<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sure thing Whitney, here is my amended proposal.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2) Committee Transparency</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The names and contact information (phone number, email
address, or both) for all committee members shall be posted on the LP.org
website. Unless otherwise specifically
excepted on a committee-by-committee basis or within the committee's own
published standing rules for "executive session," all committee
meetings shall be open to any member of the National Party to observe or listen
and all electronic committee correspondences shall be made available on a
public reflector system on the LP.org website, the location of which will be
published with the committee contact information. Notices, minutes, agendas,
and call-in information of committee meetings shall be published to said
reflector list or otherwise on the LP.org <<a href="http://lp.org/" target="_blank">http://lp.org/</a>> website,
including a record of all substantive committee actions and how each member voted.
At least 48 hours public notice will be given for any committee meeting, with
the exception of emergency sessions called as per the committee’s published
standing rules.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">======</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am going to group the objections by category:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">PHONE NUMBER: As it
is worded above, it is not mandatory to list phone number. It says email address, phone number, <b>or both</b>. Right now there is NO contact information
for committee members. That is what I
was addressing.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">EXECUTIVE SESSION: My proposal allows for things that truly
must be confidential to be kept so but requires the Committee to have Standing
Rules so that members could know which areas would be covered. Some Committees, such as the APRC, would be
excepted in full. As we learn of
situations in which secrecy (with Sunset provisions) is warranted, then those get
addressed. The default should be
transparency.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The purpose of this proposal is a general rule. The charter of each committee would then specify
any exceptions from that general rule.
This alone handles the concerns.
And is already done by the APRC for instance.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Starchild and David very adequately addressed the secrecy
issue. And the fact is we are already
transparent at the LNC level. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">NOTICE: Emergency
sessions could be called per the committee’s standing rules.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">OVERARCHING POINT:
Anything that we might refer to a committee right now would be handled
otherwise by the LNC. And if handled by
the LNC would be fully transparent. It
is not a service to our members to add a layer of opacity. If we transfer the authority, we transfer the
responsibility for that authority, including opacity and rules for Executive
Session. Just like we follow.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">CRAMPING COMMITTEE STYLE:
To that, I say, our members are more important and modeling the way we
believe a governing body should be run.
Our Libertarian culture should be transparent and perhaps committees who
cannot operate that way (with the exception of those that must – again,
exceptions made case by case) should not be Libertarian committees. Any organization is going to have rules and
guidelines for their committees whether it cramps their style or not.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">MISC POINTS:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">LENGTH OF POLICY MANUAL:
I find that a wholly insufficient reason to not include something needs
to be there. The fact is that if we
propose any permanent committee to handle things, that too will be a Policy
Manual addition, and it would be an awful argument against that committee that
it would add a paragraph to the PM. I
find it a similarly bad argument here.
If there are other things that can be removed from the PM, that is a
separate subject. I personally find the PM lacking and think its need
more. We are a professional political
party and that requires policies.
Members then know their rights and our obligations. We are not in
kindergarten any longer but playing with the adults.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">======</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As far as Ken’s alternate proposal, I find that wholly
insufficient for member transparency and vests way too much, in secret, to the
Party Chair. It not only removes
members, it removes the purview of the rest of the LNC.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further, allocating money is not the only issue. Members have a right to know, for instance,
what the Bylaws and Platform Committees are doing. What the IT Committee is doing, even without
funds. Etc. There is no true accountability without
transparency and there is little grooming of outsiders to step up to leadership
– leading to an incestuous inner circle of the same people. This is a common complaint amongst
membership. And I say this against
self-interest, since I am on the cusp of becoming part of that inner circle
with all its advantages. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I believe every concern is addressed in my proposal which
merely creates a rebuttal presumption towards transparency that I believe every
LNC member should sign onto.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">I could write more, but then there are diminishing returns.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">-- <br></p><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a>Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:whitneycb76@gmail.com" target="_blank">whitneycb76@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Caryn Ann,<div><br></div><div>Can you repost your revision? I have lost it in all the threads we have going...</div><div>-----</div><div>Starchild, it is my experience (outside of LNC) that bid proposals are often meant to be kept confidential per vendor policies, not necessarily the potential customer's policy. Many vendors will include a confidentiality agreement in their bid proposals, to protect their specific business/products/contracts.<div><br></div><div>Vendors don't want to go to the trouble of creating proposals for work they can/will provide, just so another company can steal the package and sell it as their own for cheaper... It is common practice in the business world, particularly service providers, to protect one's pricing structures from competitors... </div><div><br></div><div>We win so long as we are accepting the lowest bid, and negotiating as much as we can within the limits of the confidentiality agreement made with the bidders.</div><div>-----</div><div>It is my understanding that no subcommittee actually makes decisions for the Party....they make recommendations. Such recommendations must be voted on by the LNC anyway, so the risk of letting people meet in secret to make decisions, spend money, etc...is slim to none...is it not?