June 25, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
Readers are invited to use this article’s comment section to post live updates and commentary about this weekend’s meetings in Austin of the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws Committee, National Committee, and State Leadership Alliance.
Warren Redlich is CEO of SpinJ Corporation, which became owner of IPR in November 2012. He was the 2010 Libertarian candidate for Governor of New York, and has run for office as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Liberal.
Comments are closed.
Starr moves to substitute a POLICY MANUAL addition to have voluntary contributions pay for delegates who don’t pay.
Volunteers to pay for 2 delegates.
Adm. say it was his fault – any controversy.
Las Vegas represents the libertarian spirit, It’s also an exciting city, compared to the other ones I saw floating about as potential convention sites. Even better: choosing Vegas is a big middle finger to the Obama administration which has been taking pot shots at that fine city.
I’d also like to add that Vegas is chock full of deals. They desperately need business.
Vegas would be AWESOME! Especially since we are only three or four hours out from there…. YES! One day drive to Convention! SO THERE!
Eugenio Pablo Canto del Halcon said . . .
The delegates at the convention will determine where we go next with this issue…
Meanwhile, WAR still gets his speaking slot, even thought the other chair candidates do not.
Rachel concurs. He got it correct.
I’m for it.
Let’s roll the dice!
@130 Oh please…let it be Vegas!
Roger Gary showed up and his comments from St Louis struck from the minutes
Now some policy manual thingamajig.
Something about splitting a bullet in two
Lark – Jim Rash running for Senate in DE
Region reports
Fox – candidate in ND
Lark – campus report
Tomorrow’s agenda
1. Floor fee
2. Convention speakers
3. affiliate support
4. Ballot access
Probably starts 8;30 AM
Ruwart motion (I believe) on non-disclosure failed.
As best I understand, the data donor proposal went down overwhelmingly.
Now discussing where the discussion about non-disclosure will go in the future.
Last one from Oaksun (at least for now)
More from Oaksun
Another one from Oaksun
Parliamentary wrangling ….
Calling the question fails on an amendment to an amendment about a parenthesis after an asterisk…
Something like that
OK, not waiting for scheduled break….I need to take one now.
Non-disclosure agreement controversy carried over from last meeting…
Be careful not to get Keatoned for commenting here while you are in the meeting 😛
I’ll get some next break….thanks for the idea
paulie –
Want iced tea? Keep you awake. No sugar, it’ll put you to sleep.
Platcom, bylaws doing surveys, public comments ….. platcom getting more comments
Platcom report – Mattson
/Adm
Next bylaws committee report – Karlan
They are talking about Vegas as a potential 2012 site. Also Indiana, Pittsburgh…
Sorry, my lack of sleep is starting to catch up with me. Anyone else here up to doing this right now?
Trying again….
Answered this time
Voicemail.
Voicemail full.
/Wes
Calling Colley
More discussion of email open rates, somewhat over my head.
Inquiries at both LP and Advocates jumped after quiz added back to LP website.
Bumper stickers are in the office…large amount at low cost.
Question about email open rate. Unless I missed something nobody knew the answer.
May possibly be 2nd blog on LP.org – perhaps for LNC members
Opposed to public comments due to “Jerry Springer” nature of blogs like ours
Ruwart suggests more interactivity on site
Wes back on.
National is making websites for candidates now.
Questions about non-disclosure agreement, NH lawsuit
Back from break.
Call with counsel Sinawski
Break – counsel’s report after break, staff reports to be resumed later
Social network participation increasing.
Cleaning up database.
Membership going up every month since the low in October.
Letters to lapsed members going back further and further to 2002, so far every letter has been profitable and brought back members.
Monthly pledges best in ~ 5 years
Ongoing effort to get pledges which were discontinued to be reinstated.
Direct mail doing better.
Problems with commission fund raising due to difficulty of crediting multi source properly.
Discontinued commission FR and went to volunteer intern calls from LPHQ.
Monthly pledges increasing.
Online funding was higher in second half of 2009
First two months of 2010 more raised than in first 3 months of 2009; February was best month in over a year at least.
Staff reports – Wes
Introduces Art DiBianca who works on a contract basis from home in Texas
The Admiral will not be voting by phone. He plans to be on phone about 3 or 3:30? Admiral one time, Sinawski another.
