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

Sun Sep 25 14:05:51 EDT 2016

And I note my points keep getting obscured.  I am grateful that there is a
good number of members that totally have gotten it.

It isn't merely saying "we got a bad deal" and trying to second guess after
the fact. There is an unconscionable and member-violating provision.  That
is not within the scope of authority anymore than a requirement that we
will sacrifice our first born.

Second, the public email discussion leads to the indication that this
provision was not fully known at the time of signing.  We were told that
there was not a secrecy provision. Then an LNC member had to say "hmm wait,
yes there is."  That throws the whole meeting of the minds and full consent
of these terms into question.

I will not idly let this be obscured.  My concerns were quite clear.  I am
certain if I were willing to waive my rights, and saw the contract that
there would be things I would not like as being a "bad deal."  Like, are we
requiring the campaign to use the word Libertarian such as in the sample
contract?  I suspect we are not.  That would be a bad deal in my view, but
that is fully within the scope of authority, and I could not like it, but I
would not have grounds to rescind.

I don't care that people disagree.  I do care that my points are being
mischaracterized.  They might be wrong.  But they are what they are, and
they are not what has been stated above.

.

-- 
*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 Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Perhaps "pushed on" is the wrong word, but the fact is, reluctant or not,
> the LNC handed him the task.  We had every ability not to, but we chose to
> - unanimously.
>
> None of what I've said, so far as I can tell, depends upon this being an
> unexpected objection.  As I said before, you can want a whole list of
> things, but you're not going to get all of them.  You decide how to
> maximize your take from the contract.  The LNC could have participated in
> such a discussion, but chose not to, and instead essentially said "you
> figure out the trade-offs."  Okay, and trade-offs were figured out.  Now we
> don't like those trade-offs, but we weren't there and don't know how it
> could have gone differently, and we know even less what will happen next.
> I don't like that strategy.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160925/15779401/attachment-0002.html>