</div><div><br></div><div>I am not against transparency, as some out there are insinuating/claiming...</div><div>However, I do not favor authoritarian approaches.</div><div>Case-by-case consideration should be made.</div><div><br></div><div>I am definitely in favor of empowering subcommittees to do their work effectively and efficiently, and I am in favor of it all being above board...but we need to be cautious.</div><div>Exposing everything we do/say/think/consider in subcommittee without limits has the potential to be tactically unsound. Just as there are potentially untrustworthy committee members who may seek to do damage on these committees, there may be untrustworthy observers who may also seek to (or inadvertently) do damage, by misusing/misconstruing what they observe. When there are bad actors on the committees, there is recourse...they are removed. When there are bad actors outside the committee, casting aspersions, exposing strategy to opponents (with intent or otherwise), etc...there is no recourse.</div><div><br></div><div>So, my position, as it stands:</div><div><br></div><div>Besides the fact that I am an individual person with a full life, and professional occupation, outside of the LNC, with rights to the peaceful enjoyment of such, and I do not want my personal phone number on the website...</div><div><br></div><div>I do favor transparency.</div><div>I do favor active communication with constituents.</div><div>I do prefer open meetings to closed meetings, when appropriate.</div><div>I do not prefer top-down authoritarian approaches to micromanaging subcommittees.</div><div>I do not prefer increasing the size and scope of the policy manual.</div><div><br></div><div>Again, I would like to see the latest version of the proposal. </div><div><br>Thanks!</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Whitney Bilyeu</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></font></span></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">It seems everyone is hung up on that 48 hours meeting notice thing when I had already revised the proposal to deal with the objections. How is my revision not sufficient? I can't propose a correction if I don't know what the problem with the last proposal is.<span><div><br></div><div>-- <br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a>Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Starchild <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net" target="_blank">sfdreamer@earthlink.net</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font size="4"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I like your email list idea, Tim. Committee members could all be subscribed to this list when they join a committee, and then when a committee schedules a meeting, the committee chair could notify not only interested party members but all committee members as well in a single-recipient message posted to the list, instead of having to copy them individually in an email. </font><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Having committee members' contact info, or an address that forwards to all members, included on <a href="http://LP.org" target="_blank">LP.org</a>, presumably on the Bylaws Mandated Committees page at <a href="http://lp.org/bylaws-mandated-committees" target="_blank">http://lp.org/bylaws-mandat<wbr>ed-committees</a> , is something I've long supported. (Incidentally, that page maybe should be renamed "Standing Committees" or something, since not all of the listed committees <i>are</i> mandated by the Bylaws.)</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>While I can see your point about the Awards Committee, if it holds its discussions secretly, this could make issues such as problems with a potential awardee, or a conflict of interest involving a committee member and someone being considered for an award, more likely to go unnoticed until after the fact. If the committee operated transparently, people who like surprises could simply refrain from paying attention to the committee's deliberations (those sitting in on such deliberations could be asked not to be "spoilers" by publicly announcing recipients ahead of time). Individuals who would rather not have their records or merits discussed publicly could just decline to be nominated for an award (as Barack Obama should have done in response to being considered for an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize). </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Regarding possible disclosure of campaign plans, I think Mike Shipley made some good points about this in his email to us to which I responded earlier in a separate message.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Bidding seems particularly important to me to have made public, since it is likely to save us money. Any advantage that transparent bidding might give a later bidder in being able to underbid an earlier bidder can be readily addressed by allowing anyone who is underbid the opportunity to revise their bid downward accordingly. That approach would be fair to all, no?</font></div><div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Requiring 48 hours of public notice to hold a committee meeting doesn't seem problematic to me given that we have an Operations Committee which can meet any time. Being able to meet quickly and deal with urgent matters on the drop of a dime is the only real reason I see to have an Operations Committee rather than just letting the LNC as a whole or more specialized subcommittees like the Ballot Access Committee make relevant decisions. If we're going to keep the OpCom around despite the Bylaws not providing for such an entity, shouldn't we help it justify its existence?</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><span><div><font size="4">Love & Liberty,</font></div><div><font size="4"> ((( starchild )))</font></div><div><font size="4">At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee</font></div><div><font size="4"> (415) 625-FREE</font></div></span><div><div><div><br><div><br><div><div><div>On Aug 13, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:HelveticaNeue,'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,'Lucida Grande',sans-serif"><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px"><span>Certain committees need to have non-public discussions on matters other than lawsuits or personnel matters, so the openness of meetings needs to be on a case-by-case basis. Some that came to my mind are when the website committee solicited bids, the bids could not be published publicly where later bidders could get an unfair competitive advantage. If a Candidate Support Committee is formed, candidates and campaign managers may not want their campaign plans available to their opponents, although any donations or in-kind contributions can be published since they will end up reported in publicly available reports.