[Lnc-business] P.S. - Re: Fw: Fw: Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors

Sun Oct 30 16:19:52 EDT 2016

I stand with Starchild, Caryn and any other LNC members who refuse to read
any material submitted regarding the motion to censure that requires
secrecy. I will read any relevant material that is submitted in redacted
form and ensures transparency by the elimination of the need for secrecy.

But time grows short as our votes on the motion to censure are due by
midnight tomorrow night, Monday, October 31, 2016. Without the benefit of
reading material submitted in an un-transparent shroud of secrecy, I remain
unpersuaded to change my vote on the motion to censure. We are all free to
obey our conscience. Transparency, however, is a cornerstone of the rules
that I play by.

Thoughts?

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of
Government!

~David Pratt Demarest

http://www.lpne.org 

secretary at lpne.org <mailto:secretary at lpne.org> 

dpdemarest at centurylink.net <mailto:dpdemarest at centurylink.net>  

david.demarest at firstdata.com <mailto:david.demarest at firstdata.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
Starchild
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 2:42 PM
To: John Moore <john.moore at lpnevada.org>
Cc: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
Subject: [Lnc-business] P.S. - Re: Fw: Fw: Motion: Assemblyman Moore -
request for co-sponsors

            Catching up on my other emails after writing the message below
John, I see that Tim Hagan has apparently forwarded to me your original
statement as I'd previously requested. I have not yet opened or read the
attachments he sent, however - if you wish to opt for redaction and send an
amended version without the comments about the Nevada LP leadership, please
do so and I will delete the original version unread. Although it may be too
late for Tim or other members of the committee who have read that version
and will now have to choose between secrecy and transparency.

Love & Liberty,

                                 ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                               (415) 625-FREE

                                 @StarchildSF

On Oct 30, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Starchild wrote:

            You're welcome John, and good to hear from you. Not infrequently
when someone asks to tell me something in confidence, I will let them know
it's better that they not tell me, because I don't want to be bound to
keeping something secret if it turns out to be something that I think ought
to be made public, not to mention it means more mental work for me to try to
keep track of what I'm not supposed to tell others! 

            When it comes to representative organizations (of which the
Libertarian Party is one), I believe in institutional transparency. I think
secrecy is way overused, to the detriment of our party. Circumstances in
which some members of a group have access to information that others do not
tends to create a two-tiered or multi-tiered group in which insiders have
more power, and that is anathema to bottom-up governance. One of the faults
of party leadership, in my view, is that we have often been too insular and
too much of the opinion that we can't trust ordinary LP members with
information. 

            If you feel it is productive to share your views about the
Nevada LP leadership with members of the LNC, my opinion is that other party
members also ought to have the benefit of hearing those views, and that if
you feel they cannot productively be shared with members of the public, then
it is probably not productive to share them with the LNC either and I would
suggest you redact them from your statement before you send it to us. Please
note that I'm not arguing either for redaction or for sharing with the world
in this case - not knowing what you may have to say, there's no way for me
to know whether I would consider it in the best interests of the party and
movement that you keep this information to yourself, or make it known to a
wider audience.

            But if we were to agree to accept your statement on the
condition of keeping it secret, we would be putting ourselves in the
position of receiving negative input about other Libertarian Party members
without those members knowing what was being said about them or having any
opportunity to respond to the points being made, and that does not seem fair
or desirable. If Nevada LP officials had come to us while we were debating
whether to donate to your campaign, and given us information critical of you
but asked that we keep it secret, my response would have been similar.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                (415) 625-FREE

                                   @StarchildSF

On Oct 30, 2016, at 5:30 AM, John Moore wrote:

Thank you starchild for your response to my statement.  The reason I have it
marked as "confidential" is for the statements that I made regarding the
Nevada Libertarian party leadership. I respect your opinion and input on
this issue. 

Thanks,
John Moore 
Nevada State Assembly 

On Oct 29, 2016 11:11 PM, "Starchild" <sfdreamer at earthlink.net
<mailto:sfdreamer at earthlink.net> > wrote:

Thanks Tim, that answers my question (i.e. he didn't say why he wants
secrecy). Since votes on the motion are due Monday but that being Halloween
I might forget if I wait until the last day, I'll probably vote tomorrow
evening. If you (or John) have sent me the attached documents by then, I'll
read them and take what he has to say into consideration when voting.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                (415) 625-FREE

                                  @StarchildSF

On Oct 29, 2016, at 10:53 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:

This is the e-mail I received from John Moore, but with the attachments
removed. The documents attached started with a statement that he considers
it to be a confidential document to be shared only with the Libertarian
National Committee as well as all contents of his statement.

Tim Hagan

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: John Moore <john.moore at lpnevada.org <mailto:john.moore at lpnevada.org> >
To: Tim Hagan <timhagan-tyr at yahoo.com <mailto:timhagan-tyr at yahoo.com> > 
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for
co-sponsors

Hi Tim,

Please pass the attached documents to the LNC. Please do not disseminate the
contents with anyone outside of the LNC.

Thanks,

John Moore

Nevada Assembly

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Tim Hagan <timhagan-tyr at yahoo.com
<mailto:timhagan-tyr at yahoo.com> > wrote:

John,

As you've probably already heard, many Libertarians are disappointed and
perplexed about your votes during the special session. Caryn Ann Harlos is
moving the motion below in the Libertarian National Committee concerning
your votes in support of tax increases. Let me know if you have anything you
wish me to pass on to the LNC. She and her co-sponsors are asking for an
e-mail ballot, so the debate and votes will be via e-mail during the next
ten days.

Thanks,

Tim Hagan

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@ hq.lp.org
<mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> ] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 7:45 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
Subject: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors

Multiple party members including region 1 members have acted that the LNC
take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally, I would say that is
solely an issue for the state party to handle, unless possibly, a Federal
candidate, but in this case, we spent National Party member's direct monies,
and thus I do agree this is our responsibility.  As someone who advocated
for the funds allocation, I believe it is my responsibility to address this
once members raised a concern:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January
2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past
month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on
his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the
Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully
opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a
billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent
persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have
rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we
welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide
to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not
welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and
acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby
censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases,
requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this
season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better
champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he
has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-- 

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20161030/cffc646e/attachment-0002.html>