Transparency Becomes Issue for the Libertarian National Committee

1. Mark Hilgenberg June 20, 2012

   uggg track you down.
2. Mark Hilgenberg June 20, 2012

   They should all get a Google Voice phone number, it will track you done on whatever line you like and send an email if a message is left.
3. paulie June 20, 2012

   Regarding the most recent debate on the LNC Discuss list that has been forwarded
   to me

   Check archive.org for LP.org from last year. Many LNC members had non-lp.org
   email addresses listed and some also had phone numbers listed. It was not a big
   deal then. Not sure why it is a big deal now.

   Paulie
   415-690-6352

   And from Marc Montoni:

   Gosh, even the newbies are falling for this crap.

   Sigh.

   Anyone who saved an old copy (prior to the 2004 trashing thereof) of LP.org can
   tell you that direct emails, phones, and mailing address for all LNC members
   were all openly provided under the “Leadership” tab.

   In addition, for the five years I edited Virginia Liberty, I published the LNC
   directory in the Virginia LP newsletter. See page 6 in this archived copy:
   http://lpva.com/Archives/VaLiberty/2009/VL-2009-01.pdf

   This is one of those times when it’s clear that a judgement error by one
   individual — in this case the webmaster who rewrote the website in 2004 (Shane
   Cory) — becomes the de facto standard, never to be changed again. It becomes
   an inviolable rule because those with NO INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY decide that the
   paranoia position status quo has been SOP forever. But it isn’t — people just
   got used to it being that way because ONE MAN accidentally (or intentionally)
   changed past practice.

   No decision on this was ever made by the body. It has just become the standard
   because those involved *now* simply think it was always the standard. Now the
   resistance will be against common sense, instead of against paranoia.

   It occurs to me that this is one of the reasons why I support having an LNC
   Discussion list that is open. So many LNC members say things that simply aren’t
   true — and they don’t get challenged because there isn’t anyone who remembers
   past practice and who understands all of their fears are baseless — in this
   case, like about getting called at midnight. These are simply fantasies of
   paranoid individuals.

   If anyone has current contact information for any of the current LNC members —
   and I mean not sourced from their precious ‘official’ list — let’s start
   building it here, with PUBLIC SOURCE referencing. For instance, I’d be willing
   to bet every current LNC member can be found on ZabaSearch.com. For instance:

   http://www.zabasearch.com/people/jillian-mack/oh/

   In another “for instance”, the Libertarian Party of Virginia just provided the
   names & addresses of both its electors and the members of the State Central
   Committee to the Virginia State Board of Elections. This is now public
   information that Republicans, Democrats, reporters, janitors, and others of the
   masses may access, merely by asking the SBOE for it. Two LNC members are on it
   (Bill Redpath and Jim Lark). Jim also has a well-publicized mailing address (PO
   Box) which would be appropriate for use on a “privatized” LNC directory.

   We should make it clear to these guys that the cat’s already out of the bag.
   Bill collectors, government agents, and identity theives already know all your
   information. All we’re asking is for you to make it easy for the rank-and-file
   to contact you.

   Any excuse as to why you can’t do this is just that — an excuse.

   Resign, if you don’t want to be contacted.

   — Marc
4. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 20, 2012

   Wow.
5. Mike Jones June 20, 2012

   They also seem to be making a big deal out of publishing LNC members’ phone numbers on the site with their own permission even though there were numbers published last term.
6. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 20, 2012

   I’m disappointed in Mr. Neale, if that is correct, Ike (although I know you’re right). I just can’t imagine what the big deal is for most of their conversations to be transparent. It definitely makes me suspicious.
7. Ike Corona June 20, 2012

   The latest from Geoff Neale is he may shut down the discuss list completely, so that the unofficial/secret list will be the only LNC discussion list remaining.
8. Carol Moore June 20, 2012

   I would prefer to see something streamlined, like a list that records proposals and votes BUT ALSO includes in 25-50 words the reasoning the LNC member used for each and every vote. This would provide accessible transparency and help people decide if they were truly being represented. (Of course, many people would lie about there REAL reason, so there should be some way to make available counter evidence. For example: if someone kept saying in Discussion – “I want a convention floor fee to keep the radical riff raff out” and then voted against it only for TANSTAAFL reasons, it would not be ILLEGAL to quote their REAL reason.
9. Mike Jones June 17, 2012

   Steve Newton said it, but yeah.
10. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 17, 2012

    MJ @ 170: Very well said.
11. Mike Jones June 17, 2012

    Ms. Visek should certainly be commended for her volunteer activities, but that in no way changes anything said above.

    And while we are finding stuff elsewhere:

    http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/06/its-very-simple-really-i-stand-with.html

    “I’d really like it if the Libertarian National Committee had the commitment to procedural transparency and ethical conduct of a San Francisco sex worker.

    Given the fact that the only two things the LNC actually does that matters to most of us out in the sticks is to nominate a presidential ticket and manage the ballot access process, you’d think there weren’t that many things to keep secret.*

    It’s not like the party that racked up fewer than 600,000 votes out of 145,000,000 in 2008 has any deep, secret political strategies that the Dems and GOPers covet.

    So, when people get upset because Starchild outed their petty little fights, I think to myself: at least this is keeping them busy so they won’t f–k up the Gary Johnson, Barbara Howe, Scotty Boman, Andy Horning, etc. etc. campaigns.

    *Note to self: they blew the presidential nomination thing in 2008 (Barr/Root?), and keep ballot access hovering on the brink of disaster every election year. So maybe we should agree not to reveal their identities. Think of it as sort of a political witless (yes, I spelled that right) protection program. “
12. Sass See June 17, 2012

    Found on Facebook:

    From: WAYNE ROOT
    Sent: Jun 15, 2012 8:57 AM
    To: Discussion LNC
    Subject: [Lnc-discuss] Wayne Root for LNC

    Dianna,

    Thanks for all you do.

    The circular firing squads in this party never seem to end…

    Hence 40+ years of running in quicksand.

    Your efforts are greatly appreciated by me.

    No one doing all that on behalf of the LP should be denigrated over a sentence someone disagrees with.

    Stop worrying about words…ACTIONS are what matters.

    Dianna’s actions speak louder than any words.

    You should be thanked with a STANDING OVATION.

    Wayne

    —
    Wayne Allyn Root
    2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee
13. Mike Jones June 16, 2012

    @165 How does that follow from the preceding…?
14. Brett H. Pojunis June 16, 2012

    Please check out http://www.GoLibertarian.com this is a new social network for Libertarians!
15. Marc Montoni June 14, 2012

    Oh, I don’t know. As far as keeping the central government relatively impotent, I thought the Articles of Confederation worked wonderfully well.

    Making small ones out of big ones is almost always a net “win” for liberty.
16. Robert Capozzi June 14, 2012

    The lesson is that patience is indeed a virtue.
17. Ad Hoc June 14, 2012

    I don’t know either.
18. David Colborne June 14, 2012

    One thing I’ll point out is that the Constitution was written in a secret meeting behind closed doors. The resulting document dramatically strengthened the federal government, institutionalized slavery, and failed to secure any of the rights and liberties of the American people. It took ten amendments drafted and adopted in various public meetings to make the Constitution a palatable governing document.

    On the other hand, the Constitution actually created a halfway functional government, unlike the unworkable disaster of the Articles of Confederation. There’s a lesson here somewhere, but heck if I know what it is.
19. Ad Hoc June 14, 2012

    Thank you Jill.
20. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 14, 2012

    I wrote to my state’s Regional Reps to tell them how I feel about the issue. I hope her people write to her, and she takes the time to consider what they wish for her.
21. Ad Hoc June 14, 2012

    I agree too…but you may as well use this as an opportunity to remind her, and the state chairs in her region exactly who she is supposed to represent.
22. Mark Hilgenberg June 14, 2012

    I agree, I just think she was just looking for conformation to join the secret list and was being dismissive to the rest of us by saying over half.
23. Ad Hoc June 14, 2012

    Regardless of whether you think the list issue is important – she should know that Illinois is not more than half the members in her region. That’s kind of important!
24. Mark Hilgenberg June 14, 2012

    I took it more as being dismissive than I did math skills.
25. Ad Hoc June 14, 2012

    I looked it up

    http://web.archive.org/web/2011051041246/http://www.lp.org/leadership

    Her region is same same states as last term

    Region 6

    Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin

    Representative

    Dianna Visek
    Urbana, IL
    (217) 367-5027
    [email protected]
26. Mark Hilgenberg June 14, 2012

    I don’t know.
27. Ad Hoc June 14, 2012

    Did her region get changed much?
28. Mark Hilgenberg June 14, 2012

    @ 152

    With the rearranging of the regions, I am willing to let her slide on that one. 🙂
29. Ad Hoc June 14, 2012

    Should knowing how many (roughly) members per state and the ability to do simple arithmetic be a requirement to be a regional rep on the LNC?
30. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 14, 2012

    Now, Paulie has this to say (on Facebook):

    Via discuss group
    “Assuming the March 2012 BSM membership numbers are correct the states in
    that region show these numbers for that category IL, 497; IA, 121; MN, 214;
    MO, 238; NE, 81; ND, 24; SD, 41; WI, 219.”

    Thus Illinois is ~35% NOT more than half;

    Ms. Visek should know this if she is representing these states.

    I would expect my region rep to be on top of that.

    At the least she owes the other states in her region an apology.

    Is she really representing them or just one state? Those other states
    should be asking.2 hours ago via · LikeUnlike · 1.Paulie Cannoli Oh and another thing.

    This pertains to what a region rep does.

    I would consider the states to be equal – not weighted on LP membership in
    each state.

    In other words if I am elected regional alternate – my region is 5 states.
    My goal will be to give each state equal attention.

    We may have lost a state because JJM misspoke and accidentally said he
    would represent “Texas” when he meant to say “libertarians”

    He clarified that in an email later.

    Would all those states have voted to re-elect Ms Visek if they thought she
    was essentially only going to represent Illinois? Or to stay in her region?
    I have my doubts.
31. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 14, 2012

    And the comment thread on LPDiscussPublic/Facebook continues:

    To which she replied:

    Illinois makes up more than half the membership of my region. Just
    like Texas makes up more than half the membership of your region.

    Dianna

    Lee’s response:

    But you still represent “seven” other states. Am I to understand Illinois now dictates to those other seven states? That is not how we do it in Texas. All states in our region get an “equal” say, as it should be.

    Have you informed the party members in the seven other states that elected you, that you are supposed to represent, that you intend to exclude them from your decision making process as you have done this time? Did they know in advance of electing you that you would not consult them, but only your own state committee, when making decisions? Do you feel any sort of obligation to the party members in the other seven states you are supposed to represent?

    Lee Wrights
    Vice Chair
    Libertarian Party
32. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 14, 2012

    Here’s a posting on Facebook by Marc Montoni (on the LP Radical Caucus page):

    For those of you who aren’t aware, there a few of the hack factionalists who remain on the LNC. Mssrs Weiner and Lieberman have self-identified in that remnant. But so has Ms Visek, Region 6 Regional Representative.

