At the Feb. 14 meeting of the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee meeting, there was discussion of whether to pass a resolution opposing any registration fee at the 2010 Libertarian Party national convention. The topic was deferred to give ExCom members time to read a brief in defense of the fee by Libertarian National Committee representative Alicia Mattson. A source reports that tonight the ExCom completed an email vote on a motion to consider the resolution, and that the motion failed.
Also today, Debra Dedmon of the Libertarian Party of Nevada posted in a comment on IPR:
<i>thanks Paulie and David and Moulton , I stole y’alls statements and argument and prepared my brief to my excom . I must say before the convention , they were all with me . Alicia must have mad persuasion skills because her paper or whatever has changed e lot of their minds . If I get it passed itll be a miracle.</i>
Returning to the root issue how the national conventions shall be financed, I shall present in the near future a somewhat innovative proposal that employs a market-based approach to price convention seats.
Mr. Robinson writes @67 against “assuming that because a word like fees is mentioned in Roberts means it is incorporated by reference in the Bylaws”.
Article 13 of our bylaws states, “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.”
Mr. Robinson writes @67 against “assuming that because a word like fees is mentioned in Roberts means it is incorporated by reference in the Bylaws and is therefore mandatory“. [emphasis added]
This just repeats the strawman I already diagnosed @55. You cannot name a single Libertarian arguing that the LP cannot hold a convention without a registration fee. Do you really think that readers here can’t see straight through this tactic?
Mr. Robinson writes @67: “you attack your opponent for supporting what he criticizes by the mere fact of illustrating the absurdity of the example by his stating the opponent’s position.”
You misunderstood. All I said was that you “introduced the novel argument” about taking the word “his” to exclude female delegates. I deliberately left it vague whether you were 1) making the silly argument that Robert’s p.593 actually means this or 2) opposing what is obviously a strawman. I repeat: readers can decide for themselves what this does for the credibility of your other arguments.
Mr. Robinsons writes @67 that I “have not met” his argument. I invite him to quote any part of his argument that he thinks I haven’t answered, and I will answer it only by quoting what I’ve already written on this topic.
BTW, some state parties charge convention floor fees because it is expressly authorized in their bylaws. For example, Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma specifically require that whatever the amount of the fee, it must be equal for all delegates.
No such implementing rules exist at the national level.
@67: I get it completely. It’s the proponents who don’t. 🙂
Mr. Holtz@55::My critique of the literalism of assuming that because a word like fees is mentioned in Roberts means it is incorporated by reference in the Bylaws and is therefore mandatory did not go over your head.
Instead you obviously choose the old debate trick of attacking your opponent for supporting what he criticizes by the mere fact of illustrating the absurdity of the example by his stating the opponent’s position. Your charge is recursive.
This is not genuine debate on the merits of the issue. This personal spite. I am disappointed for you.
My argument may be unpersuasive to some, but you have not met it yet.
@65: A delegate is a delegate because the state party selected that person as a representative – dues-paying has no bearing on the delegate because it the right of the state party to send anyone.
The number of dues paying persons is the basis of allocating seats – not filling those seats. The number of votes received by a candidate in a state is also a factor Who asserts that anyone who voted for a LP candidate is eligible to be a delegate? They might but if, and only if, they are selected by the state party. BTW, a person who claims to have voted for Obama could be a delegate could be a delegate IF the state party says so.
Delegate status is not a privilege bestowed on a plebeian member by the Holy LNC in return for a fee, it is an official position bestowed by the state parties first.
These are logical implications you must grasp…???
The confusion is contagious. I can’t figure out antecedents for “here”, “those”, or “they” in @65, nor can I decipher the elided predicate nominative for “aren’t”, nor can I figure out what “Not me” could mean besides the claim that being a dues-payer automatically makes you a delegate.
“Your LP member dues are not sufficient to qualify you to be a delegate on the floor of an LP NatCon.”
Sez who? Not me. I don’t see any admission fee to the convention floor here.
And those that say that they aren’t, are covering for bad budgeting, period.
I don’t shop at Costco. The prices are compariableif not more than Target, Smart n Final, Winco. What costco sells is 2nd hand junk. You won’t find some of the better quality stuff that you can find at Best Buys. Costco doesn’t impress me. I think its a scam. My guess is that extra money people pay a year is to help them with the free stuff they give out. LOL
Brian,
You write:
“Tom, since you say you’re not wavering on this point, maybe you can help explain it to Mike?”
Already tried. He’s reached his conclusion and is firm on it. For those who remain persuadable …
The prohibition on additional assessments of fees on members is a prohibition on an additional assessment of fees as members, i.e. a fee can’t be assessed with the penalty for non-payment being a withdrawal or impairment of membership.
A delegate floor fee is not an assessment on members qua members. It’s a fee for participation in an optional activity (service as a delegate) in which some members (and in the LP’s case, non-members) may happen to choose to participate. Non-payment of it in no way ends or impairs one’s membership if one is a member.
In the Costco analogy, the floor fee would be analogous to something like this:
– You pay Costco $50 to be a member, and that entitles you to shop at their stores.
– Costco decides to put on a Costco Caribbean Vacation event. Each Costco store can sell five tickets to this event, for $129 each.
– Requiring you to buy the ticket if you want to buy the trip in no way impairs your Costco membership. If you don’t want the trip, you don’t have to pay for it and you’re free to continue buying those bulk cases of cheesy-poofs.
Your Costco member dues are sufficient to qualify you to be a shopper on the floor of Costco.
Your LP member dues are not sufficient to qualify you to be a delegate on the floor of an LP NatCon.
Tom, since you say you’re not wavering on this point, maybe you can help explain it to Mike?
The absurdity in Robert’s example of free merchandise for members was intentional, as it was part of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdam. The language you quote about no extra assessments is that there can be no extra assessment to remain a member.
It may be a list I am no longer on. Please send me a separate copy.
There was never a floor fee before.
“Tom also seems to be having cold feet in agreeing with me against Mike Seebeck that the rule against extra fees for members to remain members has nothing to do with whether members can be charged for event registrations, or bumper stickers, or t-shirts, etc.”
Uh, what are you talking about? I *never* said that a rule against extra fees applies to members buying merchandise. In fact, I have said exactly the opposite! Henry Robert III made that absurd statement, because he can’t tell the difference between membership organizations and a free market. To quote Robert III, from page 3 of his letter:
“If the sentence were instead interpreted to mean that the organization could never charge members any fee over and above their dues, that interpretation would produce an absurd result. It would mean, for example, that if the organization produced publications or other items for sale, members could obtain them– presumably in unlimited quantity– for free, and only non-members could be charged.”
The absurdity in his statement is that this is not a case of universal application–just in this case. I believe the false argument there is called “Fallacy Of The General Rule”, (I know there’s a Latin term for it, but my Latin sucks), also known informally as “kindergarten logic” and “one bad apple spoils the bushel”. It may apply to the reality perception that is politics, but not to logic of rules and order.
Robert’s argument can be explained analogously, that he seems to think that if I shell out the $50 to join Costco, then all the merchandise they sell is actually free to members. That goes beyond absurd. OTOH, that membership doesn’t mean they can charge me an extra $10 to get in the door to shop, either.
Yet that is precisely what the Floor Fee does, sematics, RONR, and all that aside.
TK @40: it purports to describe registration when in fact every clause in it except one — “Recording of the member as officially registered” — actually refers to credentialing
BH @55: Tom finally admits that Robert’s describes the registration fee as distinct from credentials requirements, and now argues that our rules are simply mistaken when they make this distinction.
TK @57: I admit no such thing, and I consider it damn near impossible for you to torture that meaning out of anything I did say.
Brian,
You write:
“In what is argument 4.0 for those scoring at home, Tom finally admits that Robert’s describes the registration fee as distinct from credentials requirements”
I admit no such thing, and I consider it damn near impossible for you to torture that meaning out of anything I did say.
“Tom also seems to be having cold feet in agreeing with me against Mike Seebeck that the rule against extra fees for members to remain members has nothing to do with whether members can be charged for event registrations, or bumper stickers, or t-shirts, etc.”
Actually, I said precisely the opposite. The prohibition on extra fees for members relates to membership qua membership. The LNC can’t tell a member “give us another $10 above and beyond your dues, or you’re no longer a member/no longer entitled to the benefits of membership.” That’s all it means.
Just for emphasis: The language in question does not prohibit a convention registration fee, nor is it my source for claiming that a convention registration fee is prohibited.
JT,
You write:
“Two questions: 1) Does the LP need to institute a floor fee so the convention won’t be net monetary loss? 2) Does that matter to Libertarians?”
Thinking of it in terms of profit/loss isn’t the right approach. The convention proper isn’t a commercial event. It’s just a business meeting that’s required by the bylaws to occur every other year.
It’s not a product for sale, it’s required overhead, and there’s a quasi-contractual connection between it and dues payments (see some previous comments in this thread).
Furthermore, what the LP “needs” is irrelevant so long as the bylaws don’t allow it … and the bylaws don’t allow a floor fee.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with the LNC surrounding the convention (the business meeting) with for-profit events and selling admission to those events to willing buyers to offset its costs.
It starts being a problem when they try to hold bylaws-entitled participation in the bylaws-mandated business meeting hostage to purchase of tickets to those optional extracurricular events.
The arguments against the Bylaws-compliance of a registration fee grow ever more strained and abstruse.
