IPR Exclusive, LNC Meeting Day Two (Monday)

Due to the slow internet access in the LNC meeting room here in Las Vegas, I’m setting this thread up tonight.   Adding to the existing thread is problematic as well due to the number of comments already there and the time it would take to load and to reload with each update.  Look for the first post here regarding the meeting a bit after 8:00 AM Pacific Time.


122 thoughts on “IPR Exclusive, LNC Meeting Day Two (Monday)

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    (Hey everyone, wouldn’t it be fun to fill up this thread with entries of what we wish would happen tomorrow? Joe can, of course, delete them all before he starts tomorrow. I’ll start–).

    After a rousing rendition of “Star-Spangled Banner”, accompanied by Starchild on his harmonica, it was announced that a mystery donor has pledged $1,000,000 to each member serving on the LNC. Also, since they all have helped in the cause of furthering third parties in the United States, each writer of “Independent Political Report” shall receive the sum of $2,000,000 each.

    (Okay. Who’s next?)

  2. Eric Blitz

    Early in the meeting of the LNC, Starchild interrupted the meeting and moved that the LNC consider it “upside down Monday”, an opposite day of sorts where all meanings are inverted. A vote is taken on the motion that was 12 to 2 against, so Starchild thanked the LNC for approving his motion and announced that opposite day “will start right….NOW!”

    Feeling tricked, but not knowing how to go back on their vote, the LNC decided to humor Starchild. The next 20 resolutions were to adopt the communist party platform with a few miscellaneous fascist sentiments that seemed gratuitous at the time, but they couldn’t stop themselves. News of these events hit IPR and everyone went ballistic. Libertarians across the nation were stunned. It became news, as CNN was quite happy to distract attention from the protest going on outside their doors and decided to announce what the libertarians are now standing for.

    Joe Biden, not to be outdone and wanting to get out in front of the story, announced that the Administration will begin adopting the entire libertarian platform in effect prior to opposite day, to counter the growing communist menace. Embarrassed by Joe (yes, they still can feel embarrassed), President Obama quickly held a news conference and announced that he was ending the Fed, sometime before lunch, and that they wouldn’t even bother telling the people at the Dept. of Education that their jobs are gone, just so we can all have a good laugh as we watch how long they continue to show up. Congress, not to be outdone, passes emergency legislation declaring war on Libya and then asks the President to seek peace talks immediately, considering nobody seems to be fighting anymore. They feel relieved that they have followed the Constitution by then begin reading it and are stunned to learn of some of the other passages.

    By the time opposite day is over, the governments of 48 states and the national government have passed sweeping libertarian legislation rolling back government to the nightwatchman state and promising more reforms were possible. A statue of Starchild in his ‘sunday best’ is placed on the national mall in D.C. and we all lived happily ever after.

  3. Joe Buchman

    8:11 AM — First item on agenda — building fund.

    Chair Neale shares he has been a “decade long building” advocate.

    Mr. KRaus reports that the pledged building funding is approximately $140,000.

    Mr. Neale shares his belief that this committee should decide whether to buy a building on not early in its term.

    If we are going to do this, we should do it. If not we should give the money back.

    Mr. Wrights asks for a roll call.

    Mr. Neale reports on an email he received from Mr. Root sharing his regrets that he (Mr. Root) will not be able to be here today.

    Discussion of sharing paperwork regarding audit oversight committee.

    Mr. Blau reports on building fund. declares intent to focus on the **purpose**of the national headquarters:

    1) Just a back office — phones and computers?

    2) Call center? Media center?

    3) Place for volunteers? If so, perhaps it should be in Texas.

    4) Show piece? A beacon of Liberty? A national-media/donor center?

    What are the considerations that we want out of a national HQ?

    Until we figure that out, buying/renting/location can’t be known.

    Shares desire to invest next 13 minutes into a focus on purpose.

    Mr. Wrights shares desire to purchase a building based on cost savings that would have occurred if this decision had been made years ago.

    Dr. Lark shares his gratitude for Mr. Blau’s focus on strategic thinking. Shares his memory of the time we moved from a “dump” into the Watergate. It was a sign of moving forward. The other Third parties are having trouble surviving. For us to have purchased a building would send a message that unlike others, we are permanent. It’s also a reason for giving. Supports a media room.

    Mr. Olsen — I think everyone would want all of those things. We are barely over the reserve limit. Revenue is low. How many times in the last year have we invited media to the Watergate? Purchasing a building is an anchor when we’re trying to swim. Maybe in five years after more short-term leases. To say we will fulfill our dreams now, especially in DC is foolish. We need to do things with our money to “do something” to promote liberty. Buying a building is not what will help our candidates get elected.

    Mr. Neale asks for shorter comments.

    Mr. Cloud — I did a lot of research with churches about building funds. It always adds to the pie. It does not distract from activism and fundraising. A fixed-pie mentality is not the case. At CATO their building fund caused increases in other fundraising.

    Mr. Neale — shares distinction between net asset and leasing.

    JJM — Shares his experience in Dallas as a small business person leasing verses mortgage and his accumulation of equity over that time for the same cost as rent.

    Ms. Visek — My objections are strictly financial. We are below the reserve, which is scary. Even though we may increase the pie, I am very concerned about where the economy is going. Here at Freedom Fest concerns were shared about the economy. We should wait until after the election to see how things go.

    Mr. Redpath — I voted in favor of buying a building on the last LNC. First of all we are $33,000 better off than we were at the beginning of the meeting. What concerns me along the lines of what Ms. Visek share is the long-term slow decline of the LP. In the last 10 years, our revenue verses 4 years earlier has been down. Hopefully we can turn this around.

    Mr. Vohra — The idea of a media room being expensive is inaccurate. Brett has one in his bedroom– it’s just a green wall. We’ve used it for many things and its very effective. This is important to have and a small expense.

    Mr. Weiner — I ultimately voted in favor of a building last time. But my concern over financial matters has increased. The building we were looking at was adequate, but not great. But the way real estate has been behaving. We need to be careful about a long-term financial obligation. Supports a building only with large down payment and a short mortgage. Must not leave future LNCs with an unsustainable boat anchor. In favor of the right building, if it can be found, and if it’s in the DC area. A “bit of a showcase” and make members proud.

    (Starchild has arrived. Will report all members present at first opportunity.)

