LNC meeting thread

Meeting about to start.

I have a computer and a videocamera, as well as a livestream channel set up to go, but don’t know how to make them work together.

Hope to have that figured out later. Taping for now.

103 thoughts on “LNC meeting thread

  1. paulie Post author

    Lee Wrights wants to remove the resolution from agenda about removing felons from LP leadership.

    Ruwart, Lark also oppose.

  2. paulie Post author

    Every lnc member who was supposed to be here is here except Jake Porter who is supposed to be alternating for Julie Fox

  3. paulie Post author

    Says he talks to Benedict 4-5 times a week, has done some media interviews, got together with Constitution Party chair in Pennsylvania and they now speak on the phone occassionally met with Students for Liberty chair.

  4. paulie Post author

    Redpath cont….almost went to be an election observer in Gabon, Africa, but did not end up going. Went to Cato event, on the board of Fair Vote and Citizens in Charge, worked on Matt Cholko campaign in Virginia

  5. paulie Post author

    Sending out quarterly financial reports to delegates and sustaining members on request seems to be working well.

  6. paulie Post author

    Asks for input on how to make them better. Hawkridge suggests printing them on 11 x 17. Starr suggests using pdf zoom feature.

  7. paulie Post author

    Needs to test e-voting system at a state convention but has not identified one yet. Dixon suggests state chairs conference/LNC meeting in Austin

  8. paulie Post author

    Looking for way to recover old LNC minutes that were in the possession of John Famularo. Jim Lark believes that will not be feasible, but several people have suggestions.

  9. paulie Post author

    Problems w/ this computer make that less workable. Is anyone interested in these updates? If not, we are taping and hopefully that can be made available later.

  10. paulie Post author

    I’ll post the videos if/as they are in a format that can be played here. Other than that I can do my best to answer any questions anyone may have, but my memory won’t be near as good w/o the liveblog. In any case so far we have one no vote on liveblog and no yes votes, so I’m done with that for now.

  11. Chuck Moulton

    I like the liveblogging, though I realize it clogs the comment stream. Perhaps it could be liveblogged on another blog linked to from here, then batched comments here later for those who don’t like it live.

  12. Pingback: LNC Nashville liveblog « Next Free Voice

  13. paulie Post author

    Batched thru lunch:


    Staff reports done. Missed liveblogging staff report from Wes.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.00.49 pauliecannoli

    Now discussing timing of executive session

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.02.57 pauliecannoli

    Pat Dixon suggests there is nothing except counsels report to discuss in exec session.

    Stewart Flood wants to discuss a contract issue in exec session.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.05.14 pauliecannoli

    Campus report….

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.06.01 pauliecannoli

    Jim Lark thanks Joel Cox for help with campus organizing

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.07.44 pauliecannoli

    Lee Wrights commends Jim Lark

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.10.04 pauliecannoli

    Reports that there is a strong tendency towards libertarian thought among college students.

    Says SIL is doing a very good job and has good relationship with LP.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.10.31 pauliecannoli

    Region reports

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.11.49 pauliecannoli

    Vermont in progress of being reorganized. Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine “in need of serious help” esp. Maine.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.13.44 pauliecannoli

    Sink-Burris…had regional conference initiated by state chairs, urges other regions to do same.

    Hinkle urges regions to update campus contact list.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.15.46 pauliecannoli

    Jack Dean – pensiontsunami.com ?

    Keeps track of cities and counties going bankrupt due to pensions

    Richard Rider – list that focuses on corporate welfare e.g. stadia

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.16.09 pauliecannoli

    Flood – NC has new (political?) director

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.17.02 pauliecannoli

    Spending time working with chairs, staff from other regions

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.18.56 pauliecannoli

    Tony Ryan – missed it – refer to tape

    Jim Lark – something about IL … talks some more about pensiontsunami, suggests press release, confirms on NC political director

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.20.38 pauliecannoli

    Wes needs press releases and articles that are ready to go, more so than ideas

    KY report will be in exec session

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.22.48 pauliecannoli

    Colley – conventions 2010, 2012

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.23.58 pauliecannoli

    Goes to corp HQ of hotel chains and gets deals that way..

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.25.37 pauliecannoli

    head counts issue w/ hotels

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.28.01 pauliecannoli

    Packages…wants to keep gold under 300

    Silver – skips lunches

    basic – how many people we commit to

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.30.40 pauliecannoli

    Wants to stay on top of cheap room/food options that Knapp is tracking, so that the party does not overcommit to hotel by promising more people staying and eating there than actually will…encourages ppl to stay and eat at convention hotel so party does not lose money to hotel

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.33.11 pauliecannoli

    Going over menus or something. I am suddenly feeling the need for a 12-ounce cup full of espresso shots.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.35.05 pauliecannoli

    “Starbucks, blah blah blah” – – exact quote.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.37.29 pauliecannoli

    Target Jan 15 to have packages ready to sell

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.39.57 pauliecannoli

    Lark: will we lose money?

    Colley: no

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.41.11 pauliecannoli

    Colley looking for volunteers to help with convention planning

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.43.12 pauliecannoli

    Skipping desert after lunch to save money

    Thanks Sullentrup

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.44.59 pauliecannoli

    Speakers: Boortz, Barr, Gary Nolan, David Nolan, Jeff Davis. Sullentrup will give welcome to StL speech.

    Lark has suggestions for free speakers.

    No breakout rooms to streamline costs.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.46.01 pauliecannoli

    Redpath, Dixon favor weekly conference call to keep on target for convention

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.46.40 pauliecannoli

    Hinkle points out that many people will not show up for meals they bought

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.47.52 pauliecannoli

    2012: Suggestions Nashville, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, DC

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.49.35 pauliecannoli

    Charlotte is unlikely due to high cost

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.50.08 pauliecannoli

    Problems w/ remodeling at Pittsburgh hotel

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.50.56 pauliecannoli

    No big enough hotel in Manchester NH

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.51.46 pauliecannoli

    Louisville KY wanted to split it up between 3 hotels w/ shuttle bus, rejected for that reason

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.52.44 pauliecannoli

    Lark: are we trying to decide on 2012 convention this term?

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.53.21 pauliecannoli

    Colley wants contract for 2012 done before 2010 convention

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.54.59 pauliecannoli

    Calls setup in Nashville “confusing”

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.56.09 pauliecannoli

    Good meeting room but meal rooms are not as good. Other aspects of Nashville hotel are good.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.58.56 pauliecannoli

    Nashville has best price

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.59.59 pauliecannoli

    1/2 price on rooms as DC and parking here is much cheaper. Staff has been very cooperative.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.01.10 pauliecannoli

    box lunch as alternative?

