Re: Committee email list participation discussion
Mimi Robson
As background for this meeting, I initially asked Loren if he had been given the Mivo live stream camera that the party purchased and was used for in person meeting. He said he wasn't given that camera (so I have no idea what became of it). At that point I thought Joe Dehn would be recording the meeting (not live streaming) but the day before the meeting he said he was coming. So at the last minute I brought that camera and mic I purchased prior to the July convention so we could stream that event, but I'm not the one that actually set everything up so I didn't know how and the person that did (Boomer) wasn't at the meeting. So in the end TJ helped me set it up and we realized we couldn't live stream to YouTube, so we did it on Facebook (the only other option I had).
Mimi Robson
Treasurer, Libertarian Party of California
I have not been able to speak for public comment, and would like to do so! My questions about how people not on Facebook can participate at this meeting have gone unanswered.Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))On Nov 15, 2025, at 11:30 AM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:Mimi,You do have another option. As I wrote below:On Nov 15, 2025, at 10:20 AM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:Thanks, Joe. We should definitely do better! The LPSF has a videoconference link that we use to allow remote participation at our monthly meetings. The ExCom could also use this to enable you, I, and perhaps others not present to participate at this meeting:On Nov 15, 2025, at 11:17 AM, Mimi Robson <trea...@ca.lp.org> wrote:The meeting is being streamed on Facebook because we weren't able to stream on YouTube. After the meeting I will download the recording and post it on YouTube.Starchild, I didn't have any options other than Facebook.On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 10:56 AM Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:Dave,Email discussion list transparency is already on the agenda for this meeting. See final item.Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))On Nov 15, 2025, at 10:41 AM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:Yes, I realize that! I was hoping one of the other people copied might bring it to her attention if she did not see it.Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))On Nov 15, 2025, at 10:40 AM, Joe Dehn <jw...@dehnbase.org> wrote:She's in a meeting...
On 2025-11-15 10:38, Starchild wrote:
Hello??
On Nov 15, 2025, at 10:28 AM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I have a question for Mimi!
On Nov 15, 2025, at 10:20 AM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thanks, Joe. We should definitely do better! The LPSF has a videoconference link that we use to allow remote participation at our monthly meetings. The ExCom could also use this to enable you, I, and perhaps others not present to participate at this meeting:https://meet.jit.si/LPSFMonthlyMeeting
Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))
On Nov 15, 2025, at 10:16 AM, Joe Dehn <jw...@dehnbase.org> wrote:
There is a live feed on Facebook, that's all. This is not by policy, it's just something that Mimi and TJ, as best as I can tell, set up themselves. It's working pretty well, from my perspective. (I am NOT there, just watching via that feed.)
On 2025-11-15 10:10, Starchild wrote:
Anyone??
On Nov 15, 2025, at 9:51 AM, Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thanks, Brian.But I am not on Facebook, and cannot post there. I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom this is true.How are non-Facebook users not at the meeting in person able to participate or give public comment?Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))
On Nov 15, 2025, at 9:46 AM, Brian Holtz <br...@holtz.org> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 09:34 Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:Can someone send it please?Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))
Begin forwarded message:
From: Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net>Subject: Fwd: [LPC ExCom Discuss] concerning the NDA issueDate: November 15, 2025 at 8:41:07 AM PSTTo: Rebecca Lau <laure...@gmail.com>Cc: Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net>, "County ExComs (All)" <county...@ca.lp.org>
Hi Rebecca,Forwarding this to you as secretary, in case you didn't receive my message below. I'm not sure who all gets emails sent to lpcalifornia-...@googlegroups.com (such confusion being one consequence of not just having single lists for each committee to which everyone can post, as I wish to advocate for in public comment).Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))
Begin forwarded message:
From: Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net>Subject: Re: [LPC ExCom Discuss] concerning the NDA issueDate: November 15, 2025 at 8:36:33 AM PST
Excellent suggestion Joe, I completely agree:Rather than trying to fix this generic NDA that doesn't actually fit anything we do, I suggest we look at the specific situations where an NDA probably does make sense, e.g., in working with an outside contractor on a task that involves a significant fraction of our database, and come up with documents structured and worded to fit those situations.
