[Lnc-business] Bylaws Secrecy Confusion

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Alicia, I know your question was to David, but I will weigh in:

==So you'll be advocating that the Radical Caucus open its Facebook page?==

Two fallacies.  First, that a group appointed to recommend changes to our
governing documents and as such wields a great deal of power over that
process (it is naive IMHO to claim otherwise and I don't think anyone
really believes that) is the same as an internal narrow special interest
group.  Two, it is open to *members.*  If we could find a way to have a
member's only forum or open list or open communications, I would be
completely fine with that.  But there is no realistic way that has been
proposed to do that, and there is also the issue of genuine seekers etc.,
which is where discretion comes in to play.

==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.==

The Bylaws Committee controls the process and there is no easy path for
submissions from the floor so what gets heard is very much in its control -
and in the past - the minority reports were not included nor were those
questions included in the survey etc.  There is also no reason for
confidentiality that outweighs any benefit of transparency.

It has never been my position that nothing in the world should be private.
I have never objected to our executive sessions and never had to be excused
for refusing to abide by that secrecy.

What has been said here is the understanding of the Chair is that silence
is required on certain things.  Do you agree with that interpretation?  And
the Chair made it clear that would be his ruling as he said I could appeal
it (which missed a step, but I understood what he meant) - which then would
require a super majority to overturn, which would not.  Thus my protest.  I
dispute that the committee has the right to even request me to have a
ruling on this - there is no clear RONR rule or Bylaws rule.

That is the heart of the dispute.  No one is a "bad buy."  But there is a
profound disagreement.

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170525/4baa1b02/attachment-0002.html>