In what is argument 4.0 for those scoring at home, Tom finally admits that Robert’s describes the registration fee as distinct from credentials requirements, and now argues that our rules are simply mistaken when they make this distinction. But just in case, he is still stands by argument 2.0: when Robert’s talks about “the X” in its 8 pages describing the CredCom’s duties and processes, no X is actually authorized unless the Bylaws replicates the Robert’s discussion about X, because it’s not like we use Robert’s as our default rules or anything.
Tom also seems to be having cold feet in agreeing with me against Mike Seebeck that the rule against extra fees for members to remain members has nothing to do with whether members can be charged for event registrations, or bumper stickers, or t-shirts, etc.
Mr. Robinson chimes in to attack the strawman argument (bravely confronted earlier by Mr. Wrights) that Robert’s p. 593 requires a CredCom to impose a registration fee. Nobody has argued that, because native speakers of English know what the word “normally” means.
Mr. Robinson also introduces the novel argument that a registration fee can only be required of males, because of Robert’s use of the masculine pronoun “his”. Readers can decide for themselves what this does for the credibility of his other arguments.
I agree with Tom that someone’s certification as a parliamentarian should not be considered dispositive in a debate like this. If we as members aren’t qualified to check a parliamentary argument against the plain text of our rules, then something is seriously wrong. To me, the value of an opinion by a parliamentarian is that it enormously decreases the odds that there is a rule (or principle of parliamentary interpretation) that is relevant but that hasn’t yet been brought into the debate. I believe that we are all equal in our ability to understand words like “normally” and “his” and “the”.
Nate, I’ve been using the word “subsidy”, not “redistribution”. I agree that there are no grounds in a voluntary organization for a member to complain that redistribution of wealth among members is force-initiating. I’ve never said that it is. My complaint about “subsidy” is on grounds of what economists call http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allocative_efficiency.
I belong to several organizations which have national conventions. Each imposes some modest convention fee if you want to attend in person and vote in the business sessions. However, each allows members to vote, for free by proxy, for the national officers if one can’t or doesn’t want to attend in person.
I think I’ll skip St. Louis as I would find it a complete waste of time to spend half the first day in a parliamentary wrangle over this.
Two questions: 1) Does the LP need to institute a floor fee so the convention won’t be net monetary loss? 2) Does that matter to Libertarians?
In my view, conventions aren’t supposed to lose money for the organization that holds them; they should be self-financing. I’m sure this wouldn’t be a problem if the LP rented out a bar and held a convention there (and I’m sure some Libertarians would think that’s a fine idea). Otherwise, it’s expensive to put on a respectable convention. Those who participate should have to cover the cost. If they refuse, then how financially feasible is holding a convention at all?
Chuck,
You write:
“The Bylaws Committee has refused to consider both my floor fee proposals. I will be introducing them from the floor.”
I don’t blame the bylaws committee for refusing to consider your proposals at this particular moment.
Considering them would put the bylaws committee in the position of at least implicitly taking a side in a current controversy that the LNC will be trying to work through this weekend.
If the LNC retains the floor fee and if the Judicial Committee upholds the LNC’s retention of the fee, then no “pro-floor-fee” bylaw would be needed since the party’s highest parliamentary authority will have confirmed that the floor fee is already permissible; but an “anti-floor-fee” bylaws change might be worth consideration.
If the LNC retains the floor fee and the Judicial Committee reverses the LNC, then no “anti-floor-fee” amendment is needed, but a “pro-floor-fee” one might be worth consideration.
If the LNC gets rid of the floor fee, either of your proposals would be worth consideration, so that we don’t end up in this exact place again 2, 4 or 40 years from now.
Nate,
You write:
“It annoys me that both sides of this argument have termed some members of a voluntary organization being subsidized by other members of the same organization as being unlibertarian. It might be considered rude, stupid, unfair or any number of other things; but noone was forced to join, pay dues or buy registration packages, therefore I completely fail to see the unlibertarian aspect of this issue.”
There’s some merit to your point of view.
On the other hand, since the Sturgis/Standard Code has been mentioned and since Mr. Capozzi has taken me to task for suggesting that the bylaws constitute something like (in certain respects) a “contract” between the party and its members, I think it’s worth exploring the implications of something I came across in Sturgis:
To the extent that the LP’s bylaws resemble the description above — and there is some resemblance — let’s consider the valuable considerations being exchanged:
– Anyone who signs the pledge can be a member of the LP, but sustaining members are required to pay dues. The LNC is empowered to set those dues.
– Sustaining membership is the primary criterion for allocating representation at the bylaws-mandated national convention. To that extent, representation at the convention is clearly a valuable consideration “contractually” due the sustaining members in return for the valuable consideration given (their dues).
– The LP has an additional “contractual” party — the state affiliates, whom the bylaws specifically entitle to select the delegates based on the dues-rooted proportional allocation formula (presumably in return for valuable considerations they’re required to deliver to the national party, e.g. their ballot lines for the presidential ticket, refraining from endorsing candidates of other parties, etc.).
– Adding a convention floor fee to the mix is a “change in the rights and privileges” of both the members and the affiliates. Members were told they would be represented; affiliates were told they’d pick the representatives; neither was told “as long as those representatives fork over $129 each.”
If the bylaws provided for the LNC or one of its subcommittees to implement that change, there would be no issue here — but they don’t.
If the party’s extra-bylaws parliamentary law (Robert’s) provided for the LNC or one of its subcommittees to implement that change, there would be no issue here — but it doesn’t.
It’s all good and well to view this as an honest debate over the truth of the two foregoing paragraphs — and I’ve tried to make myself stick to addressing fact rather than motive so that it can be that — but if those two paragraphs are correct and if the people arguing otherwise know them to be correct, then falsely arguing otherwise is an attempt to defraud the members and the affiliates and to cheat them of their contractual entitlements.
I think most people would agree that fraud, a/k/a theft by deception, is an initiation of force. When it’s linked to the LP’s national convention, it’s clearly intended “to achieve social or political goals.”
So … if the supporters of the floor fee are mendacious rather than merely mistaken, they’re clearly also being unlibertarian. I much prefer to treat them as merely mistaken, though, and will continue to do so unless confronted with incontrovertible evidence otherwise.
The Bylaws Committee has refused to consider both my floor fee proposals. I will be introducing them from the floor.
Michael,
The Sturgis Code (now called the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure) might be preferable to Robert’s as a parliamentary guide, but until and unless the bylaws are changed, Robert’s is what we’ve got to work with.
Regardless of what parliamentary guide we choose, one thing that needs to be addressed is its actual function/scope.
The problem isn’t the particular guide so much as the fact that some people ask that guide to take them on safaris on which they hunt wild authorities never previously suspected of existing.
Like any “guide book” (see, for example, the Bible), if you torture Robert’s with enough vigor you can probably find a way to make it tell you something that sounds like what you wanted to hear. I doubt that that’s untrue of Sturgis/Standard.
I suspect that ultimately the only way to put a stop to this kind of crap is to extract the “plenary power” clause from the bylaws like a bad tooth and put the LNC on a track more closely resembling the US Constitution’s enumerated powers/reserved powers language.
Brian,
you write: “Michael @36, every Libertarian should know the fundamental difference between “rules the state wants us to live with” and the rules of a voluntary organization. Do you really need that difference explained to you? :-)”
Would you then also agree that every libertarian should know the difference between redistribution of wealth coerced by a state and redistribution done by a voluntary organization?
It annoys me that both sides of this argument have termed some members of a voluntary organization being subsidized by other members of the same organization as being unlibertarian. It might be considered rude, stupid, unfair or any number of other things; but noone was forced to join, pay dues or buy registration packages, therefore I completely fail to see the unlibertarian aspect of this issue.
Hello Brian @ 39 try using the Sturgis Code. It is a bit less complicated.
“Delegates to the Convention can overrule this decision by passing a Bylaw that takes effect immediately that does not permit Registration Fees.” So it is the position of the LNC to act on an assumption first and hope to be sustained later. In poker I call that going all in with a bluff. They must be short-stacked. It’s clear they are going to be called.
While we’re still on RONR, let’s get back to what’s authoritative in it and what’s not.
The section on credentialing describes (rather than prescribes) a “normal” credentialing process (which it misidentifies as a registration process) and mentions “the registration fee” in passing. It’s hard to squeeze any authority at all out of that.
On the other hand, there is a place in RONR that speaks at least moderately authoritatively to the issue of fees. That place is on page 556 in the section on “content of bylaws articles.”
With respect to Article 3, RONR plainly states that “Unless the financial obligations of members are especially complicated, a section of this article [the article on membership] should also state: 3) The required fees and dues …” (emphasis mine)
“Should” isn’t as authoritative as “shall” or “must,” but it’s a hell of a lot more authoritative than a passing reference to an unspecified amount in a section describing what a process “normally includes.”
The obvious objection to considering that section authoritative with respect to the convention is that it’s specific to membership, not to being a delegate.
That’s a sound objection (and one I’ve agreed with when some opponents of the floor fee have pointed out the bylaws language against further “assessments” on members qua members), but it simply points up the fact that the LP, being a political party, can be expected to differ in significant respects from the general organizational template which RONR, being a catch-all reference, addresses itself to.
If we’re going to treat RONR as authoritative regardless of whether or not its consistent with out bylaws, then we have a contradiction … and by way of resolving that contradiction, “should” and a call for fees to be described clearly trumps “normally includes” and a passing non-specific reference.
Which of these authors are being referred to here? General Robert is dead.
http://www.robertsrules.com/authors.html
Dr. Lieberman.
Unless they got elected to the Judicial Commitee and received a valid appeal while I wasn’t looking, “two co-authors of Robert’s Rules ” don’t get to “decide” what the LNC can and can’t do.
