Geoff Neale on the “Situation” with Michael Cloud

The email below is being shared with others at the request of Geoff Neale, Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC).

Here is the relevant background:

As a condition for being a scheduled speaker at a national convention, all speakers are required to agree to not seek or accept any position being selected by delegates at convention.

The policy was adopted so as to not provide an advantage to any speaker and to prevent the existing leadership from using the convention as a venue for promoting themselves or their favored candidates.

Enforcing the policy is the responsibility of the Convention Oversight Committee, which is comprised of at least five LNC members selected by the LNC Chair and as many as two non-LNC members selected by the LNC Chair (with the consent of the rest of the COC).

The “situation” Mr. Neale refers to is Michael Cloud’s recent election as an at-large member of the Libertarian National Committee and his close association with the 2012 national convention planners.

In what was reminiscent of an orchestrated campaign for office, Mr. Cloud:

  • was given the most prominent speaking slots (i.e. keynote speaker, fundraiser at banquet, breakout session leader)
  • was heavily promoted in official LP communications (even helping to write those communications), and then
  • leveraged that exposure to the delegates to run for and win a position on the LNC.

During the voting for at-large members of the LNC at the national convention, I asked Michael Cloud why he was seeking a position on the LNC when it was clear that his doing so violated his agreement to not run for any internal party office.  He replied that he was never informed of such a policy.

On a personal note, I’ve always liked Michael Cloud and worked with him while I served on the board of the Libertarian Party of California.  We often agree on matters and share an appreciation for the need to raise money and run a professional operation.

****************************

From: lnc-discuss-bounces@hq.lp.org [mailto:lnc-discuss-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Neale
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:59 PM
To: lnc-discuss@lp.org
Subject: [Lnc-discuss] Speakers Agreement & the Policy Manual

I have been asked several times about a “situation”.  If you read the Policy Manual, it could, without further investigation, appear that Michael Cloud was elected to the LNC contrary to an established policy.  That policy is:

Article 2.09 Other Matters

7) Convention Speakers

No person shall be scheduled as a convention speaker unless that person has signed this statement:

“As a condition of my being scheduled to speak, I agree to neither seek nor accept nomination for any office to be selected by delegates at the upcoming Libertarian Party convention.”

This policy shall not apply to participation in a scheduled candidate debate. This policy shall not apply in the case where someone is exercising official duties (e.g.. such as when the Treasurer presents his official report).

The facts:

This policy was passed by the LNC in March of this year.

Michael Cloud’s agreement to speak at the convention was finalized in January of this year, and did not contain the above statement.

His agreement predates the above policy, and supersedes it (look up “ex post facto”).

While this policy was passed by the LNC, and five members of the COC were on the LNC, this information was NOT passed along in any COC meeting to the non-LNC members of the committee.

The non-LNC members of the COC were the ones who arranged and contracted with the speakers.

I would appreciate it if this message is forwarded to any of the public who would benefit.

 

Geoffrey Neale

Chair, Libertarian Party

184 thoughts on “Geoff Neale on the “Situation” with Michael Cloud

  1. Chuck Moulton

    I wrote a few comments about this in another thread which are relevant.

    Chuck Moulton wrote (LNC elections thread @509):

    I have nothing against Michael Cloud personally. This convention was my first time meeting him and he seemed like a nice, thoughtful guy. I was awed by both his strategy and his speaking ability (and I?ve been to a lot of toastmaster?s clubs). But?

    All of the convention speakers agreed not to seek LNC office, president, or VP. Michael Cloud made that agreement. Michael Cloud was the keynote speaker, he spoke at a fundraising workshop, and he spoke at the banquet. He then turned around and ran for LNC at-large. That was a clear violation of the agreement he signed.

    See the vote I summarized on page 3 of the e-mail ballots as ?No LNC, P, VP candidates as convention speakers 2/19/2012 ? 3/5/2012 (March 2012, p. 13)?:

    Motion: RESOLVED, that the following language be inserted in the Policy Manual:

    Section 2.09.7 OTHER MATTERS: Convention Speakers

    No person shall be scheduled as a convention speaker unless that person has signed this statement:

    ?As a condition of my being scheduled to speak, I agree to neither seek nor accept nomination for any office to be selected by delegates at the upcoming Libertarian Party convention.? This policy shall not apply to participation in a scheduled candidate debate. This policy shall not apply in the case where someone is exercising official duties (e.g. such as when the Treasurer presents his official report).

    Co-Sponsors: Rebecca Sink-Burris, Stewart Flood, Vicki Kirkland, Dianna Visek

    Start Date: 02/19/12

    End Date: 03/05/12

    Voting ?aye?: Eshelman, Flood, Knedler, Mattson, Root, Rutherford, Sink-Burris, Visek, Wolf

    Voting ?nay?: Blau, Craig, Karlan, Lark, Olsen, Redpath, Ruwart, Wiener

    The motion was adopted by a vote of 9-8.

    Chuck Moulton wrote (LNC elections thread @512):

    Wes Wagner wrote (@510):

    You raise a very interesting issue. Did you ask Mr Cloud about this privately before posting it to give him a chance to do the right thing?

    Nope. The LNC vote is public record. His convention win for LNC at-large is public record. Not sure what I need to fact check.

    Maybe the convention committee forgot to make speakers sign that? Maybe some consider ?at-large? to not be an ?office? (e.g., applies to LNC officers only)? Maybe the LNC voted to rescind this by mail ballot within the last week or at the pre-convention LNC meeting on May 2? I dunno.

    This situation was brought to my attention by a LNC member who was quite distressed by it. I won?t name him? he can speak up for himself if he wants.

    Chuck Moulton wrote (LNC elections thread @513):

    I should clarify that ?Michael Cloud made that agreement.? was an implicit assumption of mine because he was in fact a speaker. It?s possible that for some reason he was not made to sign the agreement.

    Chuck Moulton wrote (LNC elections thread @962):

    New development? LNC chair Geoff Neale sent out the following email, which he asked to be publicly distributed to all those concerned:

    I have been asked several times about a ?situation?. If you read the Policy Manual, it could, without further investigation, appear that Michael Cloud was elected to the LNC contrary to an established policy. That policy is:

    Article 2.09 Other Matters

    7) Convention Speakers

    No person shall be scheduled as a convention speaker unless that person has signed this statement:

    ?As a condition of my being scheduled to speak, I agree to neither seek nor accept nomination for any office to be selected by delegates at the upcoming Libertarian Party convention.?

    This policy shall not apply to participation in a scheduled candidate debate. This policy shall not apply in the case where someone is exercising official duties (e.g.. such as when the Treasurer presents his official report).

    The facts:

    This policy was passed by the LNC in March of this year.

    Michael Cloud?s agreement to speak at the convention was finalized in January of this year, and did not contain the above statement.

    His agreement predates the above policy, and supersedes it (look up ?ex post facto?).

    While this policy was passed by the LNC, and five members of the COC were on the LNC, this information was NOT passed along in any COC meeting to the non-LNC members of the committee.

    The non-LNC members of the COC were the ones who arranged and contracted with the speakers.

    I would appreciate it if this message is forwarded to any of the public who would benefit.

    Geoff Neale?s email is rubbish.

    Ex post facto applies to laws passed by government. Convention speakers should know that they may be uninvited from speaking at the whim of the LNC (though they should be compensated for expenses they accrued in detrimental reliance of a proper invitation to speak).

    The convention oversight committee picks the speakers for the convention, but the Libertarian National Committee can overrule their choices ? especially their choice of keynote speakers. This is well established. Very often speakers are invited before the LNC is notified, but that doesn?t deprive the LNC of the right to modify the list of convention speakers.

    It is also well established that speakers can change on much shorter notice. Certainly if speakers can be uninvited, then by the greater includes the lesser principle they can also be asked to speak under a slightly different arrangement.

    A recent situation is on point. Bob Barr was slated to be the keynote speaker for the 2008 convention. When he announced for president, a new keynote speaker was sought. (In his email to the LNC taking a leave of absence he did not withdraw as keynote speaker, though I doubt he objected when convention organizers made the decision to pull him in the interest of fairness.) Richard Viguerie and Michael Munger ended up being co-keynote speakers, which was announced to the LNC by the convention oversight committee less than 2 weeks before the convention (5/14/2008).

    Who voted on the motion being discussed is also on point. Eshelman, Flood, Knedler, Mattson, Root, Rutherford, Sink-Burris, Visek, and Wolf voted to prohibit those who were speakers from running for the LNC. Blau, Craig, Karlan, Lark, Olsen, Redpath, Ruwart, and Wiener opposed this. The idea that the Root faction intended to allow already selected speakers to seek LNC office but prohibit any new speakers from seeking LNC office doesn?t pass the smell test. That would mean giving a free pass to Michael Cloud (who they apparently opposed) but impose a burden on Wayne Root (who they wanted to be a convention speaker). Give me a break!!

    I?ll take Geoff Neale (and implicitly the convention organizers) at their word that this policy manual provision was not made clear to Michael Cloud (so he would not be at fault), but this is another in a long line of mistakes by the convention organizers.

  2. Chuck Moulton

    Within the past few hours Alicia Mattson (immediate past LNC secretary) sent me a very thorough email about this situation. She presents a timeline of the facts along with evidence that the entire convention committee (including the non-LNC members) made this policy well in advance of the LNC motion.

    I would give her an opportunity to post it herself, but since she doesn’t post on IPR much (ever?) I figure I’ll save the wait.

    From Alicia Mattson (emphasis hers):

    Chuck,

    I’ve read Geoff Neale’s email about questions surrounding Michael Cloud’s election to the LNC.

    Mr. Neale’s listing of facts is incomplete, and his claim that the non-LNC members of the Convention Oversight Committee (COC) were not told of the convention speaker policy is demonstrably false. Perhaps he is unaware of these details, but his wife Nancy Neale knows them.

    Before the LNC adopted this speaker policy, it was already a COC policy. The LNC motion in March merely elevated it to be a directive from the COC’s parent body, rather than just a policy the COC adopted for itself.

    The COC adopted this policy for this convention on a teleconference on 11/29/11. My notes from that teleconference say that “Without objection the committee agreed that we will ask any speaker to affirm they are not running for internal party office or for Pres/VP.”

    No speakers whatsoever were confirmed before the COC adopted this policy.

    The non-LNC members on the COC, Ruth Bennett and Nancy Neale, were added to the COC on 12/27/11 and 01/05/12, respectively.

    On 01/12/12, following my receipt of an offer from Dr. Jim Lark to speak at a breakout session at the convention on the topic of campus organizing, I inquired with the COC on a teleconference whether they desired for this policy to apply to Regional Representatives (selected by a subset of delegates) as well as to LNC positions elected by the entire convention, and the response was yes. On the basis of this discussion, Dr. Lark was not scheduled for a breakout session. According to my notes, Ruth Bennett, Nancy Neale, and Carla Howell were all participants in this call.

    On 01/19/12 the COC voted to approve Michael Cloud as the keynote speaker. Due to the discussion on the prior week’s teleconference, the non-LNC members of the COC clearly were told of this policy before Michael Cloud was approved by the COC.

    On a 02/02/12 COC teleconference we asked Ruth, Nancy, and Carla to tell the rest of us on the COC who else they were considering for speaker slots. Jim Gray was named as being on the “short list” of possibilities. I pointed out that he would need to affirm that he was not running for office, and Nancy’s reply was “Yes, I know that”. I can put that reply in quotation marks with confidence because I have an audio recording of that call, and I just played back that portion of it.

    On 02/16/12 Ruth Bennett sent to Wayne Root the email shown below:

    From:Ruth Bennett <[Ruth Bennett]>
    Date: February 16, 2012 7:30:26 PM EST
    To: [Wayne Root]
    Subject: Would you be interested in speaking at the National Convention?

    Dear Wayne,

    Your name has !)come up several times to be a speaker at the National Convention so I thought I would see if you are at all interested.

    The spot I had in mind (please realize that this is an informational request only, not a firm offer!), anyway, the spot I had in mind is the Saturday morning spot before the presidential nomination process starts.

    If you are interested, please let me know ASAP.

    Oh, the COC adopted a policy even before I came aboard that no one speaking may be seeking or will seek any office within the LP, either presidential/VP, LNC officer or At-large or Regional Rep and if drafted will not serve, so on and so forth. I just wanted to let you know before you put too much time or effort into your consideration that this is a condition that some members of the COC have insisted upon.

    I think it could be fun to have your energy and enthusiasm for Liberty just prior to the presidential nominations.

    Thanks,

    Ruth E. Bennett
    [phone number]

    03/05/12 – The LNC elevated the COC policy to become an LNC policy by adding Section 2.09.7 to the Policy Manual, which states:

    “No person shall be scheduled as a convention speaker unless that person has signed this statement:

    “As a condition of my being scheduled to speak, I agree to neither seek nor accept nomination for any office to be selected by delegates at the upcoming Libertarian Party convention.”

    This policy shall not apply to participation in a scheduled candidate debate. This policy shall not apply in the case where someone is exercising official duties (e.g. such as when the Treasurer presents his official report).”

    On 4/30/12, after Jim Gray announced that he was seeking our Vice-Presidential nomination, I inquired on the COC email list about his speaking slot. Carla Howell replied to say that it had already been arranged for Paul Jacob to replace Jim Gray in that speaking slot. Ruth Bennett also replied to affirm the same.

    Every indication the COC had from Ruth/Nancy/Carla was that this policy was being followed.

    Mind you, Michael Cloud was more involved in the convention planning than were most members of the COC. I complained to the LNC on more than one occasion that the convention planning was essentially hijacked away from the COC. The non-LNC members were running the show and telling the rest of us very little about what they were doing. The LNC didn’t even receive a COC report for our March meeting.

    But Michael Cloud helped Ruth with the convention budget and saw it before the COC members did. Michael Cloud has said that he gave Ruth the idea for the name of the TANSTAAFL package. Michael Cloud was involved in the selection of other speakers, including a rejection of an offer by Rupert Boneham to donate Survivor memorabilia and assist with fundraising at the banquet. Michael Cloud contacted the Awards Committee about how he thought they should do their job. Michael Cloud attempted to involve himself in menu planning for the convention banquet. He wrote some of the convention promotional material. He was heavily involved in many convention matters. But I do not know whether or not Michael Cloud knew about this policy, and it certainly wasn’t his job to know and enforce it.

