  However, even there, what
we're doing is politicizing the process of committee deliberation. ==

No what we are doing is opening up to the view of the wider membership.  If
that is politicizing, I would wish to God, that we were more politicized.
I am finding it a bit disturbing that members are being characterized here
as unwelcome intruders into the process.

== We're purposefully trying to allow for lobbying and email campaigns - in
the case of the candidate committee, for instance, we're making it easier
to get a letter-writing campaign on behalf of a candidate whose campaign
does not advance our strategic objectives.==

This is disturbing.  Who is this “our” you are speaking of?  In my view,
the members comprise the greater part of “our.” We are not rulers.   Yes. I
wish for any members or cadre being able to organize to give input and
accountability and have their voice heard. Anyone can do it, and it is
vital for bottom-up organization.

== As I said here a few weeks ago, we're favoring the most vocal over the
decisions made by the delegates as a whole.==

No one got favoured.. they got HEARD.  As they should be.  Minorities have
rights too.  Our bylaws in fact anticipate this.  Appeals and the like can
be made with 1%/10%.  The LNC can override (17 people) the decision of the
convention in certain circumstances.

I will oppose any attempt to avoid identification of servants.. that is
what we are in fact.  We “serve” the party, and this is what we signed up
for.

==Regarding "or within the committee's own published standing rules for
executive session," why on earth would we require this?  We are discussing
committees appointed by the LNC.  The LNC operates under RONR and our own
rules.  Committees we appoint are not permitted, unless we give them
permission, to adopt their own rules of order.  Presumably, we'd interpret
this rule as us giving them permission to adopt their own rules of order as
regards executive session, but that misses the point - unless they do, they
operate under our rules of order, in which executive session is
well-defined (and limited more than in RONR).  What is being achieved here,
other than forcing a committee to adopt a motion making either our rules or
RONR's less restrictive rules for executive session their own?  These rules
exist, and are available on our website.  RONR is available in any
bookstore.  Exactly what 'transparency' is gained by simply chucking out
portions of our own rules for committees, and then telling them "if you
want it, you can adopt it."  Furthermore, if a committee is not permitted
to enter executive session, a standing rule would not be sufficient to
allow them to. ==

There are good points here, and I don’t think I would argue them. I was
attempting to give some great flexibility in response to Ken.  This was
obvious, so I am surprised at the “why on earth” question.

 ==I agree with Ken that we should not bind our rules to any particular
form of technology.  As concerns all internal email communications, I
oppose this restriction on committees.  Unlike boards, committees produce a
work-product.  Committees often do not keep minutes because their report is
exactly what they've done. ==

If votes are decided by email, those email debates should be transparent.
And they should keep minutes.  Reports do not suffice to fulfill that
entirely.

== An empowered committee is a bit different, but similar in this sense -
I'd support everyone being able to know what they've done, and the right of
the committee to make its reasons public.  Furthermore, exactly how would
this be enforced?  If two people are both appointed to a committee, are
they permitted to email each other separately from the "official list?"==

This is, with all due respect, a chicken little objection.  The LNC has a
public list. We don’t writhe in angst over whether or not we can
communicate with each other unofficially.  There will always be loopholes,
both good and bad, but having a general rule fosters an atmosphere of
transparency.

== Are they allowed to call each other and discuss how they feel about a
topic before the committee, phones being electronic devices?  True, a phone
call isn't a correspondence - how about texts? ==

See above.   I would have no objection to adding a word that would clarify
that such as "official."

==As for emergency meetings, I for one am not interested in missing filing
deadlines or other statutory dates because it is realized 36 hours before a
meeting that the committee didn't properly file its rules for emergency
meetings, or didn't think to word them in a way that includes the situation
in which it finds itself.==

That is an argument against having any rules or bylaws.  Coming up
strategically with rules for special meetings is simply good planning.

==Move to Amend Policy Manual Section 2.02 (page 23) to add a new
subsection (2) and re-number the remaining as follows:==

I oppose opting out of having contact information.  Making the phone number
optional was a concession.  Not having at least an email address is, as I
said, absurd.

I am amenable to removing the standing rules for executive portion part in
light of your comments above.

I am amenable to adding with the exception of executive sessions.

I am not amenable to removing the public reflector list portion.

I am willing to be persuaded on the emergency meeting portion, but not
convinced at this point.

This is the “friendly” amendment I am willing to agree to:

The names and contact information (phone number, email address, or both)
for all committee members shall be posted on the LP.org website.  Unless
otherwise specifically excepted on a committee-by-committee basis, all
committee meetings shall be open to any member of the National Party to
observe or listen with the exception of executive sessions and all
electronic committee correspondences shall be made available on a public
reflector system on the LP.org website, the location of which will be
published with the committee contact information. Notices, minutes,
agendas, and call-in information of committee meetings shall be published
to said reflector list or otherwise on the LP.org <http://lp.org/> website,
including a record of all substantive committee actions and how each member
voted. At least 48 hours public notice will be given for any committee
meeting, with the exception of emergency meetings as defined within the
committee's own published standing rules.

