[Lnc-business] (no subject)

Mon May 22 22:11:14 EDT 2017

The lack of a right to be present at a meeting does not preclude or silence
a committee member from recapping - even exactly - what transpired.  If it
is not secret,  it is not secret.  There is nothing that precludes
identifying participants, what they said, and what was discussed, even
specifically.  Where is the right to preclude that?

I am being told and other committee members are being told that they cannot
identify such things - I see argument above about why some may not find it
helpful - but that is us deciding what information others may use and
almost paternalistically witholding it to save them from themselves - what
is the authority to tell any committee member that they cannot disclose
this information?

I have yet to see that.  It is not a meeting.  And even if it were a
meeting that was not open, if not in executive session, there is nothing to
prohibit me from taking notes verbatim and releasing those notes.

So why can I not do similarly here?

This seems like a gag order on committee members for which there is no
Bylaws nor RONR authority.

-Caryn Ann

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mr. Hayes, thank you for your questions.
>
> First, the bylaws committee has not held a single executive session.  It
> is unlikely to hold a single executive session.  If it chose to, it could
> hold every one of its meetings in executive session, but that would be
> counterproductive.  The rules you cite for executive session are for the
> LNC, and are found in the Policy Manual.  The bylaws committee, as should
> be easily recognized, is not the LNC.
>
> Committees operate under the following rule:  "During actual deliberations
> of the committee, only committee members have the *right *to be present."
>  (p. 501, emphasis added).  Committees may decide to allow non-members to
> be present, on a meeting by meeting basis, but cannot adopt a rule to that
> effect due to a rule cited on another thread.  That does not make the
> content of the meetings secret.  It does not make the topics considered, or
> what was said about them, secret.  Those are the crucial characteristics of
> executive sessions, hence, such rules do not describe an executive session.
>
> My interpretation of that rule, which is not a ruling since I may only
> issue a ruling during a meeting, and this is an email, not a meeting, is
> that members should not reveal to non-members the identities of those
> making the arguments or how individuals voted at a meeting where the
> committee has chosen not to invite non-members.  If the committee wanted
> that information known, it would open the meeting to non-members.  What
> about emails?  Emails are part of the committee deliberation, and are
> identified by author.  It's a close case, since emails are not meetings.
> As I've pointed out before, RONR limits its comments on email voting to
> little more than "its hard, and if you decide to do it, you figure it out."
>  In my opinion, it similarly should not be shared without committee
> permission.
>
> Some confusion seems to have been created by the special rules the LNC has
> adopted for itself, and those placed into the bylaws regarding the LNC.
> Let's clarify that.  The parent assembly of the bylaws committee, and other
> bylaws-mandated committees, is the convention, not the LNC.  The LNC has
> some powers in connection with those committees (appointment of members,
> selection of a temporary chair, and writing rules regarding electronic
> meetings are those which come to mind).  As such, with the exception of the
> rules adopted by the LNC for the conduct of electronic meetings (which
> authorize committees to opt in to recording, but do not require recording,
> and permit committees to allow non-members to attend, but do not require
> committees to do so), the rules the LNC adopts for its own conduct bear no
> relation to such committees.  Nor may the LNC make rules for such
> committees, except as specifically authorized in the bylaws.  Finally, as
> noted, such committees may not adopt rules for themselves which conflict
> with those in the bylaws or, where the bylaws are silent, with our
> parliamentary authority.
>
>
> The bylaws committee has, in fact, not adopted any motions regarding its
> conduct.  Your inquiry is apparently launched by the committee's failure to
> do so, and implicit decision (so far) to abide by the rules in RONR without
> modification.  As I pointed out at our last meeting, I disagree with the
> tendency to consider the choice to abide by our established rules as
> somehow abnormal or a "screw-up."
>
> Having discussed to whom the bylaws committee reports, I will also review
> the purpose of committees and why they behave differently from assemblies.
> While exceptions exist, in general the purpose of committees is to research
> a topic or question and make recommendations.  The bylaws committee is no
> exception (while several LNC-created committees are).  The bylaws committee
> prepares a report showing its recommendations, which are then adopted, or
> not, by its parent assembly.  The committee decides nothing on behalf of
> the party.  The only decision it makes is to make recommendations, and
> those recommendations it chooses to make are, of course, fully publicly
> available.  RONR says "When a committee is to make substantive
> recommendations . . . it should give members of the society an opportunity
> to appear before it and present their views on the subject a time scheduled
> by the committee."  The committee has every intention to do so, both
> electronically and in person, and via surveys, as it has done in the past.
> There is no suggestion that it is useful for members of the society to know
> who introduced what proposals, who said what in debate, and so on.  Sharing
> such information, in my opinion (and only my opinion - we can't infer the
> reasons people vote for things) politicizes the committee's work, and
> causes committee members to picture each comment, such as an attempt to
> wordsmith a proposal with which they may disagree, being blasted across
> various social media platforms.  Nor is it conducive to delegates making
> decisions on the merits of the proposals.  Knowing that I introduced a
> proposal tells you nothing about the proposal, yet might be the basis of a
> campaign to "vote no on the Katz motion."
>
> On the other hand, there are arguments for making such things available,
> and for inviting all to attend our meetings.  That's why the committee has
> to decide - there are arguments for both positions.  The LNC does not get
> to decide because the committee does not answer to the LNC.  As chair, I
> will do as the committee directs.  My own opinion is that there is useful
> transparency, such as the aforementioned hearings, and working to make sure
> that adopted proposals are available to the public as soon as possible so
> that useful feedback can be gotten, less useful, and harmful.  But then, I
> only rarely even vote on motions in committee, and hardly ever debate.
>
> I am also not particularly persuaded by the fact that different sorts of
> organizations, which serve different functions, have different sorts of
> rules, either internally (the LNC, for instance) or externally imposed
> (such as Sunshine Laws).  In particular, pointing out that a committee
> would not be allowed to act a certain way if it were a government agency
> strikes me as a little like pointing out that I could not eat chocolate if
> I were a dog.  It's true, but I don't learn anything from it.  I have a
> different internal chemistry.  The bylaws committee has no independent
> power and governs nothing.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:44 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*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170522/da68b3fb/attachment-0002.html>