<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal">Now to address Arvin’s points.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==This motion to rescind is a bad strategy.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Depends on what you want to accomplish. My motion isn’t about strategy, it is about a
repellant condition that prejudices committee and member rights. When that happens, the good strategy is to
get out of it. I don’t play chess with
member rights. And further, although
this keeps getting put out of the conversation, I have a serious concern about
the due diligence in the negotiations of this contract. We were told most assuredly that there were
NO confidentiality provisions in the contract and that there was a strategic
discussion with counsel about us voluntarily keeping it secret until
Inauguration Day. Something I likely would have supported. For strategic reasons. My initial objection was that the Chair had
to have a vote of the LNC to do that.
But a mere twenty minutes later, we learn that no, in fact, there was a
confidentiality clause, and it is
eternal. This suggests, highly, and at
least highly enough that I feel it is my fiduciary duty to press the point,
that this contract was negotiated without full awareness that this clause was
there. And that suggests ineffective
advice of LNC counsel on this or lack of due diligence in this issue on the
part of the Chair. We are humans. This happens.
I have conceded in the initial decision to grant such authority, I did
not properly consider what could happen, and I did not consider what a potentially unfair position it was to put our Chair in, and how, considering all the ramifications, we should have taken more of the responsibility as a Committee. It actually pains me tremendously to bring this up because I have the
personal feeling we have one of the best Chairs I have had the pleasure of
working with in any context, but it is there, I saw the ramifications, and I
would not be doing my duty to the members
to ignore it. Now that it is here, we must deal with it.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==As LNC members, we often discuss issues of sensitivity,
employment, strategy, and legality in executive (secret) sessions. That
includes everything from employee salaries to legal and media strategy.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We do. And no one
ever suggested a one-size fits all approach, and this is the kind of thing that
I think deflects from the issue at hand.
I don’t have cameras in my bedroom.
But that doesn’t mean that transparency is not appropriate elsewhere.
But it does raise an interesting problem.
If THOSE thing are used as precedent for THIS thing, then my fear is
correct. This eternal secrecy clause
will simply become more normative because future LNC members or discussions
will point to this as justification.
Which makes it even more important to repudiate.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==A contract with a high profile presidential campaign, in
my view, falls into at least one, if not all, of those categories.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A contract with hopefully the first of high profile
candidates must be scrutinized afterwards by members to insure their
representatives got them the best deal and to position the part for future
contracts. This is not a new dispute.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> ==What exactly do we
hope to gain by announcing the details of this contract to the DNC and RNC? Why
on earth would we announce the specifics of our new member outreach strategy,
or our joint media strategy, to our opponents?==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There should be nothing “strategic” in this contract to
begin with. This should be about sharing
donor lists primarily. The fact that
there is this shroud of secrecy with suggestions of some deep cover strategy then
makes members wonder what else is in there, and there is no way for them to
challenge or question or hold us accountable.
Our “opponents” can easily find out any of the above things. It isn’t difficult to do. Someone on IPR seriously suggested that I was a government plant. Why? I
have been a Libertarian just days over two years now (my two-year anniversary
was 9/17)… and I have a position of privilege and insider knowledge. While it is funny to me – considering my
opinion of the state and all its works – it does drive home a point. An old party or government operative can get
entrance quite easily and all of our eternal secrecy clauses will not do a
thing about it.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==If LNC members want to rescind the ability to sign the
contract based on some strategic flaw, financial liability, or other reason===<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I gave “other reason” aplenty.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Starchild addressed the rest very adequately.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The fact that this is a high-profile contract, in an area,
we have been terrible at --- getting candidate contracts—makes it all the more
important that the members get to see it. And note:
I have not argued for them to see it immediately , which appears to be
the assumption throughout this post. But
we are talking eternal secrecy which is unacceptably prejudicial.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For example, a member asked…. Does the campaign have a
reciprocal confidentiality obligation.