    She doesn’t speak up often, but when she does, she makes clear her intense partisan loyalties. If you read Starchild’s LNC reflector list, Visek recently claimed her state committee endorsed her decision to join Weiner’s “LNC-Paranoid” list:

    > From: Dianna Visek
    … > Date: June 12, 2012 8:35:24 PM PDT
    > Subject: [Lnc-discuss] sign me up
    >
    > Hi All,
    >
    > At our meeting tonight my State Organizing Committee, which represents
    > over half of my region, unanimously agreed that it would be
    > appropriate for me to join Dan Weiner’s confidential list.
    >
    > Everyone felt that it’s perfectly reasonable for the leadership of a
    > political party to discuss its business in private. Some expressed
    > surprise that Starchild wasn’t being censured for his unilateral
    > decision to make our posts public.

    Do all of the other state chairs in her region want both themselves and their membership to remain unaware of the things that Visek is saying in their names?

    IL Lupe Diaz

    IA Ed Wright

    MN Bob Odden

    MO Cisse Spragins

    NE Gene Siadek http://www.lpne.org/#!contact-us

    ND Richard Ames 604 6 St North Wahpeton, ND 58075 701-642-6316 http://www.nd.lp.org/contact.html

    SD Tony Ryan

    WI Terry Gray 800-236-9236 (ext. 2)

    If you live in one of these states, please contact your state chair and request that they contact Ms Visek and formally request she stay off the Paranoia list, or, if she refuses, to replace her as the Regional Rep with someone committed to openness and transparency. All it takes is a vote of the state chairs in her region — a simple majority does it (5 votes).

    Here is Lee Wrights’ reply:

    Ms. Visek,

    According to our website this is the make up of the region represented by you:

    Region 6 – IL,IA,MN,MO,NE,ND,SD,WI
    How could over half your region possibly be represnted by your State Organizing Committee? You live in Illinois, if I am not mistaken, but you represent seven other states “besides” your own. How is that the State Organizing Committee for Illinois encompasses over half your region?

    Thanks for some clarification on this.

    Lee Wrights
    Vice Chair
    Liberatarian Party
33. Ad Hoc June 14, 2012

    @91

    It turns out Ms. Visek’s statement is ill informed. Illinois represents only 35% or so of LP members in her region and only 1/8 of the region if states are counted equally.

    The other states in her region should consider whether she is an adequate representative of their interests.
34. Ad Hoc June 14, 2012

    Communities can be voluntary, and can have voluntary governments.

    A party, society, church, and so on, can have a governing body, ie a government.
35. JT June 14, 2012

    Ad Hoc @ 128, that’s nice. Let’s go to various dictionaries & look up definitions of “government” so that we can argue about what almost everyone understands a government to be.

    Here’s my contribution from dictionary.com:

    1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.
    2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.
    3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.
    4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.
    5. (in some parliamentary systems, as that of the United Kingdom)
    a. the particular group of persons forming the cabinet at any given time: The Prime Minister has formed a new government.
    b. the parliament along with the cabinet: The government has fallen.

    Ad Hoc: “Advocates of self-government are advocating what, btw?”

    They’re advocating total control over one’s own life, liberty, property. Technically it should be self-governance or self-governors, but I guess self-government sounds better.
36. Mark Hilgenberg June 14, 2012

    @Starchild 142

    I remember some of us, pitched the crow funding type of concept to the LPC back in 99 or so, it was early in the technology but of course it was rejected.

    I really think that is a great idea, we need to work on how to present this idea.

    We are going to do a similar concept on the UtahLP site.
37. Ad Hoc June 14, 2012

    There should be a general fund as well as targeted project funding.

    Do project funding in addition to the existing general funds.
38. zapper June 14, 2012

    @142 This idea for the LP to adopt its own internal “crowdfunding” for targeted projects is a great idea. I don’t think we can use this entirely to replace direct mail and other direct solicitations, but we could probably reduce the number of direct solicitations, fund critical projects, and increase total funding if we adopted such a plan.

    Personally, I would like to see a permanent, continuing plan for advertising for major network TV ads in targeted states. I believe that enough people would see the benefits of advertising to set up such a fund.

    I think the LNC should plan to spend 1/3 of its revenues on advertising, 1/3 on ballot access and a maximum of 1/3 on office, administration, overhead and other. Crowdsourcing would allow members to have a say in the eventual split.

    Of course, if you set up too many categories, it’s possible that none of the categories would receive enough funding.
39. Starchild June 14, 2012

    Steve @139 – Thank you very much for your interest in supporting my ability to be more effective on the LNC by using me as a conduit to donate money to the party. I appreciate it!

    Your idea relates to something I’ve been mulling over recently — the challenge of how to raise money effectively while simultaneously empowering our supporters by doing it in a way that is complementary to our ideas and in keeping with being a grassroots, bottom-up, activist-driven organization.

    I am not a fan of the usual manipulative direct-mail and email solicitation model, and was trying to think of how to bypass those methods and empower LP donors to give them more choice in where their money goes and more information about how it would be spent.

    One idea that occurred to me was to have a special fundraising event at the next LP convention, where a number different projects or needs for which the party is seeking money would be presented to a room full of potential donors, the donors would get to ask questions of individuals present to pitch the various projects, and then would be asked to cut checks to support their favorite(s).

    As I thought about this, it hit me that there is an online mechanism to do essentially this — crowdfunding. It is a fast-growing new phenomena being led by websites like Kickstarter.com, IndieGoGo.com, and WePay.com. People pitch their projects on crowdfunding sites, and potential donors look over the projects and decide which ones they want to fund. They don’t pay unless the project secures enough donations to move ahead. The sites typically charge a 4-5% commission on money raised.

    My understanding is that crowdfunding sites typically let you ask questions of a project’s sponsors, and often thank donors by giving them samples of new products whose development they’ve helped fund, etc.

    I would like to see the LP start funding its priorities this way, and plan to urge the LNC to add content to LP.org that lets people learn about, ask questions about, and donate to projects and funding priorities of their choice (and perhaps gives them some kind of rewards for doing so).

    Perhaps such a feature on LP.org could include a field where donors could name the person to whom they would like to give credit for making their donation, if any.

    That way a party member like yourself who favors transparency and more democratic governance could not only have the opportunity to support the specific projects complementary to these values, but could also get in a plug for the party leaders or members whose standing or credibility you’d like to boost.

    This might encourage people to give more money to the party simply as a means of “voting”, without any need to cajole the membership via endless direct mail and email solicitations. Just an occasional letter, postcard, or mention in LP News encouraging people to visit the website and vote on which projects they’d like to see funded.

    These projects could include routine needs (e.g. “the executive director’s salary”, “ballot access in the state of ______” and “office rent”) as well as special one-time projects or needs.

    In the meantime, until we hopefully develop such a system, I suppose you could give me “credit” via a donation by simply donating online ( https://www.lp.org/contribute ) or mailing a check…

    Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
    2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200
    Washington D.C. 20037

    …and then sending a copy of the receipt from your electronic donation (or scanned copy of your check) to members of the Libertarian National Committee along with a note crediting me for the donation.

    If you currently have preferences on how the money should be spent, include a note with your contribution saying that you’re making a restricted donation, and let them know how you want the money to be spent. If office staff don’t want to accept the money with the conditions you attach to it, they should let you know.

    As an At-Large representative, I’m always willing to forward messages from LP members to the LNC list, since ordinary members are not allowed to subscribe and post there, but I also encourage people to write the committee members directly yourself so that you’ll have their email addresses handy and be able to lobby them individually in the future as the need may arise.

    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))
    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
40. Steve M June 14, 2012

    @125 welcome to the new reality where we can run statistical analysis and search large numbers of messages to see to which policy debate they pertain to.

    Yep, for those LNC Board Members who don’t participate in the open discussion and then vote in their own mysterious ways, you should have your rear kicked off the LNC.
41. Kevin Knedler June 14, 2012

    So Marc you seem to be such a big expert in the OHio LPO.
    Tell me how the leadership treats people.
    Or send me an email.

    “Self serving” eh. DOn’t make an ass of yourself.
    It was sincere.
42. Steve M June 13, 2012

    Starchild,

    One thing that can give you additional credibility and standing on the LNC would be your ability to hand carry donations into the LNC.

    How can those of us who support your activities on transparency and more democratic governance of the Libertarian Party use you to pass donations to the LNC and thus give weight to your activities on our behalf?
43. Mark Hilgenberg June 13, 2012

    @Starchild 137

    I stand corrected, thanks!
44. Starchild June 13, 2012

    Paulie @118 writes, “If the LNC had a ‘sounding board’ for public comments on issues being discussed on the LNC discuss list, people could comment on that anonymously – including any LNC members who had views they want to share but don’t want it to be known who is sharing those views.”

    That is an excellent suggestion. I will pass it along to the LNC and see what people have to say.

    Mark @127 – Actually I think you’re referring to my first post to the [email protected] list, not something I posted to the LNC list. But of course your paragraph following the one you mention that is spot-on, and renders the issue moot:

    “Giving permission on each post would be like giving permission for non-LNC members to listen to a member speak in a meeting. There are procedures for going into secret session if the body feels it is appropriate for sensitive matters.”
45. Ad Hoc Ergito Propter Hoc June 13, 2012

    Meanwhile back at the ranch….

    On the LP Sunshine Caucus list George Phillies points out:

    Dr. Lieberman is correctly pointing out that the voting
    deadline for the Orlando NatCon was many days ago, and the Secretary has not yet
    posted the results, namely that the Orlando location was approved. The deadline
    from the Orlando location is apparently in two days. Readers of my summary can
    find the Secretary posting a list of who has voted, and a string of people,
    ummh, correcting her list.
46. Robert Capozzi June 13, 2012

    Strawberry Fields, indeed, 134 ad. Nothing to get hungabout.
47. Ad Hoc Ergito Propter Hoc June 13, 2012

    Dan Wiener’s list exists for those who prefer that route. No need for anyone to get too worked up either way.

    We’ll see what works best by trying a combination of approaches.
48. Robert Capozzi June 13, 2012

    132 ad, but not Apple, I take it. Seems like a REAL big exception to me, if so.

    But, hey, assuming the analogy works, it may be that an “open source” LNC is optimal.

    As I indicated @27, sodium pentothal drips might be even better. That way, we might not only see the words people write, but we can get them to tell us what they are REALLY thinking. 😉
49. Ad Hoc Ergito Propter Hoc June 13, 2012

    130 rc, like linux, wikipedia, the ‘net, creative commons, firefox, open office, android, perl, php, drupal, wordpress, blogs, message boards, and much more. See

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

    for additional examples and links to learn more.
50. Ad Hoc Ergito Propter Hoc June 13, 2012

    The body of the LP has caught some of the people on the LNC behaving like naughty children. They’re lost the privilege of privacy, in my view.

    LNC members are adults. They can decide for themselves if they prefer to comment publicly on a list that is open on a list where only LNC members can post, on a list which only select LNC members can read, publicly on a list where both LNC members and non-members can post, or anonymously on such a list. All those options exist right now. If those are not enough anyone is free to create additional options.

    Everyone can do things the way they want.

    So what is the problem?

    Shouldn’t really be a controversy, should it?
51. Robert Capozzi June 13, 2012

    129 ad, like Apple Computer?
52. Ad Hoc Ergito Propter Hoc June 13, 2012

    If the LNC had for 40 years been “transparent” in the manner you advocate, would the state of affairs be substantially different than they are now? How might they be different?

    Dunno. Why don’t we see and find out?

