[Lnc-business] Bylaws Secrecy Confusion

Wed May 24 21:26:46 EDT 2017

I have answered these questions approximately a dozen times.  You do not
like my answer.  You are free to appeal it - to the committee, not to this
board.  The only power this board has is appointment - clearly, if I am
wrong and a complaint is to be made with this board on that basis, then
there's no reason to follow the answers I provided.

Our executive sessions do not keep votes secret, because our executive
sessions do not involve any votes.  If we didn't have that rule, they most
certainly would keep votes secret - in addition to the topics voted on.

Joshua A. Katz

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Are you claiming at a closed meeting that is not in executive session that
> RONR claims I could not discuss who said what and how they voted?
>
> That it's secret?
>
> Where is that rule?
>
> The right to attend does not imply no right to know what happened, and
> what happened includes who said what and who voted which way.
>
> Even our executive sessions do not keep *votes* secret.
>
> This is completely violative of minority member rights to speak.
>
> Show me the RONR citation that allows for a gag order on who said what it
> voted which way?
>
> I do not waive my rights and a majority cannot vote them away.
>
> This also prevents and silenced any minority member right to complain -
> with specifics - to the appointing body - of problems- such as any
> situation in which any committee member is ostracized from discussions for
> refusing to waive a right.
>
> I do not waive that right.
>
> Silencing rules must be explicit.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:00 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I missed your missive.  I have discovered, not so remarkably, that I
>> am more productive at work (by the way, I know this because I have a good
>> metric for productivity - my time records) if I do not open my personal
>> email at work, and instead have only an email address there that only
>> pertains to work.
>>
>> As I said in my previous email on this topic, my interpretation of the
>> rules in RONR and our bylaws is that committee members may freely discuss
>> the topics and items discussed in committee (when, exactly, this is a good
>> idea is another question) but may not discuss who said what or how each
>> individual voted.  Some members of the committee disagree, and I welcome
>> them to request a ruling and then appeal at a meeting.  I admit it is not
>> an area of incredible clarity, particularly when it comes to email, about
>> which RONR says, in essence, that those who choose to conduct business by
>> email should not expect any advice from Dan Honemann, at least in the form
>> of the book.  On the other hand, when the committee chooses to make
>> specific meetings open, or to open its email list, then sharing that
>> information would also be permitted.
>>
>> I also said doing these things is often a bad idea, but, as you know,
>> that is a separate question.
>>
>> I am gratified by the attention the committee is receiving from a board
>> to which it does not report.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Mr. Katz,
>>>
>>> I did not see a response to my question.  Did I miss your response?  Did
>>> you miss my missive?
>>> In any event let me ask again.
>>>
>>> Do members of the Bylaws committee have any restrictions on what
>>> information they can share outside the committee? Are the committee's
>>> discussions secret?
>>>
>>> Daniel Hayes
>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On May 23, 2017, at 3:50 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mr. Katz
>>>
>>> Thank you for your extensive explanation of the situation regarding the
>>> bylaws.  Your point regarding where the Bylaws committee derives its
>>> authority is well taken.  However, therein lies some of the confusion as it
>>> may not be so simple.  I will delve into that later.
>>>
>>> With brevity, to alleviate any confusion,  do members of the Bylaws
>>> committee have any restrictions on what information they can share outside
>>> the committee? Are the committee's discussions secret?
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel Hayes
>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On May 23, 2017, at 12:19 AM, Tim Hagan <timhagan-tyr at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm a bit confused, and maybe a member of the Bylaws Committee can clear
>>> things up. First I read that the Bylaws Committee voted to make either its
>>> meetings or its e-mail deliberations secret. However, the Bylaws Committee
>>> Chair wrote that the committee has not adopted any motions regarding
>>> its conduct. Is it that the e-mail list will be used only for informal
>>> deliberations and no votes nor business done on it?
>>>
>>> I admit that I didn't pay attention to how the Bylaws Committees
>>> operated recently, other than filling out the surveys, to know if the
>>> custom has changed. But back in the old days when the committee did almost
>>> all of its work at in-person meetings just prior to conventions, the
>>> meetings were open to all party members to observe. From what I've heard
>>> from members of the current Bylaws Committee, they need clarification on
>>> what they can repeat of the contents from the e-mail deliberations and from
>>> meetings where non-members were not invited.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim Hagan
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 22, 2017 6:14 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] (no subject)
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170524/ba6cc394/attachment-0002.html>