[Lnc-business] Bylaws Committee Veil of Secrecy.

Mon May 22 20:20:45 EDT 2017

I think I can say we are now discussing this on the Bylaws list.  I can't
say - yet - who is saying what.

I am increasingly convinced that if it isn't breaking any rules, that I
need to forward the list emails to a mirror and settle this.  The funny
thing is for all this I-Spy stuff, no one would even care, about five
interested people will read, and no muss no fuss.  By a futile struggle to
keep everything "secret" it is causing the controversy.

I don't want to break a rule.  I do respect rules.  But yes, it certainly
feels like I have to break it to know it.  I would rather just have a
bright line answer.  Can I, or can I not just forward the emails to a
mirror list?  It is better than just quoting what I think is important and
being said to have taken things out of context or inadvertantly taking
things out of context, and members can read the whole thing.

The convolutions I have to go through just to have a discussion on this,
even with the LNC, is just stifling.

-Caryn Ann

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
wrote:

> We've got rules shoved all over the place. But if someone can't point you
> to the specific rule, and you have to break the rule to find out what the
> rule is.  Meh.  Who are we?
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> So it seems to me that I can forward all the emails to my own reflector
> list if I wished?  Or anyone else on the committee could?  That the
> committee cannot prohibit that?
>
> Further, we spring from the parent organization - I don't see how members
> can be prohibited from something the parent organization does.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:36 PM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
>> From pages 500-501.  Of RONR 11th Ed.
>>
>> *"Committees of organized societies operate under the bylaws, the
>> parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules
>> of the society which may be applicable to them. A committee may not adopt
>> its own rules except as authorized in the rules of the society or in
>> instructions given to the committee by its parent assembly in a particular
>> case. If a standing or special committee is so large that it can function
>> best in the manner of a full-scale assembly, it should be instructed that
>> the informalities and modifications of the regular rules of parliamentary
>> procedure listed for small boards on pages 487–88 are not to apply to its
>> proceedings. When a committee is to make substantive recommendations or
>> decisions on an important matter, it should give members of the society an
>> opportunity to appear before it and present their views on the subject at a
>> time scheduled by the committee. Such a meeting is usually called a
>> hearing. During actual deliberations of the committee, only committee
>> members have the right to be present. "*
>>
>>
>> So Caryn Ann,
>>
>> Unless I am missing something in our rules somewhere else, the LNC Bylaws
>> committee does not have the authority to create rules of order on its own.
>>
>> If this secrecy is just how this has always been done regarding our
>> bylaws committee I would point you to page 19 of RONR 11th ed. It covers
>> custom.  When a point of order is raised custom falls to the floor.
>>
>>
>> Daniel Hayes
>> LNC At Large Member
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 22, 2017, at 5:46 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> And to be clear as well, if the committee does not want to have an
>> automatical read-only list like this one, under what authority can any
>> individual member be prevented from copying any or all emails and posting
>> them on a list themselves?
>>
>> This is Party business not personal love letters.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:24 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> *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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/aab36707/attachment-0005.html>