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.02.42 pauliecannoli

    Dixon: tradeoff in losing speakers

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.03.38 pauliecannoli

    Nashville is currently 1st choice
    DC is 2nd

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.05.41 pauliecannoli

    Counsels report – exec session?

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.07.07 pauliecannoli

    not yet

    Mass. litigation may be planned

    Moving to proactive stance in litigations such as DC write-in vote counts, Mass. regulations on internal governance of alt parties etc

    Hinkle suggests joining RNC suit against FEC

    Considering moving discussion of legal strategy in Illinois gun rights case in exec session

    Bob Barr may assist w/ that case

  14. paulie Post author

    Jumped the gun.

    Not exec session yet. Will include any additional comments at next batch. Meantime see cannoli wordpress.

  15. George Phillies

    Mass Litigation

    There was a final decision in Massachusetts at the District Court level on our estoppal issue. The Secretary of State’s counsel had said that we were allowed to substitute and would send us a form. He then changed his mind when we asked post-convention for the form. There was a suit. Substitution won. The Secretary of State has filed notice — public record — that he is filing an appeal, which is due this month.

    There is no Massachusetts issue here.

  16. paulie

    Different issue I think…IIUC this is the one where the state tells parties they have to collect an unreasonable number of signatures to have a candidate in the primary even if it is the only candidate in that party for that office, but i could be wrong.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Wants to stay on top of cheap room/food options that Knapp is tracking, so that the party does not overcommit to hotel by promising more people staying and eating there than actually will…encourages ppl to stay and eat at convention hotel so party does not lose money to hotel”

    I, too, encourage people to stay at the convention hotel if they can afford to. If nothing else, it’s just easier than schlepping back and forth between there and some other sleeping space.

    On the lodging side, I’ve only identified two alternatives to the convention hotel. Both are limited in size and unlikely to draw any great number of convention attendees away from the Renaissance Grand. But I’d rather see someone attend the convention and stay elsewhere, than not be able to attend the convention because they can’t afford 3-4 nights at an expensive hotel.

    On the food side, I think it’s unrealistic to expect that many people will eat most, let alone all, meals at the convention hotel.

    Cost is an issue, but even if it wasn’t, people like variety. Most of what I’ve been blogging involves inexpensive meals within walking distance of the convention hotel. Not only do I believe that easy access to this variety will make the convention more enjoyable, but once again — I’d rather have someone attend the convention and be eating $5 meals from Hardee’s than not attend the convention because they can’t afford to drop $20+ on three meals per day.

  18. George Phillies

    I do presume they can handle banquets, but the size of the hotel restaurant appeared to be a bit limited relative to a thousand-person convention. However it was a very nice restaurant with good food.

  19. George Phillies

    I just spoke to Paulie Cannoli. The LNC is back in session, but his computer link is misbehaving, and he needs a recess to be able to have happen what needs to be done to fix it. Until then, no more liveblogging.


  20. Kimberly Wilder

    Thanks, Paulie, for the live blog. Since I ain’t a Libertarian, I only skimmed. But, found some interesting stuff.

    Looking forward to more reports of whatever your tech capabilities are.

    I think there is no problem making long lists of comments. As long as you are not making too many new posts, it is great to hear fresh news!


    (P.S. Would also be nice if someone had time for some kind of summary report, or highlights. The felony thing sounded interesting…)

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    George is correct on the food situation. The hotel restaurant is not especially large. I don’t see any way that it could handle 500-1000 guests at a time, which is what we’re talking about for the convention.

    The only “outside franchise” I saw at the hotel was Starbucks, which is fine if you want coffee and perhaps a danish, but not really a meal alternative.

    In the area around the hotel, there are options ranging from the upscale (sushi bars, etc.) to fast food (Hardee’s) and everything in between (Chinese buffet, TGI Friday’s, etc.). I’m trying to catalog these so that convention attendees can find them as easily as possible and not waste time wandering around hoping to find something to eat.

  22. George Phillies


    There did not seem to be a lot within, say, two blocks. The Chinese buffet we hit was four or five, if I recall.

    Of course, as a Presidential candidate you get to spend the lunch hour gladhanding, and then get to eat in relative comfort between-times.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp


    So far, all I’ve found within a block of the hotel are “high-end” establishments — places where you’ll get a fine meal, I’m sure, but at a minimum cost of $25 per person or so. That can add up very quickly.

    The Chinese buffet we ate at was about four blocks away, and came to less than $10 per person. Also in that area are Hardee’s, TGI Friday’s, Imo’s, etc. There was a Lion’s Choice (roast beef oriented, like Arby’s only better), but I noticed last weekend that it has closed.

    There are also some local non-chain establishments that look reasonable — I’m going to sample them over the next few months and blog them as well. One in particular looked like a real — and really cheap — Mexican place that caters to the area’s construction trade with sack burrito lunches. If they’re open on weekends, that could be a good idea for people who want to grab something and bring it back to the convention floor.

    Just to reiterate, people who can afford to stay at the luxury hotel where the convention is held should certainly do so. It’s easier and more convenient. And if you don’t mind popping $25 per person per meal, that’s great, too. I’d like to see more “povertarians” able to attend the convention, though, and I’m hoping that shaving several hundred dollars off the cost of doing so will increase participation. Some suggestions:

    – Use mass transit. If you’re coming from the airport, it will save you $80-$100 round trip over taking a cab. If you’re driving in and don’t expect to need your car during the proceedings, you can use the “park and ride,” and the cost of a two-way train ride is less than the cost of one day’s hotel parking. The taxes on your hotel stay, etc., help pay for that mass transit. Might as well use the subsidy you’re paying for.

    – Bring some of your own food — cold cuts, etc. — and either bring a cooler or arrange for a fridge in your room. That way you can grab a quick lunch sandwich or snack for much less than the cost of an appetizer at the places within a block or so of the hotel.

    – Make a group outing for dinner after the day’s proceedings are done, to a place a little further afield. The family and/or fine dining food price drops dramatically when you get out of the downtown area. I’ve blogged Talayna’s, which is a 5-10 minute train ride from the convention hotel. $10-15 per person, maybe a little less, will get you the best pizza/pasta meal available in the area. The service is great, and the staff knows and likes Libertarians (the city and county parties frequently hold events there). I plan to try to get together a group for an evening meal there one night.

  24. paulie Post author


    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.20.59 pauliecannoli

    Bob Barr may assist w/ that case

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.26.01 pauliecannoli

    Hawkridge: deadline for amicus brief passed

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.30.35 Stewart Flood

    You forgot to mention my response, which is:


    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 13.20.26 Michael H. Wilson

    paulie at some point, not today, we need to get more information as to what Wes means when you wrote; ?Wes needs press releases and articles that are ready to go, more so than ideas?.

