Libertarian National Committee to meet this weekend in St. Louis

Note that the agenda items and the times allotted for them can be changed by the committee, and are not final until approved by them in the meeting. This is a draft version that is circulating on several email lists.

Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
July 18-19, 2009 Meeting Agenda
St. Louis, Missouri

Saturday, July 18, 2009 & Sunday, July 19, 2009

Call to Order 8:30 AM

Moment of Reflection 1 minute
Opportunity for Public Comment 10 minutes
Credentials Report and Paperwork Check (Secretary) 5 minutes
Report of Potential Conflicts of Interest 5 minutes
Approval of the Agenda 5 minutes

Standing Reports
Chair’s Report 15 minutes
Treasurer’s Report 30 minutes
Secretary’s Report 10 minutes

Staff Report
Staff Reports 60 minutes
Counsel’s Report 15 minutes

Reports Previously Submitted in Writing
Campus Organizing Report (Lark) 5 minutes
Various Regions 5 minutes per

Action Items Not Previously Submitted in Writing – Old Business

Confidentiality Agreement (Held Over from Charleston) 15 minutes
Strategic Plan Review (Held Over from Charleston) 30 minutes

Action Items Previously Submitted in Writing – New Business
Credentials Committee Selection 20 minutes
Sean Haugh Formal Complaint to the LNC (Ruwart) 15 minutes
Resolution of Apology & Restitution (Hawkridge) 45 minutes

Action Items Not Previously Submitted in Writing – New Business
Sbcglobal.net email problems (Fox) 10 minutes
APRC (Ruwart) 10 minutes
Financial Records Confidentiality (Ruwart) 15 minutes
FEC Report Information Gathering (Hawkridge) 10 minutes
LNC Convention Committee Report (Colley) 30 minutes
Discipline—or not—of Steve LaBianca (Karlan) 15 minutes
Policy Manual Amendment (Karlan) 5 minutes
Bylaws Comm. & Policy Manual Overhaul Subcomm. (Karlan) 10 minutes
Non-Disclosure Agreement (Flood) 10 minutes
Ballot Access Report (Redpath) 5 minutes

Telephone Discussion with LNC Counsel Gary Sinawski at 2PM Sat.
Telephone Discussion with FEC Consultant Paula Edwards at 3PM Saturday

Report on LNC Meeting Site Selection Process for December 2009 5 minutes
Opportunity for Public Comment 10 minutes

Adjournment


In regards to this meeting, Tom Knapp has a blog post giving his take on the upcoming events, and some delegates have signed an online petition calling for LNC Treasurer Aaron Starr to apologize to At Large Member Lee Wrights and former Political Director Sean Haugh for disclosing their donor history details in the course of a battle in the interim between the last LNC meeting and this one over the attempted removal of Wrights from the LNC.

For background, see previous IPR stories (reverse chronological order):

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/06/lp-judicial-committee-rules-4-3/

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/remarks-to-libertarian-party-judicial-committee/

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/memo-to-libertarian-party-judicial-committee/

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/lnc-reps-send-brief-to-judcom/

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/libertarian-national-committee-votes-that-lee-wright-is-still-a-committee-member/

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/statement-from-the-lp-judicial-committee-regarding-wrights/

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/petitions-of-denver-libertarian-national-convention-delegates-and-sustaining-members-against-the-removal-of-lee-wrights-from-the-lnc/

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/lnc-memo-wrights-was-not-member-when-elected/

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/removal-of-lee-wrights-from-libertarian-national-committee-appealed-to-judicial-committee/

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/applicants-sought-for-lnc-vacancy/

It appears that several items on the agenda above are directly or indirectly related to this controversy. In a telephone conversation, one LNC member summarized his thoughts on this as “we will waste $25,000 to argue over $25” ($25,000 being an estimate of travel costs associated with an LNC meeting, and $25 being the donation that Sean Haugh made to pay for Lee Wrights’ membership renewal).