    It was, however the responsiblity of his friends Ruth, Nancy, and Carla, who knew of this policy before the COC approved him as the keynote speaker. How reasonable is it to believe that those making the speaker arrangements, who enforced this rule for other speakers, would have somehow just forgotten to do so for their close friend, the person who was given the prime speaking slots, including the keynote address and the fundraising banquet?

    You have my permission to share this email publicly if you wish.

    -Alicia

  3. Chuck Moulton

    Buried in Alicia’s email is the revelation that Michael Cloud was a big floor fee supporter who came up with the name of the TANSTAAFL package for convention oversight committee chair Ruth Bennett.

    Ruth Bennett and Michael Cloud were both elected to the LNC.

    The majority of convention attendees who voted for the bylaws change prohibiting floor fees (failed because it didn’t get 2/3) are probably going to be in for a surprise in 2014 when the LNC pulls these shenanigans again.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I voted Roger Roots for secretary first ballot and NOTA for secretary second ballot. I didn’t like many of Alicia Mattson’s votes, though I thought her minutes and attention to detail were excellent. I didn’t like Ruth Bennett’s convention organizing including the floor fee and trashing my literature. Having seen Ruth Bennett’s first draft minutes and knowing the full composition of the LNC, I regret not voting Alicia Mattson for secretary (her votes wouldn’t’ve been as critical in the minority and we would have better minutes for this term if she had been elected).

  4. George Phillies

    Of course, if the teal secret masters can arrange for something like this to happen, and then spring the complaint post facto, there is an interesting opportunity for them to remove an LNC member who was eminently electable but perhaps should not have been elected, and replace them with a subservient member of your faction who did not come vaguely close to being elected to the LNC.

    I am presuming I believe correctly that if Mr Cloud had actually made such an agreement that he would have honored it.

    There was an opportunity on the convention at the time for someone who was aware of the policy, such as a member of the CoC or the LNC, to have raised such a matter in a personally neutral way, for example without naming the person by asking the chair as a point of order if it was consistent with the Statement of Principles for a person who had made this agreement to accept nomination. That point was not made.

  5. Chuck Moulton

    George Phillies wrote (@4):

    there is an interesting opportunity for them to remove an LNC member who was eminently electable but perhaps should not have been elected

    George Phillies wrote (@4):

    There was an opportunity on the convention at the time for someone who was aware of the policy, such as a member of the CoC or the LNC, to have raised such a matter

    I agree that removing Michael Cloud from the LNC is not an appropriate remedy.

    I don’t know that there is anything that can be done after the fact apart from shining the light of day on these actions and fixing convention procedures so it doesn’t happen again.

  6. paulie

    I agree that removing Michael Cloud from the LNC is not an appropriate remedy.

    I’m not sure everyone agrees about that. If Aaron and Alicia are bringing it up, does that mean that their allies are planning a removal for cause? If so, are they technically correct? And does that mean they must also have counted noses and determined that they still have a majority on the LNC if it comes to replacing a vacancy? If we go by next in line in terms of votes for At Large that would be Pojunis, although that practice was not followed last term. Presumably his region would replace him with someone more along his lines in factional terms if he moves to At Large. Alternatively, they may fill the position with someone else – Aaron or Alicia, or someone else?

    An alternative explanation is that they could be planning to keep Cloud on the LNC but have something to “hold” over him to either limit his influence or to influence his voting in some ways?

    I don’t know that there is anything that can be done after the fact apart from shining the light of day on these actions and fixing convention procedures so it doesn’t happen again.

    That is another interesting question. In which direction will they be fixed? Will it be, to get rid of the requirement that speakers not run for LNC, or to enforce it more thoroughly? And if the latter, who will it help and who will it hurt in factional terms?

  7. Steven Wilson

    With all of the experience (so called) for rules and order and mayhem, how in the world can people complain about the abuse of power when they just openly voted against abuse of power?

    Why would Cloud or Bennett be any different than Mattson or Root?

    Your innocence looks like stupid.

    The LP voter wouldn’t know integrity if it climbed on their back and chiseled the word freedom on their shoulder.

    Rules are set by the people. They are followed only when convenient to that particular end which serves them best.

  8. paulie

    Of course, if the teal secret masters can arrange for something like this to happen, and then spring the complaint post facto, there is an interesting opportunity for them to remove an LNC member who was eminently electable but perhaps should not have been elected, and replace them with a subservient member of your faction who did not come vaguely close to being elected to the LNC.

    I am presuming I believe correctly that if Mr Cloud had actually made such an agreement that he would have honored it.

    There was an opportunity on the convention at the time for someone who was aware of the policy, such as a member of the CoC or the LNC, to have raised such a matter in a personally neutral way, for example without naming the person by asking the chair as a point of order if it was consistent with the Statement of Principles for a person who had made this agreement to accept nomination. That point was not made.

    For anyone unaware of the history between Dr. Phillies and Mr. Cloud, presuming you have been following the Oregon mess, think of Wes Wagner making the above point if Richard Burke was on the LNC and the manner of his election were being questioned. I may be exaggerating, but not by much.

    Meanwhile, Aaron Starr was pushing to have Cloud’s close associate Carla Howell made Executive Director even before Wes Benedict preceded her in that office…..

  9. ATBAFT

    Don’t we have some kind of campaign that needs to be run? Or should we spend the next two years praising/bashing Mr. Cloud and his friends?

  10. paulie

    The majority of convention attendees who voted for the bylaws change prohibiting floor fees (failed because it didn’t get 2/3) are probably going to be in for a surprise in 2014 when the LNC pulls these shenanigans again.

    If we fail to plan for that we are planning to fail. I would say William Sparkman’s actions in this regard were completely legitimate but I know they are being severely questioned. I would also expect a move like that from IN/OH and friends – presuming some rule isn’t passed against it – especially since it is on their home turf in Columbus, or perhaps even more so if they lose that deal retroactively.

    I didn’t like many of Alicia Mattson’s votes, though I thought her minutes and attention to detail were excellent. I didn’t like Ruth Bennett’s convention organizing including the floor fee

    I had the same dilemma myself and felt really bad when I saw Alicia crying afterwards. I agree that her minutes were very good and very timely.

    However:

    her votes wouldn’t’ve been as critical in the minority

    I’m not sure she would be in the minority. There’s certainly been some changes on the LNC, but most of the regional reps are the same, some people were retained or changed positions but remained on the LNC (Root, Redpath, Lark), others may also line up with what was the governing coalition that were not on last time: Mack, Tomasso?
    Of course, that analysis assumes that Redpath and/or Lark are with that coalition; they may just be more apt to be with the majority in either case, which is perhaps part of why they keep surviving changeover of the LNC time after time.

    It depends on each given vote, but it seems the LNC may be fairly evenly split now and one vote one way or the other may make a difference in many cases.

  11. NewFederalist

    @9… right you are! I just re-registered Libertarian (from Republican so I could vote for Ron Paul and before that independent) but this is the kind of silliness that makes me wonder if that was really the right thing to do. I say make full disclosure and move on.

  12. Seebeck

    The delegates voted Cloud in for better or worse. The LNC Policy Manual is binding on the LNC only and not the delegates. Cloud violated the terms of his contract. The COC was incompetent. The resolution to the issue is a censure of the COC and Cloud and Cloud forfeits/returns his speaker fee and expenses paid to him.

  13. paulie

    If the COC is to blame, that might mean they are gunning for Bennett and perhaps Howell as part of that COC. Maybe even Neale, but that’s a stretch, since the Neale that was on the COC was Nancy, not Geoff.

    I’m making no statement about what I think the correct answer is – just guessing who may do what and why and fishing for more info.

    My own preferences are more in line with NF and ATBAFT on this.

  14. paulie

    Another possibility: could this really be an early stage of fighting over who is on the next convention committee? In other words is this more about 2014 than what may or may not happen this term?

  15. Michael H. Wilson

    This should have been brought up at the convention and that did not happen. The convention has adjourned.

    Now it is time to get to work and help the Johnson campaign.

  16. Mark Hilgenberg

    Let’s focus on building a better mouse trap. The more we accomplish, the more people will support us. Arguing about things only a handful of people care about only drives away those who want to be active, no matter how right you may be.

    We have some great grassroots people on the LNC, let’s work with them to promote change.

  17. Richard Winger

    In my opinion, it’s a bad idea to have a policy that certain kinds of people are ineligible to run for party positions. That is an infringement on the ability of the delegates to choose whomever they wish. If the delegates are the supreme power in the national Libertarian Party, they should not be hobbled.

  18. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Offhand, I don’t know whether Cloud should or should not be removed.

    What I do find noteworthy is that, in the LP universe, the parliamentary shenanigans and back-room maneuverings never stop.

    From convention to convention, state and national, and every moment in between, the musical chairs for party titles and positions never stop.

  19. Mark Hilgenberg

    @Rchard 19. Great point!

    It should not be up to a committee to decide who gets to run for office.

    I hope we get to a point where we have outreach oriented conventions where we will need speakers like Arvin and Starchild but I don’t want that to exclude them from running for the LNC.

  20. Nick Kruse

    From now until November, lets forget all this LNC crap and focus on what is important: getting Gary Johnson the most votes he can get.

  21. zapper

    @12 Seebeck got it correct.

    Michael Cloud is a properly elected member of the LNC now. He was legitimately elected at the convention and broke no rules in becoming an LNC member.

    If Cloud was informed a signed a pledge that promised not to be a candidate for LNC or Pres or VP at the convention in exchange for being a speaker, he has violated his speaking contract and the remedy would be in repaying some portion or all of his fees and expenses. Perhaps he will do so voluntarily or perhaps he will clarify what happened according to his recollection.

    If Cloud never signed such an agreement and was not informed of this rule, then there is no violation of any kind of his contract as a convention speaker. His position on the LNC is proper in either case.

    In the end, this is an insignificant issue for the LP as a whole. Live and learn and move on.

    Time to get back to the 2012 elections and planning for the future beyond 2012.

  22. John Jay Myers

    “Point of order Mr. Chair, according to our policy manual Michael Cloud should not be allowed to run for the At-Large due to the fact that he was a speaker at the convention” no such point of order was made. The body voted.

    It’s done, let’s move on. Or we could remove Michael Cloud and then the LNC vote outside the convention as to who should take his place, and vote for………..Michael Cloud.

    Sounds like a lot of work to accomplish nothing to me, and we have got a lot on our plate, and Michael is going to play a key role in helping us get higher percentages for Johnson.

  23. Ted Brown

    @19 I definitely agree with Richard Winger. The delegates should be able to choose any candidate they wish. The policy about convention speakers should be repealed. The LNC has a history of getting into these internal squabbles instead of dealing with legitimate party business. I certainly hope they work on building the party instead of trying to throw Michael Cloud off the LNC. But I suspect the latter will occur instead.

  24. paulie

    I hope we get to a point where we have outreach oriented conventions where we will need speakers like Arvin and Starchild but I don’t want that to exclude them from running for the LNC.

    So Wayne Root as a keynote speaker, banquet speaker etc if he is running for chair or president wouldn’t be a problem either, right?

  25. Mark Hilgenberg

    @Paulie 26 I leave that up to the delegation to decide. I would love for us so many quality speakers and potential LNC reps, that it becomes an issue.

  26. John Jay Myers

    I don’t have a problem with the policy. Unfortunately it wasn’t followed. There are good reasons to have a policy like that. Honestly if 5 people were to speak in front of the entire convention, those 5 would end up on the LNC. That doesn’t seem right. The only difference between those people and some others is that the others didn’t get to reach everyone at the event.

  27. John Jay Myers

    George, those people were so repudiated at the convention, voting for them over Michael would get you a first class ticket to off the committee next time.

  28. George Phillies

    @30 That’s two years away. Several floods will have passed under the bridge before then. Also, while some of those people were repudiated, others were not, and at least one was installed.

    Having people speak in breakout sessions should not be an issue.

  29. Wayne Root

    This is Wayne Root.

    My email about this situation to LNC (resounding directly to LNC member Tony Ryan)…

    Tony,

    I happen to respect the heck out of you…I consider you a very fair man.

    I think you and I will always treat each other with respect.

    But on this one…you are wearing either blinders or rose colored glasses.

    I respectfully disagree with vigor. With pain in my voice and in the pit of my stomach.

    This smells to high heaven.

    This was a set-up. The game was so clearly “fixed” to make sure one person was elected to LNC…to the detriment of every other person running for LNC.

    One person was elected unfairly…with the deck stacked in his favor…and the rules everyone else had to play by…suspended for “the one.”

    Everyone else Tony…including your wife…was forced to run for LNC under totally different rules…that allowed the rest of us ZERO exposure to the voting delegates on that floor.

    This was so wrong it can only be described as a gross abuse of power. It has tainted the entire LNC election.

    I am a private sector CEO and have served on multiple Boards for many years- including public companies and a commission for the State of Nevada.

    In the private sector every single Board I’ve ever been on would demand every person involved be removed or terminated to avoid the company being dragged in on this and ruining it’s reputation for integrity and ethics.

    This kind of favoritism, ethical violation, and suspension of rules cannot be tolerated.

    But in politics it goes on all the time…isn’t this exactly what the LP complains about?

    Isn’t this “business as usual” for the GOP and Democrats?

    You mean the “Party of Principle” thinks principles weren’t terribly violated by this “situation?”

    Some would call it fraud, by the way. Others would certainly say it was “force”- something this party stands very clearly against. Any outside observer would call it “abuse of power.”

    It is clearly wrong. Any party that tolerates it cannot claim to be “the Party of Principle.”

    And any action on this cannot be based on what “political side” you’re on.

    Chuck Moulton is not a fan of mine inside the LP. But one thing he has always been is a voice of reason, ethics, and integrity. He clearly sees how wrong and unfair this was. He has chosen to speak out publicly about it.

    Let’s put the shoe on another foot.

    Can any of you…Tony included…even imagine if Wayne Root was elected under these circumstances?

    What John Jay Meyers would say? What Mary Ruwart would say? What the entire Texas delegation would say?

    Can you even imagine if my ex-wife or live-in girlfriend was ED of the LP…and my friends and ex-wife conspired to make me THE star speaker of the entire convention…

    Gave me every high profile plum role that put me in front of virtually every delegate…

    Told every other LNC member that they could not have a role…unless they agreed they would not even consider running for any office…

    And if nominated, they would agree in writing to turn it down.

    And then I ran and won.

    Can you even imagine the loud calls for my resignation?

    Can you even imagine the mob scene?

    Can you even imagine the ugly accusations?

    Can you even imagine anyone believing I “earned” my LNC seat?