    I?m sure there are some of us who can help.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 13.46.22 George Phillies

    Where on earth is this Massachusetts litigation stuff coming from? Not Massachusetts.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.39.34 pauliecannoli

    Colley: there will be a convention fee around $30 for those who do not buy rooms and meals

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.40.57 pauliecannoli

    Michael, I think it is more or less self explanatory. If you have something that is ready to go, rather than just an idea for what Wes needs to put together, shoot it to him and he may be able to put it to use.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.42.33 pauliecannoli

    Hawkridge: The 30 is supposed to be for materials ? not seating and voting. [/hawk]

    Some disagreement over whether charging delegates to vote is against the bylaws.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.45.19 pauliecannoli

    Discussion for goals ?

    15k members by May(?) 2010
    All states to have affiliates by 2010
    Profit or loss of no more than 10k on convention

    One more I missed

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.47.49 pauliecannoli

    Ruwart point of info, will compensation for staff be threatened if goals are not met.

    Reply ? forgot from whom ? No.

    unanimous roll call vote yes on goals

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.51.46 pauliecannoli

    Ballot access report ? 27 states at present

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.55.19 pauliecannoli

    To do: Alabama extremely difficult, more like ind. pres.

    Arkansas ? 10k statewide, 1k ind more likely

    CT, DC waits til 12

    IL ? 25k 2012, 2010 ea

    ?going too fast to take notes?

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.55.46 pauliecannoli

    NM asap

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.00.59 pauliecannoli

    WV ? substitution issue

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.02.13 pauliecannoli

    4151 valid NM, Apr 1 2010 deadline, good for both 2010 and 2012. NM state money tied up in a lawsuit.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.04.43 pauliecannoli

    About 15k needed for about 7700 sig nm. Redpath wants it considered in budget. Wants to help IL in 10. May want to start Nebraska.

    Winger is paying Kohlhaas in some state. Missed the state.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.12.34 pauliecannoli

    Redpath ? 15k NM
    IL ? 80k NM, IL might do 5-10k
    NE ? 15k

    100k total

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.13.07 pauliecannoli

    Needs to verify w/ Winger that includes 2012 Nebraska

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.13.53 pauliecannoli

    Dixon ? don?t want to go negative on budget

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.16.26 pauliecannoli

    5% retention in Nebraska ? Winger says that they have always met the 5% test before

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.16.49 pauliecannoli

    Starr ? how much more expensive would it be to do it in 2012?

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.17.55 pauliecannoli

    5% NE above refers to any statewide office

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.19.46 pauliecannoli

    Believes Fox has good chance at 5% for IL comptroller, would save from having to do 2012

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.20.53 pauliecannoli

    Starr: chance to fail in 2010, better to just go for 2012

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.22.21 pauliecannoli

    Redpath: Chance to run 2010 candidates

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.07.02 pauliecannoli

    ..some more I forgot, then exec session?now back from break

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.07.49 Michael H. Wilson

    Thanks I should have been clear. We need to know what he is looking for when he says articles. Does he want them for the news letter or something else, op-eds?

    I?ll contact him and ask.

    Thank again for the work.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.08.18 pauliecannoli

    Waiting for Sullentrup

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.10.13 pauliecannoli

    Flood?s b-day. He says he would rather not hear happy birthday song being sung.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.13.01 pauliecannoli

    It is apparently illegal to sing badly in Nashville

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.13.48 pauliecannoli

    MW ? anything and everything.

    Moving to budget discussion

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.17.15 pauliecannoli

    Starr ? increase ED/chair solicitations budget to fund ballot access proposals; they would be conditional on money being raised.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.22.41 pauliecannoli

    Dixon ? no need to further complicate budget (as best I understood what he said)

    Starr ? this would make it clear that if money is raised for ballot access it should be spent for ballot access)

    Redpath ? likes Starr?s plan but would like immediate authorization for 15k for NM

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.24.27 pauliecannoli

    Jingozian ? two budgets: minimum budget and performance-based budget

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.25.45 pauliecannoli

    Hinkle motion ? ballot access line item be raised from 0 to 15k, surplus reduced by 15k

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.29.02 pauliecannoli

    Hinkle speaking to motion ? need to fill in some zeros on budget so we send message to membership that all these other categories are important (EG see Phillies article at IPR:


    2nded by Wrights ? passes without objection

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.30.28 pauliecannoli

    Lark ? expenditures on campus organizing?

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.30.59 pauliecannoli

    Points out he is spending large amounts himself.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.33.37 pauliecannoli

    Discussion of convention. Lark says Colley ?guaranteed? it will not lose money, Colley says he can?t control how many people buy which packages

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.34.34 pauliecannoli

    Lark says there is 5k for ballot access which he contributed several years ago which he has just not submitted reimbursements.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.35.39 pauliecannoli

    Starr ? reason for zero line items is to keep them in mind as ideas of what the party will hopefully fund in the future

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.36.36 pauliecannoli

    Ruwart questioning number projections

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.37.56 pauliecannoli

    Starr ? precedent for better than numbers than we had in 2009, eg 2007, 2008

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.38.48 pauliecannoli

    Starr ? most cost effective method of fundraising is in person ? holds down costs as opposed to other methods (direct mail, phone, etc)

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.40.23 Stewart Flood

    The reference to violating local anti-bad-singing ordinances came from another board member.

    My father always sang happy birthday to me, up to and including my 38th birthday when he called me as usual to sing. He passed away unexpectedly three weeks later on the day after Christmas in 1995 at the age of 83. I have elected since then to request that happy birthday not be sung to me. I am quite confident that the LNC chorus would have been able to sing happy birthday in a manner that would comply with local laws.

