Discussion from the LNC Public Email List:
Keith Thompson wrote:
Article 7, Section 15 of the bylaws requires that all meetings, except for functions requiring executive session, be conducted in open session. An “open session” is open to the public or membership where people can attend and observe the proceedings.
Prohibiting live streaming except when specifically voted to allow would violate this requirement of transparency.
Bylaws and Bob’s Rules aside, having open meetings allows for public comments and lets engaged members see what their representatives are doing in real-time. Why on Earth would we want to end that?
Keith Thompson
From: Paul Darr
I believe Bylaws Article 7 Section 14 and 15 would conflict with that policy manual proposal.
Respectfully,
Paul Darr, Region 3 South Representative
Adrian Malagon claimed:
The proposed PM amendment doesn’t prevent anyone from joining the meeting. They can join just as they do now. Nothing in the LP Bylaws or PM require us to livestream or record, it’s a courtesy or “tradition” which seemingly puts our Board members at risk in different ways with each passing month so long as people can’t help themselves. Minutes are and will remain the official account of the meeting. “Open session” means the meeting is open to the membership, nothing more. Thus, this is not a violation of any Bylaw.
Keith Thompson responded:
For clarity, then – members would still be able to join via whatever platform we’re using to host the meeting, such as Zoom? My initial reading was that:
LNC members would also be forbidden from streaming meetings. Publicly viewable Zoom/Teams/etc. meetings could also be considered live streaming.
But maybe that was too harsh of an interpretation. I assume our Zoom account has a limit of 100 people? That is probably safe unless there’s something particularly controversial going on, which is certainly possible. Live streaming makes that a non-issue, as the number of attendees would be uncapped. Would meeting recordings still be posted to YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@lphistory), assuming the newly appointed secretary has access? If so, what risk is incurred by live streaming that isn’t incurred by posting the meeting recording? Or would this be coupled with a move to not record meetings as well?
Keith Thompson
The most annoying/frightening piece of this that I read was the belief by one of the members of this Cabal that an open meeting simply means allowing access for party members.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In the years that I sat in the room, either as an alternate or representative, I don’t recall any chair ever asking someone to check for membership at the door to allow people in to observe. I don’t recall any chair, or any member of the LNC, objecting to someone speaking in public comment by asking if they were a member of the party. Of course, in some of the really crazy meetings, it is possible that that actually happened, but I don’t recall it.
I certainly now can imagine members of this current LNC, most specifically the chair, questioning whether someone watching is a member of their party.
Open means open. Members of the party, members of other parties, the press, or even someone just randomly walking off the street and wanting to see what is going on. In today’s world of not only highly contagious diseases but the general advances in technology the question of censoring streaming is illogical.
If you are that afraid of being held accountable by anyone for what you say or what you do in those meetings, then you should quit and shut your mouth about it. Anytime anyone says anything anywhere to anyone someone can take it the right way or the wrong way. If you are too afraid of the consequences, then you don’t belong in the room.