Update: LNC source says At Large vacancies will not be filled before next regular meeting

Following up on prior reports (see here and here):

I will not name my source unless he/she wants to step forward, but this is from a member of the LNC. -Paulie

1) Redpath’s motion did not have support. According to George Phillies, that motion was: “We move to appoint Rebecca Sink-Burris and John Jay Myers as At-Large Representatives to the Libertarian National Committee for the remainder of the 2010-2012 term.” This does not mean that they won’t necessarily be the people chosen, just that the committee is not ready to decide now without considering other people first.

2) The At Large vacancies will NOT be filled by mail ballot, they will be filled at the next regular meeting.

3) It will probably be a secret ballot with 8-10 or possibly more names (each LNC member will vote for two names, as I understand it) and the top two most frequently chosen will win.

4) My prior info on this was outdated. Pat Dixon does NOT want to be on the LNC, his state committee wants him to focus on Texas, not on National. This would still be the case even if the LNC was willing to approve both himself and John Jay Myers.

5) Judge Gray is probably interested, but my source was not 100% sure. The information I got was that the Judge will stand a better chance if he goes to the next LNC meeting in person (same for others applying).

6) Myers has some support but no one is guaranteed to win as it stands.

7) There is no official list of candidates, nor any official application process, at this point it is informal and may well stay that way.

8 ) Given the names we have actually heard so far, and presuming the info about Dixon is correct, the person I was talking to and myself provisionally agreed that Myers and Gray sound like the best choices at this time. This is not an official IPR stance; IPR takes no position in the matter.

That is all I can remember from the conversation at this time.

If anyone else would like to send us an opinion essay about the LNC vacancies, who should fill them, why, how the process should be changed, etc., we might well publish it. (If you are signed up to write for IPR, please don’t post it as an article yourself if you write it).

If other LNC members or people knowledgeable about the facts in this matter would like to give me additional perspectives, correct information that they believe or know to be inaccurate, etc; don’t hesitate to call me at 415-690-5352. You can also write to contact.ipr@gmail.com CC iprtwo at googlegroups.com.

51 thoughts on “Update: LNC source says At Large vacancies will not be filled before next regular meeting

  1. Aaron Starr

    Paulie,

    You wrote: “The person I was talking to said Randy Eshelman applied to fill Nolan’s At Large spot almost immediately after his death, which this person found to be off-putting.”

    I’d like to know what “almost immediately” means here.

    David Nolan died on November 21. Will you tell us on approximately what date Randy applied for the position?

  2. paulie Post author

    I don’t know when exactly. I’m only relaying what I was told, and that is as much information as I was given.

  3. paulie Post author

    This is not me expressing an opinion here. I just want to be clear. “The person I was talking to said Randy Eshelman applied to fill Nolan’s At Large spot almost immediately after his death, which this person found to be off-putting.”

    That is what this person said. “Almost immediately” was not further elaborated on. All I am doing is conveying what I was told, and I was not told more than this. It’s entirely likely that the person I was talking to doesn’t remember the exact date either, just the subjective impression that it was too soon.

    If Aaron Starr or anyone else would like to send us an opinion essay about the LNC vacancies, who should fill them, why, how the process should be changed, etc., we might well publish it. (Aaron, however, please don’t post it as an article yourself if you write it).

    If other LNC members or people knowledgeable about the facts in this matter would like to give me additional perspectives, correct information that they believe or know to be inaccurate, etc; don’t hesitate to call me at 415-690-5352. You can also write to contact.ipr@gmail.com CC iprtwo at googlegroups.com or my personal account, travellingcircus at gmail.com (note travelling with two Ls).

  4. paulie Post author

    Also, my apologies if this part was too editorial:

    8 ) Given the names we have actually heard so far, and presuming the info about Dixon is correct, the person I was talking to and myself provisionally agreed that Myers and Gray sound like the best choices at this time.

    I should have made it clear that this is not an IPR stance.

  5. Aaron Starr

    @2

    Paulie wrote: “I don’t know when exactly. I’m only relaying what I was told, and that is as much information as I was given.”

    Can you please ask your source the date that Randy applied?

  6. paulie Post author

    @ 6 I don’t know when we’ll be talking again. We don’t talk on a frequent basis. My guess is that the person I was talking to does not know the exact date, just the subjective impression that it was too soon.

    I’m changing the post to reflect this, and that item 8 is not an editorial statement by IPR.

