[Lnc-business] (no subject)

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And at the risk of speaking for Ms. Ruff (who follows this list due to our
transparency), I think she is equally unclear.

-Caryn Ann

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> See David demonstrates exactly what the problem is.... neither of us know
> what we can say and it is like walking on eggshells.  Our rights and duties
> should be clearly spelled out.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:20 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Daniel, likewise on the Nebraska Unicameral. The Judiciary Committee
>> chaired by Laura Ebke is wide open to the public as are all Unicameral
>> committees that I am aware. I may have heard that they can optionally use
>> executive sessions for votes which sounds dubious to me but I will check
>> with Laura. I am not sure if and why the fact that we are a party not a
>> legislature should make a difference.
>>
>> Darned if I know how to answer Whitney's question at this point without
>> risk of impropriety until our transparency rules are defined but I do have
>> serious concerns with the direction this is going and the possible
>> justifications for lack of transparency. Perhaps a minority report will
>> shed some light.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, I wonder how the two major parties handle transparency
>> on their Bylaws & Rules committees. I would hope that we compare favorably
>> on the side of transparency.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> On May 22, 2017 3:45 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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*
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*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/c6121baf/attachment-0005.html>