[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-10: Rescind Contract Authority

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

We have an electronic mail ballot.

 
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 3, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
 
Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Hayes, Starchild, Demarest

Motion:  to rescind the authority granted to the Chair to negotiate and execute a campaign contract and the Joint Fundraising Agreement and rescind any signatures already executed.

-Alicia

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thanks, Alicia. I vote yes.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

There is apparently an early draft of the contract between the Libertarian Party and the Johnson/Weld campaign online here:

http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/attachments/20160220/4654436e/attachment-0001.pdf

I'm curious whether anyone sees anything in this draft agreement that they think ought to be kept secret, and if so, what and why? If you think material may have been added later that ought to be kept secret, what kinds of topics do you think it addresses and what is it about that material that demands secrecy, in your opinion?

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote no

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote No on Email Ballot 2016-10: Rescind Contract Authority.

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Alicia: I vote YES on the: “Motion:  to rescind the authority granted to the Chair to negotiate and execute a campaign contract and the Joint Fundraising Agreement and rescind any signatures already executed.”

 

Starchild: Thank you for providing the “early draft” of the LNC/campaign agreement in question. I did a quick 10-minute perusal of the draft. I have no formal legal training or experience. From a common sense perspective, nothing jumped out that suggested the need for confidentiality. However, drafts are drafts and we don’t know what we don’t know leaving us groping around in a murky, uneasy information vacuum. While I do not see this motion as a nuclear option, pursuing such an action this late in the campaign raises the risk threshold. Nevertheless, now is the time to get our LNC transparency bylaws house in order and take back our responsibility as a committee to authorize the chair to execute contractual agreements that put the LNC as a body at risk. Accordingly, I vote YES on the “Motion to Rescind” in order to correct our earlier abdication of our fiduciary responsibilities regarding contract approval.

 

Libertarianism – Principle and Transparancy Before Party

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee

Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus

Cell:      402-981-6469

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote yes.

And precisely Starchild.  It is very curious.  Is there something in there that members have the right to know eventually, or did we take an action so antithetical to our goals for nothing?

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Saturday, September 24, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett....@lp.org> wrote:

In my capacity as Region 3 Representative, I vote Nay on Email Ballot 2016-10.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative
Libertarian National Committee

brett....@lp.org
317.643.2566

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote no on e-mail ballot 2016-10

Ed Marsh

Region 2 Rep

Ga,Tn,Fl

---

From: Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com>
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 2:19 AM
Subject: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-10: Rescind Contract Authority

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote No. Bill Redpath
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 9/24/16, Sam Goldstein <goldstei...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-10: Rescind Contract Authority
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Date: Saturday, September 24, 2016, 8:25 AM

I vote No
on Email Ballot 2016-10:
Rescind Contract Authority.


Sam
GoldsteinLibertarian National
CommitteeMember at Large8925 N
Meridian St, Ste 101Indianapolis IN
46260317-850-0726 Phone317-582-1773

Fax

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at
6:30 AM, Arvin Vohra <vote...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I vote no

On Sep 24, 2016 5:35 AM,
"Starchild" <sfdr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
There is apparently an
early draft of the contract between the Libertarian Party
and the Johnson/Weld campaign online here:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc
-business_hq.lp.org/attachment
s/20160220/4654436e/attachment -0001.pdf
I'm curious
whether anyone sees anything in this draft agreement that
they think ought to be kept secret, and if so, what and why?
If you think material may have been added later that ought
to be kept secret, what kinds of topics do you think it
addresses and what is it about that material that demands
secrecy, in your opinion?
Love & Liberty,   
                                (((

starchild )))At-Large Representative, Libertarian

National Committee                   
             (415) 625-FREE

On Sep 23,
2016, at 11:23 PM, Starchild wrote:
Thanks, Alicia. I
vote yes.
Love
& Liberty,                       
           ((( starchild )))At-Large
Representative, Libertarian National Committee 
                               (415)
625-FREE

On Sep 23, 2016, at 11:19 PM, Alicia
Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic
mail ballot.
 
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by
October 3, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
 
Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Hayes, Starchild,
Demarest



Motion:  to rescind the authority
granted to the Chair to negotiate and execute a campaign
contract and the Joint Fundraising Agreement and rescind any
signatures already executed.