    Aside from Mark Hinkle throwing a spit ball past me this morning that was clearly aimed at the Treasurer, we are having a very productive and cooperative meeting which has been a very good birthday present.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.40.37 pauliecannoli

    Ruwart ? based on 4 year cycle 2010 will not be as good as 2007, 8. Has optimism in process as explained in ED report by Wes and in Wes personally, but still cautious as to the projections.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.42.49 pauliecannoli

    Stewart ? yes, this does seem more friendly than last couple I was at. And happy birthday.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.44.19 pauliecannoli

    Ruwart, Lark motion ? raising fundraising cost projection by 20k at cost to bottom line. This was suggested by Starr in discussion leading to motion based on objections/questions raised by Ruwart.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.44.45 pauliecannoli

    Dixon in opposition

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.45.48 pauliecannoli

    Dixon ? ?we don?t have to allocate everything we can anticipate? ? numbers can be adjusted in a few months if we are doing well.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.47.24 pauliecannoli

    Just remembered before break, motion to iextend time to discuss ballot access did not get 2/3?Porter, Sullentrup, Dixon were against extending time.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.48.10 pauliecannoli

    Hinkle, Starr speaking in favor of Ruwart motion

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.48.56 pauliecannoli

    Jingozian in favor

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.50.09 pauliecannoli

    Flood ? appears to be making points both for and against ? I missed conclusion

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.50.44 pauliecannoli

    Moved to a vote ? majority vote

    Passes with I think 2 nays

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.51.25 pauliecannoli

    Colley ? what happened to reserve

    Starr ? now called surplus

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.54.32 pauliecannoli

    Question (Karlan?) as to whether Lark spending is in-kind contribution. Lark says no. Starr says questions like this should be in executive session.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.57.17 pauliecannoli

    Dixon wants more spending to be flexible rather than specifically allocated

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.58.17 pauliecannoli

    Starr says that if we go to 6 issues LP News there should be more budgeted for it.

    Hinkle wants to allocate 5k more to litigation.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.02.15 pauliecannoli

    Dixon ? we can?t allocate money we don?t have yet ? that revenue is just projected, not actual

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.05.20 pauliecannoli

    Ruwart ? doing things like ballot access and litigation help raise money because they give donors projects they want to fund

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.06.22 pauliecannoli

    Starr ? allow for specific authorizations as year progresses, or base on revenues raised by personal solicitation

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.07.04 pauliecannoli

    15k was authorized for ballot access, not authorized to NM

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.07.42 pauliecannoli

    Lark ? call all pending questions

    Dixon ? objection

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.08.13 Stewart Flood

    My conclusion was that I supported Dr. Ruwart?s motion (which I?ve already voted for at time of this posting) but that I agreed with Mr Dixon that we can very easily modify the budget later if things change.

    This is just a budget. Ink on paper. We haven?t raised one single dime for 2010 (other than the estate disbursement) so we have no idea how things will turn out.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.09.41 pauliecannoli

    Lark ? special point of privelege ? why oppose

    Dixon ? wants to address question on budget after amendment addressed

    Lark ? withdraws motion

    Sullentrup (?) ? objects to withdrawal

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.12.29 pauliecannoli

    Motion to call all pending questions

    nays hawkridge, porter, hinkle, ruwart, one more I missed ? Wrights?

    fails 2/3

    Proceed to Hinkle motion

    passes on voice majority vote

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.13.00 pauliecannoli

    Proceeding to vote on budget as amended

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.14.48 pauliecannoli

    Nays ? Porter

    Redpath abstains

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.15.46 Stewart Flood

    And the budget passes 13-3.

    There is $15K for ballot access. That does not mean we won?t end up spending more than that in 2010. The budget may change later in the year.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.16.13 pauliecannoli

    Stewart ? thanks for clarification ? hard to follow what ppl are saying sometimes esp, when I am liveblogging @ same time

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.21.23 pauliecannoli

    Wrights, (Ruwart?)

    Motion for EC encumbrance for ballot access

    Wrights says ballot access is most important thing we do, without it we are nothing

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.21.53 pauliecannoli

    Passes without objection

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.23.07 pauliecannoli


    5 policy (manual?) changes that are separate agenda items

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.24.07 pauliecannoli

    1st one ? issue regarding compensation

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.26.25 pauliecannoli

    Starr points out that Colley is already doing what is being proposed here.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.32.02 pauliecannoli

    Dixon ? ED should not be micromanaged by LNC

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.34.57 pauliecannoli

    Wes is asked if he is for it

    Says no but it will not be a disaster if it passes

    Points out that the hiring/firing he has done has been with Redpath?s approval as stated in policy manual and that it is possible that the same changes would have taken place had the proposed changes been in place

    Points out that employment manual has been worked on for years, still not ready

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.36.16 pauliecannoli

    Ruwart ? difficult to fire people under this system and it wastes time ? if the system we have is not broke don?t fix it

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.37.16 pauliecannoli

    Colley ? ?I?ve never told the ED to do anything?

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.39.36 pauliecannoli

    Colley ? this is to help, not to micromanage

    Sink-Burris ? comments in favor

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.40.16 pauliecannoli

    Alabama 26 FL 13. Starr asked this be included.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.41.06 pauliecannoli

    Time extension voted down. Passes with two abstentions on close vote.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.42.01 pauliecannoli

    Apparently there was one other no on budget, not sure I got who it was ? Ruwart?

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.42.38 pauliecannoli

    Next agenda item, policy on merit based relationships

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.46.16 pauliecannoli

    Redpath point of info ? why? Specific incident spurring this?

    Karlan ? dunno

    Starr (coauthor) ? No. This is standard procedure in corporate world. Why is this controversial?

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.46.35 pauliecannoli

    Wrights motion to divide question

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.46.59 pauliecannoli

    Hawkridge 2nd

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.47.59 pauliecannoli

    Lark ? point of clarification/personal privilege ? what does this mean?

    Starr explained but I missed it

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.48.30 pauliecannoli

    Question is divided. I think unanimously. I don?t have it in front of me so I?m fairly lost.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.50.03 pauliecannoli

    Something else happened while Andy was texting me to make sure I am not a total moron.

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.51.55 pauliecannoli

    Lark ? something like this should pass but current language is too restrictive ? inclined to vote no as written

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.54.26 pauliecannoli

    Wrights ? far too restrictive ? too many people are friends, associates, etc of each other

    Jingozian ? question about contracting with companies owned, co-owned etc by LNC members

    Starr ? it would have to be cleared by EPCC, not just ED

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.56.14 pauliecannoli

    Wes ? if this passes it should also apply to LNC members engaged in selecting contractors; Starr ? Wes and Redpath are the only ones who can ink deals

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.57.06 pauliecannoli

    More argument I missed

    Time extension voted down

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.59.02 pauliecannoli

    Can?t keep up but looks like it will be voted down

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.59.39 pauliecannoli

    4 yes, 4 abstain, 8 no

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.00.04 pauliecannoli

    Correction 9 no

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.01.33 pauliecannoli

    Question of how much more to do today

    Redpath: To hear from Sinawski on new info on RNC lawsuit against BCRA

    Would like to end for day other than that but it is up to the board.

    7 pm reservation

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.03.01 pauliecannoli

    Lark ? one other item

    Starr? ? 6:30

    Sullentrup, ? tired, had heart attack a month ago

    Redpath ? OK, Sinawski (counsel) only

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.05.07 pauliecannoli

    Currently at federal district court level

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.06.05 pauliecannoli

    Motion to close til 8 am

    edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.06.39 pauliecannoli

    Adjourned. Alabama 32 FL 13

  25. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie Cannoli wrote (NFV at 14.39.34):

    Colley: there will be a convention fee around $30 for those who do not buy rooms and meals

    Paulie Cannoli wrote (NFV at 14.42.33):

    Hawkridge: The 30 is supposed to be for materials – not seating and voting. [/hawk]

    Some disagreement over whether charging delegates to vote is against the bylaws.

