[Lnc-business] (no subject)

Mon May 22 22:14:29 EDT 2017

I purposefully did not get into the weeds of other things I disagree with
above.  I am specifically asking *where is the right to silence what I or
other committee members may say if not in executive session.*  Anyone
can *suggest
otherwise* that is might not be productive, helpful, etc. but what I am
being told here is that I cannot.... well I am not really being told that
exactly I am being told that maybe, kinda, probably I can't, but until I
break it and get a ruling I cannot know.

I and other committee members should not have to operate under such
uncertainty of our rights.

-Caryn Ann

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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*
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*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/c335cb41/attachment-0002.html>