LNC Executive Committee meeting minutes available online

I just noticed that the LNC meeting archives since the past national convention in St. Louis now have minutes of executive committee conference calls, for anyone who wants to keep up with them.

It appears that the 2004-5 minutes in the public archive included conference call minutes, but between 2006 and the May 2010 convention only minutes of the entire LNC meeting in person were made available in the public archive.

The most recent Exec Comm minutes currently posted are from Aug 15.

The Exec Comm is a subcommittee of the LNC: Officers Mark Hinkle, Mark Rutherford, Alicia Mattson and James Oaksun, At Large Reps Mary Ruwart and Bill Redpath, and Regional Rep James Lark.

43 thoughts on “LNC Executive Committee meeting minutes available online

  1. George Phillies

    The minutes are less amusing than the minutes of their on line effort.

    Where else can you find Wayne Root asserting that the media regularly called christian fascist –no abortion even in case of rape or incest — Sharron Angle a Libertarian, and saying that it was therefore good that we did not have a candidate running against her and her right wing friends. The letter reads:

    Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010
    From: WAYNE ROOT
    To: lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org
    Wes,

    You are comparing apples to oranges with Alex Snitker. Alex was a very good speaker and candidate. But he was running against a Tea Party hero in Marco Rubio. This is a textbook example of poor decisions made by LP candidates and the LP. We need to look at the candidates the GOP is running…and rate them on Libertarian scale….like the one we all saw out of Texas last month.

    There is good reason for a David Nolan to run against John McCain. That
    might make sense. There is ZERO reason for the LP to run a candidate against Marco Rubio.

    That could be why there were no LP candidates running against Rand Paul, or Ron Paul, or Sharon Angle. Why would the LP waste money on a candidate running against someone that is defined by the press as “Libertarian” in every single article? Why waste effort or money running against a candidate who believes in ending the IRS, ending or dramatically reforming Social Security, and ending the Departments of Education and Energy. Those are elections where the LP needs to stand down.

    Marco rubio…whether you like him or not…whether you agree he should be described as Libertarian…is THE symbol of Tea Party nationwide. There was zero “hay to be made” trying to be more libertarian…more free market…or more fiscally conservative than him.

    Our party needs to concentrate on running against the worst of our
    opposition…not the best.

    And more importantly, as you can see from Snitker, it is not going to get you anywhere.

    Why vote alternate third party if there is already a Tea Party
    independent-thinker on the GOP line like Marco Rubio? The answer from the electorate is clear- there is no reason.

    While David Nolan got almost 5% against McCain- who isn’t a libertarian or a conservative or a Tea Party kind of guy…while spending less than
    $10,000…

    Alex Snitker gave an INCREDIBLE effort…ran one heck of a campaign…appeared in a huge number of media…and got nothing for his
    efforts.

    It has nothing to do with the amount of money he raised.

    He was a fantastic candidate…at the wrong time and place.

    I’m betting that against Charlie Christ…Alex would have set records for a LP Senate candidate.

    But why run for office calling for smaller govt, dramatic reform of income taxes, Soc Sec, Dept of Education…when your opponent is calling for all the same things?

    The answer is clear- it is a waste of time, effort and money.

    We need to put our money in other races that make more strategic sense.

    Wayne

  2. paulie Post author

    Can’t say I agree with Wayne on that, although he didn’t mean for it to be up for discussion at IPR. With Tea Party Republicans, hit ’em on peace and civil liberties/social/personal freedom issues.

  3. Michael H. Wilson

    At this stage of the game our candidates for Congress and the presidency are more messengers than anything else. The chances of them winning are slim to none. With that in mind I would suggest that it is more important for them to stick close to the message in the platform regardless of who is their opponent.

  4. Be Rational

    When it comes to Ron Paul, we should not run an LP candidate against him because both of the following apply:

    1) He is still libertarian on the issues and falls within the big tent libertarian quadrant, and
    2) As our former Presidential nominee, it shows a certain amount of respect for his past service to the LP.

    Every other race is worth contending and every other D and R candidate is worth competing against.