They’re free to offer (or sell) their opinions on the matter, of course, but their opinions should not be considered dispositive just because they happen to be who they are.
Two co-authors of Robert’s Rules have looked at the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws and Convention Rules, and have decided that the LNC has the power to levy a mandatory Convention Registration Fee on Delegates. They have also said that the Delegates to the Convention can overrule this decision by passing a Bylaw that takes effect immediately that does not permit Registration Fees.
I understand that this is an emotional issue for many people, but LNC members should be making decisions based on facts, not emotions.
If the LNC ignored the advice of our legal counsel after asking him for his opinion on a legal matter, would the membership back the Committee up if we ended up getting the National LP sued for $2,000,000 because we ignored his advice? Would the LNC be able to defend our decision by saying ” but there were dozens of non-lawyer LP members who said what we did was legal!”
I assume most LP members would be mad at the LNC in that situation, and their anger would be very justified.
So, if the LNC follows the advice of 2 co-authors of Robert’s Rules who say that our Bylaws permit mandatory Convention Registration Fees, why are some Libertarian Party members getting mad at those LNC members who are merely following the advice of those Parliamentarians?
Mr. Holtz, you are correct the LNC has not made a special rule of order because only a convention can do that. It is trying to effect what only a convention can do with a special rule of order.
The excerpt you quote is identical to that which appears in my 1970 edition except that it appears on pages 510-511.
Do the clauses of 5 specifying steps which are “normally” done in that order all mandatory?
I direct your attention to the comma in 5 (c) after the word ‘registered’. This signifies a modifying clause ” upon his paying the registration fee (which is sometimes sent in in advance) and signing the list of registrations;….”
Does this clause, by your construction, mandate the LNC to register only males?
Are only males authorized to ‘sometimes’ send in (a registration fee) in advance?
Are females therefor exempt from registration fees? If not, are females not ‘sometimes’ exempt but always prohibited from sending registration fees in advance?
Now I compare 5(c) with 5(d). “Issuing of the particular badge to which the member is entitled, (comma!) the official program, (comma!) and additional necessary information, (comma!) such as time and place of individual section or committee meetings or workshops. (period!)
This a list of items. Are all those items mandatory?
What is the nature of “additional information”? Does that mean each delegate must necessarily – is mandated – to be provided a current copy of Robert’s?
If the clauses in 5(d) are suggestive but not mandatory, then how does the clause in 5(c) – paying the registration fee – become mandatory?
The modifications in these clauses are generic lists of ancillary and optional acts, materials or disclosures which may be made to registrants as appropriate to nature of the specific organizations convention and such rules as that convention adopts.
If your construction prevails, I look forward to receiving my new copy of Robert’s at the convention; provided, the convention does not over rule clause 5(d) and, or clause 5(c).
It seems everywhere we turn we end up on the floor of the convention for resolution and determination of which specific suggestions in Robert’s shall be adopted as standing or special rules or entrenched in the Bylaws.
By your construction, I find Robert’s is incomplete in telling “how to execute processes that our Bylaws mention but don’t describe.”
In that event, the only legitimate course of action is an appeal to a convention to adopt rules to fill in the gaps in Robert’s.
I think one may now reasonably conclude that parts of Robert’s are only advisory and suggestive and confer no authority on a subsidiary body (LNC) until and unless expressly adopted by a rule of a convention.
Mr. Holtz, is this not a substantive policy dispute rather than a dispute about parliamentary authority and procedure?
That is a legitimate issue to be disposed by the wisdom of a convention. The chain of inferences offered to dispose of a policy question as settled by procedural authority raises more ambiguity than a straight up and down vote by the delegates. Precedent confirms the supremacy of the Party in convention in these matters.
We can debate afterward the wisdom of the convention’s decision.
Brian,
Here we go again.
You cite the bylaws:
“The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.”
Absolutely correct.
There is no “rule” in RONR which either requires or permits assessment of a mandatory registration fee.
What RONR offers is a general description of a typical credentialing/registration process. That’s not a rule. It is advisory and informational language, not binding and authoritative language.
The description is well-written (except for the fact that it purports to describe registration when in fact every clause in it except one — “Recording of the member as officially registered” — actually refers to credentialing), so much so that the authors took care:
1) To use the definite article — “the” registration fee — to make it clear that it is not authorizing anything, but merely referring to something assumed, for broad, likely process description purposes, to have been authorized elsewhere.
2) To refer only to collection of said fee, not to its authorization or assessment.
Above and beyond the fact that the RONR description is not an authorization, there’s also the fact that if it is treated as an authorization, it’s void since it is inconsistent with the bylaws, which explicitly, extensively and exclusively describe both delegate qualifications and affiliate entitlements.
Side note: If you’re going to insist that RONR’s non-authoritative advisory descriptive language is actually an authoritative rule, you’re going to have to decide which of the three registration fees is applicable. “The registration fee” is not the same as “one of the three registration fees.”
Mr. Robinson, the LNC has of course passed no special rule of order.
The “bifurcation of accreditation from registration at the convention” is clearly acknowledged in Bylaw 11.3.a: “At all Regular Conventions delegates shall be those so accredited who have registered at the Convention.” Even if it weren’t acknowledged there, the bifurcation is clearly indicated by the default description of registration that we inherit from Robert’s p. 593:
Registration – which normally includes these steps:
a) Submission, by the member intending to register, of evidence that he is entitled to do so;
b) Verification by the committee, or a subcommittee of it, that the members’ credentials are correct;
c) Recording of the member as officially registered, upon his paying the registration fee (which is sometimes sent well in advance) and signing the list of registrations;
d) Issuing of the particular badge to which the member is entitled, the official program, and additional necessary information, such as time and place of individual section or committee meetings or workshops.
The argument for the authority — not the wisdom, but the authority — to collect a registration fee is simple. Robert’s tells us how to execute processes that our Bylaws mention but don’t describe. Our Bylaws mention registration as a separate procedural step after meeting the substantive qualifications for being a delegate, but the Bylaws are silent about what registration entails. That’s why we have Robert’s: “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.”
Michael @36, every Libertarian should know the fundamental difference between “rules the state wants us to live with” and the rules of a voluntary organization. Do you really need that difference explained to you? 🙂
As previously reported, the LPNY Executive Committee passed the following resolution:
MOTION: Whether or not the Libertarian Party’s National Committee has the legal right to assess a registration fee upon all duly elected delegates attending the LPUS National Convention in St. Louis, Missouri over Memorial Day Weekend, the payment of which is being treated as a mandatory prerequisite to the Credentials Committee seating said delegates, it is the opinion of the Libertarian Party of New York that such a mandatory registration fee should not be assessed for delegates who wish to attend and vote exclusively at the business sessions of the LPUS National Convention.
Thank you for citing the information, but I have it already.
I do not find the Mattson brief persuasive. I see no indication in what way the Registered Parliamentarians disagree with my analysis so I cannot respond.
I simply point out that this is matter which only a convention can resolve.
Perhaps someone can explain what seems a paradox in the execution of the bifurcation of accreditation from registration at the convention.
I perceive that a credentials committee is placed in an paradoxical position of having to accredit, but not register delegates who do not pay the disputed fee. I suppose some accredited delegates may chose to pay the fee under protest, obtain registration, and then if they prevail on the motion to adopt the Special Order (it fails), then they would reclaim their fees. If the accredited (registered) delegates who paid under protest do not prevail, then for them the issue would seem resolved and they accede to will of the convention and the fees would not be reclaimable.
However, I would also anticipate that some accredited delegates who are refused registration for non payment of the disputed fee will be denied voting rights.
I would also anticipate that some of the delegations of the affiliate parties could be comprised of three sets of accredited persons – (a) the accredited, but unregistered and, (b) the accredited, but registered under protest. And of course, the third possible group within a delegation are (c) the accredited, registered non-protestants – the coalition of the willing so to speak.
I would be pleased to be directed to the Bylaws provision (or Robert’s) which specifies the enforcement provision against an affiliate party when one or more of its accredited delegates are not permitted to vote because their attempt to register was denied. Clearly, the operation of the fee rule would in that case operate, in effect, to amend to Bylaws provisions by which voting rights are allocated to the constituent affiliated parties. I have yet to find this exception to the voting allocation provisions in the Bylaws by which the noncompliance with the disputed fee can be applied to reapportion the convention representation.
I would ask the proponents to consult the provisions by which the national party can disaffiliate the state parties. I need to see the dots connected in the total context of the Bylaws, the parliamentary authority and administration of the fee on the accredited delegates of the affiliated parties in a way which is not arbitrary and discriminatory.
Does anyone wish to supplement the brief by Ms. Mattson to respond to these objections?
OBTW, whether I am or I am not a Registered Parliamentarian is irrelevant to the objections raised; nor are the credentials of the proponents.
I really have a hard time with all this nonsense. Our party doesn’t like all the rules the state wants us to live with but we hog tie ourselves with our own. Is that ironic or just wrong?
I have an even harder time with Boortz and others from outside the party speaking. Its an off year. Can’t the committee at least get Libertarian candidates as speakers? Allow them time to make the pitch for funds and save some bucks in the meantime. And btw how much is being spent on Boortz and Davis as speakers?