    I know that in other fields as a general rule open source works better than closed systems.
53. Ad Hoc Ergito Propter Hoc June 13, 2012

    “Voluntary government” is a contradiction.

    Not true.

    According to thefreedictionary.com

    gov·ern·ment (gvrn-mnt)
    n.
    1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
    2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
    3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
    4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
    5. A governing body or organization, as:
    a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
    b. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
    c. The persons who make up a governing body.
    6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
    7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
    8. Political science.
    9. Grammar The influence of a word over the morphological inflection of another word in a phrase or sentence.

    Some, but not all, of these definitions are compatible with voluntary government.

    Advocates of self-government are advocating what, btw?
54. Mark Hilgenberg June 13, 2012

    @ Aaron 96

    “Every single one where permission wasn’t granted to forward them.”

    Starchild announced in his first post that he will be forwarding all emails. No one tried to invoke executive privilege or any other rules.

    Giving permission on each post would be like giving permission for non-LNC members to listen to a member speak in a meeting. There are procedures for going into secret session if the body feels it is appropriate for sensitive matters.

    I like to know why I vote or don’t for a representative, even if they vote the opposite of my view it helps to hear their reasoning and context. They are our representatives, we need to know if they are representing our wishes, otherwise, why elect them in at all? Just hand over the reins to self proclaimed leaders and let them do as they wish.

    They are voting on things such as how to distribute money, this is something we need transparency on.
55. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 13, 2012

    Starchild said:

    “Aaron, if you sincerely believe that LNC openness is a bad thing, it seems perverse — not to mention hypocritical — to say, essentially, “I’m going to help publicize the material that I think should be kept secret, so that this will by my own standards become a worse problem than it is, in order to pressure those who agree with me to take action to make their remarks more secret.”

    Wow, very well said. I’ll also say this, to try to explain what “the other side” doesn’t understand or, more likely, is pretending they don’t understand:

    Privacy is a big issue for teenagers. They wish to suffer their growing up away from their parents’ eyes. So did I. In my house, I didn’t have to snoop (on his computer,watching FB friends, what TV shows is he watching, etc.), and so on. Why? Because he never gave me cause to. Since he (appeared to, at least) respected my household rules and expectations of him, I respected his right to privacy. If I had caught him breaking those rules, or abusing the leeway I gave him, he would have lost the privilege of privacy. You bet I would have kept a better eye on him, who he was talking to on the computer, and so on. The end result was more important than privacy here, an end result of having him reach adulthood safely, and without a criminal record.

    The body of the LP has caught some of the people on the LNC behaving like naughty children. They’re lost the privilege of privacy, in my view.
56. Robert Capozzi June 13, 2012

    120 p, I’m curious: If the LNC had for 40 years been “transparent” in the manner you advocate, would the state of affairs be substantially different than they are now? How might they be different?

    For me, I don’t see the LNC as inherently all that consequential. Since some Ls insist that their sub-school of thought is “right” and others enjoy machinations and parliamentarian maneuvering, my best guess is things’d be more or less where they are today.
57. JT June 13, 2012

    I should add that by “enforce” I mean physical force.
58. JT June 13, 2012

    Paulie: “It is a voluntary government that is seeking to take control of the “real” government…”

    I disagree. A government is an institution that has exclusive power to enforce its own rules of social conduct over a particular geographic area. The fact that the LP has a “governing body” that makes decisions and carries out the delegate-established bylaws (or is supposed to) within the organization doesn’t make the LNC a “government.”

    “Voluntary government” is a contradiction.
59. Ad Hoc Ergito Propter Hoc June 13, 2012

    Speaking of sunshine, anyone know what Chair Neale is referring to in this comment to Dr. Lieberman (#646 on LNCDiscussPublic)?

    
    several individuals who were and are under duress tell me that in several states delegates were chosen on the basis of who they would vote for, and were openly intimidated into voting the way they were told.

    It seems to me that every member of the LP has a right to know if and when this happened also. The difference is that I have heard directly from individuals in this matter, and these individuals fear that they will be drummed out of their state parties if they go public.

    Who is to say what the election results would have been if this duress did not exist. But of course, every one of these states was on your side, so I don’t expect outrage from you.

    How about we move forward instead?

    Geoff
60. Marc Montoni June 13, 2012

    One answer to the ?open to all? scenario for the LNC? Just sit there and don?t say anything, don?t communicate, don?t do anything. Don?t join any email lists. If you want a private discussion, pick up the telephone (it now has private numbers).

    You guys are turning yourselves into pure caricatures with this stuff.

    Unbelievable all this distrust.

    Oh. My. Gosh.

    Who was it on the convention floor, costing delegates tens of thousands of dollars of their time, suggesting people who had merely cast their votes were liars and frauds? And then issuing a lame-ass, self-serving “apology” — during his campaign for re-election?

    Unbelievable. We don?t have that at the state level in Ohio. We are a team. We disagree on things, talk it out, vote, move on.

    So no one does any Knedlering at LP of Ohio events, but when orders of magnitude more people at a national convention face having their time utterly and stupidly wasted, it’s just business as usual?

    We all saw the behavior among the Ohio delegation leadership at the national convention. We all saw how you treated your own people. We all saw the thinly-veiled intimidation going on.

    Your words ring hollow.

    Like I said to one of your factional hack friends: Grow the hell up.
61. paulie June 13, 2012

    LNC votes should be on the record, and there should be public discussion leading up to those votes. Some of that discussion can take place on the LNC list and not be anonymous. Some of it can take place on a secondary list where anyone who wants to participate can do so, including LNC members who may want to comment anonymously (as some may already be doing at IPR from time to time), as well as non-LNC members, anonymously or not.

    Some LNC members may want to read that discussion and may even benefit from it. Others may not have time, or just wouldn’t see the value.

    If any number of LNC members from two on up want to have a private discussion through a CC list, phone conference or at a bar or whatever who is going to stop them and how? The worst that I could imagine happening to them is that some party members may not like it and may vote against them next term, but I wouldn’t even bet on that.
62. Robert Capozzi June 13, 2012

    118 p, I didn’t mean to suggest to anon. is either good or bad, at least here on IPR, which is a different function.

    Whether LNC proper discussions should involve anon. communications, that feels unmensch-like to me. The word “farce” comes up for me.
63. paulie June 13, 2012

    I support (and practice) the right to comment “anonymously”, including on LNC issues. If the LNC had a “sounding board” for public comments on issues being discussed on the LNC discuss list, people could comment on that anonymously – including any LNC members who had views they want to share but don’t want it to be known who is sharing those views.

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsunshine/

    Attempts to create such a sounding board, as does IPR to some extent.

    I don’t see those as bad things.
64. Robert Capozzi June 13, 2012

    116 p: I prefer my ideas to be public.

    me: Yes, some do. I’m generally fearless in this regard, too, and I’d like to think that when I suggest something that doesn’t work, I’m quick to acknowledge it. But, then, I’m not elected, and I represent no one except myself.

    Look at the frequent posters here on IPR who use pseudonyms. Why do they do that? The answer to that question may shed light on the basis for my position.

    If it’s all public, the unintended consequence could be that the “real” work and discussion goes underground. In which case, the “solution” is no solution at all.

    “Transparency” sounds great…who can be against it? Yet, if “transparency” leads to a “black market” of ideas, that sounds like a step backwards to me. You of all people should recognize that!

    In truth, I don’t care all that much about this subject, and I acknowledge that SC’s approach could well lead to better outcomes. I’m skeptical, though.
65. paulie June 13, 2012

    Unbelievable all this distrust.

    On whose part – LNC members for LP members who are not LNC members, vice versa, both?

    this “transparency” leads to a politburo environment.

    Politburo thrived on a lack of transparency.

    Ah, the LP isn’t a business is it? It’s not a business to get people elected?

    It’s a business to move policy in a libertarian direction through several means, one of which is getting people elected.

    All I can say is that were I on the LNC, I would be less likely to throw ideas out to the group if it’s public.

    I prefer my ideas to be public. More chance that someone reading/listening/watching will either like what I say and take action or provide useful feedback.
66. paulie June 13, 2012

    The LP is not a government and it has no power.

    Not exactly true. It is a voluntary government that is seeking to take control of the “real” government, and some of us believe it should set an example of how the “real” government should operate.

    It is true that participation in the LP is voluntary, although some of us feel like the actions of the other parties “force” us to participate in the LP.

    It has a very limited amount of power, such as disbursing small amounts of funds, electing low level people to the “real” government here and there and swinging a few elections. It introduces a lot of people to the larger libertarian movement which may very well change this country and the world, and in some ways perhaps already has.

    Part of the power in the LP may be in what it does not do.

    Anyway, for some reason, some people – whether on the LNC or not – spend a great deal of time and effort concerning themselves with power in a relatively powerless organization. We’re doing our part to make that power more accessible.

    I think that’s a good thing, but that’s just me, and a few other people in the sunshine caucus.
67. Robert Capozzi June 13, 2012

    111 tk, you may be correct. All I can say is that were I on the LNC, I would be less likely to throw ideas out to the group if it’s public. This may stultify others, too.

    In fact, you may get MORE garbage in the sausage if everything’s in public. Why? Because challenging (bad, groupthink) ideas and putting out alternative ideas – perhaps not fully formed – carries with it risks of ostracization.

    Toeing the line becomes the path of least resistance.
68. paulie June 13, 2012

    Starchild

    Aaron, if you sincerely believe that LNC openness is a bad thing, it seems perverse — not to mention hypocritical — to say, essentially, “I’m going to help publicize the material that I think should be kept secret, so that this will by my own standards become a worse problem than it is, in order to pressure those who agree with me to take action to make their remarks more secret.”

    Actions speak louder than words.

    Aaron may say that we, including him, are doing a bad thing, but I care more about what he does than what he says the reason for doing it is.
69. paulie June 13, 2012

    I will do my part by reading and reporting on those emails that I find most interesting

    Thank you for your volunteer efforts on behalf of the Sunshine Caucus and thanks to all the current and past LNC members for their service and, at times, for providing entertainment.

    If I am elected LNC Regional Alternate (there is currently a vacancy) I will try to do my part to be both useful and entertaining to the best of my ability as well.
70. Thomas L. Knapp June 13, 2012

    RC@109,

    “If there can be no free flow of ideas to kick around”

    Bullshit.

    Starchild’s actions — which are part of the platform he ran for LNC on and was elected on, and which he clearly and unambiguously announced his intentions to take before actually taking them — in no way impede a “free flow of ideas.”

    The LNC-Discuss list is a party business list. It is, in effect, an ongoing LNC meeting, and what transpires in that meeting is the members’ business.

    Keeping it secret isn’t about “the free flow of ideas,” nor is it about “what if the Republicans and Democrats find out our super-secret ultra-uber-genius strategies?” It’s about not wanting the people who pay for the sausage to see how it gets made.
71. Kevin Knedler June 13, 2012

    Ah my 2 years on the LNC are OVER.
    Blood pressure down 25 points.
    Hours more time to work on state-level LP.
    Hours more time to give consideration to my family.
    Hours more time for ME.
    Thousands of dollars I won’t spend on travel.

    Still was a very good experience being on a professional board. At least that is how I looked at it. Hope it is still professional.
72. Robert Capozzi June 13, 2012

    108 kk, yes, that’s my concern, too. If there can be no free flow of ideas to kick around, this “transparency” leads to a politburo environment.