<br></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px"><span><br></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px"><span>Last year the Awards Committee agreed to have confidential discussions. This allowed us to discuss the pros and cons of award nominees more frankly, and have the award recipients be surprised when the winners were announced at the convention. The award winners, but not the Hall of Liberty inductees, were kept secret until the announcement at the convention.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px"><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px">Having a webpage where all of the committees can publish contact information (either for each committee member or an e-mail address that's forward to all members), minutes, and meeting notices would be good. Requiring 48 hours public notice before meetings is problematic. Sometime a committee may need to act fast (I'm thinking Ballot Access) and other times the most convenient time all committee members are available may be the next evening. Besides, would party members be checking the page every day to look for meeting notices? I'm just brainstorming now, but maybe we could have an e-mail list that anyone can sign up to that would announce all meeting notices.<br></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px"><br><span></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px"><span>Tim Hagan</span></div><div style="font-size:16px"><br><br></div><div style="display:block"> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue,'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,'Lucida Grande',sans-serif"> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue,'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,'Lucida Grande',sans-serif"> <div dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Caryn Ann Harlos <<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a> <br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:46 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Lnc-business] Committee Transparency revived<br> </font> </div> <div><br><div><div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px">PS: That means that most of Ken's concerns are problem he should have with the system we have <i>right now</i>. I am not proposing anything new or revolutionary. I am simply wishing to codify that with the transfer of any authority the duties of that authority, as it exists <i>right now</i>, must also be transferred. <div><br clear="none"></div><div>If anyone is truly opposed to that, I am in wonder that no motions or attempts to change the LNC rules as they are <i>right now </i>hasn't been attempted.</div></div><div><br clear="none"><div><div><span style="font-size:16px">On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px"><<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-size:16px"> wrote:</span><br clear="none"><blockquote style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px">Thank you for your input!<div><br clear="none"></div><div>I will respond in full this weekend (maybe tomorrow) but the elephant in the room that is being ignored is this: these items are being taken care of by the LNC <i>right now.</i> It is transparent <i>right now.</i> I am not proposing <b>further transparency than we have right now. </b>Since we have that <i>right now</i> and it is supported by our membership and was passed by the LNC, I would find any attempt to shift this to a committee without the <b>transparency we have right now</b> as a back door attempt to abrogate current policy and would oppose.</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>That being said, there are some of Ken's points I can agree to or concede. More details in my full response.</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>I thank you sincerely for your participation.</div><span></span><div><br clear="none"></div><div>-- <br clear="none"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#666666" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font color="#666666" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br clear="none"></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div></div><div><div><div><br clear="none"><div><span style="font-size:16px">On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Sam Goldstein </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px"><<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com" target="_blank">goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-size:16px"> wrote:</span><br clear="none"><blockquote style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:16px">I agree with Ken in his analysis of this proposal 100% We are a political party, not a social club and the members and delegates</span><div style="font-size:16px">elect LNC members to do the business of the party. Committees have enough serious work of the party to accomplish without </div><div style="font-size:16px">having to worry about every action or word being help up for criticism.</div><div style="font-size:16px"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:16px">I would consider supporting Ken's proposal if there were an amount of spending that would trigger a review or approval of the chair. I </div><div style="font-size:16px">doubt the chair wants to be involved in micro-managing the expenditures of several committees for stamps and envelopes. Either a </div><div style="font-size:16px">set dollar amount or percentage of that committee's budget would be acceptable.</div><span style="font-size:16px"><font color="#888888"></font></span><div style="font-size:16px"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:16px"><br clear="none"></div><div><span style="font-size:16px"><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"></font></span><div style="font-size:16px"><div><div dir="ltr">Sam Goldstein<div>Libertarian National Committee</div><div>Member at Large</div><div>8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101</div><div>Indianapolis IN 46260</div><div><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">317-850-0726</a> Phone</div><div><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">317-582-1773</a> Fax</div></div></div></div><div><div>
<br clear="none"><div><span style="font-size:16px">On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Ken Moellman </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-size:16px"><<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org" target="_blank">ken.moellman@lpky.org</a>></span><span style="font-size:16px"> wrote:</span><br clear="none"><blockquote style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">So, I'm breaking this down, and I still have a few concerns. (I never intended to de-rail before, sorry about that.)</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">First, there are committees with no power to spend, but are strategic in nature that would fall under this proposal. Specifically, I can tell you that the Ballot Access Committee has discussed important strategies on how to achieve ballot access. </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">I have already heard from some members that they believe committee transparency would expose our strategy, putting us at greater risk of being on the wrong end of shenanigans. By the wording, these substantial strategies would be required to be exposed. </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">And it's not even just the Ballot Access Committee. Look at Affiliate Support or Candidate Support; do we really want to let our opposition know our next few chess moves? I foresee a day where our opposition raises money to counter the actions of a candidate to be funded by the LNC before the candidate even gets the money from the LNC. Politics is a game of chess, and telling your opponent your next 3 moves means you're either really good, or really dumb. And I don't see us winning elections, so that might narrow such a move into only one of those two categories...