LNC Meeting Mar 28-29, 2015 Phoenix (Updated)

lp.org:

The Libertarian National Committee meets in Phoenix, AZ, Saturday, March 28 and Sunday the 29th.

Location and hotel details:
http://www.lp.org/lnc-march-2015

The LNC will attempt to stream the meeting live on the Internet.

Preliminary schedule (subject to change):

Saturday, Mar. 28, 2015: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Pacific/Mountain Standard Time) (12 pm – 9 pm EST)
Sunday, Mar. 29, 2015: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Pacific/Mountain Standard Time) (12 – 9 pm EST)

Broadcast channel #1 – video and audio:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/libertarian-party1

Broadcast channel #2 – audio-only:
http://libertarian.caster.fm/

The proposed agenda and drafts of reports to be presented at the meeting can be viewed by clicking the file links below. More files will be posted as they become available. Agendas are usually modified after the start of the meeting. The meetings usually end earlier than 6:00 p.m. Sunday.

Chair’s Proposed Agenda

Chair’s Report
Secretary’s Report
Region 1 Report
Region 2 Report
Region 3 Report
Region 4 Report
Region 5 Report
Region 6 Report
Region 7 Report
Region 8 Report
Ballot Access Report
Campus Report
EPCC Report
EPCC Employment Contracts Report
Financial Report
International Rep Report
IT Committee Report
Membership Report
Staff Report

654 thoughts on “LNC Meeting Mar 28-29, 2015 Phoenix (Updated)

  1. Chuck Moulton

    You guys following the logo discussion?

    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002658.html

    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002666.html

    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002623.html

    It seems like the L with the liberty bell in the negative space is getting the most traction (and push from Arvin).

    Personally I like the statue of liberty as our logo. The liberty bell is okay. A torch or a porcupine or scissors don’t convey liberty as well in my opinion (the torch can be mistaken for a olympic torch rather than the statue of liberty torch, few people outside the movement get the porcupine, scissors address economic liberty in the form of cutting government but not personal liberty).

    Some people are concerned that the LP is choosing a movement logo rather than a party logo if it doesn’t have the word “Party” in it prominently.

    I took a crack at expanding the L negative space logo (#135 by Ben Requena) to include a P with a statue of liberty. I’m no graphic designer, so it’s very rough compared to these professional logos above. Feedback on the general concept is welcome though.

    http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/logo/new_P.png

  2. Matt Cholko

    #135 is the only one that I really care for. However, I don’t think the negative bell will even be recognized by the average Joe. We notice it, because we’re studying the logos. But, the bell doesn’t really jump out.

    I also would prefer that we stay closer to the current logo. That would pretty much require use of the statue, rather than the bell.

    But, if I throw all that stuff out, #135 does look pretty nice.

    Chet, I do like the idea of working the statue in, and popularizing LP, since that’s how us insiders often refer to the party. (I’ve noticed many Ls referring to the Libertarian Party as the LP during outreach to non-libertarians. Since this is unlikely to stop happening, maybe we just embrace it, and start promoting the LP brand).

  3. paulie Post author

    Chuck, are you in the Design for Liberty or Logo Contest FB groups? You should submit it there and see what people think. If they like it, you may get designers to collaborate with you on the technical aspects of making the design crisper, although it looks fine to my untrained eye.

  4. paulie Post author

    If you are not in the groups already let me know, they don’t always add people but they will if I give them a heads up to do it.

  5. Jill Pyeatt

    I was pleased to see a couple of the logo entries had a dove in it. That would be my choice for a mascot (for lack of a better word) to go along with the logo. Wouldn’t it be great if people started associating the LP as the party that promotes peace?

  6. paulie Post author

    I was pleased to see a couple of the logo entries had a dove in it. That would be my choice for a mascot (for lack of a better word) to go along with the logo. Wouldn’t it be great if people started associating the LP as the party that promotes peace?

    That is the Peace and Freedom party logo. There was once a big contingent of libertarians in that party, but the socialists ousted them in, I believe, 1974, and they went to the LP (or for some elsewhere). Too bad, that would have been a better name for us, IMO.

  7. Chuck Moulton

    I haven’t seen a list of the people who applied for the platform, bylaws, and credentials committee anywhere. Did I miss it on the LNC business list? Or are the applications being circulated on a secret list? Or have LNC members not yet seen the applications?

  8. paulie Post author

    Haven’t seen any public listing.

    BTW, can anyone liveblog this weekend? There will be several broadcast channels but I don’t know if any of them will have an archive. I’ll hopefully be working so probably can’t do it.

  9. Jill Pyeatt

    Good luck to everyone tomorrow! I hope you can cover a lot of ground with a minimum of discussion (and arguing).

  10. Chuck Moulton

    The secretary’s lack of transparency has prevented members from providing input to their representatives on how they should vote for committees.

  11. paulie Post author

    The secretary’s lack of transparency has prevented members from providing input to their representatives on how they should vote for committees.

    Agreed.

  12. paulie Post author

    I may be able to liveblog. Still hoping to work this weekend, there is a gun show in town, but I’m also feeling like I am coming down with a cold and trying to decide whether it’s worth pushing myself over the edge…colleges get back from spring break on Monday…

  13. paulie Post author

    Either way I hope we’ll get comments here to cover it from however many people can do it whether I am one of them or not.

  14. paulie Post author

    For the live coverage, I’ll bump this thread up to today, but if anyone would rather start a new one, feel free.

  15. paulie Post author

    I’ll also update the article with the reports, which were added to the LP.org post after I cross-posted it here (I posted them as a comment rather than adding them to the post earlier).

  16. Chuck Moulton

    I suggest Doug Craig to fill the vacancy. My recollection is he tied Guy McLendon. I think the secretary recounted and found an error that broke the tie, but Doug was willing to concede because he had votes for Guy in addition to himself.

  17. paulie Post author

    I’d suggest checking with Doug to see if he is interested first. When I was at the GA convention he seemed relieved to no longer have to be chair. He anticipated having more time after that, but sometimes it doesn’t work out that way… but if he’s interested he would be good. Honestly, though, I don’t think the LNC votes on the basis of the runner up unless it’s a reason that makes a decision they want to make anyway easier to justify. When it’s not someone they want to work with they just ignore the convention voting runner up factor.

  18. paulie Post author

    Evan’s reasons for resigning, for anyone who is wondering and who doesn’t keep up with the LNC list in real time the way Chuck and I do:

    Dear Colleagues,

    As you may remember, I was unable to attend the last LNC business meeting
    due to a treatment for my arthritis. That treatment has not gone well. I am
    actually in larger amounts of pain and have lost even more mobility.

    I currently am unable to travel very far and must avoid flying.

    So, it is with regret and sadness that I must inform you that I will not be
    able to attend the meting in Phoenix and that I must also resign my seat as
    an At-Large representative. This was a very difficult and painful decision
    to make. But it is in the best interests of the party and the membership
    that elected me.

    I hope, selfishly, that in the future my condition improves and that I may
    find myself serving with you all, again.

    In Liberty,

    Evan McMahon

  19. Chuck Moulton

    It will be interesting to see whether some people had advance notice of the vacancy and have someone at the LNC meeting to lobby for himself / herself.

  20. Chuck Moulton

    Btw, with respect to my comment about lack of transparency of committee appointments, it’s important to note that the filling of those committees are the most important votes of the LNC according to some — those that are ideological (radical vs. moderate, pro-life, LGBTQ, etc.) are very concerned with the composition of the platform committee; those involved in state disputes (Oregon, formerly Nevada, etc.) anticipate credentials fights and worry about the composition of the credentials committee.

  21. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote:

    Evan, if you are reading this, I hope you get better – soon, if possible.

    Yes, best wishes for a speedy recovery, Evan. Your health is the most important thing… you should always put that first.

  22. paulie Post author

    In case runners-up matter, after Doug Craig tying with Guy McLendon at 136, they were Brett Pojunis (134) and Starchild (124) followed by C. Michael Pickens (97), Will McVay (58), Jim Fulner (41) and Bjorn Pedersen (36).

    Craig, Pojunis and Starchild have all been on recent LNCs; not sure about any of the others.

  23. paulie Post author

    Brett has expressed relief at not being on LNC this term and being able to focus on Nevada as well. But then he did run, bot for chair and for at large afterwards, so he’s probably interested. He’s somewhat impulsive at times so I guess it would depend on what mood you catch him in.

  24. paulie Post author

    Btw, with respect to my comment about lack of transparency of committee appointments, it’s important to note that the filling of those committees are the most important votes of the LNC according to some — those that are ideological (radical vs. moderate, pro-life, LGBTQ, etc.) are very concerned with the composition of the platform committee; those involved in state disputes (Oregon, formerly Nevada, etc.) anticipate credentials fights and worry about the composition of the credentials committee.

    This is true.

    Unfortunately, we never did get a lot of member input on these selections when I was on LNC – perhaps the full members got more than I did as an alternate, but I suspect they didn’t receive very much input either.

    And I’m not sure that the input we did receive (at least what was posted to the list; dunno what kind of private emails or calls people may have received) played very much of a role in the LNC’s picks for these committees.

    I wish there were more people who cared about these things and were actually ready, willing and able to do all the work of being on such committees, but the sad truth is that there are few people available who actually bother to apply and are willing and able to follow through if selected. And out of the ones that do, LNC members typically vote for the ones that they know, often people who have demonstrated they can do it because they did it before.

  25. paulie Post author

    Just so I don’t misrepresent anything here, I did not apply for platform, bylaws or credentials, because I don’t realistically see myself putting in the work.

    I did express interest in outreach committee, affiliate support committee (although I believe that has been filled now), and in the ballot access committee, if it is created.

  26. Beth Duensing

    Chuck, I like the addition of the P to Ben Requena’s (#135) logo. Originally I was not in favor of making any change to our logo. Adding the P so that we keep the LP maintains the recognition that is already in place. There is some benefit to having a one color logo to use for imprinting and signage.

    Just my two cents

  27. Chuck Moulton

    Nicholas Sarwark wrote:

    I believe the concern was in republishing all of the contact information provided as part of the application process.

    That’s a pretty lame excuse for lack of transparency. The LNC could have just posted the names and states of the applicants to avoid the perceived problem of sharing contact information.

    Really though anyone appointed to a committee ought to be contactable by LP members.

  28. paulie Post author

    Andy is telling me on the phone that the gun show he is at is so slow that he may actually not even stay there himself, much less split it with me, and looking outside the window the weather sure doesn’t look too inviting, so it’s looking likely that I can stay and help liveblog here today, although the weather is supposed to be better tomorrow so I am less likely to help with coverage tomorrow.

    I think Andy is telling me the truth about the gun show, there are other petitioners who would just tell me a lie like that so I wouldn’t show up and cut into their numbers but Andy tends to be honest to a fault about these things (and in general).

  29. Chuck Moulton

    Nick posted the committee applicants.

    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002686.html

    Bylaws and Rules Committee

    Richard Burke (OR)
    M Carling (WA)
    Jim Fulner (MI)
    Sam Goldstein (IN)
    Dan Karlan (NJ)
    Joshua Katz (CT)
    Alicia Mattson (NV)
    Chuck Moulton (VA)
    Jeff Orrok (CO)
    Michael Schoenike (MT)
    Aaron Starr (CA)
    Rich Tomasso (NH)
    Joseph Wendt (FL)
    Lorence Wenke (MI)
    Dan Wiener (CA)
    Matt Wittlief (IN)
    Zachary Yutzy (OH)

    Credentials Committee

    Beth Duensing (IN)
    Gary Johnson (TX)
    Mike Kane (FL)
    Vicki Kirkland (FL)
    Steve Linnabary (OH)
    Colin Nicol (LA)
    Roger Roots (MT)
    Emily Salvette (MI)
    Michael Schoenike (MT)
    Joseph Wendt (FL)
    Lorence Wenke (MI)
    Michelle Wesnofske (TN)
    Zachary Yutzy (OH)

    Platform Committee

    I. Dean Ahmad (MD)
    Loren Ameen (MI)
    Jake Bryan (AL)
    Gene Chapman (TX)
    Chris Colvin (MT)
    David Demarest (NE)
    James Felber (TX)
    Nick Frollini (PA)
    William (Bill) Hajdu (CA)
    Lynn House (FL)
    Paul Koksvik (NY)
    Andy LeCureaux (MI)
    Tom Lippman (CA)
    Alicia Mattson (NV)
    Guy McLendon (LA)
    David Overby (IA)
    Alexander Pease (RI)
    Robert Peterson (NY)
    Donald Reach (VA)
    Roland Riemers (ND)
    Hollie Ryan (VA)
    Jeffry Sanford (LA)
    Michael Schoenike (MT)
    Debbie Schum (CO)
    Mike Shipley (AZ)
    Herbert Schoenbohm (USVI)
    Fred Stitt (CA?)
    Richard Sutherland (FL)
    Zeb Sutton (IN)
    Lorence Wenke (MI)
    Zachary Yutzy (OH)

    Unspecified Committee Interest

    Marcell Aaron, Jr. (CA)
    Gina Aveni (MO)
    Eric Cardenas (NY)
    Kit (Vera) Carson (WY)
    Guthrie Crull (OK)
    Sean M. Hayes (AZ)

  30. paulie Post author

    I could post that as an article, but the committee selections will be right after reports today, so that’s not exactly a lot of time to round up any lobbying for anyone.

  31. Chuck Moulton

    The video feed is going in and out. The audio feed (the radio, not part of the video) isn’t working at all.

    They’re amending the agenda scheduling things now.

    Mattson asked to vote for the platform, bylaws, and credentials committees overnight by written ballot. There didn’t seem to be an objection to that procedure. Wiener wants approval voting for committee members, but that won’t be decided until they get to that agenda item.

    Sarwark asked for an agenda item to remove a member of the audit committee.

  32. Chuck Moulton

    Olsen moves that the LNC remove the chair of the audit committee.

    Sarwark handed the gavel to the vice-chair and is speaking to the motion.

    [*** EDIT: I’ve retracted my comment here. See my retraction. ***]

  33. paulie Post author

    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/libertarian-party1 seems to be working now. I missed whatever happened before this because it was too loud at the cafe where I was so I had to switch cafes, order more coffee so I am a paying customer and not just a bum using their wifi, and restart my computer….if anyone can fill in whatever happened before this please do so.

  34. paulie Post author

    Argument between Sarwark, Mattson over whether the audit committee did was allowed. Mattson says bylaws trumps policy manual.

  35. paulie Post author

    Mattson: bylaws violation for LNC to interfere with Audit Committee
    Lark: What if it was 100k, would LNC be allowed to interfere?

  36. paulie Post author

    Not sure I get this right but I think Mattson said if the audit committee spends money not authorized by LNC on outside auditor the audit committee could be liable for the difference?

  37. paulie Post author

    Not as loud at this cafe but there is still some background here….or maybe it’s my computer audio is not strong enough

  38. paulie Post author

    Didn’t bring them. They are back at the motel and I have no car. I was in a hurry to try to get to the bus stop before the bus ran this morning because I was still planning to work the gun show at that point and wanted to eat before then, and I thought the show started at 8 am (actually 9 am). So, no headphones for me. I’m not taking the bus to the motel (where internet rarely works and is too slow for video/audio when it does) and then back here for the earphones.

  39. paulie Post author

    Wiener asked whether there was reason to think they could not get a less expensive bid. I missed the answer.

  40. Chuck Moulton

    Carling said DC audit firms don’t want to work with us because we have a bad reputation. Johnson agreed that we couldn’t find a cheaper firm.

    Apparently there were cost overruns on the previous audit.

    The audit firm the current audit committee wants to engage had executed a contract in the past limiting cost increases year to year to 4%. The current audit’s cost exceeds that 4%. Apparently when the audit committee decided to engage this firm (based partly on the assumption of the cost contained by the 4% limit), they called the firm to make a contract and the firm wouldn’t return their calls for a month. When they finally got back to our audit committee they said they would only do the audit for a higher price.

  41. paulie Post author

    Mike Shipley will help with coverage over at LNC Votes Discuss on FB. He is not at the meeting yet but will be there later today and will bring his computer.

  42. paulie Post author

    The beef is that Aaron signed the contract on behalf of the audit committee and the LNC is responsible to pay for it. Nick is saying he should have been consulted before it was signed, especially since it is above the policy manual cost cap.

  43. paulie Post author

    I believe that Alicia’s point was that the audit committee needs to be independent in picking the audit firm in case of LNC corruption. Bill Redpath passionately argued that in his many years on the LNC there has never been any corruption and couldn’t be any now (if I understood what they were saying correctly).

  44. paulie Post author

    Question if it requires 2/3. I believe this would actually remove Aaron as a member of audit committe, not only as its chair. Correct me if I am wrong.

  45. paulie Post author

    If I understood correctly Arvin ruled it will take 7 votes of 12 with no abstentions or 2/3 with abstentions. Officers may not vote.

  46. paulie Post author

    Report on OAI CPD lawsuit. Goal is 850k to pay for all the motions and defense of motions, raised 120k as of a couple of weeks ago. Target is to file in April. Redpath asks what happens if they don’t raise all the money. I did not hear a clear answer.

  47. paulie Post author

    Rocky Anderson is working on the legal language now. Nick will see the legal briefs and possibly assist although it is not his area of law. Goal is to file the suit in DC. Nick will inform LNC when he sees the draft.

  48. Chuck Moulton

    I did not catch all the names for that vote. There was 1 yes, 2 abstentions, the rest no. Who was the yes?

    I think Tomasso was one of the abstentions.

  49. paulie Post author

    Nick believes it will be filed even if all the money is not raised in time but not 100% sure.

    Tax deductible donations to OAI foundation will be allowed.

