[Lnc-business] (no subject)

Tue May 23 14:44:14 EDT 2017

Yes there was a vote.  I believe I can share the numbers but cannot share
who voted for what.  However, I believe the committee can only vote on
whether or not it would automate that process or not.  It chose not.  And
it did not choose to open its meetings at this time.  However, as another
commenter said, "'Not open' in the sense that only the actual committee
members are allowed to attend [or participate in an email group] is NOT the
same thing as a requirement that what was discussed be kept secret -- and
one does NOT imply the other."

I do not think the committee can tell any other member (and we didn't vote
on this - this is a discussion that took place after the vote) that they
cannot discuss deliberations or place restrictions on those discussions
without executive session.  And I doubt any member has any burning desire
to go discuss *everything * but we understandingly are not amenable to a
preemptive waiving of rights to speak.  Of course, as it was alleged in an
anonymous IPR comment, is is true that some members could simply go off and
privately deliberate on each and every thing and simply exclude the other
members, but I would find that not a good faith way to conduct a committee
- to threaten exclusion if a member does not waive their rights.  I would
think that highly inappropriate and not the way to treat duly appointed
members by this Body.  Full participation in a committee should not require
a gag order, and yes, saying that things that could otherwise be discussed,
cannot be, on threat of penalty (be it lack of inclusion in participation
or ostracizing) is a gag order.

I want to just move along and get to work.  I seriously doubt there is
anything that will be discussed in great detail outside of committee.  I am
aware of many of the proposals that members wish to bring forward and I
doubt there will be anything terribly controversial or scandalous.  Bylaws
generally are not that juicy.

-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/20170523/a6c9aacf/attachment-0002.html>