  4. George Phillies

    Ballot Access note, courtesy of LPNH Facebook group: One of their Congressional Candidates reports they are still 1500 signatures short of access in New Hampshire.

  5. Joe Buchman

    At present Mr. Blau is the only member of the building committee.

    Mr. Wrights — how is this committee populated?

    Mr. Neale — Mr. Blau can select his own members, members of the LNC or off the LNC. I want members on the committee who want to purchase a building, just as we want members of the affiliate support committee who want affiliates.

    Ms. Bennett — we need to rank priorities. When I bought a home, hardwood floors didn’t wind up ranking high enough.

    Mr. Pojunis — Asks Mr. Kraus, what are the chances of staying in the Watergate?

    Mr Kraus — reports on clause in current lease which in December allows for extension for 2 years at “market rates.” Not an option recommended by Mr. Kraus. As an aside if we had bought, we’d have $24k in our account.

    Mr. Tomasso — Personally neutral on buy v. build. Wants body to commit to a media room, etc . . . then those are action items — have videos made every week; if we have a conference room, let local affiliates use it. Make us of whatever we do.

    Mr. Blau — Supports Mr. Tomasso’s statement.

    Mr. Neale — asks for straw poll. Shares he knows some minds are made up. Those inclined to buy if all concerns met.

    All hands raised save Mr. Olsen. 17 hands raised (including alternates). 1 opposed. Not binding, but will of body is to keep this on the agenda.

    Starchild’s shares concern not about buying verses renting, but about the purpose of building as a workspace that is open to LP members and not the personal space of the staff with parties, events and local-activism.

    Mr. Wrights — Starchild if you had been on time, you would have heard that.

    Mr. Blau — we have not come to a consensus about what we want, but we have a consensus to continue investigation of purchase.

  6. Joe Buchman


    “Mr. Pojunis — Asks Mr. Kraus, what are the chances of staying in the Watergate?”

    Comment above should have read:

    “Dr. Liberman — Asks Mr. Kraus, what are the chances of staying in the Watergate?

    Currently in the room
    Scott Liberman
    Scott Spencer
    Currently Absent
    Root – reported not attending
    Mack – reported on her way
    Pojunis – reported on his way
    Kirkland – out of communication

  7. Joe Buchman

    Ms. Visek — Shares concerns about:

    1) Standing rules, page 30, under convention — (quotes rule regarding covering costs of delegates).

    Asks for (demands?) accounting of those who were subsidized or compensated in any way, particularly those who were delegates.

    Mr. Neale — “call me stupid,” but I’m unaware of any specific concerns. In order to provide a full audit as requested . . . have we maintained records sufficient to respond?

    Ms. Howell — we should have significant expenses, not meals, etc.

    Ms. Visek — I’m aware of some instances.

    Mr. Neale — I’m aware of Mr. Ryan regarding security.

    Ms. Visek — last I spoke to Tony he reported trying to give the money back.

    Mr. Wrights — I’m unclear about who you are talking about . . . members or all delegates.

    Ms. Visek — all delegates. We have not had a detailed accounting from the convention committee of all expenses. This is a new portion of the Policy Manual, not sure if we have compliance or not.

    Ms. Bennett — prior to this policy we had made arrangements AND we were not informed of this policy at the time it was passed. Mr Cloud had some compensation, Mr Ryan had some compensation, some of use who worked hard on the convention had upgraded rooms. Others had signed contracts PRIOR to the passing of this policy. Once the policy was passed, despite no official notice, I heard about it, and did not enter into new contracts with compensation. I felt at the time this policy was personal and vindictive. Reports doing her best to comply from the time she first heard about it.

    Mr. Cloud — This is IMO a craven political move as a mail ballot to screw with the convention committee. Tony Ryan SHOULD have been compensated. The prices of hiring security was about $2,500. So we should make a distinction between fee for services and welfare. We need to put the date on these kind of policies. This was cynical. I’m embarrassed when this was done.

    Mr. Hagan — is this rule enforceable? We don’t know in advance who delegates will be.

    Ms. Bennett — some states do not do delegates until a week before the convention. This is self-limiting and ill though out. Betty Rose and Tony put in hours and hours — they deserve their fee for services.

    Mr. Vhora — would it be in order to have a motion to remove this policy from the Policy Manual.

    Mr. Wrights — yes.

    Mr. Vhora — submits written motion to chair to “remove this item” from the Policy Manual (Section 2.03 item 4).

  8. Joe Buchman

    Ms. Visek speaks in opposition to the motion to remove. It was an attempt to be fair to everyone.

    Just noticed comments at beginning of thread — LOL!!!!!

    And THANKS George. I do do my best, but sometimes I just do do do.

    Pjonis, Mack and Kirkland have arrived.

    Motion to remove Section 2.03 item 4 from Policy Manual.

    Myers yes
    Visek no

    Mr. Neale explains what is happening to Ms. Kirckland

    Tomasso no
    Mr Spencer yes
    Weiner no
    Olsen no
    Starchild yes
    Redpath pass
    Vohar yes
    Cloud yes
    Bennett yes
    Hagan yes
    Wrights aye
    Pjonis abstain
    Mack no
    Kirkland abstain
    Neale yes
    Redpath . . . thinking . . . no.

    Motion fails 9 to 6 (requires 2/3rds due to a lack of prior notice and/or a minimum of 10 out of all positions).

    Mr. Neale reveals that he stands in violation of the rule due to an unsold room upgrade at the convention.

    Mr. Redpath reports having been in a similar violation.

    Mr. Wrights — I GOT NOTHING!!

    Mr. Neale suggests LNC come up with a form of punishment.

    Mr. Olsen — this was a very poor attempt to solve a problem.

    Ms Visek moves to extend time. Passes

    Ms. Visek — page 50 of the Policy Manual regarding convention speakers (quotes section).
    Section 2.09 number 7

  9. Michael H. Wilson

    Has there been any discussion on Dr. Lark’s goals?

    Other than that I am to photograph the state chair, Larry Nicholas, as the Johnson campaign petitions get turned in. Wish us luck!!!!!

  10. Joe Buchman

    Mr. Wrights shares that in his opinion this policy (Section 2.09 number 7) violates the bylaws.

    Mr. Cloud reports that the unnames person referred to is Aaron Star – that Aaron Starr reported same to him at the convention immediately following Mr. Starr’s loss of the position of Treasurer. I followed the rules in good faith. This is another craven, political, offensive and cowardly thing.