LPNC Libertarians Condemn Floor Fees
To the members of the Libertarian National Committee:
The Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina offers the following resolution passed in an electronic vote over February 22-24, 2010 with a vote of 7 in favor, 1 opposed, and 2 abstentions:
Whereas National Party By-laws, article 11.3, states that delegates to the National Convention are selected by the state affiliates; and
Whereas Party By-Laws neither require nor allow the National Committee to impose additional requirements upon these delegates to the National Convention over and above their respective states’ requirements; and
Whereas, the delegate apportionment formula specified in the By-laws is primarily based on the number of sustaining national party members in each state;
Be it therefore resolved, that the Libertarian Party of North Carolina opposes in principle the imposition of a mandatory registration fee upon all duly elected delegates attending the Libertarian Party’s National Convention in St. Louis, Missouri over Memorial Day Weekend, the payment of which would be a mandatory prerequisite to the Credentials Committee seating said delegates who wish to attend and vote exclusively at the business sessions of the Libertarian Party National Convention.
@30
I call your attention also to the message
LPTN officers oppose compulsory fees at national convention
Whereas the bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Tennessee set forth requirements for delegate representation at Libertarian Party National Conventions;
Be it therefore resolved that:
The officers of the Libertarian Party of Tennessee find compulsory fees for delegates to participate in the business sessions of the Libertarian Party National Convention to be in violation of basic libertarian principles;
The officers of the Libertarian Party of Tennessee call upon the Libertarian National Committee to rescind said compulsory fees; and
The officers of the Libertarian Party of Tennessee will collectively oppose all attempts by the National Libertarian Party to prevent Libertarian Party of Tennessee Delegates from floor access, voting, or otherwise representing the Libertarian Party of Tennessee at the Libertarian National Convention.
Signed,
John Sebastian – Chair
Izaak Standridge – Vice Chair
J.R. Enfield – Treasurer
Ray Ledford – Secretary
from the LPTN, as forwarded to me.
Decent and intelligent libertarians agree with your stand.
Do not be dismayed by the appeals to certified Roberts-worshippers. The bylaws and record of what was rejected from the bylaws make clear that you are right.
George Phillies
@32
Mercifully, no one is proposing anything of the kind. If you want to eat rubber chicken and listen to speakers, you must pay for the privilege.
As a monthly contributor to the LP, I want my money to go to ballot access, candidate development and electing Libertarians. I do not want my money it to pay for convention halls and to subsidize the rubber chicken dinner at the Sunday Night Banquet.
As the party, who’s motto used to be “There is no such thing as a free lunch”, I find it laughable, that people want libertarian conventions with no fees.
My question is why all of sudden this year. Don’t we have more important things to spend the LP’s limit resources than offering free admittance to everyone.
“D Frank Robinson // Feb 25, 2010 at 7:26 pm
By way of introduction, I was the Chair of the Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Committee at the founding convention in Denver in 1972.
FWIW, I do not dispute that a delegate representing the views of the LNC can propose a convention floor fee as a Sepecial Rule of Order to the delegates of the convention. All delegates sent to the convention by the states are entitled to vote on that motion before the fee can be levied. Rules adopted at the convention by that convention become effective immediately and are binding only on the body – not on any future convention.
etc”
***************************************
Mr. Robinson:
Thank you for your analysis of the mandatory Registration fee for Delegates that has been approved by the National Libertarian Party’s Convention Committee.
Are you a Registered Parliamentarian?
2 of the authors of Robert’s Rules disagree with your analysis.
If you look on the National LP web site and you e-mail LNC member Alicia Mattson, she would be happy to e-mail you a copy of that opinion if you want.
I suggest you read that opinion, and then, if you disagree with it, you are welcome to explain the reason for your disagreement.
You can get Ms. Mattson’s opinion, which was written before the Robert’s Rules authors opinion was available, by looking at comment number 2 above. Please note that Ms. Mattson is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian.
By way of introduction, I was the Chair of the Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Committee at the founding convention in Denver in 1972.
FWIW, I do not dispute that a delegate representing the views of the LNC can propose a convention floor fee as a Sepecial Rule of Order to the delegates of the convention. All delegates sent to the convention by the states are entitled to vote on that motion before the fee can be levied. Rules adopted at the convention by that convention become effective immediately and are binding only on the body – not on any future convention.
If the motion is adopted, whatever the fee amount, convention business must suspend until the Credentials Committee can collect the fee and certify a list of delegates who have paid and who shall then conduct all subsequent business. Certified delegates, who do not pay the fee, cannot be ejected from the convention. To do so would require a vote to disaffiliate each of the state parties of the delegates who do not pay the fee.
If the motion for the delegates to assess a fee upon the body fails at that convention, then it cannot be renewed until the next convention.
To entrench a rule on fees in the bylaws a separate motion is necessary regardless of the outcome of the previous question.
Nevertheless, a motion to amend the bylaws to establish a floor fee on future conventions would be in order. If adopted that Bylaws change could not take effect until the convention adjourns. It would also be in order for a subsequent convention to rescind and refund such fees by amending the Bylaws.
Generally, and I quote from the copy of Robert’s I used in 1972, “Special rules of order of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict.” (pg 12, Robert’s 1970 edition)
I would need to see how the Bylaws were amended to allow the LNC to pass a Special rule of order binding on a future conventions to levy a delegate fee.
Obviously, this is precisely the dispute. Only the decision of a convention itself can resolve the matter. In my opinion, the fee at issue here is a proposed Special Rule of Order that may not be applied until adopted by a convention by delegates to whom it does not yet apply. If adopted the SRO and the fee it specifies expires when the convention adjourns. Only a Bylaws amendment can set a fee or a procedure for proposing a fee to a future convention.
A convention can, except by super-majorities relating to the SOP, tear up everything and start over. Therefore, it cannot be bound in advance by the proposed actions of its subsidiary organizational bodies (LNC) nor can it bind any future convention.
Nutshell, a subsidiary body (LNC) cannot adopt a special rule of order for a convention. It can propose and the delegates dispose.
I hope this analysis will clarify matters.
Brian,
You write: “I trust that other Libertarians involved in this debate are similarly not letting it distract them from their normal outward-facing activism.”
On this, we agree.
Thanks for your work on the water district board (even if it’s not my aquifer you’re saving).
“The argument about ‘excluding povertarians’ is simply poison, and I’m proud that my friend Tom explicitly disavows that argument.”
I don’t disavow it (I have personal experience of it, having witnessed one of the key figures in the current controversy openly wishing he could do exactly that in a similar situation, including use of the derogatory term). I just prefer not to resort to it.
If I am A and I’m trying to convince B, C … Y that Z is wrong, I’ll generally try to do so without having to get into the matter of whether or not Z is a rat bastard son of a bitch, even if he is, if I can avoid it. Provable fact is a better basis for argument than assertion of motive.
Jeremy, what’s the alternative? Let people make unanswered claims that the rules are being broken when they’re not? Let people make unanswered claims that the LNC majority is attempting a “coup” when they’re just doing their jobs of 1) protecting the LP’s bank account and 2) putting on a convention?
I too am mystified by the emotionality of the opposition to the registration fee. We just had an LPCA convention a week and a half ago with a non-rebatable $99 registration fee, and it seemed to be a non-issue — even for some of the very people who are screaming “coup!” about the half-rebatable $99 reg fee for St. Louis.
I don’t want to question people’s motives, but some of the LNC’s critics wear their conspiracy theories on their sleeves. (I don’t like the practice of elliptical criticism of unnamed Libertarians, but this debate is already too poisonous, so if you want more info, drop me an email.)
Why expend so much energy? We can rely on the rules to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. But to protect the majority from the whims of an angry minority, the majority sometimes has to muster as much energy as the minority is willing to invest in its anger.
Chuck Moulton has already described the Bylaws proposals and floor moves that he says is the right response. David Nolan has already shared the letter he sent to the LNC. In the absence of the cost data I keep asking for, I don’t have anything to add to the discussion. But I’m not gong to sit back and let accusations of rule-breaking go unexamined. I’m just not.
Bob, I admit I enjoy subjecting my positions to critical examination. I also admit that fellow Ls are a handy source of criticism. But as for the public square, let the record show that I spent all yesterday evening — from dinner until my kids’ bedtime — at a meeting of the town water conservation committee on which I sit by virtue of holding elective office on our water board. The committee is finalizing legislation that I drafted as an alternative to Sacramento’s 30-page default ordinance full of regulations and paperwork and approvals about what you can irrigate when and by how much. My alternative applies simple price-based incentives for conservation, with zero regulation of how you use the water you buy. Last night I helped turn back an objection that would exempt winter (i.e. indoor) water usage, as you could then game the rules by wasting some water in winter in order to save money on your summer irrigation needs.
I trust that other Libertarians involved in this debate are similarly not letting it distract them from their normal outward-facing activism.
jy: More generally: if we don’t believe there’s a coup in progress, and if we don’t believe core Libertarian principles are at stake, then why expend so much energy on this issue? Is it just a fun academic debate?
me: My take is Ls love to debate. Since we have virtually no influence in the public square, Ls vent this propensity by arguing over petty technicalities intra-party. Doing actual politics involves risk, and Ls tend to be risk-averse.
Brian, thanks for the corrections. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your interpretation of Robert’s; I just don’t see how it’s anything other than a technicality. I feel the same way about the funding issue, though that’s a harder argument to make on my part. The issue for me is: what is even something like an $80,000 biennial loss for a party whose presidential candidates routinely raise $1 million? Surely it’s not inconsequential, but it hardly justifies the heated exchanges we’ve seen here.
More generally: if we don’t believe there’s a coup in progress, and if we don’t believe core Libertarian principles are at stake, then why expend so much energy on this issue? Is it just a fun academic debate?