I cannot find the link for remote participation in this morning's ExCom meeting. Can someone send it please?Including such links with meeting agendas would be a good idea for the future – that's where I first looked for a link to this meeting, but found none.Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))
On Nov 14, 2025, at 6:27 AM, Joe Dehn <jw...@dehnbase.org> wrote:
On the agenda for this Saturday's meeting is the item "NDA resolution (data management) (30 minutes)". This is presumably supposed to be a time to discuss the question of whether to somehow create a new "NDA" (non-disclosure agreement) for the LPC, to continue using the one that has apparently been used in the recent past -- or perhaps scrap the idea altogether.
There is no doubt that there is a need to address disclosure / misuse of certain kinds of information somehow. There is certainly potential harm to any organization if certain kinds of information get disclosed, especially to "adversaries". There are also expectations in the larger society about treatment of certain kinds of information, especially "personal" information, that have nothing to do with the interests of a particular organization. But an "NDA" is not necessarily either required or sufficient to do what needs to be done to address these issues.
What else could do it? Lots of things. As human beings living in a particular culture we are all expected to exercise a certain amount of "common sense". As officers of an organization we are all expected to take the interests of that organization seriously, and to apply our knowledge and discretion accordingly. If things aren't obvious enough, there can be formal expressions of policy promulgated, e.g., in bylaws. If all of these things fail -- and every one of them can fail -- and somebody does something that clearly hurts either the organization or an individual, in a way they should have understood would cause harm, that can be addressed after the fact with some sort of punishment or compensation.
Yes, the specific type of contract known as an "NDA" may be useful to some degree, but even if it can be useful it's only one part of the total picture. And just because some kinds of organizations find it useful for protecting certain kinds of information, that doesn't mean every organization needs one, for everything.
My basic reaction to the document that has, apparently, been used by the LPC in recent years is that it is a case of extreme overkill. It looks like boilerplate created for a generic organization, by somebody who considered every use of information to be dangerous until proven otherwise. I don't think we need this. I don't think it's good for us. Could some other version be useful for our purposes? Maybe. But to answer that I think we need to step way back and consider some more basic questions, about how we actually make use of information in our organization.
The existing document fails to take into account at least three different variables. It doesn't distinguish among different actors (users and potential disseminators of information), it doesn't distinguish among different categories and sources of information, and it doesn't consider in any way quantity of information.
In an attempt to be general and to apply the same rules to everybody, the existing document takes the approach of labeling a "Disclosing Party" and a "Receiving Party". But the relationship of different people to the organization and to other people makes a big practical difference. Information in our type of organization doesn't just flow in one direction. And framing things that way is in fundamental conflict with other structural aspects of our organization. How can the "Libertarian Party of California" enter into any kind of contractual relationship with its own officers or Executive Committee, with respect to matters that are intrinsically their function? They are in that context not two different "parties", one "disclosing" and the other "receiving" -- they are just two different ways of looking at the same group of people. Yes, you could "legally" make the distinction, and it might make sense to divide things up that way for certain specific kinds of information, but it's not a useful way of looking at things in general.
I believe that, historically, in the context of the LPC the idea of requiring an NDA first arose in connection with use of our membership data for mailings by outside parties, or for uses that were at least clearly distinguishable from our core functions, such as by a particular campaign committee. And then this idea somehow spread to the case of people using party information for party purposes, and even to the point that EC members are supposed to be bound by it. Hmmm... how does it apply to the Chair? Does he sign both sides of this "contract", with himself?
Whatever form we want our documents regarding information flow to take, whether a "policy" or a "contract", they need to at least distinguish among the members of the top governing body, other party members doing party business, and the rest of the world.
With respect to types and sources of information, different kinds of information need more or less "protection". In particular, not all information concerning people is the same. A name is not the same thing as an address, or a credit card number, and the fact that they may be all stored in the same database does not make them the same. And calling all this "Proprietary Information" masks the fact that it is just as much the individual who needs protection as the organization. When somebody joins and gives us their name and address, maybe they should be asking the LPC to sign an NDA, with respect to their own "Proprietary Information"?
Also the "same kind" of "personal nformation" may have different significance depending on who the people are. Dues-paying members are not the same as registered Libertarian voters are not the same as the general public. Big donors are not the same as small donors.
