Posted by LNC At Large Rep Starchild on the Grassroots Libertarian and other yahoo groups/email lists:
Attached are the [draft] minutes of the post-convention Libertarian National Committee meeting and subsequent LNC Executive Committee phone conference, as posted by LNC Secretary Ruth Bennett to the LNC-discuss list (unfortunately closed to non-LNC members at present). Please feel free to forward and distribute so that LP members can be more informed about the actions of elected and appointed party leaders, and I look forward to seeing the comments on IPR and elsewhere.
SOME THOUGHTS/CLARIFICATIONS ON THE 5/6/12 LNC MEETING
• I voted “no” on the motion to negotiate a contract with the Johnson campaign because I agreed with LNC regional representative Rich Tomasso that the full LNC should at least *see* the contract *before* it is approved, and have the opportunity to give input. This was unfortunately *not* part of the motion that was passed. I frankly question the need for the LNC to have an Executive Committee at all. The whole LNC could hold votes by email within a short time frame when rapid turn-around is needed. The argument that having a committee (the LNC) negotiating with the Johnson campaign would have been too many cooks spoiling the soup also applies (albeit to a lesser degree) to the 7-member Executive Committee. I would rather leave negotiations with the Johnson/Gray campaign(s) solely to the Chair, and have him report back to the entire LNC.
• Excellent call by Bill Redpath in asking newly chosen VP candidate Jim Gray to have the campaign include the word “libertarian” in its materials and thereby securing Gray’s promise to do so.
• Since I was not sure how I felt about the proposed new membership level structure, delaying its implementation seemed desirable, thus I voted along with the rest of the LNC to do so. Input from LP members (or anyone else dedicated to the cause of freedom) on this or any other points of LNC business is most welcome.
• Despite the supposed triumph of the radical faction at the May 2-6 Las Vegas convention, the mere 4 votes I received (including my own) to sit on the APRC (Advertising and Publication Review Committee), as opposed to 15, 16, of 17 votes received by each of the other five nominees for that committee, shows that the new LNC is perhaps not as different from the old LNC as some may be dangerously assuming. We’ve still got a long way to go before we’re out of the woods, imho. I’m guessing that those who voted for me, and thus along with myself are likely the most reform-minded LNC members were Lee Wrights, J. J. Myers, and Arvin Vorha, but if anyone cares to share knowledge to the contrary, I am open to being shown to be mistaken on that. Naturally my hope is that more discussion and working together will eventually bring more LNC members around to views that are more radical, bottom-up, and in sync with the Five Key Values of the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus which were my campaign platform (see www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/grassrootslibertarians — anyone who agrees with the 5KV is welcome to join the caucus and be added to our 79-member email list).
• On Bill Redpath’s affirmation that it was necessary, I reluctantly went along with the LNC going into a secret meeting — not that my sole nay vote would have stopped this from happening in any case. And I admit that as it turned out, I can see how the secrecy did seem to have been justified in this instance. However, I think the topic of the secret meeting should at a minimum have been described much more specifically than it was. This could have been done without giving away any of the specifics whose revelation could potentially cause problems for the party. I propose that in the future, the LNC immediately upon emerging from a secret meeting, issue a statement describing the content of the meeting as specifically as possible without jeopardizing material legitimately being kept secret, and also that there be a sunset clause limiting the duration of time for which any official secrets are kept. This of course suggests that minutes of secret sessions should be kept, and I favor that as well. In truth I am not fully convinced that the harm of revealing all such secrets outweighs the harm of having a culture in which the LNC holds proceedings kept secret from members. In this case, not bringing the issue to the LNC in the first place might have been the best option, since there was really nothing we could do about the issue anyway. Those who may feel I am being excessively “obstructionist”, failing to “pick my battles”, etc. in my new role as LNC At-Large representative, please note that I am *already* making an important compromise by seeking to find a reasonable middle ground between abolishing the culture of secrecy altogether (as my gut tells me ought to be done), and going along with the views of the LNC majority who appear to believe that secrecy is often necessary (despite the apparent resistance to naming the secrecy for what it is, rather than cloaking it in the “executive session” euphemism).