Jeremy, I would agree that it’s “silly” (or at least flimsy) to argue (as Tom does) that the word “normally” in Robert’s means that the dictionary, rather than Robert’s, is where we should look to read about the registration process that our Bylaws mention but don’t specify. However, the text of our rules (combined with the spines of our JudCom) is the only thing that can protect a minority from abuse by the majority or the leadership they elect. It’s also the first line of defense for a silent majority from facile claims that the rules are being broken. So while I don’t like to have to quote the plain English of the rules any more than anyone else, there is no better alternative when somebody makes a claim that the rules aren’t being followed. Simply ignoring such claims — or believing such claims without checking them against the rules — is a far worse alternative. If we take the fork in the road that branches away from following the rules, then we’re on the path that ends in fistfights and mob rule. I know you’re not a libertarian, but libertarians of all people should know that following voluntarily-agreed-to rules is the difference between civil order and the law of the jungle.
I haven’t seen a single person argue that a registration fee is to give the LP a profit. The argument is that it’s to prevent a loss.
We don’t have anything like good data on whether rank-and-file LP dues-payers expect that the meeting facilities used by the volunteer conventioneers they elect should be paid for out of the dues of non-conventioneers. Even if the delegates vote for that, then we’ll hope that’s the case, and assume that the delegates aren’t just voting out of their own self-interest. I’m willing to stipulate to that, as I trust our delegates.
The argument about “excluding povertarians” is simply poison, and I’m proud that my friend Tom explicitly disavows that argument. If you as a non-libertarian nevertheless really want to strengthen the LP like you say you do, then you should be careful about spraying such poison.
You omit a stronger argument against a registration fee, which is the various allegations that past conventions have been able to avoid a loss without one. However, these allegations have yet to accompanied with claims — let alone data — that there weren’t subsidies between various kinds of delegates. Indeed, Tom himself just relayed credible claims from past convention organizers that a de facto registration fee was needed to avoid losing money.
The strongest argument would be to give numbers showing that the St. Louis convention could have structured its costs and prices to avoid both a registration fee and inter-member subsidies, but you are justified in omitting that, because nobody has attempted it. (As long as that’s the case, I give the benefit of the doubt to the volunteers/”workers” tasked with organizing the convention.)
Speaking of “workers”, you (not surprisingly) omit another argument against the registration fee, that’s been offered by Tom. He says that conventioneers are analogous to LPHQ office staff, who we don’t expect to pay for their own desks and office space. Does Tom really think that e.g. choosing our presidential nominee or changing our Platform are analogous to staff jobs, that could perhaps be outsourced to a temp agency?
Tom, I thought that argument 1.0 was dead and buried, but I’m happy to replay its death scene if you want to. 🙂 You say that Robert’s description of the registraton process as normally including a registration fee is “trumped” by some unidentified text in our Bylaws. Then I say that our Bylaws mention registration but don’t describe it when they say at 11.3.a: “At all Regular Conventions delegates shall be those so accredited who have registered at the Convention.” Then I ask you to quote the Bylaws disagreeing with Robert’s about what registration involves. Then you do something other than provide said quote, and argument 1.0 slumps back into its grave. 🙂 So to successfully resurrect argument 1.0, you need to complete this sentence:
The text of the LP Bylaws that overrules the Robert’s description of “registration” is the part where the Bylaws describe registration by saying, and I quote, “[paste Bylaws quote here]”.
I’ll take your correction as a friendly amendment: On your account, the great crime of this LNC is that it’s following the same practice that past LNCs let nearly everybody think they were following, but is being more transparent about it. Readers can decide for themselves whether this new information weakens your case.
P.S. I don’t mind you calling a sentence like the last one a “Brian Holtz Pivot”, though I’m quite sure I didn’t invent it. I do object to you calling it “smarmy”, as it’s just my way of saying that the truth-value of the disputed proposition is so obvious that I rest my case without even bothering to repeat whether I think it’s true or false. Thus it’s my way of conceding the last word, which is something I suspect that IPR readers wish I would do more often. 🙂
@ 21
As against, you can add:
5) It’s more Libertarian to make people pay for their own participation in the convention, rather than force them to subsidize expensive amenities (which they don’t want to use) for other participants.
“The whole point of having Robert’s as our default rules is to avoid having to cut and paste large parts of it into our Bylaws.”
And the whole point of the caveat that RONR applies only where it is consistent with the bylaws is to prevent situations where non-authorizing language which conflicts with the bylaws gets treated as authorizing language which trumps the bylaws because some people like the outcome the latter approach allows better than they like the income the former approach requires.
“The information you relay @14 from Sullentrup hurts your case. On this account, the great crime of this LNC is that it’s following the same practice that nearly everybody thought past LNCs were following, but is being more transparent about it.”
Only in the bizarre parallel universe in which you apparently live.
Past LNCs have been happy to let people think a floor fee was mandatory when it wasn’t.
The current LNC [‘s convention subcommittee] is being up-front about actually attempting to mandate payment of a floor fee.
One of these things is not like the other. The only thing they have in common is that in both cases, a mandatory floor fee violates the bylaws.
Here’s a summary of the argument so far:
Key question: Should the LP charge a floor fee for delegates to its convention?
Arguments in favor:
1) The Credentials Committee has the right to levy a floor fee.
2) The LP needs the money, and past conventions have lost money for the party. A floor fee will make money for the party.
3) It’s more Libertarian to make people pay for their own participation in the convention than to have party dues and fundraising pay for it.
Arguments against:
1) The Credentials Committee may not have the right to levy a floor fee, and shouldn’t in any case; the delegates should vote on this on the floor.
2) The LP won’t raise very much money from a floor fee, but might lose some because delegates are angry at the LNC over the floor fee issue.
3) The LP is a voluntary organization and people pay their dues by choice. They expect those dues to go toward party business. The convention qualifies as party business, so the LNC should use dues to fund it.
4) The floor fee is being instituted by people on the LNC who don’t have majority support among LP delegates, and who want to exclude some povertarians as a way of shoring up their support.
I think #3 in favor and #4 against are the strongest arguments, particularly since neither one is easily rebutted by the opposition. Also, both these arguments are the ones that make the question so important. The Robert’s Rules arguments are silly, since they should properly concern only the Judiciary Committee. I’m also not swayed either way by the money arguments, since I expect the money gained or lost by the institution of the floor fee to be negligible in any case.
I think what it comes down to is this: if you’re afraid that LNC members are purposely trying to exclude voters who would vote them out of office, then you need to be very upset about the floor fee. (This is the position I take.) If you think having dues pay for the convention is un-Libertarian, then you need to be very concerned about the lack of a floor fee.
Just my two cents.
Tom, Robert’s gives eight dense pages of details about what a Credentials Committee must, may, and may not do. When it says that a CredCom “normally” collects the registration fee, that sure sounds like a “may” to me. It remains untenable to argue that anything in those 8 pages that is not a “must” can only be considered a “may” if it is duplicated in the Bylaws. The whole point of having Robert’s as our default rules is to avoid having to cut and paste large parts of it into our Bylaws.
The information you relay @14 from Sullentrup hurts your case. On this account, the great crime of this LNC is that it’s following the same practice that nearly everybody thought past LNCs were following, but is being more transparent about it.
Bob,
You write:
“NOT a contractual matter, as TK seems to believe it is.”
I was very careful to explain that it is NOT a contractual matter, but rather that it resembles one in significant respects that make for sound comparison. I’m not sure how that magically transmutes itself into me believing the opposite of what I clearly said.
TK says:
Since the LP hasn’t established such a norm, rule or principle, but in fact has established an opposite norm, rule or principle both by precedent and by exclusion of a registration fee from its bylaws, the RONR reference to what is “normal” clearly isn’t referring to such a norm, rule or principle.
I think that the thing to pay attention to here is the subject of precedent. This whole ordeal is just like the seating of alternates at the platform committee meetings before the 2008 convention. We have a group of people who want what they want and are trying to mislead people into believing that Robbers Rulz supercedes precedent. If you look at how law and the courts work, precedent is very important when decisions are rendered. For us not to take this into account is simply not right or very principled. Precedent should be upheld until the delegates spell it out in a very detailed manner so that the parliamentarians can wrap their heads around it.
es: If that amounts to subsidizing fellow libertarians to do the business of the party, so be it. It’s my expectation as a member.
me: And not an unreasonable expectation at that. But NOT a contractual matter, as TK seems to believe it is.
I didnt get the memo either , and god bless Alicias paper , but I havent the patience to read thru it .
paulie,
It went to a list you are on. The thread title is “Scorecard.” It didn’t specifically predict Mr. Holtz’s article, but it did predict the general approach.
Around the Block AFT,
You write:
“Didn’t the very successful 1996 convention turn a profit of $80,000 – with no registration fee?”
There seems to be considerable debate as to which conventions came in in the black versus in the red.
There’s also some historical data relevant to registration fees. I’ll cite my own experience, and LNC secretary Bob Sullentrup’s as he related it to the Missouri LP executive committee.
My first LP convention was in 2000. I saw that there were packages for sale. I saw that the minimally priced one was called something like “Delegate Floor Pass,” and since I was sweating the expenses of being in Anaheim in the first place, that was the package I bought, assuming that I had to buy SOME kind of package to be a delegate. I believe it was $59.95 or $79.95, but I could be wrong about that.
By the time of the 2002 convention, someone had explained to me that no, purchase of a package was not required to serve as a delegate. I believe I’ve bought a package at at least two of the conventions I’ve attended anyway, though (Anaheim and, I think, Atlanta).
Here’s how Mr. Sullentrup relates it to the Missouri executive committee:
“That there was an option to attend for free was something that I didn’t know about for four years. Prior Convention Committees always swept that option under the rug and kept it concealed almost as a fraud to package-payers who were never fully informed. Steve Dasbach told me two weeks ago ‘we never publicized that because we didn’t want to lose money’. I wasn’t fully informed in Anaheim 2000, Indy 2002 and even Atlanta 2004 (I became Secretary 59 days before that convention and had no time to ponder such matters).”