LNC member response. “I can’t
tell you.” That speaks more eloquently
to my point then paragraphs of digital ink.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So… when we sit down and plan member outreach or
fundraising….. now a new level of opaqueness has been added since we cannot
now, in open meeting, discuss with any specificity the information received
from the campaign as it may lead to infer the terms of the contract. We can’t even say IF WE ARE GETTING DONOR
LISTS. Nope. That’s hush hush. The complete unacceptability of this is
self-evident.<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">-- <br></p><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 class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:23 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">Starchild did an excellent job of answering the broad institutional questions this raises but there are very specfic concerns about this specific situation that I raised.<div><br></div><div>I will address those later when I can be at a proper email.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm somewhat disappointed though that they are asked as if anticipatory responses to at least some of them had not already been given, i.e., as if none of the prior discussion had taken place.</div><div><br></div><div>In the first post asking for co-sponsoring I laid a good chunk of it out.<span></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">-- <br></span></font><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2">In Liberty,</font></b></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2">Caryn Ann Harlos</font></b></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a>Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div><br>On Friday, September 23, 2016, Starchild <<a href="mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net" target="_blank">sfdreamer@earthlink.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I've interspersed below some responses to Arvin's message...</div><div><br><div><div>On Sep 22, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Hi All,<div><br></div><div>This motion to rescind is a bad strategy.</div><div><br></div><div>As LNC members, we often discuss issues of sensitivity, employment, strategy, and legality in executive (secret) sessions. That includes everything from employee salaries to legal and media strategy.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>When the Libertarian National Committee goes into a secret meeting, we hold a vote first. I proposed a motion for a similar up-or-down vote on the secrecy of this contract:</div><div><br></div><div>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>-------------</div><div><b>Moved, that the National Party Agreement and Joint Fundraising Agreement documents signed by the LNC chair with the Johnson campaign not be disclosed beyond members of the LNC and staff who have agreed to this confidentiality until January 21, 2017, at which time the documents will become public unless the LNC votes prior to that date to extend the term of secrecy for some additional period of time.</b></div><div><div>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>-------------</div></div><div><br></div><div> <span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>If you favor hiding the contents of the contract with the Johnson/Weld campaign from our membership until at least January 21, 2016, then I suggest you co-sponsor that motion (which appeared on the list <span style="font-size:12px">September 17, 2016 6:21:13 AM PDT if you'd like to go back and find it in your emails in order to respond in that thread).</span> </div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>If secrecy is what you want, have the courage to openly vote for it!</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>A contract with a high profile presidential campaign, in my view, falls into at least one, if not all, of those categories. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Does it? Neither you nor I have seen it (unless you looked at it since we last spoke), so I'd say we don't know. The LNC also discusses things like strategy, media strategy, and so on openly here and in other venues, and it's my understanding we even tell the government which is run by Democrats and Republicans what our employees' salaries are in the form of FEC filings. I haven't seen any evidence these disclosures are hurting us, have you?</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>What exactly do we hope to gain by announcing the details of this contract to the DNC and RNC? </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>• The moral authority to demand similar transparency from them and their candidates</div><div>• Greater accountability of the LP's leadership and presidential campaign by laying our guarantees to each other on the table in public view</div><div>• More sets of eyes to spot potential issues in the contract that ought to be addressed</div><div>• The institutional knowledge to enable future LNCs to write better contracts with future presidential campaigns instead of having to reinvent the wheel from scratch</div><div>• An environment in which we as LNC members can talk openly and freely instead of worrying about trying to remember what information we're supposed to conceal from others</div><div>• Avoiding the mistrust and rumors that secrecy frequently engenders</div><div>• Helping make the Libertarian Party's governance a model for the kind of open and transparent bottom-up governance we want to see practiced in society</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>Why on earth would we announce the specifics of our new member outreach strategy, or our joint media strategy, to our opponents?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Because our keeping stuff secret ultimately <i><b>hurts our cause</b></i> more than our being open helps theirs!</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>If LNC members want to rescind the ability to sign the contract based on some strategic flaw, financial liability, or other reason, I'd be open to thoroughly consider that. But opposing a strategic document for being secret makes no sense. Strategies are supposed to be secret.