IPR Exclusive: LIVE BLOG of LNC meeting

8:00 AM  Chair called meeting to order.  Sec confirmed quorum present.  Comments from Gallery.  Proposed Agenda reviewed.  Dianna Visek proposes addition of discussion of need to follow policies among LNC members,  Approved.  Redpath proposes 5 minutes for condolences.  Approved.   Voting methodology item added after LSLA report.  Starchild moves an additional minutes (unclear how many) for public comment after each agenda item for a max of total 15 minutes from the gallery.  Motion fails for the lack of second.

Time expired.

8:30 AM — Agenda passes.


100 thoughts on “IPR Exclusive: LIVE BLOG of LNC meeting

  1. Joe Buchman Post author

    Chair Neale begins with a declaration of his conflicts of interest (none) and asks for each member to do same.

    Dr. Lark asks for clarity regarding the degree of possible conflict to be reported.

    Chair Neale asks for disclosure regarding membership on other boards (especially as directors), of those serving as vendors to the LP, etc.

    Present at the meeting are:

    Chair Neale
    Vice Chair Wrights
    Treasurer Hagen
    Norm Olsen
    Vicki Kirkland
    John Jay Myers
    Bill Redpath
    Rich Tomasso
    Diana Visek
    Arvin Vohra
    Jilliam Mack
    Brett Pojunis
    Michael Cloud
    Dan Weiner
    Carla Howell

    In the Gallery
    Robert Kraus
    Gary Johnson (of Texas)
    Joe Buchman
    Aaron Starr
    David Blau
    Ken Swanson (LP member from Las Vegas)
    Scott Leiberman
    Scott Spencer

  2. Joe Buchman Post author

    Mr Wrights: Senate district rep to Exec committee of Texas LP, President of Foundation for a Free Society.
    Hagan — none
    Bennett — none
    Cloud -President of Center for Small government, advocates for self-government, expect to be vendor to LP for fund raising, promises to charge under market rates.

    Dr. Lark cautions about possible FEC violations regarding below market rate contracts.

  3. Joe Buchman Post author

    Mr. Vohar — on MD executive board
    Mr. Redpath — Treasurer of Fair Vote, ballot access coordinator for LP VA. Board of Citizens in Charge foundation.
    Starchild — Exec committee of CA, at large. Loyalty to freedom over party.

    Chair rules that loyalty to freedom is not a reportable conflict of interest, in the same way he will not disclose a conflict with the life of his family.

    Starchild objects — wants all to be able to report any conflicts.

    Committee votes to uphold ruling of chair. Tomasso, Starchild and Vhora, Wrights, voting nay. All others yea.

    Mr. Olseon — none
    Ms. Kirkland — none
    Ms. Mack — Co chair of Young Libertarian National Alliance, GoLibertarian.com, Saratoga project — private company, GoLP.org, Johnson Campaign, Libertarian Party of Ohio — finance director.
    Mr Weiner — none.
    Mr. Pojunis– Libertarian National Alliance, GoLibertarian.com, Saratoga project — private company, GoLP.org, Executive committee of LP Nevada, work with Johnson Campaign.
    Dr. Lark — Chair of the Advocates for Self Government, Self Liberty, vice-chair of LP BA
    Mr. Tomasso. — Chair LP NH, Free State Project.
    Ms. Visek — LP IL,
    Mr. Myers — own company that does screen printing Clear Sky 24,
    Mr. Blau — Chair of LP MA, MA director of Gary Johnson campaign.
    Dr. Liberman — none
    Mr. Frankl – ballot access contract includes LP in MD and AL, also working for Green and Independent candidates for ballot access, reporter for IPR as volunteer.
    Mr. Spencer – none.

  4. Joe Buchman Post author

    Mr Pojunis — adds Seeds of Freedom.

    Chairs report — please refer to written report.

    Starchild thanks Chair Neale for sharing in his report not only what he has done, but also what he is thinking.

    Chair shares that he supports teams, but reminds committee that teams play a SPORT. This is not the sport of synchronized swimming, nor football, but, in his opinion, this should be more like basketball — a common goal, and no one trips his own teammate.

    Chair requests vice-chair serve as chair for the moment that the chair now moves to suspend the rules to suspend the agenda for a 1/2 hour report from the Johnson Campaign to begin at 10:00AM.

    Passes without objection.

  5. Joe Buchman Post author

    Mr. Pojunis raises question about Chair’s written report regarding IT issue.

    Chair apologies for any misunderstanding. Offers explanation that he was sharing a viewpoint, not a decision.

    Mr. Redpath asks about contract with Johnson campaign.

    Chair reports that Mr. Nielson has reported all is good now.

    Mr. Tomasso asks if contract is privileged?

    Chair rules that said contract/agreement is (and should be) public information.

    Mr. Wrights — request committee not ask for a vice-chair’s report.


    Mr. Wrights — reports that the chair and vice-chair talk frequently, such that were “something to happen” he would be fully informed. Reports feeling privileged to “serve with my brother.”

    Chair — for the record, this not the beginning of a reelection campaign.

    Starchild thanks chair for participating with state parties in their meetings (as reported in Chair’s Report — by phone in some cases).

    Chair discloses that he is not a native born American.

  6. Joe Buchman Post author

    Starchild shares his dream for an International Congress for Liberty to be hosted by the LPUS.

    Treasurers Report.

    Mr Hagan — 21 page report has been distributed in compliance with the Policy Manual. Found staff reports to be concise and clear. In TAB 2 of the binders. Past 4 months number of active donors has dropped. Normally has gone up in election years. Revenues from dues has dropped by $70,000 from anticipated. Convention reported a profit.

    Ruth Bennett applauds enthusiastically.

    Dr. Lark clarifies that fundraising at convention was not included. Bennett confirms.

    Ms. Visek expresses concern that cash on reserve has, for the first time in her experience, fallen below the minimum required. Praises Wes Benedict and Aaron Starr for quality of past reports. Expresses displeasure with “glossy overview” of current report. Urges production of more detailed understanding of what is going on. A “more informative narrative.” Also reports she has heard that using quickbooks to generate reports is not ideal. Suggests as a model that the Treasurer take that information and “massage” it into a report that the committee can use.

    Dr. Lark — Mr. Hagan has, in Dr. Lark’s opinion, asked for input from committee. Suggests it is up to committee to give Treasurer the direction about what it wants.

    Mr. Tomasso — asks for Treasurer’s insights as to why numbers are down.

    Mr. Hagan reports he does not have answers as to why.

    Ms. Visek asks for the body to recognize Aaron Starr to be recognized as person with “best suggestions as to how to get this done.”

    Mr. Cloud — Suggests Starr and Hagan have a one-on-one conversation.

    Ms. Visek objects.

    Starchild — suggests involving all other former treasurers (Mr. Neale and Mr. Redpath) be involved.

    Mr. Redpath — suggests committee hear staff reports prior to discussing this issue further. recommends more qualitative information is needed, and not 28 pages of quantitative information.

    Chair Neale suggests board should run on “key performance indicators.” Wants a Treasurer to say “we’re doing fine on X” and no details on anything other than what we’re not doing fine on.

    Recommends taking discussion offline so we don’t wind up with a discussion of conflicting viewpoints.

    Ms. Visek defends recommendation of hearing from Mr. Starr. Describes Mr. Starr’s past narratives as superior.

    Mr. Olsen — suggests deciding on a couple of metrics — donations per member, or whatever. Recommended four or five such metrics (not specified).

    Mr. Cloud — Let’s realize, we’ve been around 9 weeks. As long as we’re in a coaching or helping position, I think we will do well. Reports having nothing but “happy memories” of the past. Our job here is not to say “what’s wrong in the past” but “what do we do to fix it.” I’m requesting we have each other’s back. Let’s not have any finger pointing.

    Redpath — requests the staff reports mandated by the Policy Manual be provided (reports they are not in the binder).

    Tomasso — suggests Chair ask the committee to go through past reports prior to making suggestions to the Treasurer.

    Mr. Kraus reports that the Policy Manual does not require staff reports until the “end of the month.”

    Mr. Pojunis suggests the Policy Manual already addresses concerns raised by Ms. Visek.

    Ms Visek reports her feeling that the finances have been “flying under the radar of the LNC.”