Sec report
Region formation starts tomorrow
Mail ballots
David Jan (sp?) appointed to something unanimous or virtually unanimous
Approval of Nashville minutes failed
Ongoing efforts to recover old LP records from Famularo estate
Discussion of how convention revenue/costs treated in accounting reports
Susan – as far as I know, no, they just want his verbal input/feedback.
Will Colley be able to vote by phone?
Phone revenue has been reduced significantly, major donors not being called from the office anymore and outside telemarketing discontinued.
More being done by direct mail now.
Too early to report this quarter but January was a good month.
Party is in the black now and fundraising costs reduced
Ruwart: thanks to Wes, this is the first time in her analysis of recent 4 year cycles that we have started increasing revenues after a presidential election.
Lower staff costs in last quarter as the office staff was downsized.
Possible lawsuit or FEC advisory opinion to try to be able to get money from estates not limited by normal annual contribution limits on living people.
Last quarter of 2009 was much better than preceding 3
Problems with DC post office that handles LP mail
Treasurer’s report
Redpath cont
contacted by someone from MI to have LP participate in small business TV channel
LP Bylaws committee
Friend from 1970s who Bill knew (not through LP), a former Republican, is now a Libertarian candidate in Ohio
Costa Rica: Libertarians 3rd with 21% of the vote, big improvement – 15% for Congress. Possibly 10 of 57 seats.
Redpath
Working closely with Wes Benedict, Paul Jacob, Fair Vote, recruiting Virginia candidates, will run himself for (US – I think) House.
Met with Gary Johnson (Our America Initiative).
Attended MPP dinner with wife, Wes, Moulton,
Bruce Majors.
Met with likely candidate in Oregon.
Some media.
Lobbying in Oklahoma / OBAR ballot access reform. Working with Oklahoma Libertarians, Green Party, Constitution Party.
CP and GP reported hurting financially and being unable to contribute financially.
Debating whether to hear Donor Disclosure item from Hinkle.
Potential conflicts of interest –
Ruwart – Pres(?) of ISIL
Hawk – Hempfest, Transpartisan Alliance, 3rd Party Convention involvement
Chair report –
MPP party with Cheech & Chong?!? Much more, but that one tickled me.
;o)
Conflicts of interest
Ruwart – elected as chair of ISIL
Hawkwkridge – Transpartisan Alliance working with other third parties, hempfest
Neither sees it as a real conflict
Minutes adopted as amended.
Affiliate support committee item also moved to tomorrow.
Dixon moves to move floor fee issue to first thing tomorrow morning so that Colley (who is out sick) can participate by phone and so that people who are in the LSLA can observe.
Ruwart has another objection
Time extension fails
Move to adopt agenda….were the minutes actually adopted? If so, I missed it
Passes 8-6
Vote on amendment to minutes.
Roger Gary asked that his comments be removed from public comments because they were incomplete. (Sullentrup?) said they were already removed or not included.
This has to do with donor confidentiality controversy
see pauliecannoli.wordpress.com for comments for liveblog of last LNC
(unfortunately we still have not figured out how to upload the video from that meeting, which Andy still has).
Approval of Nashville Minutes
Ruwart objects
@80
All the chair candidates are in the building.
Rutherford denied the rumor that he would run for chair.
Another rumor (anon source) that Root has a vice chair candidate who will win the race for them as a team.
Lark – thanks Dixon, Butler for putting on this conference
Public comment
Mary Ruwart – 10th anniversary of Libertyforall.net
Meeting called to order
We are recording, but not livestreaming – at least not yet
Right here.
We will be recording LNC and working on livestreaming, hopefully it will work.
I was just wonderingwhere my computer was – paulie still has it.
George Phillies and Wayne Root are here
I’ve had some work to do. Should be back around in a bit.
@77 where you at? Haven’t seen you since before lunch
I will close my reflections on today’s proceedings with two, related thoughts.
First, you can talk to me till the cows come home, you will never, ever, convince me that 10 (presumably)(mostly)sane adults need to have an 800 page operations manual to accomplish anything.
Second, I think I have a new campaign pledge to make. It’ll be worded something like, “I trust the standing committees of the party, and the people who have committed their time and resources to serving, can appropriately exercise their responsibilities without my direct control and supervision.” The final wording may differ.
