The Libertarian Transparency Caucus issues the following statement regarding the current New Mexico controversy:
We offer no comment on the merits of the case.
However, there needs to be clear delineation between what qualifies as discussion under executive session and what does not.
Mr. Thompson’s questions are valid questions that belong in the public LP discussion environment as they do not necessarily in themselves, especially as a whole, entail items that are covered under executive session. If they are, individually, then each question’s answer should indicate that, as well as WHY. A blanket claim doesn’t play out with the membership. That’s not “misconduct,” as Mr. Martin alleges, but it is certainly not a good practice, and it should be corrected and discontinued.
Even more disturbing is the continuation of the secret “LNC Board” list. Article 7 Section 15 of the Bylaws is clear: The LNC shall conduct all business in open session with certain exceptions. That does not authorize a secret list. Nor does it allow for a “Confidential” label: business is done either in open or executive session. As Mr. Seebeck, this caucus’s co-founder, pointed out in his Judicial Committee opinion in Robson v LNC last term: “Actions are more than just votes, because actions encompass the deliberative nature of the assembly surrounding the vote, as well as implementation of the results of the vote.” (Seebeck Opinion paragraph 19, citing RONR 3:22, 4:4, and 4:64)
That secret list needs to be abolished and all of its deliberations that are not executive session need to be made public on the open discussion list, and those that aren’t need explicit justification as to why not in each case. The Bylaws mandate it and the Party membership demands it.
The Party membership has a right to know what is going on, within proper and justifiable constraints for executive session regarding litigation. We get that. But where it’s not an issue of pending litigation, if it’s “confidential political strategy” or not, that is an open question that is not answered by a blanket statement, but by proper scrutiny on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Thompson’s questions fall in both areas, and as such, each question should be addressed individually, and publicly.
As Mr. Seebeck also pointed out in his opinion: “The LNC has been going around this requirement with secret lists and off-list communiques for decades. That doesn’t make it right. In fact, it is a bad practice that should end. Secret lists cause secret leaks that undermines both the integrity of the LNC and membership confidence in it.” (para 15) and “DC Code [29-413.01] also requires actions to be kept in a record.” (para 16) and Party members “have every right to inspect and peruse those records. It’s a right of membership.” (para 17, citing RORN 47:33-3 and 47:36)
Let’s do it right, please.
Apologies for the typos in the last parenthetical, that should read “RONR 47:33-34”.
It should be noted that there is a balance to be struck between membership right to know and litigation confidentiality/political strategy confidentiality. It is perfectly fine to say that something cannot be commented on for the latter reasons without stating the context of that confidentiality, but the things that are not in that realm or can be found by simple records search (like dates for things and process steps absent case details) should be transparent to the membership. But as noted, case-by-case basis, not a blanket coverage.