Also note that some of the collections of data to which this NDA is presumably intended to apply don't even "belong" to the LPC in the first place, because they were created by somebody else -- the LPC is, in the sense that terms are being used in this NDA, the "receiving party". Specifically the voter file -- use of that information is subject to restrictions set by statute.
And it's just plain silly to ignore the difference between a single record and an entire database. Sure, at some level they are the same, but as a practical matter, in terms of how we actually do our jobs, applying the same rules to them makes no sense. If I were to sign this NDA and take its provisions seriously, there are many things that would be considered ordinary uses of information that would be prohibited. If somebody were trying to set up an outreach booth in his city and wanted to know if there were any other members in the same city who might be willing to help, I could not tell him, I could not give him anybody's phone number or e-mail address or even another member's name, because all of that is explicitly defined as "Proprietary Information" which I am not allowed to "disclose". I would have to demand that every such volunteer also sign this scary-looking NDA, even to allow him to get in contact with one other person to ask for help! Similarly, as NAC it is a central part of my job to encourage and assist the formation of county organizations. I don't see how I can do that without knowing who lives in that county and being able to share that information with the people actively trying to get things started. "Oh, you are interested in getting a county organization started here -- that's great! There might or might not be somebody else in your county who would be interested but I can't tell you anything about them until you sign this four-page legal document."
We have to be able to trust people to do their jobs. If a party officer doesn't have common sense and doesn't understand or care enough about the interests of the party to follow explicit policies, then he shouldn't be a party officer in the first place -- and making him sign a "contact" on top of that isn't likely to solve any actual problem.
Rather than trying to fix this generic NDA that doesn't actually fit anything we do, I suggest we look at the specific situations where an NDA probably does make sense, e.g., in working with an outside contractor on a task that involves a significant fraction of our database, and come up with documents structured and worded to fit those situations.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LPCalifornia-ExCom-Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lpcalifornia-excom-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpcalifornia-excom-discuss/e17c014167fe0525c29087cf536f249e%40dehnbase.org.
Mimi Robson
Mimi Robson
Mimi,Thank you for the apology on not getting back to me yesterday. To be clear, I was responding to a message that you already sent me during the meeting (in response to a previous message I sent you during the meeting). My offer to let the ExCom use the JitSi link that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco uses to allow remote participation at our meetings was not intended to mean “turn off streaming on Facebook and use this instead” – it was meant to provide an option for people not present at the meeting, and unable to participate via Facebook, to be able to do so.You seem to be interpreting my comments as an accusation that you or someone wasn’t fulfilling their obligations under the party’s written rules, but if you’ll review what I wrote, you’ll see I did not say that. The issue is a more fundamental one than what the rules say must be done. It is about what values we hold as an organization, and how our practices reflect, or fail to reflect, those values. Sometimes our values are codified in our bylaws or other rules, but this isn’t always the case. I would hope that people wouldn’t use “The rules didn’t require me/us to do this” as an excuse not to do what they and others believe is right. If someone doesn’t actually believe that enabling member participation is right, or important, I think they should frankly say so, and let us as an organization to have a full and honest conversation about it – not just quietly arrange for things to happen in a way that limits participation, or treat it as a matter of little importance, so that lack of participation happens by default.If you or other party leaders did make an honest effort to enable emote participation, and those efforts simply fell through, I think I and others are likely to be understanding, and accept sincere mea culpas, if there appears to be the intention to do better going forward. But describing efforts to enable participation as if they amounted to bending over backwards and doing people a favor, does not give that impression.Personally I prefer in-person meetings. I think there is value in people getting together in person and seeing each other face to face. It makes communication among participants clearer and less prone to error, increases conviviality and community. Even during Covid, I advocated for maintaining an in-person option for our local Libertarian Party of San Francisco meetings, and showed up in person myself when we started allowing remote participation (as we still do).So I understand why some people might think it better that meetings should only be held face to face, and people not physically present at a meeting should not be allowed to participate in it. When thinking about how we should conduct our operations though, one of the questions I always ask is, “How do we want government to operate?” If the public, and voters, see that Libertarians are already doing within our own organizations, the things we say we will support and promote government doing if elected – spending within our means, upholding due process, demanding bottom-up governance and accountability of our leaders, etc. – they will have more reason to believe that we have integrity and can be trusted with power.An AI inquiry affirmed that members of the public tend to support remote participation, but also want to preserve the in-person option (see screenshots below). I think the public’s instincts on this are correct. Requiring government to be flexible and accommodate people tends to facilitate transparency and accountability, which we as libertarians want from government, and limit the potential for authoritarian efforts to disenfranchise the public.Of course the need for transparency and seeking to allow the maximum degree of participation that we can facilitate by at least our own members, if not the broader public who we want to join us and get more involved, isn’t limited to Executive Committee meetings. The same basic approach applies to our subcommittees and bylaws-mandated committees – letting all members subscribe and post to these committee lists. When people are perceived as trying to block or limit transparency or participation in one area or aspect of our party, it naturally leads to questions about their commitment to these values in other areas.If it’s just a matter of technical difficulties or practical concerns in enabling participation or transparency, let’s work together to address and overcome these obstacles so they do not frustrate our efforts to operate by our values. If there is genuine philosophical disagreement with the values of transparency, access/participation, and/or the bottom-up governance they reinforce, and some people think these things are not important for a political party seeking to advance libertarianism, let’s have a full, open, and robust debate about it.
Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))
Mimi Robson
Again, I’m not arguing against in-person meetings, Mimi. I think they add value. But the fact that we do regularly hold remote meetings makes it all the more mystifying and hard to defend why that same technology wasn’t used to facilitate remote participation at this just-concluded meeting. Was the fear that if this option were allowed, committee members wouldn’t show up?
Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))
June Genis
Mimi,Thank you for the apology on not getting back to me yesterday. To be clear, I was responding to a message that you already sent me during the meeting (in response to a previous message I sent you during the meeting). My offer to let the ExCom use the JitSi link that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco uses to allow remote participation at our meetings was not intended to mean “turn off streaming on Facebook and use this instead” – it was meant to provide an option for people not present at the meeting, and unable to participate via Facebook, to be able to do so.You seem to be interpreting my comments as an accusation that you or someone wasn’t fulfilling their obligations under the party’s written rules, but if you’ll review what I wrote, you’ll see I did not say that. The issue is a more fundamental one than what the rules say must be done. It is about what values we hold as an organization, and how our practices reflect, or fail to reflect, those values. Sometimes our values are codified in our bylaws or other rules, but this isn’t always the case. I would hope that people wouldn’t use “The rules didn’t require me/us to do this” as an excuse not to do what they and others believe is right. If someone doesn’t actually believe that enabling member participation is right, or important, I think they should frankly say so, and let us as an organization to have a full and honest conversation about it – not just quietly arrange for things to happen in a way that limits participation, or treat it as a matter of little importance, so that lack of participation happens by default.If you or other party leaders did make an honest effort to enable emote participation, and those efforts simply fell through, I think I and others are likely to be understanding, and accept sincere mea culpas, if there appears to be the intention to do better going forward. But describing efforts to enable participation as if they amounted to bending over backwards and doing people a favor, does not give that impression.Personally I prefer in-person meetings. I think there is value in people getting together in person and seeing each other face to face. It makes communication among participants clearer and less prone to error, increases conviviality and community. Even during Covid, I advocated for maintaining an in-person option for our local Libertarian Party of San Francisco meetings, and showed up in person myself when we started allowing remote participation (as we still do).So I understand why some people might think it better that meetings should only be held face to face, and people not physically present at a meeting should not be allowed to participate in it. When thinking about how we should conduct our operations though, one of the questions I always ask is, “How do we want government to operate?” If the public, and voters, see that Libertarians are already doing within our own organizations, the things we say we will support and promote government doing if elected – spending within our means, upholding due process, demanding bottom-up governance and accountability of our leaders, etc. – they will have more reason to believe that we have integrity and can be trusted with power.An AI inquiry affirmed that members of the public tend to support remote participation, but also want to preserve the in-person option (see screenshots below). I think the public’s instincts on this are correct. Requiring government to be flexible and accommodate people tends to facilitate transparency and accountability, which we as libertarians want from government, and limit the potential for authoritarian efforts to disenfranchise the public.Of course the need for transparency and seeking to allow the maximum degree of participation that we can facilitate by at least our own members, if not the broader public who we want to join us and get more involved, isn’t limited to Executive Committee meetings. The same basic approach applies to our subcommittees and bylaws-mandated committees – letting all members subscribe and post to these committee lists. When people are perceived as trying to block or limit transparency or participation in one area or aspect of our party, it naturally leads to questions about their commitment to these values in other areas.
