[Lnc-business] (no subject)

Mon May 22 18:09:41 EDT 2017

I am allowed to say we did have a vote.  I believe I am allowed to say the
vote total (I believe 5-4 with one abstention).  I am not allowed to say,
apparently, who voted for or against, or who said what argument for or
against other than my own.

That's......  not right.  But I don't want to breach any duty.  And in
discussions, members talking about what happens was referred to as "leaks"
(I can't say by who) and that isn't right... that deeply implies a breach
of ethical duty.

So I haven't said anything.  But I think my rights are being squashed here,
but I keep asking for a rule.  I understand some people may not think it
"wise" to share things.  But that is up to the committee members and
someone else's wisdom should not be a rule for someone else.

This lack of clarity is difficult to work with.  I am very very open to my
members and they expect that but I don't know what I can say or not, and I
don't think there is a rule saying so, which means, it should be up to me.
As a minority voice on this, I am particularly vulnerable.

-Caryn Ann

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I was under the impression that there may have been a vote...on what,
> specifically, I don't know.
>
> I guess my question is...did the Bylaws Committee have a vote  to share
> their email discussions on read-only list, like the LNC does? If so, what
> were the votes and results?
>
> On May 22, 2017 4:08 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Daniel.
>>
>> I am VERY unclear as to my rights, member rights, and obligations.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:45 PM <danielehayes at icloud.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All, and especially Mr. Katz in his role as chairman of the Bylaws
>>> Committee,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It has come to my attention and my brain momentarily allotted enough
>>> bandwidth to really think about this.  Under what authority are our bylaws
>>> meetings secret?  (No, Starchild has not hijacked my computer).
>>> Specifically Ms. Harlos is acting like she just joined Fight Club.  Ms.
>>> 1000 Emails being mostly clammed shut.  I am worried she might end up like
>>> the kid from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie that got the
>>> experimental candy.
>>>
>>> These are all the reasons for going into executive session in our rules
>>> with a majority vote.
>>> • Legal matters (potential, pending, or past)
>>>
>>> • Regulatory and compliance matters (potential, pending, or past)
>>>
>>> • Contractual compliance
>>>
>>> • Personnel matters (including evaluation, compensation, hiring, or
>>> dismissal)
>>>
>>> • Board self-evaluation
>>>
>>> • Strategic issues (only those requiring confidentiality)
>>>
>>> • Negotiations (potential, pending, or past)
>>> Other topics require a two-thirds vote of LNC.
>>> No action can be taken while in Executive Session.
>>> Discussion of action which may be taken in Open Session can occur.
>>>
>>>
>>> The reasons for going into Executive session are supposed to be listed
>>> if a vote was taken.
>>>
>>> But when I ask about the vote to go into executive session I am told
>>> that there was no vote.
>>>
>>> I realize that we have rules all over the place and I might be missing
>>> something, hence I am asking, Why?
>>>
>>> Someone enlighten me as to what’s up before I slam big brown(11th ed.)
>>> on down.
>>>
>>> How is this remotely in line with what this organization stands for?
>>> I would flip a gasket if the Louisiana Legislature was operating in this
>>> manner.   This wouldn’t pass muster under Sunshine Laws for government.
>>> Let that sink in.
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel Hayes
>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>>> Windows 10
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> *We defend your rights*
>> *And oppose the use of force*
>> *Taxation is theft*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170522/cf5f272c/attachment-0002.html>