    Mr. Redpath — recommends Mr. Starr, Mr. Kraus, the assistant treasurer and Mr. Hagan all meet regarding recommendations to address the concerns for better Treasurer’s reports.

    Starchild — asks a member of the gallery, Mr. Swanson, be recognized.

    Mr. Swanson — reports a conflict between the Treasurer’s report and Staff report.

    Mr. Olsen offers support of Mr. Redpath’s suggestion with the suggestion of the addition of a “non financial type” so the reports might be “understandable”

    LAUGHTER (and apparent approval).

    Ms. Howell — when we get to the staff report it will address these issues.

    Ms. Visek — moves to adopt Redpath’s suggestion, with Mr. Starr, Hagan, Redpath, Kraus.

    Time expires. Rules motion out of order.

    Policy Manual requires motions be submitted to the Chair.

    Extension for 2 minutes passes without objection.

    Mr. Redpath asks that Ms. Visek and Ms. Howell be added to the committee. Mr. Visek describes Ms. Visek as the desired “non-financial type.”

    Ms. Visek reports her background as a “degree in physics” with “no dollars in there.”

  7. Joe Buchman Post author

    Chair Neale asks to suspend rules to allow for legal counsel report at 2pm .

    Dr. Lark — Which time zone?

    Chair Neale — 2pm Pacific time, 5pm Eastern.

    Passes without objection

    Secretary’s report.

    Bennett — offers apology for learning curve over past 9 weeks and “not being as on top of things as (I) would like to have been.”

    Reports on two mailed ballots and development of new method following crash of her computer. That’s Dr. Lark for pointing out errors and need for corrections.

    Mr. Root arrives.

    Bennett — Promises to remain on top of things in the future.

    Ms. Visek — discusses May 6th LNC meetings and need for a vote. Also need for updated Policy Meeting. Also May 9th executive committee meeting minutes, approved version has not been set out, has not been posted on website. June 3rd, emailed ballot, needs to go to website. June 4th materials also sent by Ms. Madson have not been reviewed and also needs to go to website. June 6th executive committee meeting minutes, minutes became official on June 20th — also not on the website. Bylaws require prompt posting. July 2nd teleconference (executive committee), first draft was to be sent within 7 days, which have not been sent out. Requests secretary report tally of most recent vote.

    Secretary requests Ms. Visek provide written copy and promises to complete list before the end of this week.

    Chairman Neale suggests post convention Policy Manual needs to be updated to show that all committees are vacated at the end of the term of the past LNC.

    Mr. Jojunis — reports conversation with Chair Neale from Texas convention.

  8. George Phillies

    Note that the committee spends more time arguing about creating a committee than discussing their financial situation. Someone’s ears should have perked up at the statement that the financial reports do not include the convention fundraising, a statement that hopefully corresponds to different people not talking about the same things while using the same words.

    Readers may be grateful to Ms Visek and her friends for the thorough and professional but perhaps not complete list of acts that the secretary has allegedly performed incorrectly.

  9. Stewart Flood

    George…really? Ms Visek is just saying what she was told to say at the meeting they hold the night before the LNC meeting.

    Of course I do agree that the financial situation needs to be addressed, but the answer is obvious: membership is down, not up. Historically, it goes up in an election year. Membership increasing means revenue increasing.

  10. LP Observer

    But, Ms Visek was part of that cabal that everyone wanted OUT at the national convention. Is it possible that the convention went “too deep” in throwing nearly everyone out? Just asking. This is suppose to be a professional board of directors, not some side show. Is there any connection with lower contributions to national party?

  11. Stewart Flood

    Yes, it is supposed to be a professional board, but that is unrelated to contribution levels.

    The decline in membership started during the last term. It was staring us in the face, with several of us pointing the problem out. The only disagreement between those of us who recognized that there was a problem was the cause.

    It can be corrected. Some of us (the secret anti-cabal not on the LNC) are working on solutions to present. Not theories, solutions.

  12. Joe Buchman Post author

    Break due to internet interruption (and break taken by the LNC).

    Ron Nielson reports that a Super Pac has raised 1,000,000 with more contributions on the wings. Money coming into the campaign is going to the campaign

    Debt from the primary of about $500,000 will be paid with matching funds, which can only be used for debt.

    Discussion of FEC rules among various members of the committee.

    Ron: “If Brett wants to donate and has never give a dime to the campaign, Brett can give $5,000. $2,500 will be used for the post-primary campaign, $2,500 can be used for the pre-primary debt. $200 will qualify for matching funds.

    Dr. Lark. Thanks Mr. Nielson for his hard work and upcoming London newspaper article about Gary Johnson.

    Asks about outreach efforts to Ron Paul supporters.

    Ron: I think it’s difficult to understand the makeup of the Ron Paul supporters, a constant education to understand who they are, and why they participate — some have never been involved in politics. They became involved because of Dr. Paul. OUr concern is how to keep them engaged in the political process.

    Reports nearly constant contact with Paul staff, some public, some private. There is still an element of the movement that denies the fact that he will not get the nomination. The campaign is participating in Paulfest in Tampa. We’re attempting to have access to their lists. We put Ron Paul’s name on our Splash page, and have created some ads, eg FED reserve ad, to target them. We are open to more ideas.

    Mr. Root — reports interesting conversation with one of Ron Paul’s supporters who is now supporting Romney, his comment was that to vote Romney in swing states, but vote Johnson in all other R or D “guaranteed” states.

    Ron: It’s an excellent comment. It’s part of our strategy. I’ve seen Dr. Paul as high as 17 percent. So there’s a lot of play there.

    We are not expecting his endorsement. Your strategy about going after states where it’s a done deal is an excellent point.

    Mr. Redpath — reports on hearing Gary Johnson and Judge Gray speech to Freedom Fest and declared strategies for reaching out to Ron Paul supporters.

    Mr. Cloud — we all think we have good ideas here. That’s the point — all of us have ideas.

    Mr. Wrights speaks to Oregon ballot access issue and Voter’s Guide.

    Mr. Neale — I think we need to discuss Oregon. Mr. Wagner is available to us for another few minutes should we wish to call him

  13. Joe Buchman Post author

    Mr. Cloud — asks about the specific nature of the indemnification.

    Mr. Neale — suggests if we want to pursue the issue we might call him directly.

    Dr. Lark — asks if Mr. Wagner has provided specific information.

    Mr. Neale — reports he has had direct communication earlier and an earlier EC vote to reject blanket indemnification. Now it appears to be sore loser only. . .

  14. Joe Buchman Post author

    Mr. Wrights — reports he has spoken directly to Wes. Reports recent conversations did not relate to indemnification — just paperwork exchange.

    Mr. Redpath — asks for further clarification. Who does not want Gary Johnson on the ballot?

    Mr. Neale — other third parties besides.

    Ms Visek — expresses understanding that the lawsuit will conclude soon, before the deadlines.
    Expresses understanding that legal action could be taken in any of the 50 states. We don’t indemnify any others . . .

  15. Joe Buchman Post author

    Dr. Lark — Suggests LNC get specific information from Mr. Wagner in writing.

    Mr. Pojunis — can we get an act of good faith from Mr. Wagner to file this?

    Mr. Frankl — Can we get Wes on the phone?

    Mr Neale — sense of the body is to ask Wes to put what he wants into writing.

    Mr Weiner — even if we got him on the phone, we’d need it in writing.

    Mr. Neale — can we ask him to fax what he wants to us today?

    General agreement expressed.

    Dr. Lark — With all due respect to Mr. Wagner, I would want more time. Of course we can ask. But this is a non-trivial document. He may be able to do it, and there’s no problem in asking.

    Mr. Pojunis — wants to know deadline for the voter’s guide and other requirements.

    Mr. Olsen — suggests Mr. Wagner could email requests.

    Starchild moves that the LNC call Mr. Wagner.

    Second by Paulie.

  16. Joe Buchman Post author

    Ms. Visek — I would trust the chair to make this call with Mr. Sinouski. We should stop this and get our legal counsel involved.

    Mr. Wrights — why do we want this report? Is the LNC going to interject itself between the campaign and an affiliate.

    Ms. Bennett asks for clarification about the nature of a conference call.