As with the last two meetings of the LNC, IPR will be broadcasting live coverage and/or twitter feeds from meeting attendees, provided that they can get internet signal and/or phone reception at the meeting site.

42 thoughts on “Libertarian National Committee to meet this weekend in St. Louis

  1. Gene Trosper

    Is the LNC supposed to be funny or a tragic farce? I can’t decide which.

  2. Michael Seebeck

    Why should I tell you, Stewart? We’ll make sure we catch you good side, meaning the back of your head.

  3. Andy

    “In regards to this meeting, Tom Knapp has a blog post giving his take on the upcoming events, and some delegates have signed an online petition calling for LNC Treasurer Aaron Starr to apologize to At Large Member Lee Wrights and former Political Director Sean Haugh for disclosing their donor history details in the course of a battle in the interim between the last LNC meeting and this one over the attempted removal of Wrights from the LNC.”

    This is a JOKE! Aaron Starr should most definetely NOT apologize. It is pathetic that anyone would even take this crybaby complaint from the former disgraced Political Director (Sean Haugh) seriously. This FOOL should have been fired long before he was, in fact, he never should have been hired in the first place.

    And no, this does not mean that I agree with Aaron Starr on every issue, but he is dead on right with this one.

  4. Michael Seebeck

    So you approve of libel, Andy?

    Oh, wait, that would be a yes, since you do it repeatedly all over the place here.

    (Cue Andy to start going off again in 5…4…3…2…1…)

  5. Catholic Trotskyist

    God told me that Lee Rights and Sean Haugh secretly want to be Catholic Trotskyists, but they are too scared to admit it. However, I would not take them, even if they were the only people in the world interested.

  6. Gene Trosper

    My invisible friend told me God doesn’t exist because no one has never seen God.

  7. Michael Seebeck

    Gene, no one has ever seen God because on the ninth day, God created Chuck Norris, and on the tenth day, Chuck scared God into hiding, and he hasn’t been seen since.

    (I know this because I was there when he broke the mold when he created me on the eighth day…)

    (No, I’m not being egotistical, just silly! I was actually created on the 2^4,357,689 – 1 day.)

  8. Andy

    “Michael Seebeck // Jul 16, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    So you approve of libel, Andy?”

    Aaron Starr did not committ libel, he simply revealed that Sean Haugh, while an employee for LP National, paid the membership dues of Lee Wrights who was at the time a candidate for the LNC. All Starr did was reveal the truth.

  9. Andy

    “Oh, wait, that would be a yes, since you do it repeatedly all over the place here.”

    All I’ve done is speak the truth. I may have included some name calling/insults in with the truth, but this takes nothing away from the facts that I’ve presented.

  10. Susan Hogarth

    Steve apparently chose to not read and sign the sexual harassment policy of the LNC. Evidently he sees this as a sort of conscientious objection, as the policy is (in his opinion) only a product of the state’s interference with the Party.

    I don’t think anyone – except perhaps George Phillies, and maybe not even him – thinks that Steve is the ‘target’ of any sort of ‘purge’ attempt.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a disagreement is just a disagreement.

  11. Stewart Flood

    So you’re not going to tell me? Tsk tsk.

    I asked for a reason. The guys who ran the broadcast at the last meeting in Charleston did a good job. I was just wondering if it would be the same crew.

    Purge? What purge is that? LaBianca? Regional reps and alternates cannot be removed by the LNC. The bylaws do not give the committee any authority in this area.

  12. Michael Seebeck

    I’m not gonna tell you because I don’t know all who they are, and those I do know didn’t say I could say, so I won’t say.

    And even if I did, it’s more fun for me to make you sweat it. It could be me. It could be Knapp. It could be your ex. It could be the bellhop. It could even be The Keaton.

    But they are all around you, closing in on every side. This is why you don’t piss off radicals.

    Sullentrup had no Bylaws authority to remove Wrights either, yet y’all tried to do that until the JudComm said you were full of it. So I wouldn’t put it past you at this point to try anything.