In other words, the LNC’s past practice has been to sell packages and word the marketing of them in such a way that it was easy for people to believe that they couldn’t be delegates without buying one … without ever actually saying so, but hoping that some people would believe it and buy packages.
I do applaud one thing about Mr. Sullentrup’s take on this matter: He hasn’t tried to hide the way things work. He’s in favor of a mandatory floor fee, and he wants it to be crystal clear that the fee is mandatory. He’s not trying to slick his way through it or deceive people into paying it when they don’t have to.
While I find the claim that the party paying for its volunteers’ work space is a “subsidy” downright silly, I have no objection in principle to the delegates themselves amending the bylaws to provide for future conventions being financed on their backs.
I don’t think it’s a good idea for several practical reasons (for example, we already have a lot of empty seats at the conventions; making it more expensive to be a delegate will create more), and I’m wary of the legal risks involved, i.e. poll tax considerations, but the crux of my opposition to the floor fee is that it’s a usurpation by the LNC and/or its convention subcommittee of authority which those bodies do not rightfully possess.
@12, last paragraph: I didn’t get the memo
Quoth Mr. Holtz:
“So Tom’s argument 3.0 is: in the eight pages that our rules use to describe the authority and responsibilities and procedures of our Credentials Committee, a discussion that the CredCom ‘normally’ does X is not an authorization to actually do X until the CredCom has already been doing X for a while.”
No — the descriptive language in RONR is not authorizing language. There are no conditions under which it will magically become authorizing language.
If it was “normal” (i.e. conforming to an established norm, rule or principle) for the LP to have a convention floor fee, we wouldn’t NEED RONR to authorize one. Since the LP hasn’t established such a norm, rule or principle, but in fact has established an opposite norm, rule or principle both by precedent and by exclusion of a registration fee from its bylaws, the RONR reference to what is “normal” clearly isn’t referring to such a norm, rule or principle.
Yes, my argument evolves to embrace all facts which sustain it. Yours would too, if there were any such facts handy.
Insofar as motives are concerned, I was referring to eschewing argument as to the motives of the pro-floor-fee people for being pro-floor-fee. Alluding to the tactics they can be expected to use — and I circulated an email among the group of interested Libertarians I’m working with to oppose the floor fee yesterday predicting EXACTLY these tactics — already assumes the motive (to sustain the floor fee).
Id like to add that I dont see any ulterior motives for Starr and others imposing the floor fees . I think they have the very hard and thankless and difficult decisions of trying to make the convention not a huge gaping finanial wound. I still disagree with the ammount , however I want to be clear that i do not see this as part of a bigger , evil political shenanigan.
So I brought the matter to my excom since it was supposed to be addressed at convention but was not , the excuse they gave me was they didnt have a copy but thats lame because i had given it to everyone previously and anyone could have pulled it up from their email — lamest excuse ever– then i was assured it would be addressed at the business meeting directly after , which it wasnt , not sure why . Vice Chair Kris McKinster now says its unfair for the excom to vote on it because we shouldnt be passing things the delegates would have likely shot down . HUH? they never got the chance , and I think they would have voted for it . anyways i brought a motion to my excom , 8 people , and 3 have voted yes and 1 no so far , but the Chair Joe Silvestri is choosing to just ignore the matter entirely , he has not weighed in either way , and Kris says ignoring it is the best strategy. again , huh? maybe anyone at the State chairs can ask him why he arbritrarily ignores business. I cant ask him since he doesnt speak to me since i had the audacity to visit Duensing after he’d been shot and then speak about it here and on my Face boof after he’d given orders for radio silence:)
Im guess im not a very good rule follower , guess that make me , oh , i dont know , a libertarian:)
So Tom’s argument 3.0 is: in the eight pages that our rules use to describe the authority and responsibilities and procedures of our Credentials Committee, a discussion that the CredCom “normally” does X is not an authorization to actually do X until the CredCom has already been doing X for a while.
Well, at least that’s not quite as silly as his argument 2.0: that when those eight pages talk about “the X”, no X is actually authorized unless the Bylaws replicates the Robert’s discussion about X, because it’s not like we use Robert’s as our default rules or anything.
The weakness of Tom’s argument 3.0 is measured by his inability to resist repeating argument 1.0: “The established RULEs in the LP are quite clear on what the qualifications of a delegate are and where the authority lies for selecting them.” That argument couldn’t be any deader, as Bylaw 11.3.a couldn’t be any clearer that registration is a separate step beyond qualifying to be a delegate: “At all Regular Conventions delegates shall be those so accredited who have registered at the Convention.”
Tom says he doesn’t want to question people’s motives, but he’s awfully quick to paint my straightforward reporting of news about this controversy as “the opening shot in the pro-floor-fee side’s strategy”. The “side” that I’m on is merely the side that says 1) Robert’s tells us how to execute processes that our Bylaws mention but don’t define, and 2) the various categories of dues-payers and delegates should not subsidize each other. Some people have claimed, without using specific numbers, that the St. Louis convention could have avoided such subsidies without a registration fee. Until I see such numbers, I give the benefit of the doubt to the people who have taken on the thankless task of organizing this convention. If there’s a way to get decent convention facilities without either subsidies or a registration fee, I’m in favor of that.
Which reminds me that they and other LP convention organizers — like Zander Collier this year in California, and Rich Newell last year, and Terry Floyd the year before — are overdue for some thanks. I can’t think of any other task in the LP that is so important and yet so not what I would consider fun or interesting.
Any registration fee of $10 or less (to cover doo-dads) would be acceptable.
Didn’t the very successful 1996 convention turn a profit of $80,000 – with no registration fee?
Somebody needs to sharpen their pencils if the conventions “always lose money.”
A someone not planning to go to St. Louis, I would hope that my dues and donations would pay for the party to meet someplace and do business. If that amounts to subsidizing fellow libertarians to do the business of the party, so be it. It’s my expectation as a member. It’s that simple.
Jeremy,
I think that the floor fee issue should be settled with as little reliance on the “political shenanigans” angle as possible.
When possible, it’s better to beat your opponents on Issue X on the grounds that they are incorrect on that issue than to have to resort to arguing against what one believes their motives might be.
A number of people see the floor fee issue as tied into other issues, e.g. positing that the Starr/Sullentrup clique believes a more financially well-off delegate body will be more likely to re-elect them and elect their supporters to the LNC than would a delegate body which includes people who can’t swing the extra $130 for the floor fee.
That may or may not be the case, but I don’t see any reason to go there, because they are clearly wrong on the issue even if their motives are pure as the driven snow (e.g. not wanting the convention to put the party financially upside down).
Tom, thanks very much for the document. I see where it could be persuasive to libertarisns not familiar with the political shenanigans going on — Mattson wisely makes philosophical Libertarian arguments in addition to legalistic bylaws-based ones.
Mr. Holtz’s article is the opening shot in the pro-floor-fee side’s strategy for this weekend’s LNC meeting.
The idea will be to marginalize the anti-floor-fee side by portraying every state affiliate which does not pass an anti-floor-fee resolution as de facto in support of the floor fee.
Such a portrayal would be false. Silence does not imply support.
FACT: In every state except one (New Hampshire) where an anti-floor-fee resolution has come to a vote of the affiliate’s executive committee, that resolution has passed.
FACT: In New Hampshire, the resolution which was postponed instead of passed did not merely oppose the floor fee but called for a boycott of the national convention if the fee was not rescinded. Rather than pass such a strong resolution ahead of the LNC meeting (it may be taken up after if the floor fee is not reversed), LPNH merely instructed its regional LNC representative to vote against the floor fee at that meeting.
FACT: A pro-floor-fee resolution has also been authored, and LNC secretary Bob Sullentrup initially stated his intention to move that resolution as a substitution for the anti-floor-fee resolution when the Missouri LP executive committee took up the matter. He subsequently decided not to. The reasonable explanation for his decision is that he knew that the attempt would fail (the anti-floor-fee resolution passed in the Missouri executive committee with 11 members present and only one audible “no” vote). Since I have yet to hear of that resolution being moved in any other state affiliate, I have to assume that those who support it predict that it would lose anywhere it was offered.
FACT: In California, Idaho and Florida, the anti-floor-fee resolution has been met not with majority opposition, but with parliamentary maneuvering and behind the scenes arm-twisting to prevent it from getting an up-or-down vote on at all. If you support the floor fee, you don’t go that route if you think you’re going to prevail on a vote, because a clear defeat of the anti-floor-fee resolution would be much better ammunition than simply “we didn’t vote on it.”
Ms. Mattson’s argument falls apart at “Incorrect Argument #1,” when she attempts to magically transmute a passing allusion to what RONR assumes is “normal” into authorizing language for something that is neither “normal” to the LP nor authorized by the LP’s bylaws.
“Normal” means “according to an established norm, rule, or principle.”
The established norm in the LP, from nearly four decades of precedent, has been that no registration fee is required.
The established RULEs in the LP are quite clear on what the qualifications of a delegate are and where the authority lies for selecting them.
“Registration” is defined in neither the bylaws nor RONR. It’s defined in any good dictionary as “adding one’s name to a register.”
RONR as an authority is an authority only when it speaks authoritatively. With respect to registration processes, it does not do s0 — rather it offers a general description of what is “normal.” That approach does not establish a rule, it merely advises as to what procedures might be appropriate if a rule is not elsewhere established … and in the LP, a rule is elsewhere established.
