Rachel Hawkridge recently sent out an e-mail to a number of Libertarians about the final vote to try and boot Angela Keaton.
Keep in mind that this resolution was passed AFTER an earlier effort to brand Ms. Keaton a sexual predator, and still earlier efforts to smack her down for her outspoken, pro-transparency nature.
A shrewd observer would note this was the modus operandi of those who attempted to frame Mary Ruwart as a child porn acolyte. But I guess shrewdness is not a gift of the average LNC member.
Without further ado, Hawkridge writes in her summary of events, and I comment with my thoughts:
PLEASE read it carefully, and note that things are not nearly as bad as have been reported – anything red is note from me to Sully. Notes from me to you are ****. Most of the bold or italics are my attempts to highlight important points.
I did not receive any coloring in my e-mail, so I have no clue what is from “Sully” (LNC treasurer Sullentrup).
I’ll start with the substantive description of what happened, based on the Sullentrup and Hawkridge discussion:
After a break, the Chair announced Angela Keaton had blogged on the Internet some information that had been revealed in executive session.
“Executive session” is a fancy term for “secret meeting where various LNC members can engage in various shenanigans off the record, without any notice.”
Such secret meetings are useful for highly important classified stuff — like discussing lawsuits, etc. — but not for the purpose that they’re generally used for in the LNC (such as the BS politicking that we’ve witnessed this weekend).
**** Also note that some of this was reported incorrectly, and had already caused problems for some members. ****
I guess we’ll have to take Rachel’s word that there were some factual inaccuracies, since we’ll never actually know the content of the double-super-secret LNC meetings in question — which took up quite a bit of time last weekend.
From what I can tell, the “problems” were mostly constituent feedback. Unfortunately, lots of LNC members consider constituent feedback to be bad and something not to be replied to… hence its lack of connection to the paid membership in general.
Pat Dixon moved to censure Angela Keaton for having blogged what she had put onto the LastFreeVoice website.
Angela Keaton does not have access to LFV’s website as a poster.
Angela Keaton left the room after having admitted to the transgression.
Why did she leave the room?
The report is that she was ordered from the room.
Did she voluntarily leave the room? Was she ordered from the room? Did Imperial Shock Troops drag her out of the room?
Michael Jingozian read the passage to the body.
Aaron Starr moved a substitute motion: It is the belief of this body that Angela Keaton should resign for having disclosed material in executive session.
Hilarious. Aaron Starr swoops in for the kill.
How did the motion go?
Everyone in the room voted for the substitution. ****I believe this was a voice vote, and that I did not vote. – R****
So Keaton was not in the room — presumably because she was ordered out (as reported). Then there was an Aaron Starr resolution demanding her resignation for revealing material in one of the double-super-secret sessions (we still don’t know what the material was).
We also don’t know who voted or didn’t vote, and a voting member is claiming that she “believes” it was a voice vote and that she didn’t vote at all. That’s not very precise.
Angela Keaton returned to the room.
And the response was?
Aaron Starr moved to have her leave the room while the body decided what actions to take.
This is where it gets even dodgier.
As I noted prior, this is a clear violation of both the Libertarian National Committee’s Bylaws, and a violation of Roberts’ Rules. The body cannot order a sitting member of the body to leave the body other than through a valid vote to suspend the member.
The bylaws of the LNC clearly mandate a 2/3 vote of the LNC to suspend a member of the committee. Starr’s motion was not a motion to suspend, thus he (and the LNC) did not have authority to expel a sitting member of the body.
Angela Keaton was removed from the room
Whoa, holllllld on a minute, partner.
“Removed from the room?” Through what mechanism?
How did Starr’s illegal removal-from-room motion get introduced? Was there a vote? Who voted for it?
If not, was Keaton ordered removed from the room by Redpath and Starr (as reported)? If so, what basis do they claim the removal?
Was she removed physically?
but was afforded an opportunity to speak in her defense before departing.
By whom? In what capacity?
Her defense was that executive session was inappropriate for the material being discussed.
She wasn’t on trial. If the LNC was voting to suspend her from the LNC, calling it a “defense” would be appropriate. However, this was an illegal motion made by a politically motivated member of the LNC to expel a valid sitting member of the committee from the room. No “defense” needed other than “you don’t have the authority to do this.”
I wish Angela had not given in to this bullying.