  50. paulie Post author

    Plaintiffs are Johnson and Stein personally as individuals. LP and GP as parties. 50 individuals from each state as individuals.

    Sherman Act basis.

    OAI is the only entity paying the bills.

  51. paulie Post author

    It has been more than 5 min but the broadcast has not started back up. Anyone at the meeting, is it back in session yet?

  52. Chuck Moulton

    The audio on caster is cutting in and out about every minute. There are a lot of random conversations occurring. So no, they are not back in session yet.

  53. Chuck Moulton

    Sarwark said the auditor’s internal accounting for our last audit was $26,000 even though we paid them far less than that. The audit firm will not accept the 4% increase cap they agreed to previously.

  54. paulie Post author

    The audio on caster is cutting in and out about every minute.

    The ustream video is working pretty well this time (at least so far)

  55. paulie Post author

    Mattson moves to amend the motion to say honor rather than ratify because she says LNC has no power to not ratify it

  56. paulie Post author

    Back to Goldstein motion to ratify agreement and increase the budget to pay for it.

    Mattson asks if it is appropriate for the officers to vote. Chair rules yes.

  57. paulie Post author

    Sounds like mostly all yes votes, but I can’t hear well enough to tell if there were exceptions. Motion passes.

  58. George Phillies

    “Bill Redpath passionately argued that in his many years on the LNC there has never been any corruption ”

    Readers who believe this should read the recent audit report covered by Liberty for America magazine, not to mention my book Funding Liberty on the 2000 Presidential campaign and its interactions with the LNC.

  59. Chuck Moulton

    Goldstein moved to ratify the engagement letter and amend the audit budget to $15k.

    (This increases the audit budget by $1,500.)

    Mattson moves to amend, making the motion that the LNC will direct staff to honor the engagement letter as presented and amend the audit budget to $15k.

    She says “ratify” implies something was done improperly without authority.

    Sarwark opposes the amendment because it implies that the previous action was valid.

    Amendment fails by a show of hands.

    Redpath – yes
    Wiener – yes
    McLendon – yes
    Johnson – yes
    Goldstein – yes
    O’Toole – yes
    Lark – yes
    Olsen – yes
    Kirkland – yes
    Tomasso – yes
    Estrada – yes
    Feldman – yes
    Hagan – abstain
    Vehra – yes
    Sarwark – yes
    Mattson – abstain

    passes 14-0-2

  60. paulie Post author

    Bob Johnston has been “repurposed” to major donor calls.

    Previous firm (not sure which one) has been hired to some calls, and someone else to make some other calls…renewals? I didn’t catch every detail of that.

  61. paulie Post author

    Question about whether people need their physical meeting binders…the materials are all in the body of the post above or other LNC emailed materials and materials on the website such as bylaws, policy manual etc.

  62. Chuck Moulton

    Hagan is suggesting that we don’t print out binders each LNC meeting to save money. Much of it is electronically available.

    Some people want financial materials printed and in front of them each meeting.

    Wes Benedict is asking how many people want the full binders and how many want a reduced binder. People raised their hands, but no one voiced that count out loud.

    Wes Benedict pointed out all the reports for this meeting are on the lp,org blog right now.

    Mattson suggested having a few printed copies of the bylaws and policy manual that will be reused.

    Hagan pointed out it costs more to ship binders back to DC after the meeting than to buy new binders each meeting.

  63. Chuck Moulton

    Redpath asked whether the restricted building fund could be used to make mortgage payments. The answer was no — that would violate the spirit of the donations, which was intended to pay down the principal of the mortgage.

    Redpath asked whether the building fund was used to immediately pay down the principal. Kraus sends the bank a check twice a year instead of monthly to make the bank’s life easier. Redpath points out that is crazy and results in more interest owed… even if it makes the bank’s life a little harder, we should make early payments immediately.

  64. paulie Post author

    even if it makes the bank’s life a little harder, we should make early payments immediately.

    Agreed!

  65. Chuck Moulton

    The LP has been given a $250,000 bequest, which can be received $33,400 per year due to campaign finance laws. Although due to changes in the law the LP can now accept an additional $33k per year for a building fund and an additional $33k per year for a convention, we have not sought to collect more per year that year in order to preserve our pending campaign finance lawsuit to get bequests in their entirety immediately.

    The bequest was recognized in December of 2014 and listed in future months as a receivable. Due to the way the bequest was recognized, staff was paid bonuses for 2014 revenue. Of the first $33k received in the first year, $19k was paid as bonuses to staff. Staff contracts need to be rethought and rewritten in the future to prevent a recurrence of this.

  66. paulie Post author

    I think they said they are going to break. Discussing whether they will be in exec comm and for what purposes after the break.

  67. paulie Post author

    Going to executive session without staff but with audit committee on a narrow majority vote.

    Personnel matters.

  68. paulie Post author

    There was argument over whether it needed 2/3, chair initially ruled it did, then flipped on sense of the body.

  69. Marc Montoni

    The bequest was recognized in December of 2014 and listed in future months as a receivable. Due to the way the bequest was recognized, staff was paid bonuses for 2014 revenue. Of the first $33k received in the first year, $19k was paid as bonuses to staff.

    I’m sure the person who left the bequest would be happy to know what his money went for.

  70. Chuck Moulton

    Mattson moves the LNC go into executive session for the call with the audit firm for reason of vendor relations and staff matters (Jackie is the auditor).

    Redpath – abstain
    Wiener – yes
    McLendon – abstain
    Johnson – no
    Goldstein – abstain
    O’Toole – abstain
    Lark – yes
    Olsen – no
    Kirkland – yes
    Tomasso – yes
    Estrada – abstain
    Feldman – no
    Hagan – no
    Vohra – no
    Sarwark – no
    Mattson – yes

    Failed 5-6-5.

    The call will be in open session.

    (On the audit committee Starr and Carling wanted this call to be in executive session, Johnson felt it could be in open session.)

    Once the call was connected, the auditor recommended that the call be in executive session because that is standard procedure to go into executive session with staff not present (“best practice”).

    Redpath – abstain
    Wiener – yes
    McLendon – yes
    Johnson – no
    Goldstein – yes
    O’Toole – yes
    Lark – yes
    Olsen – no
    Kirkland – yes
    Tomasso – yes
    Estrada – abstain
    Feldman – no
    Hagan – no
    Vohra – no
    Sarwark – no
    Mattson – yes

    Passes 8-6-2.

    The first vote I’m pretty certain of. The second vote went by much quicker… I might be wrong on a couple of the voters (O’Toole, for example), but I definitely heard the result was 8-6.

    There was discussion of whether the vote took a majority or 2/3. The chair ruled because specific reasons were listed (vendor relations and staff matters) it took a majority.

  71. Marc Montoni

    The *auditor* wanted the discussion to be private?

    And they listened to him/her?

    Sounds to me like this should have been a “reconsideration” motion and therefore should have needed 2/3.

    Yet again, Mattson, Weiner, Goldstein, Tomasso — same names as always, against transparency. This is just one more example of why I can’t vote for any of these individuals.

  72. Mike Shipley

    Testing my connection … I have arrived on site and the members are in Executive Session. We’re waiting in the plaza to be able to go back in.

  73. paulie Post author

    The reconsideration argument was made but what prevailed was the interpretation that it was a specified cause so only needed a majority.

  74. paulie Post author

    Testing my connection … I have arrived on site and the members are in Executive Session. We’re waiting in the plaza to be able to go back in.

    Working fine…thank you!

  75. paulie Post author

    The *auditor* wanted the discussion to be private?

    It was not a request she volunteered.

    As is normal practice LNC members asked if anything she had to discuss should be in executive session.

    And she just gave the standard answer that this is the standard/best practice for audits to have such conversation be secret.

    However she also made it clear that it was up to the LNC.

    Nothing she said sounded to me like anything but the standard answer she would always give any time such a question is asked.

  76. paulie Post author

    IE, nothing that implied any special underlying issue that is causing all this controversy.

    It sounds to me like there may be one, but I don’t know what it is, nor are LNC members allowed to tell us.

  77. paulie Post author

    Mike Shipley

    From what I’m hearing they’re going to break for lunch at 12:30 …….. The session may continue after that.

  78. Thomas L. Knapp

    The LNC has abused executive session so frequently and for so long that it seems to me the only real solution is a bylaws amendment forbidding it for any reason, period.

    Some would complain that that would compromise e.g. sessions with lawyers. And they’re right. Which is why they shouldn’t have abused it so badly that it needed to be taken away.

  79. paulie Post author

    I’m for transparency, but that would be excessive. Besides legal counsel, employee matters need to be secret, as that could be grounds for lawsuits if employee/employer matters are discussed in public. A few other things.

  80. paulie Post author

    Nick and Arvin are pretty sharp, so that they caved on the 2/3 vs majority for this ES it’s probably for good reason. At least I hope and think so.

  81. paulie Post author

    I’m a bit surprised that Nick went ahead and tried to chop Aaron when he didn’t have the votes, though. I thought he wasn’t going to make that move unless he had the votes lined up.

  82. Andy

    People concerned about secrecy need to keep in mind that the government can listen to all of our phone calls and hack into our emails, so they already know what the LP is doing.

  83. paulie Post author

    Yes. although government spy agencies are not the only entities that we have to be concerned about as far as that goes. For example, see my point about employee/employer matters. I take it as a given that the NSA can listen in, and maybe some other similar alphabet agencies (more than one I’m sure) but that doesn’t mean LPHQ staff won’t sue LNC if such discussions get posted to IPR, FB, caster and ustream. After all, there are a lot more people that can see such public postings than have clearance, access and interest in spying on us for the government(s), and unlike with government spying it can be proven in a lawsuit.

  84. paulie Post author

    The IRS gets employees tax returns … does that mean we can/should post them online complete with SSNs and everything else? That doesn’t really follow. I’m a sunshine/transparency advocate, but that’s going too far.

  85. Thomas L. Knapp

    “employee matters need to be secret, as that could be grounds for lawsuits if employee/employer matters are discussed in public.”

    That’s easy to solve. Just make it a condition of employment to sign a waiver acknowledging that LNC meetings are public. If you don’t want your work discussed in public, McDonald’s is always hiring.

  86. paulie Post author

    On the other hand I fully agree that there has been a history of abusing executive session. My experience on LNC was that many ES discussions started with matters that were legitimately ES topics but then involved many spinoff discussions that could have been had in open session; however, an object in executive session tends to remain in executive session. And that’s all I can say about that.

  87. paulie Post author

    That’s easy to solve. Just make it a condition of employment to sign a waiver acknowledging that LNC meetings are public. If you don’t want your work discussed in public, McDonald’s is always hiring.

    I’m sure that will do wonders for our available hiring pool.

  88. Stewart Flood

    The party gives out bonuses using this year’s money for last year’s bonuses because we’re broke?

    It is Saturday, so I will have to wait until Monday to call and cancel my $100/month pledge. The ship has water washing over the deck. Bonuses are being given to staff for fundraising when we’re supposedly in negative cash flow. The audit committee chair signs a document using the party chair’s signature (that is what supposedly happened?) then the LNC then wastes time arguing over whether someone with no financial authority — the audit committee no less! — should be allowed to illegally spent money? There’s only one answer: the contract is invalid.

    I wonder how that illegal act will appear in next year’s audit report?

  89. Thomas L. Knapp

    Has LPHQ ever lacked for applicants for open positions?

    In my experience, people who are honest and effective workers generally believe up front that they won’t be embarrassed by prospective disclosures of what they do at work. They might be wrong about that, but they don’t expect it.

    If you’re applying for a job at LPHQ and balk at signing a waiver to allow a public body to publicly discuss its employment of you, there are really one of two possibilities: Either you don’t trust the LNC, or you expect to be doing things you shouldn’t do and wouldn’t want people to know you did. In either case, like I said, McDonald’s is almost always hiring.

    I am not coming at this from a default “everything should always be done in public” perspective. I’m coming at it from the perspective of “the LNC has abused its ability to keep secrets so frequently for so long that it needs to be taken away from them until they can prove they’ll use it responsibly.”

  90. paulie Post author

    Has LPHQ ever lacked for applicants for open positions?

    Dunno. I think we would if we had zero privacy regarding employee/employer matters.

    In my experience, people who are honest and effective workers generally believe up front that they won’t be embarrassed by prospective disclosures of what they do at work. They might be wrong about that, but they don’t expect it.

    Having HR issues is not necessarily a matter of dishonesty. Nor does it have to mean that you don’t trust the LNC.

    There are some other things that legitimately belong in ES, although in general I totally agree with Marc’s cartoon at 15:19.

  91. paulie Post author

    On region 7 report

    “Alabama currently requires 35,000 valid signatures per election cycle to obtain
    statewide ballot access. If any candidate running for statewide office managed to
    obtain 20% of the vote they wou
    ld gain statewide access through the election
    cycle. Alabama actually achieved this in 2002 with a statewide Judge candidate
    garnered over 20% of the vote. It was lost in the next cycle when another
    candidate did not reach that threshold.”

    That should be 2000 not 2002. That is, 2000 was when we got 20%, 2002 was when we ran about 60 candidates, but none of them got 20% so we lost it for 2004.

  92. paulie Post author

    At the present ti
    me the Party is focused on getting countywide ballot access in
    Jefferson County. The Party has raised about 40% of the estimated $6000 in funds
    needed to acquire the signatures for the ballot access for next next election

    The $1/sig and no expenses offer is not open ended, it is time sensitive.

  93. paulie Post author

    Alabama Senate Bill 221 which wou
    ld reduce the 3% requirement for signatures
    to half that cleared the first hurdle and got out of committee. The bill still needs a
    sponsor on the House side. If this bill were to pass it would significantly drop the
    required signatures to get statewide bal
    lot access and make it a much more
    manageable effort each cycle

    It would cut it in half.

    IF it passes and IF we can get it started in a *timely* way, the 6k plus the 20k or so that the LNC would spend on the independent presidential candidate only could get us statewide … but that is very time sensitive. That is I could do it by myself, but only if I have time to do it and it doesn’t cut into better paying work elsewhere.

  94. paulie Post author

    Matt Cholko got some outreach materials created in Spanish, and Carla has some new outreach material she has been working on.

    They are waiting on new logo to get new stuff printed.

  95. paulie Post author

    Time spent on implementing membership levels change instead of prospecting, fundraising, renewals.

    Wes suggests 12-month trial membership, then try to get people to pay to join after they get a few LP news issues.

    We need more aggressive attempts to get more warm leads.

  96. paulie Post author

    From Brett Pojunis

    State Chairs, Staff and LNC,

    I feel compelled to write you while you are meeting as there is an immediate issue which needs to be addressed. I do not understand why there is a constant struggle between National and our affiliates, specifically Nevada.

    LPEX, the Libertarian Political Expo, from inception has been met with hostility from the National office. First, it is common that the National Libertarian Party gets involved with different events (most are not Libertarian in nature) we support each year, which is a great thing! So the idea of supporting LPEX, the Libertarian Political Expo, which is comprised of 2 state affiliates and the LSLA should have been something I feel the National Party would get behind and be very excited about. Unfortunately, it has been met with resistance at every turn.

    I am committing to a substantial amount of personal money and the LSLA made an investment into the success of this event. The MAIN REASON I am organizing this type of conference is so we can get our folks properly trained. We have secured 2 of the top political activist training organizations in the U.S. to conduct our workshops and 2 other very experienced groups to assist us with additional workshops. There are 20 in total and here is the link: http://lpex.org/training/workshops.

    In addition, we are starting to get a lot of media covering the event. There are a bunch of organizations who are starting to promote this event. I am going to make another substantial investment in online marketing to further promote this event. This is a great thing for Libertarians!

    The last request for content for LP News I responded and we wrote a very good article which was approved by Nevada, California and the LSLA Chairs. I provided a few images and we worked hard on this under the idea that it would be a featured article. This didnt happen, instead the article was buried under the updates from the states. There are a few major problems with this:

    It was not a featured article, no image was included and little to no attention on LPEX.
    The article was censored, this is NOT the article that I submitted. Censorship is something that we do not tolerate in Nevada nor should any Libertarian! If there were issues, they shoul dhave been brought up to me for a redraft, see attached…
    The amazing thing (which I have never seen before) was the article started off with the following disclosure:
    “The views and opinions here are those of LPNevada Chair Brett H. Pojunis and not of the Libertarian Party”
    I put this disclosure in at the end so that my statement (which was NOT printed) did not reflect the views of National.

    My team in Nevada is furious over this. I have received phone calls, emails and private messages inquiring why this would happen and everyone is curious why the National Party isn’t supporting LPEX.

    Our efforts are to get libertarians trained, brand the party professionally and provide a viable option for voters. I would hope the National Libertarian Party would share the same or at least similar goals.

    If no leaders around the country and representatives on the LNC have a problem with censorship, favoritism, and purposely singling out leaders, then I retract my statement. If you do have a problem, please address it.

    Thanks for all you do!

    Best,

    Brett H. Pojunis
    Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Nevada
    The Political Party – Founder
    1771 E. Flamingo Road, Suite 201 A
    Las Vegas, NV 89119
    702.763.9301 | Office (direct)

  97. paulie Post author

    Mike Shipley Back in order at 1:30pm MST!!
    19 mins · Like
    Mike Shipley I am going to try and keep the potential for glitches to a minimum by not refreshing or checking notifications. If I don’t interact with your comments it’s not that I’m ignoring you just trying to keep the technology happy.
    17 mins · Like
    Mike Shipley Note to Arizona Libertarians: Wes just reported that the LP outreach brochure now exists in Spanish and we can get those at the LP store for 10 cents each. That’s a real opportunity for us in a state where the migrant population is pissed and the Democrats aren’t meeting their needs.
    10 mins · Unlike · 2
    Mike Shipley Kind of wondering why Wes is expected to recruit members around the country from his desk in Washington. What kind of central planning assumption is that?
    8 mins · Like
    Mike Shipley Renewals, yes. But new recruits? That’s something we should take ownership of out in the field.
    7 mins · Like
    Mike Shipley I’m a little disturbed by the focus on dues-paying at the pathway to membership. I find the pledge to be kind of an important thing to emphasize as well … I have noticed that AFAIK there’s no way to join as a free member on the site right now and to me that’s a great first step that creates people with a stake in principled activism that we are the only provider for.