Jeremy,
I wouldn’t call it “leaking” anything. So far as I know the Mattson document isn’t considered secret; it, or versions of it, have been sent to more than one of the state executive committees considering anti-registration-fee resolutions.
I’ve pasted the version received by the Missouri LP executive committee as plain text below my signature. Any formatting problems are caused by my cut and paste — the document was attractively formatted as presented.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
The LP National Convention Registration Fee
by Alicia Mattson
(LNC At-Large and Professional Registered Parliamentarian)
After the 2010 LP Convention website came online, some started objecting to the fact that national convention delegates must buy at least a minimal registration package to participate in the business sessions. I’ve been informed that someone at your state convention will ask you to pass a resolution opposing the fee.
The following is a list of arguments being made against the registration fee. Perhaps you’ve heard some of them and want to hear the other side of the story. Below I explain my disagreements with each argument. In summary, the convention registration fee is not a violation of our bylaws, and it fits with libertarian principles of personal responsibility and not demanding that one subsidize another.
Incorrect Argument #1: It is a violation of the bylaws to charge a registration fee.
Article 13 of our bylaws states, “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.”
The effect of this is to adopt 643 pages of time-tested standard parliamentary procedure without our convention delegates having to re-invent the wheel. Instead, we merely adopt bylaws or special rules of order to cover subjects not in Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (RONR), or to replace/override/modify specific provisions of RONR. Notice the standard language in Article 13, which specifies that RONR “shall govern” except in the places where it is “inconsistent” with our bylaws or our special rules of order (we do also have Convention Special Rules of Order).
RONR p. 16, lines 8-14 explain this as well in the following way:
“When a society or assembly has adopted a particular parliamentary manual – such as this book – as its parliamentary authority the rules contained in that manual are binding upon it in all cases where they are not inconsistent with the bylaws (or constitution) or any special rules of order of the body, or any provisions of local, state, or national law applying to the particular type of organization.”
RONR p. 15, lines 17-25 states:
“The usual method by which an ordinary society now provides itself with suitable rules of order is therefore to include in its bylaws a provision prescribing that the current edition of a specified and generally accepted manual of parliamentary law shall be the organization’s parliamentary authority, and then to adopt only such special rules of order as it finds needed to supplement or modify rules contained in that manual.”
To modify a provision of RONR, it would be necessary for us to specifically adopt a rule or bylaw that creates an inconsistency with what RONR says, and then our bylaw or special rule takes precedence over the RONR default. Otherwise it would take a suspend-the-rules vote of our convention delegates to override a RONR provision.
Given this understanding of how our organizational rules work, following is the chain of LP rules which permit a convention registration fee:
Article 11.3 of the LP bylaws states (underline added for emphasis):
3. Delegates:
a. Delegates shall be required to be members of either the Party or an affiliate party. At all Regular Conventions delegates shall be those so accredited who have registered at the Convention. At all Non-Regular Conventions, any person who wishes to attend may do so.
b. Any federal or state law to the contrary notwithstanding, delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party; provided however, that only members of the Party as defined in these Bylaws, or members of the affiliate party as defined in the constitution or bylaws of such affiliate party, shall be eligible to vote for the selection of delegates to a Regular Convention.
Article 6.3 of the LP bylaws states:
“There shall be no more than one state-level affiliate party in any one state. Each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.“
From the pool of tens of thousands of people who are otherwise eligible, based on the requirements of Article 11.3.a, state affiliates choose the identity of their delegates in accordance with Articles 6.3 and 11.3.b.
Article 11.3.a deals with eligibility. The first sentence of 11.3.a prescribes some membership requirements. The second sentence of 11.3.a states that delegates shall be those so accredited (meeting the qualifications, properly selected by the state affiliates) who have registered at the Convention. They must be accredited AND registered. Being registered is clearly distinct and separate from merely being accredited as meeting the membership requirement. The details of the registration process are not defined in our bylaws, but the process is described in RONR.
In chapter 19 of RONR, page 592 begins a discussion of the duties of the Credentials Committee. Page 593, lines 13-26 discusses the process of registration:
“Registration – which normally includes these steps:
a) Submission, by the member intending to register, of evidence that he is entitled to do so;
b) Verification by the committee, or a subcommittee of it, that the members’ credentials are correct;
c) Recording of the member as officially registered, upon his paying the registration fee (which is sometimes sent well in advance) and signing the list of registrations; and
d) Issuing of the particular badge to which the member is entitled, the official program, and additional necessary information, such as time and place of individual section or committee meetings or workshops.”
Our bylaws require delegates to be “registered”. Our bylaws specify what it takes to be “accredited”, but they do not specify what being “registered” entails. Since our bylaws do not specify how one becomes “registered” our bylaws are not inconsistent with the provisions in RONR regarding registration.
The parliamentary authority adopted in our bylaws specifically states that the person is registered “upon his paying the registration fee”, and that such is “normal”. It is not a violation of our bylaws to require a registration fee. If a registration fee has been established, it would take a suspend-the-rules vote to allow delegates to be seated without paying it.
Incorrect Argument #2: Silence does not imply consent. Silence means no consent. Our bylaws say nothing about a registration fee, therefore, the delegates did not give consent to charge one.
The delegates gave consent to such RONR provisions by adopting RONR as our parliamentary authority.
In order for the bylaws or other rules to override RONR, they must be “inconsistent” with RONR (see bylaw Article 13 and RONR p. 16 lines 16-18 quoted above). The fact that our bylaws are silent on the subject is precisely the reason why the RONR provision regarding the registration process is applicable to our situation. This is an elementary parliamentary concept.
There are many areas where we understand this concept without controversy. Our bylaws are silent on questions about what vote is required to suspend the rules, to close to debate and come to an immediate vote, or to adjourn. Our bylaws are silent on decorum rules that forbid personal attacks during debate. Our bylaws are silent on the procedure for resolving disputes about seating convention delegates. Because our bylaws and rules are silent on these subjects, we revert to RONR’s for these matters. That is why we adopt a parliamentary authority, so we do not need to reinvent the wheel.
Incorrect Argument # 3: To charge a delegate a registration fee adds an extra condition of eligibility not authorized in our bylaws. RONR, p. 571, lines 24-25 states, “If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited.” In this case the bylaws list qualifications for being a delegate. Imposing other qualifications that are not listed in the bylaws is therefore prohibited.
Our bylaws in Article 11.3 specifically require that a delegate be registered as a separate step from being merely accredited/credentialed/qualified. Registration is specifically listed as a requirement to become a convention delegate.
Incorrect Argument #4: Registration only requires that I present myself to the credentials committee, that they make sure I am eligible to be a delegate according to our bylaws, and they give me a badge and delegate ribbon.
The registration process in this argument is not specified in our bylaws or convention rules, yet we acknowledge that these steps are required before one can vote on the convention floor. Where is that process defined? It is defined in RONR on page 593 as cited above. In fact the registration process in this argument is nearly a recitation of the RONR process, spanning steps (a), (b), and (d) of the RONR process, but ignoring part (c) which says that one is registered “upon his paying the registration fee”. Even within the argument is the concession that the credentials committee should make sure one meets the bylaw requirements, one of which is registration.
Incorrect Argument #5: The bylaws specify the qualifications of delegates, and no “registration fee” is to be found among those specifications. The LNC has no authority to alter or add to those specifications. Nor does the Convention Committee.
The bylaws require that a delegate both be accredited (meet the qualifications) AND be “registered”. The registration requirement was not added by the LNC. It was not added by the Convention Oversight Committee or the Credentials Committee. It is in the bylaws.
Incorrect Argument #6: The function of the credentials committee is to ascertain that delegates are qualified per the bylaws, not to collect registration fees.
Page 593 of RONR, where we find discussion of registration fees, is contextually in the middle of a discussion of the duties of the Credentials Committee.
Incorrect Argument #7: RONR only mentions a registration fee in passing, but it doesn’t say that the fee is “required”. That does not authorize a fee without the bylaws specifically requiring the fee.
The assumption in RONR is that there is a registration fee. To override the default registration process in RONR would take a suspend-the-rules vote to allow delegates to register without paying the registration fee that has been designated.
Incorrect Argument #8: Our bylaws specify that the ONLY requirement to be a voting delegate is to have been selected by his or her affiliate. This registration fee infringes on state affiliate’s right to choose their delegates. Only the state affiliates could impose a fee on their delegates.
Article 6.5 of the LP bylaws state:
“The autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party, except as provided by these Bylaws.“
Article 6.3 (quoted in Argument #1 above) says that state affiliates must comply with the national bylaws in determining their delegates. Article 6.5 says the autonomy of the affiliates shall not be abridged, “except as provided by these Bylaws.” It is not true that the only requirement to be a delegate is being selected by an affiliate. The bylaws can and do establish other conditions that must be met before one is permitted to vote. LP bylaws Article 11.3.a requires that one be either a member of the national party or of the state affiliate. The same article requires that the person register. LP bylaws Article 11.3.b sets limitations on who can vote when the state affiliates select their delegates. It would be a violation of our bylaws for the national convention to seat as delegates people who had been selected by the state affiliates, but fail to meet all of these other requirements.
Incorrect Argument #9: Convention rule 2.2 states: “All delegates shall be eligible to vote on all matters.” It doesn’t say that only “registered delegates” shall be eligible to vote, but that “all” delegates are, and the states have exclusive say about who their delegates are.
The terms “delegate” and “registered delegate” are synonymous. Note that bylaw Article 11.3.a says, “At all Regular Conventions delegates shall be those so accredited who have registered at the Convention.” One only becomes a convention delegate after they have registered.
