[Lnc-business] Bylaws Secrecy Confusion

Ken Moellman lpky at mu-net.org
Wed May 24 23:55:58 EDT 2017 

Let's cut through the RONR and get to the heart of the matter...

What is the rationale for keeping deliberations silent?

Instead of asking "Can we?" I think we might want to ask "Why?"



On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
wrote:

> Joshua,
>
> You are WAY in the weeds breh.  You are telling Caryn Ann to appeal the
> ruling of the chair.  When was said ruling made?
>
> Is it your opinion that the chair of the bylaws committee has the
> authority to create rules of any sort with regards to keeping ANY matter
> secret? I assume we both know the answer to that. It wouldn't be the first
> time I made an incorrect assumption.
>
> Also, the Bylaws Committee does not have any authority to create rules for
> how its members conduct themselves.  That authority would be left to the
> parent body unless specifically granted to it to create such rules.
>
> *"Committees of organized  societies operate under the bylaws, the
> parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules
> of the society which may be applicable to them.*  *A committee may not
> adopt its own rules except as authorized in the rules of the society or in
> the instructions given to the committee by its parent assembly in a
> particular case." *
> RONR (11th ed.) p.500, ll.23-501, l. 1
>
> Caryn Ann or any other member have NO obligation to abide by any such
> illegal rules. Any sanctions imposed on them by the bylaws committee or its
> chairman would be out of order.
> I encourage her and others to speak to Party members about anything they
> see fit.
>
> What are you guys doing? This is NOT how this body operates. We are all
> friends and colleagues. This sort of behavior is part of why many of our
> members have distrust for the LNC.  This is just silly. There can be
> reasons for confidentiality but no such reason exists here.
>
> Our members have a right to know how the people representing them are
> representing them.  Please reconsider these positions. This goes against
> the spirit of transparency that pervades our organization.
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 24, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170524/850e262f/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list