  98. paulie Post author

    Mike Shipley I’m sensing a tension between Wes and the board, it seems like he’s a little defensive. I’m wondering if staff has the right tools for success … he keeps mentioning the website, which I agree has a lot of room for improvement. Those are decisions the board has to make …… I hope the logo conversation later today leads to some substantive changes. The Libertarian moment is now!! There is so much opportunity for us right now if we can find the unity of purpose to reach toward that success and make it ours.

  99. paulie Post author

    Q Why are people not renewing

    A Biggest reasons, people moving to Ds, Rs, Tea Party, anti-voting anarchism, or too broke.

  100. paulie Post author

    Someone (Arvin?):

    We don’t communicate with members/supporters nearly enough compared with other parties.

    Wes: Maybe so. We get complaints about it being too often, especially from NV

  101. paulie Post author

    Arvin (I think…only listening): We need more messages that don’t just emphasize asking for money

    Wes: Matter of priorities…staff work long hours

  102. paulie Post author

    Mattson: How is workload on staff now as compared with a few years ago

    If you had more time what would Wes, Carla, Robert do more of?

  103. paulie Post author

    Wes: Casey Hansen does a good job with adding what receptionist was doing plus what he was doing before.

  104. paulie Post author

    Wes: biggest lost has been Eric Dixon.

    Most of it fell on Wes and Carla.

    They also hired contract graphic designer.

    Eric still does some part time contract work for LP but has a different full time job now.

  105. paulie Post author

    Wes:

    Carla works long hours, was screwed on audit last year …tried to not take bonus and was not allowed to refuse it… got to work right away and was allowed to take longer to move than her contract allowed … chair then gave verbal OK but then she got socked with it on the audit.

    Now has taken on a lot of Eric Dixon’s past responsibilities;

    Her and Wes making up for Eric as best they can but can’t really do it as well as he can.

  106. paulie Post author

    Mike Shipley Wes sounds like he feels the way I feel sometimes in Arizona. It’s very upsetting to watch people swing Republican / anarchist and miss the capital L point completely. A lot of what’s going on is simply out of our hands … There are persuasive people on every side pulling people away from us. Our truth right now is that we have to compete. It’s a tough political market right now … but our product has value and it’s worth the fight!!
    13 mins · Like
    Mike Shipley Well … not “out of our hands” but I mean …. we can’t control the way the opposition characterizes us …. the only thing we can control is how we present our own message.
    12 mins · Like
    Mike Shipley How petty that people actually call headquarters over Facebook.
    7 mins · Like
    Mike Shipley I actually can’t imagine why somebody would go work for another party, no matter how dysfunctional we are, liberty implies a polycentrism that’s intrinsically less orderly but ultimately more resilient. Plus, how could you compromise your principles by doing that?
    3 mins · Like
    Mike Shipley His one top priority if he had more time? LOL … I’m sure there are a zillion unmet needs given how small the staff is and how relatively fast we are growing.

  107. paulie Post author

    Mike Shipley If we’re having to choose between the newsletter and press releases, it really sounds like to me there’s a need for more staff. Note I’m saying this in a dream world without any sense of cost or available funds. I’m just saying …. sounds like they could use quite a bit more help.
    2 mins · Like
    Mike Shipley I’m gonna pop over to IPR and see if I can get a second tab open without crashing. *crosses fingers*

  108. Mike Shipley

    The part of me that wants to volunteer for everything wishes I could live in DC and work at headquarters. They sound like they’re doing so much with so little and bearing it with dignity. My guess is that people willing to volunteer their time are rare in a city where getting paid for that type of thing is the norm. That’s unfortunate …

  109. paulie Post author

    My guess is that people willing to volunteer their time are rare in a city where getting paid for that type of thing is the norm. That’s unfortunate …

    Plenty of interns that could work unpaid, but managing them can be a big problem.

  110. paulie Post author

    Also Bob Johnston took over LP blog and it is becoming more frequent as a result. I’ve been sending him a lot of suggestions. Questions about various web metrics which Wes did not know answers to.

  111. Mike Shipley

    I love the interactive little social networking vibe we have. I’m looking around and seeing how IPR / Facebook are integrated into our experience of having these meetings …. The dialogue happening here is bigger than just the meeting. What a cool bunch of people … I love being a Libertarian!! #PorcupinePride

  112. paulie Post author

    Arvin says SFL booth was best LP booth he had seen in a long time and best at the event compared with many organizations. thanks Wes; applause.

  113. paulie Post author

    I love the interactive little social networking vibe we have. I’m looking around and seeing how IPR / Facebook are integrated into our experience of having these meetings …. The dialogue happening here is bigger than just the meeting. What a cool bunch of people … I love being a Libertarian!! #PorcupinePride

    🙂

    Me too.

    Wes also mentioned he learns info from IPR he would not get elsewhere (during this meeting a few minutes ago).

    Not sure if I said that above.

  114. Mike Shipley

    I wish we could channel that vibe into social features on our website and transform it into a hub for activism, etc ….. for example crowdfunding features, flashmob-style event planning, an activism app, (just thinking out loud) ….. distracted now that we have moved to another agenda item so just hitting “Post”. *click*

  115. Thomas L. Knapp

    Have they considered doing away with the dead tree version of LP News? It’s 2015. Anyone who’s politically involved knows what the World Wide Web is.

  116. paulie Post author

    Have they considered doing away with the dead tree version of LP News? It’s 2015. Anyone who’s politically involved knows what the World Wide Web is.

    That’s been discussed before. The dead tree version actually brings in quite a bit of money from a few wealthy donors who prefer to receive it that way, as well as some small donors.

  117. paulie Post author

    I’d get more coffee but I have already had a lot. Actually hoping for a break soon so I can go expel some of it….

  118. paulie Post author

    You know what…screw it…I’m taking a break. I’ll miss some stuff but so be it. Hopefully someone else can cover anything of any importance.

  119. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The dead tree version actually brings in quite a bit of money from a few wealthy donors who prefer to receive it that way, as well as some small donors.”

    Well, if it pays for itself and then some, I can see why they’d want to keep it. I was just thinking in terms of the stuff about long staff hours. Putting out and mailing a print periodical can be pretty labor-intensive.

  120. Mike Shipley

    I was in the middle of typing a comment about how there seemed to be a healthy conciliatory tone in the air when that happened. I assume these things can get tense, I don’t really have enough background information to comment further. I have no idea what that was just about.

  121. Rob Banks

    Maybe that was the underlying issue of the executive session and the roberts rules gymnastics earlier in the day….

  122. Mike Shipley

    Putting out and mailing a print periodical can be pretty labor-intensive.

    I publish a newsletter for one of the orgs I volunteer with and it is tiny compared to LP News … I still put a couple hours into it each month for the basically two pages that go out …. Layout, editing, writing of copy … it’s incredibly time consuming to produce a quality product. I was shocked actually the first time I saw LP News that it comes from a single staff member four times a year.

  123. Mike Shipley

    Redpath brings up communication with state chairs for the second time I’ve heard today. Olsen mentions that the Affiliate Support Committee can help with this. I have often wished the social media team had greater communication with the state-level page admins. There is a lot we can do to strengthen how we’re using social media. The page has become a powerful way we communicate and the state pages are a great tool that affiliates can use to stay in touch with members without producing, for example, a costly newsletter.

  124. paulie Post author

    I have often wished the social media team had greater communication with the state-level page admins.

    We are starting to work on that, as you know.

  125. Mike Shipley

    Talk of having the Affiliate Support Committee produce a document suggesting ways for affiliates to organize, for example as a 527 or whatever, that make their lives easiest. Sounds like the kind of standardized information that would be really helpful. Those labyrinthine regulations can be daunting.

  126. Mike Shipley

    We are starting to work on that, as you know.

    Yes, a bit of cross-promotion there. I was thinking out loud … in the interest of transparency, might as well elaborate: We have started looking for stuff to share from state pages in order to help them grow. We considered contacting the page admins to establish dialogue but the fear was that it would trigger a “Hi I’m from National and I’m here to help” kind of horrified reaction. If we could contact those admin teams in a more casual / horizontal fashion and integrate them into our social media workflow without pushing the “top-down” panic button it would greatly reduce the chance of that happening. I mean we don’t always have direct knowledge of which affiliates might be sensitive to being contacted in such a way and just being realistic we’re all aware of times where there is some wisdom behind that hesitance.

  127. paulie Post author

    Talk of having the Affiliate Support Committee produce a document suggesting ways for affiliates to organize, for example as a 527 or whatever, that make their lives easiest. Sounds like the kind of standardized information that would be really helpful. Those labyrinthine regulations can be daunting.

    Good idea.

    The existing tips for organizing (such as those found at http://www.lp.org/campaign-resources and http://libertarianmajority.net/tools need to be promoted a lot more! And I do mean a lot more!

  128. paulie Post author

    We may be screwed then 🙁

    They just made the music louder here. Trying to think of where else I can go with good wifi, outlets, available tables and no background noise. Sucks that my motel room is useless for that.

  129. paulie Post author

    Trying to figure out what they are on now. I am guessing IT committee from the few words I am catching here and there.

  130. paulie Post author

    I’m already back. I don’t think I missed too much.

    I don’t think you did either but I can barely make anything out. Sounds like basically the same discussion about the website that I saw at the last meeting in New Orleans.

  131. Mike Shipley

    Olsen has questions about what is the real purpose of our website. Wants to be sure our new website is easy for staff to update. Current site is Drupal … something easier would be nice.

  132. paulie Post author

    Olsen has questions about what is the real purpose of our website. Wants to be sure our new website is easy for staff to update. Current site is Drupal … something easier would be nice.

    Yes, if they had an archive of the broadcast from the last meeting they could just point the timer to this part of the discussion and let it play. Same people saying pretty much same things as last time.

  133. Mike Shipley

    IT committee is still exploring options and asks if anybody has ideas to submit them. Another member (don’t know name) mentions Nationbuilder and that he has a business contact there.

  134. paulie Post author

    …now you’re just somebody that I used to know….

    Sorry, that’s all I can hear. But I think they are maybe on break? Popped to the video and most of the chairs at the table are empty

  135. Chuck Moulton

    For about a minute a Libertarian was telling another Libertarian what he REALLY thinks about how another Libertarian acts… in hush hush “I wouldn’t say this in public” tones.

  136. Mike Shipley

    LNC appoints all 10 bylaws committee members …. 5 of the 20 platform committee members ….. other 15 will be appointed by NV, NH, OH, Alaska, VA (top 5 per capita) ….. and CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, MI, GA, IN, WA (top 10 total sustaining members) …. and 5 of the 10 credentials committee, other 5 are by CA, TX, OH, FL, VA (top 5 by sustaining membership)

  137. Chuck Moulton

    Mattson has prepared a written ballot with all the applications that were submitted in advance. She left some blank spaces for new people nominated at the meeting.

    There was a motion to use approval voting for the 3 committees.

    The LNC appoints 10 bylaws committee members, 5 platform committee members, and 5 credentials committee members.

    Platform:
    Top 5 per capita states: NV, NH, OH, AL, VA
    Top 5 sustaining not in per capita (OH and VA excluded): CA, OH (skipped), TX, FL, VA (skipped), NY, PA, IL, MI, GA, IN, WA

    Credentials:
    Top 5 sustaining members: CA, OH, TX, FL, VA

    Bylaws:
    5 of LNC appointees may not be LNC members.

    They are debating whether to require winners under approval voting to have a majority.

  138. Mike Shipley

    It has been moved and seconded to use Approval Voting …. Feldman speaks against it based on the requirement for 50% that may be difficult to reach given the pool of candidates …. Mattson calls attention to some Robert’s language that confirms this …….. Redpath moves to amend the motion to strike that requirement ….. it is seconded …… Mattson speaks against the amendment, saying that it isn’t difficult to reach a majority with approval voting since you can vote for as many as you want. Tomasso speaks against because we shouldn’t appoint people who don’t get a majority … they can always do another ballot …. Johnson asks a question about runoffs …. Wiener speaks in favor of requiring the majority …… McClendon speaks in favor of striking the majority requirement …. Unknown member conjectures on strategy …. Another unknown speaks against the amendment because we don’t have NOTA ….. Nick calls to vote the amendment to not require the majority, 6 in favor, 8 opposed ….. amendment fails ….. motion is now approval voting with the robert’s majority requirement ….. passes unanimously. approval voting is the chosen method for committee selection.

  139. Mike Shipley

    Redpath wonders where he can find information about these people ….. Mattson states it was sent out in a 132 page PDF to everyone’s LP.org address.

  140. Mike Shipley

    They are starting with Credentials first. Sarwark is reading off the list of submitted applications ; these are posted elsewhere so I will not attempt to record them.

  141. Mike Shipley

    Question about whether Marc Montoni has submitted a Platform application. Nick suggests we ask on IPR …. proceeds to nominate David Williams of Colorado from the floor.

  142. paulie Post author

    I have two numbers for Marc, an 804 and a 540. Not sure if either one is current cell? I’d text him if I knew. One of those may be his old number or his home phone.

  143. paulie Post author

    Redpath speaking for Mike Kane, Vicki Kirkland for Emily Salvette. Someone recommends Steve Linnabary and someone else laughs.

  144. Mike Shipley

    Goldstein speaks in favor of (didn’t catch name) from Indiana for Credentials … Olsen speaks in favor of Roger from Montana. Kirkland speaks on behalf of Mike Kane. Redpath speaks for Mike Kane as well. Kirkland speaks for Emily. Unknown member speaks for Steve. (not trying to get last names unless I recognize them). … Time is out … Olsen moves to extend 10 minutes, second with no objection … time is extended.

  145. Chuck Moulton

    Several LNC members said Mike Kane phoned them asking to serve on credentials. Marc Feldman, Vicki Kirkland, and Bill Redpath all spoke in favor of Mike Kane.

    Vicki Kirkland spoke highly of Emily Salvette, with general agreement from other LNC members.

  146. paulie Post author

    Goldstein speaks in favor of (didn’t catch name) from Indiana for Credentials

    Matt Witlief (sp?) if I am not mistaken

  147. Mike Shipley

    Bylaws: Goldstein speaks in favor of Matt. Olsen speaks for Jeff, state chair of Colorado. Lark speaks for Dan. Vohra speaks for Chuck Moulton. Kirkland speaks for Dan as well. Weiner speaks for Aaron Starr. Redbath speaks for (didn’t catch, very quickly) and Moulton.

  148. Chuck Moulton

    Bylaws:
    Sam Goldstein speaks in favor of Matt Wittlief. Olsen speaks in favor of Jeff Orrok. Dr. Lark speaks in favor of Dan Karlan. Arvin Vohra speaks in favor of Chuck Moulton. Vicki Kirkland speaks in favor of Dan Karlan. Dan Wiener speaks in favor of Aaron Starr. Redpath speaks in favor of Aaron Starr, M Carling, and Chuck Moulton.

  149. Thomas L. Knapp

    Hmm … I don’t see my name on the list of applicants for platform. I could have sworn I applied. But maybe I’m misremembering. No biggie. I do kind of wish Mike Kane had gone for platform rather than credentials, though.

  150. Mike Shipley

    Platform: Redpath speaks for Holly in VA. Olsen speaks for Chris from Wyoming and myself. (Thanks Norm!!). Mattson speaks for Glenn of FL, Andy of MI, Tom of CA, Debbie of CO, saying she was impressed with them on prior platform committees, Olsen speaks for Debbie, Goldstein speaks for Mattson as Chair of the committee, Vohra speaks for Dean(?) of MD, myself (Thanks Arvin!!), and Nick, Sarwark speaks for Nick and Dean as well.

  151. Chuck Moulton

    Platform:
    Redpath speaks in favor of Hollie Ryan. Olsen speaks in favor of Chris Colvin and Mike Shipley. [missed the speaker?] speaks in favor of Jeffry Sanford and Zachary Yutzy. Mattson speaks in favor of Lynn House, Andy LeCureaux, Tom Lippman, and Debbie Schum. Mattson says Hollie Ryan and Alexander Pease put a lot of work into their applications. Mattson points out Michael Schoenike is an elected official. Olson speaks in favor of Debbie Schum. Goldstein speaks in favor of Mattson. Vohra speaks in favor of Dean Ahmad, Mike Shipley, and Nick Frollini. Sarwark speaks in favor of Nick Frollini and Dean Ahmad.

  152. paulie Post author

    Redpath attended Gary Sinawski’s funeral service next to the famous Stonewall in. 60 people were there including Richard Winger

  153. paulie Post author

    Kurt Evans wants to do referendum in SD against bad new SD ballot access law, wants to piggyback it with SD LP party petition

  154. Mike Shipley

    Redpath brings up a ballot access issue in South Dakota, piggybacking on a referendum drive taking place there. (I think, was spacing out for a minute but think that’s right) …… phone calls are taking place about reducing costs by doubling up those efforts.

  155. paulie Post author

    MA: Winger wants to circulate petitions with “to be selected” instead of substitute. Phillies will ask MA state committee.

  156. Chuck Moulton

    Redpath begins the ballot access report. He and Richard Winger both attended former general counsel Gary Sinawski’s memorial service, Redpath said a few words on behalf of the LP.