Chuck @65:
Read the proposals, and I’d like to ask why you limited the deny proposal to a registration fee instead of any fee? I see a hole that a Mack truck can be driven through there.
@23: Article 8 section 5 overrules RONR, and says explicitly meetings, not sessions.
@31: RE: viedos & Gene H.: I said that in SD Dec 2008.
It looks like I should have come down today instead of tomorrow. Sunday is gonna get REAL interesting.
Hawk, make sure you demand to see all of Mattson’s e-voting specs and docs.
Chuck,
Just to be clear, I’m not criticizing your proposal. I’m just predicting the immediate use to which it will be twisted.
Read the proposal, Tom.
The explainatory text clearly describe a current bylaws ambiguity. Some want to change that text to say there is no ambiguity. We’ll see how it goes.
Rachel,
I know you couldn’t stop them. I’m just pointing out what their lines of attack on the issue will at the LNC meeting tomorrow.
If I understand correctly, what the bylaws committee just did was place an item in its report on the need for a bylaws amendment to forbid a floor fee.
When it’s discussed tomorrow, one of the pro-floor-fee advocates will use that as the basis of a claim that a floor fee is CURRENTLY allowed. After all, we wouldn’t need to amend the bylaws to forbid it if it was already forbidden, right?
What I hate about this business is the whole tedious scorched-earthedness of it.
Agree w/Holtz. Common sense, collegiality, etc., are all assets and in some cases even necessities … but it’s the acceptance of uniform rules of procedure which allows issues to be hashed out in a way that makes sense and sticks.
Having just witnessed one of the more fascinating displays of angelology this side of the Middle Ages, I would heartily recommend
Richard Epstein, Simple Rules for a Complex World, http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Rules-Complex-Richard-Epstein/dp/0674808215/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267214248&sr=8-1
as well as
Phil Howard’s Death of Common Sense, http://www.amazon.com/Death-Common-Sense-Suffocating-America/dp/B000LP66ZC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267214434&sr=1-1
Brian, you’ve figured it out. You’ve identified the ROOT of the problem.
Rachel @41, rules and common sense are not alternatives. However few or many rules you have, you need to use common sense when reading and applying them.
If some people think, in maintaining a civil society, that “common sense” is a way to avoid ever having to read/apply rules, then we may have finally identified the root of the problem here.
Rachel —
There may still be a floor fee this convention. If this passes at the convention, there won’t be another one again.
Whether there is a floor fee this time is up to y’all on LNC tomorrow or Sunday.
If the vote is yes it will probably go to JC.
The $33k alleged loss from Denver is a matter of perspective and hides the ugly reality of the profit it made (which is not disclosed).
My understanding is that Starr’s $33k number is not including funds raised at the gala banquet that went to ballot access rather than LNC general fund.
Chuck’s motions on his website – chuckmoulton.org/lj/bylaws/
Sorry, Knapp – I can’t stop them today. LNC mtg, maybe.
The older, studly HawkMAN is bylaws guy. This Hawk is lowly LNC . . .
Sarwark speaks in further support of proposal. Starr objects to calling it “floor fee”, says derogatory.
NS – points out that delegates are reps of states, that fee takes power away from states. Higher level to choose delegates.
Carling amends to make take effect at end of convention. Fails for lack of second?
Motion passes. HawkMAN, Sarwark, Latham Moulton. Not sure who else – but no registration fee until after 2010.
Main motion – I think – passes 5-3
Sarwark speaking against floor fee, i think
Carling moves that the rule if passed by the delegates take effect at end of convention
No objection
Starr objects to calling it floor fee, says that is an objectionable term. Says it is only a registration fee.
Redpath speaks in support of floor fee, says $100 is “less than a dollar a week.”
Hawkridge asks “that we not assume that delegates don’t contribute, just because they’re not sustaining members”.
Redpath speaks against – Starr say not saying that people don’t make contributions. Says cost LNC $33K for Denver.
This is the point where the CEO of one of my former employers would look at his watch, say “I gotta go to the gym,” and walk out.
I can already see where this is leading.
The reason Karlan, Starr et al are unwilling to discuss a bylaws proposal to allow a floor fee, but willing to discuss a proposal to ban one, is that they plan to use the bylaws committee handling of the subject as “proof” that the floor fee is allowed now.
