<div dir="ltr">I would like to address this.<div><br></div><div>I believe this obfuscates the issue rather than clears it up and paints those of us concerned about the fiduciary duties at stake here as some sort of odd clique bent on transparency at all costs --- when there are not duties at stake --- as if we would demand to know the colour of undergarments at each meeting. That is not the case. As laid out in my Motion to Rescind there are serious issues of duty at play here. And series issues of care taken.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">== At some point I asked Mr. Hall about t</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">he advisability of making the provisions of the contract public both </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">before and after the election. His advice was that it would not be </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">advisable at any point, but definitely would not be prior to the </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">election. Based on that discussion, my preference would be to keep it</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">confidential until inauguration day. That was what I communicated to </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">the list, but that communication was in error.===</span></div><div><br></div><div>Because of secrecy, we cannot properly explore this statement. The record gives me very reasonable cause to think this is an issue. *When* did the eternal secrecy clause get into the contract? IF it was there ALREADY (we need to know this), why would one have to ask about the advisability of secrecy? Either it was there already, and LNC Counsel and the Chair did not know it or it was added afterwards....... and forgotten????</div><div><br></div><div>==<span style="font-size:12.8px">The actual contract requires confidentiality of the terms. Mr. </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">Goldstein pointed out that phrase to me and I sent a correction to the</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">email list as soon as I realized that I had misspoke.===</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">If the issue of confidentiiatlity was of such a topic that discussions were had with LNC counsel about keeping it confidential to Inauguration Day ... HOW is it that the eternal secrecy clause did not come up? This is not an issue of mere misspeaking but of a grave loss of trust in the process and whether or not other terms were handled with this kind of breach of attention. How can we trust this? My instinct is to simply trust because I know the Chair personally. But my fiduciary duty is not to blindly trust. My duty is not to a person, it is to our Bylaws, our duties and privileges, and the members.</span></div><div><br></div><div>==<span style="font-size:12.8px">I would like it to be clear that making the contract public was not, </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">to my knowledge, one of the stated objectives at the LNC meeting</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">following the convention for our contract with the campaign.==</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Not making the LNC wear clown suits was not one of the objectives either. You cannot make a case on a negation. You have to make a case on a positive. Never was it made in the realm of possibility that eternal secrecy would be on the table..... and apparently was on the table, hidden under a napkin, so that the Chair wasn't aware it was there. Eternal secrecy is a breach of duty to our Bylaws and our members.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"> </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">==</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> A very </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">small and vocal minority making it into an absolute requirement at </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">this late stage of the negotiations is shifting the goalposts in the</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">final seconds of the game (after, I'm not sure if signatures are </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">already on the campaign's copies).==</span></div><div><br></div><div>We never waive our right to the duty to our Bylaws and to our members. And a small and vocal minority are representatives of a larger body- in my case - 9 states. I have already received support.</div><div><br><span style="font-size:12.8px">==I think the contract negotiated is a good one. ==</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Eternal secrecy is not a good term and abrogates our duties and member rights. Further there is the issue of not be able to say a contract is well negotiated when one of the key terms was not important enough to remember.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">==</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> Others who have seen </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">it are probably within their bounds to say whether they consider it a </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">good or bad agreement, without discussing specific terms with LNC </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">members who will not agree to keep it confidential.==</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">My duty is not to trust the subjective opinion of fellow members. My duty is to judge what I do for a fact know. There is an eternal secrecy requirement that may have been negligently negotiated. I do not know. We need to know.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">==</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">The effect of this motion would be to cancel everything negotiated b</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">ecause I misspoke and/or people value transparency over any other</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">goal. If that's what you want to do, you should co-sponsor it and v</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">ote for it.==</span><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">That is a mis-casting of my motion and its rationale. I agree to executive session. I have never breached confidentiality of executive session. The fact alone proves that I do not value transparency over any other goals. I do place our duties to the members over anything else, and eternal secrecy breaches duties, trumps our Bylaws, and hobbles us and our members.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div>-- <br><div><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><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chair@lp.org" target="_blank">chair@lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear All,<br>
<br>
I want to clear something up.<br>
<br>
The LNC authorized me to negotiate a contract and joint fundraising<br>
agreement between the party and the Gary Johnson campaign. I have,<br>
for the past three and a half months, been working with our counsel,<br>
Oliver Hall, to negotiate a contract that would be in the best<br>
interest of the Libertarian Party.<br>
<br>
During those months, terms have changed during the course of the<br>
negotiations in both agreements. At some point I asked Mr. Hall about<br>
the advisability of making the provisions of the contract public both<br>
before and after the election. His advice was that it would not be<br>
advisable at any point, but definitely would not be prior to the<br>
election. Based on that discussion, my preference would be to keep it<br>
confidential until inauguration day. That was what I communicated to<br>
the list, but that communication was in error.<br>
<br>
The actual contract requires confidentiality of the terms. Mr.<br>
Goldstein pointed out that phrase to me and I sent a correction to the<br>
email list as soon as I realized that I had misspoke. I understand<br>
that this misspeaking has created a lack of confidence and a motion to<br>
rescind the entire authority to execute the contract.<br>
<br>
I would like it to be clear that making the contract public was not,<br>
to my knowledge, one of the stated objectives at the LNC meeting<br>
following the convention for our contract with the campaign. A very<br>
small and vocal minority making it into an absolute requirement at<br>
this late stage of the negotiations is shifting the goalposts in the<br>
final seconds of the game (after, I'm not sure if signatures are<br>
already on the campaign's copies).<br>
<br>
I think the contract negotiated is a good one. Others who have seen<br>
it are probably within their bounds to say whether they consider it a<br>
good or bad agreement, without discussing specific terms with LNC<br>
members who will not agree to keep it confidential.<br>
<br>
The effect of this motion would be to cancel everything negotiated<br>
because I misspoke and/or people value transparency over any other<br>
goal. If that's what you want to do, you should co-sponsor it and<br>
vote for it.<br>
<br>
Yours in liberty,<br>
Nick<br>
<br>
P.S. Recognizing that eventual transparency is important to the<br>
aforementioned small and vocal minority, Oliver and I are actually in<br>
negotiations with the campaign for some kind of addendum that would<br>
modify the confidentiality terms to address those concerns.<br>
<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>
</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>