    Maybe that’s what people want…
73. Kevin Knedler June 13, 2012

    I remember telephone party lines back in the 1970’s and 1960’s. It was awkward to say the least, having 4 to 8 other people listening to your phone calls. Stuff ended up in the newspaper. But, that was personal, not business related. The choice back then was to send a letter in the mail if you wanted private. Call it human nature, but most people like some privacy.

    One answer to the “open to all” scenario for the LNC? Just sit there and don’t say anything, don’t communicate, don’t do anything. Don’t join any email lists. If you want a private discussion, pick up the telephone (it now has private numbers).

    Unbelievable all this distrust. Unbelievable. We don’t have that at the state level in Ohio. We are a team. We disagree on things, talk it out, vote, move on. What is it with the DNA of the Midwest that this seems to work? Businesses do this all the time also.

    Ah, the LP isn’t a business is it? It’s not a business to get people elected?
74. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 13, 2012

    Aaron, we all know of the secret meetings and plans that are made outside of the LNC. That’s what I’m talking about.
75. Aaron Starr June 13, 2012

    Jill, what views could I possibly want to force upon you? When have I ever told you that you can’t believe whatever you believe?
76. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 13, 2012

    Yes, Aaron, you are nice to me, and I believe I’m nice to you. But why are you part of this secretive group trying to force your views on the rest of us? When did that seem like a reasonable path for you?
77. Aaron Starr June 13, 2012

    Jill @ 101,

    I am nothing but nice to you.
78. Starchild June 13, 2012

    The LP has a governing body, and that governing body has significant power within the party.
79. Aaron Starr June 13, 2012

    @98

    The LP is not a government and it has no power.
80. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 13, 2012

    Aaron at 99: “Instead, they have to deal with way too many people who believe that it’s their god given right to treat people like crap.”

    Are you talking about us??? Ah, sweet irony! Surely you’re kidding. Pot, meet Kettle.
81. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 13, 2012

    This is personal now: What the hell has happened to you Aaron? If you didn’t have the same name, I wouldn’t know you. You aren’t the idealistic, principled man you were 25 years ago. What went wrong?
82. Aaron Starr June 13, 2012

    @95

    Jill, I’ll tell you exactly why.

    These people are volunteers; they’re not paid to do this. Many of them dedicate untold hours and spend a lot of their own money to travel across the country and partipate helping out a cause they believe in.

    In exchange for their volunteer efforts these people are rarely thanked. Instead, they have to deal with way too many people who believe that it’s their god given right to treat people like crap.
83. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 13, 2012

    Keeping things secret is against everything I believe in. That’s what BAD governments do, and we Libertarians choose to be different. I do know that some things should be kept quiet, such as the pedophile problem we had in CA a few years ago. That’s not what we’re talking about here, though. People on the Libertarian National Committee have been voted in to represent us, not RULE us with their crowns and sceptres. Have people forgotten that?

    What’s the big deal? If people on the LNC wish to socialize, there are many ways to do that, but the LNC Discuss list should be reserved for party business. What part is so hard to understand, that some of us wish to know what’s going on?

    Have you noticed things haven’t been working out so well for the Libertarian Party the last few years, Aaron? Maybe if there had been some oversight things wouldn’t have gotten s0 bad.
84. Starchild June 13, 2012

    Aaron @92 writes, “I hope their knowledge of this will cause some of them to take steps to make their emails more private. To encourage this trend, I will do my part by reading and reporting on those emails that I find most interesting.”

    I find that statement to be oxymoronic. Aaron, if you sincerely believe that LNC openness is a bad thing, it seems perverse — not to mention hypocritical — to say, essentially, “I’m going to help publicize the material that I think should be kept secret, so that this will by my own standards become a worse problem than it is, in order to pressure those who agree with me to take action to make their remarks more secret.”

    Kind of like the famous anecdote about destroying the town in order to save it.

    I think you’re just looking for an excuse to be able to openly read and talk about emails that you don’t want other ordinary party members to have access to.
85. Aaron Starr June 13, 2012

    @94

    Every single one where permission wasn’t granted to forward them.
86. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 13, 2012

    Why are you so upset about this, Aaron? It doesn’t concern you, since you’re not on the LNC any longer.
87. mark hilgenberg June 13, 2012

    Of the 500 plus emails, which ones require secrecy?
88. Michael H. Wilson June 13, 2012

    Aaron care to name who those people were?
89. Aaron Starr June 13, 2012

    MH @89

    Does it occur to people that it might be rude to forward other people’s emails without their permission, and especially without their knowledge?

    On Sunday night I sent an email to all the LNC members and alternates — except Starchild, since he obviously knows — to inform them as to what was going on.

    Several wrote back to me surprised that this was being done. At this point, they are certainly on notice.

    I hope their knowledge of this will cause some of them to take steps to make their emails more private.

    To encourage this trend, I will do my part by reading and reporting on those emails that I find most interesting.
90. Mark Hilgenberg June 13, 2012

    > From: Dianna Visek
    > Date: June 12, 2012 8:35:24 PM PDT
    > To: LNC Discussion
    > Subject: [Lnc-discuss] sign me up
    > Reply-To: [email protected]
    >
    > Hi All,
    >
    > At our meeting tonight my State Organizing Committee, which represents
    > over half of my region, unanimously agreed that it would be
    > appropriate for me to join Dan Weiner’s confidential list.
    >
    > Everyone felt that it’s perfectly reasonable for the leadership of a
    > political party to discuss its business in private. Some expressed
    > surprise that Starchild wasn’t being censured for his unilateral
    > decision to make our posts public.
    >
    > Regards, Dianna
91. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 12, 2012

    I’m sure Scott Lieberman isn’t too pleased to be rebuked on them twice, but I’m glad to know how difficult he is. Hopefully, we can get him off the LNC completely the next time we vote on it. (He was talked to by Lee and then Geoff for refusing to vote on a motion because the chair hadn’t answered his previous question, and then the time revealed in comment # 79).
92. Mark Hilgenberg June 12, 2012

    I’ll ask this question again, it never received an answer.

    To those of you seeking secrecy, I have a question.

    Of the 500 or so emails which have been made public during the past month, can you give a few examples of which ones should not be viewable to us commoners?
93. George Phillies June 12, 2012

    Rob Banks penned the immortal words

    “Maybe there should be a Transparency Caucus?”

    My feelings are not at all hurt.

    Liberty for America. Appearing almost monthly. And http://GoldUSAGroup.com for blog discussion. And CMLC.org for background information And LPUSMISC on Yahoo Groups, founded 2003.
94. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 12, 2012

    Reading this thread does my heart good! I initially posted Daniel Wiener’s letter about his new caucus and Starchild’s letter both as comments on the Open Thread on Sunday, because I was reluctant to write an article about it. I didn’t want to make enemies for life. Well, I finally DID write this article because I felt it is that important of an issue. I’m amazed and delighted that most people seem to agree with me that transparancy is essential if we’re going to get our party back on track. The only 2 people who seemed to be upset and/or defensive were Aaron Starr and Scott Lieberman.

    That speaks volumes, doesn’t it ?
95. paulie June 12, 2012

    I started the caucus so I was ambivalent about posting it myself.

    I did send it to the IPR list and post in comments on several threads but I send stuff to the IPR email list often and only a small percent of it ends up being posted as articles.
96. Rob Banks June 12, 2012

    Huh, I wonder why no one has posted an article about that?
97. paulie June 12, 2012

    There is: previously posted @44 above

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsunshine/

    “Providing leadership by example through an open but focused public dialogue about making the Libertarian Party (US) more open in its dialogue, in turn setting an example for what we want government to act like wherever it exists.

    We aim to be the change we want to see in the world – transparency starts at home and sunshine is the best disinfectant. Setting an example of conducting our caucus business in public, for the purpose of making the party do the same, is aimed ultimately to give us credibility in asking for government bodies to follow our example.

    While we do want our dialogue available for all to see, we may ask those who veer off on unrelated subjects, disrupt the conversation and the like to regain focus or stop participating. If anyone persists they will always be free to read, but not to write.

    This statement may be fine tuned later. “
98. Rob Banks June 12, 2012

    Maybe there should be a Transparency Caucus?
99. Joe Buchman June 12, 2012

    Starchild @ 73 (and all on the LNC posting and lurking here . . .)

    Glad you caught the humor @ my 71.

    Perhaps if I’d suggested a $1,000 fine per secret message (kinda like putting a quarter in a piggy bank for each swear word at Summer Camp) . . . at $1,000 per secret message we could already have fully funded the national advertising campaign for the next three or four election cycles. . . .

    Seriously though, it was a two part motion (you only responded to the OR/second part).

    As an LP member, I’d REALLY like to see our LNC follow our Presidential Candidate’s lead on the 7 Principles of Good Government (as articulated on his website and more fully explicated in his book).

    So to be more precise, my recommendation for a motion is to ask the LNC to adhere to those Principles (at least through November 6th).

    “Just be Libertarian this once. After that we can vote back in the former Tyranny if we want.”

    Both in DC and the LNC. . .

    Also, maybe we could have a poster with the 7 Principles on it displayed next to Geoff Neale’s Re-Elect NO ONE to the LNC poster. On second thought, I’ll be sure to bring that 7 Principles poster with me on July 15th.

    See you then,

    Joe
100. Erik Viker June 12, 2012

     I begin to suspect that the LNC exists to keep bitter and argumentative people busy so they stay out of our way as we work to actually run LP candidates and promote Libertarian principles in public policy. ; )
101. George Phillies June 12, 2012

     Read it all on LNCDiscussPublic messages 640-647

     Free bonus, forwarded message from Mary Ruwart.
102. George Phillies June 12, 2012

     LNC Discusses Wiener Secret List

     Vohra refuses to join. Starchild refuses to join. Myers refuses to join. Wrights refuses to join. Lieberman tries to change the topic. Neale describes ongoing delegate intimidation–in states supporting Lieberman’s faction:

     Arvin Vohra wrote:
     “First, I appreciate the fact that Dan’s new extra-confidential list is voluntary, and that everyone has the choice to join the list or not. However, I am making the choice to stay off the list. I would rather be kept in the dark about what some people on the LNC are discussing than to contribute to keeping the vast majority of our party in the dark about LNC discussions by joining.
     Arvin”

     Arvin, Thank you for your choice, and well said. I don’t plan to subscribe to the
     secret list either.
     Love & Liberty,
     ((( starchild )))

     Myers declines to join:
     I have no intention of joining the secret list, I do however intend to try and keep the chest thumping and Wayne bashing down to a minimum, if that helps.

     Lee Wrights agreed:
     “Well said, Mr. Vohra. Personally, I will follow your fine example.
     Lee Wrights”

     Scott Lieberman tried to change the topic:

     I wonder if the members of the Texas State Libertarian Party Executive Committee who helped Mr. Sparkman buy and pay for the votes of 37 Delegates to the Libertarian National Convention shared all of their planning e-mails on a public web site. (1)

     Considering that those Delegates from Texas changed the results of the LNC officer and LNC At-Large elections, that pre-Convention plotting was exactly the same as LNC members having private e-mail exchanges amongst themselves.

     Remember – those Delegates from Texas to the National Convention were elected by the Delegates to the LP of Texas State Convention, so at a minimum all of the members of the Libertarian Party of Texas should have been able to read all of those plotting e-mails.