If it’s just a matter of technical difficulties or practical concerns in enabling participation or transparency, let’s work together to address and overcome these obstacles so they do not frustrate our efforts to operate by our values. If there is genuine philosophical disagreement with the values of transparency, access/participation, and/or the bottom-up governance they reinforce, and some people think these things are not important for a political party seeking to advance libertarianism, let’s have a full, open, and robust debate about it.
Love & Liberty,((( starchild )))
On Nov 16, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Mimi Robson <trea...@ca.lp.org> wrote:
Mimi Robson
Section 3
The Executive Committee shall meet at such time and place as may be determined by action of the Executive Committee, by a call of the Chair, or by written request of one-third or more of the members of the Executive Committee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Executive Committee shall hold at least one in-person session per year that shall not be within six weeks of an LPCA convention. The Secretary shall mail to each member of the Executive Committee, and to each county Chair, a notice of the time and place of each session, not less than fourteen days prior to such session.
Sessions conducted electronically shall require seven days’ prior notice, unless all members of the Executive Committee attend the session and each expressly waives such notice at the beginning of the session.
There is nothing in that section that allows for hybrid when it says "in-person" session.
But honestly, I am tired no of discussing this because it's discussing something that's already happened and there is nothing to change it.
Mimi,I’m not sure the interpretation that our bylaws don’t allow hybrid meetings is correct. The section on meetings (page 14 of the bylaws) simply states:Bylaw 16: MeetingsBoards and committees may conduct business by teleconference or videoconference. The Executive Committee shall have power to adopt specialrules of order and standing rules to facilitate the conduct of business by teleconference or videoconference.This language doesn’t even say that in-person meetings may be held, but clearly (common sense!) that is presumed. By the same token however, it seems reasonable to presume that if in-person meetings are allowed, and remote meetings are allowed, then a combination of the two is also allowed.Unless there some other portion of the bylaws that you believe disallows hybrid meetings? If so, would you please cite the specific language that you believe covers this?Even if the only committee members who can vote at an in-person meeting are those who are physically present, this shouldn't prevent committee members or others not present from participating in discussion. I’ve personally attended many LP and LPC meetings during which someone not physically present addressed the room via phone.
Joe Dehn
On 2025-11-16 21:13, Starchild wrote:
You seem to be interpreting my comments as an accusation that you or someone wasn't fulfilling their obligations under the party's written rules, but if you'll review what I wrote, you'll see I did not say that. The issue is a more fundamental one than what the rules say must be done. It is about what values we hold as an organization, and how our practices reflect, or fail to reflect, those values. Sometimes our values are codified in our bylaws or other rules, but this isn't always the case. I would hope that people wouldn't use "The rules didn't require me/us to do this" as an excuse not to do what they and others believe is right.
If someone doesn't actually believe that enabling member participation is right, or important,
* whether this subgroup is meeting in person or remotely
And so people who do value participation of as many members as possible may come to the conclusion, however counterintuitive it may be, that there will be more real, productive member participation if the communication processes have some structure. There is plenty of technology available to help with this. But the technology needs to support the structure.
Mimi Robson
If I reply to any additional messages in this thread I will remove the county ExCom email from the response.
E Mail list suggestion..
This chain includes many individuals on CA Ex com
and CA Excom ALL which is the county excom people
and CA Excom officers discussion.
- The individuals can do whatever you want..
- The CA EXcom ALL- county officers.. should not be on the chain and should not get CA EXCOM discussion stuff. We don’t want it..
- The CA EXcom officer discussion list .. should be (A Suggestion) open to all Excom officers to post and view only for all interested persons. If a person would like to post, then they should send a post to one or any EXCom officers to forward to group. A little Excom review of list would be helpful..
I don’t think every county officer is interested in this discussion..
If someone is interested in CA State Excom.. then they can subscribe.
Think I am getting this chain due to CA EXCom ALL list.. and not really interested in the chain or other ones.
Thanks
Gardner Osborne
Chair of San Diego County