Moreover, some of the material was an affront to her, and she had no opportunity to meet her accusers.
Typical day in the Starr Chamber.
Mary Ruwart invited Ms. Keaton to try again to address the specific issues the Committee had raised, since she had not appeared to have addressed them.
By whose estimation?
Again, the LNC is not a court.
There can be debate, there can be discussion, but the LNC does not have “powers of trial.”
It has one of two options — it can pass a resolution condemning Ms. Keaton (which she has full right to debate and participate within, including a vote, as a sitting member). Or, it can vote on expulsion, which requires a 2/3 vote of the committee.
It may not “kinda expel” a member.
**** I believe that Mary diffused some of the emotion here by injecting a moment of calm, loving . . . and allowed the discussion to later evolve into the apology compromise.****
I believe that Mary Ruwart folded like a cheap suit, at least if this account is accurate.
Bob Sullentrup called the question, which passed.
Was Keaton still in the room? What motion (if any) was used to “expel” her?
Moving then to a vote on the LNC recommendation to ask Angela Keaton to resign:
Voting in favor
Mary Ruwart, Jim Lark, Julie Fox, Pat Dixon, Rebecca Sink-Burris, Mark Hinkle, Michael Jingozian, Aaron Starr, Stewart Flood, Dan Karlan, Bob Sullentrup
Rachel Hawkridge abstained and the chair did not vote.
And there you have it. Your LNC voted to ask Angela to resign over absolutely nothing.
Worse, Mary Ruwart sold Keaton down the river, after earlier dirty dealing by several people in the same room targeting Ms. Keaton had earlier resulted in an attempt at a resolution (as well as a press release by Shane Cory) attempting to essentially smear her as a pro-child-porn activist.
Word to the wise — if you fight for the radicals, this is the “support” you can expect to get when your back is up against the wall later.
**** Note that this is not hostility in any way from Mr. Redpath. Both Gene and I feel that he was truly trying to be fair, and I got a sense of reluctance on his part in the whole matter. Mr. Redpath also DID NOT comment, suggest any motions, demonstrate any pleasure or anything else undesirable. He was FAIR and IMPARTIAL, and the overwhelming feeling and discussion then and later was that The Keaton had left us no choice. This was the second time in 2 days, and the revelations made on Sunday were made after discussion about secrecy about some of these revelations. ****
Absent for the vote were Lee Wrights, Admiral Colley (airport), Angela Keaton
Bob Sullentrup moved the LNC suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session.
And now they move in for the kill.
Pat Dixon moved to amend with the phrase ‘as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws’.
The amendment was adopted.
Aaron Starr moved to make this matter a mail ballot. There was no second.
Aaron Starr moved to append ‘in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again’. **** Once again, no malice or glee detected here. This was a major softening of the original motion, and I appreciate and commend Mr. Starr’s strength in being willing to back off the original motion.
Yadda yadda yadda.
At this point, we amended the agenda to remove Jim Lark’s goals item from the agenda and move Rachel’s to the email list.
When Aaron’s amendment passed, the main motion read:
The LNC shall suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws, in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again
At some point the Chair returned to the room after a brief absence and reported Shane Cory had sent a text message noting the Barr campaign did not want Ms. Keaton removed from the LNC.
After some discussion that Mary Ruwart and perhaps others would talk to Angela to get her to understand her breach and how it affected LNC business, the body withdrew the motion, pending Mary’s report on her conversation. There was no objection to the withdrawal.
In plain English — Starr moved to eject Keaton, the LNC effectively had the votes to remove Keaton lined up (apparently including that of Mary Ruwart), but they suspended their final vote on expelling her to give LNC members an opportunity to browbeat Keaton into submission and compliance with their wishes.
And that, in a nutshell, is what “your” national committee spent so much time on this past weekend.
Opportunity for Pubic Comment
Perhaps the funniest typo I’ve read on this yet.
Chuck Moulton invited the LNC to consider Philadelphia as a convention site for 2010 or 2012.
Chuck also pointed out the maxim that if ‘a person is committing political suicide, step out of the way.’ This he said was true for both Angela Keaton and the LNC. He forecast ‘blowback’ and expressed relief he was no longer on the Board.
There are many lessons in here, if you care to read them. Hints: excessive sense of self-importance by the LNC, lots of emotional gobbledygook, and a generous dollop of good old-fashioned dirty gotcha politics.