    Mr Myers – look, anyone who gets on stage and does well will get elected.

    Starchild – shares concerns that Policy manual is now 72 pages; bylaws are only 16 pages.
    If it’s a rule we want it should be in the bylaws, not saying now whether it should be or not

    Neale – you are straying and taking up too much time

    Starchild and Neale arguing over this – timer stopped for this argument

    Bennett – This clause can be used against candidates running against incumbents
    Bennett moves to delete this section, Wrights second,

    Starchild moves to extent time 5 min, Redpath objects, passes

    Wiener opposes to delete entire section; would propose instead (motion to substitute) – add …breakfast discussion, panel or similar non-major event at the end; gets several seconds

    Lark – info, was passed on Mar 5 (’12); would prefer that this be considered more deliberatively, not decided on the fly today. Agrees that something about this should be in the policies but not sure what.

    ? Couple of people want to table the entire discussion (Mattson clarifies: indefinitely) which would apply to both the substitution and main motion.

    Olsen with clarification from Mattson, Wrights was out of order – Neale agrees – move to table not in effect. Starchild had another move to amend but it was never recognized.
    Vote on substitution is next (Wiener’s motion)
    Passes overwhelming voice vote
    Substitute motion is now main motion – roll call
    Cloud Y
    Vohra Y
    Redp Y
    Star Y
    Olsen Y
    Kirkland Y
    Mack Y
    Wiener Y
    Pojunis Y
    Lark Y
    Blau Y
    Visek Y
    Myers Y
    Wrights N
    Hagan Y

    Bennett N
    Neale Y

    Passes with two no votes

    Ballot access report – Neale turning gavel over to Wrights
    Wiener – move to recess, people start walking out
    Neale – we are not in recess yet – brings people back just so it passes with no objections and the recess is now 19 min

    Redpath reports on Ballot access: We have a chance to have a libertarian candidate on the ballot in all 50 states and DC. A very intense period is coming from July 30 and August 8th – 9 deadlines approach.

    Recent good news – we were not challenged in IL. Redpath reports being in IL personally following the Indy 500. Redpath conducted signature validation, Tuesday through Friday, with Betty Rose Ryan. Redpath went to Chicago to check the database there. Redpath did 152 sigs himself in 6 hours in front of the Normal IL Post Office. Volunteer sig collection has been “pathetic” (at best) to “reprehensibly bad” – perhaps 1,500 volunteer (uncompensated) sigs in IL.

    Also went to PA to conduct test validation on June 19th. Also collected sigs in VA and WV.
    AL – late deadline, Sept 6th. Paulie and Andy will conduct. Paulie reports Alabama got 400 to 500 sigs for purpose of lawsuit and GJ petition. Also worked two other petitions. AL is tougher compared to 4 years ago. AE did 90,000 sigs, so locations they worked are now reticent for future petitioning, also more declines from people to sign because of AE efforts (fatigue). Ability to get additional petitioners in there depend on contracts with other parties (more money per stop with more petitioners with more parties) – especially Greens. Also heat of summer is an issue. Triple digits and humid.

    CT – good reports from Eric. 5 or 6 full time. August 8 deadline.

    DC – also August 8 deadline. Population has grown. Now 4,667 not 3,900 valid as had thought. Have a candidate, Bruce Majors, running for DC rep. 12,020 LNC budget, beyond that up to GJ campaign.

    IA – should be easy, but is harder than the past. August 17 is deadline. Members tend to play down to low numbers. Betty Rose Ryan will be in IA near Davenport. Will volunteer there. Ed Wright has been encouraged to gain more sigs. Paulie – issue in IA is state has not provided clarity about whether printed sig, or signed sig is required by the state. Redpath will speak to Ed.
    KY is underway, sig drive is not robust so far. Sept 7 deadline.

    MA David Blau – have 14,000 raw, 81 percent validity rate. Now need to submit paperwork on July 31 to town clerks. Howell –turn in in MA is no walk in the park, we’re only half done.


    Dr. Lark – your report is rather granular. Could we go global? As a board we need to address the lack of volunteer enthusiasm. It’s so easy for people to say Superman (Redpath) will get it done. We have to as a board, at the end of this election, decide what to do for the next 4 years. So we can prepare for 2016?

    Mr. Redpath – if some can find a way to get our members to get our members out to petition, “get a camera because I WILL KISS THEIR ASS!”


    Dr. Lark – promises to deliver “other kinds of rewards”

    Ms. Visek – Shares opinion that we have looked at ballot access too narrowly – meeting game requirements. More broadly – look at individual states and analyze future threats with lobbying and litigation in off years. Teach people how to lobby. Crystal clear that is the next stage. Ken Bush in Missouri – how to deal with legislatures. 5 year investment of time. Not just sigs here and there. Need to get ahead of the curve.

    Starchild – Bill if this works out, I won’t hold you to the ass kissing.

    Mr. Cloud – I will.

    Mr. Wrights – motion to create page on LPorg website with volunteer sig gatherers and the number of sigs they have collected and what is needed and how to volunteer (paraphrased a bit here)

    Starchild – having this public will give people a point of reference about how to get involved and who is doing what in a visual and succinct way.

    Mr. Wrights – ballpark estimate for cost of a page –

    Ms. Howell — cost to set up is trivial; maintenance is the main cost. Just getting a list of candidates takes time.

    Mr. Cloud – I speak in opposition not to the idea, but to the idea that we need a motion for it. I’ll vote no, and say – hey can you guys do this?

    Mr. Pojunis – I will vote for this motion. We are constantly looking for things to do with volunteers. Second, on the website, I will help out with that. Our region report has 9 states already reporting.

    Mr. Redpath – the cost/benefit on this is unlikely to work. Within states this information is difficult to track. How many volunteer sigs? No one seems to know when I call. Nearly impossible to assemble the information, volunteers don’t generally respond.
    Mr Olsen – great idea. Big problem right now is Redpath is all of access. He owns it. That’s why it gets done. We need to look at that and say this is the major benefit we provide to our membership, and we need to have more than one guy.

    Ms. Bennett – this body has had a habit of directing our staff to do things without resources. I encourage you or others to do this on a FB page.

    Mr. Neale – I do not have a problem with this. I don’t see that staff are the ones who have to do this. I’ll suggest an amendment – with the intent that we don’t have the right to publish names without their permission – so I would add that the volunteers listed agree to have their names published.