    I’ll also add a modified version of this to the post:

    If Aaron Starr or anyone else would like to send us an opinion essay about the LNC vacancies, who should fill them, why, how the process should be changed, etc., we might well publish it. (Aaron, however, please don’t post it as an article yourself if you write it).

    If other LNC members or people knowledgeable about the facts in this matter would like to give me additional perspectives, correct information that they believe or know to be inaccurate, etc; don’t hesitate to call me at 415-690-5352. You can also write to contact.ipr@gmail.com CC iprtwo at googlegroups.com or my personal account, travellingcircus at gmail.com (note travelling with two Ls).

  7. Daniel Wiener

    For the record, Randy Eshelman informed the LNC that he was interested in filling the vacancy on January 2, 2011, six weeks after David Nolan had died. I don’t see how anyone could classify six weeks as “almost immediately”.

  8. paulie Post author

    OK, since that portion of the post seems to be controversial, I’ll just take it out completely.

    Additionally, if Mr. Wiener, Mr. Starr, or anyone else would like to write an endorsement editorial for Mr. Eshelman or anyone else, please send it to us.

  9. paulie Post author

    I removed the offending passage. For the record, this is how it read after my initial revision:

    9) The person I was talking to said Randy Eshelman applied to fill Nolan’s At Large spot almost immediately after his death, which this person found to be off-putting. This was this individual’s subjective impression, an exact date was not given, and I don’t know if other people on the LNC share that impression.

    I should make it clear that I don’t know Mr. Eshelman enough to be for or against selecting him at this time, and in no way did I intend the inclusion of that to be an attack.

    My apologies if it inadvertently came across that way.

    Thanks to Mr. Wiener for the additional information.

    Would you please tell us if and when you get a chance who all else has applied, and whether and how additional people may apply?

  10. Randy Eshelman

    I sent an official application to the LNC on 2 January 2011. I did make an informal notification to the LNC on 31 December 2010 that I held interest. This was after the California LP State Chairman recommended Judge Jim Gray.

  11. paulie Post author

    Thank you for removing the political spin from the article.

    Not a problem at all. I’m always happy to hear corrections, additional information, and different perspectives and take them into account.

    Please do not hesitate to call or write me with those whenever you feel it is warranted and have time, publicly or privately.

    I never post any articles here with the intention of political spin (nor did I this time). However, my sources of information are limited, so, as the homeland security propaganda folks say, “if you see something, say something.”

    And if you feel that the article selection of what we choose to reprint is stacked: send us more articles. We can’t print them if we don’t see them.

  12. Kevin Knedler

    There was some chatter about replacing Mr. Nolan. I for one strongly suggested we let the man be laid to rest and open the discussion after first of the year– showing some respect for him.
    As for Randy E, I don’t recall any commentary from him until after the holidays–probably after January 1.

  13. paulie Post author

    Additionally, if Mr. Wiener, Mr. Starr, or anyone else would like to write an endorsement editorial for Mr. Eshelman or anyone else, please send it to us.

    Same goes for Mr. Eshelman or anyone else who is applying. If you’d like to send us a statement as to why you feel you are the best candidate, we’ll definitely do our best to publish it. If I’m still in “posting a lot to IPR mode” and your statement is coherent, we’ll definitely publish it. If I’m not, I can’t guarantee what other people here will or will not do, but please send it in anyway.

  14. Aaron Starr

    Paulie @17,

    I couldn’t post Russian letters in #14. I’ve replaced it with a transliteration. Let me know if I did it accurately.

  15. paulie Post author

    As for Randy E, I don’t recall any commentary from him until after the holidays–probably after January 1.

    Thanks.

    Again to reiterate

    1) This is new info to me as of when Mr. Wiener first posted it, although I think it’s been sufficiently confirmed now.
    2) It was not posted intentionally as spin, just conveying what I was told, and I did not leave out anything I remembered.
    3) Nothing against Mr. Eshelman and I don’t know him well enough, or enough about him, to have much to say at this time.
    4) With all these folks posting here, perhaps someone could fill us in on who all has officially applied (I’ve gotten some names, but I don’t know if I’ve gotten all of them) and how someone else can formally apply if that is in fact possible?