    Did they succeed in slipping a floor fee in? I had been the most vocal opposition in past terms. It may require a Judicial Committee challenge if they try.

  26. Rachel H

    Chuck Moulton @69 – decided 1 or 2 meetings ago that there would be no “floor fee”, but also not to print materials – materials (binder) will be available online in advance, and some enterprising wench may be printing materials, selling them on site.

  27. Carolyn Marbry

    “Lee Wrights wants to remove the resolution from agenda about removing felons from LP leadership. // Ruwart, Lark also oppose. // Hinkle, Sink-Burris also would remove. // passes overwhelmingly…sullentrup was the only one I heard say he would keep that item”

    Wonderful. I’m pleased that they opted against giving time to that resolution as written. It was deeply flawed and would have hurt a lot of otherwise innocent people who are not in a position to do the party harm and would have had the national party intruding on what should have been handled by the state and/or county parties.

  28. Carolyn Marbry

    Bob, here’s the text of the resolution in question:

    Resolution on Standards to Hold Positions of Libertarian Leadership

    Whereas, the Libertarian Party believes that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world,
    and that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships;

    Whereas, individuals who commit crimes against persons or property violate the rights of others and are anathema to our ideals; and

    Whereas, having such individuals represent the Libertarian Party is morally wrong and an affront to their victims, in addition to beinginjurious to our organization and its purposes;

    Resolved, it is the position of Libertarians that neither theLibertarian Party, nor any affiliate thereof, should place or keep in a leadership position as a candidate, party officer or any other position of trust or responsibility any individual guilty of a felonious crime against persons or property; and

    Resolved, Libertarians find particularly reprehensible any adult who would sexually exploit children, who by their nature and lack of maturity are incapable of consenting to sexual acts and hence cannot be willing participants.

    I sincerely doubt this was aimed at you specifically. It attempted to address a specific situation in California, but it’s far too broad in scope and there have been some questions as to the motives behind it.

    The LNC should either address the specific issue directly and in a one-time manner since hopefully this is a one-time issue, or they need to take some time to craft a policy on this that is not cobbled together to address a single issue and stomp on the state organizations’ right to manage themselves.

    It’s possible they need to do both, but regardless, this resolution was not the way.

  29. Robert Milnes

    Carolyn Marbry, thank you for that resolution text. I had already figured that it-ostensibly-applied to the CA sexual misconduct situation. But then it occurred to me that it also-undeniably-could be applied to me-an Independent seeking LP (& other parties much like Ralph Nader) endorsement. How better to deny me any possibility of the LP’s ballot access in 2012? A resolution passed in 2009. At the time of my arrest-1985-I suspected the FBI’s motives were political and sought to damage my credibility & future in many ways. However I had a federal defender & lost the case where I subsequently realized I had a perfectly good defense-not guilty by variance. And also ground for dismissal-require a showing of previous surveillance. Now, decades later, more residual consequences of that conviction. No convictions since-a striking anomaly, wouldn’t you say? A 2 count indictment. Plea bargained down to one count. So please bear with me my suspicions. Still unanswered is who is the source of this resolution?

  30. Robert Milnes

    Really, is any conviction under the present unreliable circumstances, something any libertarian can be confident with? Any conviction being used in any way must be very skeptically examined. For example, I had a U.S. Attorney with FBI accusers in a U.S. District Court with appointed Judge & a federal defender! Further, in probation hearings which were unconstitutionally called by the supposedly neutral judge sua sponte, my supposedly neutral probation officer was sitting with the U.S. Attorney. None of this was challenged by the federal defender.

  31. Robert Milnes

    You want to read a scary statute? Try 18 USC Section 4246. Paraphrasing-an indefinite civil commitment upon expiration of sentence for one certified to having a mental disease or defect such that presents a danger to another or property upon such release.

  32. Robert Milnes

    In the very least I should have had effective AND compatible counsel i.e. one of similar political views & experience. Then when I brought up the idea that the FBI might have political hidden motives in this case, it wouldn’t have been knee jerk dismissed as being unreasonable-even foolish and MENTAL!

  33. paulie Post author

    Chuck Moulton

    Is there some reason why IPR is down so frequently?

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 07.56.54 Kimberly Wilder

    I hope all you Libertarian folks are having fun. Because, I think you are draining all the energy out of the political universe…


    I think that when a national, party convention goes on, there is so much energy needed and attention given, I swear the rest of the political world takes a breather.

    For whatever reason, seems to me like all the regular political blogs, and even our local political news, has been excessively quiet for over 24 hours.

    (Really, have fun. Get stuff done. Nice that someone is hard at work.)

    Kimberly Wilder
    Long Island, NY

    P.S. Looking forward to more reports

    P.S.S. Hi, Paulie!

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.00.23 pauliecannoli

    I’m sure there is, but I don’t know what it is, nor any server access.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.12.56 pauliecannoli

    Hi Kimberly.

    We are back on.

    Affiliated services committee passed without objection.

    Now on to Karlan, policy on hiring and termination.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.15.11 pauliecannoli

    Hawkridge in opposition – violation of contract?

    Starr responds – this does not change existing contract, just sets policies for future contracts.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.17.42 pauliecannoli

    Wes – what if someone worked for companies that went out of business?

    Lark — various points of clarification

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.19.57 pauliecannoli

    Dixon – Does not say we can’t hire someone with [?problem] gives Kubby and Paul Jacob as exampes, just give notice

    Sinawski – it just says employees have to notify EPCC (on?) not chair, ED etc

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.23.19 pauliecannoli

    Var. amendments to include chair and ED

    Starr – Wes would be required to inform anyone he hires. Could hire someone who has whatever

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.23.57 pauliecannoli

    problem it is

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.26.19 pauliecannoli

    Wes points out that it will cause job candidates to go elsewhere.

    Amendment passes w/o objection.

    Main motion debated now.

    Mattson — crimes against property or person — I thought this was what was removed from agenda? I guess not.

    Colley – possible problem with confidentiality. EPCC is just acting as a consulting service here.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.28.10 pauliecannoli

    Motion to divide

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.30.18 pauliecannoli

    Passes with little objection – Sullentrup was only one I heard object, maybe one other.

    Part passed w/o objection.