    Ms. Howell – I strongly agree with what Bill said, it just won’t happen. Great idea. A more productive thing would be to encourage volunteer activity to acknowledge volunteers who do good stuff when the state chairs let us know. I’d rather see an effort to empower states to fundraise for their own ballot drives.
    Dr. Lark – general heading of how to reward others for doing GREAT work. As one who busts his tail gathering sigs, I would like to see my name in lights. So let’s find ways to acknowledge all others.

    Starchild – I suggest the way we handle it is to put a note if state chairs don’t provide information, we post that on the site as well. Also volunteers to manage. It’s a catch 22 either putting additional duties on staff, or taking duties from staff.

    Mr. Weiner – while it’s a good idea. We have limited resources and higher staff priorities.

    Mr. Neale – as chair, and the person who directs staff – this could very well be people submitting lists of what petitioners did without the petitioners knowing.

  11. Marc Montoni

    Mr. Vohra — The idea of a media room being expensive is inaccurate. Brett has one in his bedroom– it’s just a green wall.

    TMI!! TMI!! TMI!!

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  12. Joe Buchman

    Amendment passes.

    Vote on motion.

    Mack aye
    Weiner no
    Pjonis aye
    Dr. Lark nay
    Mr. Tomasso pass
    Visek no
    Frankl yes
    Wrights aye
    Hagan no
    Bennett no
    Cloud no
    Vohra no
    Redpath no
    Starchild yes
    Olsen no
    Kirkland no
    Neale abstain
    Tomasso no

    Motion fails 5 – 11

    Mr. Redpath — I’m not going to continue state by state. There is good news. WA is done; all volunteer apparently. WV — good news, validity feedback was 94 percent valid!!!


    Other states have easy . . . Maine — working with chair . . . 2,000 or fewer signs, yet having trouble with volunteers, MN, WI at first volunteer, but didn’t happen. RI — 1,000 valid — cannot do on their own. Sad to say, but true.

    NJ — working with chair — 800 valid. Right now 400 gross. Easy access, but members tend to play down to the low hurdles.

    Am in favor of a ballot access committee — populate in November, do post mortum then.

    ND bad news. Paperwork error by candidate — invalidated. ND sec of state kicked governor candidate off the ballot. Paperwork mess up cost us that candidate. Richard Winger reports that 600 or so people voted LP in the primary this year even though LP was on the back of the ballot. . . .

    It’ s not just about presidential access — the real oppression of ballot access laws is for lower offices. What can we do to get laws changed? 5 percent of registered voters for US House in NC, NEVER had an independent candidate in 100+ years.

    About money — The GJ campaign intends to fund ballot access — have asked that $5k be paid to IL, $7.5 to PA.

    Buchman reports campaign is waiting on donor checks to clear prior to passing on funds, and campaign is requesting a total amount needed rather than state by state requests.

    Money has to come from somewhere.

    Motion to increase budget line from $325,000 to $350,000 with all future encumbrances to come following majority vote of EC.

    Neale suggests funds be transferred from affiliate support.

    Friendly amendment passes without objection.

    Mr Olsen – will abstain. Digging a hole for 4 years. Every 4 years same cycle. Affiliate support is the key. The fact RI can’t get 1,000 sigs on their own should send a message.

  13. Joe Buchman

    Motion to increase ballot access encumbrances from $325,000 to $350,000 with $25,000 coming from affiliate support and increases to be approved by majority

    Mr. Blau yes
    Vohra yes
    Redpath yes
    Starchild abstain
    Olsen abstain
    Kirkland yes
    Mack aye
    Weinder yes
    Pjonis yes
    Lark aye
    Tomasso aye
    Vesik yes
    Myers yes
    Wrights present
    Hagan yes
    Bennett yes
    Neale yes

    Motion passed.

    Saratoga next.

  14. Joe Buchman

    Mr. Olsen — what is the replacement for this?

    Mr. Pjonis — Ms. Mack and I are developing this on our own. Will provide to states. Hoping to launch (before the end of the month, roughly).

    Mr. Myers — when will affiliates get this?

    Mr. Pjonis — will roll out states, 2 or 3 immediately, see how it goes . . .

    Mr. Myers — my concern is that even though we provide all this data, there’s no data coming the other direction.

    Mr Neale — I am ruling this is out of order for this body. We have no service agreement between national and the states. When we give data to the states, it’s their data to use as they wish. You’re now discussing governance, not the product. We have more things to do today. So let’s do things outside this meeting that can be done outside this meeting. Let’s not leave here today without all our business done today.

    Starchild — you told me last night that I have your permission to tell you to lighten up . . .


    Mr. Neale — we need to concentrate on business.

    Mr. Myers — you allotted 30 minutes for this.

    Mr. Neale — you’re discussion is out of order. When it was put on the agenda, it was funded by the body. Now it’s not. My hope was Mr. Mr. Pjonis would say, I have nothing for you.

    Mr. Pjonis — I have nothing for you now.


    Dr. Lark — I would like to hear Mr. Myer’s concern.

    Mr. Myers — there’s no reason they have to respond now, but I would like clarity about how they intend to run their business. Why is that uncomfortable for anyone?

    Ms. Bennett — there’s nothing to discuss here. I move we end this item and move on to the next item on the agenda.

    Motion passes without objection.

    Mr. Neale thanks Mr. Myers for not objecting.

    Next up — Voting methodology 5 minutes.

  15. Joe Buchman

    Mr. Neale reads motion regarding approval voting for page 14 Article 1.02 — would add a new Section 8.

    Mr. Weiner — already discussed on LNC discuss. . . .

    Mr. Redpath speaks in opposition. Approval voting has been used in the past. I support a secret ballot for filling LNC openings. We use secret ballots at our conventions. It’s not right. I oppose this motion.

    Neale — present system is at the discretion of the body at the time.

    Starchile — We have been over this ground on the list. Dan’s proposal is a reasonable compromise. We are representatives and representatives need to vote publicly so we can be held accountable.

    Mr. Olsen — Roberts rules specifically state that elections which involve individuals are to be by private ballot. Personalities are involved. This needs to be private.

    Ms. Bennett — I agree with Starchild. You would not see Congress casting a secret ballot for the SCOUTS — so we need clearly recorded votes. I am in favor of clear and open voting. If it makes you uncomfortable — gut it up.