After all, why would the bylaws committee need to consider a change to ban something that’s already banned? And why would it need to consider a change change to allow something that’s already allowed?
Nice trick … but don’t let them get away with it.
Carling says “problem” statement makes outrageous claims.
Sarwark asks what are outrageous claims – Carling reading to refresh his memory.
“The only thing I don’t have a problem with is “saves a lot of time””.
Sarwark says when a brief says “clearly or unambiguously” that the next statement is the biggest bone of contention in the whole brief. Says that if you ask multiple PRPs the same question, you get multiple answers.
Are they ALL libertarians? 😉
Karlan and Moulton discussion on ambiguity of proposal.
Just b/c you “can” do something, does not mean you “should”.
Starr arguing against banning floor fees
Hawkridge not attorney, just brilliant and cute. (Him, not me!) 😉
“Convention may not exceed pro rata” etc. FAILS.
Carling moves to adjourn. Fails.
Moulton – last item on agenda – deny floor fee, I think.
Starr cites Robert’s – can limit, but fee is allowed, by Robert’s. Problem with transfer of wealth scheme. against what we believe.
Now discussing motion to outlaw floor fees – if I understand correctly.
Motion to allow, cap floor fees fails.
Motion to adjourn also fails.
BTW – i forgot what thread this issue came up on.
Stewart Flood made it clear to me that LP is organizing St. Louis directly, as they could not strike a mutually agreeable deal with a qualified convention planner.
Also, some conventions such as Denver made money for the convention planner but lost money for the LNC.
Arguing about Moulton’s motions. Karlan already ruled that allowing floor fee was out of order. Any higher limit invalisd because already shot down a lower limit.
A motion to add the “reconsideration to deny floor fee”.
Motion too long for me to type.
Tried to pry off L – broke it. SUCK!
discussing reconsideration of codifying/denying being out of order.
Carling makes motion to name a $100 limit. No second.
Sarwark speaks strongly against ratifying limit.
Hawkridge asks “How much is THIS meeting costing, and who feels like a freeloader?”
Carling argues high donor, prefers “free rider”, not freeloader.
Latham says he feels like freeloader, but grateful (to LSLA, who paid, according to Karlan).
Moulton wants to know if this could be minority report.
Votes in favor means, what?
Sounds like, but I think only two of us are barred.
Hmmm, business idea
lol
Is it just me or does Sarwark, Hawkridge and Moulton sound like a law firm?
For many years, new employees were given a copy of the famous Nordstrom’s Employee Handbook – a single 5 x 8-inch (200 mm) gray card containing 75 words:[12]
Welcome to Nordstrom
We’re glad to have you with our Company. Our number one goal is to provide outstanding customer service. Set both your personal and professional goals high. We have great confidence in your ability to achieve them.
Nordstrom Rules: Rule #1: Use good judgment in all situations.
There will be no additional rules.
Sarwark, Hawkridge want to add two Moulton motions back to agenda
Karlan says it is out of order?
Something – main motion, I think – passed 7-0 with Starr abstaining
AroundBlock AFT , it’s the standard bylaws debate crap.
If I were Queen of the World – we’d ditch Robert’s Rules, except for the one page motion chart, and replace it with civil common sense.
A rule/bylaw to work together cooperatively.
OMG, NO! We’d never finish anything.
How about happy pills issued with member card?
😉
Seems like everyone is reading/posting from meeting.
OK, not everyone.
Everyone else in the room – have I made any errors that you saw? Lemme know, I’ll retract, if I was wrong.
So glad I ditched NatCom. What relevance, if any, does this crap have to building a strong LP in communities across America?
Sorry, Nick, knew to say it that way – dumb this morning.
Please forgive me. 🙂
If I understand this correctly, Starr also wants to remove the more detailed LNC meeting reports from the website
Starr substitution carries 5-4
FYI Rachel, it’s Sarwark, not Sarwak.
🙂
Starr says dnc, rnc would not allow non-members to tape
Discussion as to whether only sustaining members may record/attend lnc meetings
(tried to post earlier)
Here’s my point. It’s obvious there are two very different views as to how to proceed, at a very fundamental level. Hence the intensity of the disagreement.