    Mr. Neale — this is a conference call.

    Vote on motion to call Wes fails.

    Starchild requests a roll call vote

    Frankl — aye
    Visek –no
    Tomasso -aye
    Dr.. Lark nay
    Mr. Pojunis no
    Mr. Weiner no
    Ms Mack nay
    Kirkland no
    Olsen yes
    Root no
    Starchild aye
    Redpath aye
    Vohra nay
    Cloude nay
    Wights abstain
    Hagan aye
    Bennett aye
    Neale nay

  17. Wes Wagner

    It would be informative for readers here on IPR to know the Mr Neale was fully briefed as to the legal particulars of what is required and has suffered “amnesia” at the ex-comm meeting and this LNC meeting.

  18. Jill Pyeatt

    Wow, this is invaluable reporting, Joe. I thought Libertarian Girl was going to be there to help out.
    If you’re reading this, LG, we could use your input, too!

    I wish I didn’t have so much I must do out of the house, so I could follow this all day.

  19. Jill Pyeatt

    As a member of Region 4, I’d like to ask: was discussion of Scott Lieberman’s actions against the bylaws put on the agenda?

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    Can someone briefly summarize this “indemnification” issue?

    Who is asking for what, and why is one faction of the LNC (plus some not obviously affiliated with that faction) dead-set against having Wagner on the official record about it?

  21. zapper

    Hello Wes,

    Please post a simple outline here:
    1) Paperwork needed and deadline to put GJ/JG on ballot.
    2) Paperwork, requirements and deadlines for Voters Guide.
    3) Indemnification: What are you seeking and why (briefly).
    4) Any other issues that prevent filing by you for GJ/JG now.

  22. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ll also say that I think it’s a bit creepy that Ms. Visek tried to bring in Aaron Starr in to the conversati0n at the meeting right away. He was NOT re-elected, remember?

    LP Observer @ 12: Good job at trying to blame the decline of contributions to the replacement of certain personalities at the convention, but you’ll need some evidence for me to believe it. And I think the evidence needs to come from someone who wasn’t replaced at the convention.

  23. Oregon Libertarian

    @ 16
    “Ms Visek — expresses understanding that the lawsuit will conclude soon, before the deadlines.”

    Who is Ms Visek and where exactly did she get this information?

  24. Wes Wagner

    SF @27

    What is strange about the claims is how outrageous they are. There are some people who are party to the suit who have not even been served yet I believe (which of course starts at long process of preliminary motions, etc)…

    Plus Clackamas County is not renowned for giving expedited trials.

    Further there are still several large steps of the legal process to complete before trial can even begin.

    Somehow though, supporters of people like Starr, Visek, etc., will forget these outrageous predictions after the dates have come and passed.

  25. zapper

    Wes, Please respond to what it takes to get the ticket on the ballot as per @24.

    It’s likely the suit will remain unresolved and in court after the November election unless the Burke/Reeves cabal does the right thing and drops its case.

  26. Bill Wood

    Wes, thought you said you just needed Gary Johnson’s signature on a form and everything would be good to go. Are you still waiting for the GJ Campaign?

  27. Joe Buchman Post author

    Dr. Lark — recommends that Mr. Neale speak to members of the LNC about what they want before calling Mr. Wagner.

    Ms. Visek — recommends inclusion counsel on the call.

    Mr. Redpath — Mine is not about Oregon.


    Asks Nielson about restrictions of expenditures of funds in the superpac.

    Ron — the superpac makes its own decisions. My understanding is that historically the superpacs have spend money on advertising.

    Break due to being called out of the room

    Ron responds to Starchild’s suggestions about campaign methods involving the Fair Tax and ads about ending the IRS.

    Ms. Visek — does the superpac have to focus on one issue?

    Ron — this superpac’s focus is “support Gary Johnson” — the focus of superpac has become less narrow over time. I cannot promise what kind of advertising they do. I cannot promise they will not do negative advertising. They have their own agenda.

    Mr. Tomasso — congratulations to the campaign for being on the Daily Show, but I don’t see the campaign on TV or in the news. How can the campaign break that glass ceiling.

    Ron — I think the media works the same as the election works — they follow momentum. At times we’ve popped up, but we have not broken the glass ceiling. Gary is in interviews every day, but it is a very difficult thing. Why would you want to carry Gary? He’s one of only three to be on the ballot. We have a protest tomorrow at CNN HQ in Atlanta — to put Gary Johnson in the polls and in the debate. The media is not an unbiased, good-for-all, industry. They have their own agenda. We are fighting this every day.

    Mr. Weiner — How do you determine electors in the various states?

    Mr. Nielson — That’s up to those who file those forms. That’s usually the chair of each state’s LP. There’s no additional involvement from the campaign.

    Dr. Lark — what do you need from the LNC?

    Ron — enthusiasm, active support, self-directed spontaneous activity. Every day that goes by without that is a lost moment. I do not need anything specific from the LNC that we don’t already have. Our doors are open. We need you. I want each of you involved in the campaign.

    Mr. Frankl — what is the strategy for appealing to the youth demo?

    Ron — under the age of 30. Campus organizations. Dr. Lark is involved. Charles Frohman is involved from the campaign. Each campus will have a campus chair. This should be ongoing past 2012 to create campus activity permanently. We have specific literature just for them — posters and such.

    Starchild — Is there a list of staff and who we should contact?

    Ron — Yes. If it’s okay, I’d be happy to send that to the LNC.

    Mr Tomasso — Asks about Interns.

    Break due to internet access issues and other personal priorities . . .

  28. Joe Buchman Post author

    No video — my internet access is via my smartphone working with a modem ap.

    Others may try for video tomorrow.

    I have been authorized by Ron Nielson to say on behalf of the campaign that we would indemnify Mr. Wagnor for his two concerns — sore loser laws, and any issues regarding the Johnson nominating convention. Wes has asked in the past that this be from the LNC rather than the campaign (which, FYI, exists only through November 6th – 114 more days).

    I’ll share that with the LNC if/when appropriate. It’s been previously shared with Wes. In our opinion, and (apparently) that of our legal counsel these are reasonable requests.

  29. B4Liberty

    Thank you Joe for providing the great commentary coverage. Your time and effort are greatly appreciated.

    I would hope that the LNC agenda might soon include adding live video coverage of future meetings to their procedure manual.

  30. George Phillies

    @12 The decline considerably predates the current LNC. The answer to your question is that it is highly likely that the convention did not go deep enough in rooting out the cabal, or the return of the previous cabal.

    @11 Well, Stewart, that’s why I said “and her friends”. They provided the list and she provided at least the mouthpiece. The list appeared to me to be incomplete.

    Out of curiosity, do you know who was actually at the pre-meeting meeting in the Starr Chamber this time?

  31. George Phillies

    @12 The decline considerably predates the current LNC. The answer to your question is that it is highly likely that the convention did not go deep enough in rooting out the cabal, or the return of the previous cabal.

    @11 Well, Stewart, that’s why I said “and her friends”. They provided the list and she provided at least the mouthpiece. The list appeared to me to be incomplete.

    Out of curiosity, do you know who was actually at the pre-meeting meeting in the Starr Chamber this time?

    and also “He’s one of only three to be on the ballot. ” Five. Jill Stein, Virgil Goode.

    not to mention “the campaign (which, FYI, exists only through November 6th” Ummh, no, the campaign exists until it pays off all its debts or the FEC agrees that debts are not going to be repaid and the FEC gives termination permission, which requires the agreement of all persons owed money. Note that Barr 2008 is up and running still, and is slowly paying off debts, and is not shutting down easily until then because one of the persons it owes money has sued it successfully.

  32. George Phillies

    @34 Absolutely agreed. Live blogging is a great chore, and this coverage even is fairly free of typing errors that readily creep in at high speed.

  33. zapper

    Note to LNC:

    This membership/donation decline has been a long time in the making. It’s not a result of the new NatCom which has had only a little time to change anything.

    There has been a history of doing little other than infighting by the LNC. Yes, we all know about ballot drives – and those never seem to end.

    We need to see progress and hope for progress. TRY:

    Party building.
    Success at obtaining permanent ballot access in a state or two each cycle.