-- 
*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 Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Whips, accept not except.  Sounds the same and means opposite :)
>
> Very tired.  Productive evening of Gary Johnson sign planting.
>
>
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Joshua, I will consider these and may except some but I see some I will
>> not.
>>
>> I THANK YOU for your careful consideration.  I will give just as much
>> care in reviewing prior to our meeting tomorrow.
>>
>> On Saturday, September 24, 2016, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I will be introducing the motion to amend indicated below.  Bold is for
>>> additions, italics for removal.
>>>
>>> Before that, though, I have some comments on this motion.  First, not
>>> all committees have power - in fact, some members of the LNC are likely to
>>> support this while also believing that no committees, or very few, should
>>> be empowered.  What is the purpose of a non-empowered committee?  It
>>> depends on the committee, but in all cases, the committee is supposed to be
>>> composed of people with particular knowledge in a particular area or on a
>>> particular question, and to return recommendations for action.  RONR
>>> differentiates between a few sorts of committees.  Standing committees are
>>> composed of "the strongest possible group for the handling of any task that
>>> may arise within the province of the committee."  Special committees are
>>> subdivided into types.  A special committee appointed to carry out an
>>> instruction from the assembly should be composed only of those who favor
>>> the action.  When one is appointed for investigation and deliberation, it
>>> should be larger, and should represent all viewpoints within the
>>> organization, to the extent possible.  This motion, though, treats all
>>> three of these committees types alike.
>>>
>>> When we impose obligations on committee members, we are limiting the
>>> pool of people willing to serve.  We should, therefore, be sure that the
>>> obligation makes sense and serves a purpose.  When a special committee is
>>> appointed to carry out an instruction, I see no particular purpose to
>>> compelling committee members to provide their contact information.  Their
>>> task is not aided by being provided with the opinions of various party
>>> members - the views of the one, or the several, do not prevail over the
>>> views of the many - in particular, as ordered by the assembly or its
>>> appointees.  The other two sorts it probably makes sense to display contact
>>> information for - particularly the last type.  However, even there, what
>>> we're doing is politicizing the process of committee deliberation.  We're
>>> purposefully trying to allow for lobbying and email campaigns - in the case
>>> of the candidate committee, for instance, we're making it easier to get a
>>> letter-writing campaign on behalf of a candidate whose campaign does not
>>> advance our strategic objectives.  As I said here a few weeks ago, we're
>>> favoring the most vocal over the decisions made by the delegates as a whole.
>>>
>>> Regarding "or within the committee's own published standing rules for
>>> executive session," why on earth would we require this?  We are discussing
>>> committees appointed by the LNC.  The LNC operates under RONR and our own
>>> rules.  Committees we appoint are not permitted, unless we give them
>>> permission, to adopt their own rules of order.  Presumably, we'd interpret
>>> this rule as us giving them permission to adopt their own rules of order as
>>> regards executive session, but that misses the point - unless they do, they
>>> operate under our rules of order, in which executive session is
>>> well-defined (and limited more than in RONR).  What is being achieved here,
>>> other than forcing a committee to adopt a motion making either our rules or
>>> RONR's less restrictive rules for executive session their own?  These rules
>>> exist, and are available on our website.  RONR is available in any
>>> bookstore.  Exactly what 'transparency' is gained by simply chucking out
>>> portions of our own rules for committees, and then telling them "if you
>>> want it, you can adopt it."  Furthermore, if a committee is not permitted
>>> to enter executive session, a standing rule would not be sufficient to
>>> allow them to.
>>>
>>> I agree with Ken that we should not bind our rules to any particular
>>> form of technology.  As concerns all internal email communications, I
>>> oppose this restriction on committees.  Unlike boards, committees produce a
>>> work-product.  Committees often do not keep minutes because their report is
>>> exactly what they've done.  An empowered committee is a bit different, but
>>> similar in this sense - I'd support everyone being able to know what
>>> they've done, and the right of the committee to make its reasons public.
>>> Furthermore, exactly how would this be enforced?  If two people are both
>>> appointed to a committee, are they permitted to email each other separately
>>> from the "official list?"  Are they allowed to call each other and discuss
>>> how they feel about a topic before the committee, phones being electronic
>>> devices?  True, a phone call isn't a correspondence - how about texts?
>>>
>>> As for emergency meetings, I for one am not interested in missing filing
>>> deadlines or other statutory dates because it is realized 36 hours before a
>>> meeting that the committee didn't properly file its rules for emergency
>>> meetings, or didn't think to word them in a way that includes the situation
>>> in which it finds itself.
>>>
>>> Move to Amend Policy Manual Section 2.02 (page 23) to add a new
>>> subsection (2) and re-number the remaining as follows:
>>>
>>> 2) Committee Transparency
>>>
>>> The names and contact information (phone number, email address, or both)
>>> for all committee members shall be posted on the LP.org website*,
>>> except that the committee member may choose not to disclose contact
>>> information*.  Unless otherwise specifically excepted on a committee-by-
>>> committee basis *or within the committee's own published standing rules
>>> for "executive session," *all committee meetings shall be open to any
>>> member of the National Party to observe or listen *with the exception
>>> of executive sessions **and all electronic committee correspondences
>>> shall be made available on a public reflector system on the LP.org website,
>>> the location of which will be published with the committee contact
>>> information.* Notices, minutes, agendas, and call-in information of
>>> committee meetings shall be published to said reflector list or
>>> otherwise on the LP.org <http://lp.org/> website*, including a record
>>> of all substantive committee actions and how each member voted.* At
>>> least 48 hours public notice will be given for any committee meeting*,
>>> with the exception of emergency meetings as defined within the committee's
>>> own published standing rules., except that a call to meeting agreed to by
>>> all committee members shall be made available publicly at the time it is
>>> issued.*
>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> *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/20160925/4fe78c5c/attachment-0002.html>