As I have posted earlier, it is clear (to me at least) there is a dominant, majority coalition on the committee, and a secondary coalition. To date no one has disputed that characterization.
It is also abundantly clear how the actions of the majority coalition have been and are being received in the “marketplace”, as witness membership levels, membership lapse rates, funding levels over the last 5 years in particular, etc., which seem to speak for themselves without my making any comment on them whatever.
More arguing about discovery of video.
Just realized that Bruce left out his Ls. Cute. 🙂
Hawkridge (him, not me) speak in favor of video, could defend us.
Starr amends – I can’t keep up – includes language that members can record.
Crap, too complicated. Getting tired. Stopping until floor fee issue. Last on agenda.
Would be flax, not sesame. 🙂 That’s also a weak finger, so 2-fold prob.
Carling says bylaw says it says serve, not be elected.
Arguing about whether Chair (Karlan) has to recognize objection to ruling of chair.
KArlan disallows objection.
Latham moves to to replace chair. Sarwak seconds.
REdpath whispers to Latham, who substitutes motion – Failure of non-officer to maintain eligibiity shall constitute agenda item to remove?
Moulton moves to adjourn for 1 hr. – lunch. REdpath has fundraising call – no lunch now.
Talking about implicit seconding of substitute motion. Latham asks if need to vote to replace chair.
Add sentence – failure of non-officer member to maintain eligibilty constitutes for cause (means vote to remove).
Passes.
Moulton wants transparency – LNC can currently delete meeting minutes from website. Wants to prohibit that.
Carling wants to preserve “Give or Get” numbers. Fails for second.
Moulton wants recordings by secretary? Starr argues the “video can be discovered for lawsuit”, if made by Party.
Moulton says Starr can offer amendment. Latham clarifies that discovery can include members present at meeting, then video could be helpful.
Bruce, that’s prolly it. S-I-L says pry it off. I’ll ask Oates.
Bruce says “Seems to me there is a certain clique that aways does this stuff.”
Rachel says “Maybe 2 of them?” I don’t see it as 1 group.
Arguing elegibility requirements.
LAtham moves to place eligibiity on next session of LNC to remove member.
Inelegibilty (Wrights, dues) MUST be expicit, according to some JudComm members. Not currently automatically, as they assumed. Starr doesn’t agree with the stated member’s theory.
Latham says must come before LNC, not be auto.
Karlan says conflict.
Rache, see if you can find a techie in the room that can genty take your “L” key off and cean under it. I’m wondering if you have accumuated keyboard buildup in there with a bunch of crumbs and sesame seeds in the way.
Starr recommends change to 2 weekends, rather than a meeting.
Karlan draws nice Venn diagram.
Misspoke (I did) session = weekend, not little chunk.
Passes 10-0
Seems to me the folks who like to fight, no matter what it is, are the same group of people.
Seems to me these folks don’t care as much about freedom or the LP as they do about having a good parliamentarian fight.
It’s not about results or the truth, it’s about the game.
Just like in California.
Vanity campaigns and ‘West Wing’ Soap Opera politics.
I would say that most of the opposition we see to reasonable ideas is because these folks will oppose any proposal coming from people they don’t like.
It’s a pattern that goes back to the 70s.
I’m right, you’re wrong, you disagree with me so we can’t be friends and everyone should be purged that’s not on my ‘side’.
Seems to me there is a certain clique that aways does this stuff.
I’m just sayin’!
Starr explains that current language says that if LNC doesn’t show for one weekend meeting, off LNC.
Because according to RR, sessions, not weekends.
So, morning = 1, after break =1, after unch = 1, etc.
Remaining member of JC to appoint replacements.
Passes.
Rescind original, combined propsal.
Damn, gonna have to buy a new fu size aptap. Gene wil be unhappy. 🙂
Terms, conflict of interest, limitations of membership. All JudComm . . .
Jud Comm shal be 4 year members at time of nomination.
Passes.
Terms – alternate at conventions, makes term 4 years. So term imit?
If passes as written, will it be 2 yr convention, or 4 years.
Change to Prez – passes. So elect for 2 yrs at 2010, then 4 yr. term.
More RONR stuff.
Back from coffee – missed stuff.
Rescinded proposals to expell members & officers who circuate, nominate, endorse candidate who are running for Prez unless ours. (what d’yall call that?)