    Maybe set up a dedicated fund for Major Network Broadcast TV advertising targeting small states for party building and states where ballot access retention is a definite possibility.

    Why donate for ballot drives, spend thousands of dollars to get on the ballot and then spend nothing to get the votes to keep that ballot status?

    We need to be on Major Network Broadcast TV in targeted states.

    We need to target small states where our limited resources can make a difference.

    For ballot status races we need to follow opportunity: NY Gov 2010 was a good example of an opportunity missed: an advertising budget in several small upstate markets of less than the cost of a ballot drive could have pushed us over the top.

    LNC members heard pleas for funds to do this in New York in the early fall of 2010.

    So, why should Libertarians join, renew or donate if the LNC seems to be going nowhere?

    We have to do something to inspire followers to join us …

    We have to lead.

  34. zapper


    My personal feeling is that the LNC should attempt to budget its spending 1/3 for ballot drives, 1/3 for advertising & outreach and 1/3 for office and overhead.

    We should be spending for advertising and of course ballot drives first. Overhead should only grow as necessary as a budget item that is strictly controlled and contained.

    Don’t let staff costs eat our seed corn. Advertising is the investment in the future that will inspire current members and bring in new prospects that turn into voters, registered L’s, members, donors, candidates and leaders.

    The LP hasn’t done any significant advertising since Clark 1980.

  35. Jill Pyeatt

    zapper, do you think buying a new building and/or moving to a less expensive place should be a priority?

  36. Mark Hilgenberg

    @ Jill 41

    In the middle of an economic crisis, a drop in revenue and telecommuting becoming mainstream, buying a building is not a smart move.

    I like the idea of moving the office to an inexpensive area or even telecommuting but having offices available in various cities through an Executive Suite co-op like Regus.com. These could be used for LNC meetings, high profile meetings etc.

  37. Joe Buchman Post author

    Ms. Howell is currently giving a report.

    Ms Visek is questioning Ms. Howell about the presentation given to Freedom Fest regarding “reasons for voting for Obama.”

    Ms. Howell defends making her case against Romney and notes the increase in turnout for the fundraising dinner that night as evidence the presentation was not hurtful.

    Starchild — one of the things we noticed from the Ron Paul campaign that was successful was letting people have freedom — for example posting comments at lp.org — the video contest was good — why not make that ongoing? To let LP members vote on what they want to see on the site — and this goes back to fundraising too — pick from a list of projects to fund — list them on the website like kickstarter –give donors choices. . .

    Mr. Neale — was there a question?

    Starchild — will you do more of these participatory things?

    Mr. Neale — the job of the board is to set objectives, the staff is used to execute. Your question to the staff is, are you doing these things I believe you should do without the board telling you to do them. So, we need to set these objectives as a board.

    This is a staff report.

    Ms. Howell — if I may address some of what you have said. One of the things is staying on message. We will do more on Facebook and others where we can get a bit off message. Staying on message is important.

    Mr. Cloud — We are differentiating Gary Johnson from Romney, not from Obama. We had this problem in 1980 when the RP tried to make Reagan look libertarian. A lot of the people at FF were saying I’ve got to vote Romeny . . .

    Ms Howell shares about tax increases, Romneycare, lies, etc in MA. Offers to talk it over over lunch.

    Shares development of a fact sheet regarding senate, house and local candidates. Work to get Ron Paul supporters into the LP. Working on all Tampa festival events around dates of RP convention. List exchange with Reason Magazine. Also a lapsed letter went out.

    Mr Myers — what about antiwar.com?

    Ms Howell — we have not, but will work to find other potential prospect lists. Anyone who wants to help and has expertise is welcome to give me a call.

    Mr. Tomasso — I recall the LP used to have a fact sheet. What about think tanks with talking points similar to ours — CATO etc?

    Ms. Howell — again asks for help from all with suggestions. The website is a major problem — $1,500 to $2,000 for even minor changes. Four attempts to find another vendor have proved unsuccessful. We need help. Doubtful it can occur prior to the election. Remains unresolved. Have put out informal RFPs to several vendors. We cannot break the donation page at any point in the process of revamping. Asks for help from Chair.

    Chair Neale — “I don’t do UI” (apparently “user interfaces)


    Ms. Howell — reaching out to campuses, in conversations with Steve Gordon about help with PR. Desire to exploit “high season.” LP News has been quarterly — Policy manual calls for bi monthly. Would like to get out two issues pre-election. Also a challenge. May need increase in budget for that.

    See written report for remainder of report. Mostly media hits. One challenge is keeping track of past messages to avoid undesired repetition.

    Concludes formal report.

    Mr. Pojunis — have you developed a Social Media Strategy?

    Ms. Howell — no, other than talk about a focus on Facebook and Twitter. Looking to do more.

    Norm Olsen — notes photocopy error in binder.

    JJM — Success 99 and Speaker bureau?

    Ms. Howell — Not something I see doing before the election, unless someone wants to run with it. Not a pre-election discussion.

    Starchild — Is there a list of things you need help with — things people can run with?

    Ms. Howell — what we need most is high skill level. But in PA we got a disappointing response to a request for grassroots help. Even getting Interns productive — the management time it takes is a burden. The challenge is finding easy to do things.

    Mr. Tomasso — Less than 4 months to election. So what are the priorities for pre-election?

    Ms. Howell – that was my whole presentation. Let’s talk offline for more details. Things change daily. I am doing all I can to focus our resources.

    No further questions are apparent now.

    Mr. Neale — Counsel has indicated his report will not require executive session.

    Mr. Redpath — 5 minutes for resolutions of condolences.

    On 12 May 2012 John Robertson, long time LP member and petitioner, and Robert Murphy from the OK LP who was up visiting in CA when John passed away.

    Reads specific resolution of condolence.

    Passes without objection

    Working a petition drive in CT, and the chair during the drive, Dan Reale, this past Monday evening his 49 year old mother passed away. The CT petition drive has carried on . . .

    Reads resolution of condolence.

    Passes without objection to the chair declaring that they passed unanimously.

    JJM — motion to adjourn for lunch (until 2pm Pacific time).

  38. Joe Buchman Post author

    George @ 36 — you are correct. To be precise — I should have said “which might only exist through November 6th” – from Mr. Wagner’s perspective. Also not an unreasonable concerns, IMO in terms of which body is the more durable . . .

  39. Stewart Flood

    I have had very little contact with anyone in the inner circle since the convention.

    I have communicated with Aaron Starr recently, regarding our attempts to get support from the LNCC for one of our candidates.

    I have communicated with Dr Lieberman regarding that same campaign.

    Aside from these conversations, I have had no discussion with them or anyone else regarding their meetings this term. I would not expect them to bring up the subject or respond to any inquiry I might make.

    But if I were present at the LNC meeting, I would have considered it a safe bet to place money on their dinner meeting having been held, but without the usual discussion of motions. They need cover, and they probably invited a few people who do not believe the planning meetings are taking place so that they can cover it up.

    They probably held the meeting after dinner, in one of the hotel rooms. I’d put money on it.

  40. Stewart Flood

    But that isn’t the really BIG story. I have it. And it will blow the lid off their game. And it is something new.

    Maybe I’ll give it to Dr Phillies. It will need a 72 point banner on his newsletter.

  41. Jill Pyeatt

    SF @ 46: Giving it to Phillies is great, but then we’ll have to wait for his next newsletter. You can always send it to one of the writers here at IPR.

  42. zapper

    @44 Joe,

    I think the rest of us (other than George) knew that you meant that there are only 114 days left to campaign, promote Gary Johnson and Get Out The Vote.

    What you said was fine and we got it. Your primary focus is the election – as it should be.

    (However – to George – your technical clarification regarding the continuing status of a campaign as an entity of that much beloved regulatory agency, the FEC, one of the many which controls our lives and to which we are enslaved, has, I’m sure, enlightened, impressed and titilated us all to no end and we shall be forever grateful to you for your continuing edification upon this vital matter.)

  43. zapper

    @41 It seems to me that between now and election day we should have campaign 2012 as our priority.

    We need to raise more funds for ballot drives as ususal and to advertise.

    Immediately following the election we should take a long, hard look at all overhead costs. Buying a building would be great if the donors can be found. But we really need to look at everything and the opportunities for reduced overhead.

