[Lnc-business] Bylaws Secrecy Confusion

Wed May 24 22:30:37 EDT 2017

It is my view that such things as implications exist and not all things
must be stated explicitly.  I've been wrong about things before, as noted.
It's possible I'm wrong about this one.  If I am, it will be because the
conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, not because the conclusion
must be stated explicitly or it doesn't count.  In the meantime, as I've
mentioned a few dozen times already, none of this is a ruling

Joshua A. Katz

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170524/75a53786/attachment-0002.html>