    Can you imagine that many in the LP wouldn’t charge the entire election was tainted and the results should be thrown out if I did not resign?

    Can you imagine anyone feeling Wayne Root should stay on LNC under these circumstances?

    Can you imagine how the other members of LNC would feel about me? Would anyone on this LNC even talk to me ever again? Or would I be made to feel so uncomfortable as to feel isolated, unwanted, and forced into resigning “for the good of the integrity of the LP?”

    And after seeing Ruth’s email to me…where she clearly knew AT THE TOP OF HER MIND about these rules…and selectively enforced them…clearly showing massive favor to one person…and that person was the ex of the LP ED…

    Is there any doubt this was not planned from day one?

    If it was my ex-wife as ED…and friends with the Convention Chair…and other COC members…one of whom’s husband was now the Chairman of the LP…

    Would anyone accept these results?

    Would anyone not recommend that we “clean house” of everyone involved in this case of favoritism to clear this “Party of Principle” of the stink of this rotting situation…and this clear case of selected enforcement to the detriment of all other candidates…and this case of “force” to see one person given every possible advantage and therefore automatically ensured to be elected in the “top 5″…

    Are you telling me that everyone who arranged this “fix” would not be terminated immediately by the Chair if it had led to a “fix” in favor of Wayne Root?

    Do not make me laugh.

    This is so wrong…no matter who it involves.

    But it is clear to me that the fix was in. One member could not possibly lose after the amazing showcase of high profile primetime roles he was given to impress and awe the delegates…and the nonstop publicity sent to LP members promoting his name and his events.

    And every other LNC member running for re-election was put at an amazing disadvantage…and completely “blacked out.” I was invisible at this convention. The delegates never had a chance to see Wayne Root based on this COC’s decisions. Kevin Knedler and Rebecca Sink Burris never had a chance.

    This was “fixed” so others would need a miracle to be re-elected, while one man took away their spot among the “Top 5.”

    And as far as those running for the first time…like your wonderful wife Tony…Bette Rose never had a chance at those high profile speaker slots. How would her results have been affected if Bette Rose Ryan had been given not one, but virtually every primetime speaking and fundraising role for the entire convention…then allowed to run for LNC? Tony, you think the results might have been different? I do.

    But here’s the clincher. I know you Tony. You’re a man of integrity. I know Bette Rose. She is the sweetest, most honest woman I know. You and her would NEVER accept those roles, and then choose to run. Never.

    And if nominated, Bette Rose would have turned it down. Because it isn’t right. More than that- it’s very wrong.

    This is very bad. This is the worst case of dirty politics, nepotism, force, selective enforcement of rules, and the “fixing” of an election…the list is long…that I’ve ever seen outside of the GOP and Democrats. Of course the 2-parties we fight against do things like this every day.

    Is this what the LP has become? Is this what we stand for?

    Every time I state I want to raise money like the GOP and Dems…and campaign professionally like the GOP and Dems…and win elections like the GOP and Dems…I’m told by members of this LNC that the 2 parties so repulse you that the mere mention of doing “anything” like them is morally and ethically repugnant.

    Well guess what…we just became the GOP and Dems if you tolerate or try to whitewash this one.

    And never again can you look me in the face and argue about “principles.” Because if principles are selectively enforced…there are none.

    Wayne
    Wayne Allyn Root

  30. paulie

    Zapper

    Now is that fair? I didn’t hear Wayne say that 100% of the donations would go to help homeless veterans, meaning himself, or that anyone he owes a large sum of money to had beat him up. He’s not even claiming the ability to guess anyone’s SS number, as far as I can tell.

  31. zapper

    Yeah Paulie,

    Maybe everyone needs a good rant now and then to relieve the tensions of life.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp

    It seems to me that the delegates are, for lack of a better word, “sovereign” with respect to whom they can nominate for, and elect to, party office.

    To the extent that there are convention rules, they can even suspend those rules — and this thing was not a convention rule, it was merely a convention committee/LNC policy.

    As Mr. Holtz has delighted in pointing out, they can even choose to seat a delegation from an impostor group rather than from the LNC’s actual affiliate in this or that state.

    Vox delegatis, vox dei.

    They elected Cloud. End of story.

    If he violated a binding agreement with the convention oversight committee, they might have recourse vis a vis any fees he was paid or whatever, but as far as the election was concerned, anyone who thought he should take a ding for running after being a speaker should have administered that ding to the delegates before the vote instead of complaining afterward.

  33. Roger Gary

    Concerning Root @#32

    Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose,

  34. Shawn Levasseur

    Was there any language in the speaking contracts having to do with running for LNC seats? (irregrardlress of wether or not there was a policy that there should have been language in the contracts)

    If so, did such language, require speakers to decline an unsolicited nomination? (Not saying that this was the case, I’m just understanding the policy beyond just any current “situation”)

    Without such a clause, requiring a speaker to decline, then any such policy is trumped by the rights of the convention body to nominate and vote for candidates.

    I’d also like to point out the potential for abuse of such a policy, where insiders can effectively pay off would-be candidates for LNC of agreeing to step aside from running by giving them speaking contracts.

    (Again, this is 180° off of current concerns, but I’d rather bring up the theoretical problems BEFORE they turn into real problems)

    I’ll close with one observation The seeming alignment of people and factions being put forward by some of the theories seems to run counter to my understanding. (Hey, how many “cabals” can we have going at once 😉

    I guess that’s why I hate (and suck at) Kremilnology. Probably all the more reason to step away from internal intrigue, and move on.

  35. Shawn Levasseur

    Knapp @ #37 :
    “It seems to me that the delegates are, for lack of a better word, “sovereign” with respect to whom they can nominate for, and elect to, party office.”

    That’s the thrust of some of my concerns in #39.

  36. Nicholas Sarwark

    Knapp @ 37 is right. While Cloud didn’t play by the rules that all other convention speakers did, the time to bring it up is when he was nominated, and the convention can elect him anyway.

    @39: Yes, the agreement with speakers was that they would not seek nomination and would decline nomination if offered.

  37. Joe Buchman

    I’m left to wonder why these obvious and highly emotional concerns were not raised at the convention, either in the moment Mr. Cloud was nominated, or immediately following his election.

    It’s utterly clear that those who are objecting now were well aware of those contracts/rules at the time. It’s equally clear that they could have objected in the moment (and to follow Mr. Root’s hypothetical above, I’m sure someone would have in his case).

    Further the policy was, I gather in the public record, not hidden from the delegates, and yet NOT ONE of the delegates, including Mr. Root, raised an objection at the time?

    So I conclude that the entire body of delegates 1) wanted Mr. Cloud on the LNC, and 2) that some subset of those delegates felt this issue would be better raised, for whatever purposes, after the fact.

    To which I say:

    1) Vox delegatis, vox dei.

    2) And to those who kept this objection hidden to be raised only post-convention, rather than in front of the delegates for their full consideration, shame on you and the damage you inflict and seem committed to continue to inflict on the LP.

    Joe

    The delegates are not bound by those rules.

  38. Chuck Moulton

    For my own part, I didn’t object contemporaneously because I was too busy dealing with the Virginia delegation’s voting (I am state chair and was delegation chair) to even follow the nominations and speeches.

    Yes, I agree that an objection ought to have been raised when Michael Cloud was nominated. I’m unsure whether there is a good remedy after the fact.

    But what is clear to me is there were shenanigans. I don’t understand how uncovering and publicizing these facts has somehow morphed into a Starr/Mattson/Root conspiracy according to a few of you. Some of the commenters here seem to be shooting the messengers and applying a different standard to their faction than they would to factions with which they often disagree.

    Alicia’s email is pretty damning. I hope everyone commenting here has read it carefully.

    Chuck Moulton wrote (@2):

    Alicia Mattson wrote:

    Mr. Neale’s listing of facts is incomplete, and his claim that the non-LNC members of the Convention Oversight Committee (COC) were not told of the convention speaker policy is demonstrably false.

  39. George Phillies

    @42 Actually:

    1) At least some of the people who are complaining now were probably not aware of LNC policy at the time.

    2) The statement that the policy is in the public record is technically correct, since it is on page 13 of the 39 pages of minutes of the March meeting, those minutes having been approved in April. How many people read those minutes?

    3) Noting that the awards committee members are not officers of the LNC, a critic might look at the people who were on stage making the scheduled presentation of those awards at the start of the convention, and ask who else might be covered by this rule.

    4) There are several more substantial criticisms that could be made of the conduct of elections. For example, a fair number of people put out delegate literature related to the convention, and the convention committee had the tables cleared of that literature, in some cases before the material was likely to have been read. For example, instead of having nominees for party office and speak from the stage, the chair lined everyone up at microphone 5 — except Alicia Mattson, who got to speak from the podium.

  40. Gene Berkman

    I tend to agree with Richard Winger that the delegates should be able to choose members of the LNC that they think are best able to build the Libertarian Party.

    Michael Cloud has been an active Libertarian since the early 1970s if not longer. He is not somebody who walked off the street into the LP convention.

    Of course, it would have been much worse if the keynote speaker at the 2008 convention had been elected to the LNC. It was bad enough that he was given the role of keynote speaker.

  41. Chuck Moulton

    George Phillies wrote (@44):

    2) The statement that the policy is in the public record is technically correct, since it is on page 13 of the 39 pages of minutes of the March meeting, those minutes having been approved in April. How many people read those minutes?

    I also summarized it on page 3 of the e-mail ballots as “No LNC, P, VP candidates as convention speakers 2/19/2012 – 3/5/2012 (March 2012, p. 13)”. But yeah, it’s hard to get a sense of what a motion means scrunched into so few characters.

    George Phillies wrote (@44):

    3) Noting that the awards committee members are not officers of the LNC, a critic might look at the people who were on stage making the scheduled presentation of those awards at the start of the convention, and ask who else might be covered by this rule.

    I agree: the awards committee seemed to have a leg up too. In my opinion awards should have been given out by activists not running for the LNC. There were plenty of such people available.

    George Phillies wrote (@44):

    4) There are several more substantial criticisms that could be made of the conduct of elections. For example, a fair number of people put out delegate literature related to the convention, and the convention committee had the tables cleared of that literature, in some cases before the material was likely to have been read. For example, instead of having nominees for party office and speak from the stage, the chair lined everyone up at microphone 5 — except Alicia Mattson, who got to speak from the podium.

    All nomination speeches should have been from the podium. Trashing all the literature was a shockingly bad decision.

    But just because there were other problems doesn’t excuse or minimize the issue under discussion now.

  42. paulie

    So, anyone make a graphic of Michael “the Situation” Cloud morphed with Michael “the Situation” Sorentino yet? Maybe both of them together with Geoff Neale to illustrate this article?

  43. Brian Holtz

    I’ve been saying for years that microphone time is how one wins NatCon elections, so I agree with the policy that microphone time should only be given to people who promise not to accept nomination for competitive officer elections. The policy should be made a convention rule — which (unlike a bylaw) can be suspended if the delegates choose to do so.

    Lots of people on the floor knew the policy, and they all knew Cloud (ably) filled multiple speaker slots. There was plenty of time for somebody in the room to object to Cloud’s nomination.

    Wayne, your complaints now are not timely, and it’s not exactly news to anybody that your critics are inconsistent in how they apply their standards. It’s fine to register that inconsistency and to re-endorse the policy, but calling for Cloud’s resignation is not constructive.

    The delegates elected this team, and it needs to work together.

  44. Joe Buchman

    Chuck,

    I read it. I appreciate your bringing it to light. I support fairness in the future. I think what you and others have done will help with that. I want to thank you for that.

    But given there were at least two clear opportunities at the convention for objections to be raised, with something on the order of an hour or so between them during which objections could also have been raised (extending from the nomination of Mr. Cloud to his election — and lasting really to the close of business), I’m at a loss to understand why these objections were not brought to the attention of the delegates at the time.

    The only explanation I see, aside from the one you’ve offered of being distracted and missing your chance to do so in the moment, is that there was a purposeful delay in raising those objections by those who have an objective of damaging the current LNC after the fact.

    I call shame on those who would do that.

    (BTW, for full disclosure out of a sense of (perhaps misplaced) personal loyalty to my friends Andre and others, I did not vote for Mr. Cloud (who I believe I first met in 1979 or 1980 in Louisville, when he was Mr. Emerling.)

  45. paulie

    For my own part, I didn’t object contemporaneously because I was too busy dealing with the Virginia delegation’s voting (I am state chair and was delegation chair) to even follow the nominations and speeches.

    Fair enough in your case. Harder to believe that no one at all thought of it at the time. I suppose anything is possible but I doubt it.

    I’ll confess the issue did not occur to me til later anyway but I’m usually pretty slow (not necessarily stupid but slow) so that’s not that strange.

    But some people seem to live for that stuff and not one of them thought of it at the time?

    Seems to me tho that raising the objection now in the way they are doing it is gunning not just for Cloud, but also Bennett as the organizer of the committee, maybe Howell as Cloud’s business partner and possibly Neale due to Nancy’s involvement.

  46. Jeremy C. Young

    I think that Cloud should be removed from the LNC and replaced with Mark Hinkle.

    Wayne Root is right that people elected under a cloud of suspicion shouldn’t be on the LNC. But I can’t see the logic in taking Pojunis and moving him to the exact same position he’s in now, only depriving his region of representation in the process. Pojunis is on the LNC, and his supporters should be happy with that. Meanwhile, Hinkle, as the next highest vote-getter, has the advantages that he 1) is experienced enough to do the job well on day one, and 2) is of the same faction as Cloud, so there would be no accusations of changing the factional composition of the LNC.

    Seems like the best option for all involved.

  47. Brian Holtz

    Teeth @20: in the LP universe, the parliamentary shenanigans and back-room maneuverings never stop

    This from somebody advocating a back-room deal in which Root is booted from the LNC in exchange for letting Oregon Libertarians vote for the Libertarian candidate for president.

  48. paulie

    I think that Cloud should be removed from the LNC and replaced with Mark Hinkle.

    Mark lost to NOTA for chair even before the other Mark, and came in behind Pojunis and tied with Wagner for At Large. I’m not sure why he would be the logical replacement if Cloud was removed.

    But I can’t see the logic in taking Pojunis and moving him to the exact same position he’s in now, only depriving his region of representation in the process.

    His region chairs would elect a new rep.

  49. Jill Pyeatt

    Please let’s all remember there was very serious pressure from lack of time during the At-Large segment of the afternoon.

  50. Joe Buchman

    George @42,

    “1) At least some of the people who are complaining now were probably not aware of LNC policy at the time.”

