<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal">To respond:<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will be introducing the motion to amend indicated
below. Bold is for additions, italics
for removal.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== This motion,
though, treats all three of these committees types alike. ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It does. Because the types of committees do not matter for
institutional transparency. That is intentional.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==When we impose obligations on committee members, we are
limiting the pool of people willing to serve.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do not believe that any of these items “limit” the pool.
And if anyone is not willing to do these, I don’t believe they are good
institutional fit. There is “good”
limiting.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== When a special
committee is appointed to carry out an instruction, I see no particular purpose
to compelling committee members to provide their contact information. ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Highly disagree.
Being accessibly is key to accountability and feedback. If someone is not willing to be contacted, in
a party service role, they should not be serving. It is quite simple. To refuse even having an email address
available is quite frankly, absurd.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== Their task is not aided by being provided with the
opinions of various party members - the views of the one, or the several, do
not prevail over the views of the many - in particular, as ordered by the
assembly or its appointees. ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Getting input and being accountable is not having anyone
prevail. It is how bottom up and
transparent organizations work.
Particularly those modeling a voluntary society.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== The other two sorts it probably makes sense to display
contact information for - particularly the last type. However, even there, what we're doing is
politicizing the process of committee deliberation. ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No what we are doing is opening up to the view of the wider
membership. If that is politicizing, I
would wish to God, that we were more politicized. I am finding it a bit disturbing that members
are being characterized here as unwelcome intruders into the process.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== We're purposefully trying to allow for lobbying and email
campaigns - in the case of the candidate committee, for instance, we're making
it easier to get a letter-writing campaign on behalf of a candidate whose
campaign does not advance our strategic objectives.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is disturbing.
Who is this “our” you are speaking of?
In my view, the members comprise the greater part of “our.” We are not
rulers. Yes. I wish for any members or
cadre being able to organize to give input and accountability and have their
voice heard. Anyone can do it, and it is vital for bottom-up organization.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== As I said here a few weeks ago, we're favoring the most
vocal over the decisions made by the delegates as a whole.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No one got favoured.. they got HEARD. As they should be. Minorities have rights too. Our bylaws in fact anticipate this. Appeals and the like can be made with
1%/10%. The LNC can override (17 people)
the decision of the convention in certain circumstances. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will oppose any attempt to avoid identification of
servants.. that is what we are in fact.
We “serve” the party, and this is what we signed up for.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==Regarding "or within the committee's own published
standing rules for executive session," why on earth would we require
this? We are discussing committees
appointed by the LNC. The LNC operates
under RONR and our own rules. Committees
we appoint are not permitted, unless we give them permission, to adopt their
own rules of order. Presumably, we'd
interpret this rule as us giving them permission to adopt their own rules of
order as regards executive session, but that misses the point - unless they do,
they operate under our rules of order, in which executive session is
well-defined (and limited more than in RONR).
What is being achieved here, other than forcing a committee to adopt a
motion making either our rules or RONR's less restrictive rules for executive
session their own? These rules exist,
and are available on our website. RONR
is available in any bookstore. Exactly
what 'transparency' is gained by simply chucking out portions of our own rules
for committees, and then telling them "if you want it, you can adopt
it." Furthermore, if a committee is
not permitted to enter executive session, a standing rule would not be
sufficient to allow them to. ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are good points here, and I don’t think I would argue
them. I was attempting to give some great flexibility in response to Ken. This was obvious, so I am surprised at the
“why on earth” question.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> ==I agree with Ken
that we should not bind our rules to any particular form of technology. As concerns all internal email
communications, I oppose this restriction on committees. Unlike boards, committees produce a
work-product. Committees often do not
keep minutes because their report is exactly what they've done. ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If votes are decided by email, those email debates should be
transparent. And they should keep
minutes. Reports do not suffice to fulfill that entirely.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== An empowered committee is a bit different, but similar in
this sense - I'd support everyone being able to know what they've done, and the
right of the committee to make its reasons public. Furthermore, exactly how would this be
enforced? If two people are both
appointed to a committee, are they permitted to email each other separately
from the "official list?"==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is, with all due respect, a chicken little
objection. The LNC has a public list. We
don’t writhe in angst over whether or not we can communicate with each other
unofficially. There will always be
loopholes, both good and bad, but having a general rule fosters an atmosphere
of transparency.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== Are they allowed to call each other and discuss how they
feel about a topic before the committee, phones being electronic devices? True, a phone call isn't a correspondence -
how about texts? ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">See above. I would have no objection to adding a word that would clarify that such as "official."<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==As for emergency meetings, I for one am not interested in
missing filing deadlines or other statutory dates because it is realized 36
hours before a meeting that the committee didn't properly file its rules for
emergency meetings, or didn't think to word them in a way that includes the
situation in which it finds itself.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is an argument against having any rules or bylaws. Coming up strategically with rules for
special meetings is simply good planning.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==Move to Amend Policy Manual Section 2.02 (page 23) to add
a new subsection (2) and re-number the remaining as follows:==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I oppose opting out of having contact information. Making the phone number optional was a
concession. Not having at least an email
address is, as I said, absurd.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am amenable to removing the standing rules for executive portion
part in light of your comments above.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am amenable to adding with the exception of executive
sessions. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am not amenable to removing the public reflector list portion.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am willing to be persuaded on the emergency meeting
