Libertarian Party of California’s 2011 Convention

Final touches are being put on plans for this year’s California Libertarian convention. We have a special location planned–Harvey’s and Harrah’s Resorts and Casinos in Stateline, Nevada, right next to South Lake Tahoe.  There should still be snow in the mountains, and the scenery there will be breathtaking!

This will all happen the weekend of April 8th through 10th.

Here are some of the speakers we have planned:

Steven Greenhut, author, journalist, Director of the Pacific Research Institute’s Journalism Center, and among the best-known Libertarian activists in California.
Judge Jim Gray (ret.), Southern California’s popular Libertarian speaker and columnist
Steve Kubby, well-known national and local candidate and activist
Richard Winger, nationally respected ballot access authority and publisher of Ballot Access News
John Stagliano, long-time libertarian activist and entertainment entrepreneur
Tad Lumpkin and Harold Uhl, up-and-coming libertarian activists in the realm of digital entertainment, will present their fast-paced, laugh-filled, and deadly serious expose of the Federal Reserve, The American Dream .
Carlos Rodriguez, a Cuban refugee and immigration lawyer in California’s San Fernando Valley, will share his insights into mobilizing our state’s (and the nation’s) growing Latino Libertarian community, and introduce us to the national organization Libertariaos in America .

We have other events planned, including a Poker Tournament  and a screening of  The American Dream, along with several other surprises.  Of course, the community of Lake Tahoe offers skiing, snowboarding, and plenty of other diversions, should you add additional days to your trip.

Our hosts, Harvey’s and Harrah’s Resorts and Casinos, suggest reserving a room at Harvey’s for a quieter atmosphere, and reserving a room at Harrah’s to stay closer to the 24-hour action. Call Harrah’s Resort and Casino toll-free at (800) 455-4770 and ask for Group Code S04LPC to be included in our room block, or visit either Harvey’s or Harrah’s online reservations to choose which environment you prefer.
Harvey’s Resort and Casino
Harrah’s Resort and Casino

For more information, visit the website at

http://ca.lp.org/2011/01/07/2011-convention-of-delegates/

72 thoughts on “Libertarian Party of California’s 2011 Convention

  1. David Colborne

    Your link at the bottom of the article is broken. Looks like you’ve got an extra http:// in there.

    I’d also like to note that we in Northern Nevada greatly appreciate the LPCA’s willingness to host their convention in our state, and hope they will continue to avail themselves of Nevada’s fantastic convention support in the future.

  2. Gains

    It looks like a really fun venue, and hey, its only across the street from California 🙂

    Patients please keep in mind that your California MMJ prescription is good only for making it easier to book you in Nevada. Use your head and have fun!

  3. LibertarianGirl

    well lets see , the Clark County excom , not my vote , voted to let the Chair alone decide to send our money to the state who decided to let the chair alone decide how to spend it ( NO IM NOT MAKING THIS SHIT UP) and the chair has decided to spend 1500 advertising the cali convention. TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT , the LP in NV is corrupt , sorry Wayne ut this is so far past acceptable there arent even words

  4. LibertarianGirl

    hope you have a great time spending our fucking money , ya ive had a few , and ya im pissed , why should we be advertising y’alls freaking convention

  5. Catholic Trotskyist

    Relax LG, and join the Catholic Trotskyist Party, where you will be treated much better. We are definitely in need of a CatholicTrotskyistGirl to improve our reputation in this secularized and consumerist society.

  6. LibertarianGirl

    dude , clark county SHOULD NOT be paying for advertising Calis convention , ecsp when the freakin thing is up north. No offense David , but if NV wanted to help ot it should cme from the state or you guys , Im so far beyone pissed over this I done even have words.

  7. Bruce Cohen

    Usually if you advertise it’s to get a customer or make a sale or promote something.

    What, pray tell, is the Nevada LP getting out of advertising our convention?

    Please explain this, someone?

  8. Jose C.

    I will comment on the California convention. The last four California Party conventions attendance has dropped. I submit the reason is because there has been a $100 + business session fee. In other words if a delegate does not want to hear any speakers, or go to a luncheon or breakfast, or attend any other convention activity other then business sessions the delegate has to pay $100+. I feel this delegate fee should be dropped. This fee was instituted about six years ago. The fee was originally $25 then about four years ago it was increased to $100+. We shall see if the streak continues and attendance drops for the fifth year in a row.

    PS. If true why is Neveda spending money to advertise California’s convention?

  9. peace and love

    Good question why is Nevada spending money they (they don’t have ) to advertise this convention?? The state chair is not going to give an answer

    Even better has the new State Treasurer figured out how much money the state even has ?
    I don’t think it even matters since the money they need will be given to them by cc to do as they please . ugh !

  10. Gains

    Because they are going to stack the California delegation with WAR supporters… again. Duh. You don’t even have to live in Califonia to vote, you just need $125 and the officership in your pocket.

    The only way ya’ all are going to get the session fee dropped is if you bring people to the convention. It is simply that way. Elect people to the ex-com that will support your move.

    It is my understanding that the fee almost did not survive this time. The meeting that decided the terms of the convention went VERY late into the night. California could easily have a no-floor fee convention in the south next year. The will is almost there. I suggest you show up and elect people that will make it so.

  11. Starchild

    What Jose said @11. Charging delegates who are already spending their time and money to come and help do the business of the party floor fees is outrageous and unacceptable. I will continue to oppose this, and not vote for those who support it, until it goes away.

    Having said that, I’m looking forward to the convention!. Especially hearing porn producer (aka “entertainment entrepreneur” to those afraid to boldly speak out for freedom when it might offend mainstream sensibilities) John Stagliano talk about how he beat the government’s obscenity rap!

  12. David Colborne

    Going to play devil’s advocate on this one…

    First, I’ll start by noting that Wayne isn’t on the guest list. In fact, he’s stated here in this very site that he won’t be at the convention at all. Of course, this doesn’t preclude anyone from using the Convention to select delegates to the National Convention that are sympathetic to Wayne, but I think we’re a bit early for that.

    Second, I’ll note that this is arguably the biggest Libertarian event in Nevada this year. Letting those that are interested in attending events in their area know about it makes sense.

    However… there is a reason we’re not spending affiliate funds (at least, not $1500) on promoting this,and it’s not just because spending that kind of money would wipe our bank account. Frankly, I don’t think it’s cost effective, especially as close to the event as people are going to get their postcards. You don’t ask people to spend $100+ on seven days notice, and you especially don’t do it when you’re not getting the money. I’m not even sure the postcard will mention our affiliate up here, so how Nevada will benefit from this is certainly an open question.