    However, in some cases, where there is another candidate that has libertarian positions on some issues, it will be harder to stand out and win votes. We should use these races as an opportunity to highlight any remaining differences where the other (D or R) candidate is NOT libertarian on the issues. At the same time, since LP resources are limited, it would be a better use of our financial resources and volunteer hours to invest them in alternate campaigns where there are better opportunities for gains.

  5. Thomas M. Sipos

    Paulie: “Can’t say I agree with Wayne on that, although he didn’t mean for it to be up for discussion at IPR.”

    Thankfully, Root and the LNC can’t control what gets discussed on IPR.

    Thanks, George Phillies, for continually exposing the inner workings of the LP.

  6. Michael H. Wilson

    Before I go and do some real work I think it is important to point out that the decision to run federal candidates at the state level is a state decision and no one else should butt in to that decision. Somewhat akin to the concept of state’s rights.

    Secondly I see little in the Rubio campaign that suggest to me that he is anywhere close to being a libertarian.

  7. George Phillies

    @5

    You are most welcome.

    Remember, if you are an LP member you paid for those messages.

    And I look forward to continuing to report on LNC in action.

    A local wag has proposed that the acronym actually stands for

    Let’s
    Not
    Cooperate

    based on the assistance they gave the Oregon affiliate, which is considering discussing disaffiliation, according to one of its officers.

    I have already been asked if I would once again consider serving as a Presidential candidate, if the state in question asked me to do so.

  8. Michael H. Wilson

    Well from what I read the all lists that the LNC runs for the purposes of discussion and/or voting need to be public.

    If that is not the case then they, the LNC, need to explain why not.

  9. George Phillies

    There is the LNC-discuss list.

    Then there is a secret list run according to my sources at least nominally by the Secretary, whose main purpose in my opinion is to keep the contents secret from LNC Regional Representative Rachel Hawkridge. I believe that is not the same as the list on which one long-time LNC Regional Representative was described as ‘the ego with feet’.

    Mind you, a certain number of members of that list are trying to do clever things at lleast on some past dates, leading sensible people to wonder if list aspects are being kept secret from the people who needed to know.

    There is also the state chairs list, which the state chairs allow the LNC to run, with the consequences that the state chairs list has been censored by staff, nominally for BCRA issues.

  10. paulie Post author

    Well from what I read the all lists that the LNC runs for the purposes of discussion and/or voting need to be public.

    If that is not the case then they, the LNC, need to explain why not.

    The most plausible reply to that which I’ve heard is that if their conversation is public, they won’t feel free to say what they really think and/or will email their allies on the committee privately outside the “official” list.

  11. Aaron Starr

    @10

    I recall that some of what has been made public involved legal matters and confidential personnel issues.

    It’s my understanding that when it became clear there was a board member (or members) who indiscriminately passes on e-mail conversations to non-participants, unhampered communication became stifled.

    Predictably, members refrained from posting on the official discussion list and largely limited their conversations to e-mails and phone calls to those they believed trustworthy.

    I imagine there are people here with a government mindset who believe that others — but not themselves, of course — should be compelled to communicate in a closely monitored environment.

    Keep in mind that board members are simply volunteers with titles, not bureaucrats working for some tyrannical government.

    I don’t imagine that other volunteers would be enthusiastic about having their e-mail (or phone) conversations aired in public.

    Heck, many folks posting on this blog don’t even want to use their real names.

  12. Michael H. Wilson

    Aaron I was referring to the policy manual and by laws and I’d have to check because it has been some significant time since I read that info.

    Whether or not the members of the LNC are volunteers they are still required to follow the procedures established for the benefit of the members. If they have a problem with those procedures then they need to change the procedures in the appropriate manner or resign.

  13. Aaron Starr

    @14

    I’m familiar with both.

    I have served on the Bylaws Committee and was part of the team that re-wrote the Policy Manual.

    There is no prohibition on LNC members setting up their own private e-mail lists or a requirement that their personal e-mails be monitored.

  14. Michael H. Wilson

    I never said anything about private email lists or personal emails. The comment was about those relating to official business when voters are taken by email.

  15. Aaron Starr

    @16

    In that case, this is just one big misunderstanding.