  16. Daniel Wiener

    Paulie,

    There is no official list of applicants for the two LNC vacancies, nor is there any official procedure. There are only people who have expressed an interest. The LNC could still decide to fill the vacancies by email ballot, but my best guess is that nothing will happen until the April 16th LNC meeting in Washington, D.C. If anyone else is interested in being selected for a vacancy, I would recommend that he or she contact one or more LNC members to communicate that interest. Contact information may be found at http://www.lp.org/leadership.

  17. paulie Post author

    Paulie,

    Doverai, no proverai.

    Was that an accurate Russian translation?

    Yes.

    V otvet: Tak tochno. Vsegda starayus’ proveryat, nu ne vsegda znayu chevo nada proveryat a chevo ne nada…sama tut publikatziya dayot shans na praverku i popravlenia.

  18. paulie Post author

    I couldn’t post Russian letters in #14. I’ve replaced it with a transliteration. Let me know if I did it accurately.

    Yes. I suppose I should translate my response. Should I do it now or see if you understood me first? LOL

  19. paulie Post author

    My reply was: Exactly. I always try to verify, but I don’t always know what I need to verify….the publication of information here itself gives an opportunity for verification and correction.

    (I did not write this part, but, always trying to think through every possible ramification ahead of time would slow things down a lot, and I would probably still fail at it. I prefer to leave it to “peer review” in most cases).

  20. Aaron Starr

    Paulie,

    You may want to think twice before using that particular source in the future. It might appear to some that he was playing you.

  21. George Phillies

    @0

    The lack of seconds for the Redpath motion does not necessarily mean that some other motion on the same topic will not get the needed support from other LNC members to be brought to a vote.

    At the moment, the LNC is more busy arguing about supporting lobbying to improve Oklahoma ballot access.

    The LNC might consider cultivating internal expertise on this topic rather than relying on outside advice–I am counting advice from state parties as inside advice.

  22. paulie Post author

    You may want to think twice before using that particular source in the future. It might appear to some that he was playing you.

    I don’t think I’ve identified my source’s gender.

    In general:

    I have no problem speaking to anyone.

    I take it as a given that people I talk to have agendas of their own, and that what they tell me, choose not to tell me, and so on, can be a reflection of those….including, sometimes, inaccurate information.

    I always welcome corrections/additional information/different perspectives, so if I am given any misinformation, I expect there’s a good chance that other people will point it out to me, especially if it’s anything that anyone cares about.

    If someone gives me a lot of bad information that is pointed out by others over time, I become less and less likely to take their word for anything.

    If anyone wants “their side” to be heard first, or more frequently, they can always take the initiative and contact me (or us- but I can’t speak for what other people will or won’t do in my absence).

    I don’t know a better process I can use. If we had a staff of several full time people, we could take time and check all articles with multiple sources before publication and so forth. As it stands, I’m the only one who does this anything close to full time, and even that is only in between paying jobs. Everything else is just what everyone can do in their free time…which isn’t that much.

  23. paulie Post author

    @0

    That may be the first time I’ve seen anyone direct a comment that way. LOL

    The lack of seconds for the Redpath motion does not necessarily mean that some other motion on the same topic will not get the needed support from other LNC members to be brought to a vote.

    That is correct; that is why my statement was LNC source says that in the headline. everything that follows in the body of the article is me reporting what I was told, not me judging whether it was accurate or not. Sorry if that was not clear.

  24. Michael H. Wilson

    There used to be a list named state chairs echo. Be nice to have something similar to that for national. This behind closed doors stuff is unnecessary and it doesn’t build trust.

  25. George Phillies

    @30 Michael: You can get something similar to state chair echo by reading Liberty for America magazine. Mind you the blather on LNC-Discuss for a month can run a thousand pages or more, but it is very repetitive, and I filter out the less interesting things.

  26. paulie Post author

    GP/MHW

    We do much the same thing here, albeit along with a lot of other things, and with a lot more back and forth conversation. Liberty for America does indeed provide a laser focus, although not everyone agrees with its perspective.

    MHW

    The counter-argument is that you can’t prevent two, three, four or more people from communicating. If they perceive their communication becoming public causes some people to twist things, attack them, waste their time, or whatever, they can CC the people they want to talk to and leave off everyone else, including some LNC members.

    However, I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. What is it that they would have to hide? More of what they do should indeed be voluntarily made public. I believe the party as a whole would benefit from that.

    Unfortunately, the Sunshine Caucus we started a couple of years ago fizzled. I’d like to revive it, if other people are interested.

    Having more transparency in our internal dealings is a good example to set, since that is one of the things we want from government in real life.

    When too much happens behind closed doors, even if there is nothing nefarious about it, many people imagine something nefarious and that impression grows over time. Dispelling the exaggerated sense of malevolence is easy with sunshine.

    Exposing actual malevolence, where it exists, is somewhat more difficult, since (to use an analogy) even if city council meetings are open and broadcast, the council members can find ways of communicating privately behind closed doors in one way or another.

    The sense that a process is open can create a welcoming atmosphere. One of the meetings we broadcast here, someone brought up in the chat that a non-libertarian friend was impressed that the party would allow that.

    Perhaps there could be a compromise along the lines of what is done with LNC in person meetings now: non-LNC members are allowed to observe, but can’t join the discussion except when called upon. If anything really sensitive comes up the committee goes into executive session, and they are barred from discussing with non-members what is said there.

    Perhaps the email lists could be managed the same way.

  27. Thomas M. Sipos

    Aaron Starr: “You may want to think twice before using that particular source in the future. It might appear to some that he was playing you.”

    And that’s coming from an expert on “playing” people, considering Aaron’s reputation for parliamentary tricks.

  28. paulie Post author

    Anyone is welcome to try to play me. I don’t assume anyone ever is or is not trying to do so. The best way I know of to figure out who is giving me good information and who isn’t is to throw that information up here – without their name(s) if I don’t get specific permission to use name(s) – and see how that information stands up to public scrutiny.

    We do try to be accurate here, but we make mistakes sometimes, and when that happens we do our best to fix them. The comments here are kind of like the wikipedia discussion pages, except that wikipedia doesn’t use anonymous sources.

    So, anyone who wants to play me: give me a call.
    Operator standing by. The question is not whether you can play me, but whether you can play all our readers. Consider me as no more than your method of posting information in actual articles, rather than just comments, without using your name or IP address. I’m just your human equivalent of a screen name and an anonymizing service, nothing more.

  29. Robert Milnes

    paulie=apologist for rightists.
    @24, peer review.
    Peer review? Where did I hear that before?
    Oh, that’s right. From ME!
    Are you stealing my idea?
    Peer review as a phenomenon which could be used to determine veracity/credibility.
    Which you say you are actually doing. Here & now in IPR.
    Why not peer review to determine an individual’s libertarianism?
    Tom K., what say you? You like to shoot down my ideas & proposals.

  30. Robert Milnes

    Nolan’s ORIGINAL resolution was a passive-aggressive hint aimed at Root.
    My proposed resolution is aimed at all rightists & non-libertarians.
    Sipos, you agree, don’t you?
    LP party officials and candidates must be genuine libertarians. To be determined by a Peer Review Board.
    What do you think would happen if a non democrat was found out in their party? Or the republicans?
    Outrage! Expulsion. That’s what.

  31. Thomas M. Sipos

    Milnes, people (mostly Knapp and myself) have repeatedly explained to you why a Libertarian Peer Review Board will not work.

    Paulie is not stealing your idea. He’s not calling for an Official Peer Review Board.

    When Paulie says “peer review,” he ‘s obviously referring to the “free marketplace of ideas” — people posting their opinions and versions of the facts on IPR, with readers making up their own minds from the aggregate.

    YOU are already part of the IPR Peer Review Board, believe it or not. ALL posters (and even readers) are.

    Furthermore, there already is an LP Peer Review Board — it’s the members and convention delegates.

    This LP Peer Review Board approved of Barr and Root.

    Now, you might say that there should be a Peer Review Board to vet the delegates. But this PRB’s members would be chosen by the same LP members and delegates who chose Barr/Root.

    Then you’d call for an Appeals Peer Review Board to vet the Peer Review Board members.

    And when they approve of pro-Barr/Root PRB members?

    Then you’d call for a Supreme Peer Review Board to vet the Appeals Peer Review Board.

    If you care so much about who the LP nominates, Milnes, you should join the LP Peer Review Board — by showing up as an LP delegate.

    And if you can’t do that, then you don’t support your own idea.

  32. Robert Milnes

    “…people posting opinions and versions of the facts on IPR.”
    “…an opportunity for verification and correction…”-of the facts.
    A majority opinion or consensus of whether a person is a libertarian or not could be construed as a FACT.
    Since we should not bar or vet membership,
    and the delegates are a subset of the membership, one must vet the party officials and candidates.
    Then the delegates would have a choice among genuine libertarians as party officials & candidates.
    Not have a pool of non libertarians-a majority possibly-delegates select non libertarian party officials & candidates.
    Barr/Root would have been not possible.
    Root 2012-not possible.
    Drafting Ron Paul as LNC member and/or candidate-not possible.
    Assuming the Peer Review Board findings are reliable.