    Mr. Tomasso — does this apply to elections with multiple candidates?

    Mr. Neale — it applies to all as I read it.

  16. Joe Buchman

    Redpath no
    Starchild yes
    Olsen nay
    Kirkland yes
    Mack nay
    Weiner yes
    Pjonis nay
    Lark aye
    Tomasso nay
    Visek no
    Myers yes
    Wrights no
    Hagan aye
    Bennett aye
    Cloud not present
    Vhora yes
    Neale yes
    9 yes, 7 nay

    Fails due to the lack of a 2/3rds majority due to failure to submit in time to put on the agenda.

    Population of audit committee next.

  17. George Phillies

    @17 Goddess forbid that the LNC should look at anything concrete.

    Interesting bedfellows on the last motion.

    Redpath’s claims that states at the NatCon vote by secret ballot is, well, nonsense. If he said ‘my state” or “some states” he would be OK, but within my memory, MA has used recorded votes.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp


    The bylaws are not unclear, and where they differ from Robert’s they overrule Robert’s.

    A roll call vote — not a secret ballot — is required on all substantive motions (and even on procedural motions, at the request of any member).

    A motion to fill an LNC vacancy is a substantive motion. Choosing between candidates pursuant to doing so is effectively a set of associated substantive motions (a vote for Candidate X is a “yes” vote on the motion to fill the vacancy with that candidate).

    The LNC doesn’t get to decide to change that.

  19. Joe Buchman

    Nominations are in order from any member of this body including alternates who are not an officer and not Bill Redpath (Neale shares bylaws need revision to include the new position of assistant Treasurer).

    Mack — nominates Pjonis

    Starchild nominates Vhora — Vhora declines.

    Stardchild moves for 2 minutes to be allocated for questions of candidate.


    Motion passed.

    Starchild — Brett, you have not always been a strong advocate of transparency? Will you be transparent (or something to that effect)?

    Neale rules the question out of order.

    Starchild — will you select an auditor who will be committed to transparency?

    Pjonis — I’m not sure that’s my role.

    Mr. Neale — this is covered in the Bylaws.

    Pjonis — there are Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Everyone does this the same.

    Mr. Neale — any further questions?

    Pjonis elected by role call (in effect) with Myers and Starchild abstaining.

    Now election of non LNC members.

    Mr. Neale places in nomination 4 names submitted in advance — Buchman, Howard, Gilmer, Katz,

    Mr Myers nominates Gary Johnson from Texas.

    Ms Vhora nominates Aaron Starr.

    Nominations closed.

    Candidates present granted one minute each to speak. Buchman (in essence) declines.

    Gary Johnson (Presidential candidate in Michigan, from Texas). Also declines to speak (in essence).

    Ms. Mack speaks on behalf of Mr. Howard. Mr. Howard write the book on auditing . . .

    Tim Hagan speaks on behalf of Mr. Gilmer.

    Starchild speaks on behalf of Joshua Katz. A strong advocate of transparency.

    Ms Visek speaks on behalf of Aaron Starr — Aaron has audit experience. Has deep technical knowledge.

    Voting occurring by paper ballot.

  20. Stewart Flood

    So two members of the committee have formed a business to provide software for the states?

    And that isn’t a conflict? Not talking about a potential conflict, a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

    When I was on the LNC, I never charged any state for assistance for anything. Period.

  21. Joe Buchman

    Thomas — our bylaws didn’t anticipate an assistant treasurer. The assistant treasurer under the bylaws COULD be a member of the audit committee under the current bylaws which currently require a NON officer. Sense is that the assistant treasurer should not, in effect, be allowed to audit him or herself. But a bylaws change would be required to enforce that. Redpath (current assistant treasurer) declined to run, so the issue is moot in this election.

  22. Joe Buchman

    Audit Committee results:

    Gilmer 0
    Katz 1
    Gary Johnson 6
    Howard 7
    Buchman 7
    Starr 8

  23. Joe Buchman

    Starr Elected.

    Runoff between Howard and Buchman

    Voting occurring now . . .

  24. Joe Buchman

    Poll of indicates that a quorum is likely to be able to be maintained until 6pm (or later).

    Staff directed by Chair Neale to bring in pizza. Concerns about vegetarians. Neale reports he “loves vegetarians; they taste good.”

    Howard 6
    Buchman 7

    Buchman elected.

  25. Stewart Flood

    The audit committee is very boring. Only accounts like to be on audit committees.

    Their job is to hire the outside audit firm, negotiate the terms of the contract, and then present the results when it is completed.

    Boring. And top secret.

  26. Jill Pyeatt

    Wow, they’re sure trying to get Aaron Starr back on the LNC. Totally creepy. And do I read correctly that Alicia Mattson is there, participating as if she’s still on the committee?

  27. ATBAFT

    Starr is a CPA no? So the quality of his audits should be stellar. Is there some fear that he will only audit what he wants to audit, with a view towards embarrassing certain factions of the LP?

  28. Joe Buchman

    Population of Awards Committee, done by volunteering.

    Chair asks for volunteers. Kevin Knedler has volunteered.

    Dr. Lark volunteers.

    Mr. Cloud volunteers and nominates Dr. Ruwart with intention to have elections among members.

    Ms. Bennett volunteers.

    Mr. Olsen volunteers.

    Mr. Vhora nominates Starchild; Starchild proposes limiting nominations to 3 LNC members so non-LNC members can be notified.

    Chair rules that the word “volunteer” is “superfluous” and committee will now be populated from among the volunteers.

    Starchild proposes that the committee only have three LNC members so that non-LNC members may have an opportunity to serve.

    Chair rules that Starchild’s proposal is delatorius.

    Dr. Lark objects.

    Chair Neale withdraws his ruling.

    Starchild moves to suspend the rules to consider the motion to limit the current election to three, and then publicize and complete population with non-LNC members.

    Motion to suspend the rules fails.

    Voting for awards committee currently taking place.

  29. Jill Pyeatt

    ATBAFT: Yes, I think that fear is there, but my feeling is that he is generally quite mistrusted.

  30. Richard P. Burke

    Jill @ 32,

    I don’t think they’re going to be on the LNC, but I can see why the LNC is reaching out to them. Competence matters.

    Richard P. Burke

  31. Joe Buchman

    Buchman reports on GJ campaign protest currently occurring at CNN HQ. Over 100 protesters. Reports that police have been called.


