[Lnc-business] Bylaws Secrecy Confusion

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Wed May 24 23:58:10 EDT 2017 

I am not allowed to say what arguments people have made. I can "generally"
say such and such.

-Caryn Ann

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170524/4d893def/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list