• I voted no on the appointment of Bill Redpath to be Assistant Treasurer for several reasons:
(1) This post and all other positions appointed by the LNC should be open to non-LNC members
(2) Since the post was only created by a change to the bylaws made during the convention, people should have been allowed at least a few days to spread word about the vacancy and submit nominations before a selection was made (preferably the Assistant Treasurer should be elected by delegates, not appointed).(3) I would have preferred Joe Buchman, who ran for Treasurer, to be the Assistant Treasurer. The LNC could use more fresh blood. Redpath has been part of the insider group for a long time, and while I appreciate his hard work on ballot access and dedication to our cause, I also think he has tended to vote too often with what I have lately been calling (for want of a better term) the “top-down faction” (Starr, Root, Mattson, etc.) Lest this comment be misinterpreted, I want to stress that I bear no personal hostility toward any of these named individuals, and neither intend nor consider my comments to be uncivil or inappropriate. I simply feel that their priorities for the LP tend to be wrong for the cause of freedom, and thus I oppose their agenda and respectfully feel that our party/movement would be better off if they were not in the party’s leadership (assuming better replacements, of course). I also strongly feel that such political disagreements *should* be out in the open and stated honestly and forthrightly, so that LP members can get an accurate sense of where their elected representatives stand on the important issues and controversies in our party and movement. I understand if some people oppose me politically for this. I hope they do not hold it against me personally as I attempt to follow my conscience.
• Ruth Bennett’s minutes seem pretty good — somewhat more detailed than the minutes we’ve been getting on the California LP’s Executive Committee. I do think there is some room for improvement in capturing additional detail — my take on minutes, which is not shared by everyone, is that their purpose ought to be to present a full and accurate picture of meetings, not just what official actions were taken, so that anyone not present (or anyone with an imperfect memory who was present) can look back and get a sense of what really took place, including the discussion that produced the actions. Of course I also realize that Ruth like all of us is human and it is tough to get everything written down accurately and completely, thus the need for LNC proceedings to be videotaped. I thank non-LNC member Joe Dehn for voluntarily being there and providing that important service, and hope his video will be made available for posterity on the party’s website, LP.org.
• New Libertarian Party chair Geoff Neale has invited me to submit ideas for revising the LNC policy manual, which I also hope to see posted on LP.org if it is not already there. Again I welcome any suggestions and ideas that folks in the libertarian movement may have on this topic, and will listen to your input. Feel free to write or call me any time, and/or post your thoughts publicly. Please let me know if you do *not* wish to have any specific input you send me made public. I do reserve the option of making public any input sent to me by other elected/appointed party leaders that is political (as opposed to personal), and invite you to follow the same policy with regard to anything I may send or tell you — elected leaders should be held to a high standard of transparency when it comes to their political comments and views. If you as an elected/appointed party leader want me to keep something you tell me which concerns the party/movement confidential, you would be well advised to secure my consent to keep your remarks private *before* you express them to me.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee(415) 625-FREE
9MAY2012teleconference.minutes.pdf
Another unofficial account of the May 6 LNC meeting is posted by Dr. Joe Buchman in the comments at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/lnc-elections-thread (see comments 298-321). Although the linked report is by LNC Secretary Ruth Bennett, it is also unofficial until the other LNC members have had a chance to examine and correct the record. There exists an official LNC recording of the meeting, but it is not available to non-LNC members. As far as I know there is no unofficial broadcast/recording of the meeting. Such unofficial recordings were allowed in the previous couple of terms under chairs Redpath and Hinkle; I’m not sure what the policy will be this term.
Video from the 6 May meeting now online: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2D9BDB0B220DB7C7
Feel free to fix if you think it is important.
LOL whuh?
Carol I asked on at least two other threads and no reply yet. What do you mean by Republican stuff? Most or maybe even all of those pics say nothing about party affiliation.
Good idea! The Sunshine Caucus needs to be revised. I started one with three other guys, two of whom are now anti-voting anarchists and the other has left the LP as well (and hates my guts for reasons he has not really told me). I’m the only one of the 4 that is still in the LP although some people that joined later are still here including Starchild — we should give it another go.
When it comes to transparency the party should lead by example!
We haven’t always had someone available to record each one and the quality has varied but generally been not that great.
May or may not be true anymore. I would like to find out for sure.
If JCY is correct it is actually available only to the secretary, but it would be cool if you ask and find out for sure.
Also, I would like to find out if the policy on taping/broadcasting meetings unofficially has changed in any way with the new chair. I did notice public comments were not taken. Those things may be at the chair’s discretion.