    Of course, I think we should follow up on Starchild’s comments regarding targeted purpose fundraising – and I think a targeted Major Network TV advertising fund, a targeted party building/outreach fund and others should be considered.

    If we can grow and add members and increase fundraising, overhead becomes easier. However, it still needs to be managed more in a detailed, cost-conscious and deliberate manner.

  44. Jill Pyeatt

    For the record (not the anyone asked my opinion, but, hey, since when do I wait to be asked??), I think buying a building right now isn’t the best choice. Commercial real estate hasn’t really crashed yet, at least in California, and even “experts” don’t know what to anticipate.

    Reducing overhead costs is the best course of action. That’s the only way I’ve been able to keep my small business going through the past few years.

  45. Reed Ebarb

    To address some of those who think the LP is sliding down hill, I will share a bit of good news to hopefully lift our spirits. The Louisiana LP is seeing increases of registered voters in the range of 2.5-3% per month. We have started sending out a monthly newsletter for the first time in May. We are sending out 200 fund-raising letters on Friday for a total cost of $100 thanks to volunteers. We have been meeting with Ron Paul groups and are getting a very good response. We have 2 Gary Johnson events upcoming. We will have a full slate of candidates on the November ballot, a first for any third party in Louisiana. Even the Democrats in Louisiana haven’t fielded a full slate since 1994! We are doing pretty damn well in Louisiana and we are doing things that are breaking records for Third Parties in Louisiana. We are more active than ever. Just thought a little good news might cheer some of us up. -Reed Ebarb, LPL Secretary

  46. zapper

    @50 As to the timing of real estate, which means a building for the National LP office in Washington DC, I think the market is near bottom in nominal terms.

    We have to wait until after the election for such a project. However, it’s not clear from the last attempt under the past LNC that the donors will be in place for this.

    Our small business also fights to control overhead costs. However, our real estate has been rising – 25% to 30% so far in 2012.

  47. Jill Pyeatt

    What part of the country, Zapper? I’m in CA, and I think everyone knows we have unique issues keeping our economy down.

  48. Michael H. Wilson

    Sounds like a lot of BS going on at this meeting and not enough business as usual.

  49. Mark Axinn

    Let me add my thanks to Joe (and in the past to Paulie) for such complete and helpful reporting.

  50. give-me-liberty

    Big f-ing surprise. Another meeting of the LNC sitting around smelling each other’s farts. And then Root, the guy who lives down the street from the meeting, shows up late.

  51. Mark Hilgenberg

    @ 57 GML

    “And then Root, the guy who lives down the street from the meeting, shows up late.”

    Give him a break, he had 87 TV interviews this morning! 🙂

  52. Joe Buchman

    Agenda amended to allow for an executive session at 4pm to discuss PA Ballot access.

    Treasurer (who is described by Chair Neale as “good with numbers”) is attempting to dial the telephone . . . so far without success.

    Counsel via speakerphone indicates he has nothing to add to his written report.

    Mr. Blau — asks about Bob Barr and MA case.

    Counsel responds about George Phillies and substitution case in MA. Won in Federal District court. Barr was on ballot in MA. US court of appeals overturned district court decision. Case now in MA courts, Supreme Court of MA agreed, in essence, with Federal District court. Not sure if case is moving forward to US Supreme Court — opinion is that it is currently a “dead letter.” Will double check for next report.

    Mr. Olsen — Asks about top two cases in CA.

    Counsel reports he is following the cases without being directly involved.

    Ms Visek — Asks about Oregon situation. Relates Wes Wagner’s concerns and request for indemnification for sore loser laws and national convention. First question — before we get into the details of what he wants to be indemnified for, is this an issue for the LNC, or the campaign and the Oregon affiliate?

    Counsel — there are no rules for the answer to that question. If it can be resolved with the campaign, then that would be great. The LNC might very well get involved.

    Ms. Visek — One concern is that the lawsuit in Oregon could be resolved within a couple of weeks.

    Mr. Neale — asks if Wes’s email to him should be in open or executive session.

    Counsel — well . . . that depends on what it says.

    Discussion regarding need or not for executive session.

    Motion to go into executive session

    Motion carried.

    Counsel rules issue is non-confidential.

    Chair Neale reads email from Wagner:

    What we are looking for is an indemnification and agreement from the LNC to obtain and pay for all expenses of legal consul, court costs and judgments for any claims raised by another party that the nomination of Johnson and his placement on the ballot in Oregon was invalid for cause, either:

    1) due to claims under the sore loser laws,

    2) claims that the nomination process followed in Las Vegas with regards to Oregon was invalid, or other claims that Johnson is not a valid candidate.

    (All above references are for both Johnson and Gray — but written just as Johnson for convenience)

    Counsel — This is a political question, not a legal question. To the extent that I’ve thought about it over the past couple of minutes, neither of these claims appear viable. On the other hand, people bring claims whether they are viable or not. The political question is for the LNC.

    Neale — so what I hear is that there’s a possibility if we agree to indemnify that it represents an in-determinant cost to the LNC? Is that valid?

    Mr. Weiner — Is there any possibility . . . supposing we without further definition that this could be interpreted as somehow drawing us into the current litigation between him and the Reeves group?

    Counsel — only if the current litigation were amended to include claims like those described in this email.

    Mr. Weiner is there a way to respond to exclude such contingencies.

    Counsel — sure.

    Mr. Pojunis — How can we respond if the desired result is to get Gary Johnson on the ballot?

    Counsel — we can make it clear that we agree to indemnify for the claims in the email, but that it would not extend to other issues . . . and so forth . . . specifically not agreeing not to get involved in the faction fight in Oregon.

    Mr. Weiner — Is there any way that this would affect the existing litigation between the groups?

    Counsel — I would have to review all the existing litigation.

    Mr. Pojunis — is this an LNC or Johnson campaign matter?

    Counsel — both.

    Mr. Neale — Mr. Wagner has expressed a concern that the Johnson campaign is ephemeral.

    Counsel — There are ways to handle that such as putting an amount into escrow.

    Mr. Weiner — can we make a condition in our counter proposal that we could select the counsel?

    Counsel — Sure.

    Mr. Weiner — what amount of money should we set aside?

    Mr. Sinawski (Counsel) — that would be difficult to determine at this point. I can’t say.

    Ms. Visek — I’m concerned that other states also have sore loser laws. Is this a precedent for other states?

    Mr. Sinawski — we have litigation in Michigan over this issue. Sore loser laws should not apply for candidates for President because they have national implications that should not be trumped by a single state. I don’t think that getting involved in this controversy will increase the odds that we will be involved in other sore loser issues.

    Mr. Neale — any objection to hearing from Mr. Starr?

    Wrights — yes.

    Mr. Starr — I’m not sure this is relevant to this case . . .

    Wrights — THAT is a horrible way to start this.

    Mr. Starr — The Johnson campaign is having the Reeves group submit paperwork next week. So no matter which group wins, the paperwork will be in on time.

    Counsel — That’s a good idea.

    Mr. Tomasso –Is there a date for the court case in Oregon?

    Ms. Visek — reads from Policy Manual regarding legal matters.

    Mr. Neale — the ruling of the chair that this doesn’t apply. We’re not discussing suing anyone.

    Mr. Lark — Mr. Chair, I believe it does.

    Mr. Vhora — motion to suspend rules to consider a motion to reject the request for indemnification.

    Motion carries 10 – 5

    Mr. Vhora — This request encourages risky behavior. Also as a state chair it requires courage and integrity to do what you are suppose to do. Third, if there is a legitimate issue, this LNC will back the morally correct side, but we do not need to do this before hand. There are other more important legal matters elsewhere. This is a trivial issue.

    Mr. Redpath — I don’t know what the hell is going on. I do not understand a damn thing about what’s going on. There are two factions here that have engendered this. The most important thing is to get the ticket on the ballot and in the voter’s guide. I would hope that we could resolve this and get an agreement now. I can’t imagine why anyone would sue.

    Dr. Lark — I’m going to vote for this motion. I wish we would deal with this differently, but Mr. Vhora made an important point — we can back LP OR if that party is attacked at that point.

