Update on LNC At Large Vacancy-filling process

(Posted by Paulie)

In comments on my last update about the process to fill two At Large Rep vacancies on the Libertarian National Committee caused by the death of David Nolan (RIP) and the resignation of former Treasurer James Oaksun, whom former At Large Rep Bil Redpath was appointed to replace, LNC regional rep Daniel Wiener wrote:

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.

(Emphasis added).


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


So far, we have learned of the following people who have been recommended to the LNC, of which LNC members are aware:

John Jay Myers
Rebecca Sink-Burris
Judge Jim Gray

All three of the above were among the four top vote getters for At Large who missed the cutoff at the last national convention. The other was Pat Dixon, who is currently State Chair of Texas. Reportedly, Mr. Dixon is no longer interested in being considered because his state committee would prefer that he concentrate on state, not national, matters.

The convention vote was:
Dixon 168
Sink-Burris 167
Myers 159
Gray 153

Rebecca Sink-Burris was then elected as a Region Rep, but then resigned because she missed two meetings in a row.

Additionally, Regional Alternate Randy Eshelman has also applied directly to the LNC.

Out of these four people who are known to have applied to the LNC, Mr. Myers and Judge Gray received numerous positive comments from IPR readers, while Mr. Eshelman had several current and former LNC members (Starr, Wiener, and Knedler) come to his defense when I reported that another LNC member who prefers not to be named made a negative comment about him.


The following additional people expressed an interest in being considered for the At Large vacancies in the comments on this previous IPR post and this one. I don’t know whether LNC members are aware of their interest, or interested in considering them:

Ed Vallejo (ran for At Large at the last convention; not among the top vote getters).
Bruce Majors

Of these, Ed Vallejo got a couple of positive comments from IPR readers.


The following were put forth as choices by other people, but I don’t know if they themselves are interested:

Carl Vassar and Sam Goldstein (currently regional alternates)
Kevin Takenaga (Currently California chair)
Starchild

Of these, Starchild received numerous positive comments from IPR readers.


The following statements from my last update (based on a conversation with an LNC member who does not wish to be named, an additional conversation with another LNC member (Doug Craig), and various IPR comments on previous posts) have remained so far unchallenged. This does not mean that they are necessarily correct, and if anyone believes any of this is not correct, please let us know what parts and why:

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. 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.

3. Presuming that the vote will be at the DC meeting in April, as seems likely but is not completely guaranteed, those who wish to apply for the vacancies will increase their chances of being selected if they attend the meeting in person.

4. No one is guaranteed to get either At Large spot, but John Jay Myers may very well get one of them.


Previous posts in reverse chronological order:

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

IPR readers make recommendation on filling LNC vacancies

Libertarian National Committee is discussing filling At Large vacancies before next face to face meeting

Libertarians write letters in support of John Jay Myers for LNC vacancy

Numerous additional comments about this issue made on:

Liberty for America February 2011 issue is out

and

Discord Abounds On Libertarian National Committee

31 thoughts on “Update on LNC At Large Vacancy-filling process

  1. paulie Post author

    I said this in the post, but it was a long post, so I’ll repeat it here.

    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

  2. Robert Milnes

    I believe the 2 vacancies were radicals.
    I believe the LNC & LP are slightly topheavy with rightists. This is more or less able to be discerned by the 2008 nomination.
    Barr, rightist, 1st.
    Ruwart, radical, 2nd.
    Therefore the radicals must fill both vacancies to remain about status quo. This prospect does not look good.
    I say the April meeting might be a good time for a purge of rightists. Priority/first agenda item: Repeal the Amended Nolan Resolution. Replace with Original Nolan Resolution or Milnes Resolution.
    Take back the LP.

  3. paulie Post author

    Given the current composition of the LNC and the fact that they will be the ones voting, it’s not going to be two radicals.

    Myers and Gray is probably a best case realistic scenario from the radicals viewpoint.

    I don’t believe the resolution issue will be dealt with any better this term.

    Those who want a more radical LNC next term will have to:

    A) Go to the convention as delegates.
    B) Still be there, be awake and on the floor when the LNC selection votes happen – which is usually hard to do in a presidential year, since it comes after the main event.
    C) Do some coordinating in marshalling their votes for LNC races. Again, something the rads have been outplayed on constantly.

  4. Robert Milnes

    @6 there is another alternative. & you have opened the door forfurther comment on it.
    An alternative or alternative to the LNC.
    Via BTP.
    Radicals withdraw support for LP en masse. & join BTP.
    Pick up stragglers.
    100% radical membership.

  5. Sane LP member

    100% radical and 100% laughable to most people in the USA. Just hand off the opportunity for a viable third party to some other group. Jezz, get a grip on reality.

  6. paulie Post author

    @10 No, I didn’t open the door to it. I was talking about the LNC @ 6. This thread is about the LNC vacancies. I made an aside comment, based on the fact that you brought up resolutions adopted by the LNC and the LNC’s ideological balance, about the 2012 convention.

    However, the 2012 convention is not the focus of this discussion. The focus of this discussion is the current LNC vacancies.

    Please keep this thread focused on the issue of the At Large vacancies and candidates for those vacancies.

    The ideological balance of the current LNC is a legitimate topic for this discussion. The one on topic point that you made is that it can be said that in terms of voting composition rather than what hats people wear, they are replacing Nolan and Oaksun rather than Nolan and Redpath.

    However, knowing the LNC members who will be the ones voting, they are not going to be persuaded to pick two radicals. Additionally, I believe Mr. Oaksun considers himself a centrist, not a radical.

  7. Kevin Knedler

    Paulie, thank you for keeping this herd of cats focused on the topic at hand. Some day I will tell you the story of why the squirrel always seems to get the best of us on a bird feeder.

  8. paulie Post author

    Trying my best. Since the post is too long for some to read all the way through, I’ll repeat another section of it here:


    So far, we have learned of the following people who have been recommended to the LNC, of which LNC members are aware:

    John Jay Myers
    Rebecca Sink-Burris
    Judge Jim Gray

    All three of the above were among the four top vote getters for At Large who missed the cutoff at the last national convention. The other was Pat Dixon, who is currently State Chair of Texas. Reportedly, Mr. Dixon is no longer interested in being considered because his state committee would prefer that he concentrate on state, not national, matters.

    The convention vote was:
    Dixon 168
    Sink-Burris 167
    Myers 159
    Gray 153

    Rebecca Sink-Burris was then elected as a Region Rep, but then resigned because she missed two meetings in a row.

    Additionally, Regional Alternate Randy Eshelman has also applied directly to the LNC.

    Out of these four people who are known to have applied to the LNC, Mr. Myers and Judge Gray received numerous positive comments from IPR readers, while Mr. Eshelman had several current and former LNC members (Starr, Wiener, and Knedler) come to his defense when I reported that another LNC member who prefers not to be named made a negative comment about him.

  9. paulie Post author

    In answering that – I mean those who have applied directly to LNC – not just those who have left comments on previous threads here.

  10. Robert Milnes

    Oaksun is associated with George. George passes the Ron Paul stinks test. Compared to the masses of libertarian lemming Paulnuts out there, that makes him pretty radical.

  11. Here is a radical idea

    without the “Big Tent”, the LP will go into the dustbin of history. LP isn’t big enough to make any difference at a state or national level, unless it makes some alliances on specific targeted issues. That is the reality.

  12. paulie Post author

    Everyone:

    Please keep the discussion focused on actual people being considered, whether they want to be considered. whether they have communicated their intent to the LNC, why they would make a good addition to the LNC, why they should be selected, etc. This is not an all-purpose discussion of the party’s direction and anything that has to do with that, only of one small component of that.

    I won’t take down the comments up to this point, but please confine your discussion to specific candidates for LNC vacancies from this point. If you have an essay about how the selection process should be changed, email it to us and we w3ill consider publishing it as a separate article. If you want to debate debate parameters, take it to the debate on debate parameters thread.

  13. paulie Post author

    There’s a lot to be discussed about the narrow issue that this article is about. For example, several people have either nominated themselves or been nominated by others in the previous threads. Has the intent of the ones that nominated themselves in these threads been communicated to the LNC? Has anyone contacted the people that were suggested by others to see if they are interested?

  14. paulie Post author

    From the article:

    The following additional people expressed an interest in being considered for the At Large vacancies in the comments on this previous IPR post and this one. I don’t know whether LNC members are aware of their interest, or interested in considering them:

    Ed Vallejo (ran for At Large at the last convention; not among the top vote getters).
    Bruce Majors

    Of these, Ed Vallejo got a couple of positive comments from IPR readers.

    The following were put forth as choices by other people, but I don’t know if they themselves are interested:

    Carl Vassar and Sam Goldstein (currently regional alternates)
    Kevin Takenaga (Currently California chair)
    Starchild

    Of these, Starchild received numerous positive comments from IPR readers.

  15. Robert Milnes

    Huh? Mind repeating that again?
    Seriousl, you seem to be the only one commenting here within the parameters you dictate.
    Have you received any responses on other venues, email to you or IPR, phone call, report of notification by a prospective candidate to the LNC, articles etc?
    I’m willing to acknowledge that I may be alienating to some, but, I think people see you deleting me with glee & would rather just keep their distance.
    It hurts to get deleted, ou know. Don’t you?

  16. paulie Post author

    Take questions and comments about debating debate parameters to that thread.

    Have you received any responses on other venues, email to you or IPR, phone call, report of notification by a prospective candidate to the LNC, articles etc?

    All the names listed in the previous articles in this series, and several of the articles themselves, were the result of phone calls or emails I received or reader comments on previous articles in this series.

    Some of those were from current LNC members, and some from those who wanted to get on the LNC.

  17. paulie Post author

    From the article:

    The following statements from my last update (based on a conversation with an LNC member who does not wish to be named, an additional conversation with another LNC member (Doug Craig), and various IPR comments on previous posts) have remained so far unchallenged. This does not mean that they are necessarily correct, and if anyone believes any of this is not correct, please let us know what parts and why:

    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. 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.

    3. Presuming that the vote will be at the DC meeting in April, as seems likely but is not completely guaranteed, those who wish to apply for the vacancies will increase their chances of being selected if they attend the meeting in person.

    4. No one is guaranteed to get either At Large spot, but John Jay Myers may very well get one of them.

  18. paulie Post author

    I’ll admit, however, that so far this last article has been a flop.

    This is why I don’t usually spend more time writing articles, as I did this time, since the quick cut and paste jobs seem to draw as much or more interest.

    Could be that everyone has already said what they had to say on previous articles in this series.

    Or perhaps that the article is too long; I threw too much in there.

    I don’t know. I guess there’s still time for people to jump in and post on topic if they want.

  19. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie Cannoli wrote (@27):

    Could be that everyone has already said what they had to say on previous articles in this series.

    Yep, I’ve already said my peace.

  20. paulie Post author

    Thanks Chuck. It’s just Paulie now, I quit using “cannoli” a while ago, except on accounts where I can’t change it and don’t feel like starting from scratch. Too many people thought it was my real last name, LOL.

    How about this for a compromise? Anyone who would like to comment on topic before midnight tonight, if I get at least 3-4 on topic comments that are not from myself and are not from the same one or two people posting repeatedly, we’ll try to keep this as a focused discussion for at least a little while. If not, at the stroke of midnight, it can become Milnes’ new playground.

    Does that wok?

  21. Fun K. Chicken

    Milnes and Paulie should both be kicked off IPR, they are mentally ill losers with no life and no job who have nothing else to do except try to out-talk everyone else here.

Leave a Reply

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