[Lnc-business] Bylaws Secrecy Confusion

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Thu May 25 22:45:12 EDT 2017


oops "bad guy."

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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*
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*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/20170525/6933a0aa/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list