@Carol Moore – If you want to use some convention photos, just copy them off of the Libertarian Party’s website. It might technically be against Wikipedia’s rules, but is the Libertarian Party really going to be mad at you for getting them free publicity? People do it all the time.
IF this were a movie, Tom Hanks would play Gary Johnson. Gary Busey would play Wayne Root. Jodie Foster would play George Phillies. Sylvester Stallone would play Alicia Mattson.
The Nights Templar, who invented velcro, used it to hide the most secret list of all time. A list said to contain all future hooded key holders that would ever exist. The List was now in the open, but closed, and then partially open to those who knew the code.
I wonder what church would protest the opening.
Part 2
The Nights Templar, who invented the internet, use it in the past to contact the future to identify and hide, both at the same time, hooded cup holders on SUV’s from Michigan. Only one driver had the code knowledge to set the whole world free from the largest scam of all time. Who is the driver?
Go to commercial. I love this site. No matter how crazy my own life becomes day to day, something always makes me laugh. I get some good material to use too. Cheers. Mid day.
aha…sweet…
… and the August 2001 meeting (which was when this happened) was in Las Vegas.
August 2011 LNC meeting was in Columbus, Ohio . December 2011 LNC meeting was in Las Vegas. July 2010 LNC meeting was in Las Vegas.
Also, for the record: Bill Bradford didn’t hide his recorder. He left it sitting right on top of his chair.
That chair happened to be next to mine, and a few minutes into the session I happened to look over and notice that the bright red “record” LED was on.
My recollection — it’s been 11 years, so I could be wrong — is that the chair and one other officer walked back to look at the recorder and verify that it was in fact recording before touching it.
If he’d hidden the recorder in any way, it wouldn’t have been found. Nobody was pawing through anyone’s stuff.
MHW@30,
Yes, it was Bill Bradford. It occurred at the August, 2011 LNC meeting in Las Vegas, during an executive session relating to “the Willis Affair.” I’m the one who found the recorder.
I suppose executive session confidentiality is supposed to be eternal, but I did tell Bill before he died that I was the one who foiled his plot. We had a good laugh over it.
Last call: Still no good Gary Johnson, Judge Gray, LP Convention 2012 shots for Wikipedia.
All that is up now is REPUBLICAN stuff
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Gary+Johnson&title=Special%3ASearch
It easy to register at http://commons.wikimedia.org and upload; you do lose $ rights to photos but not bragging rights. Do it for the cause.
If you don’t want the hassle and just want me to do it, send me the best shots and I will attribute to you as long as you include email giving me explicit permission to upload to Wikimedia. You retain the bragging rights.
Joe @ 27 was that Bill Bradford of Liberty magazine?
We should raise some funds for a decent web cam and conference table microphone so we can have quality audio of the LNC meetings.
After last night, the pounding in my head indicates I need to get something out. All of this talk about conspiracy and gatekeepers is so Ventura.
What is the utility of a story like that?
I assume you fine people would turn in your decoder ring and cape. Just move on.
Time for another round of tylenol and sprite.
No, it’s not just a myth. I was on the LNC when it happened. The recorder was discovered running during the executive session, and returned to the person who had left it minus the storage component (tape or whatever) when he returned at the end of the executive session.
so it could be just an urban myth. . .
Seems to me the open sessions of the LNCs have been streamed in the past. Anyone watching that could have recorded that. Also seems there’s no prohibition against recording those open sessions by anyone on the LNC or in the audience — AND there IS an absolute prohibition on recording anything during executive (secret) sessions — which I have been told has been attempted (apparently by a member of the observers leaving a recorder going under a chair leg) . . . At least I remember being told a story like that, while in the hallway during the December Vegas LNC executive session. But I don’t remember who told me . . .
Starchild @22, if memory serves, the recording exists solely for the purpose of allowing the Secretary to check her minutes against the official record if she is unsure about something or if there is any challenge to the minutes. Accordingly, Ruth Bennett would be the sole custodian of the recording. I’m unaware of an instance when anyone other than the Secretary has been able to listen to the recording, even other Executive Committee members.
