[Lnc-business] Bylaws Secrecy Confusion

Fri May 26 06:47:51 EDT 2017

Alicia, good point. My main concern is that is that delegates' get the
benefit of our reasoning behind our recommendations accurately represented
but with optional attribution. I prefer not to hide behind anonymity.

On May 25, 2017 9:34 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170526/f7a6b5e5/attachment-0002.html>