None of which does anything to contribute to the advancement of liberty in the slightest.
If you are reliant on the integrity and support any of the LNC members who voted to eliminate Ms. Keaton (or did nothing to stop this obvious third-attempt-in-the-weekend of bullying her), I suggest you reassess your relations with those people.
Myself, I no longer have confidence in any members of the Libertarian National Committee based on what I’ve heard and the details in this account. And I certainly cannot be a member of a political party with such a deficit of leadership and a lack of transparency.
Last Free Voice 
This is just wacky.
Don’t a lot of Libertarians believe in jury nullification? So even if they thought Ms. Keaton was violating some rule, couldn’t they vote “no” if they thought the whole thing was silly? I’m surprised there were no “no” votes. Maybe I’m missing something.
It is just wacky, Peter.
Normal people wouldn’t care less, and anybody with two brain cells would interpret the effort for what it was — an effort to sweep Keaton off the committee after several failed attempts to do it earlier with equally-contrived reasons (“sexually preying on employees,” “violating the integrity of the official record,” etc.)
In serving on the LNC for a number of years, I can recall only a few Executive Sessions. In every case, it was to discuss something confidential (that meant non-LNC members had to leave the room.) As I recall, going into Exec. session was debatable. If, in this case, the Exec. Session was b.s., did anyone object to going into Exec. Session? Once the group goes into session, whether one likes it or not. what is said should remain confidential. None of this is to excuse the major tool behavior of some of the personages involved.
– Where can we find the original source material in full that you’re quoting from?
– Has anyone contacted any other members of the LNC, beside Hawkridge and Keaton, for comment? If so, where can I find this information?
Please note I am not contesting the veracity of this article I just want to be sure all sides are heard from so readers can be sure they have complete information before reaching definitive judgments.
Brian Miller wrote:
Suspending means removing a member from the Committee, which is different from temporarily expelling a member from the room.
I can’t seem to find my paper copy of Robert’s on short notice. However, the following is a cite from the online public domain version (an earlier version). Please tell me why it doesn’t apply here. Also, if someone can tell me where this older version deviates from the current version of RRONR, I’d appreciate it.
http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-13p.htm
And again, I am not arguing that ejecting Angela was a good idea. It was in fact a really, really stupid move. But I would like to hear an explanation of why it is impermissible under RRONR though given this cite.
Brian Miller wrote:
More slopshod reporting. The motion was withdrawn because Starr clearly did not have the votes to remove her. Several LNC members seemed to think asking her to resign was enough.
Suspending Angela would requite 2/3 of all LNC members, not just 2/3 of those LNC members in the room. An abstention would effectively be the same as a no vote. They did not have the votes. On the email list they might get a few more votes from people who had already left the meeting to return home and people who did not show up for the meeting, but my sense was even there it would be close.
Brian Miller wrote:
I was slightly misquoted by the minutes.
My actual quote was something like:
I was trying to make clear that the actions of both Angela and the LNC are playing into their political opponents’ hands.
Sources?
http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/2008/09/blank-for-later-posting.html
http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/2008/09/for-breaching-confidentiality-in.html
Also, it is very naive to even assume in the first place that LNC votes would divide along radical/moderate lines.
A few examples:
As far as I know, Dr. Mary Ruwart is neither a member nor active participant of the current LP Radical Caucus, even though she clearly is a radical.
Mark Hinkle has generally supported strong executive power over openness even though he is clearly a philosophical radical. See for example the CA Judicial Committee opinion authored by him on the cruise ship convention.
Dr. Jim Lark and Lee Wrights are radicals, but I’ve found their votes to be more “common sense” than ideological.
In all the LNC meetings I have participated in and watched as an observer, the only votes I’ve seen that bear any resemblance to radical/moderate divisions are things that deal with election of the Platform Committee or later Platform Committee issues. And frankly, even there radical LNC members vote for some moderate choices and vice-versa — usually because they are good friends with the candidate on a personal level.
You all can keep trying to box people into a tiny, neat definition if you want… and you will continue to mis-predict votes if you do.
Dr. Mary Ruwart is neither a member nor active participant of the current LP Radical Caucus, even though she clearly is a radical.
Correct on both counts.
How was the executive session even properly justified in the first place? Per the still unpublished party documents called the Policy Manual it has to be (Section F, subsections 1-3)
If it wasn’t, then the entire executive session was invalid and anything blogged out of there was not a violation of anything.