     Scott Lieberman

     1. As I said before, I am not saying that buying and paying for the votes of Delegates violated any of our rules. I am just envious that I did not have the money to do it myself.

     Lieberman was told off by Geoff Neale:

     From: “Geoffrey Neale”
     Date: June 12, 2012 10:33:22 AM PDT

     Scott – I’m curious. You talk about this historical election as if you have some inside knowledge. Please provide it – I’m ignorant of any of this, and I’m tired of scurrilous accusations without some form of documentation.

     However, while we’re on the subject, several individuals who were and are under duress tell me that in several states delegates were chosen on the basis of who they would vote for, and were openly intimidated into voting the way they were told.

     It seems to me that every member of the LP has a right to know if and when this happened also. The difference is that I have heard directly from individuals in this matter, and these individuals fear that they will be drummed out of their state parties if they go public.

     Who is to say what the election results would have been if this duress did not exist. But of course, every one of these states was on your side, so I don’t expect outrage from you.

     How about we move forward instead?

     Geoff
103. Mike Kane June 12, 2012

     Lee Wrights

     Well said, Mr. Vohra. Personally, I will follow your fine example.

     Lee Wrights
     Vice Chair
     Libertarian Party
104. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 12, 2012

     I’m very pleased to see Arvin commit to transparency, and I hope others follow his example.
105. Mark Hilgenberg June 12, 2012

     @ Paulie 75

     I think the Sunshine list would be a good place to cc or forward any emails we send to LNC reps who are either pushing for secrecy, or against it.

     Also, you just don’t strike me as a Tuscaloosa, Alabama boy. 🙂

     Mark
106. Mark Hilgenberg June 12, 2012

     I like that people are already rejecting the idea of a secret list. Go Arvin and Starchild!

     > From: Arvin Vohra
     > Date: June 12, 2012 2:53:18 AM PDT
     > To: lnc-discuss@ hq.lp.org
     > Subject: [Lnc-discuss] Confidential List
     > Reply-To: lnc-discuss@ hq.lp.org
     >
     > Hi All,
     >
     > First, I appreciate the fact that Dan’s new extra-confidential list is voluntary, and that everyone has the choice to join the list or not.
     >
     > However, I am making the choice to stay off the list. I would rather be kept in the dark about what some people on the LNC are discussing than to contribute to keeping the vast majority of our party in the dark about LNC discussions by joining.
     >
     > -Arvin

     > Arvin,
     >
     > Thank you for your choice, and well said. I don’t plan to subscribe to the secret list either.
     >
     > Love & Liberty,
     > ((( starchild )))
107. paulie June 12, 2012

     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsunshine/message/22

     “Thanks to Starchild and Mark Hilgenberg for LNCDiscussPublic, to George Phillies
     for the summaries, and to Starchild again for reposting them here (LP sunshine caucus list).

     If anyone would like to discuss any of the messages Dr. Phillies summarizes in
     the list below, referring to them in the following manner

     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LNCDiscussPublic/message/640
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LNCDiscussPublic/message/64
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LNCDiscussPublic/message/6

     etc

     This (sunshine caucus) list is a good place to have such discussions, imo

     -paulie

     415-690-6352
     Tuscaloosa, Alabama”
108. Starchild June 12, 2012

     Thanks to Alan @5, Steve @11, Stewart @15, Mike @24, Rocky @26, TJ Jefferson @43, Ralph @45, Jill @55, Root’s Teeth @56, Jeremy @66, Chuck @67, Joe @68, and everyone else who has appreciated the LNC emails being made public for your kind words, and of course Mark Hilgenberg for hosting the list and George @19 for publishing his summaries of the emails on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPUSmisc/.

     Jill @8 – I think it’s possible, even likely, that some LNC members didn’t know about the LNCDiscussPublic list until I specifically mentioned it on the LNC list. I suspect many already knew about it, either from reading about it here on IPR or on email, or word of mouth, but of course we’ll never know for sure. Not that I think it matters terribly one way or the other — I believe I made it abundantly clear in multiple comments that I wasn’t considering messages posted to the LNC list to be confidential.

     Joe @71 – Amusing idea, but no, I couldn’t favor a motion to have any LNC member wishing to post a secret email donate $100 to Gary Johnson, even if I thought there was a chance in hell that the LNC would vote for such a plan. I don’t want us to be a pay-to-play party in any case, and certainly not in the case of enabling the well-heeled among us to be doing things that none of us should be doing.

     Erik @72 – No worries of that — I’ve got at least five big issues: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/grassrootslibertarians

     Transparency is in some ways a subset of Grassroots Libertarians Caucus Key Value #1 (Bottom-Up, Not Top-Down), but I’ve come to see it as so important that if I were writing the 5KV again, I would list it as a key value in its own right.

     Love & Liberty,
     ((( starchild )))
     At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committtee
109. Erik Viker June 12, 2012

     I hope all this drama does not mean Starchild has become a single-issue LNC member. That would be disappointing.
110. Joe Buchman June 12, 2012

     HOW ABOUT DEMANDING THE LNC follow the PROVEN LEADERSHIP LESSONS OF . . .

     PRINCIPLE 2 Always be honest and tell the truth.

     It’s extremely difficult to do any damage to anybody when you are willing to tell the truth—regardless of the consequences.

     PRINCIPLE 5 Communicate.

     Make sure everybody who ought to know what you’re doing knows what you’re doing.

     PRINCIPLE 6 — Don’t hesitate to deliver bad news. “anything that can be revealed eventually should be revealed immediately.”

     HOW ABOUT DEMANDING THE LNC follow the PROVEN LEADERSHIP LESSONS OF . . .

     . . .

     OUR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE?

     See “Gary’s Principles of Good Government” at:

     http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/record

     OR for every “Secret” email, pay a $100 fine to —

     https://donate.garyjohnson2012.com/

     Starchild — can you get that in as a motion for me?

     Joe
111. Michael H. Wilson June 12, 2012

     The members on the LNC need to stop the bickering or worrying if someone is watching them and do something to advance the cause.
112. Joe Buchman June 11, 2012

     IMO, for what its worth, the LNC needs to manage its lists the same way it manages its in-person meetings — one list for public business where anyone can listen in (and record/webcast) the proceedings, and an LNC-Secret-Session (or Executive Session if that is what you want to call it) for Secret work (although it seems to me that might best be done on a phone call — not that those couldn’t be recorded as well).
113. Joe Buchman June 11, 2012

     @38 —

     “Have you ever noticed that people act differently when they know they have a television camera on them?”

     Interesting question.

     Somewhere around the age of 16 or so, I concluded an excellent method for living a moral life was to act as if 60 Minutes was always following me around; that every mic was hot; that every phone call was recorded.

     But this is nothing unique to me. Many people who believe in a God or Guardian Angels, or have a belief that this life on Earth is some kind of “testing ground” or preparation for the life in the world to come (for example many of my LDS/Mormon friends here in Utah) also practice the belief that God, or their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and Saints for generations back may well be watching not only their ever action, not only hearing every word, but are also able to know every thought. I think Jesus was reported to have said something like that as well.

     And it’s elsewhere too. In Scouting’s Honor Society (The Order of the Arrow) there’s a ceremony for the Vigil Honor that contains the line: “Aided by Him to whom your most secret thought is an open page, it is for you, from this moment forward to search your soul . . .”

     I took those words, that concept that someone is watching, someone knows and sees everything, seriously when I first heard them in 1976, at the age of 18 or so.

     Later I dropped most mysticism out of my life (excepting that wonder at the numinosity of the Night Sky), and simply concluded that acting as if 60 minutes was recording everything was a useful practice for making moral decisions.

     So to answer the question — yes, I’ve seen how people act differently when they know they are being watched (read: could be caught doing something wrong), than how they act when they know they (largely falsely) think they could get away with it.

     Which behavior are you suggesting we need more of?

     Joe

     PS to assume that something like LNC-Discuss was ever remotely private, or could ever be made so is, IMO, absurd. Apparently copies have been going out to at least several non-members of that list for years. I’d assume any decent junior high-school hacker could hack into it. I’d assume a copy of everything is in some government archive here, and several other nations. Were I on the list I’d be writing no differently with Starchild reposting everything than I would be without that. Same with the new list set up by Mr. Weiner. Really? You trust the technology, the other people on the list, the various hosting companies, the government, not to have extra copies of whatever is there? Really?
114. Chuck Moulton June 11, 2012

     Marc Montoni wrote (@49):

     Yes, the rank and file *does* have the right to listen in.

     Several of the individuals who support a secret LNC list have used the cloak of secrecy to cover up their negative behavior — such as at least one individual who often denigrated other LP activists and one who often makes outlandish claims that simply are not true.

     I refuse to grant them the right to do this in secret.

     I strongly agree.

     When I was on the LNC I respected the convention of LNC-Discuss list privacy. I was fine with any of my own messages being public, but I didn’t forward other people’s messages. When I shared a message of mine that replied to someone else’s message, I would delete or anonymously paraphrase the quoted part. The one exception was to preserve institutional memory I would sometimes forward full messages from myself and others to current members of the LNC who were not on the LNC at the time of the forwarded message.

     But were the LNC to vote on whether to make LNC-Discuss public, I would have voted to do so. If I am elected to a future LNC, I will vote for transparency of the LNC-Discuss list and vote against sanctioning LNC members who breach the convention of list confidentiality which is nowhere codified in the bylaws or the policy manual.

     I’ve been reading LNCDiscussPublic regularly. The deliberations are interesting, amusing, and disappointing all at once. Kudos to Starchild for making that resource available. And kudos to George Phillies for publishing highlights of the last couple LNC terms at Gold USA Group and Liberty for America (I don’t always agree with his commentary, but the primary source emails are excellent).
115. Jeremy C. Young June 11, 2012

     Aaron @35 says:

     The decision by one member of the LNC to create a public reflector list of most all LNC discussions is an attempt to put in through the back door what the convention rejected.

     Starchild was elected by the convention. Starchild said his platform was transparency. Starchild enacts his platform, and you call it “an attempt to put in through the back door what the convention rejected?”

     That’s silly on its face. The reality is that the convention sent a mixed message: it voted down measures Starchild would have supported, but it elected Starchild knowing he would enact those same measures. The solution to that quandary isn’t to assume that the convention elected Starchild for something other than his stated platform (his flashy outfits?), but to let both parts of that mixed message play out. The lists aren’t officially public, Starchild is going to publicize what goes on in them, and the delegates wanted both those things to happen.

     The day Starchild does something that’s inconsistent with what he told the delegates he would do, I will criticize him for it. Saying that he’s thwarting the will of the delegates by doing what the delegates elected him to do is absurd.
116. Rocky Eades (augustalibertarian) June 11, 2012

     @46: “As the party evolves into more of a real political party, there may be some strategies that can’t be put out in public for the dreaded R’s and D’s to see. ” I’m not sure I can imagine any political “strategy” that the LNC should be discussing in secret, but if that’s the case, there are procedures (I would assume) to lawfully change the policy manual or bylaws or whatever and add “strategies” to the short list of items which can be discussed in properly convened executive sessions.
117. zapper June 11, 2012

     @62 I think you’ve accurately described most of the problem as “impotent policies.”
118. Mark Hilgenberg June 11, 2012

     @ Steve 62

     Exactly!
119. Steve M June 11, 2012

     I would argue that lack of debate upon impotent policies before LNC meetings is also an indication that hidden meeting are taking place.