    E-mail ballots continue to be submitted for a vote on LNC-Discuss. No member of the LNC is denied the ability to vote on an e-mail ballot.

    There is no requirement that LNC members post their votes on LNC-Discuss. They are required to submit their vote to the Secretary within the allowed 15-day period.

    Some members choose to post their e-mail ballot vote to the LNC-Discuss list, perhaps in the hope of influencing other members of the LNC. Some, particularly alternates, do not bother to vote at all.

    As a practice, the final tally of each e-mail ballot disclosing how members voted is posted on LNC-Discuss by the Secretary, but that’s actually not required.

    All that is actually required is that the Secretary preserve all such votes until the next meeting of the National Committee, at which meeting the Committee orders the disposition of such votes and incorporates the results into the official minutes of that meeting.

  16. Aaron Starr

    @18

    Of course not.

    That list is for the use of the LNC. Personnel matters and issues involving potential or actual litigation are discussed on that list. Having that information made public would expose the party to legal liability.

    However, you can always view minutes of the meetings (which include the results of e-mail ballots) are posted on the LP.org website.

  17. Michael H. Wilson

    Aaron from what I am reading more than just personnel issues or actual litigation issues are discussed on the list. I understand that motions are voted on that are unrelated to personnel, etc. Is that not correct?

    From what George is writing I get the impression a lot of other things are discussed and voted on.

  18. Aaron Starr

    @20

    Sure, George gives a lot of impressions.

    There are a few motions that are voted on, though not many.

    And some people, often in the minority on a postion, will debate a mail ballot believing that their opinions are being taken into account — for the most part they are not.

    The real work — to the extent that these volunteers are engaging in it — is taking place off-list.

  19. Michael H. Wilson

    If what you say is correct then the list should be available to be read by the rest of the membership.

  20. George Phillies

    @20

    Mail ballots have to be provided by the Secretary to all LNC members, and I have not heard anything to suggest that the letter of this rule has not been complied with. The Policy Manual requirement

    “6) Meeting Minutes
    In addition to the requirements articulated by RONR, the meeting minutes shall include the
    following:

    . . .

    • The following aspects of each mail ballot conducted since the prior meeting and
    reported by the Secretary at that meeting:
    o the complete text of the motion,
    o the names of the co-sponsors,
    o the dates of the initiation and completion of the balloting, and
    o the roll of those voting on the motion.”

    would make a use of secret lists for voting rather visible, unless the entire motion were to be kept secret, which would in general lead to ineffective motions.

  21. George Phillies

    Michael:

    Inquiring minds might want to know how Mr. Starr, who is not an LNC member, can with such assurance make the claims he does about one or another of the secret list(s).

  22. Robert Capozzi

    gp8: Remember, if you are an LP member you paid for those messages.

    me: Help us understand this assertion. LNCers are volunteers. When they discuss issues online, there are no expenditures that I can imagine. LP members can’t pay for something that has no costs.

    mhw: From what George is writing I get the impression a lot of other things are discussed and voted on.

    me: Yes, he does give “impressions.” He also told us he narced to the FEC because he had no other options to address his concerns about party expenditures. That’s the point of my reiterating this matter…if a person serially misrepresents or uses (weak) deflections to avoid responsibility, we should recall the tale of Chicken Little, who also created a large credibility gap for himself. We’ve been told a more thorough explanation is forthcoming, yet the silence continues. It’s the same reason that Paul 08 fell apart after NewsletterGate…few believed “I don’t know who wrote that hate” was an insufficient explanation.

    No one has a monopoly on truth, but untruth is generally easily recognizable.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    war: Those are elections where the LP needs to stand down.

    me: Reasonable people can disagree on the specifics of Root’s point, but I would not consider it reasonable to reject out of hand Root’s point here. There are (usu.) R candidates whom it’s counterproductive for the LP to challenge, given our severely limited resources. The Pauls are good examples; Angle and Rubio, not so much. Standing down against the latter two is debatable, although opposition to Reid certainly seemed indicated, as for many he’s a poster child for increased government coercion.

    Paper candidacies have their place. Ballot access candidacies, too…Redlich’d be a good ex.