Now you know why they wanted the tapes destroyed. The minutes will not reflect this.
Yes, Chuck, you are screwing it up. The assembly cannot remove a member of the assembly without suspending the member. Removing other persons from the room is for hecklers in the gallery, not members of the assembly. The assembly does not have the right to attack one if its number except within the strict confines of its own rules of procedure. You are mis-applying a passage in Robert’s meant to remove unruly audience members. You suck.
The assembly should not have been in executive session to discuss the things Angela blogged about. If they were discussing things truly confidential, and not what she blogged, then her blog was inaccurate and no harm to the executive session’s confidentiality was caused. If they were not discussing things properly placed in executive session, then they were being evil, horrid, nasty, hateful, thuggish jerks to withhold from the body politic that elected them those things they were doing in the name of that body politic.
You guys have a really lousy national committee. You have a lousy process. Your national organizing body hates the membership, hates openness, and hates those few members of the body who have any integrity. When the LP stops sucking, I’ll think about joining it.
Per http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/2008/09/for-breaching-confidentiality-in.html:
v. Board self-evaluation
… is one of the valid reasons for having an executive session.
Some interesting stuff here:
http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/
John is correct. Roberts’ provides for removal from the gallery of anyone who is being disruptive.
Roberts does not provide for removal from the body of a member of the body acting in his or her duly elected capacity as part of that body.
Otherwise, a majority of the body would just vote to remove the minority and then make every vote a unanimous vote.
This is all very basic stuff.
How was the executive session even properly justified in the first place?
A good question.
Although I’m less interested in the administrivia (fascinating as it may be to some), and more interested in the macro questions — such as, how do the individuals who were supportive of the actions taken this past weekend propose that the LNC remain open?
I’ve received a great deal of negative feedback from people angry that I posted this e-mail despite the fact that it was on a public distribution list and forwarded on to literally hundreds of people.
Yet we *still* don’t have official minutes.
I also spoke with Ms. Keaton, who contests a number of the points made in the quoted documentation and who has agreed to speak with me in depth about it in an upcoming interview.
So long story short, there’s still pretty much zero transparency, and when you strip off all the officialese and the “Roberts’ Rules” discussions, you’re left with the simple fact that the LNC is actively working to make its processes more Byzantine, less open, more secretive, and more punishing of LNC members who are responsive to the concerns of their constituents.
That, as much or even moreso than the obvious railroading of Keaton by the Starr Chamber, is the Big Story here.
One could ask if one gets the LNC he deserves. And I don’t think I deserve this!
Where can we find the original source material in full that you’re quoting from?
The e-mail quoted was from a missive distributed to a very large number of Libertarians by Ms. Hawkridge to provide her view of the story.
Has anyone contacted any other members of the LNC, beside Hawkridge and Keaton, for comment? If so, where can I find this information?
I have. They have generally been unresponsive (and downright rude in two cases). This has unfortunately been par for the course on this issue and a number of others, in my experience.
It all comes down to transparency again.
Also, it is very naive to even assume in the first place that LNC votes would divide along radical/moderate lines.
A few examples:
As far as I know, Dr. Mary Ruwart is neither a member nor active participant of the current LP Radical Caucus, even though she clearly is a radical.
I don’t think it’s that naive to assume that the radicals would take reasonable steps to defend one of their own from an obviously political attack — especially one of their own who had risked her political position before to protect them.
In Dr. Ruwart’s case, there’s an especial reason why one would expect Dr. Ruwart to stand up against such bullying of Keaton, given that Keaton short-circuited an LNC effort to smear Ruwart herself as a child porn supporter through similar parliamentary games.
The naivete, as I see it, is in two places:
1) With those LNC members who went along with this, thinking it would “protect” them or strengthen their position;
2) With those former LNC members who believe that this represents an effort to jockey for position and perhaps regain their seat.
If a vote is held and Keaton is expelled as a result of that vote, the consequences — just judging from my in-box — will be very severe for both the LP and those in the LNC voting to support this railroading.
A simple resolution to suspend the Starr Chamber efforts would have sufficed, but none was forthcoming.
The fact that any of this is even an issue shows how out of it the LP is. Using Republican tactics to remove fellow Libertarians and then endlessly debating/justifying inexcusable behavior. Meanwhile real political parties are out there doing shit.