    Questions regarding whether CNN is covering the event (and others whether FOX is covering the event).

    Those with more information, please post here.

    Ruwart 13
    Cloud 11
    Bennett 11
    Lark 10

    Above elected

    Knedler 8
    Olsen 6
    Starchild 2

    Olsen withdraws.

    Balloting occurring. Starchild and Knedler on this round.

    Chair announces following appointments to IT committee:


    Neale also indicates his intention to be especially active on above committee.

  32. Joe Buchman

    Neale rules that a blank ballot counts as NOTA.

    Request for those wishing to vote for NOTA to sign the ballot or make some other mark so mistaken blank papers are not mistakenly counted as NOTA votes. . . .

    Knedler 10
    Starchild 4

    Chairman Neale seeking volunteers for EPCC (Employment Policy Compensation Committee).

    Chair will choose if there are more than three volunteers. Will not populate at this time if there are less than three volunteers.

    Only two volunteers, so decision delayed for future date.

    Chair asks for volunteers for the Outreach Committee.

    Mr Cloud asks for information about said committee — referred by several member to page 27 of the Policy Manual the appropriate portion of which is then read by Mr. Pjonis to those assembled.

    Ms Kirkland volunteers
    Chris Thrasher volunteers
    Mr. Vhora volunteers
    Paulie is volunteered by several (Starchild, Buchman, Libertarian Girl) ( — is checking out of the hotel)
    Gary Johnson volunteers
    Starchild volunteers
    Buchman volunteers

    Paulie returns, confirms intention to volunteer for Outreach committee.

    Chair will announce population of said committee later.

    Pizza arrives.

    Proposed break for lunch until 1pm passes without objection, or amendment, or substitution, or point of order, or request for information, or point of personal privilege.

  33. Mark Hilgenberg

    I have no issue with Aaron being on the audit committee, from what I hear he does a good job with numbers.

    Plus, having Joe on also is a good balance.

  34. Mark Axinn

    I don’t understand why so few volunteers to petition in other states. We did 10,000 volunteer sigs. two yrs ago in New York, and aim to beat that this year.

    Congratulations to Dave Blau and entire Massachusetts LP on their recent successful filing.

  35. Joe Buchman

    Dr. Buchman acknowledges, on behalf of the Presidential Campaign, those on the battleground of Liberty, not in the city of Atlanta or some other far off place, but present in the room.

    Mr. Myers, the US Libertarian Senate Candidate from Texas, Mr. Tomasso, a Libertarian candidate for the state house in New Hampshire, Mr. Kraus the Libertarian candidate for the City Counsel of Alexandria, and the campaign’s “most beloved candidate for President of these United States” — at least the union between Michigan and Texas — Mr. Gary E. Johnson of Michigan and Texas.

    Ms. Kirkland mentions the Gary Johnson who ran as a Libertarian for governor of New York in 1990.

    Buchman (very out of order) makes a motion that all future Libertarian candidates for all offices be named “Gary Johnson” to “avoid the confusion” (with apologies to Monty Python).

  36. John Jay Myers

    Thomas Knapp, I am trying to find in the by-laws what you were saying above, unfortunately it appears to be in regards to “substantive motions” the chair will rule that “substantive motions” are not “elections”.

    Do you have anything from Roberts or otherwise that backs up your assertion that motions and elections should be considered the same thing?

    Believe me, I would love for you to help me out here.

  37. Eric Blitz

    That’s why IPR pays you the big bucks Joe 🙂 You are correct, the Larch

  38. Joe Buchman

    Thanks Eric,

    Unfortunately I’ve missed most of the post lunch discussion dealing with Internet access issues and fatigue.

    Chair Neale’s proposals for a change to Previous Notice, motion protocol, report submission requirements, moment of reflection and conflict of interest register all passed, although I’m only certain about the last two.

    The motion to add the vacancy procedure was postponed to “At or no later than the next LNC meeting (November 17?)

    Current discussion regarding changing the Treasurer’s report.

  39. Ken S

    FINALLY – some info coming out from ATL (after loads of unsubstantiated reports). One couple was told they could not enter the CNN building with Gary Johnson or Live Free shirts on (they were only passing by the entrance on the way home and were stopped by security). I’m waiting for a phone call from someone who was there. Joe – you might get an message through Facebook from one of the CNN protestors.

  40. Joe Buchman

    Motion to change future Treasurer’s reports as requested by Mr. Hagan passes without objection.

    END of Blogging for today. PAulie and or Libertarian Girl may make notes for posting later and/or there are the minutes.

    Am off to tend to a (good) personal matter


  41. Jill Pyeatt

    If you get information on it, Ken, we should probably set up a new thread. I’ll keep an eye out, in case Joe is too busy with the meeting at hand.

  42. Ken S

    Talked to the organizer and it was mostly security pushing to disperse the group at the end of the day as the group grew or they were threatening to call police. Early in the day, bike police were irritable until the guy with the permit arrived. The organizer was upbeat about the day.

  43. Jill Pyeatt

    So, is the CNN protest over, to your knowledge? I’ll start a thread if we get pictures or comments from people there. If not, you can use the July Open Thread, Ken.

    This is a good event, though, and I hope to hear something about it.

  44. Ken S

    Yes, it was only a 3 hour event today. There was 70 – 100 people today with a smaller crowd yesterday.

  45. Marc Montoni

    Unfortunately, Mr Starr has a long train of baggage, and the continued determination on the part of (apparently) eight individuals to have him close to national committee activities is simply ill-advised.

  46. Marc Montoni

    Meant to add, it’s not like there was a dearth of qualified and competent volunteers for the Audit Committee. Why do we insist on tapping only the small inner circle?

  47. Marc Montoni

    Redpath says:

    I support a secret ballot for filling LNC openings. We use secret ballots at our conventions. It’s not right. I oppose this motion.

    Sorry, but I disagree. LNC members were elected by delegates to represent our wishes between conventions, and we have the right to know how they vote.

    Why are people so unwilling to stand behind their actions and being held to account for them?

  48. Marc Montoni

    Incidentally I think delegate votes should be recorded votes as well, so that the state affiliate members who elected them can see how they represented their wishes at the national convention.

  49. Michael H. Wilson

    As a supervisor and a boss it is damn foolish of me to ask my employees what they are doing. It is an infringement on their rights as employees. 🙂

  50. Joe Buchman

    Hey everyone.