    Herding cats may be futile, but steering resources for maximum impact makes a lot of sense.

    Let’s keep in mind, though, that dollars spent on Snitker are not necessarily steerable to a more strategic candidate. LP donations are not fungible, iow.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    “There are (usu.) R [and D] candidates whom it’s counterproductive for the LP to challenge, given our severely limited resources.”

    There, fixed that for ya.

  25. Robert Capozzi

    tk, sure. “usu.” implied “and D. I can’t think of Ds I’d not want to see challenged as much as the Pauls, but I’m sure there are some worthy of not challenging. None spring to mind, however.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Might be worth “triangulating” a bit. Since you cite “the Pauls,” why not look for a politician who’s more libertarian than one, less libertarian than the other, (by whatever criteria you prefer) on some range of issues?

    Offhand, Barney Frank is about as libertarian as Ron Paul on marijuana and gambling, more libertarian than either Ron or Rand Paul on immigration, probably less libertarian than Ron but possibly more libertarian than Rand on foreign policy.

  27. MP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    …just glancing though the LP’s view on elections, I can confidently write that you’re heading in the wrong direction. You will not have any success through 2016, and even MP Darryl Perry [Boston Tea] has wasted large amounts of time and resources, so 2016 doesn’t look good for his faction of the LP either.

    I’m not saying your candidates or their positions on voting are not good, but your structure is self-defeating.

    Take this newsgroup as an example, my posting name has been deleted several times, as well as my posts. That is a reflection of your understanding of the situation at hand, as well as a reflection on your strategy as a whole.

    You have no decision making system in place to rectify the situation, and so your direction is in a continual downward spiral. You have no adequate team to face the “two-party” bunker, or plurality elections, and the good people of the Libertarian Party are dying by the hundreds with no fruits of their labors.

    Today is but another day where 2500 “soldiers” will be lost in vane and by 2016 we will still be the same day, today, a living hell in the early morning on Normandy Beach in US politics.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

  28. paulie Post author

    Take this newsgroup as an example, my posting name has been deleted several times, as well as my posts.

    This is not a libertarian site or “newsgroup,” it’s a site that covers all alternative parties and independent candidates. It’s true that libertarians have chosen to participate more than others, but I actively seek non-libertarian participants all the time as well.

    None of your posts have ever been deleted. Some may have been caught by our automated spam filter. Quite the opposite: when I have had time to look through the spam filter, I’ve actually pulled your posts out of spam.

    Instead of thanking me, you repeat the misinformation about your posts being deleted which had already been corrected previously. You can be sure that I will never pull another of your comments out of spam ever again after this.

    Actually, I’m sorely tempted to add all your posts to the automated spam filter, but I won’t make that decision unilaterally.

    BTW…

  29. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    OK, thank you. I appreciate your reaching into the spam box and pulling my posts out…sounds pretty dangerous.

    Don’t take what I’m saying so personal, I’m talking to the Libertarian national committee members, like Prime Minister, Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian] and company, not you.

    BTW, have you checked out her book, it’s only $14., signed by her.

    She’s the best…Ruwart/Ogle
    Libertarian/Free
    Parliamentary]
    for president
    in 2012
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

  30. Michael H. Wilson

    re Aaron @ 21. Periodically a comment comes up on IPR about this LNC list or lists. From what I read into that, and maybe I am wrong for doing so, it seems that a fair amount of party related work is done by email. If that is the case the membership has a right to know who is voting for what, and how their representatives are voting on those issues and why. Access to the comments would be reasonable in that case.

  31. George Phillies

    @33 That whole LNC email discussion list is based on a server the LNC pays for. That’s your money. Does ‘the LNC pays for’ matter? That’s why the LNC censored the State Chairs list. A chair put out a message that included a fund-raising request for a non-Federal candidate, and BCRA means that the LNC cannot in general pay for raising money for non-Federal candidates. The LNC therefore did not forward the message.

    On social freedom issues, Barney Frank is overwhelmingly better than Rand Paul. He’s not perfect, but he’s vastly better than the pro-war, anti-abortion Kentuckian.