I really can’t argue against any of your points, John.
Thanks for posting this Brian! It’s confusing, but you are helping to make more sense of it.
It seems like a lot of people can’t separate what is allowable from what is a good idea. Many things are one but not the other (in both directions). I’m open to parliamentary arguments that what I don’t think is a good idea (ejecting members from the room) is also not allowable. In fact, I would prefer if that were the case. But I’m not going to assume ejection of members is not allowable in spite of clear evidence to the contrary just because I don’t think it is a good idea.
The passage I quoted said “any one”, not “any one who is not a member”. I follow plain English.
So far you have given me only ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs. Neither convinces me. If you don’t want to provide any evidence (citations) to back up your position, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
One question I’ve had that I haven’t seen mentioned otherwise is What was M. Carling doing in an executive session? He isn’t a member of the LNC (thankfully). There was some claim that he was there as “Liason to the Barr Campaign”, but I’ve never heard of how he got that title – from either side of the question…
ART
I was wondering that myself.
I doubt the appointment came from Shane Cory. It was likely from Barr or Redpath. That’s just speculation on my part though.
He claimed to have an answer to the LNC’s question about problems making a contract with the Barr campaign that could only be delivered in executive session.
brand Ms. Keaton a sexual predator
I don’t think she should be characterized that way.
But, do you think there may have been an uproar if male LNC members published similar remarks about young women working for the LNC? Imagine if you will Bob Sullentrup putting in the minutes that a 20-something woman working at HQ is a “fine piece of ass” and “has legs like butter, smooth and easy to spread.” I think that would invoke censure, don’t you?
still earlier efforts to smack her down for her outspoken, pro-transparency nature.
I really appreciate that an LNC meeting was liveblogged, but it would have been more appropriate to have been done by a member of the audience.
Liveblogging is a time and attention intensive activity, and a major distraction from being an active participant in the meeting. It can cause a member to miss votes, and/or to misvote, as Angela apparently did at least once.
Pat Dixon moved to censure Angela Keaton for having blogged what she had put onto the LastFreeVoice website.
Angela Keaton does not have access to LFV’s website as a poster.
Put on LFV via proxy. What difference does that make?
Then there was an Aaron Starr resolution demanding her resignation for revealing material in one of the double-super-secret sessions (we still don’t know what the material was).
Well, yes we do, since it was posted here.
1) Discussion over her suggestive comments about staff members.
2) Later, discussion over lack of a formal agreement between the LNC and the Barr campaign, and (apparently inaccurate) speculation about why there is no such formal agreement.
What motion (if any) was used to “expel” her?
The LNC shall suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws, in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again
Oops. I think that came later.
#28: And how did those discussions meet the criteria for “executive session”? I agree that if the “executive session” was not taken pursuant to the bylaws, then it loses its “executiveness” and along with it its confidentiality protection. So any “blogging” of information in those sessions would not violate any “confidentiality” agreement, even if one accepts the validity of “confidentiality” agreements in the first place.
That’s not an argument against comment 28. Comment 28 was just a response to the lack of knowledge Brian claims in the quoted section.
#31 was just referencing the information provided in #28 in asking the question, not arguing with the information. Sorry for any confusion.
Imagine if you will Bob Sullentrup putting in the minutes that a 20-something woman working at HQ is a “fine piece of ass” and “has legs like butter, smooth and easy to spread.” I think that would invoke censure, don’t you?
Nope.
In fact, I have a long e-mail chain involving an LNC member where the member in question defends the term “negroes” and denounces “African American” as politically incorrect. I kid you not.
The same member ridiculed a simple request (which has been repeated over and over) to say “gay” or “LGBT” in LP press releases instead of “homosexual” (a press release term right out of Focus On The Family).
If those sorts of concerns warrant ridicule, I doubt that a comment of that sort by a male LNC member would earn censure.
We’d probably get some gobbledygook discussion about “love” and “understanding” and a rant against “PC” and that’s it.
Further, that the resolution and discussion about “decorum” was proposed by a member who apparently has extensive discussion of his own sex life on the internet only underscores the absurdity.
Put on LFV via proxy. What difference does that make?
That’s also not a correct characterization. ENM reposted Keaton’s Twitter stream — Keaton did not approach ENM as a “proxy.” ENM, as a member of the media, asked Angela for permission to duplicate her publicly posted commentary. It’s important to get the facts right, especially when they’re being used as a basis to remove the most popularly-elected at-large member of the LNC.