    Ms. Bennett: The motion is to decline to indemnify Mr. Wagner for any possible lawsuits that might arise from putting the Johnson ticket on the ballot.

    Mr. Frankl explains that Mr. Wagner has reason to believe that the Reeves group may well sue him. The practical impact of voting to reject his request for indemnification is that he will not put Johnson on the ballot.

    Mr. Neale — Mr. Wagner could also be sued for for not putting Mr. Johnson on the ballot.

    Mr. Redpath –would he accept a signed statement from Reeves that they will not sue him.

    Mr. Frankl — He believes that Reeves will act through proxies.

    Mr. Root — we should not reward extortion. It’s like a mafia play here. We should not reward or encourage future bad behavior.

    Mr. Olsen — I see this as Principle verses Pragmatism. If we deny this we might not get Johnson on the ballot. If Wagner prevails we will be in relationship with him for god knows how long.

    Mr. Wrights — IPR will burn down for this one. I agree with Mr. Root. I call the question.

    Dr. Buchman — The campaign has offered indemnification. We’ve concluded low risk for these two issues. No significant financial risk.

    Mr. Cloud — if Mr Wagner feels at risk, he should resign. The campaign should indemnify.

    Starchild — Wes told me the other side might go through Republicans to sue him.

    Mr. Pojunis — The voter’s guide deadline is August 26th, the court date should be before then.

    John Jay Myers — Arvin, you made excellent points. This whole thing sounds like terrorists. These guys have had this fight going on, and he does believe that he will get sued because they REALLY do sue each other over crazy stuff. Then they have to worry about whether the LNC will take over the state. It’s that kind of thing that has made this guy uneasy. So it’s not craziness. Overall he is the state chair of Oregon.

    Mr. Weiner. Originally I was going to suggest that we indemnify him under limited conditions, that we select the counsel, that if he declined then we would know . . . but it’s still possible to do something later on . . . in the end the points in favor of this motion carry the day. I’ll vote in favor.

    Motion to decline the request for indemnification passes:

    Ms. Kirkland abstain
    Mach aye
    Weiner yes
    Pojunis yes
    Lark yes
    Tomasso abstain
    Visek No
    Myers No
    Hagan yes
    Cloud yes
    Vhora yes
    Redpath no
    Starchild no
    Root yes
    Olsen no
    Wrights aye
    Bennet aye
    Neale abstain

    Motion passes

    Committee returns from executive session (Topic Pennsylvania).

    Mr. Olsen reports that Mr. and Mrs. Ryan are on their way to South Dakota to revive the affiliate there.

    Starchild moves to suspend the rules to consider a motion to make public the contents of the just held secret meeting following the November 6th election.

    Motion failed.

    Roll call:

    Mr. Wrights — not present
    Mr. Hagan yes
    Bennett no
    Cloud yes
    Vhora yes
    Redpath no
    Starchild yes
    Root — not present
    Olsen no
    Kirkland- no
    Mack – no
    Weiner -yes
    Pjonis -??
    Lark – abstain
    Neale -no

    (Sorry, this was too fast to catch)

    6 yes, 9 nos, 1 abstention.

    Neale –As a point of privilege, as we don’t have records of executive session, your motion would have been difficult to comply with.

    Region 2 — Kirkland reports her alternative’s regrets at not being able to be present.

    Ms. Mack — (difficult to hear) — suggests the format for her region be used by other regions (lists topics . . .)

    Mr. Pojunis — it is a word template available for anyone who wants it.

    Region 4

    Mr. Weiner — reports on AB2058 which would prohibit the payment of people for gathering registrations, and the top-two laws there, which threaten ballot status, and get the Presidential candidates on the ballot in the future, is to keep the party on the ballot by maintaining sufficient registrants — currently about 10,000 short of the 103,000 required. Currently on the ballot through 2014 — if the measure passes, then they will need to mount a registration drive this fall to maintain ballot status.

    Mr Pojinis — if we lose CA, what kind of presidential candidates can we hope to get in the future.

    Mr. Wrights — Mr. Redpath are you aware of this?

    Mr. Redpath — I was aware top two could throw us for a loop. I also question the Constitutionality of any legislation that prohibits payment for registrations.

    Mr. Weiner — we may have a window of September to December to gather registrations.

    Dr. Lark — what is the last date by which the legislature of CA could pass this measure?

    Mr. Weiner — We should know within the next days or weeks, September at the latest, if this will pass.

    Mr. Olsen — please let us know what is the amount of money you figure you would need.

    Mr. Weiner — I’ve seen estimates of . . .

    Paulie — $7.00

    Mr. Weiner — we need at least 10,000 registrations.

    Mr. Olsen — so $70,000.00?!?!

    Mr. Redpath — I will call Richard Winger and gain his opinion before my report (which now looks like it will be tomorrow).

    Mr. Pjonis — Arkansas has 15 candidates this year (last cycle they had 1).

    Region 5 N

    Mr. Tomasso — I believe Mr. Blau has an update on MA.

    Mr. Blau — 14,067, validity of 81 percent. Should have over 11,000 valid. We need 10,000. So looks like Gary Johnson will be on the ballot.

    Dr. Lark recognizes Mr. Blau’s generous contribution.


    Mr. Tomasso — NH raised another $6,000 ($2,000 from Mr. Tomasso himself) — NH has will have 15 to 20 candidates running as libertarians. The Libertarians are working with Occupy NH to restart gay pride events.

    The Ron Paul campaign has sucked all the energy out of NH. Just starting up again.

    Starchild asks about Porkfest

    Mr. Tomasso — we petitioned there. Had a Gary Johnson campaign presence. Plugs NH as a site for a future LNC meeting.

    Region 5 S

    Dr. Lark — no updates, except as always expressions of gratitude to Mr. Redpath.


    Region 6

    Ms. Visek reports gathering over 2,000 sigs for IL personally and shares her enjoyment of the out of doors and “fresh air.”

    Mr. Wrights — notice how many people on this body are doing something.

    Region 7

    Mr. Myers — nothing to add. Alabama will need help.

  53. Joe Buchman

    My apologies, I hope I was able to move things to the correct thread. I’ve missed blogging a significant portion of the meeting now due to moving things back here, and a very marginal internet connection.

    Mr. Pojunis returned a check for $33,000 plus to the committee.

    Startchild attempted to introduce a motion to allow members to be free of confidentiality regarding the earlier secret meeting following the election. It failed. I missed the roll call on that.

    Mr. Wrights is reporting on the APRC

  54. Joe Buchman

    Mr Wrights relates that he is representing both SC about which he hears very little and OR about which he hears a “fair amount.”


    Mr. Wrights introduces a complaint from the chair of Oregon and asks for a ruling from the Chair.

    Mr. Neale — reads the email from Dr. Leiberman to Mr. Burke previously posted on IPR (if someone has that link post it here).

    Mr. Neale rules that the bylaws have been breached.

    Mr Weiner — what does your ruling mean?

    Mr. Neale — calls for order.

    Ms Visek — it’s my opinion that the chair cannot rule on matters of bylaws.

    Mr. Neale checks with Ms. Madsen, and withdraws his ruling.

    Mr. Wrights — moves the LNC censure Dr. Liberman for violation of the bylaws under Article 14, Section 4.

    Mr. Weiner suggests a motion to suspend the rules is required first.

    Mr. Neale accepts the suggestion.

    Mr Wrights moves to suspend the rules to consider a motion for censure for 5 minutes.

    Motion fails.

    Mr. Olsen — Policy Manual (Section somethingorother), 3 LNC regional representatives or alternates.

    (Neither Mr. Root nor I can hear Mr. Olsen. . . .)

    Mr. Wrights apologizes to the body for not following the cited policy and apologizes to Mr. Vhora for mistakenly appointing him to a committee in violation of the Policy Manual.

  55. Mark Axinn

    Joe–Nothing to apologize for.

    You’re doing a great job.

    What was the Pennsylvania discussion about? Are they on the ballot? Last I heard it was still up in the air.

  56. Joe Buchman

    Mr. Wrights informs the committee that the contract with the Rosen Center is down to minor points. Counsel has raised some concerns which Mr. Wrights describes as “small.” Deadline is the 20th of July.

    Mr. Redpath — It appears the most likely convention and date is Memorial Day weekend in Orlando?