    Main part – nays Wrights, Hawkridge, Ryan, Ruwart, Hinkle, Dixon, Redpath abstains

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.35.41 pauliecannoli

    [missed some…something about a survey]

    Policy on convention speakers – Karlan

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.39.14 pauliecannoli

    No speaker will speak unless they sign that they will not run for an office being contested giving them unfair advantage in race or appearance thereof.

    Colley question – Sullentrup giving welcome to St L speech, would this preclude him speaking if he runs in contested race

    Answer (who?) – no, he is speaking in his official capacity

    Lark – good idea in general but sounds like it goes too far

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.43.35 pauliecannoli

    Ruwart – unintended consequence – what about people who don’t know if they will run – some people may want to run for LNC after giving a speech

    Karlan – it is not a prohibition, only a peice of evidence that delegates can use or choose to ignore.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.45.15 pauliecannoli

    Nays – Sullentrup, Lark, Ryan, Ruwart, Hinkle, Hawkridge, Dixon

    Wrights absent

    Sink-Burris abstain

    Redpath abstains

    failed 7-7

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.46.22 pauliecannoli

    LNC budget review strategy – Mary Ruwart presentation – budget as strategy – looking for advice on possible future proposal

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.50.56 pauliecannoli

    Need for budget analysis that tells us where to put more in future years e.g. how to increase warm prospects

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.54.12 pauliecannoli

    Strategy in last budget was direct mail of cold prospects which was not successful, no strategy beyond directing ED to figure out something

    Need to figure out strategy for growth – – have budget out a month early

    Dixon – budget is just broad spending categories – more granularity not needed, ED should be free to make decisions

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.57.02 pauliecannoli

    Starr – budget is just a model and can be wrong

    It’s a battle plan and has to be adjusted as the situation on the ground is faced

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.58.21 pauliecannoli

    Starr – our drop in revenues is not near as bad as many other companies, organizations right now

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.59.36 pauliecannoli

    Lark – goal/strategic planning discussion is being ignored

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.01.55 pauliecannoli

    Hawkridge – failure to capitalize on Campaign for Liberty, 9/12, 10th amendment project etc. Budget review could have caused us to capitalize better

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.05.14 pauliecannoli

    Wes – Ruwart’s data helpful in helping him focus on renewals rather than cold prospecting

    Karlan – presenting too much data to committee will cause endless deliberation, better to present it to ED

    Sullentrup – would it be too hard to have rolling 12-month forecast quarterly

    Starr – will need to consider this – would need to work closer with ED

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.06.10 pauliecannoli

    objection to extend time
    extend time fails

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.06.57 pauliecannoli

    Porter – brochures have not been updated in years

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.09.45 pauliecannoli

    Discussion of whether LPstuff brochures are print qulity

    Kraus – No, it would cost more in ink than to order

    Flood – this is being worked on

    Lark – need for new literature

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.11.58 pauliecannoli

    Wes – we can create new materials and encouraging people all over the country to help with writing and design

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.13.15 pauliecannoli

    Karlan – no new materials since Bill Winter left

    Winter is still available and had help with Cato Institute people who are still around

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.15.04 pauliecannoli

    Comment from me: Wes, you should put out a call for materials to be sent to you on the website blog and email blast – if you don’t have time to do it, waiting for people to come to you will not yield much. We may have people who can and would help IF ASKED.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.15.48 pauliecannoli

    Lark – LNC needs to consider what issues we need to address that are upcoming

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.16.22 pauliecannoli

    Next item – policy update on APRC

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.19.53 pauliecannoli

    Dixon – proposal too on the fly

    Karlan – motion to divide

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.20.58 pauliecannoli

    Motion to divide passes

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.22.51 pauliecannoli

    Starr – call question to divide

    Hawkridge – objection

    Passes 2/3

    Part 1 – Hawkridge nay, Dixon nay, Redpath abstains – all others yes

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.25.40 pauliecannoli

    Part 2

    Dixon – this introduces changes we do not have time to consider right now

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.30.06 pauliecannoli

    Hawkridge – how does this impact things that are time sensitive and have already gone out

    Flood – if it’s out, it’s out; review on non-time sensitive stuff, all that changes is chair would be required to notify if ignoring the recommendation of APRC

    Karlan – too many changes to consider right now

    Starr – would it be in order to defer to mail order

    A: It could be voted down then introduced as mail order, withdrawn and introduced as mail order

    Flood withdraws motion with that

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.32.01 pauliecannoli


    [Missed point of clarification from Wrights]

    Break time 13 min

  34. paulie Post author


    Steve Gordon and Shana Kluck – mobile texting platform presentation

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.50.04 pauliecannoli

    Text messaging is becoming much more popular and esp. in younger demographics and time for LP to catch up

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.54.30 pauliecannoli

    Obama, Republicans both using it successfully

    Much higher open rate than email – also read more timely

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.01.43 pauliecannoli

    Advantage over twitter is that most people do not read all the twits that come to them – this comes to the phone and most people read it

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.04.55 pauliecannoli

    Dixon – Benedict is the one who needs to be sold on this rather than LNC

    Next item

    Hinkle – Process for informing donors of progress? I think

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.10.30 pauliecannoli

    Database? Stakeholders access to data? Sorry, not enough caffeine to follow. Sullentrup playing cards on laptop from time to time….

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.12.30 pauliecannoli

    Ruwart objects that this table does not address concerns that this committee was formed to address which was confidential info leaking out, but instead expands access to data

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.13.54 pauliecannoli

    Lark – questions on legal matters

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.17.54 pauliecannoli

    Starr – LNCC has data sharing requirements with LNC under FEC laws

    Dixon – asks Wes if he was consulted

    Wes – no

    Sullentrup – this board has become policy manual crazy. It is too complicated…next EC will have to figure this out. We need to do something useful to move the country to liberty and we are not doing anything useful here. Enough is enough, voting no.

    Starr – we are jut the messengers – we were asked to have this report for this meeting

    Hawkridge – privacy concerns

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.20.25 pauliecannoli

    Ryan suggests division

    Redpath: already separated

    Mattson: we already share this data, the original motion would create a lot of problems. Moves to amend to allow state affiliates to also have access to data.

    Donation history etc


    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.22.47 pauliecannoli

    Lark: concerns with national vs. state issues,

    Hinkle: Rachel’s criticism is of the current situaton not of the change

    Hawkridge: Does LNCC have access currently

    Answer: yes

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.25.04 pauliecannoli

    Flood: massive impact on staff to share info w/ states

    Karlan: eyes glazed over, was unable to digest – move to postpone chart to next meeting

    Passes without objection

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.26.51 pauliecannoli

    Next issue, Flood – non disclosure is not mandatory but if they do sign we use a standardized form. Sullentrup is back to cards.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.30.08 pauliecannoli

    Ruwart – reservation that this is for outside vendors, but supports if it is voluntary for LNC as Flood said.