I did a piece about the give and get thing;
http://www.ericsundwall.com/2008/08/give_or_get_lost/
From Paulie’s original posting: “There exists an official LNC recording of the meeting, but it is not available to non-LNC members…”
I don’t know if/how this recording is available to me as an LNC member, either, or who has custody of it. If anyone else knows the answers to those questions, please do post so that this info will be more common knowledge.
Thanks to Joe, Jeremy, John Jay, and Paulie for your kind words (and Paulie for posting for public scrutiny the draft minutes of the LNC meeting and LNC ExCom teleconference along with my comments on the former).
To Jeremy – My comment did probably come off as more egotistical than intended. I don’t wish to give the impression that I think the LNC should be measured primarily by whether or not I’m voted onto some committee, as I realize it’s much more complicated than that. As my subsequent response to Lee above hopefully indicates, I had in mind the entire proceedings of the first post-convention LNC meeting and not just that single vote.
To Steven – Thanks, but I think I will defer to Ron Paul when it comes to questioning “helicopter” Ben Bernanke about the Federal Reserve. Nevertheless, your “Bernie and the Fed” phrase does give me an idea for a parody of a classic Elton John song… 🙂
Paulie @1 – There was a small typo in my original post as quoted above — “as opposed to 15, 16, of 17 votes received…” should have read “as opposed to 15, 16, OR 17 votes received…”
My response to the quote from my friend and LNC colleague Lee Wrights:
You make a valid point here. Nevertheless I do see the results of that vote, along with the rest of the proceedings at the new LNC’s first meeting, as a sobering measure of how things (still) currently stand.
I always encourage all LNC members to make their rationales for how they voted on these or any other questions public. In some cases hearing these rationales may cause me to reconsider my own positions or assumptions.
@9,
You mean hooded key holder of the inner circle. And you are correct, it was proposed by him.
The give/get was an official program for the 2006-2008 term. It was actually a very good idea and it raised a lot of money. It was an unofficial program for the 2008-2010 term and was a disaster.
It was not even proposed for the 2010-2012 term.
Not caught up yet, just a quick post here to make sure you had the facts correct on the give/get program. (Which I still say was actually a good idea)
Saloot
House Red and plenty of it!
Bartender…I’ll have what #15 is having..but not quite so much of it 🙂
I would pay money to watch Starchild audit Bernie and the Fed. He would have to shave the beard, but drag Fed is possible with Bernie.
“Hey, that sandwich is hot!”
“Yeah, but the plate is cold”
Other People’s Food. End the Fed!!
Starchild is awesome!
Starchild is a great addition to the LNC, he thinks outside the box, and is very concerned with the direction of the party.
He represents a core set of members of the party, that needed representing.
He is intelligent and fun. Some of his ideas might be a little too much for practicality and at times out of the jursidiction of the LNC itself.
But it’s nice to have someone offer up prospectives that are probably not even considered.
It’s also nice to see him taking on the role of “watch dog” which should help to keep the top downers in check.
It sounded like the LNC was after Johnson contacts in near-real time – once every other week was discussed – not just after the campaign, and they made it sound like Johnson was likely to be amenable.
May have been wishful thinking tho, I’m not sure to what extent if any it had been discussed with the campaign.
Re: campaign contract. I hope the negotiators remember to include a provision that the Johnson/Gray campaign turn over their donor/supporter list to the LP within X* days of the campaign’s end. {In fact, this should be a qualification for accepting the Party’s nomination.} In 1988, there was a long (and contentious) delay in getting the Paul campaign’s lists – at a time when
LP membership and finances were in the crapper. Once they were secured (after Paul had mined the list several times for donations), the LP got the list and a successful membership drive ensued.
* I suggest the contract read “by December 1, 2012” which gives the campaign time for at least one shot to get donations for any existing debts.
State and local parties should, of course, be accumulating new names as the campaign progresses in their area.
When referring to the longest thread in IPR history, with currently well over 800 comments and possibly more to come, it may be useful to mention comment numbers. I imagine it would take most people hours to read the whole thing from start to finish, assuming anyone would want to.
Give or Get was implemented for some time, even if there was no vote to authorize it. Not sure what year(s) but I think circa 2008?
@7 That was something proposed by an inner hooded keyholder (see LNC election thread), and not an LNC vote.
Readers may note that 4/7 is taken to be a 2/3 vote, a fine example of new maths (plural, as the chair has his national background) in action.
It was called “give or get” but I haven’t heard of it in years, so I’m guessing that was discontinued.