     If LNC members, don’t participate in the open discussion and then show up at LNC meetings and vote with no explanation, then the party members should take that into account during the next LNC elections.
120. Michael H. Wilson June 11, 2012

     Well Stewart they sure as hell are not acting like adults. Maybe we should just lock them in a closet.

     Unless of course you arrange a meeting BEFORE each LNC meeting where you tell them what to do.

     We used to see this game being played by Mr. Burke in Oregon way back in the 90’s. It probably still happens.
121. Stewart Flood June 11, 2012

     And exactly how are they supposed to be treated like children?

     What everyone appears to be ignoring is that the real discussions have ALWAYS taken place outside of lnc-discuss. Phone conversations, private emails, that is where most work has been and always will be done.

     If I had a question of one member of the committee, I did not send a message to the main list. I either called or wrote to the member I was discussing the subject with. This isn’t being secretive, it is just the way any organization runs if you want to actually get work done.

     Sub-committees have their own lists. There are three or four of them, and only the members of the sub-committee are on the list. Again, this is how most organizations run.

     This is not the problem. The problem is the behind the scenes manipulation of certain members by non-members of the committee. Watch the next meeting — either online or in person — and notice who constantly asks for input from certain members of the audience. Look at what they have in front of them: cue cards.

     THAT is the problem! Publishing lnc-discuss or not publishing it…the problem is outside of the list. No one is being pushed into secrecy. It already exists.

     The chair should operate the meeting the way meetings should be run. People in the audience should not be asked to speak during the meeting other than during public comment. If someone needs to have a point raised, they can discuss it with their representative and let the representative decide if it is important enough to bring forward.

     Do members of the party have the right to lobby their representatives? Of course. We all do. But members SHOULD be lobbying their state party and allow their state chair to discuss issues with their representatives. Going around the people you have elected to run your state party is not the way to do things.

     Unless of course you arrange a meeting BEFORE each LNC meeting where you tell them what to do.

     Mr Starr doesn’t need to verify that the meetings take place. He’s not even going to recognize that the question was asked. Denying it would risk a response showing evidence that I and others have that the meetings take place. Admitting it would wipe out all his work. The only thing he can do is not respond.

     Heads they win, tails you lose.
122. Steve M June 11, 2012

     @37 but the LNC asks me for financial support almost on a monthly basis. So yes they are asking me to trust them and then some are saying but we don’t trust you with how policy is being set. If you don’t trust me with a transparent understanding of how my money is to be used then why should I trust you with my money?

     @38 you mean that LNC members haven’t backed candidates and worked with LNC staff to provide candidates with access to mailing lists prior to nomination, or that deal with software database companies, web design companies are made with transparent and open bidding or that the decision to charge floor taxes at the national convention was fully openly debated and voted upon?

     Just like many states have sunshine laws for their legislatures and city councils…. there should be sunshine and visibility on how Libertarian Party Policies are set.
123. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 11, 2012

     MHW @ 54: ” They are acting like children and they need to be treated like children as long as they act that way.”

     I agree.

     .
124. Mark Hilgenberg June 11, 2012

     @ 35 Aaron Starr writes; Others will withdraw from participation altogether, making the board even less effective.

     That is one thing we can hope for! Just as we hope the Federal Government becomes less effective in their master plans, maybe the same can happen with the LNC. This way the local affiliates and grassroots activists can take over. 🙂
125. Root's Teeth Are Awesome June 11, 2012

     Sure, transparency will drive some LNC members underground.

     But why is that a problem?

     If you can’t force transparency on them, you can at least make it difficult for them to engage in their petty skullduggery.

     No more executive sessions in the board room. Instead, let them plot behind bathroom stalls.

     In some cases, the result might be the same. In other cases, the added gymnastics required for secrecy might cause an LNC member to not bother, thus losing the plotters a key vote.

     Yeah, it all sounds petty and sordid and Demopublican. Which is why, if they’re gonna behave in a sordid manner, they should be driven to do it behind bathroom stalls.
126. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 11, 2012

     Speaking of regional reps, Scott Lieberman and Daniel Wiener were both voted in to represent California. Here is the letter I sent to both of them yesterday afternoon:

     ” I’ve been highly disturbed by the email conversation from the past couple of weeks on the LNCDicussPublic list. Now the transparency issue has come to the fore. Although I recognize that there are a few conversations which should be private, perhaps you have forgotten that you were elected to your positions to represent the Libertarians of California. I’m wondering what you could possibly be talking about that should remain private? I would respect a need for privacy far more than if it was used sparingly, and with discretion. Since that hasn’t been happening, I request that almost all of the email conversations re: LNC activity be open to the LP body.

     It is no secret that many–most–Libertarians at the convention were unhappy with the past two years. That’s what the whole spontaneous NOTA thing was about. Nick Sarwark was right: there was no reason to reward either Hinkle or Rutherford for the dismal results of the past two years. We wanted new leadership. We needed to correct the bad behaviors from LNC members which has resulted in bad outcomes. How can we do that if we don’t know what’s going on? I’m not 100 % certain that the purging of Rachel Hawkridge happened during the past two years, but IIRC it did. Perhaps she wouldn’t have left the party if things had happened differently, or if others had been watching. I believe the Oregon situation would not have gotten so completely out of hand if we had know what was happening. Remember, those of us who read the list are doing it a little after the fact, and from behind a computer monitor. That means that we might very well have a different and less prejudiced view of the happenings than those who are immediately involved.

     I urge you to stop the privacy nonsense and allow the people you represent to be part of the Libertarian Party National Committee process. There’s too much at stake to do otherwise.”

     I haven’t heard from Wiener yet, although he doesn’t usually reply when I write to him–maybe once out of half a dozen times. Lieberman answered that he didn’t know about the LNCDiscussPublic list, but didn’t discuss my purpose for writing. I urge any of you to write to your Regional Representative if they are not properly representing the people of their region and let them know how you feel, even if they don’t get back to you.
127. Michael H. Wilson June 11, 2012

     @ 35 Aaron Starr writes; Others will withdraw from participation altogether, making the board even less effective.

     If anything I have seen a significant number of posts that tell me that some people on the committee need some lessons in how to work.

     I have spent more than a few years supervising people and what I have seen recently and what I saw in the past is nothing short of incompetence. Little or nothing is being done to build this party by some of the members of the LNC. They are acting like children and they need to be treated like children as long as they act that way.
128. Mark Hilgenberg June 11, 2012

     To those of you seeking secrecy, I have a question.

     Of the 500 or so emails which have been made public during the past month, can you give a few examples of which ones should not be viewable to us commoners?
129. Robert Capozzi June 11, 2012

     Well, there’s always the telephone…
130. Mark Hilgenberg June 11, 2012

     @ Aaron 35

     “Absent the implementing of “Big Brother” policies, you can’t force people to communicate on the LNC discussion list. As a consequence, I predict there will be far less frank discussion among the LNC as a whole. Some will be more inclined to engage in private email conversations and phone calls, which is already beginning to take place. Others will withdraw from participation altogether, making the board even less effective.”

     I agree with you here, we can’t force the issue but what we can do is keep track of those who seem to be silent on controversial issues, voting in ways which seem contrary to what many members want and not vote them in next time.

     Those who are open, engage in public discourse and transparency will more than likely gain my support, even if we don’t always agree.
131. Mike Kane June 11, 2012

     I fully agree with Marc and Root’s teeth on this one.

     What I’d love to see is the LNC in person meetings on an online stream. So they can be viewed live or maybe later in case you missed it.
132. Marc Montoni June 11, 2012

     I understand there are occasions when things have to be kept confidential. But sorry — we call LNC members “representatives” that because they are supposed to represent the best interests of the *LP membership*.

     Yes, the rank and file *does* have the right to listen in.

     Several of the individuals who support a secret LNC list have used the cloak of secrecy to cover up their negative behavior — such as at least one individual who often denigrated other LP activists and one who often makes outlandish claims that simply are not true.

     I refuse to grant them the right to do this in secret.

     LNC reps were elected to serve, not to lord.

     I think the rank and file has the right to know what its elected representatives are saying during debate and discussion — not just how they vote. This is the same power they have during LNC meetings: all LP members have a right to attend. If they don’t get to hear their representatives express themselves, how can they make good decisions about whether they want to vote for the same individual at the next convention?
133. Root's Teeth Are Awesome June 11, 2012

     Starr @ 37: “Trust them to do what exactly? The LNC has very little power. They don’t levy taxes. They don’t enact laws. They don’t throw people in jail.”

     The LNC’s power is indeed petty, yet its petty power does attract petty power-mongers.

     If certain people didn’t crave the LNC’s petty power, there wouldn’t be so much skullduggery aimed at stacking convention delegates or ousting state LP officials (e.g. Nevada, Oregon), or purging fellow LNC members (e.g., Keaton, Wrights, Hawkridge).

     I trust that Starchild is one of those libertarians who is truly principled, and has no designs on petty power grabs.

     I’m glad he finally made it onto the LNC, and I support his reform efforts.
134. Robert Capozzi June 11, 2012

     46 LP O, well put. Sunshine for sunshine’s sake doesn’t work for me. And is “sunshine” really sunshine. That is, if every sharing is to be done in public, does that not put a crimp in the conversation?
135. LP Observer June 11, 2012

     As the party evolves into more of a real political party, there may be some strategies that can’t be put out in public for the dreaded R’s and D’s to see. At least there are REGIONAL REPS on the LNC. Have a question, ask them. You voted them in, so ask them.
136. ralph June 11, 2012

     Ah for the good old days when Dehn and MG made sure anyone who wanted to know something knew it.

     Nolan even complained to me that even HE was being locked out by secret meetings of the right-wing loons, who’re the secrecy advocates since they want no one peeking as they continue to mess up the party.

     Libertarian groups are open and so we ask for sunshine laws, but LNC is ready to deny info to our members.
137. paulie June 11, 2012

     Unfortunately not much time to participate in this discussion right now but I’ll plug the new Sunshine Caucus

     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsunshine/

     “Providing leadership by example through an open but focused public dialogue about making the Libertarian Party (US) more open in its dialogue, in turn setting an example for what we want government to act like wherever it exists.

     We aim to be the change we want to see in the world – transparency starts at home and sunshine is the best disinfectant. Setting an example of conducting our caucus business in public, for the purpose of making the party do the same, is aimed ultimately to give us credibility in asking for government bodies to follow our example.

     While we do want our dialogue available for all to see, we may ask those who veer off on unrelated subjects, disrupt the conversation and the like to regain focus or stop participating. If anyone persists they will always be free to read, but not to write.

     This statement may be fine tuned later. “
138. Thomas John Jefferson June 11, 2012

     I thank Starchild for his continual efforts in advancing transparency on the LNC.

     I find the LNC discuss public list to be very informative, and I think the vast majority of the votes/correspondence should be public.

     I will be contacting all LNC members to ask them to stay as transparent as possible, and removing all LNC members who want to have secret email lists (i.e. Dan Wiener).