    Out of time, proceed to vote

    Hawkridge – objection

    Nays Wrights, Hawkridge,

    Abstain – Redpath

    Ryan – No or obstain?


    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.32.22 pauliecannoli

    Next item, Karlan on policy for publicizing libertarians in the media

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.37.06 pauliecannoli

    Starr – get info on what we are doing to get media

    Disclaimer that ppl are not necessarily speaking for the party
    Chair can remove items but must inform LNC if doing so

    Wrights – speaking against
    The disclaimer makes it look like we are not backing our candidates

    Dixon – shares Sullentrup’s earlier concerns over putting too much in policy manual….Policy manual should be concise, unnecessary micromanagement, not enforceable, let Wes do his job

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.41.20 pauliecannoli

    Lark – some objection I think, missed it

    Ruwart – this makes our nomination for sale, candidates just need to hire a publicist…discriminates against those who are mostly on net, don’t have money, etc

    Colley – ED is the right guy to make these judgment calls

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.43.54 pauliecannoli

    Hinkle – body needs to take a position because it gives equal treatment for candidates and takes decision onus off ED

    Mattson – agrees with Hinkle and does not believe blogs should be counted as being the same as mass media

    Ryan – agrees with Dixon, Colley et al

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.47.22 pauliecannoli

    Jingozian – unintended consequences – non-libertarians may run just to get extra publicity

    Hawkridge – I believe concurred

    Wrights – blogs are putting newspapers out of business and calls question

    Nos: Jingo, Dixon, Ruwart, Lark, Ryan, Hawkridge, Wrights, Porter, Colley,

    Abstain: Karlan, Flood, Sink-Burris


    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.49.02 pauliecannoli

    Starr and Karlan

    how to give notice – for agenda items?

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.53.54 pauliecannoli

    Lark, clarifications…

    14 days more reasonable than 21

    There may be situations where things need to be snail mailed

    This may be on timing of meetings, Starr is talking about timing of travel plans?

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.58.26 pauliecannoli

    People are confused including Redpath. Mattson is asked to comment as a professional parliamentarian.

    Defer to tape – hope it uploads – I do not want to follow this discussion right now

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.59.47 pauliecannoli

    Sullentrup is back on cards. I don’t think it would be physically possible for me to drink enough espresso to follow this.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.01.07 pauliecannoli

    Passes without objection. After the fact Wrights says he did not realize that had been asked. Moving on….

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.04.17 pauliecannoli

    Something else that sounds related. I need drugs. Someone poke me in the ribs if I begin snoring….

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.06.06 pauliecannoli

    Most of the gallery and some of the committee is out in the shall

    Jingo: Is this really the business of the committee

    Starr: yes

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.11.10 pauliecannoli

    Passed without objection I think. Mind drifting.

    Now on to discussing some type of performance metrics.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.16.53 pauliecannoli

    Wes was apparently not consulted

    Lark – not enough time to consider this

    Wrights – gives too many extra responsibilities to staff they do not have time for

    Dixon – opposition, let Wes do his job, stop micromanaging

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.19.05 pauliecannoli

    Jingo – also against it for these reasons, but would like some simpler metrics (in a future proposal?)

    Hawkridge – good intent but many items too difficult to track because state and county chairs will not report and inpossible to know without them

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.21.35 pauliecannoli

    Hinkle – if we don’t things how do we know what succeeds, what fails

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.22.39 pauliecannoli

    Ryan – we should postpone this, ED does not have staff or tools for it tho it is a good idea in general

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.23.15 pauliecannoli

    Call question – unanimous

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.25.01 pauliecannoli

    Yes – Flood, Hinkle, Starr

    Sinks-Burris, Matson – abstain

    fails 10-3 ….other abstentions I missed

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.26.44 pauliecannoli

    9 min recess

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.38.17 pauliecannoli

    back on

    Issue of membership drift from people renewing early and having their expiration date pushed earlier due to language of bylaws

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.40.12 pauliecannoli

    NOTE: I am not able to follow many of the things going on, and there will be other people’s impressions and corrections once they have time to comment …. Also, hopefully, we will be able to upload the tape.

  35. paulie Post author


    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.52.40 pauliecannoli

    Missed most of discussion

    Nays – Hawkridge; Ryan?

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.54.55 pauliecannoli

    Comments – Gordon


    Lark …thanks to var. ppl including me

    Dimmit – asks ppl to be added to credential committee

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.56.51 pauliecannoli


    I am confused, how are we having a motion during public comments?

    Is there agenda item after public comments? I did not hear them close or ask if anyone else had comments?

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.58.41 pauliecannoli

    Sullentrup taking off, Carling will now take minutes

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.01.43 pauliecannoli

    Inquiries as to voting methods, mail ballots etc

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.02.42 pauliecannoli

    Punted to mail ballot

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.03.43 Stewart Flood

    I’m currently on my 9th cup of tea this morning. Starting to feel like Frye in that Futurama episode where he drank 100 cups of coffee. Everything is slowing down…

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.09.44 pauliecannoli

    Missed something. I think agenda for Austin (next meeting).

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.11.03 pauliecannoli

    They are trying to sort schedule so that LNC members may be able to attend some LSLA events

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.12.11 Stewart Flood

    We moved to suspend the rules to consider appointing alternates to the Credentials Committee.

    The motion was withdrawn after discussion and deferred to a mail ballot.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.12.37 pauliecannoli

    Dixon….staff may be needed for some of both

    Redpath….allow Sat. AM for LSLA

    Sounds like it was agreed to

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.14.21 Stewart Flood

    LSLA is the weekend of Friday 2/26 to Sunday 2/28. LNC will meet the afternoon of Saturday 2/27 and the morning of Sunday 2/28.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.14.57 pauliecannoli

    Redpath announces he will not seek reelection as chair although he may seek reelection to committee.

    Sounded like Colley said he is not running for At Large although I think he was joking.

    edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.16.52 pauliecannoli

    Andy tries to bring up Kohlhaas, Haugh, ruled out of order, meeting adjourned.

  36. George Phillies

    “Sullentrup – this board has become policy manual crazy. It is too complicated…next EC will have to figure this out. We need to do something useful to move the country to liberty and we are not doing anything useful here. Enough is enough, voting no.”

    Sullentrup really nailed that issue correctly.

  37. Carolyn Marbry

    RM, my understanding is that Aaron Starr authored the resolution. Unless you and he have some kind of history, I think you’re “collateral damage” in this case.