    I am not unsympathetic to that, but it’s clear Mr. Root does not fall into that category. Nor does it appear he was alone in being aware of a potential violation of that rule at that time.

    What I see is an ample number of people in the hall who were well aware of that policy, who did not raise an objection at the time, who avoided giving the delegates the opportunity to enforce, or to ignore that rule (which I believe they have both the right and the power to do), who consciously chose not to take that risk or fight that battle at the time, and who kept their objections quiet in order to raise them now.

    I assume they took that strategy as one that they imagined might result in maximum political gain by somehow damaging the ability of the new LNC to do its work.

    I condemn that.

    And, whether intentional or not, this is a distraction from maximizing Libertarian votes in November. IMO Mr. Cloud has demonstrated an ability to contribute significantly to that end. So has Mr. Root, at least as measured by his media appearances. (One of which I read on Fox News.com — early one morning during the convention — a defense of capitalism based on its fruits, and his impressions of the reactions of the students to his lecture at a class at Harvard. (Yes, I’d like him to read Ayn Rand’s essay on why a defense of capitalism based on its fruits damages a defense made based on its non-violent MORALITY — but still he’s out there in the media.)

    I’d urge the LNC to stop this petty infighting and unite around that cause and hope my contributions here advance THAT cause.

    Joe

  51. Jeremy C. Young

    I know Pojunis’ regional chairs would elect a new rep, but that seems silly to shuttle people around like that. I remember that back when Rebecca Sink-Burris was still a region rep (before she lost that status), it was assumed that she would not be used to fill an At-Large vacancy because she was already on the LNC.

    I did forget that Hinkle tied with Wagner on that vote. However, since Wagner has not yet said that he will be putting Gary Johnson on the ballot in his state, I would assume that would be a mitigating factor in his being selected to fill an At-Large vacancy at the present time.

  52. Joe Buchman

    I intended to say:

    I’d urge the LNC to stop this petty infighting and unite around maximizing Libertarian votes in November/advancing Liberty on the planet — and hope my contributions here serve to advance THAT cause. To the degree that they have in any way hindered that, I apologize.

  53. Wayne Root

    The argument that it should have been brought up on the convention floor is ridiculous. Same problem I have with people who are never in the media criticizing me for one sentence of a media appearance.

    Brings up a famous saying:

    “Never criticize a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.”

    Why didn’t I bring it up? I was just a tad busy with my writing my speech for re-election on the fly…speaking to delegates…speaking to Gary Johnson…speaking to my wife…trying to arrange for someone to speak for my nomination…making sure my name was put into nomination…waiting in a chaotic last second line to actually giving my nomination speech…speaking to more delegates before the vote…oh and voting for multiple offices all at the same time.

    One of the most exhausting, confusing and chaotic convention scenes I’ve ever seen…probably the worst ever. In case none of you noticed…we were rushed because of the many ballots for Chair. So it was suddenly proposed that we vote on some offices, at the same time as giving speeches for others.

    Now I’m ADD. I can do 10 things at once…but even I could not keep up with all the floor votes being proposed from the crowd…and votes up or down…while I tried to keep up with my LNC nomination…while I tried to be present for every vote and re-vote for every other office.

    I knew nothing about Michael Cloud (or anyone else) running for LNC until it was over and vote totals were on the board. I did not know Starchild was running either. I paid attention to my job. I had no time to watch what others were doing.

    It all went by in a nano-second.

    So until you’ve been there…and done that…I’d suggest dropping that argument. It is immaterial.

    When fraud is committed…investors never know about it until months or years later…when they finally put the story together…and realize they’ve been had.

    This was wrong. Ruth Bennett and Carla knew since that Feb 16th letter to me what the rules were. They were the enforcers of the rules. That was Ruth’s #1 issue with me. Yet you believe she just made a boo boo with her friends?

    Please don’t insult our intelligence like that.

    The fix was in folks.

    None of the vicious, manipulative, 2 major parties with their dirty tricks could pull off a bigger shell game than this…

    All done at last second when the convention floor was filled with confusion…

    Then blame the victims for being confused.

    Sorry but whenever you report something wrong…it’s still wrong.

    Last I checked, when you’re robbed and you report it to police a week or a month…you were still robbed. And the robber is still on the hook for the crime.

    That excuse is pathetic.

    The important point here is the way some of you are treating SELECTIVELY some people because you agree with them.

    Thats wrong and I’m sorry but that isn’t part of a “Party of Principle.” Either we have a rule of law…and principles that don’t move depending on the day or the situation…or we don’t.

    Either we have ethics or we don’t.

    Either we have nepotism…or we don’t. By that I mean how ex-husbands or lovers are treated when it comes to the same rules others are expected to play by.

    Perhaps you miss the point. I wasn’t effected. I won my re-election.

    Brett Pojunis was ripped off. And Kevin Knedler and Rebecca Sink Burris were held down by all of this…and never given a fair shot at re-election.

    It was dirty…it was wrong…it was unethical…I’m interested in seeing how it’s handled.

    Everything I’ve ever done…that some of ou have complained about here…was done by the rules. I never broke a rule to accomplish my goals. I lived by the law.

    Rules were broken, twisted, and obliterated here to help one person get elected. And to give others a huge disadvantage they had almost zero chance of overcoming.

    The fix was in. And people ought to be ashamed and step down.

    Wayne

  54. NewFederalist

    “Never criticize a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.”

    “Never let your age be your cage”

    “Nothing matters very much and few things matter at all.”

    “People anxious to be deceived are easy dupes.”

    Now that we have all the dead guy quotes out of the way let’s take off our shoes! The bullshit squishes between the toes SO much better that way!

  55. Joe Buchman

    So much for hoping the LNC can work together.

    I say BS to your being too busy to notice Mr. Cloud’s nomination, Mr. Cloud’s speech, standing in line with Mr. Cloud before those speeches, or Mr. Cloud’s election to make your objection at the time.

    That false on the face of it.

    Wayne, you’ve lied to me in various public and private emails, you’ve lied about me to others, and when I’ve reached out to try to work with you, or tried to apologize for those times I may have overreacted to the above, you’ve bitten back like a rabid animal.

    You’ve been elected to the LNC. You have an agenda and a plan. I oppose what I see of it. I remain sickened by the rebranding you’ve made of Libertarian principles in your media appearances. You may do good, but then you do more harm than good to overwhelm that.

    You, sir, should be ashamed. But there was no hint of shame in your “It’s got to be Romeny” remarks, only spin, defense and accusation that those who don’t support you unequivocally, just don’t get how to win.

    So here’s my winning formula:

    “It’s GOT TO BE ROMNEY/ROOT 2012.”

    That’s where you’ve made it abundantly clear you belong.

  56. Wayne Root

    Joe,

    If you don’t like my politics…great! Say it. Thats life. I don’t like Obama’s. But be very very careful about slander or libel. I don’t lie about anything. My honor is my life. My word is as good as gold. My handshake is a contract. And I’ve never lied to you about anything.

    You may not like the answer…but you can’t call someone a liar…unless you can prove it in a court of law.

    So please stop saying things that you will regret badly.

    I’m done.

    It’s obvious there are two rules of law with many here. There is no reasoning with people who are blind to what has occurred because they simply like the side that has committed the offenses.

    But please refrain from ever calling me a liar when I don’t lie. You just don’t like the truth I tell.

    Wayne

  57. Nicholas Sarwark

    Here’s the deal. Cloud’s the only speaker who accepted a nomination for At-Large. Nobody objected from the floor at the time of his nomination or while the convention was still in session.

    Those who have a problem with it can either learn and move on or try to do something about it. I’m personally in the camp of “learn and move on,” since there’s so much work to do.

    However, if you’re in the other camp, you have two options as far as I can see: (1) move for the LNC to vote to remove Mr. Cloud for cause or (2) ask Mr. Cloud personally to resign.

    Arguing on the internet about it is less than useless.

  58. Mark Hilgenberg

    Hi Wayne,

    I guess one day we will agree on something. 🙂

    You do make very valid points, it doesn’t pass the smell test but I don’t know if it was a legitimate “fix” or simply and oversight. I do hope that if they keep that rule (I don’t really like it), when the announcement for nominations is made they should read off the rules for qualification.

    I am not a big conspiracy believer (No I don’t think you are our version of Mr. Burns) so I chalk up most things to incompetence, oversight or just doing what they think is right.

    Unless I see a signed contract by Cloud, I tend to say let’s move on.

    Mark Hilgenberg
    (Newly crowned) Vice Chair
    Libertarian Party of Utah

  59. Oranje Mike

    No one brought this up when Cloud was nominated, when he gave his nomination speech or when he was revealed to have won an at-large seat. No one brought this up when the LNC met at the conclusion of the convention. This “scandal” or “fix” or whatever you want to call it comes up 2 weeks after the convention. Why make an issue of this now?

  60. George Phillies

    @64

    Excellent question, though I have been aware of the issue for at least a week and a half, form people who hoped the matter could be resolved sub rosa.

  61. Joe Buchman

    Wayne,

    Let’s be clear on your truth telling.

    You were too busy to notice Mr. Cloud was nominated.

    You were too busy to notice you were standing in line with Mr. Cloud.

    You were too busy to notice that Mr. Cloud was giving a speech for LNC at Large.

    You were too busy to notice Mr. Cloud had been elected.

    If not for being too busy, you would have objected during the convention.

    You now desire to create an LNC that will work maximize votes for Libertarians in November by starting this fight with Mr. Cloud now.

    If you want me to believe the above, you need to do a better job of truth telling.

    I accept your statement that you are now done with this conversation. That’s typically what happens when a LIAR is caught in his lie and has nowhere else to go.

    It’s a pattern. You lie to TEA Party folk about what the Libertarian Party has stood for for 40+ years — and end to the war on the innocent people who use drugs, an enlightenment similar to what happened after alcohol prohibition, in the hope that they will become Libertarians, and vote Libertarian never noticing this inconvenient fact, or perhaps in the hope you can turn the LP into the TEA Party.

    I believe it was Arvin who called you and others on those “lies of omission” at the convention, but I’ll accept you were too busy to notice that as well.

    “So please stop saying things that you will regret badly.”

    I politely decline this request. Or was this a threat?

    Joe

  62. John Jay Myers

    I am trying to remember the persons name who has to type all the people who are running for at large positions into a giant projector prior to them being elected… can anyone help me remember the name of the person that types every nominees name into a projector?

  63. paulie

    those people were so repudiated at the convention, voting for them over Michael would get you a first class ticket to off the committee next time.

    I wouldn’t bet on that. We don’t know who the delegates, candidates, issues etc will be by then.

  64. Wayne Root

    Joe,

    I already wrote about this above. I don’t think you carefully read. I was nominated by our Presidential candidate Gary Johnson. I was just a tad busy arranging that speech by Gary…as a matter of fact I left the convention floor multiple times to arrange it…

    …while I ran back to vote for multiple other offices when I was texted by my wife to return. I saw exactly one LNC nomination speech- Bette Rose Ryan.

    I never saw one other person being nominated and certainly never saw Michael Cloud. I said that already.

    No one here can say I lie…because I don’t.

    Because I’m a CEO and media personality …I fact check EVERYTHING multiple times before I write it or say it because my reputation is very important to my career.

    You won’t find anyone anywhere who is more careful about what he says.

    No I did not know Mr. Cloud was running…

    And yes I was very busy and distracted. A thousand things were going on at once.

    Funny how you operate…

    You call people names without a shred of fact to back it up…

    …you attack me when I and my fellow LNC members were victims wronged by an act that appears to anyone who is honest…

    To be a violation of LP policy that others like me abided by.

    Yet you get mad at me?

    You distract the issue at hand by blaming the victims.

    And you constantly question my Libertarianism…funny how our fantastic Presidential nominee Gary Johnson gave my nomination speech at the convention. How do you explain that Joe? Why did Gary choose to back me? Why did Gary say that other than himself, Wayne Root will get the Presidential ticket more exposure than anyone else in this party?

    I have a busy life. 20+ media interviews in 4 days last week.

    5 of them on national radio.

    I realize you are more “pure” than me Joe.

    But no one in media invites you, now do they?

    Might be a pattern there.

    Maybe the LP should wake up. I am moderate and pragmatic enough to not be classified as “extreme” or “wacko” or to be ignored as irrational…and my strategy works…media accepts me, invites me back again and again…calls me “Mr. Libertarian”…and therefore brands the LP again and again.

    The thing that matters when it comes to media, is do they spell your name correctly? I was in the media over 4000 times in 4 years. Since they say “Libertarian” at least 3 or 4 times in every interview to introduce me and describe me…

    Thats about 12,000 to 16,000 mentions of LP.

    I think that’s speaks for itself.

    Stop arguing.

    There is nothing to argue about what I do.

    The only argument is what happened at that election on that convention floor.

    Wayne

  65. paulie

    This from somebody advocating a back-room deal in which Root is booted from the LNC in exchange for letting Oregon Libertarians vote for the Libertarian candidate for president.

    Did Awesome Teeth do that? As far as I know the deal being discussed was one to have the Reeves group drop or suspend their lawsuit. I didn’t realize booting Wayne was even broached as part of any deal. Maybe I missed it.

  66. paulie

    I know Pojunis’ regional chairs would elect a new rep, but that seems silly to shuttle people around like that. I remember that back when Rebecca Sink-Burris was still a region rep (before she lost that status), it was assumed that she would not be used to fill an At-Large vacancy because she was already on the LNC.

    Not exactly. She was off the LNC because she missed a couple of meetings in a row, then was elected to fill a vacancy.

    did forget that Hinkle tied with Wagner on that vote. However, since Wagner has not yet said that he will be putting Gary Johnson on the ballot in his state, I would assume that would be a mitigating factor in his being selected to fill an At-Large vacancy at the present time.

    Without broaching off the record confidentiality I hope, I will say that there could be other issues with considering Mr. Wagner for any LNC position at this time. I wish I could be more specific.

    Note that the LNC has not followed the practice of filling vacancies with At Large runners up, at least not recently, nor has it replaced people with other people from whatever faction they represented.

  67. Joe Buchman

    Wayne,

    You can mention “Libertarian” all you want and it does no good when you explain to new Libertarian voters that the new “Libertarian brand” means “TEA PARTY.”

    In fact, IMO, it does great harm.

    Perhaps someone has youtube video to show your absence or distraction during the nominations.

    Perhaps someone can likewise show evidence of your distraction during the speeches.

    Perhaps someone else can show evidence you were not in line with Mr. Cloud. And just showed up at the last second for your nomination for LNC at large.

    But, inconvenient fact, I was there. So were you. So was Mr. Cloud. And only one other candidate stood between the four of us. . .

    LNC At Large Candidates in the order of their (2-minute maximum) speeches:

    1. Josh Katz
    2. Wes Wagner
    3. Starchild
    4. Mark Hinkle
    5. Arvin Vohra
    6. Christopher Trasher
    7. Kevin Knedler
    8. Rebecca Sink-Burris.

    9. Michael Cloud
    10. Joe Buchman
    11. Sam Sloan
    12. Wayne Root

    Really, Wayne, really?!? He was an invisible Cloud? Really?

    13. Robert Murphy
    14. Brett Pojunis
    15. Stewart Flood
    16. Roger Roots
    17. Bill Redpath
    18. Eric Olson -declines
    18. Bette Rose Ryan
    19. Mike Fellows

    I find it incredible you didn’t hear his voice, or notice him speaking less than 2 minutes before you.

    I believe the above speaks for itself.

    But if not, your actions now sure do.

    You just keep up your truth telling as best you can, and please respect my right to do the same.

    But I don’t think you’re going to convince me or others that you were just too busy to notice your name 3 names down from Mr. Cloud’s when you were both elected, AND you didn’t notice his body two speakers in front of you in that line, AND you didn’t hear his voice during his speech, AND you didn’t notice, or have it pointed out to you by others, that he had been nominated, and golly gee whiz everyone you just had no chance at all to object during that convention.

    Really?

    So the question is, for others who may find that un-believable (a lie):

    Why wait till now? What advantage does that give you now? How does that help maximize Libertarian votes in November? Or . . . is that even your goal here?

    Joe

  68. paulie

    Wayne

    The argument that it should have been brought up on the convention floor is ridiculous.

    I’m not saying you, or Chuck, or any one person had to catch it at the time. I didn’t catch it myself. I’m just surprised that out of hundreds of people there not one of them caught it at the time and made it an issue. That just doesn’t ring true to me.

    I do believe in the same rules for everyone but you know me, I call ’em as I see ’em.

    I have to agree with Brian when he says “The delegates elected this team, and it needs to work together.”

    I agree with Joe when he says “And, whether intentional or not, this is a distraction from maximizing Libertarian votes in November. IMO Mr. Cloud has demonstrated an ability to contribute significantly to that end. So has Mr. Root, at least as measured by his media appearances.” and when he says “I’d urge the LNC to stop this petty infighting and unite around maximizing Libertarian votes in November/advancing Liberty on the planet.”

    I don’t think you can really make a good case that a lot of the convention delegates weren’t unhappy with the infighting and voting people off the island that has taken place the last couple of LNC terms. Even if I was to agree with you that one Libertarian helping fellow Libertarians afford to attend the convention was morally wrong, there would still have been a large percentage of delegates voting against incumbents from “both” sides.

    I think Nick is on the money as usual:

    Here’s the deal. Cloud’s the only speaker who accepted a nomination for At-Large. Nobody objected from the floor at the time of his nomination or while the convention was still in session.

    Those who have a problem with it can either learn and move on or try to do something about it. I’m personally in the camp of “learn and move on,” since there’s so much work to do.

    However, if you’re in the other camp, you have two options as far as I can see: (1) move for the LNC to vote to remove Mr. Cloud for cause or (2) ask Mr. Cloud personally to resign.

    Arguing on the internet about it is less than useless.

    And I agree with Mark Hilgenberg

    “You do make very valid points, it doesn’t pass the smell test but I don’t know if it was a legitimate “fix” or simply and oversight. I do hope that if they keep that rule (I don’t really like it), when the announcement for nominations is made they should read off the rules for qualification.

    I am not a big conspiracy believer (No I don’t think you are our version of Mr. Burns) so I chalk up most things to incompetence, oversight or just doing what they think is right.

    Unless I see a signed contract by Cloud, I tend to say let’s move on.”

    As Oranje Mike points out “No one brought this up when the LNC met at the conclusion of the convention.”

    Now I will grant your point. If it had been you instead of Michael Cloud many of the same people making excuses now would be up in arms. And vice versa, I suspect.

    But I still say that the upshot of taking this to the mat will only leave everyone mired in mud. It won’t be good for our election chances this year or party growth moving forward. This is what drives people away. Can we rise above and do better? It’s time to disarm the circular firing squad. The enemy is not on this thread.

  69. paulie

    I am trying to remember the persons name who has to type all the people who are running for at large positions into a giant projector prior to them being elected… can anyone help me remember the name of the person that types every nominees name into a projector?

    I don’t know but I would have guessed Alicia was doing that. Was that someone else?

  70. John Jay Myers

    aha, thanks Paulie, Alicia Mattson, I was trying to remember that. What was the name of the lady who Chuck Moulton in his number 2 post on this thread cited as being very involved in this, and seems to know all the facts?

    What was her name? I just can’t recall.

  71. NewFederalist

    “It’s time to disarm the circular firing squad. The enemy is not on this thread.”

    Amen, Brother paulie!

  72. paulie

    What was her name? I just can’t recall.

    LOL. Funny stuff. Are you asking whether her timeline and presentation of the facts is accurate? If so I would love to hear which part(s) are being disputed.

  73. paulie

    “It’s time to disarm the circular firing squad. The enemy is not on this thread.”

    Amen, Brother paulie!

    I’ll go further and I hope this makes sense in the absence of a graphic.

    Imagine a double circle firing squad – an inner and an outer circle – with both sides pointing their weapons towards the middle. I hope that paints a mental picture people can understand.

    It seems to me that we are the inner circle in this analogy. We need to turn around and point our weapons outwards towards those who encircle us, since they already have theirs pointed at us.

    Can I get a hallelujah, an amen and some donations?

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wayne@58,

    Believe it or not, I feel your pain.

    You have a completely legitimate complaint that the rules weren’t followed.

    Nor am I saying that you are out of line to complain after the fact, or that you need to have been the one to vocalize an objection before the fact.

    The only thing I’d dispute with you is whether or not removal of Cloud from the LNC is an appropriate remedy.

    If someone — anyone credible — had risen at the convention to object to Cloud’s nomination on grounds that he had agreed not to run as a condition of being hired as a speaker, he’d likely have withdrawn on the spot just to save face; if not, he’d likely not have polled nearly as well.

    But nobody rose to object, and the delegates elected him.

    That horse is out of the barn.

  75. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Holtz: This from somebody advocating a back-room deal in which Root is booted from the LNC in exchange for letting Oregon Libertarians vote for the Libertarian candidate for president.

    If one’s opponents play dirty politics, then one must respond likewise.

    I’d put a hypocrisy meter (or some other pretty image) for you as well, but unfortunately, we don’t debate here on a level playing field.

  76. John Jay Myers

    oh… so you are saying the lady who wrote that timeline and seems to be so in the know on this subject, is the same lady that had to put Michael Cloud’s name up on that projection screen?

    So it would be pretty hard for her to not understand the implication of him speaking and his name being put on the projector… right?

    Wouldn’t you agree that if someone were to protest after the fact about the occurrence they might have mentioned it…….possibly… at the convention.

    Especially when they were very specifically involved in the creation of the policy, the overseeing of the convention, listing the candidates and putting their names on a giant projector.

    Just sayin’

  77. paulie

    I’d put a hypocrisy meter (or some other pretty image) for you as well, but unfortunately, we don’t debate here on a level playing field.

    I don’t know how to fix that unless you sign up to post articles.

  78. paulie

    So it would be pretty hard for her to not understand the implication of him speaking and his name being put on the projector… right?

    She had to get all the names on the projector. Not sure if it would have been feasible for her to take time off to object. I do think she, or someone, could have spoken to someone in time to raise an objection at the post-convention LNC meeting.

    And really as I said, while I don’t want to put the burden on any one person, out of everyone there, it is hard that not a single one noticed a problem at the time. I realize we were all busy and in most cases tired, but not one person?

  79. Johncjackson

    Hey. Let’s work on some elections or something. You know, ones OUTSIDE of the party- that anyone other than LP insiders care about.

  80. Kevin Knedler

    Interesting thread. NO George I am not gunning to be At-Large if an opening comes up. I am having too much fun watching the action from the front row and eating popcorn– large bag so I can get free refills.

  81. Kevin Knedler

    What was that song and verse by the “WHO”. . . . “same as the old boss” . Something like that. Whatever. Getting things done at the state level, and local level.
    All the work I got done on the LNC didn’t matter anyway.

  82. Joe Buchman

    @80 — “Can I get a hallelujah, an amen and some donations?”

    I’m thinking about number three, but here’s to the first two:

    AMEN!!!!

    Hallelujah!!! Free at last! Free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

  83. Marc Montoni

    I’ve have my disagreements with Michael Cloud in the past, but frankly this seems like a tempest in a teapot.

    I think the Secretary was so busy doing her job that what was happening with Cloud didn’t even register. I don’t blame her at all about this.

    I didn’t think of it myself; although I had heard of the policy — but I wasn’t thinking about that at the time, either.

    The absolute best outcome in this situation would be for Cloud to acknowledge that he probably made a mistake agreeing to be a speaker and then seeking an LNC spot, and tendering his resignation.

    The LNC should then announce the vacancy, and request resumes.

    Cloud at that point would be free to re-submit for the vacant position.

    If this scenario were to play out, I would greatly prefer that the LNC appointed someone who would be largely independent of the factions.

  84. paulie

    I didn’t think of it myself; although I had heard of the policy — but I wasn’t thinking about that at the time, either.

    OK, I concede. We were all of us in a state of mass hypnosis. Maybe Cloud hypnotized us. Were we on Cloud 9? I heard casinos pump stuff into the air to make people dazed and confused, and we had been there for several days, so…

  85. Starchild

    Paulie @86 – If memory serves, Wayne Allyn Root *did* make a reference at the post-convention LNC meeting to Michael Cloud’s having been elected to the body despite being a convention speaker, without mentioning him by name.

    I don’t blame W.A.R. for complaining about what happened after the fact, even if he was aware of it at the time (like Joe Buchman @73, I have some difficulty believing his claimed failure to notice at all that Michael Cloud was running for the LNC). I would have a much easier time believing that he noticed, and was of course was aware of the no speakers running for office rule, but simply didn’t quite put two and two together and act on it in a timely fashion. I’ve also been in situations where I just didn’t feel quite confident enough to interrupt the proceedings and speak up at the moment something was going down, even though I should have, and then later had people tell me, “Too late! You could’ve brought it up then, why didn’t you?”

    Despite the fact that I don’t think W.A.R. himself ought to hold party office due to his insufficient commitment to libertarianism, he has a legitimate complaint here, having been on the short end of a blatant double standard. What happened does indeed stink, and there ought to be some kind of accountability.

    Given that Michael Cloud was heavily involved with convention organizing, including the selection of other convention speakers, as the letter from Alicia Mattson posted by Chuck Moulton @2 indicates, there is certainly strong circumstantial evidence that he knew about the rule against convention speakers seeking party office.

    It seems to me that the other convention organizers also bear some culpability in failing to either enforce the policy or (apparently) require Michael Cloud as a prominent speaker in multiple slots to sign off on it, including particularly Alicia Mattson herself in her capacity as Secretary typing up the names of the At-Large candidates to put on screen, as John Jay Myers points out @84, and Ruth Bennett in her capacity as lead organizer and the one who sent a letter to Root informing him of the policy.

    However, I also feel that unless there’s direct evidence (e.g. a credible witness to him saying something about it, or his signature on a speaker contract) that Michael Cloud himself knew about the rule beforehand and violated it anyway, there are insufficient grounds to remove him from the LNC. For the LNC or the Judicial Committee to overturn the results of the vote and thus disenfranchise the delegates who elected him, most of whom presumably knew nothing about the rule and had no culpability in this whatsoever, requires to my mind a heavier burden of proof.

    I would probably support a motion to censure Michael Cloud *and* the Convention Organizing Committee, as Mike Seebeck suggests @12. Or perhaps Cloud himself will save us the angst by doing the most honorable thing and resigning, although that would of course leave the thorny question of who ought to be appointed to replace him. In that eventuality, I would favor some fair and transparent means of surveying ordinary party members on the question, and for the LNC to then abide by the results of their collective judgment.

    As to the general advisability of the policy against convention speakers running for party office, I can really see both sides.

    Whatever else may be said for and against it, however, one clear shortcoming of the policy is that it doesn’t address the well-known advantages of incumbency (the unusual success of NOTA at our recent convention notwithstanding). Despite now being an incumbent myself, and potentially interested in serving a second term as well as potentially interested in speaking at the next LP convention, I *would* support a policy specifically prohibiting incumbents seeking reelection from being convention speakers.

    I’m still undecided and open to arguments about the merits of having such a policy cover everyone else. There are many gray areas, such as George Phillies alludes to @44 in his mention of individuals on stage handing out awards who are also running for office.

    In general I would like to see fewer of the “usual suspects” speaking at our conventions, fewer people with real or perceived conflicts of interest, and more speakers who haven’t been heard at these forums previously. This does not, however, outweigh the need to give preference to more libertarian speakers over less libertarian ones for the sake of our party’s sustainability as a libertarian organization.

  86. John Jay Myers

    This is my comment from the LNC discuss (I am just sharing my comment, you can guess what was probably being batted about):::::::::

    I don’t think the rule was a problem, I think it’s a fine rule. The fact is it was not followed.

    If you do away with the rule you are going to have a huge fight about who can speak at the convention. Everyone that wants to be elected to at large will demand to speak.
    Those who do speak have a critical advantage over other people.

    I don’t think this was a faction thing, I take offense to it being said that “The fix was in”, there was no fix. Michael Cloud represents the Libertarian Party well, if this guy is part of a faction I am confused about what this party is or what faction he represents, he is a fund raiser, a philosopher, a doer. He helps candidates and his books are some of the first read by almost any person coming into the party.

    A rule was not followed, in this instance someone who would have wound up on the LNC had they not spoke, ended up on the LNC. “oh the humanity!”

    Again, who are we blaming here? What are we accusing them of?

    Did Michael Cloud know that he couldn’t run? If not, then who should have told him?

    I don’t know if we should throw the baby out with the bath water, cause I can tell ya, obviously if Brett gets a speaker slot, then I want a speaker slot…. and I am sure others on this LNC would want one too.

    Maybe the answer is the COC messed up, and we need to move on yet more aware that these conflicts could pop up, and they need to be addressed at the convention.

    In the future if you see someone jumping up on stage to run for at large, and you seem to remember them speaking to everyone at a different event, say “Point of order Mr. Chair…………”

  87. paulie

    Starchild: All excellent points. Not sure why or how they respond to 86, but maybe I phrased that one poorly and created confusion.

  88. Starchild

    Paulie @97 – Sorry if I gave the impression that my whole post was related to your comment @86. Only my first paragraph did. I value your opinion, so am glad to hear you feel the points I expressed have merit.

  89. Brian Holtz

    If you want to blame somebody, then blame me rather than Alicia.

    IIRC, she was too busy tabulating results from prior voting rounds to display nominations, and so Nick suggested that a volunteer be deputized to write down the nominees as nominations were made. (She may have noticed later when preparing the at-large ballot, but is it really on the Secretary to make objections that can swing at-large votes? There were up to 19 other people in the room who should have been highly motivated to make the objection themselves.)

    When Cloud was nominated, I was mildly surprised that our keynote speaker had gotten nominated without protest. I assumed that the lack of protest was because of how well he spoke at both the keynote and the banquet. Those speeches certainly earned him my vote.

  90. Jeremy C. Young

    Y’all are making me agree with Wayne Root. You know how much I hate doing that!

    In actual fact, my position is somewhere between Root’s (Cloud should be removed from the LNC and replaced with Pojunis) and Starchild’s (Cloud should be censured and asked to resign). I do think Cloud should be removed from the LNC, but I don’t think it makes any sense to replace him with another guy who is already on the LNC and who consequently was not harmed by the issue at all. Nor do I think Cloud should be replaced with himself; the spirit of the pledge is that convention speakers should not serve on the LNC this term. I think he should either be replaced with Hinkle (as the highest vote-getting loser who isn’t already on the LNC or involved in legal shenanigans against the party) or with someone else who is as close to Cloud’s views as possible. Since Cloud’s faction commands a majority on the LNC, this shouldn’t be too hard to get done.

  91. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Root: “I was just a tad busy with … “

    Back in 2008, lots of radical delegates preferred Kubby to Root for VP.

    Unfortunately, some of these radicals were too busy to stay and vote for Kubby. They left the convention floor, and Root won.

    Imagine if these delegates later insisted on voiding the result, because they were too busy to stay and vote.

    Radicals paid a price in 2008 for not being on the ball during the convention.

    If Root, or others, were too busy to pay attention during the 2012 convention, they too must now live with the result.

  92. Joe Buchman

    Starchild,

    Good points all round. As for

    “like Joe Buchman @73, I have some difficulty believing”

    I don’t just have “some difficulty.”

    My impression is that there was a calculated realization that there was more to be gained by raising this issue now, than could have been gained by raising it during the convention, when the delegates could have simply supported a motion to suspend the rules to allow his nomination/election or in having someone else elected without this opportunity for political gain.

    I prefer to believe Mr. Root is very intelligent, he is a Columbia graduate, and is not, despite his claims to the contrary, capable of not noticing Mr. Cloud’s body in line two speakers in front of him, or of not hearing his voice echoing through the hall, or of not noticing his nomination, or of not considering a motion to object to his election immediately after the fact.

    I don’t believe that’s possible.

    Nor do I think it’s possible his advisers and others with similar concerns noticed any of that.

    I also do not accept the wild claims that:

    “The argument that it should have been brought up on the convention floor is ridiculous.”

    Or

    ” Same problem I have with people who are never in the media criticizing me for one sentence of a media appearance.”

    Yep. I agree. I think it is the EXACT same problem.

    Joe (who has been in the media, who was interviewed on a network that broadcast on over 600 radio stations after his 2008 campaign for the US Congress, who announced that campaign at the National Press Club in Washington DC as part of a full disclosure/transparency in Government press conference with Apollo astronaut and MIT PhD Edgar Mitchell — the 6th man to walk on the moon — (yes, it was black-budget free energy and UFO related, so use that against me too if you wish), who before that was a radio newscaster, talk show host, and DJ on over a dozen stations, and then a television station marketer (WHAS-Louisville) and promotion manager (WAGT-TV, Augusta GA — the fastest growing NBC affiliate while I was there), who won SIX local Emmys, and a national first place Gold Marketing award from BPA (later BPME), who is a book co-author on media sales and sales management, a textbook chapter author on subjects such as Mass Media Marketing and Promotion, etc . . .), who has been interviewed on Sirius/XM multiple times (about radio talk show history) and who IN THE PAST MONTH was granted Press Passes in just the to the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas, the press conference by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Long Beach California (requiring prior State Department security clearance), AND to Freedom Fest to do another two hours live from there on a libertarian nationally syndicated radio talk show — just like I did in 2008 from there (but maybe Mr. Root can get that revoked now; given his key role at Freedom Fest and threats about things I might “badly regret” if I continue in my criticism of his actions and ever more convoluted explanations of his actions and “simple misstatements”).

    It’s got to be Romney/Root 2012.

    or maybe that should be

    “It’s got to be Romney” — Root, April, 2012

    (and “It’s got to be Root for LP Presidential Nominee 2016” — IMO that campaign started months ago.)

    http://www.700wlw.com/player/?station=WLW-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=bill_cunningham.xml&mid=21977071

  93. Roger Roots

    Has anyone heard from Michael Cloud over any of this? What does he say? At the end of the convention, I commented that virtually every major “player” in the LP is now considered toxic to at least a third of the members. Only a small handful of LP personalities were, in my opinion, “beloved” or widely accepted by the vast body of delegates. I mentioned Jim Lark and Michael Cloud. Now Cloud has joined the rest of us as toxic to at least a third of the LP. What a fun group.

  94. Joe Buchman

    PS if you’ve not listened to the podcast linked at the bottom of post @103 in awhile, it’s worth listening to again, IMO. And it is NOT, despite the spin, “one sentence” — it’s the Full Monty. The whole thing that I’m concerned about.

    So if you really wanted the LP nomination in 2016, what sorts of things would you be doing now?

  95. Jill Pyeatt

    I know I should keep my mouth shut (or keep my fingers from typing), but this is still about the losing side not accepting their loss. We had to rush through the At-Large elections because the losing side couldn’t accept their loss. My guess is that the unhappy people didn’t object to Michael Cloud’s nomination because they were certain they would win all the spots–and then when they didn’t, made up these conspiracy theories to make themselves feel better. I realize many people really believe there were conspiracies on that weekend, but that doesn’t mean they were. Please, crybabies, accept your losses like men and women and move forward. You’re just making yourselves look more and more ridiculous.

  96. Jill Pyeatt

    I will, however, agree with Wayne Root that, if it had been him behaving in the manner that Michael Cloud did, he would be vilified.

  97. Brian Holtz

    @104 Now Cloud has joined the rest of us as toxic to at least a third of the LP.

    It’s not the case that a third of the LP agrees with — let alone even notices — everything Root says.

    @106 this is still about the losing side not accepting their loss

    Just because you consider yourself to be on one of two “sides” doesn’t mean that everybody else does.

    Chuck is hardly on any Root/Mattson “side”, and my own one-person “side” voted for both Root and Cloud. According to Chuck, Cloud was a proponent of the registration fee, which on your scorecard makes him part of the losing “side” — except he won at-large, and the registration fee was upheld by the delegates.

    There aren’t just two “sides” in the LP. There are, however, a lot of people who are victims of the Transitive Closure Of Evil fallacy.

  98. Starchild

    Brian @108 – To be clear, a majority of the convention delegates voted AGAINST the floor fee/poll tax, and approved a resolution against it; they lacked only the 2/3rds supermajority needed to drive a stake through the misguided policy due to the failure of the Bylaws Committee to bring forward as part of their report a proposal to amend the bylaws to ban such fees.

    TANSTAALFF! – There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Legitimate Floor Fee!

  99. Alan Pyeatt

    “The argument that it should have been brought up on the convention floor is ridiculous.”

    Seriously? I’m no parliamentarian, but even I have read Section 23 of Robert’s Rules of Order. Yes, points of order must be made in a timely manner. Not being aware of what is going on is not an excuse,even if you were writing your speech. And if their really was a fix in, there was also a remedy.

    “She may have noticed later when preparing the at-large ballot, but is it really on the Secretary to make objections that can swing at-large votes?”

    Yes Brian, I would expect the Secretary to say something to the Chair as soon as she notices a violation of proper procedure. Isn’t that part of her responsibility as an officer of the LP? I voted for Cloud too, but if I had known about the requirement, I would have raised the point of order from the floor.

    “When Cloud was nominated, I was mildly surprised that our keynote speaker had gotten nominated without protest. I assumed that the lack of protest was because of how well he spoke at both the keynote and the banquet.”

    So, as a Judicial Committee member, you noticed that procedure had been violated, but didn’t raise the point of order? Wow.

  100. Alan Pyeatt

    I would also like to hear Michael Cloud speak on this issue. Obviously there was an unfortunate violation of the rules, but was he aware of it? He seems like an honorable person to me, and I want to see some evidence before I accept the accusation that he behaved unethically.

    Which brings up the question, can anyone produce the statement that he was supposed to sign in order to be scheduled as a speaker?

  101. Steven Wilson

    1. Is Cloud’s actions a violation of a specific bylaw of the LNC or National LP rule book?

    2. Is Cloud’s actions a violation of a “mother may I?” promise prior to a tree house gathering?

    The premise is equal to the environment therein.

    If a speaker of an event were given a time frame to speak and went over that time, would that be a crime or a violation of the contract to speak?

    CLoud had rules of engagement and broke them of his own accord. Even if everyone at the convention had a brain fart, there is no way to know if he did, but we do know that he agreed to the terms to speak like everyone else. Therefore we know there was premeditation on his part. If he knew he was breaking a promise (rule) we now have malice.

    To prove a crime you must first prove the act took place. That has already been established. And since he won we now have accessories to the crime.

    Stop crying and do something.

    And by the way…while we post in post hoc liberty is dying all around us.

    Good morning freedom fighters!

  102. Brian Holtz

    Starchild, a majority of the delegates also voted not to seat people who had not paid the registration fee. That’s what I was referencing @108.

    Jill: as a Judicial Committee member, you noticed that procedure had been violated

    No bylaw or convention rule or Robert’s rule was violated. It was just a case of somebody in charge screwing up — like when they cleared the candidate literature, or when the delegate emails got leaked.

    if I had known about the requirement, I would have raised the point of order from the floor

    Ah, like how you raised that point of order about how selective leaking of the delegate email list was used in the LNC at-large elections — a procedure violation which you knew about at least two days before the elections.

    Steven Wilson: we do know that [Cloud] agreed to the terms to speak like everyone else.

    No, we’ve been told that the policy was put in place after he agreed to be a speaker. The Mattson/Moulton complaint is that he should have been asked to agree to the policy.

  103. paulie

    @113 It is a violation of a specific LP rule which convention organizers and some but not all attendees knew of. My understanding is that rule was in the Policy Manual and in the convention rules but not in the bylaws.

    The contract with speakers may have been changed subsequent to Mr. Cloud making his contract to speak. Thus, it is possible that his contract had no such rule and even possible that he did not know of any such rule. However, there is evidence that he helped with convention planning, including arranging other speakers, so it is likely – but not proven at this point to my knowledge – that he did know about it.

    If a speaker went over their time, presumably at some point his or her mic would be turned off and he or she may even be removed by security if still precluding others from a dressing the body after that. All this would take place while the convention is still convened. Thus there is no accurate analogy here.

  104. paulie

    BH @114

    My understanding from the discussion above is that a convention rule was in fact violated. Did I misunderstand something, or is that a matter of terminology?

  105. George Phillies

    “but we do know that he agreed to the terms to speak like everyone else. ”

    Do we? Were *any* of the speakers told? I have seen rather little evidence here.

  106. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, the convention rules are in that big PDF between the bylaws and the JudCom procedures. What we’re talking about here is a policy that the LNC has in its policy manual and that it asks the CoC to enforce. (Thus nominating Cloud was not out of order, and the most anybody could have done was to raise a point of information asking about the policy.)

    George, we’ve already seen an email from Ruth to Wayne asking him to be a speaker but advising him that he’d have to agree not to run for office.

  107. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 116,

    It’s a vocabulary mixup.

    A “convention rule” is a codified rule, as found here: “Libertarian Party [sic] Bylaws and Convention Rules.”

    The convention itself adopts, and may amend or suspend, “convention rules.”

    The “rule” about speakers not running for office was not a “convention rule.” It was a policy adopted by the convention oversight committee, and apparently also codified in the LNC’s policy manual by the LNC. Neither of those committees have the authority to make “convention rules.”

  108. paulie

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    So my understanding is that means that Brian would have felt compelled to speak up if he knew Convention Rules were being violated, but not if he knew LNC policies or convention oversight committee rules were being violated.

  109. Brian Holtz

    The LNC and CoC don’t keep me up-to-date with copies of their policies. I’d heard that this policy was going to be in effect again for this convention, but as it turned out Cloud was reportedly signed up before that policy was put in place.

    I considered it entirely plausible that the other at-large nominees had no objection to the keynote speaker’s nomination. Them silently standing in line with him was my first clue.

  110. paulie

    I considered it entirely plausible that the other at-large nominees had no objection to the keynote speaker’s nomination. Them silently standing in line with him was my first clue.

    That makes sense. So why do you suppose so many people (or is it actually a lot of people?) are objecting so strenuously now?

  111. Brian Holtz

    I agree with Chuck that CoC lapses (keynoter candidate, clearing literature, email list) should be called out so they aren’t repeated.

    Starchild@95: For the LNC or the Judicial Committee to overturn the results of the vote and thus disenfranchise the delegates who elected him, most of whom presumably knew nothing about the rule and had no culpability in this whatsoever, requires to my mind a heavier burden of proof.

    Neither LNC nor JudCom can overturn convention election results. LNC would have to remove Cloud “for cause” (which is subject to JudCom review), but they shouldn’t and won’t.

  112. paulie

    Agreed with almost everything Brian said @123. The only thing I differ on – I wouldn’t be so confident in predicting “they [..] won’t.”

  113. Jill Pyeatt

    BH @ 114: “Jill – as a Judicial Committee member, you noticed that procedure had been violated” I didn’t say this.

    BH # 114 again: “if I had known about the requirement, I would have raised the point of order from the floor”

    –Are you still talking to me? I didn’t say that, either. Please pay attention.

    BH repies: “Ah, like how you raised that point of order about how selective leaking of the delegate email list was used in the LNC at-large elections — a procedure violation which you knew about at least two days before the elections.”

    –If you’re still talking to me, your statement is 100 % incorrect. I knew nothing about any stupid delegate email list. I can’t believe you’re bringing up that topic with me again. Obsessive, maybe, Brian?

  114. Jill Pyeatt

    BTW, Brian, I’m doing my best not to argue with you since it never accomplishes anything, but when you argue with me over things I didn’t say, it’s difficult to be quiet.

  115. Brian Holtz

    Sorry Jill, got my Pyeatts mixed up. I was responding to the Pyeatt @110.

    I knew nothing about any stupid delegate email list.

    A couple days before the at-large elections, you chimed into a thread about the spammed list to report on what delegate spams you and Alan had received.

    But I have no evidence that you told Alan what you learned there about the abuse of the delegate email list, so have no evidence that the Pyeatt @110 (Alan, not Jill) was being inconsistent in claiming he would have objected on the floor to a CoC failure to follow its policies. For all I know, you learned about Alan’s spams without giving him any hint that the delegate email list had been leaked.

  116. Jill Pyeatt

    BH @ 127: I simply mentioned what I received as to literature re: the election. I knew nothing about leaked secret email addresses. You’re reading into my words stuff I didn’t say or mean, which is why I try not to argue with you. I call it the BC Effect (Bruce Cohen Effect).

    PLEASE don’t talk to me anymore about leaked email addresses. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ME!

  117. George Phillies

    @117 WE continue to look for a speaker who was told about the requirement. Communications with LNC members who voted on it obviously do not tell people anything.

  118. Roger Roots

    Wasn’t Wayne Allyn Root also a featured speaker? For that matter, wasn’t Mark Hinkle (also an at-large candidate) also a featured speaker? I was T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. and not privy to most of the speeches and lectures of the convention, but I did hear W.A.R. give a (very good) speech during a session on how to campaign or something like that. I also saw Hinkle give a presentation on how the LP can reach out to Muslim-Americans. (These were not on the convention floor, I recognize.)

    What was the point of the policy in question? Several of us who ran for at-large positions were recurring “speakers” at the microphones. Hinkle and Redpath obviously had more face time with the delegates (as chair and acting chair) than any other individuals.

    What really was the undue influence weilded by Cloud in comparison?

    Full disclosure: I voted for Cloud but did not know of the existence of the policy at the time.

  119. Roger Roots

    Regarding the overall stupidity of the rule (or “requirement”) in question: It clearly favored certain incumbents, as current-office-holding individuals (e.g., Hinkle and Mattson) were assured of “speaking” slots by the mere fact of their presiding over certain functions of the convention.

    And although it favored Hinkle and Mattson, neither of them were able to leverage it into reelection.

  120. paulie

    Wasn’t Wayne Allyn Root also a featured speaker? For that matter, wasn’t Mark Hinkle (also an at-large candidate) also a featured speaker?

    No, they were specifically not speakers exactly because they could not run for LNC if they were. Root introduced Johnson at an unofficial fundraiser that was not part of the activities officially put together by the convention organizers even though it was on the premises, and Hinkle chaired parts of the convention as the outgoing chair. Redpath chaired the chair election portion because Hinkle was a candidate, after which Hinkle resumed chairing. That is not the same as being a speaker though.

    Wayne I believe was also a speaker at the LSLA conference, another separate event in the Red Rock which was not put on by the national convention organizers. I’m not sure what or where the event Hinkle spoke at was, but as far as I know it was not organized by the official campaign organizers either.

    WE continue to look for a speaker who was told about the requirement. Communications with LNC members who voted on it obviously do not tell people anything.

    List of speakers: http://libertywillwin.com/speakers
    No contact info but you may have some of their contact info elsewhere.

  121. paulie

    Brian:

    Jill reported that she received an email. She did not know that she wasn’t supposed to receive it or that her email address was “leaked”to the person sending the email.

  122. ATBAFT

    I suspect Mr. Cloud will be a far more valuable LNC member than would be any replacement they could find for him.
    And the rule is stupid. A “keynoter” may have had no intention of running for anything but, because of a stemwinder of a speech, the
    delegates realize he or she belongs in an official capacity. And let’s not pretend our delegates are sheep that will placidly vote for someone with a lot of face time. They all have brains and
    may (indeed have on occassion) realized that
    a speaker’s facetime has actually cost him election based on his words.

  123. Alan Pyeatt

    Brian obviously can’t let it go, but for the benefit of everybody else, the only thing I know about any leaked or improperly used email list is what I have read on Independent Political Report.

    And I don’t believe half of that. 🙂

  124. Jill Pyeatt

    Paulie @ 134: Thanks.

    In addition, the email address that I received Ms. Moore’s email from is by no means secret; in fact, I’ve published it here on IPR on probably a dozen occasions.

  125. zapper

    Michael Cloud was elected by the delegates. He should stay on the LNC.

    However, IF he actually knew and had agreed to a contract wherein he promised not to seek any position on the LNC as part of his speaking agreement, then:

    The LNC should still initiate NO action.

    We wait for Michael Cloud. He should make an offer to resign based on an LNC voter whether to accept or decline that resignation. He might offer to return his speaking fees as well.

    IF Michael Cloud did not know or agree to the terms being debated here without end, then this whole issue should be dropped.

    And now, this issue should end.

    We need Cloud to shed some light on this.

  126. Steven Wilson

    Just to clarify, my example of the over run on speaking minutes was to point out things that are simply rude or unprofessional and things that are violations.

    I am not a fan of central planning, which I think I have made clear in past postings for those interested, but the main issue here is a car wreck.

    So many witnesses and no one saw a thing. Some don’t acknowledge a car wreck at all. And I think the one issue people here don’t post on, is that the victims of this wreck were unliked. You don’t care about them and you didn’t agree with past votes, so let them wreck.

    The cause becomes incidental. You look to the cop and say “I didn’t see anything”.

    Unless Ruth and others acknowledge that the rule on speaking and running was passed out on the partial, we must assume all speakers took the stage of their own accord with perfect information about task and consequent.

    I speak, therefore I cannot run.

    Perhaps, in the minds of the convention goers, once NOTA won or defeated the chairship of lesser gods, it let people “slide” on the slippery slope of things that are just rude and things that are violations.

    Perhaps Ruth knew CLoud was making an error or breaking a rule or being rude. Isn’t the rule maker to blame for not enforcing the rule and it’s subsequent punishments?

    If you prove that he knew and then he tells you NOTA made him “feel” like breaking the rules, well, tough.

    Do something about it.

    Double standards are total shit. People who complain about them and do nothing are total shit.

  127. Brian Holtz

    Jill @128: I knew nothing about leaked secret email addresses

    Click the link @127 to your comment 98 in that May 2 thread. Then read any of comments 95, 92, 90, 88, 86, etc. Each of those comments explicitly discusses the leaked list of delegate email addresses.

    If you’re saying you didn’t read (or don’t remember) any of those comments when you posted yours — even though your comment talked about the delegate spam you and Alan got — then I’ll take your word for it.

    Alan @136: the only thing I know about any leaked or improperly used email list is what I have read on IPR

    If you were reading the thread that Jill was participating in, then perhaps I need to retract my apology for responding to your barb @110 as if Jill had written it. My response was that the author of @110 was inconsistent in how s/he reacts to CoC policy not being followed. Maybe that was true after all.

    Roots@132: Hinkle’s mic time included the divisive registration-fee issue, and Mattson’s mic time was spent on ill-advised Platform proposals (that I opposed). Their losses are not inconsistent with the theory that officer elections turn on mic time/performance.

    ATBAFT@135: let’s not pretend our delegates are sheep that will placidly vote for someone with a lot of face time

    Not sheep, but sponges. They absorb the info generated by mic time. Officer candidates misuse it — and lack it — at their peril.

  128. Steven Wilson

    To add,

    Instead of dealing with Gary Johnson and his campaign, we talk of:

    1. The new LNC two minutes out of the womb.
    2. Oregon and the STD of a great weekend out.

    Meanwhile, Oklahoma is in court and Maryland just lost ballot access because of signatures.

    Don’t you feel better. Have a great lunch, and while eating, think about running for office without the LNC or the national LP.

  129. Stewart Flood

    I agree with “zapper” that the issue should end, but there are a few facts that need to be addressed first.

    1)

    Ms Mattsen is correct, the COC did pass this requirement, but her timing is off. It was actually passed in 2010 by the previous term’s COC (which I was also a member of). We discussed it in November, and agreed to continue to use it.

    My point in saying this is that this was not something new. We did this at the 2010 convention, where we replaced planned speakers (Mr Root, Dr Ruwart, Mr Nolan) because they were running for office.

    2) Speaking fees. None. Nada. No one was given any money to speak. There is an implication in one of the comments above that Mr Cloud was paid to speak.

    Some speakers were given rooms from our slot of “gimme’s” from the hotel, as was one very dedicated member of the party who spent endless hours on the floor managing our security. And at that, he and his wife bought gold packages, even though they were both working far beyond what a $115/night room was worth.

    I do not know if Mr Cloud received a room. He did do a lot of work at the convention. To my knowledge, no member of the LNC received a free room. I certainly didn’t — and the hotel was overpriced, had bad plumbing, slow elevators, and really really REALLY bad customer service.

    3) Mr Root, although complaining ad-nauseum about the injustice of not being allowed to speak, was given a room (at no cost) the day before the convention to hold a seminar for candidates. I asked if he would be speaking, since it would clearly be in violation of our policy, but was told that since this was an “LNCC event” and not part of the convention the rule didn’t apply. Yeah. Sure. Right. I call BS on that one. His LNCC messages (with his face and name plastered all over them) were sent to our delegates, promoting this event.

    4) Robbed? Mr Pojunis was “robbed” of an at-large seat on the LNC? The only times I’ve ever heard the term “robbed” in relation to an election, was when insider Ds and Rs used it. You can only be “robbed” of something that you own. Does Mr Pojunis, who has been a member of the party for less than a year, a member of the LNC for half a year, and didn’t even resign from appointments from the RNC until DAYS BEFORE BEING ELECTED TO THE LNC own this seat? My my. Tsk tsk! The shame of it! I guess the fact that he robbed (sorry, meant to say conn’d) the LNC into giving (“gifting”) the LSLA with a whole bunch of money (~$35k + more later) for a software system he dreamed up hours before making the motion, and then SPREAD ALL OVER HIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN MATERIAL AS SOMETHING GREAT HE DID FOR THE PARTY EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST YET doesn’t mean anything. Oh my.

    Fix? Who’s fix, and where did it go wrong?

    Should Mr Cloud have run? This was an ethical decision that he made. It was a rule of the LNC, which he either knowingly or unknowingly violated. But it was not part of the ByLaws, or of the Convention Rules.

    Ms Sink-Burris spoke (unknown in advance to the COC) and she ran for office. She made the same decision to run, but since she was actually a CO-SPONSOR OF THE MOTION I guess she knew what the rule was.

    Let it drop. The rule was abused by everyone other than the few LNC members like myself who tried very hard to stay away from the microphone during the convention unless absolutely necessary.

  130. Jill Pyeatt

    BH @ 141:” If you’re saying you didn’t read (or don’t remember) any of those comments when you posted yours — even though your comment talked about the delegate spam you and Alan got — then I’ll take your word for it.”

    I guarantee you I wasn’t aware of the leaked email list until a day or two after the convention when you brought it to everyone’s attention over and over again. My comment mentioned what we received IN THE MAIL, with the exception of Carol’s email. I do own a business and have a family, and I was phenomenally busy trying to leave town. I confess that I don’t read everything here thoroughly for any combo of three reasons: 1. I’m too busy; 2. the topic doesn’t interest me; or 3. the commenter isn’t someone whose views matter to me.

    I do find it inconsistent that a leaked email list has had you, Brian, a member of the judicial committee incredibly upset for at least a couple weeks now, yet you confess that you witnessed someone being elected to the LNC who perhaps shouldn’t have been. THAT speaks volumes to me.

    Now please, Brian, I implore you: DO NOT try to talk to me about leaked email addresses anymore. They had NOTHING to do with me! I’m sorry I ever even commented on the issue.

    There are so many better uses of my time towards my goal of liberty and peace for everyone than continuing to talk about this.

  131. Stewart Flood

    Top five reasons why former LNC members should be glad they either did not run for re-election or lost re-election:

    Number 5:

    The cost of travel. This is not a cheap job.

    Number 4:

    The time you spend. This job takes many hours a week — if you even try to do the job. Forget about trying to have a real job, this takes more time than if you were actually running for office as a candidate!

    Number 3:

    The time you waste in meetings the first year while the new LNC members are trying to figure out how things work, trying to change everything as fast as they can before they are assimilated.

    Number 2:

    The fight over where the 2016 convention will be held. (Orlando would have been/still is a good choice)

    And the number 1 reason:

    The war continues. It is much more peaceful to watch from the sidelines, than to scramble while bullet zip by your head.

  132. Brian Holtz

    Jill@143: incredibly upset for at least a couple weeks now

    Nope. As I said two weeks ago: my purpose has been to either 1) expose the party official who failed to keep the list confidential, or 2) shame anyone sitting on information that could help expose that official. I’ve done (2). Now all I’m doing is responding to anyone who would seek to minimize or excuse that shame.

    It turned out there were quite a few attempts to minimize/excuse. That’s not a measure of me being upset.

    I guarantee you I wasn’t aware of the leaked email list until a day or two after the convention

    I already stipulated to that. I implore you: DO NOT try to talk to me anymore about how you didn’t read the comments about leaked email addresses that immediately preceded your comment about delegate emails.

    you confess that you witnessed someone being elected to the LNC who perhaps shouldn’t have been

    I didn’t say that. Here’s a hint: if you don’t want me to respond to you, don’t misrepresent what I say. I’ll just repeat what I wrote @121, since we now know you don’t always read what it looks like you’re responding to:

    The LNC and CoC don’t keep me up-to-date with copies of their policies. I’d heard that this policy was going to be in effect again for this convention, but as it turned out Cloud was reportedly signed up before that policy was put in place.

    I considered it entirely plausible that the other at-large nominees had no objection to the keynote speaker’s nomination. Them silently standing in line with him was my first clue.

  133. Stewart Flood

    No, that’s not what I was trying to imply. He told me last fall that he was on some committee that they had appointed him to. He mentioned being on it with Michael Steele.