    Mr. Neale — 4 day convention, Thursday to Sunday OR Friday to Monday. Is on the agenda under unfinished business.

    Mr. Redpath strongly urges Friday to Monday.

    Mr. Wrights concurs, but it’s not on the agenda for right now, unless we move it.

    Agenda item for dates moved to NOW passes without objection.

    Motion to have the 2016 convention begin on Friday and end midday on Monday over Memorial Day weekend in 2016. It would be insane to have it any other way.


    Starchild — submits motion for a 5 day convention.

    Mr. Neale explains that Starchild can submit a motion for an amendment or substitution.


    Dr. Lark — Did Starchild have his motion in in writing before Mr. Redpath.

    Mr. Neale — yes, he did.

    Mr. Redpath — Starchild, please make a motion to amend my motion.

    Mr. Neale — Roberts requires us to start with a motion, not that we can pick one or the other . . .

    Starchild moves to amend motion to start on Thursday and end on Monday.


    Starchild — we typically run out of time at our conventions. We can still cram the main convention business into the weekend, but we could use Thursday for rallies, for getting our message out to the public, Porkfest is bigger than our national conventions, and I propose this as a modest step in that direction.

    Mr. Wrights — do you know what it would cost to add an extra day? To add an extra day will cost a “big number.”

    Motion to amend the motion fails (Starchild appearing to be the only vote in favor).

    Mr. Cloud — Mr. Redpath’s motion has advantages for working families.

    Ms. Visek — I don’t think we had a quorum on Sunday at our last convention.

    Mr. Neale — As a point of fact, it’s easier to fly west than east. For example back to Florida from Vegas, rather than from Florida back west.

    aye means Friday to Monday:

    Bennett aye
    Cloud Aye
    Vorah aye
    Redpath aye
    Starchild aye
    Root no
    Olsen aye
    Kirkland not present
    Mack no
    Weiner no
    Pjonis no
    Lark aye
    Tomasso aye
    Visek no
    Myers aye
    Neale aye
    Wrights aye
    Hagan aye

    Motion passes 12 to 5

  57. Joe Buchman

    I’ll try to read and respond to comments later

    Keeping up with BLOGGING is about all I can manage.

    Mr Redpath moves to suspend the rules to consider the date and location of the next LNC meeting . . . passes without objection.

    Mr. Neale relates the nature and process of mail ballots. Apologizes for confusion. Declares he may actually be “trainable.”

    Starchild asks why mail ballots cannot be amended.

    Mr. Weiner — our past practice has been for those thinking about mail ballots float wording and seek cosponsors before putting out a mail ballot.

    Mr. Redpath moves for Washington DC, November 17, 18.

    Mr Redpath — it would be cheap for me.


    Mr. Cloud — it would be cheap for him.


    Passes without objection.

    Redpath — moves to suspend the rules to set first meeting in 2013 for March 2/3 with location to be set by email. I am of Scottish heritage, I’d like to find cheap travel. The less it will cost for all of us to get there. I would like to avoid the NCAA tournament as well.

    Ms. Visek — the practical way to set a location is to follow the convention oversight committee suggestions . . .

    Mr. Neale — are you saying we need to visit convention sites for 2018 in 2013?

    Mr. Redpath — let’s just set the date, and discuss the location later.

    Ms Visek — Is Mr. Wrights the chair of the convention oversight committee for 2018 as well as 2016?

    Mr Neale — It’s the same committee but it might be repopulated.

    Mr. Weiner — I don’t know when the CA state convention is scheduled for 2013. I’d like time to check various calendars.

    Motion fails.

    Mr. Cloud moves to adjourn.

    LNC will reconvene at 8AM tomorrow.

    PS — IPR has learned there was a gathering of the Starr super duper secret whateverness at Mr. Pojunis’s home. Mr. Starr and Mr. Rutherford among others were there. They had Chinese food. IPR is investigating further details . . . Libertarian Girl, Paulie and I are heading over to that house now to recover any residual evidence. STAY TUNED . . .

  58. Joe Buchman

    Mr. Pojunis has reviewed the above and offers one correction — it is NOT the Starr Cabal, it’s the Pojunis Cabal . . . With that correction made, I’m signing off.

  59. Mark Axinn

    Now this is exciting.

    I’ve had pizza with Brett Pojunis (full disclosure: he paid for my slice) and drinks and dinner with Mark R.

    But never Chinese.

    Who knew they had cold noodles in Vegas???

  60. Mark Axinn

    Jill @ 66 forgot to mention one thing.

    While Joe and Paulie have to travel to Vegas and work their tails off to keep us IPR fans in the know, we get to sit comfortably at home and still enjoy the live play by play.

    Many thanks for a job so well done!

  61. Stewart Flood

    South Carolina is not in a region, and therefore has no regional representative. We were aware of the ByLaws reference to the vice chair.

    We had nothing to report until our meeting yesterday. I was tasked by our state chair with submitting a report to the LNC. I attempted to contact Mr Wrights by phone several times yesterday, but was unable to get an answer, probably because he would have been traveling to the meeting.

    At this point about the only thing we can report is that we have the only statehouse race in the country where we are the only party with a candidate on the ballot, facing a petition candidate who borrowed $15,000 to petition and get in the ballot.

    She has $3K and owes $15K. Our candidate has just started raising money and has a little less than $1.5K raised and no debt. The party has about $9K in the bank and is starting to help him raise money. We are limited to $5K per candidate from the state party by state law.

    Maximum personal or business contribution is $1K. C corporations are not allowed to contribute, but LLCs and other partnerships can contribute to his campaign.


    We have straight ticket voting, so about half the voters will not vote in this race unless they are the .7% who usually vote straight ticket Libertarian.

    Discounting the under voting, with an expected turnout of 75% (yes, that high), in a district with 18,000 voters we will need between 3500 and 4000 votes to win.

    I give us a one in five, maybe one in four chance at the moment. If we raise a little money (maybe $15K including the party money), do a good job of GOTV (ie LibertyManager in the state where it was developed and where it has won referendums), this may be a very close race.

    14 precincts.

    6 polling locations.

    So why would the LNCC tell us that “a statehouse race in South Carolina is insignificant in the grand scheme of the Libertarian Party.”

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    There’s your report!

  62. B4Liberty

    Hmmm, yes, inquiring minds want to know. Maybe Lee will be available by phone or text this evening. The Waltersforhouse campaign should request funds from the LNC.

    Last election the LNC provided $50K to the IN city county council candidate Ed Coleman. I think a house candidate is certainly equal to a council candidate. IIRC those funds somehow got funneled through the LNCC

  63. Stewart Flood

    True, but unlike Indiana and other large states, South Carolina has never asked for or received assistance from the national party (I am not counting the unified membership program).

    We have ballot access.

    I am sure that if this were not a presidential election year, and if this were a federal race, the LNC might consider helping us. We know the situation that this year presents, and even with a race with a HUNDRED TIMES the chance of winning as the race you mention, we do not believe it would be proper to ask the LNC for assistance.

    We do not need a lot of money. We can win this, and hopefully individual Libertarians around the country can be persuaded to contribute a small amount to help.

    The LNCC is not going to assist us.

  64. B4Liberty

    Excellent points as always Stew – just don’t be too proud to let the LP help get a Libertarian elected to the SC House. That is the stated purpose of the party.

    I do understand and totally respect your position.

  65. Stewart Flood

    It isn’t an issue of being proud. I spent six years on the LNC and am quite aware of the commitment the national party is required to make in a presidential election year to maintain ballot access in the states who are not lucky to have the ballot access that we have.

    Our state party is not allowed to use more than $5K on any one race. Since we only have one statehouse candidate (the others being thrown off the ballot along with several hundred democrats and republicans), we can assist our candidate and focus all of our volunteer resources in this district.

    Use of federal money (which we also have nearly $5,000 of in the bank) is not permitted. So the LNC cannot directly contribute to the campaign, and we already have enough non-federal money in the state treasury.

    Our candidate needs direct contributions to supplement the funds we are allowed to use from the state party. The LNC cannot contribute to his campaign, but the LNCC can.