    More likely Karlan is going to try to censure or do some other embarrassing waste of time and effort. Kinda stupid and cowardly all around since LaBianca isn’t going to be there to even defend himself. But that’s par for the course with you guys: first you were the sacrifice to The Keaton, then Mattson to Wrights, now Karlan to LaBianca. What’s the next failure, Sink-Burris to Fox?

  13. Michael Seebeck

    Andy, you repeat your “facts” ad nauseum.

    Put it this way. That horse is dead. GROW UP AND GET OVER IT!

    You don’t like Sean Haugh. We get that, ad nauseum. but you really need to learn to quit rehashing the past over and over and over again, and projecting your dislike of him onto everything he does and you do. It just makes you look stupid and foolish, or at least in desperate need of a quiet hobby like crochet.

  14. Michael Seebeck

    matt @11: There’s a “Your mama” joke in there somewhere, but never mind. I like to save those for people I don’t like. 😀

  15. LP Observer

    The “libel per se” crowd really needs to get over themselves.

    So what was the “damage” requiring restitution to R. Lee Wrights or Sean Haugh? Ten bucks? Do I hear 20?

    That agenda item speaks of a trailer park mentality.

    It’s too bad that Hawkridge, Wrights et al are allied with the principled faction of the LP … they seem to be the well-intentioned gang that can’t shoot straight.

    In contrast, the corporate-statist infiltrators on the LNC (Starr, Sullentrup, Mattson, et al) exhibit the competence that qualified them for this and other mercenary endeavors.

  16. Stewart Flood

    The weather may be making me sweat, but you aren’t! 🙂

    Jeff just took the wheel at the sc/ga border, so I can use the iPhone again.

    Knowing who was going to broadcast in Charleston helped, since we were able to work on the network access in advance. I’m not the “host” this time, so I’m not as concerned.

  17. Michael Seebeck

    LP Observer, what fiction are you reading? Because it sure isn’t *this* dramedy.

  18. Michael Seebeck

    Independent broadcasters need not worry about the host. We just show up and do it, whether you like it or not.

  19. Susan Hogarth

    @20: I agree that ‘libel per se’ is a ridiculous charge, but I think that all libel/slander/whatever belongs in the same rubishheap as the ‘you closthesline ruins my property value’ arguments.

    On the other hand, I do think it important that donor information be kept confidential, and here is where Starr needs to be corrected.

  20. paulie Post author

    The “libel per se” crowd really needs to get over themselves.

    Yes!

    I’m about sick of hearing “cease and desist” and “I’m consulting my attorney…” (from all sides).

    It’s about as welcome as repeat threats to call the cops, repeat threats of suicide, etc.

    Enough already!

    None of this stuff is worth pain and suffering, attorneys fees, court dates, court delays, cops, liens, prosecutors, jail, judges…..been down that rabbit hole too many times, and I gotta say, whatever it is – it’s damn unlikely to be worth it.

    Good thing that 99%+ of all such threats are just pure unadulterated bluster…

  21. Stewart Flood

    Yup. $25K to argue over $25. Gotta love it. What a waste of time.

    6:30am (eastern) getting breakfast. Just crossed into Illinois on I24. Should be in St. Louis about 9am local time.

  22. Marc Montoni

    In contrast, the corporate-statist infiltrators on the LNC (Starr, Sullentrup, Mattson, et al) exhibit the competence that qualified them for this and other mercenary endeavors.

    Doubtless you’re referring to the abortive attempt to oust various members of the LNC.

    What I see is a majority that refuses to address real problems with national operations (fundraising, membership, number of candidates, etc) that desperately need attention.

    The ACLU’s donor base is three times larger now than it was prior to 9/11, due mainly to agressive direct mail prospecting. This gives the organization more money to launch lawsuits and other projects. Meanwhile, various members of the LNC find their motivation in fighting infinitesimally unimportant internal battles to preserve the majority’s majority.

    The LP as a whole pays for this folly.