I saw a rumor that Ruherford/Starr supporters voted for Starchild – anyone have info on this?
Starchild is awesome. I’m not a member of any political party at present, but I’d be proud to have him serve on the national committee of any party of which I was a member.
That said, I do think Lee Wrights’ point is well-taken — Starchild shouldn’t assume that votes taken on his role reflect the ideological composition of the LNC. That’s a bit egotistical, though I know that’s not where Starchild is coming from. I think Starchild assumes that the radicals vote in lockstep in the way the Starr Chamber is alleged to have done; I think the radicals are instead a lot more individualistic and vote in different ways for all sorts of reasons. That said, I would certainly have voted for Starchild for any position that came available were I on the LNC.
The Party needs to double in membership before the next convention. If not the delegates need to elect NEW members who can grow the Party. Stagnation and decline CANNOT be accepted any longer.
Vote Different – Vote Libertarian – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxO6i0khqhk&feature=player_embedded
*44% of Americans agree when asked if they consider themselves “fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian”.
*59% of Americans agree when asked if they consider themselves “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”
“Eighty percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and a majority think Obama is doing a bad job. This is scarcely surprising since 30 million Americans are without work or work part-time.” – Alexander Cockburn
PLEASE Help the LP now to gain Ballot Access in NY, IL, PA, NJ and 15 other states before Labor Day !https://www.lp.org/contribute
“Realistically, I understand that globalization has opened the door to multinational financial institutions dominating the average persons life. Nonetheless, I still say had Obama not been a scoundrel and liar, and gone ahead and prosecuted the Wall Street gangsters, I think that would have sent a message.” – Deran on Independent Political Report
Libertarians say Obama’s Afghanistan policy is a failure.
https://www.lp.org/contribute
Distribute Liberty @ A Discount- http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=814
PS — same as Lee above. I’d like my reply to Starchild posted on the other lists too.
Thanks!
Hey Starchild,
You wrote:
“I would have preferred Joe Buchman, who ran for Treasurer, to be the Assistant Treasurer. ”
And I gotta say THANKS. I would be interested in that position. I think Tim and I could work very well together. In essence, if not fully reflected in my actions, I supported his campaign (I just couldn’t let go of my “I don’t know what a Ronald Reagan Libertarian is any more than I know what a Abraham Lincoln Astronaut is” and “Liberty is not part of our past, she surely was not evident in the Reagan administration, she is calling to us from our future” lines in my speech for Treasurer.
That said, I support having the outgoing Treasurer in the role of assistant Treasurer whenever that is possible — at least for the first few months, even a year or so, of the new guy’s first months/year in office. I know if I had won, I would 100 percent have wanted Bill Redpath in that role.
As for publications . . . I can see the other side there too. You’re brand new on the committee, and it will take them awhile to note your keen mind, sharp attention to detail, and ability to express purist Libertarian Political Philosophy (one I define as that which arises easily, naturally, logically and self-evidently from the non-aggression and self-ownership paradigms) in a way that will truly attract the masses (call that “marketing” if you like).
I’d not judge too harshly on that vote either. As a fan of yours for a few years now (and THANKS again for your exceedingly valuable, detailed critique of my 2008 campaign for the US Congress website), I’m sure you’ll be given more responsibility along those lines more quickly than you may expect.
And, all that said — Your comment above just made my day!
Thanks again,
Joe
Comment from Lee Wrights on the above:
Starchild says:
“Despite the supposed triumph of the radical faction at the May 2-6 Las Vegas convention, the mere 4 votes I received (including my own) to sit on the APRC (Advertising and Publication Review Committee), as opposed to 15, 16, of 17 votes received by each of the other five nominees for that committee, shows that the new LNC is perhaps not as different from the old LNC as some may be dangerously assuming.”
I’m sorry, but this is unfair to the present LNC. Just because you did not receive as many votes as you think you should have at an abbreviated LNC meeting does not mean things are the same as always. To make such an assessment after only one vote that did not go your way, is like picking your peaches before they are fuzzed up good. The fruit you reap is hard and bitter.
I suggest we wait until we at least have one “full” meeting before we go judging our fellow committee members too harshly.
Lee Wrights, Vice Chairman Libertarian National Committee
PS- Someone please forward this response to the lists on which this post has been made. Thanks.