Rescinded proposal to disaffilate state who nominate any Prez cand other than our official cand.
Bruce,
I’m just the messenger. Your question should be directed at Mr. Oaksun.
Speaking for myself, I think spirited disagreement is fine, but this past term has been marred by excessive infighting that has stood in the way of working to advance liberty.
Paulie @ 6, why is it bad that folks differ on issues? Don’t we want a dynamic and colorful array of ideas to discuss? Maybe we could solve the ‘problem’ by taking away everyone’s vote, but the Chair? Am I missing something here?
All but one voted to undo something done earlier, sorry, not really following too well…all night on greyhound….
Fortuitoulsy, conference hotel is right across street from greyhound 🙂
8-2 vote on changing something 30 to 50
Passed proposal for 1 delegate to object, and call for rising vote.
Anonymous LNC member predicts floor fee will fail, says he or she counted the votes
There will be a proposed compromise where some people will contribute floor fee for specific people and some will contribute to a general fund for unspecific people.
Starr discussing a proposal that he says will allow delegates to second if not on floor.
Motion to divide – delete “of the registered”.
If anyone has Bylaws proposals – you could intersperse them, or clarify.
Starr speaks to proposal – reduce NOTA nomination speech to 5 min instead of the regular 16.
Starr says we don’t want some one to speak for 16 min on how our candidates are crap.
Hawridge offers amendment to amend proposal to 16 min.
Redpath clarifies no current language currently allows does not allow speaker for NOTA.
Starr says current language no clear – NOTA speech might be unlimited.
Sarwak argues that NOTA shoud match other candidates.
Rache says – pease excuse typos – got malfunctioning L key, and I’m fumbly fingered.
In the gallery – Rachel, James Oaksun, Rhys Blavier.
Starr has started eating the candy. How does he stay slender? :o)
Sounds like most in agreement for 5 min, feeling is that 16 min won’t pass delegates and 5 will.
How do you feel about 16 min NOTA nominating speech. Yuck, from me.
Starr asks if we could suspend rules for riveting speech.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/02/libertarian-party-of-tennessee-officers-oppose-compulsory-fees-at-national-convention/
A curious manner to conduct business among 10 people.
Sounds like going to adopt eVoting for LNC that we currently use.
Geez, I hate Robber’s Rules. Out of order. None amending . . . not right percentage, etc
Debating electronic voting by LNC.
Moulton moves to divide into 3 – passes
Add Electronics – passes
If alt rep sentence – fails
Ballot / if in middle
Missed something. ?
Carling says – language deleted “required by bylaws” – then divided motions just adopted must stand independent from that deletion.
Just discussed minority reports – not sure what happened. I went to get Redpath coffee.
Chair & secretary have agreed to include “boiler plate” Prez candidate contract in delegate binders.
Sent by James Oaksun….will probably be part of a post later
Rachel just lent me a computer
Comment on another thread by Chuck Moulton:
The Bylaws Committee has refused to consider both my floor fee proposals. I will be introducing them from the floor.
Email from Rachel Hawkridge:
Oates objects to using eVoting, “software is, at best, very immature”.
Flood states creds – software developer since ’76. Says no qualifications in proposal to qualify the software.
Carling says results “will be challenged at convention”. Starr says polling delegates will nullify secrecy of ballot.
Flood presents . . .
Email from Rachel Hawkridge:
I’m in bylaws mtg. recording. Plan to figure out how to livecast as soon as I get coffee.
Off to get coffee . . . Open meeting, you can join the party. ;o)
eVoting discussion is gonna be this morning. Flood will present. He’s expert. Here comes eVoting discussion.
Starr speaks to making paper ballots in the moment (deleting the “if needed” for paper ballots). Wants to add provision to recount with any 2 objections.
Moulton moves to amend to 10% of delegates object. Two is too few. Starr argues against 10%. Amended to 20 or more.
Email from Rachel Hawkridge:
I am at byaws committee meeting . . .
Considering a proposal to exclude any conficts of interest from positions of trust – would exclude professional petitioners.
Petitioners probably OK. Redpath first to speak against. Others of note – Sarwark, Latham. Starr, Carling argue in favor.
Amend to strike the LNC approval clause.