    My memory is not clear on exactly what committee it was, but the conversation took place (via cell phone) while I was driving too the LNC meeting last December, so the timing of his being on a committee appointed by the RNC and being appointed as an alternate to the LNC for his region either intersected or, as the fictional TV character Maxwell Smart would say, “missed it by that much!”

  134. Jill Pyeatt

    BH @ 147: “Here’s a hint: if you don’t want me to respond to you, don’t misrepresent what I say.”

    If you’ll agree to do the same, we’ve got a deal.

    I’ll continue my strategy of last week of not replying to you at all. Heck, I won’t even READ your comments anymore.

  135. Jed Siple

    Can we please just ignore all this nonsense until after the election? We have to focus on more important things!

  136. Brian Holtz

    If you’ll agree to do the same, we’ve got a deal.

    It’s always my policy not to misrepresent people. I think the inference I described @140 was reasonable, but I’ve already accepted your vouching that you had not read the comments leading up to yours.

    I still think your accusation @143 of inconsistency by me was unfair, in light of what I’d already written @121. But maybe you hadn’t read relevant prior comments like @121 when you wrote @143.

  137. Alan Pyeatt

    BH @ 140: “My response was that the author of @110 was inconsistent in how s/he reacts to CoC policy not being followed. Maybe that was true after all.”

    Bulls***! If I had noticed a procedural violation, I would have at least attempted to point it out. If you noticed a procedural violation and didn’t try to point it out, then I don’t think you’re qualified to serve on the Judicial Committee.

    But then, you weren’t counting on my vote anyway, were you?

  138. Alan Pyeatt

    One thing that the Root/Holtz crowd don’t seem to acknowledge is that this vote wasn’t just about Michael Cloud. Michael Cloud is a fine activist, and I’m proud to say that I voted for him. But if he had been determined ineligible, or removed his name from consideration, there were plenty of other fine candidates to vote for, and I would have been just as happy to vote for one of them.

    So, saying there was a “fix” to get Michael Cloud on the LNC, without providing any evidence of an intentional attempt, is just stupid.

    If you’re going to turn into conspiracy theorists, you might want to consider 9/11 instead. It has a lot more merit.

  139. Stewart Flood

    This would not have been a procedural violation that the JC would have noticed or dealt with.

    Even if the JC (or a JC member) had known in advance that there was a rule in the policy manual, they don’t enforce internal rules of the LNC unless the rule causes an action that conflicts with the ByLaws and someone petitions them to act.

    They can’t arbitrarily act without someone at the convention asking them to hold a hearing. At least that’s what the the ByLaws would indicate.

    There was no fix. The only “fix” that took place was that there were so many delays from the endless re-voting on the chair’s race that a lot of people had left by the time the at-large elections took place.

    Knedlering…that was the cause. Everyone who wasn’t already mad at everyone on the LNC was mad by Sunday morning, or they’d had to leave to catch a flight east.

    So if anything, the “fix” was orchestrated by the people who would not have wanted Mr Cloud to be elected.

  140. Stewart Flood

    And again, their (Root/Rutherford/et-al) candidates SPOKE AT THE CONVENTION!

    Their at-large candidates (some of them at least) spoke at the LSLA events held concurrently, in rooms hired BY THE LNC for the convention and given over to the LSLA to hold sessions in.

    Should speakers at the LSLA have been held to the same standard. Certainly. It was held during the convention and at our location.

    Mr Root, Mr Pojunis, et-al. If Mr Cloud is asked to resign, then they should also be asked to resign. Every single one of them.

    Or…as I said before…forget it. Both sides “cheated” (if you want to call it cheating).

  141. LibertarianGirl

    if Brett was elected to At Large , Joe Hassen told me he was going to be the Regional Rep. Hassen is GJ’s campaign fundraiser something or other , and also on the LPNevada exom.

  142. Andy

    So Michael Cloud is hanging out with The Situation now? How about Snooki, JWOW, Sammi, Ronnie, Vinnie, and Paulie D?

  143. Marc Montoni

    Stewart makes a valid point. If Cloud’s speaker status was an overlooked “campaign boost”, then Pojunis, Root, and several others who spoke at LSLA events got the same “campaign boost”. Stewart says LSLA was provided with space at LNC expense.

    As far as I’m concerned Cloud got the same advantage that the other guys did.

    The fairest outcome would be for all who got microphone time at a speaking session to resign, and — if still interested — seek to be reappointed after a call for volunteers and resumes.

    But of course that will not happen — so how about we drop it and actually try to accomplish something productive for the Party this year?

  144. Be Rational

    Perhaps we ought to consider the fact that individuals who have something so special to offer the activists and delegates at our Naional Conventions that they are selected to be speakers might just have something special to offer on the LNC as well.

    If we don’t allow our LNC leaders to present workshops or speak or don’t allow speakers to run for LNC don’t we lose out on the services of some of our most talented members?

    Shouldn’t we just trust the delegates to make the best choice? They can take “face time” into account; and better to trust the delegates than to lose out on our best talent.

    Cloud, Root and the rest who were elected were chosen by the delegates. Those who showed up as delegates made the effort and investment in time and money to select our candidates and leadership. They made their best choices. They exercised their duty to steer the LP on its way for the next two years. The most important and wisest course at this point is to respect their decisions, move on, and make the most of what we have to advance the cause of Liberty.

  145. paulie

    And again, their (Root/Rutherford/et-al) candidates SPOKE AT THE CONVENTION!

    Their at-large candidates (some of them at least) spoke at the LSLA events held concurrently, in rooms hired BY THE LNC for the convention and given over to the LSLA to hold sessions in.

    Should speakers at the LSLA have been held to the same standard. Certainly. It was held during the convention and at our location.

    Mr Root, Mr Pojunis, et-al. If Mr Cloud is asked to resign, then they should also be asked to resign. Every single one of them.

    Or…as I said before…forget it. Both sides “cheated” (if you want to call it cheating).

    Moving on sounds like the best course of action. Voting people off the island – again! – will not be helpful.

    Stewart makes a valid point. If Cloud’s speaker status was an overlooked “campaign boost”, then Pojunis, Root, and several others who spoke at LSLA events got the same “campaign boost”. Stewart says LSLA was provided with space at LNC expense.

    As far as I’m concerned Cloud got the same advantage that the other guys did.

    The fairest outcome would be for all who got microphone time at a speaking session to resign, and — if still interested — seek to be reappointed after a call for volunteers and resumes.

    But of course that will not happen — so how about we drop it and actually try to accomplish something productive for the Party this year?

    Wouldn’t that be too much like work?

    if Brett was elected to At Large , Joe Hassen told me he was going to be the Regional Rep. Hassen is GJ’s campaign fundraiser something or other , and also on the LPNevada exom.

    What do you think about that?

    So Michael Cloud is hanging out with The Situation now? How about Snooki, JWOW, Sammi, Ronnie, Vinnie, and Paulie D?

  146. LibertarianGirl

    @164 what do I think about it? I find it presumptuous and egotistical that Root and the LNevada front men have/had already divvied up all the slots to the same 4 people that run things in Nevada…personally I find Joe Hassen to be charming , intelligent and at least likes to appear that he is willing to work across divides…however during and after the convention , Ive seen him be more “partisan” such as spamming Chris Spangles article etc….my jury is still out on that 1

  147. LibertarianGirl

    Brett Pojunis’s pcture was freaking everywhere…what was that young libertarians group with his pic included?….the computer software was the 1st page in the binder and according to Stewart it was not supposed to be plus his dad was the guy in charge of booths …both of them were on the Convention Comm as well.

  148. Brian Holtz

    AP@155: If I had noticed a procedural violation [about nominating speakers], I would have at least attempted to point it out.

    …which seems inconsistent with the lack of interest from either Pyeatt about the CoC procedures not being followed regarding the delegate email list. If you’re going to put my consistency on trial, then I’ll return the favor.

    If you noticed a procedural violation and didn’t try to point it out

    I’ll re-quote @121 for you like I had to do for Jill:

    “The LNC and CoC don’t keep me up-to-date with copies of their policies. I’d heard that this policy was going to be in effect again for this convention, but as it turned out Cloud was reportedly signed up before that policy was put in place.

    I considered it entirely plausible that the other at-large nominees had no objection to the keynote speaker’s nomination. Them silently standing in line with him was my first clue.”

    One thing that the Root/Holtz crowd don’t seem to acknowledge is that this vote wasn’t just about Michael Cloud. […] saying there was a “fix” to get Michael Cloud on the LNC, without providing any evidence of an intentional attempt, is just stupid.

    One thing Alan Pyeatt doesn’t seem to notice is that I’ve made no such claims. On the contrary, I’ve defended the legitimacy of Cloud’s election.

    If anything is “stupid”, it’s falling victim to the Transitive Closure of Evil fallacy.

    Flood @157: This would not have been a procedural violation that the JC would have noticed or dealt with.

    JC members, and delegates generally, could have noticed if the LNC kept an up-to-date copy of its policy manual published on LP.org. In the absence of firm knowledge that the 2010 policy was still in place, I didn’t want to further delay our elections by calling out possible unfairness that no Cloud opponent was objecting to.

    So I treated this CoC breakdown like I did the other ones (literature tossing, delegate email leaking): by objecting to it on the record here on IPR, rather than wasting floor time trying to embarrass the opponent (Bennett) of my candidate for Secretary (Mattson).

    I’d like to agree with BR@163, but Libertarians don’t trust the LNCs they elect not to use speaking slots to game the elections.

  149. Marc Montoni

    Looks like we have several COC breakdowns. Maybe we should establish a list.

    A list of Credentials Committee breakdowns might be in order as well — such as a person with a direct stake in the outcome in Oregon refusing to recuse himself when voting on which delegation to seat — a clear conflict of interest any *real* PRP would have recognized.

    But then many of this year’s difficulties could have been avoided had the previous LNC been more attentive to appointing people based on their competence and fairness, rather than their loyalty as factional hacks.

    Maybe Mr Root and his departed allies could think about that a bit.

  150. Jill Pyeatt

    I plan to use today to further my goal of Liberty and Peace for everyone. That gives me more than enough to do–

  151. paulie

    Brett Pojunis’s pcture was freaking everywhere…what was that young libertarians group with his pic included?

    Young Libertarians National Alliance. I may have the order of some of those words reversed. They actually had two different fliers that I saw. Anyone save and scan them?

  152. paulie

    So I treated this CoC breakdown like I did the other ones (literature tossing, delegate email leaking): by objecting to it on the record here on IPR, rather than wasting floor time trying to embarrass the opponent (Bennett) of my candidate for Secretary (Mattson).

    Fair enough. I still find it odd though, no matter how legitimate your reasons, or my reasons, or Wayne’s reasons, or any other one individual person’s reasons that not one person out of hundreds brought it up at the time. Not one of the other At Large candidates. Not one of the outgoing LNC members. Nobody. Not during the convention. Not at the post-convention LNC meeting. Now all of a sudden it’s a huge deal? At least you are not calling for removals.

  153. paulie

    Looks like we have several COC breakdowns. Maybe we should establish a list.

    A list of Credentials Committee breakdowns might be in order as well

    Feel like writing it up?

  154. paulie

    I plan to use today to further my goal of Liberty and Peace for everyone. That gives me more than enough to do

    All too true. It’s so much to do it’s overwhelming. It’s so much easier to do the circular firing squad thing. And the illusion of having power and being able to impact real world outcomes is so much easier to maintain…

  155. Brian Holtz

    Now all of a sudden it’s a huge deal?

    I’m in violent agreement that there is no cloud hanging over Cloud’s election.

    My only interest is in 1) encouraging the CoC and LNC to be more transparent about their policies and more disciplined in following them, and 2) finding a way to balance the members’ freedom to elect the best officers with the members’ fears that the officers they elect might use speaker slots to game the next elections.

    The solution to (1) is Just Do It.

    We ought to be able to come up with a solution to (2). Maybe when a convention speaker is nominated, their speaking time is deducted from their nominating-speeches time, replaced with an advisory announcement why this is being done.

  156. ATBAFT

    This is getting really silly. How do we even know if Mr. Cloud was born in Hawaii?

  157. Stewart Flood

    The breakdown was in the LNC, not the COC.

    We started with an internal COC policy, which was adhered to in 2010. Some members of the LNC felt that it was necessary to make it a policy, so a motion was made. I agreed, and was actually one of the sponsors (but not the author) of the motion.

    But when it came to enforcement, we had no support. The same members who voted for it, violated it. Some of them came up with very creative ways to do it. Other than voluntary adherence, it was unenforceable.

    The same is true of the “equal treatment” of candidates. Some were more equal than others. Again, not the pervue of the COC, but everyone seems to want to blame us.

    The table clearing was actually planned, to make the room more presentable during the televised debate. What was not planned was the announcement that was supposed to be made warning delegates to take their stuff not being given when it was supposed to be and/or when it was announced, people ignoring it.

    I knew about it, but even my stuff was thrown away since I was busy dealing with some COC business and didn’t get back to the floor to get things.

    It was not an attempt to help or hinder any campaigns.

    In response to Dr Phillies’ comment about there being more than two sides, I agree.

  158. paulie

    In response to Dr Phillies’ comment about there being more than two sides, I agree.

    That is almost always a given.

    We should lead by example for real world politics by moving away from bipolarchy within our own party first.

  159. Be Rational

    @181 No, this is not “same ole, same ole.” That is absolutely one thing this is not.

    Libertarians are concerned about fairness and equality in addition to the pursuit of liberty. Sometimes the pursuit of fairness in the organizational policies of the LP can be taken to extreme. This is the situation with the rule about speaking time and election to the LNC.

    There is no way to make such a rule and make it work in a way that will not preclude the election of the best available members to the LNC. And there is no way that everyone will agree on what is “fair.”

    But, Libertarians try, and they debate, and they do so peacefully, if not always respectfully.

    The debate, although frustrating, protracted and seemingly a waste of time, is healthy. It should clear the air and hopefully everyone will get back to work now.

  160. NewFederalist

    “This is getting really silly. How do we even know if Mr. Cloud was born in Hawaii?” – ATBAFT

    “Indeed, how do we even know he was born at all? LOL” – paulie

    And just WHY did he change his name to Cloud? Hmmm… a coverup? 😉

  161. paulie

    NF: I think it was after he was censured, but I don’t know if that was why.

    BR: Not sure what Gail (assuming it’s her based on the link, I didn’t cross-reference the IP) meant by that. I gather she has a history with Cloud.

Leave a Reply

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