    But, the Chair wishes to spend on outreach, and, though I share some concerns about this particular expense, I like the spirit behind it. I just wish I knew about Clark County’s funds transfer before we voted on it.

  13. Gains

    Since Wayne regularly uses the California delegation to fill his people for national. Its not a bad guess. He has needed the help of the CA officers for that in the past, and they are decided on this one. I. personally, really don’t mind that he uses California’s unfilled seats. The more the merrier.

    BUT… California is growing at the local level all over the place. It is frustrating that the state party keeps holding costly and prohibitive business functions. It feels like there is pressure to keep our party small so that it is an easier to manipulate play thing.

  14. LibertarianGirl

    GP_What, pray tell, is the Nevada LP getting out of advertising our convention?

    Please explain this, someone?

    me_ well besides a sore anus for us folks down south from the major f*****g we just took . Im not really sure. I guess maybe the Northern affiliate could get some people out of it , and thats cool , but Clark County should not be paying for it.

    David , please make sure I see a copy of the postcard , if it doesnt at least advertise y’alls website and your contact info , ill shit a brick and thats very painful so…

  15. LibertarianGirl

    PandL_
    Even better has the new State Treasurer figured out how much money the state even has ?

    me_ no , and even funnier befor the stooges at County voted to send our money they didnt even ask how much we have from the County treasurer.. Ill tell you this much , Im putting aside the money i used to send to the CCLP( I cancelled my monthly donation after this vote) and saving it , GUARANTEED , all 3 of my kids and any person I can get will be at next years convention.

    If myelf and others had done what Angy McKinster Gurin did last time , wich was bring several credentialed friends we wouldnt be in this mess. Funnier yet , it Kris Mckinsters decision to postpone our business meeting till May 12 , which willbe 5 months with 0 activity and funnist comment on the list ever from new member Irv Hopkins who said ” works for me I was gonna ask for a reprieve anyways)

    A REPRIEVE , ROFLMAO , apparently doing nothing is too strenuous

  16. Nicholas Sarwark

    Having said that, I’m looking forward to the convention!. Especially hearing porn producer (aka “entertainment entrepreneur” to those afraid to boldly speak out for freedom when it might offend mainstream sensibilities) John Stagliano talk about how he beat the government’s obscenity rap!

    From the accounts I read, the prosecutors seriously messed up the case and the Judge was unwilling to give them a “do over” to try to correct their errors.

    But I am also curious about firsthand details, so if you can post something after the convention summarizing his remarks, that’d be awesome.

  17. David Colborne

    @19: Wait – Kris is postponing the CCLP’s meeting until after the next State ExComm meeting? Wow.

    Also, I don’t know Irv, but are we sure he wasn’t being dryly sarcastic? I mean, that sounds like something I’d come up with.

  18. Delegation Stuffing

    Are not delegates to the 2012 national convention to be chosen at the California LP’s 2012 state convention?

    They’re not choosing any national delegates at the 2011 convention, are they?

  19. LibertarianGirl

    from Colborne to LPN excom list

    Out of mild curiosity, I thought it would be fun to get some concrete numbers on the cost of mailing all non-Clark County voters with a Libertarian Party affiliation on their voter registration card. Using VistaPrint as the mailing/printer, mailing all 2,574 non-Clark LIB voters would cost us $1279.23, of which $359 is for the postcards (color front, black & white back, standard size) and $919.24 would be for postage ($0.26/postcard). I will note that this is for standard shipping, which is seven days; consequently, if postcards aren’t sent by tomorrow, we’re either going to send them too late for anyone to receive them before the LPCA Convention or we’re going to have to pay extra for expedited shipping.

    Long story short, the $1500 estimate wasn’t too far off.

  20. Gains

    DS @22:

    The WAR camp has enjoyed a very friendly posture with the operations committee in California which has traditionally been handed the responsibility to filling in unused delegate slots from the California Convention of which there is usually some good number.

    The responsibility is in the ExCom of California’s hands by rule, and opacity in the office has lent itself to them having to, in a state of deadline emergency, OK the operations committee list for filling those slots without more than a few moments of review.

    The problem is cultural. We need officers and representatives that do this business without skulduggery bypassing the will of membership. We also need membership that does not engage in exclusive politicing with delegation slots. I am not going to point at individuals for blame nor call the set up especially nefarious on its face. Deescalating WAR’s acceptance in the party seems to be a sign that that culture is starting to form.

    The answer lies in getting involved, though I am sure some force wielding authoritarian-libertarian will try to correct the issue with by-laws proposals.

  21. Jose C

    The only way ya’ all are going to get the session fee dropped is if you bring people to the convention. It is simply that way. Elect people to the ex-com that will support your move.

    And

    What Jose said @11. Charging delegates who are already spending their time and money to come and help do the business of the party floor fees is outrageous and unacceptable. I will continue to oppose this, and not vote for those who support it, until it goes away.

    13@14 . . . Others and I are strategizing to find a way to eliminate the delegate business fee for 2012 (it is too late for this convention) and to get rid of it permanently.

    Every time I think about the floor fee I want to . . . But it will be gone soon.

  22. Gains

    JC @26:

    If that strategy includes by laws… you are thinking backwards. Sir! you MUST get involved and STAY involved instead of using government force to direct your wishes on the Party.

    Every by-law is a handle hold for the state to incur itself in our business. If we are unable to define our expectations through culture and good choices in representation, we have lost before we have begun.

  23. David Colborne

    Let’s see if that clears up the never-ending italics…

    @Gains: I’m not a particularly fond fan of using bylaws to enforce certain political behaviors, either. It definitely seems there are more than a few people that enjoy extracting from a poorly written bylaw that which they cannot receive by winning a rational argument.

  24. Michael H. Wilson

    I always get a chuckle out of libertarians who complain about the laws but then turn around and tie us up in by-laws and Robert’s Rules. I wonder if they know how stupid they look.

  25. Gains

    For a couple of years membership made it known that by-laws had been out of hand and they elected a representatives that promised saner by-laws report. Reports with dozens of changes were submitted at every convention, each of them a maneuver of one persona or faction against another.

    NOT LIBERTARIAN

    For a couple years the reports were sane. A handful of vetted positions including the name of the person on the committee that proposed the change, the arguments for it, and any dissenting opinions from the committee.

    It was a good platform for membership to begin their review from the floor and made for fast, and well considered business at convention. It was however a block to those who see by-laws as a tool for enforcing their will on other Libertarians “too stupid” to see it their way.