portion, but not convinced at this point.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is the “friendly” amendment I am willing to agree to:<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></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, all committee meetings shall be
open to any member of the National Party to observe or listen with the
exception of executive sessions 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 meetings as
defined within the committee's own published standing rules.<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">-- <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 Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:06 PM, 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">Whips, accept not except. Sounds the same and means opposite :)<div><br></div><div>Very tired. Productive evening of Gary Johnson sign planting.<div><div class="h5"><span></span><br><br>On Saturday, September 24, 2016, Caryn Ann Harlos <<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Joshua, I will consider these and may except some but I see some I will not.<div><br></div><div>I THANK YOU for your careful consideration. I will give just as much care in reviewing prior to our meeting tomorrow.<span></span><br><br>On Saturday, September 24, 2016, Joshua Katz <<a>planning4liberty@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I will be introducing the motion to amend indicated below. Bold is for additions, italics for removal.</div><div><br></div><div>Before that, though, I have some comments on this motion. First, not all committees have power - in fact, some members of the LNC are likely to support this while also believing that no committees, or very few, should be empowered. What is the purpose of a non-empowered committee? It depends on the committee, but in all cases, the committee is supposed to be composed of people with particular knowledge in a particular area or on a particular question, and to return recommendations for action. RONR differentiates between a few sorts of committees. Standing committees are composed of "the strongest possible group for the handling of any task that may arise within the province of the committee." Special committees are subdivided into types. A special committee appointed to carry out an instruction from the assembly should be composed only of those who favor the action. When one is appointed for investigation and deliberation, it should be larger, and should represent all viewpoints within the organization, to the extent possible. This motion, though, treats all three of these committees types alike. </div><div><br></div><div>When we impose obligations on committee members, we are limiting the pool of people willing to serve. We should, therefore, be sure that the obligation makes sense and serves a purpose. When a special committee is appointed to carry out an instruction, I see no particular purpose to compelling committee members to provide their contact information. Their task is not aided by being provided with the opinions of various party members - the views of the one, or the several, do not prevail over the views of the many - in particular, as ordered by the assembly or its appointees. The other two sorts it probably makes sense to display contact information for - particularly the last type. However, even there, what we're doing is politicizing the process of committee deliberation. We're purposefully trying to allow for lobbying and email campaigns - in the case of the candidate committee, for instance, we're making it easier to get a letter-writing campaign on behalf of a candidate whose campaign does not advance our strategic objectives. As I said here a few weeks ago, we're favoring the most vocal over the decisions made by the delegates as a whole.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding "or within the committee's own published standing rules for executive session," why on earth would we require this? We are discussing committees appointed by the LNC. The LNC operates under RONR and our own rules. Committees we appoint are not permitted, unless we give them permission, to adopt their own rules of order. Presumably, we'd interpret this rule as us giving them permission to adopt their own rules of order as regards executive session, but that misses the point - unless they do, they operate under our rules of order, in which executive session is well-defined (and limited more than in RONR). What is being achieved here, other than forcing a committee to adopt a motion making either our rules or RONR's less restrictive rules for executive session their own? These rules exist, and are available on our website. RONR is available in any bookstore. Exactly what 'transparency' is gained by simply chucking out portions of our own rules for committees, and then telling them "if you want it, you can adopt it." Furthermore, if a committee is not permitted to enter executive session, a standing rule would not be sufficient to allow them to. </div><div><br></div><div>I agree with Ken that we should not bind our rules to any particular form of technology. As concerns all internal email communications, I oppose this restriction on committees. Unlike boards, committees produce a work-product. Committees often do not keep minutes because their report is exactly what they've done. An empowered committee is a bit different, but similar in this sense - I'd support everyone being able to know what they've done, and the right of the committee to make its reasons public. Furthermore, exactly how would this be enforced? If two people are both appointed to a committee, are they permitted to email each other separately from the "official list?" Are they allowed to call each other and discuss how they feel about a topic before the committee, phones being electronic devices? True, a phone call isn't a correspondence - how about texts? </div><div><br></div><div>As for emergency meetings, I for one am not interested in missing filing deadlines or other statutory dates because it is realized 36 hours before a meeting that the committee didn't properly file its rules for emergency meetings, or didn't think to word them in a way that includes the situation in which it finds itself.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Move to Amend Policy Manual Section 2.02 (page 23) to add a new subsection (2) and re-number the remaining as follows:</span><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><div><br></div><div><p style="font-size:12.8px">2) <span>Committee</span> <span>Transparency</span></p><p style="font-size:12.8px">The names and contact information (phone number, email address, or both) for all <span>committee</span> members shall be posted on the LP.org website<b><u>, except that the committee member may choose not to disclose contact information</u></b>. Unless otherwise specifically excepted on a <span>committee</span>-by-<span>committee</span> basis <i><u>or within the <span>committee</span>'s own published standing rules for "executive session," </u></i>all <span>committee</span> meetings shall be open to any member of the National Party to observe or listen <b><u>with the exception of executive sessions </u></b><i><u>and all electronic <span>committee</span> correspon<wbr>dences shall be made available on a public reflector system on the LP.org website, the location of which will be published with the <span>committee</span> contact information.</u></i> Notices, minutes, agendas, and call-in information of <span>committee</span> 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<i><u>, including a record of all substantive <span>committee</span> actions and how each member voted.</u></i> At least 48 hours public notice will be given for any <span>committee</span> meeting<u><i>, with the exception of emergency meetings as defined within the </i><span style="font-style:italic">committee</span><i>'s own published standing rules.</i><b>, except that a call to meeting agreed to by all committee members shall be made available publicly at the time it is issued.</b></u></p></div></div><div><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div>Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)</div></div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <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>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>
</blockquote></div></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br><br>-- <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>
</div></div></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>