[Lnc-business] Bylaws Secrecy Confusion

Wed May 24 22:06:54 EDT 2017

Is it your position that there can be a rule for silence that is not in
RONR or the Bylaws/Policy Manual but nonetheless a rule?

I would think that it is self-apparent that "restrictions" including the
extreme restriction of secrecy must be explicit.  I would think that
anything else would be noxious to libertarian sensibilities in particular.
Our freedom to speak is an essential right that cannot be arbitrarily
waived and without a rule - and we all agreed to be bound by RONR and any
applicable rules of this body - there is no such divorce of that right.

-Caryn Ann

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> My opinion was asked for.  A few emails back, I explained my opinion and
> my reasoning for it.  There is no general rule that "silencing rules must
> be explicit."  As I also explained a few emails back, my opinion is not a
> ruling, since I can't make rulings outside of meetings (committee meetings,
> that is).  You disagree, one of us is wrong.  If it's me, it won't be the
> first time or the last.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Joshua, you have not answered the question about where this is any such
>> rule in RONR that says a member cannot say what was said and how anyone
>> voted. Silencing rules must be explicit.  If there are member rights and
>> they are being violated by a committee by a position on silencing with
>> suggestions (not you) that discussions will just ostracize the dissenting
>> member obviously the appointing body is a route of complaint and frankly
>> the membership.  Committees do not get to make their own rules--even if a
>> majority says so- even if a super majority cannot be summoned to say "hey,
>> that's not in RONR."  I do not waive my rights, and I don't think any
>> committee member should have to be concerned that they will be excluded
>> from discussions for exercising their rights.
>>
>> So essentially you are making a "closed meeting" (i.e. a meeting where
>> members do not have a right to attend)  mean that if a member does not have
>> a right to attend, then they have no right to know what happened, and that
>> simply does not follow.  In order to keep the lid shut that tight, there
>> must be an executive session since you cannot point to any rule that says
>> so - there is no rule providing for discussion of general topics but not
>> providing context or votes.
>>
>> I should not have to "appeal" to prove a negative- it would be like me
>> having to appeal to prove that pink-haired people get to speak - there is
>> no rule that says they can't.  RONR does not have such a rule.  I will
>> simply repeat that I do not waive my rights, and I am not going to get
>> "permission" for my rights.  And I submit it is not good faith actions of a
>> committee* IF* (and* it hasn't happened* *but *it has been suggested)
>> some of this Body's appointees are excluded from discussion for exercising
>> a right for which there is no rule prohibiting its exercise.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170524/74b0e98a/attachment-0002.html>