    Sorry I didn’t BLOG the last hour or so of the convention. Mark Rutherford, Libertarian Girl and I left at about 2:10 to visit my friend Lynn Horn’s Las Vegas International Scouting Museum — the largest collection of Boy and Girl Scout memorabilia on the planet. Mark and I were both active in Scouting in the late 1970s in Indiana and, we discovered this past week, attended many of the same BSA conferences back there at that time. And Libertarian Girl had been . . . a Girl Scout at one time as well. We had a terrific time. Mark got a phone call at about 3:30 indicating the meeting had ended. Paulie was planning to keep some written notes for posting here later. I’m trying to catch up with grading all the papers I should have graded last week as well as get invitations out for our next conference call between the governor and our endorsed candidates.

    4 full days of Freedom Fest and 2 days of LNC made for a long week here . . . I’ll be staying in Vegas through Thursday, then flying from here to Louisville to visit my dad for his 88th birthday in New Albany IN . . .

  51. Joe Buchman

    Mark @ 61 — “Why do we insist on tapping only the small inner circle?”

    Um . . . am **I** now part of the small inner circle?!?!

    Gasp! I feel like Data after the Borg Queen makes him semi-human, or Spock on those pod seed things, or in that episode of Lost in Space where . . . wait, I think they did that in ALL Lost in Space episodes . . .

    Seriously, I’ll be sure the audit is done as accurately, and reported as completely and publicly as possible. It’s probably a near waste of Brett and Aaron’s talents, and a stretch of mine, but I’m looking forward to it.

  52. Joe Buchman

    Marc, Chuck, George, Paulie, Jill, Libertarian Girl, Steward, Michael, Richard, Thomas, Eric, et al —

    You are welcome. Not sure if I’ll make the next LNC meeting (DC in November) — but if I do, I’ll try to get a webcam with audio working.

    (it’d be LESS work for me!)


  53. LP Observer

    Any opinions on how the LNC committees were filled? Is the “cabal” or “Star Chamber” bunch filling many of those seats? If they are qualified to fill those seats, does it matter?

  54. Thomas L. Knapp

    LPO @70,

    Even a couple of years ago, it might not have mattered. If, for example, the bylaws or platform committee was stacked with ringers, well, their proposals still faced floor debate and tall hurdles for passage.

    The 2012 convention, however, demonstrates the potential for fuckery. The cabal had enough votes on the credentials committee to replace the legitimate delegation of a state affiliate with a slate of impostors, and did so.

    On non-convention committees, there’s similar potential. For example, the audit committee could produce reports telling the LNC what the cabal wants the LNC to think is true, rather than what actually is true.

    It’s already getting lost in the fog of time, but one thing to remember is that one of Aaron Starr’s downfalls in his campaign for re-election as treasurer in 2010 was that he had basically told the rest of the LNC they could only see his reports, not the data the reports were based on. The cabal has always depended in large part on its ability to control and/or hide information.

  55. Michael H. Wilson

    I don’t understand why it was necessary to appoint anyone to the audit committee and this meeting. I would have thought there were more important things to do at this time.

  56. Wes Wagner


    There are never more important things than to fight over who is king of the dung heap.

    Let me know when everyone is on board and pass me a match.

  57. Stewart Flood

    The audit committee has a ByLaws required task to do before the end of the year, so appointing them in November would be too late.

    Yes, Joe…hanging out with the inner circle makes you suspect. Mr Rutherford was an important part of their inner circle last term. You may want to call me so that I can fill you in on who the rest of them are. Don’t want to post it all again…yet.

  58. Stewart Flood

    The amazing part is that they just continue on, doing everything they did last term. Sort of like lemmings marching to the sea…

    Yes, getting on committees requires either being on the inside, or attending meetings and getting picked from the crowd.

    Note the IT committee. Myself aside, I know of at least a half-dozen people in the party that are not members of the LNC who are better qualified than the LNC members that they’ve appointed.

    I’m sure that there are others who are qualified that I don’t know.

  59. paulie

    it was announced that a mystery donor has pledged $1,000,000 to each member serving on the LNC. Also, since they all have helped in the cause of furthering third parties in the United States, each writer of “Independent Political Report” shall receive the sum of $2,000,000 each.


    I’m rich and all you tricks can kiss my… wait, what? Oh. Never mind, sorry.

    Early in the meeting of the LNC, Starchild interrupted the meeting and moved that the LNC consider it “upside down Monday”, an opposite day of sorts where all meanings are inverted. A vote is taken on the motion that was 12 to 2 against, so Starchild thanked the LNC for approving his motion and announced that opposite day “will start right….NOW!”

    Not far from what actually happened 🙂

    (The rest not so much)

  60. Paulie

    Joe –

    Thanks for the great reporting!

    I would have liked to have helped, but no one had a laptop I could use at the meeting. We need extra laptops at future meetings as well as extra phones that connect to internet and provide signal where the hotels dampen it, as well as to stop having these things at hotels that dampen internet signal in the meeting rooms or charge an unreasonable amount to undampen it.

    Or just go ahead and pay the fee. But, in this case and some others it would have been way too expensive.

    Or make the official video publicly available and available live.

    I’ll try to bring some of this up on the LNC list, but there is already a lot of backlash against our transparency efforts and it is eating up way too much of the LNC’s time arguing about that and ignoring other issues that need to be addressed.

    Starchild had a camera but did not know how to set it up and make it work and no one else figured it out. This stuff needs to be figured out ahead of time, not when the meeting is starting in 2 minutes or has already started.

    Signal was too slow for live video anyway. Uploading recorded video, in my experience, rarely actually happens (although Joe Dehn did with the post-convention meeting video).


    For typos in members names see LP.org leadership page.

  61. Paulie

    Has there been any discussion on Dr. Lark’s goals?

    There was an informal goals discussion after the meeting ended which I thought was more productive than the meeting itself. We assessed the party’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. We did not get as far as discussing Dr. Lark’s specific goals or others that other people including myself wanted to discuss, but it sounds like that is on the agenda as the discussion continues between meetings and at the next meeting.

    Unfortunately, the meeting time was eaten up by reports, and by endlessly tying ourselves in knots on internal matters, housekeeping, and massaging the policy manual to try to make it the greatest policy manual in the history of policy manuals. And every step of the way, sniping between Starchild and the chair (and others, but mostly them) ate the clock.