    This year, the by-laws report seems to be back in old form. Twenty something proposals nearly every one of them backed by a phantasmal “emergency” that members of that committee are demonstrably part of constructing for their own will.

    Membership changes, purge doors and some other subtle but potentially devistating rules that centralize decision making power away from counties, and away from the ExCom Representatives.

    I recommend strongly to all California Libertarians to check out the By-laws report on ca.lp.org. It was just posted a couple of weeks ago, nearly 40 days late from its dead line preventing the 70 days of deliberation required by our by-laws currently. There is also a question on whether the committee adopted it on time. Another red flag that there is something is rotten afoot.

    Happy reading!

  26. Sebastian Knowlton

    Good luck to everybody who attends the convention. Try not to allow the child molesters and loser child molester apologists to have their way with the party this time.

  27. Gains

    MHW @34:

    It does not have to be like this. We know the crowd that worships by-laws. We know what to do with them. 🙂

  28. David Colborne

    @33: Looking through the committee report, I’m mostly seeing a bunch of housekeeping motions. Some of them are admittedly a little silly – I’m not sure how much P5 will change, for example. I mean, what, did the last Secretary fail to post minutes for the convention in a timely fashion and, when brought before the Judicial Committee, the JC said, “Eh – nothing in the rules or bylaws that prevents the Secretary from taking all year” or something?

    *shrug*

    Two proposals that immediately draw attention to themselves are P6 and P16. P6 is stupid. I’ve already remarked in the past on how open-ended and ambiguous “initiation of force” is on this forum. If that passes, you’re just begging for trouble there. Also P16 is weapons-grade Dumbtonium. The Executive Committee should not get to decide who gets to vote for it. If somebody really needs to be given the boot, that’s what the Judicial Committee is for.

    P10 is pointless. If the LPCA really needs a “policy and procedures manual” on top of convention rules and bylaws, something is seriously wrong.

  29. Gains

    DC @37:

    Housekeeping motions are now unnecessary in the report. According to the by-laws, there is a standing Style Committee that is responsible for finding housekeeping problems and they can be ratified and instituted by the ExCom. They however must be non-trivial and non-substantive.

    The ExCom then decides whether to approve them as valid grammatical and housekeeping fixes. They may fail to pass one for several reasons:

    1. The proposed change is substantial and potentially changes interpretation even though is likely what the membership wants. The ExCom just cant do it.

    2. They think it is not a valid grammatical change.

    3. They get bombarded with a report that feels like it has agenda within but is so large that it is impossible to parse much less reflect on within the time allowed between presentation and the vote.

    In these cases, the membership needs to vote on these, judging them trivial changes despite the possible reinterpretation they cause. The by-laws also allow for this and the bylaws report can contain a section of consent items.

    A similar decision making process is then made by membership. It the change is non-trivial to them, they can remove it from the consent calendar.

    The danger here is when people put in positions of trust, try to use the consent calendar to post sneaky changes. In the past this has been a problem. For instance, changing a section for a rule can have large effects on how it is interpreted and remember that the state assumes authority over our internal documents and rules in an ultimate authority way were someone to really get nefarious with them.

    The flip side of that State handle-hold is that if we codify things with too much definition, we strangle ourselves with rules and give strength to the handle. I think it is a much better strategy to elect representatives and officers that are predisposed to not subverting the memberships will or manipulating them.

    One thing is clear to me. This years report is a jumble of poorly presented changes. What is supposed to be housekeeping is mixed with substantive changes without definition or purpose. Effects of the changes are not analyzed and digested for initial consideration nor are dissensions within the committee presented to the membership.

    The by-laws report is again, the tool of internal maneuvering. I think it is reprehensible in toto.

  30. David Colborne

    The by-laws report is again, the tool of internal maneuvering. I think it is reprehensible in toto.

    Agreed. Even when you win, you lose – it just encourages rule lawyering and “creative interpretation”.

  31. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorcement

    “P10 is pointless. If the LPCA really needs a “policy and procedures manual” on top of convention rules and bylaws, something is seriously wrong ………”

    Yup! My [horrible] experience with Deform Party / Israel First John ‘Robert’s Rules’ Blare is that all good hearted folks need is less than a dozen rules [the ten suggestions ?????*] and that a thousand rules can not protect people from unkind, uncaring, unfeeling, unethical types.

    [a] it has been also said that only two guide lines are needed: love other people and love God / good / goodness

    [b] * in the semi original Hebrew Greek it is not thou shalt not kill —— but ‘do not murder’

  32. FWIW

    I think the 2012 California delegaes to the 2012 National convention will be selected at the 2012 California convention, not the 2011 convention.

  33. Gains

    FWIW @40:

    Some of the delegates will be chosen there. Historically most of them will be chosen by the ExCom ratifying a list of extras prepared by the chair because they were not filled at convention and authorizing the delegation lead or chair to fill slots ad hoc at convention.

    Many of those representative and all of those officers will be decided in 2011.

  34. Jose C.

    If that strategy includes by laws… you are thinking backwards. Sir! you MUST get involved and STAY involved instead of using government force to direct your wishes on the Party.

    You misunderstand. Using the bylaws to eliminate the floor fee permanently is not the only play in the playbook. Changes have to be made to the Executive Committee and we need those elected who do not support having a floor fee. We also need those who are not satisfied with conventions that have four years of declining attendance and will do what is necessary to reverse this trend. We also need those who will grow the Party, membership, increase fundraising, etc.

    Yes there are other plays in the playbook. If you want to see what they are attend the convention.

  35. Gains

    Who exactly do you see having a track record for fund-raising and increasing membership? And why woudl you need to keep your coalition secret?

    I have seen plays in the no floor fee crusade at convention before. Its an idea that is popular enough not to need maneuvering, but that is exactly what people have done before with it and blown it up. More often than not the no-floor-fee crowd hamstrings themselves up on unnecessary maneuvering and skulduggery.

  36. Michael Seebeck, SVC, LPCA

    (Someone needs to edit #26 to close the italics!)

    OK, time to set some facts out to dispel the false rumors:

    First off, if LPNV is advertising the LPCA convention, then they are doing it on their own and not through any coordinated effort with LPCA. If they do that, it is their affair alone.

    Second, any rumors that this was coordinated with anyone in the Root camp are entirely false. Not only does Wayne Root have absolutely nothing to do with the LPCA convention, but he has never entered any of the conversations about venues even once. In fact, at one point the convention site was actually proposed to be Sacramento but it fell through due to problems with the hotel sites, which is why the entire thing was decided for Stateline in the first place in December instead of August.

    Third, when the vote by the Executive Committee was taken to decide on Harrah’s/Harvey’s, the vote was unanimous, taken only after every single XC member in the room had a chance via round-robin discussion to express their feelings and reservations, both positive and negative, about the various venues under consideration. There was plenty of back and forth between members, completely civil, and at the end everyone had their say and had their concerns addressed. I chaired that meeting. Mr. Barnes (Gains) was there as well.

    As to various fallacies addressed above:

    Gains (Barnes) @13:

    “Because they are going to stack the California delegation with WAR supporters… again. Duh. You don’t even have to live in Califonia to vote, you just need $125 and the officership in your pocket.”

    1. There is no effort to stack the convention with Root supporters. Since delegates can simply show up from whatever county they come from and be delegates if they are in good standing, stacking with Root supporters is not only unlikely but difficult.
    2. According to the LPCA Bylaws, to be a delegate, one must be a LPCA State Central Committee member for at least any ninety days before the convention. Anyone cannot just walk in the door from anywhere and be a delegate on the spot, except for the single exception granted to each Executive Committee member for State Central Committee members who do not meet the 90-day requirement.

    Gains (Barnes) @17:

    “It is frustrating that the state party keeps holding costly and prohibitive business functions. It feels like there is pressure to keep our party small so that it is an easier to manipulate play thing.”

    For Root delegates, see previous comment. As for cost-prohibitive events, one convention proposal that was even more expensive but rejected would have required each delegate to pay $300 to the venue site (with $0 to the LPCA!) to simply attend and stay and eat on-site, and $70 to the venue (with $0 to the LPCA!) to walk in the door and attend if staying and eating off-site. Since that had shades of the 2006 LPCA cruise convention fiasco all over it, it was rejected out-of-hand. Rather than focus on the negatives of the event, it makes much more sense to focus on the positives.

    It has nothing to do with “keeping the Party small.” (If that was the intent, the convention would be held at Calico Ghost Town!)

    Delegation @22:

    “Are not delegates to the 2012 national convention to be chosen at the California LP’s 2012 state convention?

    “They’re not choosing any national delegates at the 2011 convention, are they?”

    Yes, and no, to those questions, in that order.

    Gains (Barnes) @25:

    “The WAR camp has enjoyed a very friendly posture with the operations committee in California which has traditionally been handed the responsibility to filling in unused delegate slots from the California Convention of which there is usually some good number.

    “The responsibility is in the ExCom of California’s hands by rule, and opacity in the office has lent itself to them having to, in a state of deadline emergency, OK the operations committee list for filling those slots without more than a few moments of review.

    “The problem is cultural. We need officers and representatives that do this business without skulduggery bypassing the will of membership. We also need membership that does not engage in exclusive politicing with delegation slots.”

    National convention delegate slot vacancies, per the Bylaws, are filled by the Executive Committee, not the Operations Committee, *up to the deadline imposed on them by the National Committee per their Bylaws and Rules*, and thenafter by the delegation itself at the national convention.

    As for bypassing the “will of the membership” and “politicing [sic] with delegation slots”, no such thing is occurring or has occurred. No member wishing to be a national convention delegate has been denied that opportunity since at least 2008 (I can’t speak to before that), and in fact the will of the membership has passed the Bylaws and Rules as they stand to codify the procedure used to fill out the delegation. They’ve even regularly suspended the Rules to make the delegate selections by acclamation at convention instead of vote!

    Gains (Barnes) @28:

    “Every by-law is a handle hold for the state to incur itself in our business.”

    Let’s set something straight here. In California, per the Bylaws, county affiliates are dependent subunits of the LPCA, and their activities are subject to the limitations of the state and national Bylaws, and FULL oversight by the Executive Committee. Those limitations are rather few:

    1. Annual elections with proper notification of such to the state.
    2. One County Central Committee per county.
    3. CCCs can’t endorse in partisan races anyone who is not LP or Decline to State.
    4. Each CCC is responsible for dealing with campaign finance laws as they apply.
    5. Dues sharing as it applies.

    In short form, the state leadership wants to know they’re active and who their contact points are, that they’re supporting the Party’s candidates, and how to share dues as the Party grows.

    Because the county affiliates are dependent subunits of the LPCA, their business is LPCA business as well. The Executive Committee and Operations Committee, per the Bylaws, have authority over county business, but in general does not exercise that authority in deference to the counties, EXCEPT when the activities of the counties or members warrant such exercise. Thankfully, those occurrences have been few and far between, which leaves the state leadership free to actually work on building the Party instead of cleaning up unwanted and unnecessary messes caused by counties and members.

    Gains (Barnes @33):

    “For a couple of years membership made it known that by-laws had been out of hand and they elected a representatives that promised saner by-laws report. Reports with dozens of changes were submitted at every convention, each of them a maneuver of one persona or faction against another.”

    No such promises have been made by Executive Committee candidates at the elections I have been at. The Bylaws Committee is selected by the Executive Committee, and is open to any State Central Committee who wants to be on it, provided the Executive Committee selects them. What Mr. Barnes considers IHOO to be “factional maneuvering” is in fact an ongoing process to take the mess that was the Bylaws in 2007 and make them into the formal and cohesive set of ruling documents that they are intended to be, with the intent to have the Party operations and structure be operated smoothly such that the real focus can be on growth. In fact, most of the proposed Bylaws changes in the past few years have been to clean up language, remove loopholes, and address issues both technical and individual that have come forward in between conventions. The perpetual complaints about it come from those that do not understand how organizational structure works, project their fear of misuse of power by individuals onto the tool of power to be used in the first place, have their own agendas not in line with optimal Party operations, or are simply on the outside looking in, either from lack of involvement or personal choices that have put them into that position.

    “Twenty something proposals nearly every one of them backed by a phantasmal “emergency” that members of that committee are demonstrably part of constructing for their own will.”

    The proposals in the report have no such ”emergency” specter as Mr. Barnes erroneously projects. All one has to do is look at the report to see that. The Bylaws Committee does examine very carefully the processes employed for issues to simplify (like the delegate selection in years past), clarify (such as the convention minutes), remove ambiguity, or improve (such as how the Vice-Chairs are elected).

    “It was just posted a couple of weeks ago, nearly 40 days late from its dead line preventing the 70 days of deliberation required by our by-laws currently. There is also a question on whether the committee adopted it on time. Another red flag that there is something is rotten afoot.”

    The report was completed on time, as ALL members of the Bylaws Committee will indicate, had anyone asked. To imply or infer anything there is simply uninformed and spiteful grandstanding. As for publishing it, it was submitted for publishing on time, and beyond that, it was out of the Bylaws Committee’s hands.

    Gains (Barnes) @38:

    “The by-laws also allow for this and the bylaws report can contain a section of consent items.

    “A similar decision making process is then made by membership. It the change is non-trivial to them, they can remove it from the consent calendar.”

    Do not confuse the Bylaws Report with the Consent Calendar in the convention agenda. They are entirely different things.

    As for the statements on the Style Committee, they are relatively correct, except for the insinuations about agendas, which are false and more of Mr. Barnes’s unfounded projections onto others.

    “What is supposed to be housekeeping is mixed with substantive changes without definition or purpose. Effects of the changes are not analyzed and digested for initial consideration nor are dissensions within the committee presented to the membership.

    “The by-laws report is again, the tool of internal maneuvering. I think it is reprehensible in toto.”

    There is no requirement that any Bylaws Report is limited to “housekeeping”. In fact, the exact opposite is true: it is designed to be for substantive changes beyond “housekeeping”, but it also accommodates “housekeeping” items in its “No Debate” items per the Convention Rules.

    As for “dissensions within the committee,” there is no requirement for a minority report, nor has there ever been one, and should Bylaws Committee members have a differing opinion from the report, they have every right as delegates to voice that from the floor during debate and votes. The analysis that Mr. Barnes complains does not happen does in fact happen, ask any Bylaws Committee member, but he was not privileged to it this time around.

    Gains (Barnes) @42:

    “Historically most of them will be chosen by the ExCom ratifying a list of extras prepared by the chair because they were not filled at convention and authorizing the delegation lead or chair to fill slots ad hoc at convention.”

    See above about the national delegation slot vacancies, because Mr. Barnes’ interpretation is completely wrong. There is no list prepared by the Chair, and the Chair has not been authorized to fill slots at the national convention. Neither is the delegation lead (which was Judge Gray at St. Louis, where Mr. Barnes was not present—as delegation whip, I filled no slots, and the delegation didn’t vote on any either, and the delegation didn’t fill any at all.)

  37. Gains

    Me thinks the Southern Vice Chair doth protest too much.

    “Because the county affiliates are dependent subunits of the LPCA, their business is LPCA business as well. The Executive Committee and Operations Committee, per the Bylaws, have authority over county business, but in general does not exercise that authority in deference to the counties, EXCEPT when the activities of the counties or members warrant such exercise.”

    Or when those counties grow with unrivaled success, influence so many counties around them in such positive ways, and threaten people who’s ambition for the party is centered not in growth but in control; or if a county has an especially large treasury built up and the state has a project they want to fund; or if the small county is working with an officers rivals… Then that structure is traditionally and often used to subjugate those organizations or kill them for their money.

    California members probably should have checked the Southern Vice Chair’s reputation at the local level before electing him. But the air of his appointment and interim election were charged, fraudulent, and to a great and hidden extent his own personal making.

    There are leaders who like fear as a motivator and are only satisfied Libertarians that fit in boxes of their own styling.

    Me? I like local parties who outgrow their venues, regularly engage local government, attend coalition events, organize events, register voters and practice with determination the craft of politics.

    I like Libertarians that know how to support, network, enable, and inspire each other and most of all I have the highest respect for those who can think outside of the box of coercion for solutions. We are brought up in such a constrained society already, it is beyond me, why anyone (well any libertarian) thinks that more constraints are the answer to success.

    For the record. I like WAR’s involvement though I do not really much care for the direction he wants to go. I do not see him wanting delegates at national as nefarious. I see it as ambitious. On the other hand, I do see rules maneuvering for personal agendas, or some 5 year long rules fight from 2007 as Mr. Seebeck describes and pointedly unhealthy.

    I brought up WAR merely suggest his rivals also pack the convention too. Because this is the lead up to the next presidential bid. 2007 and 2008 are better analogues for how California fits into those mechanics.

  38. Gains

    Would Mr. Seebeck please indulge us with a disclosure; are you not on the By-Laws Committee? How many of the 20 something by-laws proposals did you have a hand in crafting and which please sir?

    Yes, I know, the rules do not require you to divulge such things, nor talk about dissenting opinions. I think that the rest of us find that sort of information healthy for decision making.

  39. LibertarianGirl

    the CCLP and LPN have decided to withdraw funding a postcard 4the LPC conv. , the CCLP decided to keep the meager funds and spend it on a fun local outreach event instead . also , joe silvestri has decided that u get more people with kindness and inclusiveness and has decided to makelp activism fun again , . jim duensing , in a stark reversal actually admitted he may have been wrong once.

  40. Gains

    From Email and I don’t think that it is an April Fools 🙂

    vvv

    “Atlas Shrugged, Part 1” Special Showing at California LP’s Convention!

    If you’re already registered to attend the Libertarian Party of California’s annual convention this year, you get an added treat at no additional charge: admission to a private Friday evening sneak preview screening of the new major motion picture Atlas Shrugged, Part 1.

    Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 is the first of a new trilogy of movies based on novelist Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged. Published in the U.S. in 1957, Atlas Shrugged described what was at the time a wildly improbable future United States where leading innovators in industry and the arts refuse to be exploited by society. As the government rapidly takes control of successful industries, orderly society deteriorates, and unemployment soars as businesses fail around the country — while the most innovative and productive entrepreneurs gradually and mysteriously vanish.

    The film will not be released to the general public until one week after the convention, not coincidentally on the usual deadline for citizens to file their federal and state income tax forms.
    Private Screening, Limited Access

    Conventioneers who have already paid for their convention admission are guaranteed a seat at this special preview if they check in at the convention registration desk at Harrah’s Resort and Casino by 7:00 p.m. Friday evening April 8.

    Seating for this special event is limited and will not be available to the general public. Registration for the Libertarian Party of California’s annual convention is required, and advance registration is recommended. Conventioneers who pay for their convention admission between now and Friday evening, April 8 will be admitted to this special private screening at no extra charge only as long as seats are available.

    Reservations

    For information about admission to this special preview, which also includes a screening of the half-hour animated feature The American Dream, call the Libertarian Party of California at (818) 782-8400 before Friday, April 8. Advance reservations for the Party’s convention can be made by phone with a credit or debit card, or on the Party’s convention registration page.

    Reserve your seat for this special event: register for the Libertarian Party of California’s convention now!

    See you at Harrah’s Tahoe!

    Terry Floyd
    Convention Committee Chairman

    P.S. Despite the date of this announcement, this is not an April Fools Day joke.

    For liberty,

    The Officers and Staff

    Libertarian Party of California

  41. David Colborne

    Regarding the italics: Yes! Good grief, that’s annoying.

    @Mike: Thank you for the information! I’ll freely admit that we have our own set of issues balancing the needs of State and county-level affiliates here in Nevada, too, and I’m sure that’s not a rare situation for any branch of any political party to find itself in. I’ll also note that bylaws, misused as they frequently are, are a necessary tool for smooth functioning of any sufficiently large organization. I do think, without any historical context whatsoever and without any dog in the fight, that there are a couple of proposals on your list that strike me as… odd, but, hey, it’s your state. Do what you will.

    Also, nicely done on the Atlas Shrugged screening! Should be a lot of fun.

  42. Michael Seebeck, SVC, LPCA

    Gains (Barnes) @51:

    No, that is no joke, and it is the major positive announcement I referred to. The screening is real, the full movie, not a preview. It is something the Convention Committee, most notably Terry Floyd, has been working for quite some time around other convention arrangements to make a reality.

    So, now, around the business session, we have the movie, the poker tournament, the attractions of Tahoe, a great speaker lineup, and the annual banquet.

    Sounds like one great weekend!

  43. Michael Seebeck, SVC, LPCA

    Gains (Barnes) @47:

    “Would Mr. Seebeck please indulge us with a disclosure; are you not on the By-Laws Committee?”

    Yes, I am. See Page 1 of the Bylaws Report; it’s no indulgence, just published fact. Did Mr. Barnes not read the report before ranting about it?

    “How many of the 20 something by-laws proposals did you have a hand in crafting and which please sir?”

    More than the zero, but less than all. Like other years, other members have made proposals as well. Who wrote them originally is irrelevant to their content, because the whole committee reviewed, edited, and massaged the proposals to their final states in a team effort.

    “Yes, I know, the rules do not require you to divulge such things, nor talk about dissenting opinions. I think that the rest of us find that sort of information healthy for decision making.”

    Mr. Barnes’ transparent intent is to judge proposals by his personal animus for their authors instead of the merits of the proposals, which is not engaging in rational thought; instead he is attempting to engage in character assassination and guilt by association. That is not healthy decision-making.

  44. Gains

    MS @55:

    The difference here Mr. Seebeck, and this is where I detect you have difficulty in thought process, is this:

    You sir, are acting as a representative of others. You are in a position of trust, and the personal animus that is well illustrated in your posts is a violation of that trust.

    My personal animus is directed at what I perceive you are doing with spite and malice to California’s membership and to the party as a unit. I do not hold a position of trust that I might violate with running a personal agenda. You, on the other hand, are in a position shown one of the highest levels of trust. I think you are violating it with an extreme disdain for ethics. That, my flowbie headed friend, is fair game for examination.

    Someone’s past from a quarter century before who holds no representative nor fiduciary office? Not so much.

    Mr. Barnes does not hold a position of trust; yet everybody in Southern California that is active enough to occasionally leave their computer desk knows just how active he is in supporting others. Mr. Barnes’ agenda seems rooted in two things A) Productive work supporting party politicos and infrastructure in appropriate ways and B) Defending himself and his family from predators like you.

    So outside of defending the entire party from force and fraud as a motivation… you cannot find much nefariousness in my side, or Mr. Barnes’ side of this.

    The only question left is for membership to learn just how intricately and intimately you were involved in:

    – Putting inappropriate pressure on Mr. Barnes’ family, intimidating and harassing them with a mantle of Party authority in attempts to bully them away from testifying truth when Mr. Barnes’ character and actions were called into question.

    – Hounding Mr. Barnes at local meetings, disrupting them with prejudice, attempting to threaten members and bullying officers to enforce your will.

    – Creating a fraudulent air of emergency and danger around Mr. Barnes. The same sort of fraudulent air that is used often to inflame people to violence.

    – Planting false evidence and setting up situations in order to put the party in jeopardy to further your aims.

    – Coordinating with others slandering the party publicly to further the air of false danger.

    – Subverting the rules of convention to create a kangaroo court and distributing state documents exposing people as victims of child rape and then in the mantle of the Party’s legislative analyst falsely representing the contents of that document… Locking out the accused so that they were unable to defend themselves.

    – Extortion refused, played out in the end to this…

    You dodge the question of your personal influence on the by-laws committee Mr. Seebeck. You blame other by-laws committee members (men and women I happen to have a lot of respect for), but I am certain I know who influenced their decisions with fraud and I am guessing from past experience that it happened with (at least) tacit threats as well in some cases.

    I make these accusations with the mantle of public anonymity to protect the party. I will not make fodder for the press. I have no intention of being secret Mr. Seebeck and I stand by my allegations. When asked by membership, for their elucidation, I have not, nor will I have any problem standing by my words.

    On the other hand, Mr. Seebeck, you seem determined to continue your vindictive and manipulative behavior for the good of no-one. You use the party as a tool. I think you are probably one of the least ethical, slimiest people I have ever met, and I’ve seen a fair number of slimy people.

  45. Sebastian Knowlton

    To those who are unaware, who is probably nobody at this point, IPR user name “Gains” is Matthew Barnes, the convicted, multiple offense child molester in question whom even admitted to his his police ordered psychiatrist that he wasn’t rehabilitated, and years later lied to the party about what really happened, thus further demonstrating that he’s probably still into fucking kids. You can look him up via public record, or for the rough version you can check out his offenses of “lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14 years of age” on the Megan’s Law website.

    Fuck you, you fat disgusting piece of shit, and all the fucked up kids in San Bernardino whom you’ve brainwashed into worshiping you and thus gotten involved in the party. People like you are the reason why the LP hasn’t gotten anywhere, and even bringing to people’s attention that you fucked an 11-year-old boy scout whom you were in charge of pleases you because you’re a sick fucking sociopath that gets off on attention, who also has no right to accuse anyone of betraying the trust of others (just ask the boy scouts) or to accuse anyone else of being slimy. Nobody of consequence cares for the opinion of those who are sexually attracted to children. Fuck right off and hide in a hole somewhere, one that’s large enough to cover your disgusting, jabba-the-hut like appearance anyway.

  46. Jose C.

    As for bypassing the “will of the membership” and “politicing [sic] with delegation slots”, no such thing is occurring or has occurred. No member wishing to be a national convention delegate has been denied that opportunity since at least 2008 (I can’t speak to before that), and in fact the will of the membership has passed the Bylaws and Rules as they stand to codify the procedure used to fill out the delegation. They’ve even regularly suspended the Rules to make the delegate selections by acclamation at convention instead of vote!

    That might not have occurred since 2008 but it has occurred in the past. One year at the national convention Starchild was denied a spot as a delegate in the California delegation because not enough delegates of the California delegation voted to have him seated. The only reason Starchild was seated as a delegate was because the Nevada delegation was nice enough to vote for him to be seated as delegate for Nevada.

    Dues sharing as it applies.

    In short form, the state leadership wants to know they’re active and who their contact points are, that they’re supporting the Party’s candidates, and how to share dues as the Party grows.

    This has been an issue in the past. I call it the “float.” Counties have received their portion of the membership dues late. A member sends in their membership renewal with payment of the dues to the state party. Months go by before the state Party send to the county of that member the counties portion of the dues. This became such an issue I and others started sending our membership renewal with payment to the county which then send to the state Party their portion of the dues. I can see the state Party waiting one month to collect all the dues for that month before sending payments to the counties but to wait longer than that is wrong.

    No such promises have been made by Executive Committee candidates at the elections I have been at. The Bylaws Committee is selected by the Executive Committee, and is open to any State Central Committee who wants to be on it, provided the Executive Committee selects them. What Mr. Barnes considers IHOO to be “factional maneuvering” is in fact an ongoing process to take the mess that was the Bylaws in 2007 and make them into the formal and cohesive set of ruling documents that they are intended to be, with the intent to have the Party operations and structure be operated smoothly such that the real focus can be on growth. In fact, most of the proposed Bylaws changes in the past few years have been to clean up language, remove loopholes, and address issues both technical and individual that have come forward in between conventions. The perpetual complaints about it come from those that do not understand how organizational structure works, project their fear of misuse of power by individuals onto the tool of power to be used in the first place, have their own agendas not in line with optimal Party operations, or are simply on the outside looking in, either from lack of involvement or personal choices that have put them into that position.

    I am not sure about this. I was in the Bylaws Committee many, many years ago. It was in the 90’s. We came up with only seven proposals. A good question to ask at the Party convention is, “What is the reason you have 20 Bylaws proposals? What are you trying to accomplish? What is wrong with the current Bylaws that we need twenty changes? Twenty seems like a lot of proposals.”

    As for the statements on the Style Committee, they are relatively correct, except for the insinuations about agendas, which are false and more of Mr. Barnes’s unfounded projections onto others.

    Actually this has been an issue in the past. One year the Party Chair announced that before we could began the Bylaws Committee report we had to vote on some stylistic changes to the Platform and Bylaws. The question then became why are we (the delegates) dealing with this? This is the responsibility of the Style Committee and the Executive Committee. The Style Committee looks over the Platform and Bylaws, looks for stylistic errors, does a report which they give to the Executive Committee which then votes to accept the report. If they have any disagreement(s) with any of the items in the Style Committee report they vote not to take action on those items. The Chair had no answer as to why the Style Committee and Executive Committee did not take care of this. They just did not do their jobs. The delegates than voted to make the stylistic changes.

    As for “dissensions within the committee,” there is no requirement for a minority report, nor has there ever been one, and should Bylaws Committee members have a differing opinion from the report, they have every right as delegates to voice that from the floor during debate and votes. The analysis that Mr. Barnes complains does not happen does in fact happen, ask any Bylaws Committee member, but he was not privileged to it this time around.

    There might not have been any minority reports since you have been involved in the Party but their have been minority reports in the past. Usually the Chair of the Bylaws Committee decided whether there was to be a minority report. It just depended on who was Chair of the Bylaws Committee. Every so often the delegates would vote (if the Chair decided not to allow a minority report) whether there was to be a minority report.

    And there is another issue concerning the Bylaws Committee. A few years ago (I forget which year it was but it was not that long ago) the Bylaws Committee at the convention had their meeting at night. The Platform Committee and Bylaw’s Committee when meeting at the state Party convention are supposed to be open to any member. In other words any Party member in good standing has the right to attend a meeting. Usually meetings by the Platform and Bylaws Committee’s are held between 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. For some reason that year the Bylaws Committee decided to meet at 8:00 PM or 9:00 PM (I forget which). There were complaints about this. Why did you decide to meet at night? The Bylaws Committee did not have a satisfactory answer. That is just the way things went.

    What Jose said @11. Charging delegates who are already spending their time and money to come and help do the business of the party floor fees is outrageous and unacceptable. I will continue to oppose this, and not vote for those who support it, until it goes away.

    I obviously agree with this. When the floor fee which was $25 was first instituted we were told it was put in place to pay for some of the materials (copies of Bylaws, Platform, Bylaws Committee report, etc.) used during the business sessions. A couple of years later we were told the floor fee existed because the state Party had lost money running conventions. The fee would reduce the risk the conventions were unprofitable. We were also told those who did not stay at the convention hotel or attended any luncheons, dinners, hear speakers, etc., were free loaders. They were being subsidized by those that did attend the luncheons, dinners, stay at the convention hotel, etc. I disagree with this. I once went to a business seminar to hear speakers such as Jerry Lewis and Donald Trump who have acheaved success in business, politics, and entertainment, speak about how to have business and personal success. The seminar was in Los Angeles. Those of who lived in Los Angeles and attended the event were we free loaders? Should we have stayed at a hotel in Los Angels even though we live here because those attending from out of town had to stay at a hotel?

    And what about this years convention? Should those that live near Lake Taho stay at the convention hotel because if they do not they are considered free loaders? It does not make sense.

    This year I was told we needed the floor fee because we need it for fundraising. In other words we are using the floor fee as a fundraising vehicle. Our fundraising is so poor we need to charge the delegates $120 to attend and do the Party’s business?

    I am against the floor fee on moral grounds. I believe Starchild is also against the floor fee on moral grounds. It is not about the money though I do believe it reduces the attendance to the Party convention because there are some who cannot afford to attend a Party convention. It is to costly! $120 + $200 (rent assuming a two night stay), + $150 (travel expenses = gas, airfare, etc.), + $150 (food) . . . Total $620. That is expensive! I think it is wrong to have a floor fee, we did not have one from 1973 though 2006, and I will work to get rid of it.

  47. Rational Discourse

    It seems someone doesn’t want the by-laws report examined too closely.

    I invite you to consider your rival getting a majority on the ExCom and them being able to refuse memberships renewals at will… No investigation for truth, no statement of cause and no chance of judicial review.

    A few years ago an ExCom member, long time guy, rival of a majority faction at the time, pointed out at a meeting that a planned course of action was likely to get the Party sued and was a bad idea. His job as a representative right?

    His rivals then prosecuted him out of the party claiming that he had threatened the party with a law suit. Completely untrue yet somehow the secretary had transcribed what he said to fit the prosecution agenda, and the witch hunt was on.

    If it were not for a recorded copy of the meeting another ExCom member had for his own records, he would have been hung. Under the proposed changes he would have been out, and unable to appeal to anyone simply by edict and refusing his membership.

    If the body wants an ExCom that is spending its time on factional maneuvering then the changes are exactly what you want. They represent a formula for turning the party into a charnel house.

    If anything we should probably pull back authority more to the counties and concentrate the State Party more on State races and less on blowing up each other; put them in the role more of networking the counties instead of quashing any and every success lest their incapacitates have contrast.

  48. The pains in gains fall mainly in the drains

    JC @60: “This has been an issue in the past. I call it the “float.” Counties have received their portion of the membership dues late.”

    This problem had such magnitude, that the by-laws were changed to allow county treasurers to collect dues and then send the states share to them.

    “A few years ago (I forget which year it was but it was not that long ago) the Bylaws Committee at the convention had their meeting at night.”

    Mission Bay 2008 the last of the mega reports. 26 proposals if I remember and chock full of evil. They did a lot to try and not have an open meeting before the convention. It was such a circus that one ExCom member ran on a “sane by-laws” ticket and he got the seat with 80% of the delegation voting for him on the issue.

    “What is the reason you have 20 Bylaws proposals? What are you trying to accomplish? What is wrong with the current Bylaws that we need twenty changes? Twenty seems like a lot of proposals.”

    You will respect muy authoritay!

    “That might not have occurred since 2008 but it has occurred in the past. One year at the national convention Starchild was denied a spot as a delegate in the California delegation because not enough delegates of the California delegation voted to have him seated.”

    Some on the California ExCom were incessed at the news. Others thought it was funny.

  49. Jose C

    Rational Discourse @61 It looks like it will be a very interesting convention. There will be alot of fireworks. I accept this as it is. I will be there and I am ready, let’s roll!

    PS. Vote against Bylaws proposal 9 National Convention Delegates. It is very dangerous and harmful. We have to defeat this. It is basic parliamentary procedure that a delegate of an organization at a convention / meeting has the right to place in nomination someone other than themselves for a position of authority of the organization.

    PSS. I hope the Bylaws Committee meets on Friday to go over the Bylaws Committee proposals. It seems the Bylaws Committee has completed their job. If so when did or do members in good standing have a chance to attend the meeting(s) of the Bylaws Committee? They (we) have a right to attend those meetings.

  50. Alan Pyeatt

    I agree with Jose that the National Convention Delegates proposal should be defeated. First, it appears that NC delegates have to nominate themselves before the State Convention, but the language isn’t clear. Second, if nominations are not allowed at the SC, then there should be some provisions for reminding members in time to nominate themselves prior to the SC, and that’s not in it. Third, there is no mention of when the nomination period will open.

    It seems to me that this will result in even more open delegate spots than we have had in the past. And then, the ExComm decides who will be a delegate. IMO, it’s much better for the SC to choose NC delegates than the ExecComm.

  51. Gains

    I have to wonder, will the By-Laws Committee even have quorum at the convention? One member I know, is literally scared of what may happen if they show up and oppose the report. They have seen maneuvering around the issues in it that include sending police to people’s doors, and the natural projection is: When am I next?

    With the onus of his participation in and direction of potentially actionable and maybe illegal activity, there is word that Mr. Seebeck will be staying off the floor so that the hard questions that all members should be asking, can be avoided and denied.

    It sound like a healthy thing for the party in the end. Perhaps without his hovering dictation, we will see whom on the committee is also on board with the Unrestrained Purge proposals as they may then be free to act on their consciences.

    Perhaps we will better use the time at convention to pull a few well considered proposals off of the floor, and ditch the report altogether. A convention that ends business a little early in favor of good quality time for delegates to do networking and to check out the vendor area is never a bad idea.

    BTW rumor has it that the vendor area will actually have vendors this year!?! Anything over two vendors is a record breaking convention lately. It feels like, somewhere, there is a very healthy and active core of members working hard for success. If the ugliness that has plagued us for so long can be put away, we can GROW our party and we can WIN elections.

  52. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Gains, you’re making very serious accusations that, if untrue, amount to slander. Most of us know who you are. Why are you dragging all this stuff up so close to the convention? I think you’re starting a boxing match that might not be happening at all, if you weren’t drumming things up. There are plenty of things For the CA Ex Com to talk about besides you–really. Your situation was settled last year. Get over it, relax, we might actually get something done, and we might all have a good time.

  53. Ayn R. Key

    Am looking at the CA LP website, looking for the bylaws proposal. Does anyone have a link to that particular part of the website.

    Gods I hate the redesign.

  54. Gains

    JP @67:

    Ms. Pyeatt, have you read the by-laws report? It was what the conversation was about. If you look above, there is a criticism of the by laws report and a conversation that follows about the report. No personalities involved. @38-44

    Then you find at @45 the introduction of personality as argument.

    The thesis, running is that this report is the continuation of a pattern of harassment. Questions are begged, now, because it appears things are not settled.

    Who here is in a position of trust?

    The anonymous guy?

    The party officer posting under his title engaging in nefarious rhetoric, belying his motivation and target?

    The nice thing is Jill, I think that it would be far healthier if the leadership in the party were concentrating on the core goals of the organization. None of which is manipulating the organization through by-laws or continuing a personal vendetta using a position of trust to do so.

    This report has got to be the most monumental tasks to come out of the state party other than the convention itself. Twenty something proposals represents an enormous amount of man hours. Writing, referncing, checking cascading effects, discussing, changing etc… I dare say that to generate a report of that magnitude is resource allocation larger than most libertarian campaigns ever see.

    All of that work, the sum of the concentration of the hardest workers (apparently) in the state party and the meat of it all is a recipe for “How to Purge”.

    What in the world does that have to do with electing candidates and advancing libertarian ideals in society?

  55. Gains (Again)

    Just so everyone knows I am a child molester, I love to molest kids, and I’d be glad to provide a body cavity search for anyone’s kid…for a price.

    As a libertine freedom-loving pedophile, ain’t the free market great?

  56. The pains in gains fall mainly in the drains

    You see Jill, the introduction of ad-hominem was a targeted attempt to derail the conversation. Someone does not want the by-laws report looked at very closely nor question the motivations behind it.

Leave a Reply

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