</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">I'm all about transparency, but only after the information is of no value to our opponents anymore, and cannot be used by our opponents to cause harm to the party or its candidates.</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">Second, a committee would be able to set their own rules on executive session. What stops a committee from adopting rules that puts them permanently into executive session whenever they're in a business meeting? Unless, of course, we create special rules for every committee (and clutter up the Policy Manual -- sorry, but it's true!)</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">Third, you're talking about creating new mailing lists aliases. That's more work for the LNC staff. </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div><div style="font-size:10pt">Fourth, the Ballot Access Committee has had one or two emergency meetings. There are times when 48 hours notice is not realistic.</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">Fifth, I strongly oppose publishing my phone number on <a href="http://LP.org" target="_blank">LP.org</a>. I'm already annoyed enough that I get phone calls from petition coordinators from around the US. It is great to have my phone going off in the middle of the day while I'm trying to be on a conference call, or trying to lead a meeting (sarcasm). Maybe some folks like having their phones blown up and being put on spammer phone lists. I do not.</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">Finally, I would suggest not hardcoding the "public reflector" language. There are better ways to publicize mailing lists that don't involve the current configuration which could be examined in the future. </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">So, now that I'm through everything that I see wrong with it, here's what I'd counter-propose:</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"><strong><em>Any committee which has been empowered to expend funds shall notify the LNC chair, in writing, of the exact wording of any motion passed by the committee to expend funds, and the LNC chair shall be responsible for approving those expenditures prior to funds being expended. All expenditures shall be recorded in compliance with the law and this policy manual. All expenditures shall be reported to the full LNC at the next in-person LNC meeting.</em></strong></div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">---<br clear="none">
<div>Ken C. Moellman, Jr.<br clear="none">LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative<br clear="none">LPKY Judicial Committee</div>
</div><div style="font-size:10pt"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>On 2016-08-11 22:20, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite" style="padding-top:0px;padding-right:0.4em;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0.4em;border-left-color:rgb(16,16,255);border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><div><div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:10pt">As per the request of several committee members, here once again is what I like to offer as a Policy Manual Amendment:
</span><div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"><span>2) Committee Transparency</span></div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">The names and contact information (phone number, email address, or both)for all committee members shall be posted on the <a href="http://LP.org" target="_blank">LP.org</a> website. Unless otherwise specifically excepted on a committee-by-committee basis or within the committee's own published standing rules for "executive session," all committee meetings shall be open to any member of the National Party to observe or listen and all electronic committee correspondences shall bemade available on a public reflector system on the <a href="http://LP.org" target="_blank">LP.org</a> website, the location of which will be published with the committee contact information. Notices, minutes, agendas, and call-in information of committee meetings shall be published to said reflector list or otherwise on the <a href="http://LP.org" target="_blank">LP.org</a> <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://lp.org/" target="_blank"><span>http://lp.org/</span></a>> website, including a record of all substantive committee actions and how each membervoted. At least 48 hours public notice will be given for any committee meeting.</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">My intent for this is that I want to empower committees but will oppose that if it adds a layer of opacity that does not presently exist. Right now, we as an LNC are micromanaging things, but at least the members can see the decisions.</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">I would like some real discussion on this and respectfully ask that any discussions about the policy manual being too long, or needing to be consolidated, that do not debate or make suggestions as to the merit of this specific proposal have their own email thread.</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">I want to sponsor with Joshua Katz a Candidate Support Committee. But I cannot/will not unless we have transparency in place either in the description of that committee or as a general rule which guides all of our committees.</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div><span style="font-size:10pt">
-- </span><br clear="none">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:10pt"><span style="color:#666666;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large"><strong>In Liberty,</strong></span></div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"><span style="color:#666666;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large"><strong>Caryn Ann Harlos</strong></span></div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-size:xx-small">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </span><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"> </div>
<div style="font-size:10pt"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div><div style="font-size:10pt;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;font-family:monospace">______________________________ _________________<br clear="none"> Lnc-business mailing list<br clear="none"> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br clear="none"> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<span><br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><span><div><br></div>-- <br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>