  23. paulie Post author

    The ACLU’s donor base is three times larger now than it was prior to 9/11, due mainly to agressive direct mail prospecting. This gives the organization more money to launch lawsuits and other projects. Meanwhile, various members of the LNC find their motivation in fighting infinitesimally unimportant internal battles to preserve the majority’s majority.

    Good point.

    We blew a huge opportunity by not moving peace and civil liberties front and center after 9/11.

    There’s another such opportunity now, with many Democrats abandoning those issues now that Obama is in office, and maniy others already balking at Obama’s sellout on these issues (while it took Republicans 6 years to start waking up to W’s big government slide).

    How about some focus on maximizing our external opportunities rather than our internal rifts?

  24. paulie Post author

    I’m not gonna tell you because I don’t know all who they are, and those I do know didn’t say I could say, so I won’t say.

    And even if I did, it’s more fun for me to make you sweat it. It could be me. It could be Knapp. It could be your ex. It could be the bellhop. It could even be The Keaton.

    But they are all around you, closing in on every side. This is why you don’t piss off radicals.

    Why assume Stewart’s interest is adversarial? He actually did help in SC.

  25. mdh

    I think sometimes people ascribe adversarial motives needlessly. There’s like a cult of “friend or foe.”

    There’re places where I disagree with Stewart and places where I agree with Stewart.

    Just because you sometimes or often disagree with someone doesn’t mean they’re up to no good. There are plenty of people on all sides of the factional warfare BS that do pointlessly stupid things that impede the success of the LP. For my part, I act only in ways that I personally believe will make the LP more successful (others may disagree, of course.)

  26. Chuck Moulton

    Stewart is a good guy. (I don’t agree with some of his votes and I was disappointed in his handling of Angela, but he always means well, he puts a lot of work into the LP, and he has a lot of good ideas.) You guys should stop reading malice or some underhanded motive into his comments because it just doesn’t exist.

    Too many LP activists see everything in black and white… when they see someone screw up they put him on their shit list and assume he can do no right; when they see someone do something fantasic they deify that person and assume he can do no wrong. In real life people are more nuanced than that.

  27. libertariangirl

    @18 , so your saying andy doesnt like Sean Haugh?
    whats that all about?

  28. paulie Post author

    Stewart is a good guy. (I don’t agree with some of his votes and I was disappointed in his handling of Angela, but he always means well, he puts a lot of work into the LP, and he has a lot of good ideas.) You guys should stop reading malice or some underhanded motive into his comments because it just doesn’t exist.

    Too many LP activists see everything in black and white… when they see someone screw up they put him on their shit list and assume he can do no right; when they see someone do something fantasic they deify that person and assume he can do no wrong. In real life people are more nuanced than that.

    Exactly.

  29. paulie Post author

    lg

    @18 , so your saying andy doesnt like Sean Haugh?
    whats that all about?

    LOL, are you trying to start another round, you little troublemaker? Bad girl!

  30. libertariangirl

    TK_Chuck,

    For some reason, I sense malice, or perhaps some underhanded motive, in your comment @32.

    me_ the malice doesnt exist perhaps your identifying with the statement a little and misinterpreting.
    you know like a guilty conscience:)

  31. Michael Seebeck

    Yup. $25K to argue over $25. Gotta love it. What a waste of time.

    So why didn’t you grow a spine, Stewie, and speak up to put a stop to it instead of signing on with the antagonists?

    Your complaints ring hollow based on your actions.

    Paulie, Chuck, that’s why I consider him adversarial. He has a consistent pattern of behavior that indicates it.

    But adversarial doesn’t necessarily always imply malice, either. I didn’t read any malice in Flood’s original question. Just him poking around for information that at this point in time is none of his business, and which he’d find out in due time anyway. My response was the truth–I don’t know who all is doing it and who I do know hasn’t said I could name names, so I won’t.

    The rest is just sarcasm and messing with Flood’s mind, which appears to be easy to do, as The Keaton had demonstrated.

  32. Pingback: LNC meeting: live broadcast | Independent Political Report

  33. Pingback: George Phillies reviews recent Libertarian National Committee meeting in St. Louis | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.