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>This isn't about opposing the contract itself, only the secrecy provision. Rescinding the chair's authority to sign an agreement on our behalf, i.e. the LNC exercising that signing authority itself, doesn't mean we can't have an agreement.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Again I have not yet seen any evidence that the contract is a "strategic document" containing "strategies" that it would hurt us for the Democrats or Republicans to know about.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>Even on the facebook team, we don't let new members see what we have scheduled. We don't want the old party facebook pages to know what's coming and create a counterstrategy. It seems that making a strategic document with the importance of this one open to the public would be a thousand times more unstrategic.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I'd be curious to hear an example of a past LP Facebook campaign that was secretly planned, which you think would have been seriously impeded if "the other side" had gotten wind of it in advance. Perhaps you have a good example, but I'm having some difficulty imagining what it might look like. Would it be so bad to let the cartel parties follow our lead on Facebook? If they started being reactionary and counteracting us as a result of our not trying to keep our plans secret, we could always point out that's what they're doing. It seems to me that if some people who don't support us join our groups and spend time paying attention to what we're doing, boosting our hits and join numbers and so on, we should welcome that (just as we welcome, for instance, trade with countries like North Korea). Some of them may learn more appreciation for liberty through increased exposure to libertarian ideas.</div><div><br><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>Our goal is to cut government to advance individual freedom, prosperity, and greatness. That does not necessitate our acting like the government we want. After, all, if we wanted the LNC to act like the ideal federal government, our job, and Nick's job, would not be to be open and transparent.</div><div><br></div><div>It would be to fire everyone and quit.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>That might be the ideal approach to the federal government from an anarchist perspective, but the Libertarian Party isn't an exclusively anarchist group. At the 1974 LP convention in Dallas, delegates adopted the informal "Dallas Accord", agreeing to leave the door open to either anarchy or minarchy (very limited government) as our end goal rather than specifying one or the other, with the noble aim of minimizing infighting on that issue until we have reduced the State down to a bare minimum and its continued existence in any form becomes an immediate, practical question. </div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>When the blessed day arrives that the world is free in the eyes of most Libertarians from legal aggression that needs the active opposition of groups like ours, I personally hope those of us around then <i>will</i> quit our positions, lay off our employees, and disband the organization, rather than keeping the party in existence past the point of it having a clear mission or serving a useful purpose. But clearly we are not there yet!</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Until these desirable circumstances are attained, I see no contradiction in wanting the Libertarian Party to act like the ideal federal government by practicing, while we exist, the kind of openness and transparency that we want the U.S. federal government to practice while <i>it</i> exists. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>I urge you to remember that strategy works when the other side doesn't know the strategy. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Strategy can often work just as well when the other side <i><b>does</b></i> know the strategy. Knowing it is not the same thing as being in a position to do much about it. Strategies also can – and frequently should – be changed and revised as conditions change.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>This contract is open to every LNC member as long as they do not disclose the content, just like our employment contracts and executive meeting contents are. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Is it? I want to see the contract, and am willing to agree to not knowingly disclose it if the LNC has voted to keep it secret, just as with the contents of our secret meetings, which I have agreed to keep secret on a case-by-case basis. </div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>But if we do not have that vote for secrecy, our default condition should be openness and transparency, just as with our meetings.</div><div><br></div><div>Love & Liberty,</div><div> ((( starchild )))</div><div>At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee</div><div><div> (415) 625-FREE</div></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>To be frank, I'd much rather the DNC or RNC know Wes's or Carla's salary, than to have them know the details of our joint strategy with the Johnson campaign.</div><div><br></div><div>I intend to vote against this motion.</div><div><br></div><div>-Arvin</div><div><div><br></div>-- <br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Arvin Vohra<br><br><a href="http://www.VoteVohra.com/" target="_blank">www.VoteVohra.com</a><br><a>VoteVohra@gmail.com</a><br><a href="tel:%28301%29%20320-3634" value="+13013203634" target="_blank">(301) 320-3634</a></div>
</div></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Lnc-business mailing list<br><a>Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br><a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-- <br><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><br>
</font></span></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>