    The Arkansas petition drive is rolling along at a good pace. Kurt Evans from South Dakota called Redpath saying he wants to put a referendum on the ballot to repeal a bad ballot access law. They discussed piggybacking the referendum on the LP presidential petition.

    Talking about Massachusetts now.

    I won’t be reporting for a few minutes.

  157. paulie Post author

    Phillies is/was ill. He will follow up. Nick may ask Secretary of Commonwealth for an opinion regardless.

  158. Mike Shipley

    I am confused what’s happening right now but something about Massachusetts and Dr. Phillies. Possibly having LNC Chair write a letter at Mr. Winger’s request to the Secretary of State ….. he says that’s something to be very careful about. I didn’t quite follow all of that.

  159. Mike Shipley

    Yeah it sounds like these conversations have backstories I don’t know about, so I’m not able to report accurately what’s being said. I’m having trouble following this discussion.

  160. paulie Post author

    Yeah it sounds like these conversations have backstories I don’t know about, so I’m not able to report accurately what’s being said. I’m having trouble following this discussion.

    No worries, I got this one

  161. Mike Shipley

    Out of time on ballot access …… Nick extends for five minutes ….. I am not taking notes on this because I wanted to pay attention.

  162. Chuck Moulton

    I don’t understand why the region reports part of the meeting takes more than 1 minute total. Everything said so far either was or should have been in written reports.

  163. paulie Post author

    I don’t understand why the region reports part of the meeting takes more than 1 minute total. Everything said so far either was or should have been in written reports.

    It pretty much all is. They are linked in the article above. Except for region 7 which was late and is in the comments above.

  164. Marc Montoni

    I am extremely concerned that there are several names listed above for the platform committee who should organize their own precinct and county parties before presuming to craft our ideological document.

    No, I did not put in an application. I do not have the patience to work with a group of people the majority of whom are embarrassed by Libertarian ideas.

    Q: How do I know a majority of them are embarrassed by our ideas?

    A: Because those are the kind of people most of the LNC members — many of whom have been around for the last 10 years — consistently choose to be on all of the convention committees.

  165. Mike Shipley

    They have amended the agenda to go into Mr. Olsen’s motions and then adjourn to Executive Session, moving everything else to the morning.

  166. paulie Post author

    Fellow on the left above willing to serve on it. Woman on right above would be good too but I doubt she is interested.

  167. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    As long as you’ve been around the LP, and given that you’ve served on the LNC, haven’t you figured out yet that NOTHING ever gets really settled and discussion never really ends? That’s one of the aspects that tends to wear people out.

  168. Chuck Moulton

    Sarwark says he would name Richard Winger and Paul Frankel to the committee if the committee were authorized and he had to select the members now.

  169. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, you are one of those who’s put in long hours earning the status of “entitled to bitch.”

    One of these days, I’m going to attend another LNC meeting. But I want to drop about 2000 mics of acid about 45 minutes before first gavel. THAT should keep it interesting.

  170. Chuck Moulton

    I was distracted and missed a lot of this vote… I caught a few of them as below.

    [I am editing this comment to fill in votes I missed based on Starchild’s later comment. My edits are in brackets.]

    Ballot access committee formation.

    Redpath – abstain
    Wiener – [yes]
    McLendon – [no]
    Johnson – [no]
    Goldstein – [no]
    O’Toole – [no]
    Lark – yes
    Olsen – [yes]
    Kirkland – ?
    Tomasso – yes
    Estrada – [no]
    Feldman – ?
    Hagan – yes
    Vohra – yes
    Mattson – yes
    Sarwark – yes

    Passed 9-6-1.

  171. paulie Post author

    One of these days, I’m going to attend another LNC meeting. But I want to drop about 2000 mics of acid about 45 minutes before first gavel. THAT should keep it interesting.

    I’ve just been using booze, caffeine and adderall for that. Not sure that I would do LSD again, but if I did an LNC meeting may be a somewhat interesting choice … then again …. maybe not.

    What could possibly go wrong? LOL

  172. paulie Post author

    Question (Arvin?) is LPEX designed to have Republican consultants find LP activists/candidates to pick off and switch? Or something like that.. Norm responding but not loud enough for me to hear.

  173. Stewart Flood

    So what happened regarding Olsen’s motion to send money to LPEX? Keep in mind that he is an investor in the company running LPEX.

  174. paulie Post author

    During a quick break in the noise it sounded that Redpath is against giving LPEX because with 9 weeks left most of the schedule is not set but does not rule out supporting it later

  175. paulie Post author

    Shutting it down here, way too loud to hear anything. I’ll go next door to see if I do better there.

  176. Mikester

    I’m having trouble posting ….. my machine is starting to hang up. There is spirited discussion. Many members are hesitant for a variety of reasons: the Republican speakers, the involvement of a private LLC, the fairly low balance of the LNC’s bank account, the potential for the event to flop, whether or not it counts as “affiliate support”, whether it is geared toward giving L’s an advantage or not.

    They are voting now … the count comes down to the Chair’s vote ……. He sides with the affiliate support committee and votes Aye.

  177. Jed Ziggler

    I’ve generally been against the logo change, but I really, REALLY hate the L logo with the liberty bell in the white space. It’s so generic & awful.

  178. Thomas L. Knapp

    I haven’t looked at the logo entries, but that’s mostly because I don’t see anything wrong with the existing logo. To the extent that the LP has a recognizable symbol on a national level, the Statute of Liberty is, and always has been, that symbol.

    The Missouri LP used to use the Liberty Bell as its ballot symbol. IIRC, that was because there was some weird law forbidding us to use the Statue. When that law changed, we changed to the Statue (I seem to recall that we may have briefly used the Missouri Mule, or that there was an Eric-Harris-backed effort to get us to, but we went to the Statue when we could).

    Why in the blue fuck would it be a priority to change our most recognizable branding graphic?

  179. paulie Post author

    I haven’t looked at the logo entries, but that’s mostly because I don’t see anything wrong with the existing logo. To the extent that the LP has a recognizable symbol on a national level, the Statute of Liberty is, and always has been, that symbol.

    Some of the proposed new logos are other versions of the same statue.

  180. George Phillies

    “Talking about Massachusetts now.”

    Who is talking? If it is someone other than Sarwark, what is he she it they saying?

    I talked to Sarwark. He asked if someone here would write a letter to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, asking a particular question. I said I would ask my state committee for a volunteer. I have been in good health, not counting occasional bits of fatigue, etc., e.g., from shoveling snow and weight lifting.

    The new logos meet with event less of my approval than the current logo did. Anything with large inked areas and little white letters should be deleted…it costs a fortune to run through a home printer.

  181. paulie Post author

    Several people participated in that discussion including Redpath and Sarwark. There were others, but I could not hear all of them.

  182. Stewart Flood

    Sorry to hear that they passed a motion made by a person who has a conflict of interest. I’m not sure if his conflict of interest was discussed, but it should have been. Olsen is one of Pojunis’ investors.

  183. paulie Post author

    [Lnc-business] Affiliate Support Committee
    Guy McLendon guy at mclendon.net
    Thu Mar 19 20:15:11 CDT 2015

    Previous message: [Lnc-business] An example of a successful initiative/cause website
    Next message: [Lnc-business] Revised Agenda – 3.28.2015 LNC Meeting
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    Please review attached minutes from tonight’s ASC teleconference, and
    provide comments by 3/21/2015.

    Guy McLendon

    Vice Chairman

    Libertarian Party of Louisiana

    Cell 832-372-8131

    ~

    ASC Meeting Minutes

    March 19, 2015

    In attendance:

    Guy

    Vicki

    Joe

    Norm

    Absent:

    Rich

    Michael (part time)

    Beth

    Visitors:

    N/A

    Call to order @ 8:04 PM CST

    Comments:

    1. Motion:

    a. Motion by Norm “ASC recommends LNC purchase a LSLA bronze
    sponsorship package for $3,000 with funds charged against ASC budget item.”
    Seconded. Motion carries unanimously.

    2. Discuss ASC quarterly report.

    3. Discuss pending tasks relevant to 2014 annual report.

    Adjourned at 8:10 PM CST

  184. Chuck Moulton

    Olsen moved that the LP allocate $3,000 to supporting the LPEX event.

    Redpath – no
    Wiener – yes
    McLendon – yes
    Johnson – no
    Goldstein – no
    O’Toole – no
    Lark – no
    Olsen – yes
    Kirkland – yes
    Tomasso – yes
    Estrada – yes
    Feldman – no
    Hagan – yes
    Vohra – no
    Mattson – abstain
    Sarwark – yes

    Passes 8-7-1

  185. Stewart Flood

    Wow. I just sent them notice to cancel my $100 monthly pledge. When I made it at the convention last year, I said I’d contribute as long as I thought the party was moving forward. It stalled a while ago, and is now clearly moving in reverse.

  186. Thomas L. Knapp

    If I’m not mistaken, LPEX is an LSLA-sponsored event. Is that correct?

    Is LSLA still treating the Reeves Gang as its Oregon affiliate (or one of its Oregon affiliates), or has it recognized the legitimate Oregon LP?

    To the extent that LPEX approached state LPs to participate in or sponsor the event, did it approach/invite the legitimate Oregon LP or the Reeves Gang?

    If LSLA and/or LPEX are encouraging and/or associating with impostor organizations that compete with the LNC’s affiliates and with legitimate state LPs, why is LNC giving LSLA/LPEX money? Would it entertain a motion to make a donation to, say, the Iowa Republican Party or the Prohibition Party of Kentucky?

  187. paulie Post author

    If I’m not mistaken, LPEX is an LSLA-sponsored event. Is that correct?

    Yes. 3 of 5 LSLA board members, none of them state chairs, voted to spend 95% of their treasury on LPEX, and the minutes of the meeting aren’t posted in the archives as of the last time I checked (there’s an incorrect link but it actually has minutes from two weeks later). There was no discussion on state chairs list, I found out when Stewart mentioned it in another thread and I looked into it. It was not mentioned on state chairs before the vote or for quite some time after.

  188. paulie Post author

    Oregon affiliate

    IIRC the Burke/Reeves side voted at the most recent meeting of state chairs the LSLA held in Columbus.

    The LSLA has its own list, but as far as I can tell it is rarely used.

    State chairs primarily use a list housed by LPHQ on its servers. That list switched from Burke to Wagner some time ago – very roughly a year – but even more recently neither side is using it. As far as I know Wagner is still on the list. That is also the list LSLA minutes and announcements of LSLA phone conferences get posted to.

  189. paulie Post author

    To the extent that LPEX approached state LPs to participate in or sponsor the event, did it approach/invite the legitimate Oregon LP or the Reeves Gang?

    I don’t know the answer. I also don’t know whether they approached individual states besides just posting announcements to the list housed by LPHQ.

  190. paulie Post author

    LPEX is also associated with the LPs of CA and NV, which will both have their conventions in conjunction. WA state is hosting a competing state convention the same weekend.

  191. Jill Pyeatt

    “Question (Arvin?) is LPEX designed to have Republican consultants find LP activists/candidates to pick off and switch?”

    Wow. This has certainly been my concern, but I haven’t said it out loud.

    I found Brett’s letter to be more of his bad attitude toward the LNC, which probably just keeps pissing off the people who were pissed off about him before. I wish he would keep up a positive front, at least until the event is over with.

    I think that, if the event flops, it will reflect badly on the national LP. I can’t think of a way to mitigate that. I really, really hope it at least breaks even.

    However, I still don’t know anyone from Southern CA who is planning to attend. I also haven’t heard any promotion of the LPEX coming from the CA Ex Com. Ca’s convention doesn’t even have its own site–just someplace to click on the state page.

  192. Matt Cholko

    That one is my second favorite of the proposed logos. But, it is the one I would most like to see adopted, because it is reasonably consistent with the last two logos.

  193. paulie Post author

    I found Brett’s letter to be more of his bad attitude toward the LNC, which probably just keeps pissing off the people who were pissed off about him before. I wish he would keep up a positive front, at least until the event is over with.

    It was hard to hear and I wasn’t watching the picture but I think one of the yes votes said he was more reluctant to vote yes because of this but would vote yes anyway.

  194. paulie Post author

    I think that, if the event flops, it will reflect badly on the national LP. I can’t think of a way to mitigate that.

    I think this concern was also voiced in the discussion.

  195. Marc Montoni

    I was called by someone associated with LPEX, asking if I would be willing to promote it to LPVA members. I said sure, and indicated our two main methods of communication were our Virginia state announcements email list, our website, our activities Calendar, and our Facebook page.

    He said he would send me a boilerplate announcement that I could adjust and send via all those venues. The only thing I asked is that it be sent in plaintext as our email list strips out html (by design) so it needed to be a text announcement.

    I never heard from them again.

  196. Jill Pyeatt

    Is anyone planning to answer Brett’s letter, or will everyone just blow it off? I’m not sure how I’d handle it if I was on the committee.

  197. George Phillies

    Hopefully the event will do well and create positive outcomes for our party.

    However, if the event flops some people may criticize how the LNC money was spent. They may be distracted by the $19,000 bonus during a period of cash-cease.

  198. paulie Post author

    There is a state chairs list that is in fairly regular use at the moment. I don’t know which one.

    It’s the one housed at lphq.

  199. Mark Axinn

    >I think that, if the event flops, it will reflect badly on the national LP.

    I disagree. It’s being done by LPNV, not National. It has not been well-promoted and is being held in an incredibly remote part of the country (sorry, but most people live on the east coast or in CA or TX; not Nevada which has a total population only slightly more than my county). It’s also a new event without the history of regular attendance that many other liberty-minded events have.

    It may reflect badly on some people, but should not on national LP. Exactly how much was national LP consulted regarding planning LPEX?

    Also, in furtherance of Marc’s comment, I promoted LPEX on my own to my members; as far as I know no one from New York is attending. Now, we’re not as large or close as CA, but we are still a significant affiliate and there is zero interest that I have seen here in LPEX.

    I will promote it again for Brett’s sake and to help LSLA cover its incredibly idiotic investment, but attendance from the northeast is not likely to be very great (in fact other than Josh, I don’t know of anyone else east of the Hudson River who is planning to attend).

  200. Starchild

    I just sent the following message to members of the LNC, letting them know I’m applying to serve on the Bylaws and/or Platform Committee.

    Dear LNC members,

    I am writing to express my desire and willingness to serve on either the Bylaws Committee (1st choice) or the Platform Committee (2nd choice) for the upcoming term. In the interest of sparing you from reading two separate letters, please consider this letter, which I’ll keep brief, as my application to serve on both committees. My history and relevant experience in the Libertarian Party includes:

    • Currently serving on the California Libertarian Party’s Bylaws Committee (through May 2015)

    • Serving on the LP Platform Committee in 2014 (As an alternate, I nevertheless took the time and expense to fly from California to attend the committee’s May 2014 meeting in Indiana)

    • Serving multiple times as my local county party’s representative on the California Libertarian Party’s Platform Committee

    • Attending every national convention of the Libertarian Party since 1993, and every California Libertarian annual convention save two since 1992, actively participating in Bylaws and Platform debate at virtually every convention I’ve attended

    • Serving as an at-large representative on the Libertarian National Committee (2012-2014), during which term I attended every meeting

    • Running five times for public office (once for State Assembly, twice for School Board, and twice for county Board of Supervisors), twice winning citywide high school mock polls for School Board, and once polling over 20,000 votes in the general election

    • Serving as county Chair, Vice-Chair, Newsletter Editor, and (currently) Outreach Director of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco

    • Twice serving as an At-Large representative on the California LP’s Executive Committee

    My commitment to the libertarian cause is deep and longstanding, and I am actively engaged in spreading our message through my activism with the LPSF and other local groups seeking more freedom. Living and campaigning in San Francisco has given me a good perspective on how to communicate with the general public and the political left in particular.

    As a member of either the Bylaws or Platform committee, I will seek to ensure that our committee’s operations are fair and transparent and that LP members are readily able to stay informed of what the committee is doing and voice their input.I believe in a strong LP Platform that sets us apart from the “cartel parties”, and in Bylaws that reflect our grassroots, bottom-up values and model best practices of accountable leadership and open, participative governance.

    Thank you for your time and consideration, and apologies for not getting this to you sooner – it just now came to my attention that you will be populating these committees tomorrow. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me any time at (415) 625-FREE (3733) or by email at sfdreamer[at]earthlink.net.

    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))

  201. Starchild

    Just finished reading through the comments here. I’ll post a few responses in no particular order…

    Paulie writes “It was hard to hear and I wasn’t watching the picture but I think one of the yes votes said he was more reluctant to vote yes because of this but would vote yes anyway.”

    That was Dan Wiener. I watched a good chunk of the USstream video link, and found it audible for the most part (I wasn’t sitting in a noisy cafe). The video camera could have been better placed — only about 7 LNC members were typically included in its field of vision, so many of the people talking were off-camera.

  202. Starchild

    Here are the results I tallied from Norm Olsen’s two motions…

    Roll call vote on Olsen’s motion to form a new Ballot Access Committee:

    Wiener – yes
    McLendon – no
    Johnson – no
    Goldstein – no
    Toole – no
    Lark – yes
    Redpath – abstain
    Olsen – yes
    Tomasso – yes
    Estrada – no
    Vohra – yes
    Sarwark – yes
    Mattson – yes
    Hayes – ?
    Feldman – ?

    Totals – yes=9, no=6, abstain=1 (passed)

    Olsen’s motion for the LNC to sponsor at the bronze level ($3000) the LPEX event in Nevada [reportedly also being sponsored by the LSLA (LP state chairs’ organization), but run as a for-profit event by an LLC set up by Nevada state chair Brett Pojunis]:

    Wiener – yes
    McLendon – yes
    Johnson – no
    Goldstein – no
    Lark – no
    O’Toole – no
    Redpath – no
    Olsen – yes
    Kirkland – yes
    Tomasso – yes
    Estrada – yes
    Feldman – no
    Hagen – yes
    Vohra – no
    Mattson – abstain
    Sarwark – yes

    Totals – yes=8, no=7, abstain=1 (passed)

    After a couple people initially passing before voting, it came down to a tie, which was broken by LP chair Nick Sarwark voting yes after some agonized deliberation (he said his decision turned on the Affilliate Support Committee’s recommendation) – motion passed, barely

  203. paulie Post author

    Starchild,

    Thanks for helping fill in the gaps.

    BTW, did you get off FB? Your name was unclickable as of a few days ago.

  204. paulie Post author

    Anyone have any strong feelings pro or con for a separate thread for day 2? I have had one request for one over email.

  205. Starchild

    Paulie – Facebook kicked me off for having a non-standard name. They wanted me to send them proof of my identity, which I refused on principle. I said if they wanted to confirm Starchild is the name I usually go by, they could do a web search like anybody else would, and told them to either give me access to my account, or delete it.

  206. Starchild

    Stewart Flood writes (March 28, 2015 at 8:12 pm), “Sorry to hear that they passed a motion made by a person who has a conflict of interest. I’m not sure if his conflict of interest was discussed, but it should have been. Olsen is one of Pojunis’ investors.”

    Stewart – By “investor” here do you mean simply “donor”? Or do you really mean investor? The distinction seems critical.

    If Norm Olsen simply donated some of his own money to support the LPEX event, I don’t see any issue there — if anything, it would seem to add legitimacy to his request for the national LP to pony up some money as well.

    But if he really is an investor, and stands to lose or gain money depending upon how the event does financially, then I agree with you that is a serious conflict of interest that should have been reported. In fact, if that is true, I don’t think he should have voted on the motion at all, or perhaps even brought it forward.

    If you have evidence the latter is the case, please post it.

  207. Starchild

    Thomas L. Knapp writes (March 28, 2015 at 3:11 pm), regarding the possibility of lawsuits if employee/employer matters are discussed in public,

    “That’s easy to solve. Just make it a condition of employment to sign a waiver acknowledging that LNC meetings are public.”

    …to which Paulie responds (March 28, 2015 at 3:12 pm) “I’m sure that will do wonders for our available hiring pool.”

    In some ways, it might. It would help ensure that our hiring pool is composed of people who understand and respect the need for transparency. Since a person interested in advancing his or her own prospects will naturally have a greater interest in keeping the details of his/her employment secret than one who does not, making transparency a condition of employment would tend to guarantee a staff more likely to put the good of the party and the cause ahead of personal interests, than in the absence of such a condition.

    In short, I agree with Tom, and have previously suggested such a clause be made part of any LP hiring arrangement. I’m not talking about disclosing anyone’s Social Slavery number — there’s no reason for that — but it should be standard party policy for all compensation, terms of employment, and personnel matters impacting on the operations, finances, or governance of the party to be made public to the maximum extent allowed by law.

  208. Mark Axinn

    Just to fill in another gap, LSLA recognizes the affiliate headed by Mr. Wagner as the official LP state party in Oregon.

    By my very unofficial count, there are at least 49 state chairs who do not want to have any further involvement in the Oregon situation and consider the matter closed.

  209. paulie Post author

    It depends on what you mean by recognizes. I think that Mark Axinn is probably referring to the LPHQ administered email list, which as I mentioned switched from Burke to Wagner (I believe last year). But that was a decision of LPHQ, not LSLA, if I am not mistaken. It is my understanding that the only other way in which LSLA recognizes state affiliates – voting at the yearly meeting of state chairs – it was the Burke/Reeves side which was allowed to vote in Columbus. Someone can correct that if it is not correct.

    There is also a LSLA run email list, separate from the one at LPHQ. I subscribed to that one too, so unless someone unsubscribed me, it is basically not used at all. I don’t know which Oregonians if any are on that one, although since essentially no one uses it from any state, I don’t think it makes much of a difference.

  210. Nicholas Sarwark

    Wow. I just sent them notice to cancel my $100 monthly pledge. When I made it at the convention last year, I said I’d contribute as long as I thought the party was moving forward. It stalled a while ago, and is now clearly moving in reverse.

    I’m sorry to hear it and hope you will reconsider.

    Even if you don’t thank you again for your support in the past. Thank you as well for your service on the IT Committee, which I hope will continue.

  211. Leigh

    Is LSLA still treating the Reeves Gang as its Oregon affiliate (or one of its Oregon affiliates), or has it recognized the legitimate Oregon LP?

    If LSLA and/or LPEX are encouraging and/or associating with impostor organizations that compete with the LNC’s affiliates and with legitimate state LPs, why is LNC giving LSLA/LPEX money?

    Mr. Knapp,

    The LSLA officially recognizes the same group in Oregon that the LP does. I have contacted Mr. Wagner about rejoining the organization, however; we have been unable to come to terms. To answer your other question, the LP is not “giving” money to LPEX, they purchased a Bronze Sponsorship.

    The Bronze Sponsor package includes everything in the Standard Exhibitor Package and the following;
    • Booth on the LPEX Exhibit Floor (Standard)
    • Promotion and recognition throughout LPEX as a Bronze Sponsor
    • Signage with corporate logo displayed throughout LPEX
    • Two (2) complimentary General Admission passes
    • Company name, logo, description and link to company website on LPEX web page
    • Exhibitor listing in the LPEX Official Guide including company name/booth number/logo
    • Half-page ad in the official program guide
    • LPEX conference bag insert (Standard)
    • List of conference registrants (Standard)

    I am not sure what all the debate is about. Didn’t this LNC state as one of their goals to create regional training events and didn’t the Affiliate Support Committee report indicate state chairs wanted activism training? .Hopes are to turn LPEX into an annual event concentrating on activism training in odd years and candidate training in even years in the western region. The LSLA’s Platinum Sponsorship has allowed the event to get professional conservative political trainers who are tweaking their presentations to suit a more Libertarian crowd. After the conference we hope to have videos of the presentations at LSLA.org. I encourage everyone to look at the activism presentations http://lpex.org/training/workshops Additionally, the LSLA’s sponsporship has provided up to two free admissions to each state affilate that will promote LPEX and have their attendees stay at the Tropicana. My hopes are that people will see the benefit of this training and give back to the LSLA so that we can continue to provide this training to the state affiliates at next years LSLA conference in Orlando (May 26, 2016). Not to mention that this is in conjunction with hosting two state affiliate conventions and the LSLA annual business meeting.

  212. Nicholas Sarwark

    In case anyone wonders why yesterday morning went long, Article 7, Section 3 of the Bylaws seems very clear to me:

    The Chair shall preside at all Conventions and all meetings of the National Committee. The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to direct its business and affairs, including hiring and discharging of National Committee volunteers and paid personnel, subject to express National Committee policies and directives issued in the exercise of the National Committee’s plenary control and management of Party affairs, properties and funds.

    There is a disagreement over whether the phrase “power to select,” located in Article 10, Section 2 of the Bylaws, trumps that “full authority”:

    The non-officer members of the National Committee shall appoint a standing Audit
    Committee of three members with power to select the independent auditor. One member shall be
    a non-officer member of the National Committee and the other two shall not be members of the
    National Committee.

  213. Thomas L. Knapp

    Leigh,

    Thanks for the information.

    I apologize for my unclear phrasing in the form of “give money.” Yes, I understand that the LNC is purchasing a sponsorship in return for which it will receive valuable considerations, not just making a donation.

    As far as my question was concerned, it was the only question I had.

    To the extent that LPEX is providing some valued services, I would consider it inappropriate for the LNC to sponsor the intentional provision of such services to organizations that compete against its affiliates, e.g. the Reeves Gang, just as I would object to the LNC sponsoring a National Republican Campaign Committee training event for prospective GOP volunteers.

    Since I’ve now been assured by several people, yourself included, that that’s not an issue, I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the LNC should purchase an LPEX sponsorship. I trust them to decide, on behalf of the LP, whether or not that’s a good investment of funds.

  214. paulie Post author

    The LSLA officially recognizes the same group in Oregon that the LP does.

    Thanks for correcting that. For some reason I thought that Burke/Reeves voted at the last LSLA meeting of state chairs.

    I have contacted Mr. Wagner about rejoining the organization, however; we have been unable to come to terms.

    My understanding is that Wagner wants apologies, censure of past officers, etc.

  215. paulie Post author

    I just thought of one downside of putting up a separate thread today, which is that there are already a lot of links back to this one from various FB groups and pages, maybe some twitter feeds and so on, and if I start a separate thread they will be going to the wrong place.

    I’ve only had one request for a new thread…I won’t say who it was since it was over email rather than a comment on here, so you can email me if it’s a secret, but would it be a really big deal if we just kept going with this one?

  216. paulie Post author

    There is a disagreement over whether the phrase “power to select,” located in Article 10, Section 2 of the Bylaws, trumps that “full authority”:

    The non-officer members of the National Committee shall appoint a standing Audit
    Committee of three members with power to select the independent auditor. One member shall be
    a non-officer member of the National Committee and the other two shall not be members of the
    National Committee.

    It would seem to me that it should be common sense that power to select would not mean unlimited, unilateral spending authority with zero associated fundraising responsibility. So I understood why you would fight them on this point as a matter of honor and doing the right thing. As a practical matter, however, I’m surprised that you went for it when you clearly did not have the votes lined up to prevail.

  217. Matt Cholko

    After sleeping on it for a night, I strongly favor that new statue logo (linked above) over the L bell logo. Again, it is consistent with previous logos, which minimizes the negatives that come along with a change.

    Of course, I still prefer no change to the logo at all.

  218. Matt Cholko

    Though the aspect ratio is probably a bit outside of the norm for a logo,I don’t think its a big deal. If its needed in a more “horizontal” form for some things (letterhead, maybe), just use a small picture of the statue to the left of the words Libertarian Party.

    It would also be pretty easy for affiliates to customize for their state, if so desired.

  219. paulie Post author

    In some ways, it might. It would help ensure that our hiring pool is composed of people who understand and respect the need for transparency. Since a person interested in advancing his or her own prospects will naturally have a greater interest in keeping the details of his/her employment secret than one who does not, making transparency a condition of employment would tend to guarantee a staff more likely to put the good of the party and the cause ahead of personal interests, than in the absence of such a condition.

    In short, I agree with Tom, and have previously suggested such a clause be made part of any LP hiring arrangement. I’m not talking about disclosing anyone’s Social Slavery number — there’s no reason for that — but it should be standard party policy for all compensation, terms of employment, and personnel matters impacting on the operations, finances, or governance of the party to be made public to the maximum extent allowed by law.

    That’s great as a matter of principle, but as a matter of practical reality you really believe you will find a lot of people who want their personnel matters made public? Our conversations with legal counsel, etc? There are limits to what’s reasonable in advocating transparency. For example, I won’t insist on toilet cams at LPHQ.

  220. paulie Post author

    If I did the time zone calculation right the meeting should have already started, or about to start if running a few minutes late. Ustream not working yet though.

  221. paulie Post author

    Starr has logo idea from LP Texas…statue of liberty meets Rosie the Riveter, but wants a simplified version.

  222. Mike Shipley

    We have called to order and currently under public comment. Starr is showing an image he would like to see adapted into a logo, suggests we vote down the logo today, stick with the status quo and develop that concept.

  223. Mike Shipley

    Vohra says there are two types of logos:

    1) That convey depth and meaning by making a statement
    2) That are slick and polished for a quick impression

    He is now showing logos on the screen.

  224. Thomas L. Knapp

    “That’s great as a matter of principle, but as a matter of practical reality you really believe you will find a lot of people who want their personnel matters made public? Our conversations with legal counsel, etc?”

    To be clear here, I am not quite as big a transparency advocate as Starchild.

    I don’t object to e.g. discussions with legal counsel, personnel reviews, etc. being treated as confidential ON PRINCIPLE.

    However, the LNC has proven over time that it can’t be trusted not to abuse the ability to conduct executive sessions. And while I haven’t been keeping CLOSE track of that, the abuse seems to be getting worse over time.

    I consider taking away their ability to have secret sessions for at least two years (with a bylaws amendment, which can be repealed at any subsequent biennial national convention) to be along the lines of grounding a kid for bad behavior and then watching to see if the behavior improves. If it does, the grounding gets lifted. If it doesn’t, the grounding remains in force.

    Is it a somewhat extreme measure? Yes. And it has to be, because it needs to be proportional to the offense, which is itself extreme.

    Are there possible negative side effects? Yes. Who’s to blame for the negative side effects of necessary measures taken in response to bad behavior? The bad behavers.

  225. Mike Shipley

    First one: The “Eagle Torch” …. it’s a stylized eagle on a torch. I am not a hater but not a fan of this one. I could live with it if I had to ….

  226. Nicholas Sarwark

    Will Taylor logo up on the screen now. I think there was a link to it sent to the business list.

    It’s been the clear anecdotal winner among non-Libertarians that Arvin has shown it to.

    It’s also my favorite, though I am not fighting what the committee chooses.

  227. paulie Post author

    Intent is to have the LNC select a logo at this meeting, but may not get that far….it will just get the process as far along as possible.

  228. paulie Post author

    Suggestion to have the LNC propose a logo for a vote by party members (through what means?) … yes, that would be in order.

  229. Mike Shipley

    I love the L-Bell so much …. it says a lot in a very simple way and it puts our famous “capital L” front and center in all its awesome glory.

  230. Andy

    Considering all of the problems the LP has, I fail to see why the party logo is getting so much focus. How many people really care that much about the logo? How about focus on making better outreach material to hand out to the public, or better yet, how about increasing the amount of outreach that actually takes place?

  231. Mike Shipley

    Olsen says logo is a mark that carries reputation, that building meaning into the logo is a mistake and all we need is a “squiggle” like nike. Something elegant and unique.

  232. Mike Shipley

    Feldman comments on the balance between conceptualism and visual appeal. Has experience with a 99design contest for his campaign logo. Ended up getting the one he didn’t like as much, but it was simpler and it worked. His likes-per-week doubled when he switched it out as his FB icon. He likes several of the designs, especially ones with a torch. Also is scared of strong muscled women ( reference to Starr’s earlier suggestion ). Alludes to a design we haven’t seen yet, the torch flower, he likes it too. He does this the LBell is cool and clever but it doesn’t work as a logo.

  233. paulie Post author

    Redpath: we could have more than one logo. Current version of the statue was not voted on by LNC. Shane Cory showed it to then chair Mike Dixon who took a quick look on it and said OK.

  234. Mike Shipley

    Redpath suggests that we can use more than one logo if we want. The current logo was never voted on in the first place. Has two problems w/ current logo: 1) sees symbolism of the sun setting on liberty, w/ the shadow over her face, sits not well with him and is glad we are talking about it. 2) Doesn’t understand the 1971 on the logo. Why is it even there? What does it add? That we’ve been around only 40 years and accomplished so little … (my thought: I question whether getting this far is really something to be ashamed of … the duopoly has had a special access to power in the age of broadcast media and we have managed to break through that. What is a reasonable length of time to expect this to take, we have no gauge … humanity has never had broadcast media before).

  235. paulie Post author

    Redpath: But it should be some version of the statue. 2nd choice liberty bell.

    Should be something easy to understand right away.

  236. Mike Shipley

    McClendon: Likes simple and self-evident. Wants something that looks good on a shirt. Wants the colors to be few to save printing costs. Has a logo to submit, it’s the old lady liberty, and is going to use it for Louisiana pretty much no matter what.

  237. Mike Shipley

    Johnson has general logo comments. He doesn’t like any of them and votes for NOTA. He appreciates the work but …. the labor theory doesn’t hold value here. The work has not produced anything but blah. Letting all the members vote would be a good idea if there were actually good choices but we don’t.

  238. paulie Post author

    Nick says there can only be one logo, although we can have additional informal symbols.

    Arvin presenting the torch flower.

  239. Mike Shipley

    Next choice: The “Torch Flower”. Combines “torchness” and “flower of peace”. Has simplicity, flexibility, sends a message of peace, Vohra suggests, do we want to convey peace or action?

  240. Mike Shipley

    Mattson suggests that she prefers a logo that does not emphasize just one aspect of our platform. For example just having a gun would also be problematic.

  241. Mike Shipley

    Tomasso points out the imagery of the flower as a thing symbolizing growth, potential, creativity, the blossoming of the individual, and he likes it more than he dislikes it.

  242. paulie Post author

    How about focus on making better outreach material to hand out to the public

    Some work on that has been done. Part of the delay is in sticking the new logo, if there will be one, on the new materials before printing up large quantities (to get volume discounts).

  243. Mike Shipley

    Benedict speaks to the relative experience of the designers involved and that the flower examples shown were thrown together at 2am. We can work with whatever is picked.

  244. Mike Shipley

    (I might have been talked into being a bit of a Torch-Flower fan) … Moving on to the fourth choice: The L-Scissors …. It looks like an “LP” where the L is a pair of scissors symbolizing “cuts”. I am personally not a fan of this one at all. It’s a nice idea and I don’t know maybe could be improved but as it is, kind of looks like just a piece of free clip art that somebody pasted a P on.

  245. Matt Cholko

    Regarding outreach materials, I was able to find a translator to fix up the Agenda en Espanol (2014 platform, translated in Spanish) on lp.org, translate one of the general LP tri-fold brochures (that should be available very soon through LPUS) and translate the political puzzle brochure sold by LP Stuff. I need a graphic designer to help with that last one. So, if anybody knows someone who may want to help out, for free, please send them my way.

    Thanks for Stella Covre for translating and Wes Benedict for helping to make this stuff happen.

  246. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote:

    I hope someone at the LNC meeting brings up my P idea.

    Since no LNC member is bringing it up, I just emailed it to the whole LNC.

  247. Mike Shipley

    Sixth choice(? – I have lost count) …. Is the T-Torch …… It has the flame stylized onto the “T” in Libertarian with the liberty crown negative-spaced into the base of the flame. I like this one too!! I voted for this one in the informal poll that was taken in the social media group.

  248. paulie Post author

    I need a graphic designer to help with that last one. So, if anybody knows someone who may want to help out, for free, please send them my way.

    I know a lot of them thru the Design for Liberty group. I’m not a designer at all but spend a lot of time on there discussing and suggesting ideas. If you are willing to put in that kind of work we can add you to the group. They tend to remove people who don’t actively participate and I need to give Matt Hasty a heads up to add you if he doesn’t already know you.

  249. paulie Post author

    I think we’ll ideally want a lot of different materials translated, so I would suggest joining D4L but whether you really have time you want to put into it is obviously up to you.

  250. Mike Shipley

    The liberty silhouette is now on the screen. I like this one too, use it a lot already not only for AZLP but superimposed on a pink triangle for Outright. It’s versatile and looks sharp and also unobtrusive in the corner of a meme. I think that is what Andy Craig referred to earlier … I’ve kind of half made up my mind that if this committee picks something ugly I’ll just keep using this one.

  251. paulie Post author

    Since no LNC member is bringing it up, I just emailed it to the whole LNC.

    You may want to text a couple of people too since they may not be checking email.

  252. Mike Shipley

    The L Bell is being shown very clearly on the screen right now, next to the Moulton-P. This is the first time it has been shown large enough in the room to even see the Bell.

  253. Mike Shipley

    I don’t know what’s going on but it says my comments are being submitted but I’m not seeing them appear. I’m just going to keep posting and hope they are appearing elsewhere.

  254. paulie Post author

    Mike. Not sure why some of your comments were in spam. Hopefully I caught them all. Text me if it happens again 205-534-1622

  255. Mike Shipley

    Got it fixed, I can see my own comments and your replies now. The L-Stars are now on the screen. I like this one too!! The first time I saw it I was so caffeinated I couldn’t sit still long enough to count the stars but later that I day I finally figured out there are 50 of them.

  256. Mike Shipley

    The leaf-shaped liberty silhouette was just shown. I like that one too!! The time is nearly expired, brief choice between extending for 10 or 30, Redpath objects, extending for 10.

  257. Mike Shipley

    Scrolling through the remainder of submissions now just letting the members view the choices that didn’t get a lot of support from the design team but fairly ought to receive a view in this forum.

  258. Mike Shipley

    Arvin suggests a promotion where votes are cast by changing their profile image …… to signify buy-in and positive commitment to that logo. I think that’s a great idea also for the promotional aspect.

  259. Mike Shipley

    Mattson has concerns about using the logos for promotion before paying for them. Also that not everybody on social media uses it for politics and we may be omitting valuable voices with that tactic.

  260. paulie Post author

    Arvin suggests possibly having FB users vote by changing their profile pic to the one they like. Clever 🙂

    Alicia – Some people don’t really like to use FB for politics. Olsen – a lot of older people don’t use social media.

  261. Mike Shipley

    Benedict points out that choosing a few quality possibilities and sending them out with a fundraising letter might generate responses with checks in the envelope.

  262. paulie Post author

    Redpath – LNC should decide, not random people on FB some of whom may be against us rather than for us.

  263. Mike Shipley

    Redpath has reservations about having a public choice be binding. I can relate to that feeling. I believe in decentralization and all that but the public can be fickle and have very poor taste. This decision is too important for the whims of direct democracy.

  264. paulie Post author

    Mattson: Logo is not really our biggest problem. Maybe just tweak the current one. We just need something that is not horrible.

  265. Mike Shipley

    Sarwark reminds us that the target for new branding is non-Libertarians, who would necessarily be excluded from a vote limited to the membership.

  266. Mike Shipley

    There is tension between wanting time to decide, and needing to get the rebranding underway. Sarwark suggests a 10 minute recess for informal discussion and then start straw polling.

  267. paulie Post author

    McLendon wants to punt to next in-person meeting

    Goldstein wants it sooner rather than later for IT committee to get the website redesign process underway

  268. Mike Shipley

    Redpath moves to knock down the other new business and then come back to the logo: Convention oversight, LNC vacancy, next LNC meeting, I think something else. We are having a quick 5 minute recess first.

  269. paulie Post author

    In answer to your question, I dug out the attached amortization spreadsheet for the office mortgage. By changing the value of he additional bi-annual payment in cell B9, you can see what the remaining balance will be after ten years in cell B12. For example, if we make an extra $60,000 payment in December of odd-numbered years (as now specified in the Policy Manual), the balance would be paid off in less than ten years (i.e., cell B12 shows a negative balance of $6,808.21).

    If you zero out cell B9 so there are no extra payments towards the principal, the ten-year balloon balance is $367,741.21 in cell B12. If we were to instead make an extra $10,000 payment in April, 2015 (i.e., subtract an extra $10,000 in cell F16) it would reduce the ten-year balance to $352,282 in cell B12 (a savings of $15,459.21). On the other hand, if that same $10,000 extra payment is delayed three months to July, 2015 (i.e., subtract the $10,000 in cell F19) it produces a ten-year balance of $352,467.94 (a savings of $15,273.27). So the cost (at the end of the ten years) of delaying a $10,000 payment by three months is $185.94. You can play with the spreadsheet to plug in other extra payments at other times to see what the alternative results will be.

    The basic conclusion is that paying down the mortgage as soon as the funds come in to the building fund, rather than waiting to do so twice a year, will save us a few hundred dollars over the long tern (especially when done early in the ten-year period). It’s not a huge difference, but it’s not nothing. However, don’t empty out the building fund if there’s a potential for other expenses associated with the office move.

    Dan Wiener

  270. George Phillies

    Leigh,

    The training event appears to be very conservative-heavy.

    I trust conservatives about as far as I can throw a full-grown version of their proper logo, the wooly mammoth.

    George Phillies

  271. Andy Craig

    I agree with Sarwark the choice should be made today. Having another round of public comment and feedback isn’t going to bring much more in that hasn’t already been said. This whole thing has already dragged on for two years (!).

    If the concern is the new logo being unpopular, that’s just another reason to stick with some version of the Statue, ideally the Statue-silhouette Shipley and I referred to earlier. It’s easily adaptable, instantly recognizable as “Liberty”, the monochrome with the flowing robe looks good, and it keeps with the tradition of Statue-themed branding. The only thing I would change, other than maybe tweaking the flame and some of the details to make it scale better, is like Sarawak said gold and black isn’t the ideal color combo. But that design is easily used in whatever color desired, and I think looks best in simple black-on-white.

    The L-bell, though I can live with it, is a lot more likely to get some strong negative reactions. It seems to be a very much love-it-or-hate-it thing. The Statute (or torch) motifs won’t raise as much ire or controversy, because we already use those symbols. Whereas we haven’t really used the Liberty Bell in branding and promotional materials…. ever, really, so far as I know, unless you dig back into pre-history days before social media.

  272. Aaron Starr

    Chuck Moulton writes:

    “Starr purported to contract with an audit firm on behalf of the LNC (using Sarwark’s signature without authorization) in excess of the budgeted amount for the audit. Sarwark says that this exceeded the scope of the audit committee’s authority.”

    Chuck,

    Purported by you? Normally, I do not respond to baseless rumors, but in this case you have accused me of forgery, a criminal offense. And I see that at least one other person has repeated it, probably based on your post.

    The actual executed contract was emailed to the entire LNC on its public list on March 16. Anyone subscribed to that list can review the document and plainly see that I signed it with my signature in my capacity as Chair of the Audit Committee of the Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

    On what basis have you made this demonstrably false, libelous statement? If you were acting as your own attorney, what advice would you give to yourself at this time?

  273. Thomas L. Knapp

    I guess it’s not of earth-shaking importance, but I can’t see any good argument for abandoning the Statue of Liberty in some form as our logo.

    It’s instantly recognizable.

    It has a key part of our name in it.

    It evokes feelings/sentiments that tend to accord with our platform and our vision of what America should be like.

    And I’m pretty sure we’ve been using it for about 45 years now.

    Nothing wrong with either embellishing or simplifying it, but abandoning it just seems stump-stupid.

  274. Mike Shipley

    Credentials: 5 available, 4 elected: Kirkland, Kane, Johnson, Salvat and tie between Dunsing and Winneberry (?) …. need a runoff vote for the tie.

  275. paulie Post author

    Credentials tie for last (5th)

    Elected Kirkland, Kane, Johnson, Salvette

    Tie Beth Duensing, Steve Linnabary

  276. paulie Post author

    Oh, wow. I agree with Alicia Mattson! That’s probably not a first, but it’s unusual.

    I can also hear her a lot better today than usual. She’s often too quiet to hear during the broadcasts, or even in the room depending where you sit.

  277. paulie Post author

    Motion to make Linnabary alternate. No objection.

    Motion to make Salvette interim chair. No objection.

  278. Mike Shipley

    Bylaws: Golstein, Moulton, Mattson, Tomasso, Katz, Starr, Weiner, and two others I did not catch are elected by majority …. 10th position will require a runoff … Redpath moves to do a show of hands between the tie for next place.

  279. paulie Post author

    Motion to have approval voting 2nd round ballot

    Ahmad, Frollini, Shipley and House

    Motion to amend – show of hands .. still approval voting

  280. Andy Craig

    Was there a motion to table/delay the logo selection, or are they coming back to that?

    “We can’t make a decision so let’s just put it off to the next meeting.” is rather infuriating. What possible consideration could be raised in a month or two, that hasn’t already been hashed-over ad nauseum?

  281. paulie Post author

    Was there a motion to table/delay the logo selection, or are they coming back to that?

    Coming back towards end of meeting if I understood correctly.

  282. Mike Shipley

    Tomasso moves another round of approval voting between those with 6 or more votes. There is an objection, discussion on the motion, amended by substitution to a show of hands approval vote, that is seconded, the amendment passes, the motion is now to approval vote from Ahmad, House, Me and Ferlini, no objection, that will be the procedure. There’s a fifth name I didn’t catch. Ahmad: 9 votes, House, 7 votes, Shipley, 8 votes, I’m getting distracted. There is a motion to appoint me to the fifth spot but there’s a question about majority. Weiner speaks in favor of holding the spot open. They are moving to a vote on the appointment. Mattson amends by substitution a show of hands runoff approval voting with the three names, House, Shipley, I’m sorry I don’t know how to spell the other name. It passes and is now the main motion and taken without objection. I’m starting to lose track but now it’s between myself and House, we tied again. Now it’s just a straight show of hands by plurality. House is elected, three of us are named alternates.

  283. Mike Shipley

    That entire little scene was pure wonk bliss!! I am honored to serve as an alternate to this committee, thank you everyone for making space for newer voices at this table. #PorcupineLove

  284. houselynn2

    I am looking forward to serving my third term on the Platform Committee. Mike, I would have been happy whichever way they went. I think you’d be a fine addition to the committee.

    Lynn House

  285. Chuck Moulton

    There were ties for some position in the convention committees and some people who didn’t get a majority. Mattson will produce a run-off ballot while people do the logo discussion.

    Credentials (4 elected, 2 way tie for 5th with majority):
    Vicki Kirkland (FL) – 16
    Mike Kane (FL) – 14
    Gary Johnson (TX) – 13
    Emily Salvette (MI) – 12
    Beth Duensing (IN) – 10
    Steve Linnabary (OH) – 10
    Roger – 5
    Colin Nicol (LA) – 1
    Joseph Wendt (FL) – 1
    Zachary – 1

    Beth Duensing (IN)
    Gary Johnson (TX)
    Mike Kane (FL)
    Vicki Kirkland (FL)
    Steve Linnabary (OH)
    Colin Nicol (LA)
    Roger Roots (MT)
    Emily Salvette (MI)
    Michael Schoenike (MT)
    Lorence Wenke (MI)
    Michelle Wesnofske (TN)
    Zachary Yutzy (OH)

    Redpath moves to resolve the tie through a coin flip to resolve the tie. Johnson moves the LNC use a show of hands instead. Redpath withdraws his motion.

    Tiebreak:
    Beth Duensing (IN) – 8
    Steve Linnabary (OH) – 5

    Goldstein moves that Emily Salvette be interim chair. It passes without objection.

    Credentials committee:
    Vicki Kirkland (FL)
    Mike Kane (FL)
    Gary Johnson (TX)
    Emily Salvette (MI) (interim-chair)
    Beth Duensing (IN)
    Steve Linnabary (OH) (alternate)

    Bylaws (9 elected, no majority for the rest):
    Sam Goldstein (IN) – 13
    Dan Karlan (NJ) – 13
    Chuck Moulton (VA) – 12
    Alicia Mattson (NV) – 11
    Rich Tomasso (NH) – 11
    Joshua Katz (CT) – 10
    Joshua Katz (CT) – 10
    Aaron Starr (CA) – 10
    Dan Wiener (CA) – 10
    Jeff Orrok (CO) – 9
    M Carling (WA) – 8
    Matt Wittlief (IN) – 8
    Daniel Hayes (LA) – 6
    Jim Fulner (MI) – 4
    Richard Burke (OR) – 4
    Joseph Wendt (FL) – 2
    Starchild (CA) – 2
    Zachary Yutzy (OH) – 1

    Redpath moves for a show of hands to fill the 10th seat between M Carling and Matt Wittlief. It passes without objection.

    Tiebreak:
    M Carling (WA) – 10
    Matt Wittlief (IN) – 3

    Without objection Matt Wittlief is designated as an alternate.

    Nominations for interim chair: Chuck Moulton,

    Interim chair:
    Chuck Moulton (VA) – ?
    Aaron Starr (CA) – 4

    Bylaws committee:
    Sam Goldstein (IN)
    Dan Karlan (NJ)
    Chuck Moulton (VA) (interim chair)
    Alicia Mattson (NV)
    Rich Tomasso (NH)
    Joshua Katz (CT)
    Joshua Katz (CT)
    Aaron Starr (CA)
    Dan Wiener (CA)
    Jeff Orrok (CO)
    M Carling (WA)
    Matt Wittlief (IN) (alternate)

    Platform (3 elected, lots without a majority for the remaining 2 slots):
    Guy McLendon (LA) – 12
    Alicia Mattson (NV) – 11
    Hollie Ryan (VA) – 10
    Dean Ahmad (MD) – 8
    Lynn House (FL) – 8
    Mike Shipley (AZ) – 8
    Nick Frollini (PA) – 6
    Andy LeCureaux (MI) – 6
    Chris Colvin (MT) – 4
    Bill Hajdu (CA) – 3
    Roland Riemers (ND) – 3
    Thomas Knapp (FL) – 3
    Starchild (CA) – 3
    Fred Stitt (CA?) – 2
    James Felber (TX) – 2
    Tom Lippman (CA) – 2
    Alexander Pease (RI) – 2
    Jeffry Sanford (LA) – 2
    Zachary Yutzy (OH) – 2
    David Williams (CO) – 2

    Run off ballot (with approval voting) between … Show of hands instead (with approval voting).

    Run off vote:
    Dean Ahmad (MD) – 9
    Lynn House (FL) – 7
    Mike Shipley (AZ) – 8
    Nick Frollini (PA) – 5
    Andy LeCureaux (MI) – 7

    Redpath moves to appoint Mike Shipley to the last slot. Mattson moves to substitute a show of hands run off between Lynn House, Mike Shipley, and Andy LeCureaux. The substitute motion passes by a show of hands. The motion as substituted passes without objection.

    Run off vote:
    Mike Shipley (AZ) – 8
    Lynn House (FL) – 8
    Andy LeCureaux (MI) – 5

    Redpath moves to have a show of hands between Mike Shipley and Lynn House. It passes without objection.

    Run off vote:
    Mike Shipley (AZ) – 7
    Lynn House (FL) – 8

    Hagan moves to appoint Mike Shipley as an alternate. Goldstein moves a substitute to appoint 3 alternates in ranked order:
    Mike Shipley (AZ)
    Nick Frollini (PA)
    Andy LeCureaux (MI)

    Mattson nominates herself for interim-chair of the platform committee. McLendon nominates himself for interim-chair of the platform committee, then withdraws his nomination. Mattson is selected as interim-chair of the platform committee by acclimation.

    Platform committee:
    Guy McLendon (LA)
    Alicia Mattson (NV) (interim-chair)
    Hollie Ryan (VA)
    Dean Ahmad (MD)
    Lynn House (FL)
    Mike Shipley (AZ) (alternate)
    Nick Frollini (PA) (alternate)
    Andy LeCureaux (MI) (alternate)

    Convention oversight committee non-LNC members (selected by LNC chair):
    Audrey Capozzi (FL)
    JJ McCurry (FL)
    Bette-Rose Ryan (AZ)

  286. Chuck Moulton

    Aaron Starr wrote:

    Purported by you? Normally, I do not respond to baseless rumors, but in this case you have accused me of forgery, a criminal offense. And I see that at least one other person has repeated it, probably based on your post.

    Not purported by me. I was attempting to summarize what Sarwark said. I am not fast enough to transcribe verbatim. There is a video of this meeting archived. I will review that video when the meeting is over and see if I can find a more accurate summary or quote of what was said. Until such time as I am able to do that, I will edit my previous comment to remove that statement.

  287. Mike Shipley

    I am missing why this is such a contentious vote. Is it the risk of offending two very qualified people or is it because the position itself is politicized?

  288. paulie Post author

    Chuck @ 13:32

    I am missing the prior posts you and Aaron are responding to. That is I don’t see a post by Aaron at all, other than you quoting him, and don’t know what he is referring to.

  289. Mike Shipley

    OK I get it now …… I didn’t realize we had moved on to the LNC vacancy. I thought we were still talking about convention oversight. Duh!!

  290. paulie Post author

    I am missing why this is such a contentious vote. Is it the risk of offending two very qualified people or is it because the position itself is politicized?

    Probably some of both

  291. Aaron Starr

    Chuck, Nick Sarwark never stated that. I am here at the meeting. It’s not enough to edit the comment; I want a retraction.

  292. Chuck Moulton

    LNC at-large vacancy nominations:
    Doug Craig
    Joshua Katz

    Johnson moves for a roll call vote. It fails by a show of hands. (I was not fast enough to write down the roll call.) The vote will therefore be by ballot.

    Doug Craig – 11
    Joshua Katz – 3

    Doug Craig is appointed to fill the at-large vacancy.

  293. Chuck Moulton

    Aaron Starr wrote:

    Chuck, Nick Sarwark never stated that. I am here at the meeting. It’s not enough to edit the comment; I want a retraction.

    If he never said it, I will retract what I wrote — though it was not intended to be a “statement”, but rather a summary of what I heard. As I said, I need to review the video, which I will do at the conclusion of the meeting.

    Actually, I will review the video now that the LNC is in recess.

  294. paulie Post author

    Chuck,

    My recollection is that Aaron is correct.

    Your summary was that Nick said that Aaron signed it with Nick’s signature. What I recall Nick actually saying is that Aaron signed it, without any consultation or authorization, on behalf of the audit committee and then presented it to the LNC as a done deal. However, I do not recall Nick ever alleging that Aaron forged Nick’s signature. I believe that portion of your summary, which you now removed, was not completely accurate. I recall noticing it at the time and then forgetting to get back to addressing it now that you and Aaron have refreshed my memory.

  295. Aaron Starr

    Paulie, Chuck posted the libelous statement at 11:29 am. He has now edited, which he is free to do. He then edited my 12:43 pm post, which he did without my permission. Stewart Flood has repeated the libelous statement, most likely based on Chuck’s posting.

    I will not tolerate being accused of a criminal act. I want a full retraction.

  296. paulie Post author

    I don’t think Chuck intentionally misrepresented what Nick said, I can see why people would have a hard time with following and transcribing everything with computer speakers, ustream audio, multitasking etc. But I do see why Aaron would take offense at the suggestion that he signed Nick’s signature rather than his own.

  297. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m just starting to read comments, but why is Joshua Katz listed twice on the bylaus committee?

  298. paulie Post author

    Aaron:

    I agree that any suggestion that you forged Nick’s signature should be fully retracted. I understand that Chuck wants a chance to rewind the tape and watch it again first.

    I don’t know why your comment was edited by anyone other than you; Chuck, or whoever did that, can and should address that separately.

  299. paulie Post author

    I’m just starting to read comments, but why is Joshua Katz listed twice on the bylaus committee?

    Dunno. Most likely a typo.

  300. Aaron Starr

    I am here in the room with Nick Sarwark. In case I happened to be out of the room at the time, I just confirmed with him that he never stated that I forged his signature.

    Chuck, I want a full retraction.

  301. paulie Post author

    Looking at the history of Aaron’s comment at 12:43 it appears that what Chuck edited was Aaron’s quote of Chuck’s own comment which Chuck also edited when the error was pointed out.

    This is getting too complicated, but the bottom line is that I believe it was an almost certainly an inadvertent mistake by Chuck in transcribing what Nick said, which he will correct when he gets a chance to watch the archived video; right now he has it “pending review.”

  302. Nicholas Sarwark

    Let me clarify, I did not ever say or suggest that Mr. Starr used my signature without authorization. I don’t know if it was bad sound or whatever that led to that confusion.

  303. paulie Post author

    I am here in the room with Nick Sarwark. In case I happened to be out of the room at the time, I just confirmed with him that he never stated that I forged his signature.

    I can confirm I can hear that on the speakers right now.

  304. paulie Post author

    Those will be the 3 without objection

    Winger and myself appointed as the non-LNC members

    Redpath is chair

  305. Chuck Moulton

    Aaron Starr wrote:
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/03/lnc-meeting-mar-28-29-2015-phoenix/#comment-1147732

    Purported by you? Normally, I do not respond to baseless rumors, but in this case you have accused me of forgery, a criminal offense. And I see that at least one other person has repeated it, probably based on your post.

    The actual executed contract was emailed to the entire LNC on its public list on March 16. Anyone subscribed to that list can review the document and plainly see that I signed it with my signature in my capacity as Chair of the Audit Committee of the Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

    On what basis have you made this demonstrably false, libelous statement? If you were acting as your own attorney, what advice would you give to yourself at this time?

    I misheard what Sarwark said, and therefore my earlier summary was in error and I retract it.

    My earlier comment (incorrect, and retracted):
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/03/lnc-meeting-mar-28-29-2015-phoenix/#comment-1146233

    Sarwark handed the gavel to the vice-chair and is speaking to the motion. Starr purported to contract with an audit firm on behalf of the LNC (using Sarwark’s signature without authorization) in excess of the budgeted amount for the audit. Sarwark says that this exceeded the scope of the audit committee’s authority.

    I misheard whose signature was on the document. When originally listening to the video the words “of the audit committee” did not register with me, which was my error (it is difficult to follow the audio at times). I heard Starr signed a document as chair that spoke for the LNC, then I heard that Sarwark didn’t authorize the signature, and I made the mistaken inference that Starr had signed as chair of the LNC, which he did not. Therefore my summary was incorrect.

    The word “purported” is supported by the transcript. Sarwark said “the contract which was purported to be executed by Mr. Starr”.

    The words “on behalf of the LNC” is supported by the transcript. Sarwark quoted “This letter correctly sets out the understanding of Libertarian National Committee, Inc.”

    The words “in excess of the budgeted amount for the audit” is supported by the transcript. Sarwark said “that contract is for $15,000, which exceeds the budget”.

    The words “Sarwark says this exceeded the scope of the audit committee’s authority” is supported by the transcript. Sarwark said “This violates at least 2 policy manual provisions that I’m aware of.” and made other statements about that outside of this excerpt.

    The relevant excerpt is at 22:00-24:00:
    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/60461866

    Sarwark said (transcription from the video):

    You’ll note at the end of page 4 in the second item of tab 5 that the response is that ‘This letter correctly sets out the understanding of Libertarian National Committee, Inc.’ over officer signature Mr. Starr as is titled chair of the audit committee of the Libertarian National Committee, executed on March 20, 2015. I did not authorize that signature to be placed on that contract, and that contract is for $15,000, which exceeds the budget — Mr. Hagan, it’s 13.5k, correct? — which was authorized by the LNC for the audit… even going 10% over it’s 14,850, which is still under the contract which was purported to be executed by Mr. Starr. This violates at least 2 policy manual provisions that I’m aware of. It also — should Mr. Benedict have executed any checks or sent any money — there is a policy manual provision which would subject him to dismissal as executive director for spending in excess of the budgeted amount.

  306. paulie Post author

    Mattson, Goldstein opposed

    Vohra, Redpath, McLendon in favor

    Wiener N
    Lark Y
    Olsen Y
    Kirkland Y
    Tomasso N
    Hagan N
    Sarwark Y
    Mattson Y

    11 Y 5 N

  307. Aaron Starr

    Chuck wrote: “I misheard what Sarwark said, and therefore my earlier summary was in error and I retract it.”

    Thank you.

  308. Mike Shipley

    Logo back up for discussion. Entering a straw poll phase …… passing through approval-voting style seeking a simple majority to stay in the running.

    Torch Eagle – Yes
    L-Bell – No
    Scissor-L – No
    LP Squiggle – No

  309. Mike Shipley

    (my yes/no’s above were based on visual assessment of whether it had majority. apparently those were not final decisions) ……. stay tuned.

  310. Mike Shipley

    There is some kind of heavy equipment outside the door behind me and I’m having trouble hearing. There weren’t enough with a majority so they’re going through the number of votes for each. I have no idea what’s going on.

  311. Mike Shipley

    Nick just read a list out loud that went by too fast, it was everything from Rosie and the Torch Flower on up the list from there (five votes or more) I visually counted 8 or more as a majority for a “Yes” … so basically those are at this point nonsensical to what actually occurred. DERP!!

  312. Chuck Moulton

    I missed some of these votes, but here are the tallies I saw.

    Logos (approval voting):
    Torch eagle – 9
    L-bell: 6
    Circle squiggle – 4
    Torch flower – 5
    Crown torch T – 11
    Charging torch – 4
    5 S flame – 0
    Zippo lighter torch – 0
    Negative space L 50 stars – 3
    Vertical name statue – 9
    LP Leaf – 0
    Stars & flame over T – 4
    Retention of current logo (option of modifying) – 9
    Prior statue of liberty logo (pre-2005) – 9
    Shark bite (Chuck’s modified liberty bell) – ?
    Texas Rosie the Riveter – ?

    8 of the logos were supported 5 and above, and therefore will be considered at a future electronic meeting.

  313. Stewart Flood

    Starchild: “Stewart – By “investor” here do you mean simply “donor”? Or do you really mean investor? The distinction seems critical.”

    You have to follow the money. Brett Pojunis has a company called “Big L Solutions”. It is running the event called LPEX. Norm Olsen told me personally that he is an investor in Brett’s company.

    Norm was one of Brett’s first victims.

  314. paulie Post author

    That doesn’t really answer if he gets a cut of the profits, if there are any. I think the answer is yes, but I don’t know for sure.

  315. Jill Pyeatt

    I agree that the distinction between “investor” and “donor” does seem important.

    FYI: the question has been asked by several people whether the LP of CA has any financial committment to LPEX. The answer, of course, has been silence. I hope that means “No”.

  316. paulie Post author

    Sarwark, Lark that LPAZ for hosting LNC

    Thanks Emily Goldberg for organizing reception, shuttling LNC to botanical gardens, etc

  317. paulie Post author

    Shipley says Outright Libertarians are happy with recent direction of the party and making it more friendly to people coming from the left, platform alternate appointment

  318. paulie Post author

    I missed some stuff on logo but I believe they said they will also do some kind of fundraiser/questionnaire on the website and/or snail mail, in addition to LNC members considering logos, although the final decision will be up to LNC.

  319. Chuck Moulton

    Thanks to Paulie and Mike for your live blogging!

    Sorry for any inaccuracies or oversights in my own reporting, including my unfortunate summary regarding Aaron Starr, which I have retracted.

  320. paulie Post author

    We all make mistakes … I am sure I made some, so I apologize for whatever they were, although I don’t know what all of them were exactly.

  321. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ve been quiet about the logo contest because I don’t love any of them. That kind of bothers me–whatever we decide on needs to jump out and speak to lots of people. That doesn’t seem to be happening, which makes me hope we keep looking..

  322. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m pleased to read that the weekend seemed to be quite productive. Congrats to all involved!

    And thanks to Mike, Chuck, and of course Paulie for live-blogging.

    I’m hoping to recruit someone to liveblog the CA convention. I expect to be a bit too involved in the day’s events, which will undoubtedly go by very quickly, to be able to consistently report. A little bird has told me to expect fireworks. If anyone is willing to help with blogging, that would be excellent.

    It will be May 31 in Las Vegas.

  323. Mark Axinn

    Regarding committees:

    Both Alicia and Emily have done superb jobs in the past on Platform and Credentials, and the LP is fortunate to have these two highly competent, hard-working women as Chairs of those two committees once again.

    I know IPR readers will be pleased with someone as skilled as Chuck as Chair of By-laws and of course no one should be leading Ballot Access more than Bill Redpath.

    My only quibble is with the erroneous listing of Audrey Capozzi as FL on the Convention Oversight Committee.

    Like Vicki, Audrey will always be a New Yorker. As we all know, Boca Raton is only a suburb of NYC anyway.

  324. Rob Banks

    New York is like the qualifying round for Florida. If you start in NY and stay in the game long enough Florida is where you end up 🙂

  325. Nicholas Sarwark

    You have to follow the money. Brett Pojunis has a company called “Big L Solutions”. It is running the event called LPEX. Norm Olsen told me personally that he is an investor in Brett’s company.

    My understanding was that LPEX was being run under a separate LLC specifically created for the event, not by Big L Solutions.

  326. Joe Wendt

    Sad I didn’t get appointed to either the Credentials or Bylaws committee, but am pleased and feel honored that I did win 1 vote to be on the credentials committee and 2 votes to be on bylaws committee :). Hopefully next time I’ll do better.

  327. Stewart Flood

    A separate LLC, but probably tied to Big L since they did the website. Whether it is or isn’t, Brett taking a financial hit will affect Big L, and therefore his investors.

    That aside, LPEX is not run by the LSLA. They gave eight thousand dollars to LPEX for the “opportunity” to fund raise at the event. Since the money the LSLA paid was from attendees to previous LSLA events and vendors at the national convention, asking the attendees this year to give money is insulting. The first eight thousand they contribute is really just going into LPEX — and therefore to Brett and his investors. That’s assuming that anything is raised at all. I seriously doubt it.

    Asking the LNC pay to have a booth after the LNC gave the LSLA the booth sales last year that raised most of the eight thousand that Pojunis already took is also insulting. Agreeing to pay for a booth was not a good decision. I realize that it was a tough decision, but I believe you made the wrong one.

  328. Stewart Flood

    Another possibility: LPEX may be paying Big L for web design and hosting. It is a private LLC, so you can’t get the records, but I’d bet that invoice will be at least five to ten thousand dollars. If LPEX actually brings in money, they’ll probably pad the invoice by giving Big L a commission for sales.

    Follow the money. It goes back to Big L. We know how Pojunis operates.

  329. Starchild

    Joe – I’m sorry you didn’t get appointed too. I am glad newcomer Mike Shipley did get on Platform, at least as an alternate; maybe there are other folks who haven’t served before too. But I think the vast majority of those appointed have been in these positions before.

    Given how often many of the same folks tend to get appointed to convention committees year after year, it seems to me that reform is needed.

    While the “usual suspects” tend to be long-time, committed party members, and some of them are very capable people whose priorities I tend to agree with, it is in the interests of the party to have a greater number of folks given the opportunity to serve, and to build a “farm team” of people who have expertise working for the LP in various capacities.

    Here are a few specific ways the issue could be addressed:


    • A prohibition on any individual serving on more than one convention committee at the same time

    • A weighted voting system that gives preference to those who haven’t served before, or who haven’t served recently

    • Term limits on how many years a person can either serve on, or chair, a given committee, either in a row or within a fixed time period

    Unfortunately these changes would require Bylaws amendments — thus we are in a Catch-22 situation.

  330. paulie Post author

    Unfortunately, the sad reality is that a lot of people flake out from these responsibilities after being elected. That is a major reason why proven people are the go to option most of the time, even if they are far from perfect. It would be great if we had a lot of qualified applicants who were actually both willing and able to do all the work, but it’s hard to know which ones they are.

  331. Starchild

    Tom Knapp (March 29, 2015 at 12:45 pm) nicely articulated my own feelings on the logo:

    “I can’t see any good argument for abandoning the Statue of Liberty in some form as our logo.

    It’s instantly recognizable.

    It has a key part of our name in it.

    It evokes feelings/sentiments that tend to accord with our platform and our vision of what America should be like.

    And I’m pretty sure we’ve been using it for about 45 years now.

    Nothing wrong with either embellishing or simplifying it, but abandoning it just seems stump-stupid.”

    I’m not crazy about the existing Statue of Liberty logo however, and have the same concerns voiced at this meeting by Bill Redpath (Liberty’s face in shadow sends the wrong message).

    I do like the Texas LP’s graphic combining the classic “Rosie the Riveter” image with the Statue of Liberty, as shown by Aaron Starr during public comment at the beginning of Sunday’s LNC session, and feel something along these lines has excellent potential as a party logo.

    This doesn’t mean I oppose other logo designs being used as Libertarian graphics or symbols of course — in general I favor the “let 1,000 flowers bloom” approach, and encourage people to create their own graphics to promote the cause.

  332. Starchild

    Paulie writes (regarding people serving on convention committees, March 29, 2015 at 6:44 pm)“Unfortunately, the sad reality is that a lot of people flake out from these responsibilities after being elected.”

    There are ways that issue could be addressed. For instance, prohibiting people who don’t follow through from being appointed again for some length of time. But bottom line (which we know as libertarians!) is that people are individuals. We should not treat LP members prejudicially just because they are not longtime insiders.

    My sense is that people who aren’t well-known by LNC members are generally given little consideration even if they may be well-known as activists or candidates by other LP members in their own states.

    Requiring (or at least asking) committee applicants to include their Nolan Chart scores with their applications, especially for Platform Committee, could help.

  333. Darryl W. Perry

    Unfortunately, the sad reality is that a lot of people flake out from these responsibilities after being elected. That is a major reason why proven people are the go to option most of the time, even if they are far from perfect. It would be great if we had a lot of qualified applicants who were actually both willing and able to do all the work, but it’s hard to know which ones they are.
    It would be great if there was a technology that allowed people to have a meeting without the need for all of the members to spend hundreds of dollars traveling to the same location!

    Seriously, the financial cost prohibits most party members who would otherwise be interested in serving from even applying.

  334. Starchild

    Mark Axinn writes (March 29, 2015 at 3:25 pm), “Regarding committees: Both Alicia and Emily have done superb jobs in the past on Platform and Credentials, and the LP is fortunate to have these two highly competent, hard-working women as Chairs of those two committees once again.”

    From what I’ve heard I generally agree in the case of Emily Salvette, although I have not served on the Credentials Committee myself. While the seating of Oregon delegates was mishandled, she was not responsible for that if I recall correctly.

    In the case of Alicia Mattson however, I disagree. The LP secretary is certainly intelligent, competent, and and hard-working. No one can dispute that. However she is also strongly anti-transparency, and I believe she has abused her position as Platform Committee chair in the past.

    Last term when I was an alternate on the committee, she sent out a biased, leading survey to thousands of party members without authorization from the committee, or even consulting the full committee. Then she refused to share the full raw data results, even with other committee members, on the grounds of not wanting to reveal the identity of respondents. Nor was that the first time that she has been responsible for similarly abusing the survey process. She has been advised multiple times in the past to word surveys in such a way that the feedback garnered can be shared unless a respondent specifically asks his or her feedback to be kept secret, and has evidently refused to do so.

    I am sorry to see that she has been appointed interim Platform Committee chair, in addition to serving on the Bylaws Committee. The secretary position by itself is plenty of power enough for one person; it may be the second most powerful office in the party after the chair. I would strongly urge members of the Platform Committee not to appoint Ms. Mattson as the permanent chair of the committee.

  335. paulie Post author

    Platform and Bylaws typically have one single in-person meeting each other than at the convention itself. Most of their work is over email or other web based platforms.

  336. Starchild

    Please note also Chuck Moulten’s comment (March 28, 2015 at 2:25 am):

    “The secretary’s lack of transparency has prevented members from providing input to their representatives on how they should vote for committees.”

  337. Mark Axinn

    New York will continue to use the Statue of Liberty as the symbol of the Libertarian Party as we have for the last 43 years.

    Taking her out of shadow is a good idea, but jettisoning the only symbol most people associate with the LP, to the degree people even know who we are, is not wise.

  338. Vicki Kirkland

    Mark, I’m glad LPNY will continue to use the Statue of Liberty. I agree with your rationale.

  339. Nicholas Sarwark

    Asking the LNC pay to have a booth after the LNC gave the LSLA the booth sales last year that raised most of the eight thousand that Pojunis already took is also insulting. Agreeing to pay for a booth was not a good decision. I realize that it was a tough decision, but I believe you made the wrong one.

    I consider it important to back up the unanimous decision of the Affiliate Support Committee on how to spend affiliate support funds. If it turns out to be a bad choice, we’ll learn from it, but I’m trying to encourage more swings so we can get more hits, even if it necessarily means we’ll get more strikes.

  340. Starchild

    Darryl W. Perry writes (March 29, 2015 at 7:14 pm), “It would be great if there was a technology that allowed people to have a meeting without the need for all of the members to spend hundreds of dollars traveling to the same location! Seriously, the financial cost prohibits most party members who would otherwise be interested in serving from even applying.”

    I agree, Darryl. Obviously the technology exists — but implementing it so that remote meetings by videoconference can become a routine and smoothly functioning option has not seemed to be a high LNC or staff priority.

    I’m generally in favor of looking for volunteer solutions to technical issues first before expending party funds that can be better used to spread the message of liberty, but I would much rather see the LP spend money on a working off-the-shelf technical solution to the videoconferencing issue than pay $2500 per LNC meeting for expensive hotel meeting rooms and other meeting-related expenses. (That’s the figure I was quoted last term by LP operations director Robert Kraus when I complained about too much money being wasted on meetings and tried to get the numbers nailed down, and is in addition to what LNC members have to spend out of pocket to get to meetings and for accommodations).

  341. Ken Moellman

    If a party logo switch is to be made, and I’m not really all that hot about such a change, I’d definitely say that the L with the outline of the liberty bell as the negative image is by far the best design I’ve seen.

  342. paulie Post author

    Video conferencing technology is now being used by the LNC for e-meetings. As far as I know it has only been tested so far, not used in an actual e-meeting that took any actions, but the May meeting for logo design selection will presumably be done this way.

  343. Thomas L. Knapp

    Just to take a break from being a Negative Nelly on transparency issues:

    Thanks to a number of people, to especially include the IPR crew and Starchild, LNC has become MUCH more transparent since about 2008.

    IPR started making an effort to live-blog, and later live-stream, LNC meetings. At first there were complaints and resistance. Now there aren’t. If I’m not mistaken, it’s actually policy to live-stream them.

    Starchild carried the torch for making the LNC’s work email list publicly accessible. Now it is.

    Committee reports used to be invisible. Now they’re available for discussion, if anyone cares to discuss them.

    Thanks to everyone who made this happen.

    Vis a vis transparency, my only real remaining complaint is the continuing abuse of executive session to hide things that aren’t legitimately covered by it (e.g the use of executive session to verbally harass and abuse Rachel Hawkridge, out of public sight, for asking questions about what appeared to be — but turned out not to be — an illegal and/or undisclosed campaign donation; the in camera portions of the “trial” of Angela Keaton; etc.).

    On that issue, there are a couple of ways to go.

    One is, as I have suggested, amending the bylaws to prohibit executive session, and keeping that bylaws amendment until the LNC makes a convincing argument that it’s reformed itself and can be trusted not to abuse it.

    The other is for LNC members themselves, perhaps with the encouragement of the chair, to straighten the hell up and stop abusing the privilege.

  344. paulie Post author

    At first there were complaints and resistance. Now there aren’t.

    There are still complaints, but this term they are a minority.

    If I’m not mistaken, it’s actually policy to live-stream them.

    Thanks to Nick and a majority vote of the LNC, albeit with some vocal dissenters, it is now indeed being done by the party itself rather than just whenever volunteers happen to be able to make the meetings, have webcams available and be able to catch motel wifi or use phones as tethers.

    Starchild carried the torch for making the LNC’s work email list publicly accessible. Now it is.

    Yes. Last term Starchild and I were in the minority on that; this term Nick had a majority, although not anything like unanimous (most of the losing side have generally accepted their loss on the issue for this term, but Dr. Lieberman still makes a regular issue of it).

    Thanks to everyone who made this happen.

    It’s been a long fight, and I don’t know if it’s done yet (we’ll see how things go in upcoming LNC terms), but I too am encouraged by the progress we have made on this. Thank you to everyone who joined me in this effort over the years and don’t become too complacent just yet! 🙂

  345. Nicholas Sarwark

    IPR started making an effort to live-blog, and later live-stream, LNC meetings. At first there were complaints and resistance. Now there aren’t. If I’m not mistaken, it’s actually policy to live-stream them.

    It’s not required by the policy manual, but it is required by this Chair.

    The other is for LNC members themselves, perhaps with the encouragement of the chair, to straighten the hell up and stop abusing the privilege.

    I am very judicious with the use of executive session and was disinclined to have the morning one on Saturday. On the other hand, if the committee votes to override me, I will abide by their decision. It did take a second vote to go into executive session on Saturday morning, and it was close. I consider that progress.

  346. Nicholas Sarwark

    I would also like to publicly recognize that it’s only thanks to the willingness of this LNC to read the reports ahead of time, show up on time to meetings, and remain focused on the business at hand that every meeting this term has finished in the morning or very early afternoon on Sunday.

  347. Stewart Flood

    In my comment, which I made in reply to someone else’s statement of what was going on, I included “(that is what supposedly happened?) ” which should make it clear that I was not sure what happened. Exceeding the authorized spending limit is the issue. If it wasn’t authorized, so the contract should be invalid.

  348. paulie Post author

    It was authorized after the fact by a subsequent vote of the LNC this weekend, so while I agree with you that it shouldn’t have been deemed valid the way it was done, at this point it’s moot.

  349. Stewart Flood

    Nicholas Sarwark: “I consider it important to back up the unanimous decision of the Affiliate Support Committee on how to spend affiliate support funds. If it turns out to be a bad choice, we’ll learn from it, but I’m trying to encourage more swings so we can get more hits, even if it necessarily means we’ll get more strikes.”

    I agree with you that actually have the national party do things to support affiliates is the right thing to do. The affiliate support committee did not exist until I lobbied the votes to create it five years ago. But the intent of the committee was to have it populated by the regional representatives and pull them together to actually work on support for the state parties.

    The committee was changed the next term into something else. It doesn’t really do support for affiliates, but just appears to talk about ways to spend money. Now they have money in the budget, which leads to the question that if this money is out of budgeted funds, why was the LNC voting on it?

    My guess is that staff gave the opinion that it was a bad idea. Perhaps the concern that paying training organizations with heavy ties to right wing conservatives and populating panels with more right wing conservatives was something they considered. Maybe they also considered the fact that the LSLA, the organization previously tasked with internal training and leadership growth, gave all their money to Pojunis’ LPEX in trade for the “opportunity” to fund raise at the event. I would hope that the LNC considered all of this, as well as the fact that LSLA events normally have between 50-125 people in attendance, making your per person cost potentially as high as $30 per person. And these people will already be members of the party, so I doubt they’ll want to sign the pledge at the booth.

    We ran an LSLA conference in Charleston. We started with about a thousand dollars to work with and ended with about two thousand. This was years ago, so I can’t recall the actual numbers. It was an average LSLA, so there were good sessions and “not as good” sessions as you normally find. If we had been given the opportunity to run an event with eight thousand in the treasury and another three from national…wow! I wonder what the LSLA could have done this year if they had organized it themselves — perhaps in a city less remote and that hadn’t been used for events so often in the past few years.

  350. Stewart Flood

    Paulie: “at this point it’s moot.”

    I agree that it is moot. Unfortunately, so is LPEX. 🙁

  351. Mark Axinn

    Stewart:

    I hope you’re wrong. In fact, I hope everyone who predicts failure is wrong and LPEX is a resounding success so LSLA can get its money back (what other organization foolishly agreed to donate 95% of its assets to a single conference?) and also that way Brett and LPNV can enjoy their success.

  352. Stewart Flood

    Please don’t misunderstand me. I do not want to see the LSLA to loose their money, but the situation they put themselves in isn’t good. The pool of potential contributors at LPEX is comprised almost entirely of the same people who gave them the money they gave Brett — for the purpose of being permitted to beg for more money!

    Brett worked a fantastic deal for himself. Regardless of how LPEX does financially, the LSLA only gets what they manage to make in donations at the dinner. He gets to keep the $8K, as well as the $3K the LNC just forked over.

    And who will know what LPEX makes? Brett. It is a private LLC, with no accountability to anyone other than the owners of the LLC.

  353. paulie Post author

    agreed to donate 95% of its assets to a single conference

    “Or here’s another alternative
    We take 95% of your company and you take 5”
    -Geto Boys, Do It Like a GO

  354. Marc Montoni

    Knapp said:

    And I want you to stop trying to destroy the LP, Aaron.

    I don’t think he’s *trying* to destroy it.

    But with membership down to a 22-yar low, and almost all of the changes he wanted now implemented (to the platform, bylaws, which presidential candidates we choose, how most of our candidates don’t say anything edgy/radical, etc), I have to wonder just what it is he thinks he’s accomplishing.

    The LP is being hollowed-out but no one seems to think that’s a rather more desperate problem.

  355. paulie Post author

    I don’t think Aaron is even close to getting all the changes he wants on platform, bylaws, etc.

    In other LNC meeting related news:


    Alicia Mattson to LNC

    LNC Colleagues (cc: Debbie Schum),

    Below I have copy/pasted the section from the draft minutes regarding the election of the Platform Committee.

    When the tellers handed me the tally sheets, I should have insisted that I be given a few minutes to copy all the results into my minutes and get them all sorted in descending order before reading the numbers out loud…but there were over 30 names for the Platform Committee. In an attempt to do things a little more quickly I just read the results directly off the tally sheets, though they were not sorted by vote totals. I visually looked for the top-vote-getter and then continued to just visually scan for the next ones below that. Well, I screwed up, as you’ll see below.

    There were THREE names that I did not initially read aloud during the results for Platform Committee, though they had non-zero vote totals. I caught one of them at the time we had a motion for a runoff between the remaining candidates with 6 or more votes each, and we added him to the runoff. One of the other two I missed also had 6 votes. Debbie Schum should have been included in that runoff, but she wasn’t because I overlooked her.

    It is not possible to say with certainty where she would have wound up, had she been included in the runoff. The relative rankings of others changed during the runoff. The other two people who had at least 6 round-one votes ended up being ranked as alternates.

    It could be that had we realized there were three with 6 votes, we might have made 8 votes the cutoff point and ranked only one alternate. Or it could be that we would have kept the process the same and at least ranked her as an alternate.

    Conventions only meet once every two years, so any mistakes in conventions can’t be rectified before the end of the term. But the LNC is still an existing body, and if the LNC is inclined to find some sort of remedy, we can do that. It would be a little awkward for the others who have already been notified of their positions if we opted to re-do a vote as the remedy, and it’s a little awkward for Debbie because she didn’t get equal consideration with the others who had 6 votes.

    At this point we currently have 5 LNC-filled seats with 3 alternates. The chances of needing 3 alternates are slim. It’s a little overkill to name 4 alternates for 5 seats, though one of them has indicated he is likely going to attempt to secure his state’s appointment and move out of an alternate slot.

    Since I’m the one who made the mistake, I’d feel a little better about it if we at least named Debbie Schum as 4th alternate as a courtesy, even knowing that the chances of her getting to fill a seat are slim.

    I offer my apology to Debbie and to the LNC for my unfortunate mistake and the resulting awkwardness. I await feedback from my colleagues for what to do from here.

    -Alicia

    ———-EXTRACT FROM MINUTES———-

    The LNC appoints 5 of the 20 seats on the Platform Committee. With 16 ballots cast, the results of the balloting were as follows:

    Guy McLendon – 12
    Alicia Mattson – 11
    Hollie Ryan – 10
    I. Dean Ahmad – 8
    Lynn House – 8
    Mike Shipley – 8
    Nick Frollini – 6
    Andy LeCureaux – 6
    Debbie Schum – 6
    Michael Schoenike – 5
    Chris Colvin – 4
    William (Bill) Hajdu – 3
    Roland Riemers – 3
    Thomas Knapp – 3
    Fred Stitt – 3
    Starchild – 3
    James Felber – 2
    Tom Lippman – 2
    Alexander Pease – 2
    Jerry Sanford – 2
    Zachary Yutzy – 2
    David Williams – 2
    David Demarest – 1
    Loren Ameen – 0
    Jake Bryan – 0
    Gene Chapman – 0
    Paul Koksvik – 0
    David Overby – 0
    Robert Peterson – 0
    Donald Reach – 0
    Herbert Schoenbohm – 0
    Richard Sutherland – 0
    Zeb Sutton – 0
    Lorence Wenke – 0

    Guy McLendon, Alicia Mattson, and Hollie Ryan were elected to the Platform Committee, each having received a majority.

    While reading the results of the ballot vote, Ms. Mattson inadvertently overlooked announcing the vote totals of Andy LeCureaux, Debbie Schum, and Michael Schoenike, leaving the impression that they had received zero votes.

    Mr. Tomasso moved that we have a runoff ballot using approval voting between anyone who had at least 6 votes. Mr. Feldman moved to amend by substitution to instead do a show of hands using approval voting between anyone who had at least 6 votes. Mr. Feldman’s substitute motion was adopted by a show of hands, with a vote total of 11-2 making it the main motion. The Feldman motion as the main motion was adopted without objection.

    Ms. Mattson noticed at this point that Andy LeCureaux had also received 6 votes, so he was included in the runoff, per the conditions of the motion. The oversight of Debbie Schum and Michael Schoenike’s votes was not caught until after the end of the session, thus Debbie Schum was mistakenly not included in the runoff.

    The show-of-hands vote totals for the runoff were as follows:

    Dean Ahmad – 9
    Lynn House – 7
    Mike Shipley – 8
    Nick Frollini – 5
    Andy Lecureaux – 7

    Mr. Ahmad was elected to the fourth seat, having received a majority.

    Mr. Redpath moved to appoint Mr. Shipley to the fifth position. Ms. Mattson moved to amend by substitution that we use a show-of-hands runoff between Mr. Shipley, Ms. House, and Mr. LeCureaux. The Mattson amendment passed on a show of hands with a vote total of 11-3, making it the main motion. There was no objection to the Mattson motion as the main motion.

    The show-of-hands vote totals for the runoff were as follows:

    Mike Shipley – 8
    Lynn House – 8
    Andy LeCureaux – 5

    None had received a majority. Mr. Redpath moved to conduct a show-of-hands vote between Mr. Shipley and Ms. House with a plurality electing; there was no objection.

    The show-of-hands vote totals for the runoff were as follows:

    Shipley – 7
    House – 8

    Ms. House was elected to the fifth seat.

    Mr. Hagan moved to appoint Mr. Shipley as the 1st alternate. Mr. Goldstein moved to amend the Hagan motion to also name Mr. LeCureaux as the 2nd alternate and Mr. Frollini as the 3rd alternate. There was no objection to either the amendment or the main motion.

    Ms. Mattson nominated herself for interim chair. Mr. McLendon nominated himself, then withdrew, then nominated himself, then withdrew again. Without objection Ms. Mattson was elected as interim chair of the Platform Committee.

  356. Matt Cholko

    Unfortunately, it does not seem that there is any perfect remedy at this point. I don’t think it would be too terrible to have a re-vote for purposes of ranking the alternates though.

    Really, the best thing would be for Ms. Schum to come forward and say that she considers the matter settled, forgives the mistake, etc. Take one for the team, so to speak.

  357. Pingback: April 2015 Liberty for America | Independent Political Report

  358. Martin Passoli

    It’s too bad April 1st was a weekday. It would have been great to have that coincide with an LNC meeting!

Leave a Reply

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