-Alicia

______________________________ _________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi
nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

______________________________

_________________
Lnc-business mailing
list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi
nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

______________________________

_________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi
nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

______________________________

_________________

Lnc-business mailing list

Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/
listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp. org

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote No.

 

If this motion were to be adopted, we will have no contract at all. The campaign is not going to spend the last four or five weeks of this election cycle trying to negotiate a contract with seventeen people.

 

Aaron Starr

(805) 583-3308 Home

(805) 404-8693 Mobile

star...@gmail.com

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Or just have a contract without the secrecy provision. I don't think the campaign is going to want to spend these four or five weeks resisting having a signed contract because they demand secrecy on a document which, if it isn't signed, they would have no guarantee would not be publicly released anyway. Especially because we've seen no evidence that they are demanding secrecy. It seems quite possible there was just some legal boilerplate text put in or something.

Yes, I guess I am saying pass it so that we can see what's in it!    :-(

Love & Liberty,

                               ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                            (415) 625-FREE

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

We gave the chair binding authority to negotiate and execute a contract.  Negotiation, naturally, is just that.  You don't get everything you want because both sides of a negotiation want to get things.  Asking someone to negotiate for you is asking them to navigate those trade-offs for you, to make these decisions.  I don't think we should have done that.  When we were waiting for a contract, I would have supported a rescission - not because I thought the chair was doing a bad job or I was worried about the terms, but because the long wait suggested to me that there was a stalemate, and sometimes you can break a stalemate by putting in a new person.

That isn't what we're talking about here, though.  Instead, after giving this task to the chair, this is an effort to turn around when the task is done and criticize the priorities chosen and decisions made and say "you could have gotten a better deal without giving anything up."  How do we know that?  We don't, but we'd be banking on it, because if not, we're not going to get a new deal anytime soon.  

I find it very aggravating that we pushed this task onto the chair, and now want to say "you should have done it differently."  I also see no plan for what will come next here.  Do we select a new negotiator?  What if the LNC doesn't like what they come back with, either?  Surely no one expects this entire body to negotiate a contract, which is not too many cook spoiling the broth - it's 20 cooks trying to flip a pancake.  

I vote no.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Because I thoughtlessly put my vote at the bottom, I will repeat it.  I vote no.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

We pushed this task onto the chair, Joshua? I don't recall any reluctance on Nick's part to being in charge of negotiating a contract.

We don't know how the secrecy provision got into the contract. It could have been something the campaign wanted, or not. It could have been boiler-plate legalese that was inserted without much thinking.

But in any case, this isn't a matter of anyone "turning around" and raising some unexpected objection only after the contract was signed. The fact that there are LNC members who would expect such an agreement to be public and transparent and would object upon suddenly learning of a bid to keep it secret should not have come as a shock to anyone.

At this point, I'm not seeking changes in the contract, whatever it may say – I'm prepared to approve the contract on condition it be made public, i.e. pass it in order to let Libertarian Party members find out what's in it.   :-(  Because while having one flawed contract would be bad, I think transparency that exposes any flaws to the light of day will do more to help ensure that we have better contracts in the future, than modifying the contract to make it better but keeping the document secret.

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Perhaps "pushed on" is the wrong word, but the fact is, reluctant or not, the LNC handed him the task.  We had every ability not to, but we chose to - unanimously.  

None of what I've said, so far as I can tell, depends upon this being an unexpected objection.  As I said before, you can want a whole list of things, but you're not going to get all of them.  You decide how to maximize your take from the contract.  The LNC could have participated in such a discussion, but chose not to, and instead essentially said "you figure out the trade-offs."  Okay, and trade-offs were figured out.  Now we don't like those trade-offs, but we weren't there and don't know how it could have gone differently, and we know even less what will happen next.  I don't like that strategy.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

And I note my points keep getting obscured.  I am grateful that there is a good number of members that totally have gotten it. 

It isn't merely saying "we got a bad deal" and trying to second guess after the fact. There is an unconscionable and member-violating provision.  That is not within the scope of authority anymore than a requirement that we will sacrifice our first born.

Second, the public email discussion leads to the indication that this provision was not fully known at the time of signing.  We were told that there was not a secrecy provision. Then an LNC member had to say "hmm wait, yes there is."  That throws the whole meeting of the minds and full consent of these terms into question. 