  38. Carolyn Marbry

    Thanks for liveblogging this, Paulie. It was almost as good as being there. 🙂 The only thing missing was some Nashville barbecue…

  39. Paulie


    Thanks for liveblogging, Paulie!

    Thanks for reading.


    Thank you, paulie. RP lover.

    You’re welcome. If you mean Ron Paul by RP, as I’m sure you do, I like some things about him and not others. As they say on facebook…”it’s complicated.”

    Thanks for the liveblog, Paulie! I read along yesterday and today with interest.

    Glad I wasn’t just babbling to myself 🙂

    Don’t rely too much on my notes tho….I was confused as to what was happening much of the time and couldn’t type fast enough to keep up with many other things, such as votes.

    Hopefully the tape will be uploadable.

    RM, my understanding is that Aaron Starr authored the resolution.

    You are correct.

    Thanks for liveblogging this, Paulie. It was almost as good as being there.

    You’re welcome. See you in Austin and/or St. Louis, I hope.

    paulie, thanks and good job, well done.

    I can’t say I did a good job, but thanks for thinking or at least saying I did. ‘

    I did try and hopefully this will be helpful to people in figuring out what went on. It is far from being gospel though, take everything with a healthy (or is that unhealthy?) dose of salt.

    Paulie for Secretary.

    Oh God no. And not just because I don’t look good in a skirt and pumps, either.


  40. Stewart Flood

    Three major accomplishments:

    Corrections to the APRC committee rules that resolve some issues. One part of the recommended changes was deferred to mail ballot, but only so that the LNC can review it more carefully and understand what the five of us on the APRC (Dr Ruwart, Mr Wrights, Mr Starr, Mr Jingozian and myself) all wanted implemented.

    I expect it to pass by mail ballot.

    Standardized the NDA and corrected a major deficiency in the previous versions. The document that was being used was not even close to adhering to libertarian ideals, this one does. Most importantly it recognizes that the volunteer/vendor/board member may be bringing their own intellectual ideas or confidential information into the process. The old document was completely one-sided and quite draconian. This one works, since it is a mutual non-disclosure agreement.

    Dr Ruwart still has some concerns, but they are related to definitions of confidentiality and are really outside of the NDA. I agree with her on her concerns, and also have additional concerns of my own. We both believe that they can be addressed and resolved by the committee, which is why she supported the NDA “with reservation.”

    Third, and most important: after months and months and months (actually years at this point) we have created at least the structure of what is needed to begin focusing on supporting our affiliates. I’ve been lobbying for the concept of what we are now calling the Affiliate Support Committee as well as a rational non-disclosure since Portland in ’06, so I consider getting these two passed this weekend a major accomplishment.

    If we move quickly and define the Affiliate Support Committee’s role correctly then we may actually have a functional group that can begin to effect positive change before the convention.

    All the other Regional Representatives and the Vice-Chair support the creation of this committee. There were no objection to the motion from anyone on the LNC.

    Paul did a great job trying to keep up with the meetings. Enen though there are several gaps in his coverage, it is on the whole a reasonable representation of the events.

    I’ll probably add a few more comments later, but right now I’m starting into my first-day back crash. We got in from Nashville about 3am. I caught a few hours of sleep, so I’m about ready to sleep for a week or two.

  41. Andy

    “Andy tries to bring up Kohlhaas, Haugh, ruled out of order, meeting adjourned.”

    Oh yes, God forbid that that Libertarian Party police itself by punishing the scam artists, liars, and incompetents employed by and/or contracted with LP National.

    If the Libertarian Party can’t keep itself clean, then how in the hell can anyone expect the party to clean up government.

    The lack of ethics and accountability in the Libertarian Party is truly disgusting and is one of the reasons that this party doesn’t get anywhere and has in fact been on a downward spiral for the past 9 years.

    It is blatantly obvious that the Kohlhaas and Haugh fucked this party over royally. Anyone who can’t see that is either delusional or a liar or an idiot.

    The LNC acted with gross negligence by allowing Kohlhaas to continue to make $5,000 per month (well into the 2008 election season – as can be verified on the Federal Election Commission filings at FEC.gov) and to hire Sean Haugh as Political Director and keep him on staff until December of 2008 (even though it was blatantly obvious that he was a HORRIBLE choice for the job and was screwing things up and squandering donor money).

    This party needs to do a better job of cleaning up itself before it can hope to get ahead.

  42. Robert Milnes

    So Aaron Starr authored the convict persecution resolution. In my opinion this resolution originated with the reactionary and/or government operations. I don’t think Starr authored it; just presented it. If he did author it, he is extremely reactionary and a menace to liberty. I think he’s just an operative. Either way he is unworthy of LP leadership position. He should be fired. I would like to see him out.

  43. Stewart Flood

    Ms Hawkridge was the initiator of the resolution. It was at her request that the issue was raised. I do not believe that she wrote it, but she pushed for it.

    I did not support the resolution. It is not the job of the national party to police our affiliate’s executive committees.

  44. paulie Post author

    Chuck @ 69

    According to information I have recently received, they did indeed succeed in slipping in a floor fee for St. Louis.

  45. paulie Post author

    Anyone planning to appeal this in some manner?

    I’ve read arguments before that it is against party bylaws, but can that somehow be enforced, and will there realistically be any attempt to do so?

  46. Michael Seebeck

    Flood, Hawkridge did not initiate the resolution. Starr did, and I have that from multiple independent sources. We informed members here in CA knew about it weeks before the meeting, quite possibly before you did.

    Paulie and Chuck, I looked it over and believe it or not, there is a technical argument that it does not violate the Bylaws, because they are silent on the explicit matter.

    However, the *implicit* argument is much more damning. The floor fee is set at $49, and frankly, it’s just f’ing stupid. A materials fee I could understand and even agree with, but pay-to-play for the business meeting is just wrong, and there is nothing to prevent a registered delegate, chosen by his state affiliate, from paying the floor fee and then having his credentials yanked by the CredComm and not getting his money back. No JudComm appeal on that, either. I wouldn’t put it past the CredCom to have someone on there try to “short” delegates, if you catch my hint.

    Frankly, imposing a floor fee on top of the qualifications to be a delegate set by the Bylaws and the state affiliates goes beyond the pall. If the convention is a meeting of the membership delegates, where does the LPUS get off in imposing further constraints on those delegates, which interferes with the operations of state affiliates?–which *is* a Bylaws violation since Denver, BTW.

    The same issue appears on state conventions in several states as well, including CA, unfortunately; however, dealing with it requires good convention planning, good economics, and ignoring the fools who claim all that is a “subsidy” for those just attending the meeting. It can be done.

    There is also a way around it that could be used and definitely would raise some hell post-convention, but I’ll leave that method up to speculation.

Leave a Reply

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