Incorrect Argument #10: This violates precedent. We’ve never done this before, so we can’t do it now.
If the argument is that because it has been our practice in the past to not charge registration fees, that is now binding upon us as a rule, it is simply not what our rules say about precedent. RONR p. 17, lines 4-15 state:
“In some organizations a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule of order. However, if such a practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule of the organization, and a Point of Order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with, unless a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule) is added or amended to incorporate the custom.”
This organization does not operate under common law precedents.
If the argument is that we must always do what we’ve always done, then we’ll always get what we’ve always gotten. Our practice in the past has been for the party to lose money (often over $10,000) on each convention, rather than to break even, much les make a profit. Is that a time-honored precedent should never change?
And if precedent were to be our standard, we can demonstrate that many LP state affiliates (including California) charge convention registration fees with identical bylaw scenarios (registration is required by the bylaws, the bylaws do not specifically mention a registration fee, and RONR is their parliamentary authority), and they do so without controversy. In addition, the LSLA (organization of LP state chairs) routinely charges a registration fee without a specific bylaw provision for it, once again without controversy. On what reasonable basis should the same circumstances be interpreted differently for the national party than for other parts of our organization?
Incorrect Argument #11: This change is being sprung on us without advance notification.
The news was released when the convention website came online in mid-January, over 4 months in advance of the May convention. Most states select their national convention delegates at their state conventions, and an overwhelming super-majority of state affiliates had not yet held their conventions when the requirement was announced in January. This gives more than adequate time for state affiliates to adjust.
Incorrect Argument #12: Everyone who can buy a package will do so voluntarily. We’re only talking about a handful of delegates who are financially unable to do so.
It is not just a handful of delegates who do not contribute their share of the convention costs. For the Denver convention in 2008, 1/6 of the delegates (over 100 people) bought no convention package, meaning that the cost was shifted to the other attendees. When that high a percentage of delegates do not contribute to the expenses, it increases what we must charge everyone else who does buy a convention package. Some buy the basic package to cover their own per-person cost, and the extra costs get shifted to the Silver/Gold packages. For the Denver convention in 2008, 27% of the delegates were not even sustaining members of the national party because they had contributed less than $25 to the party in the previous year. Certainly their dues couldn’t be used to help pay for the convention.
Argument #13: Some fixed portion of membership dues should be set aside to pay for the convention. The bylaws require that the LP have conventions, so it should be paid for by the party, not the delegates.
Sure, that’s possible, but every penny that is taken out of the general fund for the convention is another penny that is no longer available for party operations or ballot access. The reality is that we’re on a very tight budget, and we’ve had to make drastic cuts in operations costs. LP News had to be cut back to fewer issues. Staff levels are at bare minimums. We are locked into a multi-year lease on our office, paying below market rates on office space in D.C., and rent is a fixed cost. There is only one budget category that has flexibility left in it, and if the party budget bears the convention costs, it will do so at the expense of ballot access for our candidates. Should our candidates have to pay for those convention delegates not contributing to convention costs? Many state affiliates depend on help from the national party to meet onerous petitioning requirements for ballot access. If we were to ask members whether they would prefer we spend their donations on more ballot access or paying for convention costs, how do you think they would answer?
Note also that no dues are required to be a member of the party. Even to be a sustaining member (used only to set delegate allocations, and to determine convention committee composition) only requires a $25 donation. We can’t run a zero or near-zero dues party and demand free conventions. For the 2008 Denver convention, 20% of the delegates had never ever made a contribution to the national party. Another 7% of them had not given $25 or more within the prior year.
We’re not Democrats who argue for wealth redistribution. We’re not Republicans who receive taxpayer money for their conventions. We’re Libertarians who advocate personal responsibility, advocate economic reality and fiscal prudence, believe that many government programs should instead be paid for with user fees, and remind people that “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
Incorrect Argument #14: The purpose of the registration fee is to shift costs — to force all of the delegates to subsidize a preference on the part of some for a more luxurious venue and for some extra-convention activities/events. And the rebate for staying in the convention hotel benefits the wealthy delegates, creating a “tax the poor to subsidize the rich” scheme. The poorer delegates should not have to pay to have these events in fancy hotels or have fancy dinners.
Motel 6 cannot provide the meeting space necessary for hundreds of our delegates to gather and conduct business. The Convention Committee works very hard at finding hotels that can accommodate our space needs, and they are very conscious of hotel room rates and want to keep them as low as is feasible. This year’s convention has the lowest total expenses of the last 4 conventions because the Convention Committee chair has negotiated hard to lower costs.
The contract with our convention hotel only waives rent on the convention meeting space if our event books a certain number of hotel rooms. The delegates who pay a higher room rate to stay in the convention hotel are directly helping pay for the meeting space. Those staying elsewhere are not making the same contribution towards covering the convention costs. If enough people stay elsewhere, the party could be left with tremendous expenses that would not otherwise be incurred.
The rebate program makes the expense allocation among delegates more fair, relieving the financial burden on those staying in the convention hotel to prevent us from being charged for the meeting space. As an added feature, the rebate is designed to encourage more casual party member interaction by staying in the same hotel.
Libertarian principles argue that neither should the “rich” be “taxed” to subsidize the “poor”. See also the related answer to argument # 16.
Incorrect Argument #15: I’m comfortable with the principle of charging a registration fee, but I believe that only the delegates can pass a resolution to establish the amount of the fee. The LNC can’t set the fee, nor can a sub-committee of the LNC set the fee.
Article 8.1 of the LP bylaws state:
“The National Committee shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties and funds of the Party consistent with these Bylaws.”
Article 11.1 of the LP bylaws states:
“The Party shall hold a Regular Convention every two years, at a time and place selected by the National Committee.“
Under this specific authority of Article 11.1 and also the general authority of Article 8.1, the LNC selects the time and place of the convention, and they plan every other aspect of the convention including speakers, meal details, room setup, audio-visual equipment rentals, vendor booth arrangements, etc. Just as the LNC has the general authority to plan the expenses of the convention, the LNC has the general authority to set the registration fee to cover the expenses of the convention.
Article 8.1 of the LP bylaws also states:
“The National Committee may delegate its authority in any manner it deems necessary.”
Planning a convention takes a focused effort over a long period of time. The bylaws authorize the LNC to delegate its authority in any manner it deems necessary, and the LNC delegated the convention planning by adopting the following rule:
“The Convention Oversight Committee acts on behalf of the LNC in issues regarding the Party’s bi-annual conventions. The committee conveys our requirements to the convention planners, ensures the convention meets our needs, reviews and approves major elements such as contracts, the convention budget, and the convention program in a timely manner, and advises the LNC in its decision making related to future conventions.”
The LNC has the authority to set the convention registration fee. The LNC has the authority to delegate decisions, and it delegated this decision to the Convention Oversight Committee.
Even as a practical matter, it would be difficult for the 2010 delegates to set the 2010 registration fee after we arrive at the convention, because the fee amount would not be known before registration time. As a practical matter, it would be difficult for the delegates in a given year to set the registration fee for the following convention, as no gauge of the actual costs would be known yet, and pricing models and the economy can change drastically in two years time.
Incorrect Argument #16: I’m comfortable with the principle of charging a registration fee, but I believe a smaller fee is more appropriate. The $99 rate for a basic package minus a $50 rebate with a Renaissance hotel room is too high. A fee of $25 would be more reasonable.
The Convention Oversight Committee decided on the prices of the different convention registration packages after careful study of the expenses associated with each. The Basic registration package is not subsidizing the perks for the Silver or Gold packages. The price of the Basic package was calculated only considering costs that benefit every delegate. In fact, a delegate who buys a Basic package at $99 early bird pricing and gets the $50 rebate for staying in the hotel pays a net of $49 to register. At that rate he is not fully paying for his share of the convention expenses, as the common expenses are approximately $79 per delegate. The Silver and Gold packages still subsidize that Basic early-bird-rebated package by $30. This year’s Basic package pricing is consistent with pricing at the three prior conventions.
This year’s prices assume that we’re going to book enough hotel rooms and sell enough optional food/beverage to get our meeting space for free. Even then, there are many other costs. Audio/video rental and personnel to run them are very expensive. We also need to pay for staging, backdrop, labor costs for special room setup, printed delegate materials, badges and ribbons, internet connections for official business, the refreshments that are available to all, keynote speaker travel expenses, computers, printers, shipping costs, etc.
Because of the expectation that every convention delegate this year would be paying a registration fee, this year’s Silver/Gold package prices were reduced by about $100 from the 2008 rates because they wouldn’t have to subsidize other attendees as much.
Is it right that those buying Silver/Gold convention packages should have to pay an additional $100 so that other delegates can attend for free?
Rather than the Libertarian Party building subsidies into our convention fees without the Silver/Gold delegates knowing that they’re paying for others, it is better for those who cannot afford a Basic registration to ask their state affiliates or other individuals to voluntarily choose to help with their registration fees. Ask them as a charitable favor. Don’t demand it as a right. We are not socialists, and I’m surprised that we’re actually having this debate within the Libertarian Party.
The Convention Oversight Committee saw that the last 4 LP conventions have lost money, and they decided that their goal for this one would be to not lose money. Even a $25 per delegate fee would not be sufficient to keep us from losing a significant amount of money on this event.
The LP likes to issue press releases saying unlike Democrats and Republicans, we don’t get $15 million of tax revenue for our conventions. We brag that we pay for our own. If our own delegates object to paying for our own conventions, what have we been bragging about?
Can we get someone to leak a copy of Mattson’s letter?