What was M. Carling doing in an executive session?
I have no doubt that after the Starr Chamber remove Keaton, Wrights, and possibly Ruwart from the LNC, Carling will be right back on the body (named by the LNC to fill the vacancies).
It’s rather obvious that there are certain people, such as Carling and Mattson, who get rather special treatment by the wannabe powers that be vis-a-vis these things. Just more “royal treatment!”
I’m not going to assume ejection of members is not allowable in spite of clear evidence to the contrary just because I don’t think it is a good idea.
Except there is no “clear evidence to the contrary.”
RR needs to be taken in its entirety, not just with an out-of-context citation.
RR specifically states that its primary purpose is to ensure the smooth operation of the entire body in a democratic way. A provision that would allow a majority to expel a minority (of one or more) from a voting session at the whim of 50% + 1 goes against the purpose and statement of principles inherent in RR.
It also goes against the existing body of “case law” around this.
You’re a law student, Chuck. Stop playing “stupid” in order to curry favor with these guys. You know better.
Comment 28 was just a response to the lack of knowledge Brian claims in the quoted section.
When the specific “knowledge” in comment 28 is validated by a standing member of the LNC, I’ll accept it. So far, it has not been, and my questions to LNC members on this matter have been met with either an insult, no reply at all, or an “it’s secret” response.
Since the points appear to be a point of controversy and contention even within the LNC, it wouldn’t be responsible of me to accept the basis of the claims without SOME form of confirmation from the involved parties. Everything I’ve posted has done that so far.
bmillerlib: most of the liveblogging – and all of that which has been objected to – was sent out via email by Ms Keaton, and then posted here by third parties.
That said, it’s not the issue of where it was posted that matters, just the fact that it was divulged to someone outside the LNC. Paulie is correct: it doesn’t matter that Ms Keaton herself did not post it to LFV.
btw this is the information she divulged that they’re upset about, according to Ms Keaton:
http://twitter.com/AngelaKeaton/statuses/915743707
I don’t understand why that would cause such an issue.
I may be incorrect about most of the liveblogging not being on Twitter. I got the claim of getting it via email from a third party.
“LNC treasurer Sullentrup”
Secretary.
Most of the liveblogging was via email. The only parts I got from Twitter are those specifically notated as such.
Angela is clearly not a sexual predator. How member’s of a national party’s staff look is relevant to whether they can be effective at doing their jobs. Like it or not, politics includes looks. If you don’t look like you combed your hair or bathed this week, political people are going to mock you and not take you seriously. There is not only nothing wrong with Angela saying she likes the looks of staff members, it is relevant to their ability to perform their duties for the party that they not be ugly and unfashionable.
We should be all aware that Starr is a real low life. I saw how he was involved in the smear of Mary Ruwart — he was the one who “tipped” off the Barr people and he was working for that slimeball Root. Starr is slimy and has no hesitation about lying or deceiving people. He is totally unethical.
Add in really low types like Shane Cory and the LP seems pretty well corrupted by the worst sorts. After watching the Root, Barr people, including Mr. Starr, operating in Denver I stopped supporting the LP entirely.
Re “Executive Sessions”:
The Grownups generally call Executive (or Closed) Sessions when they need to discuss sensitive issues: i.e. when to fire the drunk, or who is currently suing us and what are our chances of prevailing? These ESs consist of everyone on the Committee, plus the lawyer(s), and any management staff required for information purposes. Everyone else has to leave the room. Things discussed at that time should be kept confiential. If Keaton was blabbing that data – ASSUMING IT WAS IN FACT PROPER CLOSED SESSION DATA – then yeah, she screwed up and should apologize.
Hope this clarifies things.
Re Transparency:
I love transparency. That’s why I ratted out Keaton and Starr
[…] LNC laid down an ultimatum to Ms Keaton – that she “apologize with[in] 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again” […]
fantastic put up, very informative. I ponder why the other specialists of this sector don’t realize this. You must continue your writing. I am sure, you’ve a huge readers’ base already!
When I stumble upon a great blog post I do one of three thing:1.Share it with the close friends.2.save it in all my popular social sharing sites.3.Be sure to come back to the website where I read the article.After reading this article I’m really concidering doing all of them.