I will not idly let this be obscured.  My concerns were quite clear.  I am certain if I were willing to waive my rights, and saw the contract that there would be things I would not like as being a "bad deal."  Like, are we requiring the campaign to use the word Libertarian such as in the sample contract?  I suspect we are not.  That would be a bad deal in my view, but that is fully within the scope of authority, and I could not like it, but I would not have grounds to rescind.

I don't care that people disagree.  I do care that my points are being mischaracterized.  They might be wrong.  But they are what they are, and they are not what has been stated above.

.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote No


Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large member

On Sep 25, 2016, at 08:17 AM, Joshua Katz <planning...@gmail.com> wrote:

Because I thoughtlessly put my vote at the bottom, I will repeat it.  I vote no.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I think this motion was just mooted by the Chair's email tonight.

Sam

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

In light of the recent announcement by Chair Sarwark, I change my vote to no.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote NO.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I change my vote to NO.

 

Thanks to this painful but necessary discussion, the critical issue of transparency is now front and center. As we celebrate our acceleration toward major party status, we must also accelerate our efforts to institutionalize our policies on transparency and keep those policies on the front burner if the Libertarian Party is to remain relevant and philosophically consistent with the principles of Freedom that we have fought so hard for.

 

 

Libertarianism - Principle and Transparancy Before Party

 

~David Pratt Demarest

Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee

Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus

Cell:      402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote no.

Tim Hagan

---

From: Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com>
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:19 PM

Subject: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-10: Rescind Contract Authority

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote no.

-Alicia

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Given our chair's announcement that we have a new operative contract now which is non-secret except for a few provisions whose secrecy will expire in a year (rather than the whole thing being secret in perpetuity), I'll likewise change my vote to no on this motion and withdraw my sponsorship. 

Nick, I trust there will be no further delay in disclosing the non-secret portions of the contract to those of us who have requested it?

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Starchild,

I can record the vote change, but it is too late to withdraw co-sponsorship.

There were exactly 4 co-sponsors.  If one wanted to withdraw at this point, it would essentially be a request to withdraw the motion because 4 co-sponsors are required.  Once the motion has been stated to the body and debate has begun, it requires consent from the body to withdraw the motion.  Once voting has begun, it cannot be withdrawn at all.  See RONR p. 295-6.  Our debate and voting happen to overlap in email ballots, but either way, the motion cannot be withdrawn now.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Given our chair's announcement that we have a new operative contract now which is non-secret except for a few provisions whose secrecy will expire in a year (rather than the whole thing being secret in perpetuity), I'll likewise change my vote to no on this motion and withdraw my sponsorship. 

Nick, I trust there will be no further delay in disclosing the non-secret portions of the contract to those of us who have requested it?

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

On Oct 1, 2016, at 10:39 PM, lnc-...@hq.lp.org wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Yes Alicia that was my understanding or I would have withdrawn it since the situation that made it necessary has resolved.  Instead, I simply changed my vote to no.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sunday, October 2, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Starchild,

I can record the vote change, but it is too late to withdraw co-sponsorship.

There were exactly 4 co-sponsors.  If one wanted to withdraw at this point, it would essentially be a request to withdraw the motion because 4 co-sponsors are required.  Once the motion has been stated to the body and debate has begun, it requires consent from the body to withdraw the motion.  Once voting has begun, it cannot be withdrawn at all.  See RONR p. 295-6.  Our debate and voting happen to overlap in email ballots, but either way, the motion cannot be withdrawn now.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Given our chair's announcement that we have a new operative contract now which is non-secret except for a few provisions whose secrecy will expire in a year (rather than the whole thing being secret in perpetuity), I'll likewise change my vote to no on this motion and withdraw my sponsorship. 

Nick, I trust there will be no further delay in disclosing the non-secret portions of the contract to those of us who have requested it?

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                 (415) 625-FREE

On Oct 1, 2016, at 10:39 PM, lnc-...@hq.lp.org wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I vote "no" on the motion to rescind chair's ability to negotiate contract.  Jeff Hewitt 

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

This vote has ended. Has the decision been officially reported?

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Voting has ended for the email ballot shown below.

Voting "aye":  (none)

 

Voting "nay":  Bilyeu, Bittner, Demarest, Goldstein, Hagan, Harlos, Hayes, Hewitt, Katz, Lark, Marsh, Mattson, Redpath, Starchild, Vohra

With a final vote tally of 0-15, the motion FAILS.

-Alicia