  32. paulie Post author

    reaching into the spam box and pulling my posts out…sounds pretty dangerous.

    Not dangerous at all, but time consuming and annoying. We get hundreds of spam comments a day. Every once in a while I take the time to look through there to see what gets caught by mistake, but most of the time I have better things to do.

    I’m hitting the road again either Monday or in a few days and probably won’t have much in the way of internet access for a while, so good luck finding one of our other writers who feels like looking through the spam filter. From past experience, that pretty much doesn’t happen.

  33. paulie Post author

    Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian] and company, not you.

    BTW, have you checked out her book

    Which one? She has several. Yeah, I read her stuff.

  34. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    To: George Phillies [Libertarian]
    From: MP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Phillies wrote;
    “On social freedom issues, Barney Frank is overwhelmingly better than Rand Paul. He’s not perfect, but he’s vastly better than the pro-war, anti-abortion Kentuckian.”

    George, if I may comment. The problem with your thinking is that you’re probably saying that you must choose between Barney Frank [Democratic] and Rand Paul [Republican].

    If you had the tool of the “All Party System”, you would probably have them both, and you would be ranking them. I invite you to participate in the 2011 “All Party System”, and I hope you will, and nominate people like Barney Frank [Democratic], Rand Paul [Republican] and as many people as you wish, in a 100-member pure proportional representation (PR) parliament the Central California Parliament
    including yourself;

    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.htm

    You vote will be giving them “seats” on the all party system.

    We will be operating parallel to the “real” elections, as we practice for 2012.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

  35. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    #36 Paulie…

    I bought _Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression_, and several of The USA Parliament, Inc.’s members (non LP) also bought it, I’m told. Like MP Vanessa Moreley [Defender of the Republic] of Kentucky, one of our coolest members.

    We were trying to run Ruwart/Nott for president in 2008, but she was too busy with the LP convention and so forth to understand what we were trying to do. It was a female/Nott for president with the Free Parliamentary Party;
    http://www.usparliament.org/parpar.htm
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

  36. paulie Post author

    On social freedom issues, Barney Frank is overwhelmingly better than Rand Paul.

    Good point. We need to get past the idea that the Republicans/conservatives are our allies more so than the Democrats/liberals.

    BTW, everyone should read this if they haven’t already:

    http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2010/11/crafting-new-alliance.html#more

    Crafting a new alliance
    By Gary Chartier

    Libertarian outreach to the left hasn’t made this much sense in a generation.

    Keep reading:

    http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2010/11/crafting-new-alliance.html#more

  37. Michael H. Wilson

    That’s a great piece by Gary.

    Mind if I pat myself on the back? Okay here goes.

    I have on the table behind me and in front of me a number of articles detailing the history of midwives in the U.S. and I am working on a project to help improve access to them for women. In doing so I am working with a couple of people who are not Libs and are definitely from the left of the spectrum. Next up is a talk with some Democratic members of the legislature.

    We can and should keep the door open to other ideas and groups. Affiliating with other will make our success much more likely.

  38. paulie Post author

    Earlier I said:

    This is not a libertarian site or “newsgroup,” it’s a site that covers all alternative parties and independent candidates. It’s true that libertarians have chosen to participate more than others, but I actively seek non-libertarian participants all the time as well.

    Here’s an example, since Lake keeps asking about this…

    http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/11/12/unity08-concept-likely-to-reappear-in-2012-presidential-election/#comments

    # paulie Says:
    November 14th, 2010 at 8:05 am

    By the way, Don Lake keeps insisting that I ask you to write for IPR as well, so…. While I have your attention, are you interested in writing for IPR? It’s a volunteer gig, don’t post your own editorials, but you can post news and other people’s editorials as they related to alternative political parties and independent candidates. Over 4 million page views, over 7,000 articles, and well over 100,000 comments since May 20, 2008. Almost all old threads still open for comment as well, if you find time and interest in perusing the archives.

    # Phil Sawyer Says:
    November 14th, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Thank you, paulie. [..]

    Yes, Don has asked me that also – several times. It is very flattering but “time is of the essence” as the old saying goes. If I had the “time” to do that, I might give it some more consideration.

Leave a Reply

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