     Dan Wiener also supported the floor fees!!!!!!!!!!!!
139. Kevin Knedler June 11, 2012

     To Stewart Flood at # 20. As I focus on state of Ohio, I too am asking about Saratoga. Ohio LP needs a new database! I can’t get answers from people who are involved. I will continue to ask. Frustrating. I still believe in the concept. I can’t tolerate the egos or whatever else is going on.
140. Eric Sundwall June 11, 2012

     All focus and discussion should center around ballot access . . .
141. George Phillies June 11, 2012

     Indeed, a number of people who politically survived the 2012 elevation of consciousness may do less well in the 2014 NatCon elections.
142. George Phillies June 11, 2012

     Behold the usual suspects behaving in the usual ways. And if we get a new LNC in two years, having established precedents in place as to openness of public meetings will have consequences.

     The author suspects that the new LNC, from signs to date, will be sufficiently more effective that the old LNC that most of the old LNC will not be making a comeback, even if the new LNC does manage to throw away vast sums of money on a new building.
143. Aaron Starr June 11, 2012

     Steve M @ 36,

     Have you ever noticed that people act differently when they know they have a television camera on them?

     All that you accomplish when you make people’s writings public (assuming the writers are aware of that fact) is they will change what they are willing to write or find other means to express themselves.

     You eliminate candor. And you start writing from the perspective that most everyone will be able to read what you write.

     As far as “back-room” deals being cut, does anyone really believe that people would be foolish enough to engage in horsetrading on LNC-Discuss or in any legislature-like venue?
144. Aaron Starr June 11, 2012

     Steve M @ 34 writes: “If you are on the LNC and you are debating party policy and you want to do it in secret then I don’t trust you!”

     Trust them to do what exactly? The LNC has very little power. They don’t levy taxes. They don’t enact laws. They don’t throw people in jail.

     And aside from that, most of the substantive decisions made by the party are not even made by the volunteers who serve on the LNC and meet three or four times per year.

     They are made by the Executive Director and other members of staff, sometimes in coordination with the Chair, who is the CEO of our party.
145. Steve M June 11, 2012

     “the tendency to squelch open communication among board members is more pronounced.”

     You have a very different interpretation of the word open then I. To me, open is where everyone can hear the policy debate. Open helps insure that secret back room deals aren’t being cut.

     If you are uncomfortable with the party members hearing your position on policy issues, there is probably a good reason your position shouldn’t be enacted.
146. Aaron Starr June 11, 2012

     Actions often have easily foreseeable consequences. This is one of those times.

     The delegates supported through a bylaws change having LNC votes be made public.

     The delegates had actually discussed whether to make all email discussions public and it was made crystal clear during debate that they would not be. If the delegates had wanted substantially all discussions be made public, they would have adopted different bylaw language to accomplish such.

     The decision by one member of the LNC to create a public reflector list of most all LNC discussions is an attempt to put in through the back door what the convention rejected.

     Ironically, the decision to make public most emails appears to be creating the opposite of what our protagonist purports to want to achieve.

     Absent the implementing of “Big Brother” policies, you can’t force people to communicate on the LNC discussion list. As a consequence, I predict there will be far less frank discussion among the LNC as a whole. Some will be more inclined to engage in private email conversations and phone calls, which is already beginning to take place. Others will withdraw from participation altogether, making the board even less effective.

     To some extent this consequence was evident during the previous term, when one non-LNC member would selectively publish emails in his newsletter, but many LNC members understood that there was only so much that he could publish, and even he acted with at least some discretion. Now that it appears likely that nearly all such emails will be made public, the tendency to squelch open communication among board members is more pronounced.

     It will be interesting to see where this winds up. I suspect few are going to be particularly satisfied with the outcome.
147. Steve M June 11, 2012

     If you are on the LNC and you are debating party policy and you want to do it in secret then I don’t trust you!
148. Daniel Wiener June 11, 2012

     When I send an email to another individual, I don’t normally expect that person to forward that email on to others without my permission. Most of the time I wouldn’t care if that person did so, but as a matter of common courtesy (at least) I think the choice of who the recipients are should be mine as the author.

     Still, if the person hasn’t agreed ahead of time to keep my email private, there is no enforceable contract. There is just my request or assumption that he do so. If he fails to do so, I may be annoyed, but I can’t really say that he has done something wrong. In the future I will either avoid sending him emails altogether, or I will first get his explicit agreement to respect my choice as to its distribution, or I will send him emails when I don’t care what he does with them.

     If a person promised ahead of time to restrict the distribution of an email, and then violated that promise, I would be really pissed. And I think most libertarians would agree that the person had violated a contract and behaved in a fraudulent manner.

     That is not what has happened with respect to the LNC-Discuss list.

     In the past there has been a general understanding, accepted by most but not all LNC members and alternates, that traffic on the LNC-Discuss list should not be broadcast to the world. There are discussions and debates which occur over strategy and tactics and financial matters and various trade-offs. Easily disseminating that information to our adversaries or the media is not always wise. The majority of subjects and discussions can occur in the open without causing problems or having negative effects, but there are are a few things should be kept closer to the vest. I know that some people disagree with me on this, and don’t expect to change their minds. That, however, is my opinion.

     So where does that leave us with respect to the LNC-Discuss list? The (sometimes violated) presumption of the past that emails will not be openly distributed is obviously out the window this year. Starchild totally disagrees with that viewpoint, and he is posting LNC-Discuss emails for public viewing.

     But there’s nothing which prevents me from privately sending emails to other individuals who are willing to respect my choice (as author) as to my email’s destination. If I think a subject requires some discretion, then I will be selective in who I correspond with.

     And if I want to send an email to several individuals who have agreed ahead of time to respect my choice, I can simply CC them. They in turn can “reply to all”. This is precisely what I told other LNC members and alternates that I would be doing. For convenience, rather than having to cut-and-paste a long list of individuals into the CC line, I’ve created a single email address which will email-forward to that list of individuals, and they can do the same by replying to that address.

     I don’t know how much use will be made of this capability. Perhaps none, perhaps a little, or perhaps a lot. It will depend on the subject matter and the interests of other LNC members and alternates. But it will be available, and it will bypass the controversy over whether or not the official LNC-Discuss list should be open.
149. Aaron Starr June 11, 2012

     Jill @28,

     If you read some of the later messages, it’s quite evident that people are unaware of the existance of Starchild’s list.
150. Michael H. Wilson June 11, 2012

     If people are discussing party business why would they assume it would be a closed discussion unless it had been specifically announced as such? To do so sounds to me like poor management skills.
151. Aaron Starr June 11, 2012

     David Colborne clearly understands the situation.

     I remember back in 2004, Chairman Mike Dixon would say that more business got settled at the bar before the meeting than at the meeting itself.

     Not being a drinker, I didn’t participate in such meetings.

     I also found out sometime later that there was a block of them that held private — yes, they were secret! — dinner meetings prior to the actual business meeting to review the agenda, discuss the issues and come to a consensus on how they would vote the next day.

     I was not part of that clique, so I wasn’t invited, but I wasn’t offended by it either. People could meet with whoever the heck they want.

     It’s human nature.

     People will talk with those with which they share a common bond — political or otherwise — and they will lobby and attempt to persuade eachother over beer and dinner.

     They always have done so and they always will.
152. David Colborne June 11, 2012

     The trouble with this issue is libertarians are torn between two opposite planks – privacy and transparency. On the one hand, libertarians are a private bunch, sometimes to the point of neurosis. If I didn’t explicitly give you permission to share my information with you, you have stolen my privacy from me without my consent. On the other hand, we want our government – if we want one at all – to operate with complete and total transparency. We don’t trust government, so, since transparency and sunshine are disinfectants, we apply them liberally and completely, or at least try to.

     The trouble with applying either approach in its totality to governing the LP is that, at least in theory, it’s libertarians that are governing it. Consequently, though they might root for transparency when they’re outside of the governing body, their first instinct is going to be to protect their privacy once they’re in it. It makes sense – libertarians don’t like people watching over their shoulders and they don’t like being told what to do. This state of attitude is no less true for libertarians on the LNC than those outside of it.

     Personally, I think Seebeck is right, but not about the part people are paying attention to. Members of the LNC will discuss things in private. They will discuss substantial issues among each other individually, among like-minded groups, and then among the LNC as a whole. The only part most of us will see will be the last stage – chances are, unless there’s a leak somewhere, we won’t get to watch how the sausage is made from the birth of the pig to its slaughter and its rendering. We can ask – no, demand! – that human nature change and alter our bylaws accordingly, but it’s not going to have much effect.

     I will note that, when dealing with large groups of people, “if you can’t handle the heat” is really not a realistic approach to communication. Sooner or later, no matter how intelligent and careful you are, you will say something that will offend someone and will be used against you. If that happens enough, you’ll learn rather quickly not to speak whenever that person or their friends are around (i.e. not on publicly accessible lists), and instead say as absolutely little as necessary to discharge your duties in their presence. Admittedly, this might be a fantastic state of affairs to leave a state employee or official, but is arguably a less satisfactory state of affairs for party officers, who really should be doing something other than staring over their shoulder all the time.

     I’m not saying defaulting to group privacy is the solution. I’m not saying defaulting to group transparency is the solution. I’m not even saying there is a solution. All I’m saying is that both sides of the issue definitely have solid grounds to continue the discussion and determine where the boundaries should lie, then reexamine them constantly.
153. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 11, 2012

     Seriously, Aaron, how could they not know? There are up to 34 or something Daily Digests, plus Dr. Phillies has been publishing lists with highlights. No one approached any the the LNC members to ask about thing that were said? That’s really is hard to swallow, although it might explain why some members were consistently unpleasant in their exchanges.

     I’ve gained invaluable insight from reading this list.
154. Robert Capozzi June 11, 2012

     Why not go all the way: Sodium pentothal drips should be issued 24/7 to all LNC members. 😉
155. Rocky Eades (augustalibertarian) June 10, 2012

     @Seebeck and Starchild, I wish IPR comments had a “Like” button!
156. Aaron Starr June 10, 2012

     Starchild@22,

     It’s quite evident from my posting @9 that I was examining your forwarded postings — it’s like trying to not watch a car wreck on the side of the road.

     One thing that is quite evident from my reading of the most recent emails is that a significant number of members of the LNC are seemingly unaware of what you are doing with their emails.
157. Seebeck June 10, 2012

     Folks, it’s very simple, and Starchild has it right:

     – If it doesn’t need to be in ES, then it’s info that should be available to all the LP members.

     – If there are some people who are afraid to say anything on list for fear of it getting out, then those people who can’t stand the heat need to get out of the kitchen.

     – There will be leadership members that will insist on keeping things unnecessarily secret as if political party operational nodes are subject to the Espionage Act. These people are simply delusional and paranoid and unfit for the office.

     – There are these technological gadgets out there called text messages, phone calls, and even a quaint little thing called meeting in person that are and will be employed to meet in private, and no amount of transparency will change that, nor can much be done about it.

     Elected office, even internal in a political party, carries with it a higher expectation of leadership and openness and above all, responsiveness and obligation to those who elected them. Those leaders who are unable or unwilling to meet those expectations by engaging in snit fits should simply step down, as they are not proper leaders.
158. Starchild June 10, 2012

     P.S. to Aaron – Will you confirm or deny what Stewart Flood has said about the secret meetings of LNC members that you allegedly chaired while not a member of the committee yourself?
159. Starchild June 10, 2012

     Aaron @9 – If you think it is wrong for those messages to be publicly accessible for ordinary party members to view, then I urge you to be the first to publicly pledge that you will not go and read any of them, and call for other proponents of secrecy to likewise pledge to refrain from doing so, unless they are on the LNC.

     LNC regional representative Dan Wiener just announced he is setting up a secret list, which he is saying will only be open to LNC members who pledge to keep hidden the messages posted there.

     I could’ve similarly requested that [email protected] only be accessible to LP members who pledge to support transparency, but I didn’t do that.

     It’s on the honor system, so you get to decide whether you will uphold the secrecy you claim to want if it means foregoing information yourself. I’d be curious though to hear whether you do intend to read them or not.
160. Seebeck June 10, 2012

     I sincerely hope the LNC budgeted enough clothesline to hang all this dirty laundry…

     BTW, for those who voted Wiener over me in 2010 for regional rep–you get what you voted for–Starr Chamber, pro-secrecy bullshit.
161. Stewart Flood June 10, 2012

     The mail from LNC-discuss has been published in a number of very large “batches”, so it is hard to follow. What is Pojunis talking about when he says he is tired of trying to raise money? His “project” was paid for, in advance, before ever seeing anything other than some slick naming and fluff.

     Is my statement (published months ago in email), and which Pojunis has since denied, that he had told me over the phone it would cost a lot more than they had asked for come true? Remember folks, this project was supposed to be completed within a month of getting funding. They told us that they already knew the cost and had picked a vendor before they asked for money in December.

     Or so they said…

     What happened to the money?

     Why isn’t the project already completed? They did not get the money until March, but it still should have been finished before the convention.

     As I said in December, this project (Saratoga) is a scam. Why else would we (and specifically I) not have been allowed to see the technical specification? (the real one, not the fluff)

     Inquiring minds want to know…
162. George Phillies June 10, 2012

     The ancient Yahoo Group LPUSmisc (founded almost a decade ago) now features short summaries of each message, in numerical order, e.g.

     524 – Neale – assembled all motions on Saratoga
     525 – FILE UPLOAD THE SARATOGA-RELATED SECTIONS OF MINUTES
     526 – Neale/Pojunis – why is it called Saratoga?
     527 – Pojunis – we eventually decided we wanted a name
     528 – Neale – Thanks Pojunis
     529 – Pojunis – I am tired of trying to raise money for the project
     530 – Pojunis – did not mean to send that to list
     531 – Cloud – Carla and I have raised $46,100 toward ballot access
     532 – Starchild – defends press release supporting Walker
     533 – Myers – differs in part with Starchild
     534 – Root – attacking public employee unions is a great idea
     535 – Root – yes, really
     536 – Lieberman – we would do better to try to elect more people
     537 – Wrights – tells Root to work on his communication skills
     538 – FILE UPLOAD – MAY MEMBERSHIP DATA
     539 – Kraus – cover letter for 538
     540 – Root – I am such a great guy
     541 – Myers – Wayne you are turning people off to the party
     542 – Root – The only person I offend is you, Myers
     543 – Root – says nice things about Johnson
     544 – NEALE – TECHNICAL EMAIL MATTER
     545 – Wrights – LNC call this evening
     546 – Neale – EC Meeting 6/6 reconsider vote on what we need from Johnson
     547 – Starchild forwards message attacking LNC press release praising Johnson
     548 – Starchild to Root: I did not say our message on Walker was too Republican;
     I said we needed things to counteract leaving that impression
     549 – Root apologizes; he was answereing Myers
     550 – Starchild – in electing candidates, we need quality not quantity
     551 – Tomasso – would like East Coast meeting
     552 – Occupy is good, Arab Spring is popular
163. Stewart Flood June 10, 2012

     I said they, not he.
164. Steven R Linnabary June 10, 2012

     Should the endless bragging and self-congratulation of some members be read so that we know just how big their egos are and just how little they actually do other than talk about what they do? (you probably need to have been an LNC member in the past to understand what I am referencing)

     No you don’t. He is well known to most libertarians, in particular those reading this list. His narcissism is legendary.

     PEACE
165. Rocky Eades (augustalibertarian) June 10, 2012

     There are “open” meetings and there are “closed” meetings. As has been pointed out there are procedures for establishing a meeting as “closed”. If those procedures are not followed, then meetings are “open”. Thank you Starchild.
166. Stewart Flood June 10, 2012

     Why is anyone surprised? Starchild did exactly what he has been saying for years that he would do if he were a member of the LNC. His platform was transparency.

     This is a difficult issue. But whether you agree or disagree with his actions, he did it publicly — unlike the LNC members in the past few terms who sent copies of email out on a regular basis but would not admit doing it.

     The LNC discusses issues, makes motions, and votes on the email list. The delegates indicated in May that they want more transparency. Motions and votes are now to be made public.

     But what about the discussion of an issue that takes place before the motion is made? Is that information important to know in order to determine why your (*)representative voted for or against a motion?

     Should the frequently snarky comments made by certain members and alternates be made public? Would they be re-elected if their comments were known? Should the endless bragging and self-congratulation of some members be read so that we know just how big their egos are and just how little they actually do other than talk about what they do? (you probably need to have been an LNC member in the past to understand what I am referencing)

     Would certain members now on the committee still be there if the delegates had been reading this list for the past few years?

     On the other side, there are certainly issues and discussions that give away strategy. But with a track record of rarely winning elections (so far) any really important strategy discussions don’t belong on LNC-discuss.

     Interesting…this will be very interesting…

     (*) South Carolina is not a member of a region.
167. Mark Hilgenberg June 10, 2012

     @ Jill 8

     Here was Scotts post just after Starchild mentioned he would be forwarding all emails.

     ” Scott wrote this on May 8th.

     “It is very possible that one of you has already set up an auto-forward from lnc-discuss to Dr. Phillies. No – I am not accusing anyone of doing that. I am just basing my speculation on what occurred during 2008-2012.”

     http://groups.yahoo.com/?group/LNCDiscussPublic/?message/6
168. Mark Hilgenberg June 10, 2012

     Maybe more people will start reading Starchilds e-mails more carefully.
169. Mark Hilgenberg June 10, 2012

     @ 9 Aaron

     Starchilds first post to the LNC Discuss List on May 8th said this.

     “Therefore it is my intention to publish here all LNC materials which the body has not specifically voted to make secret, unless they clearly refer to something discussed during a duly convened secret session which was improperly disclosed, or to something which clearly should have only been revealed in such a context. The email below which I received welcoming myself and other members of the Libertarian National Committee to the LNC list is the first of these forwarded messages.”

     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LNCDiscussPublic/message/2

     He only forwarded the messages to a list others created for the purpose of easily reading his forwards.
170. Steve M June 10, 2012

     I would argue that it the Democrats and the Republicans who should be worried by a transparent Libertarian party.
171. George Phillies June 10, 2012

     Rumors that I had exceptional access to the LNC list and other lists and archives: Readers of Libertarian for America http://LibertyForAmerica.com subscriptions are only available for free by using the link on the page are aware that I have provided readers with detailed precis of what has been going on, thanks to my several sources on the LNC.

     Readers who want to know and regret having learned what they have been missing have but to read Starchild’s list, complete with large numbers of exchanges “I’m incredibly cool” “You are not” it tedious cetera.
172. Aaron Starr June 10, 2012

     Starchild,

     Did you really create this public list and forward over 600 LNC email messages to it? And did you do that without even telling LNC members that you did this?

     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LNCDiscussPublic/
173. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 10, 2012

     Starchild, Scott Lieberman responded to my letter that he didn’t know about the LNCDiscussPublic list. Is it possible the LNC didn’t know about it?
174. Starchild June 10, 2012

     Oranje Mike – There may be rationale for keeping some things secret, as you say. Legal and personnel matters being the two categories that come to mind. I think it’s a debate worth having.

     But it is not really the focus of the debate we’re having right now. The LNC Policy Manual* states the procedures by which the Libertarian National Committee is allowed to vote to go into a secret session (known under the euphemism “executive session”). Some members want to have what amounts to secret meetings online, without following these procedures. That’s what’s basically at issue.

     When we meet in person, the public is allowed to sit in on those meetings. LNC meetings obviously include discussion. The public is allowed to sit in not just for motions and votes, but for the entire meeting, except when the LNC votes to hold a secret meeting for specific reason(s) as noted above.

     Thank you Jill for posting this to IPR and helping let people know what is happening.

     Starchild
     At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

     *This document has grown to 72 pages long and I believe represents a threat to bottom-up governance in our party, because the LNC has been using it to make lots of rules that impact the party in various ways, without the delegates voting to update the bylaws. I think convention delegates should get to vote on what transparency practices the LNC follows.
175. Aaron Starr June 10, 2012

     During the bylaws debate, the following language was proposed after amendment:

     “The Secretary or a designee shall promptly post notice for each session of the National Committee; any National Committee proposed agendas; and approved minutes of each Convention and open National Committee session to a permanent archive section on the Party’s website. Any person may record the National Committee’s proceedings while in open session, or subscribe to a read-only email list on which LNC votes are recorded.”

     When objections were raised that this might cause all conversations of the LNC to be made public, Nick Sarwark made the point that the LNC can implement this bylaw change by creating a separate publicly accessible email list just for the recording of email ballot votes. (It’s my understanding that such a list has been created.)

     Based on Sarwark’s argument I – and I’m confident many other individuals – voted for the proposal’s adoption. I would have certainly voted against something more expansive because we know from experience (when Joe Dehn was on the LNC he would routinely forward emails to a publicly viewable discussion list) that making all email communications public would drive most email traffic off of the main discussion list.
176. Alan Pyeatt June 10, 2012

     Yes, of course there are issues that legitimately belong to closed sessions and confidential discussions. But everything else should be available to the general membership, and transparency should be the default position.

     Maybe the LNC is different, but my experience on the CA Executive Committee leads me to believe that there are some people who really think they should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, without any transparency or accountability whatever.

     Suffice it to say that I will not vote for someone like that at ANY level of the Libertarian Party or government.
177. Jake Porter June 10, 2012

     While I think the LNC should be more open than they have in the past I would caution that somethings such as many human resource issues for LP staff members should be kept confidential.

     For me, I am happy to no longer serve as an Alternate to the LNC. During the 2008-2010 term we didn’t accomplish anything worthy of even discussing. Hopefully, this LNC will be more productive than previous terms.
178. Oranje Mike June 10, 2012

     A very important and thoughtful point made by NewFederalist above. I was not aware such an e-mail list was created for transparency regarding LNC issues. Had I know, I would have opted into the mailings. My first reaction to the post was critical of LNC members advocating secrecy.

     In reality there are probably some things best for verbal communications or distributed to known libertarians. It would be quite easy for leisure libertarians or operatives of The Big Two to get some information we’d likely not want them to have.
179. Jill Pyeatt Post author | June 10, 2012

     This has been an issue for a while. I agree that some things should be private, really I do. The problem is that too much has been kept private, so that many of us are suspicious of what they’re trying to keep secret. Hopefully the new LNC will talk this through now and come up with some kind of compromise.
180. NewFederalist June 10, 2012

     I value transparancy and openness as much as anyone but I can also see value to being able to keep some information confidential. I am not at all certain I would like the Demorepublicrats to be able to see every move the LP might make. Just my $0.02 worth.

Comments are closed.