[Lnc-business] Bylaws Secrecy Confusion

Alicia Mattson agmattson at gmail.com
Thu May 25 22:33:53 EDT 2017


David,

So you'll be advocating that the Radical Caucus open its Facebook page?  :-)

Our platform distinguishes between policies for government and policies for
private organizations and individuals.  Our platform calls for government
transparency and individual privacy because government has power over our
lives - power to tax us, power to put us in jail, power to confiscate our
property, power to sell out our national security interests for a donation
to a fake charity, power to target political enemies after they spy on us,
etc.

-Alicia



On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:50 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> Alicia, I respect your views but this glosses over the heart of the
> matter. Transparency is synonymous with Libertarianism, secrecy is not. if
> concerns of the consequences of transparency outweigh the pursuit of the
> benefits, something is out of whack. The mission of the Bylaws & Rules
> Committee is or should be to transparently debate and propose
> recommendations for consideration by delegates including not only our
> recommendations but just as important the reasoning behind our
> recommendations so that delegates can make fully informed decisions.
>
>
>
> Reflecting on all the technical and emotional discourse, I am totally
> baffled by this debate on transparency. I wonder how we compare with the
> level of transparency of the corresponding committees of the other two
> major parties. Hopefully the comparison is favorable to our committee. If
> not, we clearly need to rethink our mission.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell:      402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>
> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Alicia Mattson
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 6:12 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Bylaws Secrecy Confusion
>
>
>
> Why are we trying to drag the LNC into another committee's operations?
>
> The Bylaws and Rules Committee had a 2.5-hour meeting with so much debate
> that it didn't even get through 25% of its agenda.  Now we're trying to
> re-hash it all by email here after the vote?  And guess what, none of it
> was about doing our real job of adopting any proposals.  The "anarchists"
> are complaining that we adopted no rules, and now we must spend a month
> demonizing the rest of the committee before we can even get any actual work
> done.
>
> Perhaps demonstrating that one intends to try to whip the entire internet
> into a frenzy every time you lose a vote is not the best way to convince
> others that the same approach should be used for every conversation the
> committee has.
>
> I haven't yet heard Ms. Harlos advocate that the LP Admins and Moderators
> group on Facebook should be a public group while it filters out the bad
> ideas suggested for the LP Facebook page.  There she seems to understand
> that not every internal communication must be shared with the world.  And
> those individuals without a group vote choose what gets posted publicly on
> Facebook in the name of the party, which as we have seen recently, can
> generate PR disasters.  The identity of people who generated controversial
> posts in the party's name have been protected from disclosure even to the
> LNC who is supposed to manage the party assets.  Even LNC members who have
> recently been added to that group for oversight have only been given
> limited access.  I'm a party officer, but I can't see the inbox
> communications with the public which are done in the party's name.
>
> Let's not forget what the Bylaws and Rules Committee does, and what it
> doesn't do.  It doesn't amend the bylaws.  We write PROPOSALS.  We float
> ideas, some good, some bad.  We look for the side effects and flaws in each
> other's ideas, draft and re-draft.  Why get the internet worked up over the
> ideas or incomplete drafts that are never going to come up for a vote at
> convention?  The proposals that get majority vote from the committee are
> then published well in advance before being voted on by yet another body.
>
>
> What evil plot do you imagine is lurking in discussions of the Bylaws and
> Rules Committee, as we draft proposals for the delegates to debate and vote
> on, such that the committee chair deserves to get demanding-tone emails
> from this list?
>
> The people who are complaining now have themselves drafted proposals first
> in smaller private groups before floating them to the full LNC for
> consideration, even as recently as last week.
>
>
>
> When did we become the 1984-government party in which our every
> communication must be monitored?  When did we become the "guilty until you
> prove yourself innocent by publishing all of your emails on the internet"
> party?  When did we ever accept the NSA spying argument of, "If you have
> nothing to hide, then what's the problem with us recording all your
> communications?"
>
>
>
> The LNC has plenty of its own business to deal with.  When the Bylaws and
> Rules Committee actually gets a chance to adopt some proposals, you'll see
> them, and you can tell us what you think of them, and you can debate and
> vote on them at convention.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:50 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170525/bc1f72a8/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list