    Unfortunately, a member of the campaign coordination committee that I am tasked with forming was told on the phone yesterday that we are not important. I believe I quoted it directly, or as directly as a voice conversation related by voice a few minutes later to me allows.

    Mr Root, who has neither returned my phone calls or gotten back to me after requests at the convention, will read this posting. It is certainly possible that he will have the LNCC reconsider what their representative said on the phone.

    The limit that they can contribute is $1,000. That is not, in the grand scheme of the Libertarian Party, a large sum. Of course I’m not sure what this grand scheme is. I thought it was to advance the libertarian cause and elect libertarian candidates to office.

    Again, pride is not the issue. The LNC has many challenges facing it. Regardless of the fact that we have a winnable state house seat, they have their function, as we (as the state party) have ours.

    The LNCC was the correct committee to approach, and I do not expect at this time that they plan to help.

    As an addendum, you may find this short story about our candidate interesting.

    Jeremy Walters decided he wanted to run for the statehouse. He had never been active in any party, but was in the middle of what has since turned into a successful citizen lobbying effort to pass a parental rights/grandparental rights bill to fight our state’s Department of Social Services (DSS).

    The Republican Party invited him to a meeting. After talking to him, they told him that he couldn’t run as a Republican and should file as a Democrat. They clearly misinterpreted his believe in minimal/no government control of both social and economic issues as being a Democrat.

    Somehow Jeremy found us, and discovered that what he already believed matched very closely to what we believe. (I don’t recall where he is on the Nolan Chart, but he is not a border-line libertarian and is certainly not in one of the other quadrants).

    So the press thinks that he wanted to run as a Republican, when it was actually the Republicans who came to him and then told him to run as a Democrat!

    So we end up with a libertarian who became a Libertarian.

    Interesting twist, eh?

  66. Jill Pyeatt

    So, are they done with Oregon? Are they going to just dismiss the issue of one of their members who unapologetically broke a bylaw?

    But my biggest question is: Why the hell was Aaron there to talk about Oregon? Also, did you notice Dianna tried to bring him in right at the beginning of the meeting to talk about why membership numbers are down?

  67. George Phillies

    Oregon Ballot access — down the tubes
    Oklahoma Ballot access — seems unlikely
    Connecticut — in deep doo-doo, but may yet happen
    Massachusetts — should happen but marginal

    I seem to recall I can get above 72 point type, but the words per page tends to fall for some reason.

    WaltersForHouse.com I gave. Have you?

  68. Thomas L. Knapp

    GP @ 82,

    “Oregon Ballot access — down the tubes”

    Not necessarily.

    Wagner could choose to do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may.

    Granted, trying to get assurances from the LNC that they would support its affiliate rather than assisting its affiliate’s opponents versus its affiliate (again) was probably a wise move.

    And granted, it’s stomach-turning that the new LNC appears to be no better than the old one in that respect.

    But it seems likely that the Oregon LP’s newly-empowered membership of 13k or so would like to see Johnson on the ballot.

    So the question is whether Wagner is going to cower before the possibility of frivolous/malicious litigation from the Reeves Gang, or whether he’s going to do his fucking job regardless of the possible personal costs.

  69. Stewart Flood

    Much appreciated. To both Joe for his work and to Dr Phillies for his contribution.

  70. Wes Wagner


    There are a few things in life that are certain… one is that I will do the right thing. The other is that I will always give people a chance to give me a casus belli because their character should be judged before their fate is earned.

  71. Joe Buchman

    Just back from the party at Mr. Pojunis’s home. Very nice. Attended by Governor Johnson — with whom I am more and more favorably impressed with each conversation. This is a GOOD man, worthy of your vote, and the day I vote for him will be a day I’ll feel I’ve cast my best vote for anyone ever. I am highly biased in this regard — after driving down from SLC just after Christmas for his announcement in Santa Fe. I’m glad I was at the beginning of this campaign.

    I am also very favorably impressed with Ron Nielson. He told me tonight that he has been to Porkfest . . . twice. His commitment to LIBERTY is as deep, profound and as absolute as anyone who has been in the LP for decades, IMO. I remain a full time volunteer. I came to Vegas for Freedom Fest at my own expense (Paulie spent more to get here than I did), and I like the freedom to do what I want, on my terms, over being paid to do it — even if I’d be doing the exact same thing. Same with reporting here on IPR.

    George — I don’t believe it was a roll call vote on censure. It failed by a large margin as I recall.

    My frustration has been the slow, relatively intermittent internet access in that ballroom — no windows and a signal through my Android Phone using PDANet as a modem ap. Works fine here in my RV (boondocking in the parking lot behind Ballys (earlier in the week I was in an RV Park near here where I could use the AC, but it’s been reasonably cool at night and I like just boondocking . . . Have 238,000 miles on this RV that we bought new in 1998. Lots of great memories in here with my wife, our four kids, and from time to time other friends (it’s a Roadtrek 190 for those interested. I have well over 1,000 nights sleeping in here — including living in here full time when I taught in Florida for one semester — the Fall of 2005. I’ve also boondocked in it at Burning Man twice (and am going back again this year with my 17 1/2 year old son!). . . well, I’m rambling.

    THANKS for the comments thanking me for blogging. Libertarian Girl and Paulie were both there, but Paulie was filling in for JJM at times, and the internet connection through the hotel was likewise marginal. I’m not sure it would have worked for a videocam. BTW This is my 4th LNC in a row blogging for IPR. My first time was for the LNC meeting here in December — when I came down only to hang out with my friend Bill Redpath (we both went to IU and we both worked for WTTS radio back in 1978 or so). Bill and I were to watch the IU/Kentucky game that day, but the LNC was in executive session for the duration . . .

    George — hope you got a laugh out of my scholarship fund and long post designed to waste time. I apologize if it wasn’t as funny as it seemed to me while I was writing it.

    Here’s some NEWS– Brett told me today that all future cabal meetings will be open to everyone. His commitment, he said, is to Unity. Of course that could mean those meetings are going even further underground, but there wasn’t any attempt to hide (as far as I could tell) the location or time of last night’s meeting — Brett’s home for dinner.

    Stewart — your candidate can ask for Gary Johnson’s endorsement using the one page form at:


    See you all at 8:00AM Pacific time sharp. I’ll try to keep it in the right thread this time!


  72. Stewart Flood

    That is what I would guess. No more dinners, just the 11pm briefings in someone’s room.

    That is where motions are put on cards.

  73. Stewart Flood

    Appreciate the link for endorsements. We discussed that on Saturday. We will make sure he gets to at least some of the events in Charlotte since it is only a few miles up the road from him.

  74. George Whitfield

    Thank you Joe for the detailed report. I appreciate your efforts to keep us informed. I also admire all of the National Committee members for taking the time and expense of serving in that role.
    Zapper, I think you should be a candidate for the National Committee when it is convenient for you. You have some great and strategic ideas.

    Stewart: I will contribute to the Walters campaign. Thank you for the alert. Kudos to George Phillies for his donation and interest in our party.

    The recent praise from Judge Napolitano for Gary Johnson was helpful in winning the support from some Ron Paul supporters. They are Very Dedicated and loyal to Ron Paul and it is hard for them to come to grips with the fact that he will not get the Republican Party Presidential nomination. But Judge Napolitano is very highly regarded by them.

  75. Marc Montoni

    Starchild should now request the addition of a motion to censure Scott Lieberman for the next meeting agenda.

    The motion itself was not rejected at this meeting — only the motion to suspend the rules to add it was rejected.

    There needs to be a roll-call vote, and people need to be able to ask why their LNC representatives decided the way they did.

  76. Jill Pyeatt

    I agree, Marc. I think our elected representatives need to be held accountable.

  77. Stewart Flood

    That is the job of the region, or in this case of the California LP.

    Censure is meaningless. If he has done something that the California LP believes rises to the level of removal, then action should be taken.

    The LNC has the authority to remove officers and at-large members for cause. They do not have the authority to remove a regional representative or alternate. If that has changed, then I must have been asleep at the convention…

  78. Paulie

    It can be corrected. Some of us (the secret anti-cabal not on the LNC) are working on solutions to present. Not theories, solutions.

    Can LNC members join? 🙂

  79. Stewart Flood

    You would need to learn the anti-secret handshake, and we’d need to know your hat size.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *