Thread for liveblogging 2017 LNC Meeting in Pittsburgh

lncdec16

By request of one of our other editors I am setting up this thread for liveblogging during the upcoming LNC meeting this weekend. Links to the first few reports posted for the meeting, chair’s proposed agenda, live broadcast, LNC and staff listings, and information on the venue were posted previously. https://www.lp.org/event/lnc-meeting/ will have additional reports as they come in.

Anyone and everyone attending the meeting or watching the broadcast can help us with liveblogging and discussion in the comments on this thread. If time and health permits I plan to do so myself, but please don’t rely on just me 🙂

-paulie

342 thoughts on “Thread for liveblogging 2017 LNC Meeting in Pittsburgh

  1. Chuck Moulton

    I’m in the LNC meeting room. Right now just Robert Kraus, Dr. Lark, and Lauren Daugherty are here with me. Everyone is at the buffet I guess.

  2. Chuck Moulton

    More people are trickling in: Wes Benedict, Nick Sarwark, Caryn Ann Harlos, Brett Bitner, Drew Bingaman (PA chair), Whitney Bilyeau, Alicia Mattson, Sam Goldstein, Joshua Katz, Bill Redpath, Tim Hagan, and Aaron Starr have showed up.

  3. paulie Post author

    Posted at LP.org:

    Chair’s Proposed Agenda

    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Agenda_Proposed

    Reports

    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Ballot_Access_Committee_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Bylaws_Platform_Applicants
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Campus_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Chairs Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Conflicts_of_Interest_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Convention_Committee_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_EPCC_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Financial_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Historical_Preservation_Committee_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_International_Rep_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_IT_Committee_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_LNC_Policy_Manual
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Membership_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Reference_Whistleblower_&_Document_Destruction
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_1_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_2_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_3_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_5_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_6_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_7_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_8_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Secretary_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Special_Counsel_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Staff_Report
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Staff_Report_slides
    2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Strategy_Marketing_Proposal

  4. Chuck Moulton

    The meeting began.

    I used a public comment to pitch myself for the Bylaws Committee and Matt Cholko for the PLatform Committee.

    LPPA chair Drew Bingaman welcomed the LNC to Pennnsylvania.

    The agenda was amended to discuss social media for 15 minutes immediately following the staff report. They are concerned about a controversial Facebook meme this past week.

  5. Starchild

    We added an item to the agenda (after staff reports) of discussing social media management (at the request of Daniel Hayes).

  6. paulie Post author

    They are concerned about a controversial Facebook meme this past week.

    Part of a series highlighting libertarian views of different religions, this one happened to highlight satanism.

  7. paulie Post author

    Carla Howell leaving LPHQ. Instead they will hire a press secretary and expand Andy Burns’ job for campaigns. 50 state strategy.

  8. Chuck Moulton

    Nick is giving his chair’s report. He says they are removing the position of political director — which was currently Carla Howell.

    They are adding lower level positions of press secretary (ideally a libertarian leaning journalist) and a campaigns person (candidate recruitment, candidate development).

  9. paulie Post author

    Correction, I think the reference to Andy Burns was not meant literally, but rather a new person who will do with campaigns what Burns is doing with state parties. Howell’s contract expires June 30. Casey Hansen has also moved on and lost one of the fundraising staffers. Cost of the two new positions is likely to be roughly 1.5 times Carla’s salary but known until dealing with actual applicants.

  10. Starchild

    Nick Sarwark saying (in chair’s report) that we aren’t renewing political director (Carla Howell’s) contract. Instead have 2 new positions (press secretary and affiliate support) reporting to Wes Benedict (executive director).

  11. Starchild

    I spoke out in favor of having salaries of new positions open, utilizing competitive bidding, and having the press secretary crowdsourcing people on the LNC and in the LP generally to communicate with the press and get the word out, as opposed to having one person trying to do it all.

  12. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I am concerned that we will be foolishly reactionary on the Facebook item.

    I disagreed with the post – I am just concerned the cure will be ham-handed.

  13. Starchild

    I asked Nick to justify salary secrecy, or be more flexible on this, but he said he didn’t have the time to address it at present. 🙁

  14. Starchild

    We raised over $15,000 on the contest to choose a convention theme (the winning choice was “I’m THAT Libertarian” (a phrase used by the late Dr. Marc Feldman who sought the party’s 2016 presidential nomination).

  15. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    8:34 AM (22 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    All,

    This is the motion I intend to propose regarding social media management.

    “Move to insert a new Policy Manual Section 2.06.5 Social Media:

    Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as administrators of, serve as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s social media accounts.”

    Daniel Hayes
    LNC At Large Member

    IMO this would be a big mistake.

  16. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I objected the approval of the convention minutes. I think the inclusion of editorial addenda is highly improper.

  17. paulie Post author

    I objected the approval of the convention minutes. I think the inclusion of editorial addenda is highly improper.

    You make a good point; it should be a separate document.

  18. paulie Post author

    Wes thanks Ken Moellman for ballot access and IT work, especially on restoring content to website and Caryn Ann Harlos for historical preservation committee work.

  19. Matt Cholko

    That would be a monumentally gigantic mistake. The social media volunteers have done much good work, with very few mistakes. Paid people make mistakes too, and I’d expect to see a lot less content generated if the number of people allowed to do so is drastically decreased.

  20. Chuck Moulton

    Approving convention minutes:
    Caryn Ann Harlos – no
    Starchild – no
    David Demerest – no
    Patrick McKnight – yes
    Bill Redpath – yes
    Dr. James Lark – yes
    Aaron Starr – yes
    Witney Bileau – yes
    Ed Marsh – yes
    Joshua Katz – yes
    Brett Bittner – yes
    Daniel Hayes – yes
    Sam Goldstein – yes
    Tim Hagan – yes
    Arvin Vohra – yes
    Alicia Mattson – yes
    Nick Sarwark – abstain

    It passes 13-3-1.

    This vote was contentious because Appendix C includes some Robert’s Rules opinions from the secretary that contradicted the chair’s rulings in convention.

    Wes Benedict is giving the staff report. He thanked Ken Moellman for his work on the website and Caryn Ann Harlos for her work with the historical archives.

    Lauren Daugherty is giving a fundraising report.

  21. paulie Post author

    Lauren Daugherty on fundraising strategy. Jess Mears and Nathan Grabau helped, Grabau moved on. Better post election first quarter than usual. Started conference calls.

  22. Starchild

    Paulie – I agree that Daniel’s motion as written would be counter-productive. I think we should have more participation/input from LP members other than paid party employees and LNC members, not less. Do you have any thoughts on amendments or alternate language to address perceived issues on this topic in a non-harmful manner?

  23. Starchild

    Development director Lauren Daugherty is now speaking. We have a double-matching offer right now for Ballot Access fund contributions.

  24. paulie Post author

    Current double matching opportunity on ballot access.

    Need to be proactive to keep historic dropoff of members that happens a year after presidential convention from happening.

    Building fund for this year already paid.

    Created legacy libertarians. Significant major donor meetings.

  25. paulie Post author

    Do you have any thoughts on amendments or alternate language to address perceived issues on this topic in a non-harmful manner?

    Add LNC members to employees and contractors, strike moderators and post content to. I would be OK with having “responsible parties” hold final approval (admins) but it should be more than only contractors and employees as they may get too busy to keep things timely.

  26. Starchild

    Joshua Katz asked what motivates our donors to give. Lauren said they want to see change; they are dreamers, forward-looking. They want to see that their donations are used wisely, that they are making a good investment.

  27. paulie Post author

    Daugherty: need for long term regular communication with major donors (missed some of this discussion)

  28. Chuck Moulton

    I agree we want more people generating content, not less. I don’t think staff should be in charge of Facebook — it’s both a waste of staff’s time and would make the content significantly worse in quality and quantity. The Facebook page grew significantly faster after control was turned over to volunteers rather than staff.

    What we really need changed is oversight. We should have a volunteer or a group of volunteers who look at and approve every single post. Right now it seems like they can look at posts, and if they don’t disapprove then the post goes out… but sometimes no one in oversight looks at a post. The policy should be to look at and approve every post and take responsibility for those posts in content and strategy — whether that be the LNC’s APRC or a group of social media administrators. If people can’t take responsibility for looking at and approving every single post, then we either need someone different to take the job or we need less posts.

  29. paulie Post author

    Daugherty: need for wealth screening of donor list to help target pitches and strategic communication better

  30. paulie Post author

    Benedict: it will be a “small miracle” if we can keep it anywhere around 20k dues paying members.

  31. Starchild

    Wes Benedict notes that fundraising letters are not doing as well as they used to. Instead they are donating more online. I am not surprised. I think we need to switch to better ways of raising money (e.g. crowdfunding, merchandise sales, etc.) Mailings tend to be manipulative, waste money on overhead, etc.

  32. paulie Post author

    However need to do snail mail because it helps with online donations. Got Johnson list from the campaign and starting to work on trying to get new members and donors from that list. Not much in the way of calls yet, mostly email.

  33. paulie Post author

    Question about matching up emails of that donors list with social media accounts. Starting to work on that.

  34. Chuck Moulton

    Wes Benedict says the Johnson list is 175,000 donors. Only 12,000 of them were already in our database (i.e., LP members, lapsed members, or inquiries).

    The LP has emailed all of them and sent snail mail to 65,000 out of the 175,000. Wes wants to mail the other 110,000.

  35. Starchild

    Wes is saying that the fundraising letters lead to online donations. I’m not sure how much this is true; lots of things can lead to online donations – LP News, online posts and memes, press releases, media coverage, local activism, candidates, etc.

  36. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    9:38 AM (15 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    Hi all –

    During the last years, I’ve been part of the social media growth of the Libertarian Party. With John Jay Myers, I started the more aggressive social media program, started Design for Liberty, and have worked alongside many hard working volunteers. I’d like to share some thoughts on where we need to go.

    Identity politics is a distraction. It has some short term popularity in some areas, but it’s a long term loss. The identity that some people cherish are off putting to people with other identities (as shown by the satanist post, or the religious backdrop which ignores that religion doesn’t matter that much to many people.) Any political party can use them, and they are used to distract people from real issues.

    Virtue signalling is another distraction. Like identity politics, it’s something that any party can do, routinely do, and use to distract people from substance.

    Our focus, party wide, should be on cutting government to advancing liberty. We need to drop the “Hey look how inclusive we are” business that is more appropriate to a first grade classroom than to a party with a serious mission. We need to drop the soft sell irrelevance that literally any party could use (e.g. “Wouldn’t it be cool if we won?”). Instead, we need to explain what we will do when we win, and why that’s good.

    We need to explain the benefits of free market education, military used for defense only, ending gun free zones, ending the income tax, removing border protections for big pharma, ending the TSA, legalizing all victimless crimes, ending foreign aid to promote the sale of sovereign territory, ending trade sanctions to spread free market culture, etc. The amount of content is infinite.

    I believe that our social media, traditional media, and candidate messaging should be working to shift in these directions. I recommend basing things on the Who’s Driving strategy created by Carla Howell.

    This can be done with volunteers, paid designers, or some combination. The issue is the direction, and the strategy must be completely clear and explicit.

    Initial recommendation:

    1. Each social media post should at least mention one large cut in government
    2. Each social media post should mention at least one benefit of that cut.

    This information can be included in comments of the post, not necessarily in the image.

    -Arvin


    Arvin Vohra

    http://www.VoteVohra.com
    VoteVohra@gmail.com
    (301) 320-3634

  37. paulie Post author

    Back in session. Neutering social media is on the agenda. Sarwark proposes talking to counsel (Oliver Hall) first.

  38. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I have been speaking with the gallery – no one is in favour of this nuclear option with social media. I am trying to gather my thoughts to adequately oppose.

  39. Starchild

    Oops, hit “post” too soon. Bill is talking about a case of a woman denied right to keep and bear arms based on her medical cannabis use.

  40. Starchild

    The LP filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff in petition to be heard by US Supreme Court. Presented research showing that where medical cannabis is legal, crime rates actually go down. Unfortunately court did not take the case.

  41. paulie Post author

    woman denied right to keep and bear arms based on her medical cannabis use.

    Rowan Wilson of NV. She actually says she does not use marijuana but got a medical card out of solidarity.

  42. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I have been speaking with the gallery – no one is in favour of this nuclear option with social media. I am trying to gather my thoughts to adequately oppose.

  43. Caryn Ann Harlos

    As a side note it is really surprising to me that very few see the issues with having editorial notes as part of our convention minutes. I happen to find the appendixes useful. But that is not the point.

  44. Starchild

    Oliver Hall now talking about case “Arizona v. Regan” (spelling?) in which he helped represent the Arizona state LP. The state redefined in an unfavorable manner the pool of voters from which the party must demonstrate support in order to get candidates on its own primary ballot, so that signature requirements became much higher.

  45. Starchild

    Oliver Hall now talking about case “Arizona v. Regan” (spelling?) in which he helped represent the Arizona state LP. The state redefined in an unfavorable manner the pool of voters from which the party must demonstrate support (including independents, not just Libertarians) in order to get candidates on its own primary ballot, so that signature requirements became much higher.

  46. Starchild

    Counsel says we’ll soon be filing our own separate case against the FEC regarding the partisan and biased “Commission on Presidential Debates” and similar exclusionary practices against state and local candidates. He will be sending to LP chair Nick Sarwark his report on this.

  47. Starchild

    Bill Redpath mentioned New York case that Hall is not involved with, in which Redpath is a plaintiff. The NY government has banned out of state petitioners and he opposes that.

  48. Starchild

    Oliver Hall says we sent a letter to the FEC chairman. Nick says we issued a press release saying that the three people per party on the FEC doesn’t have to mean 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans; we want to work on getting Libertarian representation on the Commission.

  49. Starchild

    I asked counsel about filing more amicus briefs on behalf of the Libertarian Party. He sees value in this, but has a fairly heavy caseload; sounds like he is open to doing somewhat more on this front. Especially on cases that are already before courts (in the case of the Rowan Wilson marijuana case, it seemed exceptional enough to weigh in before court had agreed to take it).

  50. paulie Post author

    MOving to the discussion on neutering social media. Chair asks that LNC members not attack individual social media volunteers to avoid need for executive session.

  51. Starchild

    Daniel Hayes introduced a motion limiting posting materials online on behalf of the LP (e.g. Facebook memes) to staff. I am opposed to it as written.

  52. Starchild

    Nick Sarwark is giving background on the design team and the #FreeToBelieve campaign posting memes with quotes from different religions.

  53. Starchild

    Nick says he made executive decision to pull the meme quoting the Satanic Temple which was posted right before Easter (an impolitic time), and not post any further memes in the campaign until next week.

  54. paulie Post author

    Whitney Bilyeu on LNC list:

    “I can see this still being a volunteer project – they create and pool
    material, but the postings would be selected and made by staff…”

    P: Problem with that is staff time.

  55. Starchild

    Aaron Starr is asking who currently can post, and who gets added and who gets deleted. Does anyone vet the people who hold these roles to determine whether they are even LP members?

    Caryn Ann Harlos says 35 people have posting abilities. Trent Somes says 4-5 people have Twitter posting abilities, perhaps 3 people with Snapchat, Instagram posting abilities.

    Nick says he participates in the Admin group and tends to make final calls on who gets added, etc. Some administrators who have longstanding participation can add/delete people. If it doesn’t go smoothly, can “bubble up” to him or LP vice chair Arvin Vohra.

  56. Starchild

    Re: Caryn Ann’s comment, that referred to Facebook. Nick says the vetting process is that there’s a hierarchy of Facebook groups. Lowest level is Social Media group on Facebook; the Design Group and another group have more authority to post.

  57. Starchild

    Arvin says the LP Social Media Volunteers group doesn’t have posting privileges. The posting privilege group is the Admin group. Nick says Facebook is the only place that has this structure of groups. Says the Advertising Publication Review Committee (APRC) members have ability to go in and see 24 hours in advance everything that goes up on Facebook on a posting queue, and can flag it if it appears problematic. This is how we’ve been monitoring content.

  58. paulie Post author

    Actually I think the posting group is even smaller. I am on admins but I don’t think I currently have scheduling capability.

  59. paulie Post author

    Nick says fallout from “no more bushes, clintons or pauls” was bigger than from satanic temple post.

  60. Starchild

    I asked Nick whether the structure and procedures outlined are published anywhere, and asked that they be published, and sent to the LNC list, so that everyone will understand how stuff gets published.

  61. paulie Post author

    Harlos: We will not make good decisions in reaction mode. Missed the rest of her argument due to my pizza getting here.

  62. paulie Post author

    Someone floats a substitute motion to have a study committee instead. Missing a lot due to low volume audio.

  63. paulie Post author

    Starr: Neuter social media, then appoint a death panel after the fact. Some confusion on how to Roberts Rule this.

  64. Starchild

    We’re now having lunch and hearing from the local visitor’s bureau (with an eye toward Pittsburgh potentially being a 2020 convention site – not that this is in any way decided).

  65. paulie Post author

    LNC list

    David Demarest dprattdemarest at gmail.com
    Sat Apr 15 10:28:55 CDT 2017

    Daniel, I prefer continued use of volunteers with appropriate oversight. In
    other words, delegate but verify. Regardless of the communication media, it
    should be our voice, not the voice of unsupervised volunteers.

    The more important issue is not only the specifics of our voice but the
    communication technique strategy we employ in our official LP voice.

  66. Darryl W. Perry

    Pittsburgh would be a decent location for the 2020 convention; depending on whether or not the convention site is in the City or closer to the airport is another question (the Pittsburgh airport is about 20 miles outside of the City)

  67. Starchild

    I asked about visibility (e.g. putting up signs on property, etc.) and promotion by the hotel of our convention, 24 hour access to the facilities like pool, hot tub and gym, and not bugging us about late-night party and hospitality suite noise. He indicated flexibility without much specifics.

  68. Chuck Moulton

    paulie wrote:

    Wifi in the convention hall and outlets at the tables would be priorities for me.

    I asked several questions about wi-fi. He said it could be negotiated in the contract to have free wi-fi in the meeting room, but ordinarily there would be a charge. He said we could negotiate how much of the bandwidth pipe to allocate between a) guest rooms and b) meeting — he said there was about 200 MB/s available between the 2 of them.

  69. Michael H. Wilson

    How about somewhere in the middle of the country where it would be fairly easy for people on both coast to drive to?

  70. paulie Post author

    Proposal is for APRC member to approve each FB post. 3 months to come up with a more permanent solution.

  71. Starchild

    Steven Nekhaila’s amendment to have APRC control over social media rather than kicking it to staff failed 8-7 with 2 abstentions:

    Starchild – yes
    Harlos – yes
    Demarest – yes
    Mcknight – no
    Redpath – abstain
    Lark – no
    Starr – no
    Bilyeu – yes
    Nikhaila – no
    Moelman – no
    Katz – no
    Hayes – no
    Goldstein – no
    Hagen – yes
    Mattson – no
    Sarwark – abstain

    Now back to Aaron Starr’s amendment to refer to committee AND pass Daniel Hayes original motion limiting posting authority to staff.

  72. paulie Post author

    Correction, it becomes the main motion. Hasn’t passed yet but I don’t see it being stopped at this point.

  73. Starchild

    Referring to committee failed:

    Harlos – no
    Starchild – no
    Demarest – no
    McKnight – yes
    Redpath – yes
    Lark – no
    Starr – yes
    Bilea – no
    Nikhailia – no
    Katz – yes
    Moellmann – yes
    Hayes – yes
    Goldstain – yes
    Hagen – yes
    Vohra – no
    Mattson – no

    8 – yes
    8 – no

  74. Starchild

    On the original main motion by Daniel Hayes, it failed on a tie of 8-8, with one abstention (Tim Hagen). Sarwark voted against, none of the other votes changed.

  75. paulie Post author

    I turned the speakers down but I have hard time hearing the questions now. However I hear the answers just fine. I’m also hitting that after lunch mid afternoon slump so having hard time paying attention in general.

  76. paulie Post author

    We can’t ask their past or current clients about their services because they have a non-disclosure clause.

  77. Andy

    Who are the principles behind Pallidin Strategies?

    This sounds like something that ought to be rejected to me.

  78. Starchild

    John Engle and Mike Fishbein are the principals, and who were on the call with us. I’m not keen on paying outside marketing consultants in general; these guys didn’t impress me as different or outstanding enough to change my general opposition to such proposals.

  79. paulie Post author

    LNC list:

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    2:33 PM (41 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business, Lauren, Wes
    My issues are with the (perceived) ‘authority’ that volunteers have over our messaging on FB. Also, I don’t care to burden staff members with a task that is not necessarily their specialty.

    I value the contributions and the creativity of the volunteers who put that material out, and I believe they do it better than our limited staff could do. However, I do not agree that volunteers should have the final say when it comes messages that we LNC members are on the hook for.

    The motion presented today was too restrictive, and oddly, at the same time a little ambiguous. It could have put our entire social media presence on hold. I am also concerned about the risk of losing those volunteers as a result of such an action.

    Yes, we need an intervention, and a temporary policy, along with a steering committee, could be the answer. But, we could have just brought our social media action to a screeching halt, and that is not what we really want.

    How about establishing a policy that includes staff or LNC members in posting approval, and holds the APRC more accountable, as well?

    I want to see a policy that establishes/clarifies the authority of the FB admins, moderators, and posters (who are not staff members). I also would like to establish specific guidelines for what is put out…in order to avoid these kinds of pitfalls and distractions in the future. Ideally, we won’t put anything out there that causes people to resign their posts, or cease donations.

    Whitney

    I agree with your sentiments. I’m slightly more inclined to take action now but everything you say is true.

    Thanks,
    Patrick McKnight

    I would really like to work with you all in crafting an analysis committee with well-thought out proposals for August.

    Something needs to change. I think everyone agrees on that.

    I wish emotions didn’t get so high- I think ultimately we want the same thing. And have the same very deep concerns.

    -Caryn Ann

    I would also want to be a part of that
    Arvin Vohra

    I was really trying to address everyone’s concern by championing Steven’s amendment.

    I hope we can all pull together that this is a problem I think most of us agree on, and that we might disagree on *how* to solve, but in good faith and good will we can.

    -Caryn Ann

    On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Brett Bittner wrote:
    I actually liked a lot of what Stephen’s amendment did, however I don’t know who I would punish with the responsibility that his idea created.

    I also think that any committee tasked with this should also consider policy recommendations for other social media outlets, as they offer suggestions on Facebook. That would require a strong understanding of those outlets and their mechanics. At the very least, finding members that have an expertise in each of the outlets we utilize (YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and ugh… Google+). There have been discussions about this within the APRC, however due to the confidential nature of the committee, I cannot disclose those discussions or their outcomes (or lack thereof).

    Brett C. Bittner

    Region 3 Representative
    Libertarian National Committee

    brett.bittner@lp.org
    317.537.8344

  80. Chuck Moulton

    “Starchild is right and I am absolutely wrong.” — Aaron Starr

    I may have cut off the beginning of that quote. An anonymous source says I left out a “Maybe”.

  81. Starchild

    Motion to authorize chair to enter into a contract with Paladin Strategies failed 4-10 with 2 abstentions. I voted against, but wasn’t able to record all the individual votes. I believe David Demarest, Joshua Katz, Arvin Vohra, and 1 other supported.

  82. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    3:21 PM (8 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    I think it’s great that the LNC now has a better understanding of how the social media team works. Transparency is always a good thing. I’m sure we will come together to improve the quality and accountability of the process.

    We all share the same goals and I think we’re headed in the right direction. Communication and messaging is the key to growing the party.

    Thanks,
    Patrick McKnight

  83. Starchild

    I moved to add 4 members to the Advertising, Publications Review Committee, for purposes of having more eyes to review proposed content before it’s posted (to help defuse the issue of controlling content rather than have it come back in some other more objectionable form). However the motion needed 2/3 super-majority as a vote to suspend the rules, and failed by a considerable margin.

  84. paulie Post author

    OH: Suspended to give LPOH to catch up on validation and fundraising, with about 21k collected. AR with about 2k in hand so far, need about 15k started Mar 27 due Jun 25 and shooting for being done several weeks earlier. VA has started with several petitioners on the ground, no firm count yet. Jun 13 deadline also need about 15k raw. TN working hard, need approx 35k valid; 4k volunteer in hand, also working on legislative and legal routes. Alabama working on county access, could do statewide if outside money is found. NJ working on 800 valid sig drive, PA will seek to do some statewide races.

  85. paulie Post author

    Katz suggests hiring a company to manage ballot access. Redpath replies that working with petitioners directly saves the party money.

  86. paulie Post author

    Bittner also recommends someone else from Indiana who is a recent convert from Republicans, whose name I did not catch. Harlos speaks on her own behalf.

  87. paulie Post author

    Harlos names several others she recommends. Too many names for me to catch or memorize. I recognized some of them.

  88. paulie Post author

    Pretty sure that’s Starr. I checked the video but not seeing the speaker. Also recommending himself.

  89. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I recommended

    Caryn Ann Harlos
    Dean Ahmad
    Matthew Cholko
    David Demarest
    Michael Kielsky
    Thomas Knapp
    Chris Maden
    Warren Patterson
    John Pickerill
    Kim Ruff
    Elliot Schierman
    Mike Seebeck

  90. paulie Post author

    Alicia Mattson speaking on own behalf. Starchild takes issues with her use of surveys as committee chair.

  91. paulie Post author

    Goldstein recommends John Fockler, Andy Craig; asks for info on which states various applicants are from. Is directed to staff on that.

  92. paulie Post author

    Caryn Ann giving her list again for bylaws. She will email it so we’ll have the list then or if she comments again. Especially recommends Chuck Moulton.

  93. Caryn Ann Harlos

    My Bylaws recommendations

    Andy Craig
    David Demarest
    Caryn Ann Harlos
    Joe Henchman
    Michael Kielsky
    Chuck Moulton
    Timothy Perkins
    Mike Seebeck

  94. paulie Post author

    Arvin recommends for bylaws: Andy Craig, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Kim Ruff. Did I miss some?

    Aaron Starr speaking on own behalf.

  95. paulie Post author

    Goldstein: convention [and audit] committee[s] now, re-convene at 8:30

    Lark: no awards committee now, remove that item

  96. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I don’t think Goldstein spoke on my behalf. I would love it but I don’t think he did.

  97. paulie Post author

    A vote after some parliamentary wrangling. Starr and Mattson prevailed over Sarwark. I think the upshot was that the audit committee gets to keep Mark Fry as the outside auditor.

  98. paulie Post author

    COC recommends holding an upcoming meeting preferably in Nov/Dec at the hotel which will be the convention hotel for 2018.

  99. Starchild

    Bill Redpath questioned the process of having people vote on the theme of the 2018 convention by donating to the theme of their choice. Daniel Hayes as a member of the convention committee defended the process. I commended Bill for raising the concern, as I’ve always spoken out against anything smacking of us being a “pay to play” party where people can buy our policies, but said that in this case I did not think the process was inappropriate, because the choices were screened for being libertarian and appropriate, and the theme doesn’t really have any meaning. In the past they’ve always been window dressing; in this case we actually used it to raise some money, without any threat to our principles or actual positions.

  100. Steve Scheetz

    “Starchild is right and I am absolutely wrong.” — Aaron Starr

    Sorry, had to re-post this.. (The “maybe” that maybe at the beginning could not be confirmed, so there it stands.)

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  101. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    April 15, 2017 at 15:44
    Katz suggests hiring a company to manage ballot access.”

    TERRIBLE idea.

    ” Redpath replies that working with petitioners directly saves the party money.”

    Not only does not hiring a “company” save the party money, hiring some outside company would lead to degrading the quality of the work done during the ballot access drives.

  102. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    11:41 PM (10 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    Clear definitive action needs to be clear productive action that will not kill our page.

    Something needs to happen. Something productive, workable, and sustainable.

    I intend to either introduce or co-sponsor a motion for a committee to do just that.

    I am in absolute agreement of a need for action. Unreasearched action for the sake of action (not whether it is the best plan) is not progress.

    I think we all agree we have reached the next stage where things need to be done.

    The exact nature of the *things* must be carefully reasoned.

    -Caryn Ann

    On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:15 AM Ken Moellman wrote:
    I just got home. Spoke to several folks along the way, since I was in the car for many hours.

    I still believe that a lack of clear, definitive action will not end well.

    ken

  103. paulie Post author

    Feed is back on. Voting on platform/bylaws apparently. Not sure how much we missed if anything but the feed did not start right at the gavel.

  104. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I voted no because I felt we need to follow our rules, even when I don’t agree wit the rules.

  105. Starchild

    Upshot: The committee voted to have ballot results recorded WITHOUT identifying who cast the votes, because people had already started turning in unsigned ballots before the point of reminding people to sign them was raised. (The secretary Alicia Mattson had issued printed ballots without a place to sign them.) My efforts to have people retrieve their ballots and sign them were rejected. The LNC still needs transparency reform to make open balloting the default.

  106. Starchild

    As I pointed out during debate, we are representatives, and we need to be open and accountable for how we vote on important decisions.

  107. paulie Post author

    Plugging “reregister month” and event calendar at LP.org. There was also a short speech from a local candidate/organizer in, I believe, PA.

  108. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    8:17 AM (5 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    For the purposes of transparency, my votes for platform and bylaws are below. My votes were based on personal knowledge, recommendations, and answers to the questionnaire sent out by Caryn Ann Harlos. Note that I these aren’t all people with whom I agree on everything, but people who have shown judgement, ability, and insight.
    I also know that there are undoubtedly excellent people for whom I did not vote, most likely people whom I do not yet know. Over the next months, I hope that I will get to know more of the excellent people in the Libertarian Party.
    PLATFORM:
    Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad
    Philip Anderson
    Adam Bates
    Matt Cholko
    David Pratt Demarest
    Dax Ewbank
    John K. Fockler Jr.
    Caryn Ann Harlos
    Michael Kielsky
    Thomas L. Knapp
    Tom Maciejewski
    Chris Maden
    Warren Patterson
    Darryl W. Perry
    John Pickerill
    Kim Ruff
    Elliott Scheirman
    Mike Seebeck
    David Stewart
    Jeffrey Miron
    BYLAWS:
    Andy Craig
    David Pratt Demarest
    Richard Fast
    Caryn Ann Harlos
    Joe Henchman
    Richard Illyes
    Michael Kielsky
    Chuck Moulton
    Timothy Perkins
    Darryl W. Perry
    Kim Ruff
    Mike Seebeck
    David Stewart
    Joshua Katz

    In Liberty,
    Arvin Vohra
    Vice Chair
    Libertarian Party

  109. Starchild

    The candidate was Greg Perry(sp?), running for Congress as a Libertarian in Pennsylvania’s 10th district. He also attended the meeting yesterday, as have a number of other Pennsylvania Libertarians and others not on the LNC.

  110. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I will post my votes with the note that I changed my mind on one candidate when another LNC member vouched that my concern was not founded. All of concerns with any candidate involved unity. Also there is a strategy about how many to vote for. My silence on a candidate is not explicit disapproval.

  111. paulie Post author

    Mattson: move to appoint credentials committee at the next meeting

    Starchild: move to amend to establish procedure for the election will be by open ballot

  112. Starchild

    It was approved (I think the tally was 10-5) to hold the Credentials Committee elections via open balloting. I believe the “no” votes (against transparency) were Aaron Starr, Joshua Katz, Bill Redpath, Sam Goldstein, and Alicia Mattson.

  113. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    8:44 AM (2 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    Hi All –

    I’d like to request LNC oversight on the Satanic Temple posting as part of the #FreeToBelieve series. I don’t want to see our volunteers raked over the coals for issues related to the LNC or APRC.

    Is a Satanic Temple Posting:

    1. Fine on any day of the year
    2. Never ok
    3. Generally ok, but not during a religious holiday of a conflicting religion.

    If future posts go up, I’d like it to be very clear on what the LNC views are, so that volunteers are not blamed for our decisions.

    My view: I don’t think that this is a battle worth picking. You can already be as Satanic as you want in America, so we’re not gaining anything. I’d much rather focus on repealing laws and taxes that exist.

    Personally, I have no opposition to the Satanic Temple. As part of an overall study of religion, I have read sections of various “Satanic” books, and written in non-political areas on mythology parallels between Prometheus in Greek Mythology and Lucifer in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Realistically, I’ll probably look into the religious legal protections they have, based on the comments by the chair, to see how others can do the same. I’d love to see an America in which every single house and apartment building is legally seen as a religious location that pays no property taxes.

    -Arvin

  114. paulie Post author

    Do we have anyone besides LNC members who can liveblog from the site when the feed cuts out, such as now?

  115. paulie Post author

    Arvin,

    I respectfully dissent from the premise of your message. The issue is not this one post. The issue is the structural process and lack of transparency.

    Thanks,
    Patrick McKnight

  116. paulie Post author

    Platform:
    Jeffrey Miron 14 Andy Craig 10 Missed two others at 10

    Adam Bates, Caryn Ann Harlos, Joseph Henchman, Aaron Starr – 9 each (4-way tie) for the last of 5 spots

    Can’t keep up with the others not elected.

  117. Starchild

    Results of the balloting for the Platform Committee appointments:

    PLATFORM COMMITTEE (5 positions)
    —————————————————

    Jeffrey Miron – 14
    Andy Craig – 10
    John Fockler – 10
    Alicia Mattson – 10
    Adam Bates, Caryn Ann Harlos, Joseph Henchmann, Aaron Starr – 9 (4-way tie)

    David Pratt Demarest – 8
    Dean Ahmad – 7
    Matt Cholko – 7
    Mark Miller – 7
    Darryl Perry – 6
    Mike(?) Pickerell – 5
    Kimberly Ruff – 5
    Dax Eubank – 4
    Thomas Knapp – 4
    Scheeerman – 4
    Debbie Schum – 4
    Richard Fast – 3
    Kielsky – 3
    Anderson – 2
    Kevin Bjornson – 2
    Dycus – 2
    Hines – 2
    Howe – 2
    Hunt – 2
    Chris Maden – 2
    Dustin Nanna – 2
    Patterson – 2
    Mike Seebeck – 2
    Illyas – 1
    Layda – 1
    Mace – 1
    Macjewski – 1
    Martinez – 1
    Petora – 1
    Roland Reimers – 1
    Stewart – 1
    Others not named received no votes

    ———————————

    There will be a second election to resolve the 4-way tie, with open balloting.

  118. paulie Post author

    Bylaws – 9 elected by majority of 10

    Andy Craig 14
    Katz 13
    Moulton 13
    Harlos 11
    Starr 11
    Carling 10
    Henchman 10
    Demarest 9
    Mattson 9

    Ruff 6
    Kilesky 5
    Perkins 5
    Perry 5
    Stewart 4

    …lost track after that.

  119. Chuck Moulton

    Sorry, I’ve been at the meeting but dealing with an IT issue I was emailed about.

    Paying attention more to the meeting now.

    It continues to annoy me that people feel the need to give long oral reports repeating what was submitted in their written reports. I think Lark has the right approach when he says “I’ve submitted a written report. Any questions?”

    I think signed ballots are a better approach than secret ballots for transparency and accountability — especially for regional representatives that more directly represent members and state chairs in their regions.

    Starchild was right to ask for signed ballots. Unfortunately, that battle would have had a better chance of success if the issue were raised before everyone turned in their ballots.

    The candidate who spoke was Greg Perry, who is strongly considering running for U.S. Congress in a likely to be called special election in Pennsylvania’s 10th district (the current congressman may be appointed to an executive office by Donald Trump).

    Platform
    Jeffrey Miron – 14 (elected)
    Andy Craig – 10 (elected)
    John Fockler – 10 (elected)
    Alicia Mattson – 10 (elected)
    Adam Bates – 9
    Caryn Ann Harlos – 9
    Joseph Henchman – 9
    Aaron Starr – 9
    David Demerest – 8
    Dean Ahmad – 7
    Matt Cholko – 7
    etc.

    Bylaws

    Andy Craig – 14 (elected)
    Joshua Katz – 13 (elected)
    Chuck Moulton – 13 (elected)
    Caryn Ann Harlos – 11 (elected)
    Aaron Starr – 11 (elected)
    M Carling – 10 (elected)
    Joseph Henchman – 10 (elected)
    David Demerest – 9 (elected)
    Alicia Mattson – 9 (elected)
    etc.

  120. paulie Post author

    Sarwark suggests the 2nd ballot for bylaws should be the people who got 4-6 votes. Starr says there is a procedure under the rules of approval voting already in place.

  121. Starchild

    BYLAWS COMMITTEE VOTING (10 positions)
    ————————————————————-
    Andy Craig – 14
    Joshua Katz – 13
    Chuck Moulton – 13
    Caryn Ann Harlos – 11
    Aaron Starr – 11
    M Carling – 10
    J.D. Henchman – 10
    David Demarest – 9
    Alicia Mattson – 9

    The 9 persons listed above received a majority under approval voting; those below did not. There was a motion by Bill Redpath to appoint Kimberly Ruff to the 10th position; I seconded. We’re now debating election procedures.

    Kimberly Ruff – 6
    Mike Kielsky – 5
    Timothy Perkins – 5
    Darryl Perry – 5
    David Stewart – 4
    Roland Reimers – 3
    Carolyn Clift – 2
    Richard Fast – 2
    Richard Illyas – 2
    Mike Seebeck – 2
    Clayton Hunt – 1
    Rachel Mace – 1
    Daniel(?) Martinez – 1
    Mark Petora – 1

    All other candidates did not receive votes.

  122. paulie Post author

    Starr wants to reopen nominations to get Brian Holtz on bylaws. Proceeding with vote to appoint Ruff. Needs 2/3, if not then motions to suspend rules and or reopen nominations in order.

  123. paulie Post author

    Wrangling over which names will be on 2nd ballot, but not clear if there is even a printer available for the 2nd ballot as I understood it so it may just be a blank paper ballot. In either case write-ins are allowed. Is that right?

  124. Starchild

    Sam Goldstein moves to limit Bylaws nominees for the second round voting to those in the 4-way tie, and Platform nominees to those who received 4 or more votes in the 1st round.

  125. paulie Post author

    Sam Goldstein moves to limit Bylaws nominees for the second round voting to those in the 4-way tie, and Platform nominees to those who received 4 or more votes in the 1st round.

    I think it’s the other way around – platform was the 4-way tie.

  126. Starchild

    Goldstein’s motion passes, I believe 11-3 (I voted yes). People can still write in Brian Holtz, who was nominated, or anyone else eligible (per Robert’s Rules of Order).

  127. Chuck Moulton

    paulie wrote:

    Wrangling over which names will be on 2nd ballot, but not clear if there is even a printer available for the 2nd ballot as I understood it so it may just be a blank paper ballot. In either case write-ins are allowed. Is that right?

    That is right.

  128. Andy

    Chuck Moulton said: “Chuck Moulton
    April 16, 2017 at 09:08
    Sorry, I’ve been at the meeting but dealing with an IT issue I was emailed about.

    Paying attention more to the meeting now.

    It continues to annoy me that people feel the need to give long oral reports repeating what was submitted in their written reports. I think Lark has the right approach when he says ‘I’ve submitted a written report. Any questions?'”

    I agree. If the report is written, why can’t people just read the report if they want to know what is in it? Paper copies of the report are handed out at the meeting. The reports should also be posted online (in a timely manner) so all party members are able to read it. What’s the point of wasting everyone’s time by repeating what is already written in the report? If they have questions, ask them, but there’s no reason to waste time by repeating what is already written in the report when people can read the report themselves.

    I still question the wisdom of why the LNC is still operating as if we are back in the 1980’s with all of these in person meeting. Why not reduce the number of in person meetings to only happen at national conventions and state chair’s conferences? The rest of the meetings could be conducted via videoconference or teleconference. Why continue to waste time and money on so many in person meetings when technology has made it possible to have meetings without spending a bunch of time and money traveling across the country for them?

  129. Starchild

    IT Committee chair and LNC regional alternate Sean O’Toole is giving his committee report. Using open source software for creating email system and database system for the LP. He’ll be putting out a survey in the next couple weeks seeking input on what people feel they need, and then in the next couple months start working on the project.

  130. paulie Post author

    I think Ken is actually the IT committee chair. Sean O’Toole is presenting because Moellman had to get back home last night.

  131. Starchild

    LNC alternate Ken Moelmann was thanked for his work in getting the old content from LP.org over to the revamped version of the site.

  132. paulie Post author

    Bylaws 2nd ballot announced but I was distracted.

    Platform 2nd ballot Harlos 9, Starr 9, Bates 8, Henchman 5

  133. Starchild

    Second round voting results:

    BYLAWS
    ————-
    Kim Ruff – 10
    Darryl Perry – 6
    Mike Kielsky – 5
    Brian Holtz – 5
    TImothy Perkins – 3
    David Stewart – 2
    Carolyn Clift – 2

    PLATFORM
    —————
    Caryn Ann Harlos – 9
    Aaron Starr – 9
    Adam Bates – 8
    Joseph (J.D.) Henchmann – 5

    We’ll now go to round 3 to resolve the tie for Platform.

  134. Matt Cholko

    Pretty ridiculous that there’s any opposition to transparency. These people are representatives. How can the people they represent judge their work if their votes are not known?

  135. paulie Post author

    Wrangling over which names will be on 2nd ballot, but not clear if there is even a printer available for the 2nd ballot as I understood it so it may just be a blank paper ballot. In either case write-ins are allowed. Is that right?

    That is right.

    That has to be up there for ridiculous time wasting debates/votes even for LNC.

  136. paulie Post author

    I still question the wisdom of why the LNC is still operating as if we are back in the 1980’s with all of these in person meeting. Why not reduce the number of in person meetings to only happen at national conventions and state chair’s conferences? The rest of the meetings could be conducted via videoconference or teleconference. Why continue to waste time and money on so many in person meetings when technology has made it possible to have meetings without spending a bunch of time and money traveling across the country for them?

    A 1-3 hour phone/video meeting every other week should be workable.

  137. Starchild

    Round 3 voting for Platform was a tie again:

    Caryn Ann Harlos – 8
    Aaron Starr – 8
    Adam Bates – 6

    We’ll now go to a 4th round where people write ONE name (no longer doing approval voting).

  138. Starchild

    Talking about LNC Policy Manual, Section 2.05 (Membership Policies), subsection 5, footnote 48, according to Nick Sarwark (90-day renewal period for lapsed members).

  139. Starchild

    Results for latest round of Platform Committee appointment voting:

    Aaron Starr – 8
    Caryn Ann Harlos – 6
    Adam Bates – 3

    Nick Sarwark proposes runoff between Starr and Harlos (neither received majority); someone else (Redpath?) moved to appoint Aaron Starr to the committee and Caryn Ann Harlos as alternate. (Requires suspending the rules).

  140. Starchild

    Redpath’s motion fails, 5-10. We now go to 5th round of voting, between Starr and Harlos (write-ins are allowed). Now an opportunity for the candidates to speak, and take questions.

  141. Caryn Annn Harlos

    I asked passionately for their vote. If I lose, I lost with a fair and honest vote and fight.

  142. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    10:26 AM (24 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    I agree with Patrick and Ken. This is a question of governance structure, not content, not social media, not messaging strategy. It relates to all those things, and to be clear, I think progress is needed on all of those, but the fundamental issue, as I see it, is governance structure. For us, that comes down to two questions: what is the role of the board (i.e. how can we be sure that our members can either complain to us, or vote us out, if they don’t like what we’re doing), and what directions should we give so as to prevent, not satanic posts, but all the other problems discussed, such as those Ken points out, and those discussed at the meeting by Whitney and Patrick.

    As a bit of a disclaimer, while I didn’t think it was the best idea, I wasn’t terribly bothered by the post. Maybe I’d be more, or less, bothered if I were a social media or PR person. I’m not – that’s why I’ve sought, as best I can, positions in the party relating to governance, not advertising and PR. I am not reacting to that post. My concerns about governance structures are not new, I just think they’ve come to the surface and are now in a position to be addressed.

    That said, I’m not going to say that I will oppose any solutions that deal with content, or image, or things like that. I will likely oppose solutions that require the board to get involved in things that are not, in my opinion, high level enough to warrant board action. For example, I oppose anything along the lines of “who did it? Let’s find that person and deal with them.” In my view, while we can put people in a position to do such things, we should not do them ourselves – and, more importantly, whatever goes out in our name goes out because we have allowed it, in one way or another. The identity of the individual is irrelevant; the organization needs to take full responsibility, full stop. What I will definitely oppose is solutions that, in my opinion, perpetuate or expand poor governance structures – not ideas that simply continue them, which I may support as stopgap measures, but that expand them or build more structures I view as ineffective.

    Joshua A. Katz

  143. paulie Post author

    I asked passionately for their vote. If I lose, I lost with a fair and honest vote and fight.

    You definitely did. I am proud of you, and would of course vote for you if I was on LNC this term.

  144. Starchild

    Round 5 Platform results:

    Caryn Ann Harlos – 8
    Aaron Starr – 7
    Adam Bates – 1

    Discussion ensued. Apparently it is always a right to vote for any eligible candidate (e.g. Bates) even though the chair’s instructions were that the balloting was between Harlos and Starr.

    Now we’re going to one more vote, same process.

  145. Starchild

    My amendment to Joshua Katz’s motion on contacts with congressional staff failed 6-10 (I was trying to add a requirement that staff develop written and oral guidelines for persons engaged in such contacts on how to exert influence without being influenced.

  146. Chuck Moulton

    The LNC is debating directing staff to forge relationships with senate staffers to promote Libertarian appointments.

    This is IDIOTIC. I favor going for appointments. But throwing lunches and dinners for congressional staffers is a huge waste of money and mostly ineffective. Having staffers go to cocktail parties every night to schmooze also means staffers have less time to do actual useful work.

    The right way to promote appointments would be to:
    1) figure out who in the LP is interested in various appointed positions
    2) figure out who in the LP is qualified for various positions by getting CVs
    3) figure out who in the LP currently serves in, previously served in, or is networked to various positions who can appoint people by asking them and looking at things like LinkedIn

    This isn’t rocket science. I’ve been helping behind the scenes with the FEC appointment. None of this happened by spending thousands of dollars buying food for congressional staffers.

    And of course the LNC approved the motion to throw donor money down the drain.

  147. Starchild

    Latest Platform Committee appointment results (Round 6):

    Starr – 8
    Harlos – 8
    Bates – 1

    Redpath moves to resolve the tie with a coin flip, with the loser becoming the committee alternate. Now voting on that motion.

  148. Starchild

    We adopted the coin flip, and Caryn Ann Harlos won. She’s now the 5th appointed Platform rep, with Aaron Starr as alternate.

  149. paulie Post author

    We adopted the coin flip, and Caryn Ann Harlos won. She’s now the 5th appointed Platform rep, with Aaron Starr as alternate.

    Congratulations on the hard fought victory!

  150. Chuck Moulton

    Harlos won the coin flip.

    Here’s the crazy thing… the person who selected Adam Bates for 548269842894568 rounds will be revealed eventually because they are signed ballots.

  151. Starchild

    Alicia Mattson appointed interim Platform chair. I objected, but was sole opposing vote (she has been biased and anti-transparency as committee chair in the past in my opinion, sending out leading survey questions, opposing sharing of survey results, etc.)

  152. Starchild

    Bill Redpath moved to take up topic of filing vacancy on the Advertising & Publication Review Committee (APRC) to fill the vacancy created by Joshua Katz’s resignation.

    David Demarest nominated by Caryn Ann Harlos
    Daniel Hayes nominated himself
    Whitney Bilyeu nominated herself

    Current APRC members are Brett Bittner (chair), Trent Somes, Caryn Ann Harlos, and Arvin Vohra.

  153. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    11:05 AM (31 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    If volunteers are overstepping their bounds, that needs to be reigned in, and I would like to see the Chairman deal with that.

    The material that is being put out gets mixed reviews…that is not my issue. I would like assurances from the APRC that they can handle the FB volume in a timely manner, which based on my conversations with some of those members, is possible, but difficult. Would adding APRC members, whose sole responsibility would be to review FB content, be appropriate?

    I don’t want to create a situation that will stifle the productivity or creativity of the page’s volunteers at all. However, some established frontend guidelines/non-negotiables are in order to avoid future missteps.

    Whitney

  154. paulie Post author

    Nekhalia speaking for the motion. Sounds a lot like what was defeated as an amendment to the motion yesterday.

  155. Starchild

    Steven Nekhaila (LNC alternate) moved (adopted without objection) to refer the social media topic to a committee composed of 3 LNC members and 2 non-LNC members. Now voting to populate those LNC seats.

  156. Starchild

    Nominees include Arvin Vohra, Caryn Ann Harlos, Joshua Katz, Daniel Hayes, Steven Nekhaila, and Brett Bittner. We approved voting for up to 3, and voting will be by signed ballot.

  157. Starchild

    Social Media Committee voting results:

    Brett Bittner – 10
    Daniel Hayes – 10
    Steven Nekhaila – 9
    Caryn Ann Harlos – 8
    Arvin Vohra – 6
    Joshua Katz – 6

    Bittner, Hayes, and Nekhaila are appointed to the committee.

  158. paulie Post author

    Brett,

    Thanks for your thoughts, but I’m confused or would like clarification on a few points. Why wouldn’t adding additional review eyes by adding members to the Advertising & Publications Review Committee help ensure that problematic stuff is flagged before being posted? To what “punishment” are you referring? Why should the focus be solely on Facebook? And why replace the existing volunteer admins and moderators there?

    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))
    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
    (415) 625-FREE
    @StarchildSF

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Brett Bittner
    Sent: Apr 16, 2017 12:30 PM
    To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org
    Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Satanic Post – LNC Input Requested

    Whitney,

    As I’ve noted previously, it’s my belief that the APRC let this slip through during our preparation and travel for the meeting. I know that I did not have an opportunity to review the scheduled Facebook posts for Wednesday or Thursday during my preparation or travel, in addition to my daily routine.

    I think the interest we now have in the process for this asset is a step in the right direction. When I joined the APRC, I had concerns, specifically about the nature of our Facebook procedures, that have now come to light. As Chair of the APRC, I do not think that adding members to the committee with the current procedure in place is the correct tack. I believe that Steven Neikahla’s proposal (that did not pass) was a step in the right direction, however my concern lies with the “punishment” of the appointment bestowed upon me for the proposal to operate.

    I believe the proper step would be to form a committee, consisting of existing (non-LNC) Facebook admins & editors, members of the APRC, and other members of the LNC to offer an updated procedure recommendation. That committee should offer those suggestions at our upcoming LNC session in Kansas City. In the interim, I intend to pay MUCH closer attention to the Facebook posts myself and encourage the other members of the APRC to do the same. During our upcoming discussion regarding the vacancy appointment, I intend to suggest something to assist the committee in that regard.

    This committee’s focus should be Facebook-specific in the immediate term. I would suggest replacing the existing (non-LNC) Facebook admins and editors with those who focus on other aspects of our social media outreach upon completion of the Facebook recommendation.

    Thoughts? < -- I thought it important to utilize Mr. Demarest's standard closing with this particular topic. Brett C. Bittner Region 3 Representative Libertarian National Committee brett.bittner@lp.org
    317.537.8344

  159. Starchild

    The 2018 national convention is June 30 – July 3 in New Orleans. Daniel Hayes advises to check dates to be able to attend, as the timing is a little unusual (ends on a Tuesday).

    We are now adjourned! Next LNC meeting is August 18-19 in Kansas City, Missouri.

  160. Yunior C

    Look at the platform nominations…. Andy Craig?? Da Fuq? No Matt Cholko?? LOL… I have been holding out hope for the LP for a long time but the non voter libertarians are starting to sound more right nearly every day.

  161. Michael H. Wilson

    Instead of voting for people to be on committees why not put the names of those qualified into a hat or something similar such as a bowl and draw names out?

    That would save a lot of time and the LNC could get to some of the other issues that seldom get discussed.

  162. paulie Post author

    Look at the platform nominations…. Andy Craig?? Da Fuq? No Matt Cholko??

    Both good guys and eminently qualified. I would tend to agree with Matt more but I respect Andy Craig, his knowledge and work ethic and demonstrated ability. I guess he was more popular with the in crowd. You have to be involved, stay involved and show up for votes, run for positions and keep running, and figure out the internal politics game if you want people you like to be elected to party committees. Be assured that people you disagree with on those intra-party matters know these things, know how to get their ducks in a row and don’t have that “I’m taking my ball and running off” attitude. Well, except when they do 🙂 But you having that attitude and expecting things to just fall into place without significant effort just plays into their hands.

  163. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    6:29 PM (1 hour ago)

    to lnc-business
    The APRC is beyond its scope of duty if it is going to be monitoring posts, creating a marketing strategy, etc. That is why this committee was founded and it will tally up our shortcomings and identify our opportunities while allowing us to double down on our strengths. This is not a committee to investigate the APRC, this committee will review all of our social media practices and evaluate our current strategies which will come back to the LNC as a report so we can take meaningful, effective action in the proper direction.

    If we were to simply put the staff in charge of vetting posts it would be an undue burden, and more importantly it may not yield the effective results we are looking for. Social media is very complex and involves proprietary algorithms, while also varying from platform to platform, we need to keep our aces in their places while also looking for opportunities to improve brand protection and messaging.

    By having a committee study our social media assets and procedures and returning a report to the LNC we will be able to uncover opportunities that we may not know exist and expound on solutions. I hope you can have confidence in us to bring something substantial to the table come next meeting or before, this will not be taken lightly.

    Instead of attacking the situation with a hatchet, let’s approach it with a scalpel, keep our teams motivated, and use this as a learning opportunity. I just ask you to trust our judgement and understand that we share your concerns.

    In Liberty,

    Steven Nekhaila
    Region 2 Representative Alt
    305-393-6412


    Sent from Boxer | http://getboxer.com

    On April 16, 2017 at 5:11:26 PM EDT, Ken Moellman wrote:
    All –

    After my family events today, I returned to watch the last segment of the LNC meeting, which includes the creation of the committee to review how we’re using Facebook. I continue to have grave concerns about this. We are not changing the status quo. When most organizations make a giant mistake due to some sort of internal failing, they send in a “crisis management” team to take immediate action to handle the situation – to handle the external marketing and the internal procedure improvement. Apparently, we just create yet another committee to study it.

    1. We have “only” had 2 posts with very negative response, but there have been other bad posts as well. This motion does not prevent this from continuing. Nothing has been done to stop this behavior.

    2. We have FB volunteers communicating directly with people via FB private messaging, responding to negative comments. There is, to my understanding, no APRC oversight or approval on these communications that come across to the recipient as from “Libertarian Party”.

    3. We have no marketing strategy. There’s no messaging. There’s no marketing.

    4. We have no specific social media strategy. The first step would be to have a messaging and marketing strategy, and then to apply that strategy within the realm of social media.

    Simply put, creating a committee to review an existing committee (APRC) who reviews another committee (FB Admins) who reviews another committee (FB Volunteers) is not a solution. It is an attempt to punt and gloss over a glaring problem with the party.

    I can spend hundreds of hours pushing ballot access. I can spend hundreds of hours doing IT projects. No amount of foundation work matters when we intentionally allow the negligent burning down of the structure upon which its built.

    I am currently re-evaluating my role in the party and the amount of time I dedicate to the organization. Maybe it’s my political mid-life crisis. I just have to question why I kill myself for an organization that kills itself by refusing to not allow itself to be killed.

  164. paulie Post author

    Thanks to Starchild, Caryn Ann, Chuck and all who helped liveblog, comment and read. And of course to everyone on LNC and gallery who travelled to the meeting in person.

    If anyone has any additions, corrections, photos, videos, links to coverage elsewhere etc please add.

  165. paulie Post author

    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/libertarian-party1 has the archived videos of the meeting if anyone wants to watch those. They won’t necessarily be up there for any guaranteed length of time, although as of right now at least the ones from the previous meeting are still there. That’s as far back as I went so there may or may not be even older ones there.

  166. paulie Post author

    I have always been uncomfortable with the lack of transparency regarding how content gets created and shared. Hopefully we have begun to pierce that veil.

    As one of the few LNC members who is also a Facebook Volunteer, I look forward to helping this Committee however I can.

    Thanks,
    Patrick McKnight

  167. Matt Cholko

    FYI – I am seeking Virginia’s appointment to the Platform Committee.

    For that matter, while I have no plans to seek appointment by any other state, I would accept it.

  168. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    9:56 PM (16 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    Hi All-

    As you may remember, I strongly opposed hiring political consultants in the last meeting. In my experience, consultants are often used by one faction in an organization to force its will on another. In this case, I figured a political consulting firm with D and R experience would basically tell us that theft-funded special favors and fearmongering works. I figured they would focus on making out message more like the meaningless drivel put out by the ruling parties.

    Paladin struck me differently. They were willing to focus on carefully tailored and tested marketing. They would look at specific ad strategies to see how to turn the 4 million Libertarian voters, and the tens of millions of nonvoters, into donors, volunteers, etc. They wouldn’t make the message more toned up or toned down, just reach individuals with what worked. It had the possibility of steady, reliable growth for a reasonable price.

    In my time on the LNC, I’ve reviewed several grandiose proposals from political consultants. Most seemed to believe that getting people to join, donate, volunteer was a matter of color schemes and functionally nonexistent messaging. Paladin was frankly different.

    For some, the fact that they didn’t have a website seemed highly significant. It’s a common joke among website designers, marketing consultants, etc., that they get to their own websites last. I don’t think it’s a significant consideration at all.

    The fact that Trent Somes, who has already demonstrated great insight with his social media work, LYC leadership, media presence, and organization also agreed further convinced me. The fact that David Demarest, whose uncompromising principles I have come to respect and rely on, also agreed further convinced me. The fact that Larry Sharpe, from whom I’ve learned many useful things about political communication and business communication, who himself is a successful consultant, also agreed even further convinced me.

    My own experience talking with Paladin directly showed extremely high competence, organization, and responsiveness. It was much higher than any of the other outside consultants we’ve worked with so far, with the possible exception of Will Taylor, who designed our excellent new logo.

    Our discussion with Paladin came after an exhausting and emotional social media discussion, and I’m not sure that people were in the right frame of mind for proper consideration. I strongly urge you to speak with Paladin directly, ask questions, see what they can do. They aren’t a group that seems like it’s going to force any particular agenda, but rather work on outreach with high percentage yield.

    In Liberty,

    Arvin Vohra
    Vice Chair
    LNC

  169. paulie Post author

    Arvin,

    The reality is..while you still need them websites are starting to become less important. Social media is playing a bigger and bigger role. It was sort of funny but it actually didnt strike me as the death stroke it was for somebody.

    Daniel Hayes

  170. paulie Post author

    FYI – I am seeking Virginia’s appointment to the Platform Committee.

    Good luck, hope they appoint you.

  171. paulie Post author

    I talked to them and liked them.

    I think a motion with notice for August is a good idea.

    -Caryn Ann

    PS: I think the fact they were not going to tell us how not to be libertarians which seems sadly to me a recurring theme is a feature.
    In Liberty,
    Caryn Ann Harlos

  172. paulie Post author

    Larry is right.

    I see an agenda here to strike at making a “centrist” party once again.

    All I can say is that I see it and will strenuously oppose.

    We are NOT centrists. We are Libertarians and pushing the edge IS part if our job.

    -Caryn Ann

    On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:15 PM Larry Sharpe wrote:
    Hi Everyone,

    Just an opinion to take into consideration: The reason for the huge backlash on the Satanic post was timing.

    As many of you have heard me preach, emotion and culture matter. We just came off the “pro-choice on everything” event, that made many people feel unhappy. They saw it as an attack on their culture. And then we responded with logical reasons for its validity. Logical responses to emotional concerns rarely work. Accordingly, many of them were still emotionally raw. Then during Easter week the Satanic Pic was posted. And of course, many people again responded with logical reasons as to why it was acceptable. This felt like more disrespect and a pile-on attack to their culture.

    If this Satanic pic had come out in July or August (and we had no similar instances in the meantime), this would have been a minor blip.

    Again, just my opinion. I hope it’s helpful.

  173. Michael H. Wilson

    Web sites and social media are all good but we still need to get out and meet people face to face and I get the impression a significant number of people are not in favor of that. Maybe their social skills are lacking. I know mine are.

  174. Shane

    Wow. Just read the proposal to have LNC staff forge relationships with Senate staffers.

    That really does show how out of touch the LNC is with how Washington works.

    First, no congressional staffer would ever put their neck out for the LP no matter how close the relationship is. Second, that’s not even how it works.

    Two things work: campaign money combined with aggressive lobbying (there’s a reason why the health insurance industry wrote the AHCA — they were in the top three industries who give to Republicans). In the absence of direct money to campaigns (or when you need both) — you spend more money on direct advocacy with phone and letter campaigns.

    If you want a lesson on how Washington works, pay attention to the coming FCC battle on Net Neut that will start next week. The ISP side (led by AT&T and Verizon) will submit a combined 4 million plus official comments to the FCC to support reversal. The Netflix side will do the same. All told, $12 million will be spent over a 60-day period.

    And then the rules will be reversed because of Paj (new pro-business FCC chairman) was given enough cover with the comments to do so.

    That’s how Washington really works.

    Whoever proposed that with the LNC is embarrassingly out of touch with reality. A $200 dinner for a staffer does not compete with advocacy campaigns that cost industries millions.

    Don’t get me wrong, reality is twisted. There are no prohibitions or regulation of advocacy campaigns. So industries dominate and groups representing citizens have zero chance. It’s indicicative of how elections would work in the absence of campaign finance laws.

    If the LNC knew how Washington worked, they would take a Verizon rep (or me) out to lunch and ask that the LP be the face of the advocacy campaigns. Since corporations don’t lobby directly (they use front groups), millions are spent collecting signers under the brand of the organization and in return for being a bitch for industry, the group gets to keep the names for their own purposes (including fundraising).

    So sure LNC, waste pocket change on steak dinners.

  175. ATBAFT

    It was surprising, even for this atheist, to learn that the LNC held a meeting on Easter. What, is the LNC all non-Christians, singles, social misfits, and family outcasts that a meeting on Easter is like any other weekend? Or maybe we should just appreciate the total commitment and dedication to the Party that compels these individuals to gather on such a day to debate and decide, say, who should be on the Platform Committee, instead of waiting a week to do so. Can’t wait to see what crucial topics the LNC will address at their meeting on Christmas Day.

  176. Shane

    ATBAFT, great point. If we take a look at the LNC, how many have families? While I’m a Christian, you don’t have to be to appreciate family holidays like Easter.

    If the LNC is going to continue the stupid identity politics game, then I’ll register my complaint that they are requiring staff to work on a Christian holiday.

    Or do they just want to target their outreach efforts to fake religions like the Church of Satan? Why not target Scientologists? At least they are known to have and easily part with their money.

  177. robert capozzi

    s: Second, that’s not even how it works.

    me: Yes, the naivety is stunning. The “moral”/”immoral” worldview of NAPsters leads to such conclusions. If only the staff were exposed to the NAP, they’ll convince their bosses of the error of their ways.

    Astounding.

  178. Shane

    RC, the LP always finds a way to entertain me.

    To have leadership this naive is so sad that it’s cute. Like a kitten that gets its head stuck in a jar.

    But if you consider that this party has been around for 45 years and has chased stupid ideas year-after-year, it’s upsetting.

    On a positive note, I found Arvin’s note above smart. The LP should not be chasing Identity Politics and pandering to every minority out there.

    Being a libertarian means that we don’t have to love and respect each other — we just have to tolerate each other.

    But does that mean we have to tolerate stupidity from our own leadership?

  179. Observation

    In a twist of irony it was the “pragmatist” LNC members who originated this lobbying nonsense which will be a big waste of staff time and most likely party money as well.

  180. Andy

    “Shane
    April 17, 2017 at 06:31
    Wow. Just read the proposal to have LNC staff forge relationships with Senate staffers.

    That really does show how out of touch the LNC is with how Washington works.

    First, no congressional staffer would ever put their neck out for the LP no matter how close the relationship is. Second, that’s not even how it works.”

    Considering that the LP has basically zero influence in Washington DC, and considering that the number of elected Libertarians is way down from what it was 14 years ago, and considering that dues paying party membership is way down from what it was 16-17 years ago, I question the wisdom of the party shelling out such a large amount of money for an office building in Arlington, VA, when the there are plenty of other places where the office could be located (including other parts of Virginia) where the price of real estate is much cheaper than it is in the DC metro area.

  181. Andy

    “ATBAFT
    April 17, 2017 at 07:58
    It was surprising, even for this atheist, to learn that the LNC held a meeting on Easter. What, is the LNC all non-Christians, singles, social misfits, and family outcasts that a meeting on Easter is like any other weekend? Or maybe we should just appreciate the total commitment and dedication to the Party that compels these individuals to gather on such a day to debate and decide, say, who should be on the Platform Committee, instead of waiting a week to do so. Can’t wait to see what crucial topics the LNC will address at their meeting on Christmas Day.”

    I agree. Even if what you asked in the first sentence is true, if the party is to grow, scheduling meetings on days that many people consider to be holidays where they may want to be with family is in bad taste.

  182. Andy

    “Michael H. Wilson
    April 16, 2017 at 22:57
    Web sites and social media are all good but we still need to get out and meet people face to face and I get the impression a significant number of people are not in favor of that. Maybe their social skills are lacking. I know mine are.”

    This is one of the reasons why I have been saying for YEARS that Libertarians, whether they are paid Libertarians or unpaid Libertarian volunteers, should grab clipboards and pens, and go out and get their own damn ballot access petition signatures, rather hiring non-libertarian mercenaries to do this work. The Libertarian Party has for far too long unnecessarily over-relied on non-libertarian mercenaries to gather ballot access signatures. This is work that SHOULD be done by actual Libertarians, given that it is a great opportunity to talk to large numbers of people about the Libertarian Party and philosophy. There are still lots of people out there who have little to no exposure to the Libertarian Party and its candidates. The word libertarian has gotten more popular, but there are still people out there who are unfamiliar with it, or who are confused as to what a libertarian is. Going out and gathering signatures on ballot access petitions, or registering people to vote, is a great way for Libertarians to interact with the public, and to spread the message about the party and philosophy. I could see hiring a few non-libertarian mercenaries on a limited basis to fill in gaps, but using a super-majority of the LP’s ballot access budget to pay people who are not even libertarians (which is what the LP has been doing for years), and who’d be just as happy to be working for some anti-liberty cause just so long as they are getting paid, to go out and talk to the public about the Libertarian Party, is just flat out stupid, and is in some cases, counterproductive to the cause. The “Who cares?” attitude displayed by some in the party when it comes to issues such as this is part of the reason why the party is not more successful.

  183. robert capozzi

    sc: Being a libertarian means that we don’t have to love and respect each other — we just have to tolerate each other. But does that mean we have to tolerate stupidity from our own leadership?

    me: I have a different take. It’s my practice to love and respect everyone. Sometimes, that means telling the truth as best I can, and my truth is this one’s a REAL bad idea. It’d be interesting to hear an actual counter of why it’s a GOOD idea, but I suspect there isn’t one.

    If “Observation” is correct, it’s definitely a problem with self-styled pragmatists propose naive courses of action that almost certainly will not be productive and most likely will be a poor allocation of resources. I’m open to theories about why “pragmatists” seem to lack any sense of pragmatism, at least on this initiative. It may be that they suggest pragmatic tactics to paper over NAPsterism’s obvious unworkability. If so, it’s a setup for failure, given all the self contradictions.

  184. Shane

    Andy, regarding the DC presence, I was always told by others (who had less fundraising experience than me) that a DC office helped bring in donations.

    It never seemed to hurt the NRA which is located in suburban VA (outskirts of Fairfax).

    I agree that there’s no need. Members of Congress don’t walk in and say, “Hey, I’m switching to you guys.”

    We did however get a few homeless folks who walked in and asked for an application to be president (no joke).

    The only benefit is that the staff lives in the area — and no matter what others may say, we do need the staff.

  185. Michael H. Wilson

    Thanks Andy. I’ve worked a lot of booths, collected a fair amount of signatures and in 2012 I think I collected the first petitions for the Johnson campaign here in Washington. I don’t intend to brag about my experience but it is almost impossible to get new people to listen to anyone who has done some of this before.

  186. Starchild

    Responses on several topics here…

    Meeting on Easter
    When dates were being considered at the last Libertarian National Committee meeting, this weekend seemed to be the consensus choice that had the fewest issues for most numbers of people present. There was no particular agenda or considerations beyond that, that I’m aware of. Personally it worked out well for me because I’m in a construction training program taking place on weekends this Spring which gave us that weekend off, and otherwise I would have had to skip the meeting because they are unforgiving about unexcused absences. However I was unaware of this at the time the meeting was scheduled. Usually my schedule is more flexible than most people’s and I don’t lobby hard for particular meeting dates, being happy to meet when is good for most of my colleagues. I do favor locations which meet the following criteria:

    • Venue which is free or low cost and does not waste our members’ money paying for things like room rental fees or catered food/beverages out of party funds

    • Location where there is a tie-in to local activism or some other (l)ibertarian event to enable us to take advantage of having a concentration of Libertarians present at the same time and place

    • Availability of local activists to host out-of-town visitors so that we can further get to know each other and build party/movement solidarity while saving money spent on hotel rooms and make it more practical for low-budget attendees to come to our meetings

    Lobbying Washington staffers
    There was nothing in the motion about, and no discussion of, buying dinners for these folks, and I certainly hope that’s not what anyone has in mind. To the extent there are costs involved, I would hope those are limited to the costs involved with LP staffers or others involved in lobbying being away from the LP office, attending events, having their own meals covered, etc. I think Shane and others are correct that we can’t compete with professional lobbyists and big-money special interest groups in this regard, and should not try. I don’t think “cultivating relationships” is limited to that, however. I think young interns and junior staffers working for members of Congress and other Washington power players are potentially worth approaching, talking to, building relationships with, etc., as long as our people are vigilant in not allowing themselves to be negatively influenced or drawn into the world of power politics in ways that undermine the party or the freedom movement for which it stands. I tried to amend the motion to officially require attention be paid to such vigilance in the form of having written guidelines about these interactions and training on how to influence without being influenced, but sadly the majority of the LNC apparently did not think this was important. I’m not sure whether that’s because they think our people could never be influenced or corrupted in such a way as to sell out the party or movement to any degree, or some other reason(s).

    I would strongly prefer that staff not be required to attend LNC meetings in general, whether on Easter or otherwise, because having them do so costs the party money and is an unnecessary expense. At this meeting, three staffers were present: Executive director Wes Benedict, operations manager Robert Kraus, and development director Lauren Daugherty. Wes and Lauren both gave informative reports and I understand Lauren helped set up donor meetings with LP chair Nick Sarwark in the Pittsburgh area, however I think these things could have been accomplished by phone without requiring their physical presence, just as we heard from our legal counsel Oliver Hall and took his report by phone. I asked Robert at the meeting to provide a breakdown of the costs of this meeting, which I believe he said he would be sending us later in the week. In the past he has told me that the average LNC meeting costs the party about $2500, and I consider this an unacceptable and unjustifiable expense. Further I’m not even sure whether staff airfare and the cost of time spent away from the office was included in that estimate.

    If you are reading this and agree with me, I encourage you to contact your other LNC reps and especially LP chair Nick Sarwark [email chair(at)lp.org] and let them know that you do not want money taken away from outreach, supporting candidates, advertising, and otherwise directly spreading the message of freedom, and spent on flying staff to meetings, paying for meeting rooms, or buying catered food for LNC members.

    Paying Libertarian petitioners rather than mercenaries
    I think Andy is right about this, and have said so previously. We should favor hiring our own people, both as a matter of movement solidarity and rewarding those on our side, as well as for the practical reasons he mentions (e.g. Libertarian petitioners are more likely to get new LP registered voters, put people in touch with local party chapters, etc., than folks who are simply trying to make a buck). However Andy has not yet that I’m aware of taken me up on my suggestion to come up with some specific motion language on this, in particular language amending the Libertarian National Committee’s Policy Manual. Although it’s possible he has approached the Ballot Access Committee, as I’m not on that committee (I did strongly support its creation, so that we’d have more of a transparent and participatory structure around the party’s ballot access efforts instead of simply Bill Redpath, Wes Benedict and others making decisions on stuff like hiring behind the scenes).

    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))
    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
    (415) 625-FREE

  187. Andy

    Starchild said: “In the past he has told me that the average LNC meeting costs the party about $2500, and I consider this an unacceptable and unjustifiable expense. Further I’m not even sure whether staff airfare and the cost of time spent away from the office was included in that estimate.”

    I’m pretty sure that that cost is just the cost to rent the meeting room.

    Another cost to factor in is the time and money for all of the LNC members to attend the meetings. This may not come out of the LNC budget, but it is money that each LNC member has to spend out of their own pocket, and this is money that they could use for other things.

  188. Chuck Moulton

    Shane wrote:

    Wow. Just read the proposal to have LNC staff forge relationships with Senate staffers.

    That really does show how out of touch the LNC is with how Washington works.

    Exactly.

    The really sad part is this was not a close vote — not a 9-8 or 8-7, which might give hope half of the LNC aren’t insanely naive. It was a blow-out. With very few exceptions, they are all completely clueless on this topic.

    Starchild wrote:

    There was nothing in the motion about, and no discussion of, buying dinners for these folks, and I certainly hope that’s not what anyone has in mind.

    You clearly were not paying attention.

    The maker of the motion, Joshua Katz, gave a long speech about the purpose of the motion. He said he wanted staff to throw parties for congressional staffers and buy them food.

    Maybe hor d’oeuvres, wine, amd steak dinners are the way he was influenced on the East Bumblefuck Planning Commission, but that’s not the way Washington works.

    It’s cargo cult mentality. Do Reason and Cato and other liberty organizations throw parties which some congressional staffers attend? Yes. But those staffers are already sympathetic. They attend to hang out with friends and network. That’s not how you lobby.

    Is it good to hang out with congressional staffers? Yes. Relationships like that can help you get your foot in the door and your proposal looked at.

    Will it get your proposal passed? Hell no. Appointment decisions are not made by low level staffers. The way to influence is strong lobbying or a proposal so bang up great that it speaks for itself. With all due respect, we have neither.

  189. Chuck Moulton

    The Easter meeting was a terrible idea. I’m an atheist now, but I was raised Presbyterian. My extended family is very Christian. I missed Easter dinner and my niece’s first Easter egg hunt.

    But very few LNC members had a problem with it. I think only Ken Moellman and staffer Lauren Daugherty had somewhere else to be.

  190. Starchild

    In response to my previous comment, Chuck Moulton writes, You clearly were not paying attention. The maker of the motion, Joshua Katz, gave a long speech about the purpose of the motion. He said he wanted staff to throw parties for congressional staffers and buy them food.

    Wow, maybe I wasn’t! Somehow I missed that. My thoughts do sometimes wander during long speeches. That makes it a worse idea than I thought. I believe I abstained on the main motion after my amendment was voted down, but if I’d caught that bit I would have voted against it. My bad.

    I did suggest previously, when the LP was throwing an office party for the opening of our national headquarters during my 2012-2014 term on the LNC, that we invite people from the neighborhood (e.g. neighboring businesses and groups on Duke Street) and solicit from them ideas of local regulations and anti-freedom rules that could be opposed. In short, to make it a “Red Tape Cutting” instead of a “Ribbon Cutting” party. Using our members money to pay for other people’s food in a situation like that would have made a lot more sense to me than subsidizing people working for the cartel parties, but there seemed little inclination on the LNC to pursue the idea (Paulie did respond favorably, iirc).

  191. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Shane

    If the LNC is going to continue the stupid identity politics game, then I’ll register my complaint that they are requiring staff to work on a Christian holiday.

    Or do they just want to target their outreach efforts to fake religions like the Church of Satan? Why not target Scientologists? At least they are known to have and easily part with their money.

    The incredibly odd thing to me is this: They ALREADY did one of these from the Satanic Temple several weeks beforehand, which I guess didn’t prove controversial enough to get deleted:
    https://www.facebook.com/libertarians/photos/a.10150126121157726.302978.5978057725/10155153634417726/?type=3

    So why do another one? Especially because, as you note, the Satanic Temple is a fake religion–it’s just a liberal activist group that tries to look like a religion in an effort to offend people and get attention. The quoted tenants aren’t religious, they’re political tenants. Trying to use quotes from that as part of some “religious quotes” series makes about as sense as using quotes from the Democratic or Republican platforms. Heck, THAT would make more sense, because at least there’s a lot of Democrats and Republicans, so you’d have a better chance of potentially swaying someone than by trying to appeal to a small activist group.

    And on this topic, having scrolled through a lot of facebook posts from the Libertarian Party to investigate this, I have a suggestion: Cut down on the memes. They clutter up the timeline and make it harder to find anything actually relevant. And far too many of them feel like they’re more likely to drive someone away than make them interested. Truth be told, looking through all of those posts has made me LESS interested in the Libertarian party.

  192. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Chuck I share your concerns, but I am also willing to try new things. I voted for it, because I want to try. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. I am not clueless. But maybe I am hopelessly optimistic. I hear from Party members that they want us to try to new things, and even if it gets the word Libertarian out there and know – this may not *directly* lead to any appointment, but I see an indirect value.

    I could be wrong. And if there are no results, I will question it in a future budget. But it certainly is money better spent than the 10K we threw after assemblyman Moore – which I also voted for because I am in favour of trying new appproaches. Some will win,some will fail. I felt it a risk worth taking *on a limited basis.*

    I will be asking if there is any success. I suspect it will be very small scale and will pay off in indirect ways. I could be wrong. But I am not a fan of abstentions… we are there to make decisions, and sometimes they will be wrong, but that was my thought process.

Leave a Reply

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