  33. Robert Milnes

    I’m not going to rejoin the LP. Not as it is-dominated by rightists. & I’m not the only one who is alienated from the LP. & refuses to feed into the diversion of libertarian wherewithall to the GOP and/or Ron Paul.

  34. paulie Post author

    Welcome back Mr. Milnes, I see your boycott of IPR didn’t last very long 🙂

    Oh, that’s right. From ME!
    Are you stealing my idea?

    Why of course Robert, you invented the concepts of peer review, open source, etc. Did you remember to register your patents and trademarks?

    LOL. What I am talking has nothing to do with a kangaroo court for drumming members out of the party, or even the party leadership, for ideological deviations from party doctrine, which is what you mean by it. I’m aware that such processes exist among some Marxist and Objectivist sects, and that they lead to a cultish mentality. I have no interest in going down that road, except to extent that Mr. Sipos correctly points out that we already do.

    I’m talking about peer review as a way of fact-checking my sources for IPR stories. I continue to see that as the best validation method for any source that is trying to (or allegedly trying to) play me.

    Nolan’s ORIGINAL resolution was a passive-aggressive hint aimed at Root.

    That was the impetus for it, but it was a good resolution nonetheless. Unlike you, I don’t think it was gutted or turned on its head by a small revision. And unlike the people who supported that revision, I disagree that the original would have set up any kind of enforcement mechanism. To me, either version is fine, although I think I would have probably voted against the revision if I had a vote.

    Naturally, I’m happy that the already existing “peer review” process as explained by Mr. Sipos keeps non-libertarians such as yourself from having any position in determining the party’s course. Not only are you not a Libertarian Party member, but you are not a libertarian (small l) ideologically, and don’t even claim that you are.

    Sipos @ 37 is completely correct.

    Since we should not bar or vet membership,

    “We”? You’re not a Libertarian or a libertarian.

    I’m not going to rejoin the LP.

    See? peer review, already working. 🙂

  35. Robert Milnes

    The LP party mechanism as it is does not keep me out or any non-libertarian. That is the point paulie/lol.
    You, as usual, don’t get it.
    Sipos @37 is mostly wrong.
    Would you have voted against the revision in favor of the original or in favor of no Nolan Resolution at all?
    Did you ever stop to think that your fool ridiculing of me over the years might have influenced people against me?
    Your comment demonstrates to me that you are a menace to the libertarian movement. Whether that is deliberate or not I do not know. Kind of like Root, I suspect you are a fascisto-leaning dupe.
    I’m not interested in a kangaroo court. But some kind of reliable vetting process is desperately needed by the LP. Or it is condemned to being dominated b rightists for the duration.
    You may very well be among those rightists.
    You certainly fail the Ron Paul & Root test. At least Sipos passes the Root test.

  36. paulie Post author

    The LP party mechanism as it is does not keep me out or any non-libertarian. That is the point paulie/lol.

    It keeps you out just fine, as evidenced by the fact that you are not a party member, and even if you did join the LP and have the willingness and money to go to the convention, you would not get elected to anything.

    Would you have voted against the revision in favor of the original or in favor of no Nolan Resolution at all?

    I would have probably voted against the amendment, and then I would have voted in favor of the resolution as amended if that was my only remaining choice.

    Did you ever stop to think that your [..] ridiculing of me over the years might have influenced people against me?

    You don’t need me for that, you manage well enough on your own.

  37. Robert Milnes

    So you would have voted against the amendment. Against the amended Nolan Resolution which was turned into its exact opposite by feeding it into a rightist/GOP and/or government think tank.
    So far so good. But that vote lost.
    Then you would have supported the amended resolution because you don’t see much difference.
    Wrong. Dupe.

  38. Pingback: Update on LNC At Large Vacancy-filling process | Independent Political Report

  39. Kevin Knedler

    Paulie, Can you create a category just for Milnes? Then he could post and also answer himself.

  40. paulie Post author

    It’s kind of like a PLAStic penis interrupting your press conference….nothing else can get done while it’s buzzing around:

Leave a Reply

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