    Unfortunately as well, the goals discussion at the end was strictly off the record. Although the room remained open and one non-LNC member remained, and nothing was said about confidentiality ahead of time, at the end there was a discussion of it and the overwhelming majority of members felt it would be inappropriate and even dangerous to make the specifics of the discussion public.

    I disagreed with their assessment – I think the weaknesses we discussed are blindingly obvious to both ourselves and our opponents, and we would benefit from more outside input on the discussion – but I have promised to not disclose the specifics we discussed (which I did not receive or write down anyway) – with the threat that I would be excluded from continuing to participate in the discussion if I did not make that promise. I haven’t finished going through my email so I don’t know if I am included in any case.

    It was felt by many that party leaders going on record discussing our weaknesses would end up being used against us by our opponents and unfriendly media. It was also felt that our opponents would learn of our secret plans as the discussion progresses (I replied that if they really want to know it would be easy for them to plant people on the LNC).

    Ironically, even the members who have made a stance by not being on Dan Wiener’s email list and have complained about Starr’s “secret” meetings were part of this discussion, although other LNC members left.

    Despite the fact that I don’t like the discussion being secret, I respect the other members desire that it be so and would like to keep participating in it, so I hope I have not revealed too much to be able to keep doing so already.

    Other than that I am to photograph the state chair, Larry Nicholas, as the Johnson campaign petitions get turned in. Wish us luck!!!!!

    Good luck!

  62. Paulie

    One other thing about the secret discussion.

    I had a lot more to say about opportunities, and was told time was running out, but then we had a large time to sit there and discuss non-disclosure. Go figure.

  63. Michael H. Wilson

    Over the years I have sat in on many a business meeting where we discussed strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Notice how the letters are arranged S,W,O,T. That can also mean Stop Wasting Our Time.

    Too often people get bogged down in this stuff and forget to do the work which it appears happened at the meeting.

    T’was the Libertarian Party that drove me to drink and I never stopped to thank them. Bottoms up!

  64. Michael H. Wilson

    One of the reasons the membership is down is because the members don’t get much in the way of support. Without up to date literature and literature that is accurate it makes little sense to work a weekend booth. Who the hells wants to look like a fool!

  65. Paulie

    Motion to increase ballot access encumbrances from $325,000 to $350,000 with $25,000 coming from affiliate support and increases to be approved by majority

    25k emergency fund which we hope not to use, and each expenditure needs majority vote of Executive Committee of the LNC via phone conference.

  66. Paulie

    And do I read correctly that Alicia Mattson is there, participating as if she’s still on the committee?

    Alicia now makes her living as a parliamentarian and lives in Vegas. She was there as a parliamentarian and was called upon quite a few times to resolve parliamentary issues, but at least one time I can think of she got dissed and was not allowed to render a parliamentary opinion – I don’t remember what about – the chair said Ruth Bennett is also a parliamentarian; Ruth said she is a member of the national association of parliamentarians but others in the committee/audience called out that she is not a parliamentarian.

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    The next platform committee should strongly consider recommending the addition of the sentence “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the parliamentarians” to plank 3.o.

  68. Michael H. Wilson

    Well to say the least I am not the least bit disappointed in their failure to do anything about improving the literature materials. They lived up to the standards set previously.

    Some may want to let them know there will be an effort to toss the entire bunch at Ohio in two years and if it doesn’t happen then it will be at the next convention.

  69. Paulie

    Paulie is volunteered by several (Starchild, Buchman, Libertarian Girl) ( — is checking out of the hotel)

    I was helping Robert Kraus deliver the pizzas. I didn’t have to check out because I traveled super light and had all my stuff in my backpack – all carry on, no checked bags. Thanks to Dan Wiener for the extra bed, I did not have to check out of the room.

  70. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m really sorry there was so much nonsense during this meeting. I really had high hopes for the newly elected group. Well, maybe this was just a “getting to know you” type event, and the next ones will go better (a girl can dream, can’t she?)

  71. Paulie

    I don’t understand why so few volunteers to petition in other states. We did 10,000 volunteer sigs. two yrs ago in New York, and aim to beat that this year.

    What methods do you use to motivate volunteers?

    Redpath has offered to kiss your ass but you don’t have to take him up on it if that’s not your thing.

    Virginia does pretty well with volunteers, too.

    We almost did the entire ND drive volunteer until we found out another guy (who got no signatures and no petitioners) had already been paid 100% of the money. He only kept $1,200 of it though, but we are supposed to get that reimbursed from LP national, at which point we will only have 1,100-1,200 volunteer there; about the same volunteer amount I did in Arkansas in 2007 with Bob Lynch, as well as about that in Illinois in 2000 by myself. A few others…most of them on top of other paid drives, though.

  72. Paulie

    And Libertarian Girl had been . . . a Girl Scout at one time as well.

    Still fits into uniform 🙂

  73. Paulie

    Paulie was planning to keep some written notes for posting here later.

    Way too tired for that.

  74. Paulie

    Jill @91

    Some good things got done. Arvin and John Jay got access to the facebook page to start updating it more. It will be better from now on.

    I guess the policy manual got cleaned up a bit, although that makes my eyes glaze over.

    The goals discussion has at least started and will continue, even if it is being kept non-transparent.

    Updating literature already has a few people working on it.

    We need a way to keep thing moving; perhaps introductions to questions and statements timed at 60 seconds max. More ground has to be covered.

  75. Joe Buchman

    Stewart = Mark, Libertarian Girl and I had a terrific time at the International Scouting museum here.


    No LNC related discussions. But not all Scouting either — turns out LG knew a headliner at the Riveria who I first saw in 1984!

    Sorry about the typos in LNC member names and it was Ms. Visek who nominated Aaron, not “Ms Vhora” — (Arvin went by Mr. for the meeting, but I thought Starchild might get Lee to call him Ms, or Miss, or Madam, or Master, or rotate those randomly or something. I also thought Dr. Lark should have been consistently called Dr. or Professor throughout the meeting).

    Twas a silly time.

    Stewart — I don’t think I have your phone number anywhere — feel free to email it to me at drbuchman@gmail.com and I’ll try to call this weekend.


  76. Joe Buchman

    From Norm Olsen — his newsletter on the LNC meeting

    Region I News

    The first full LNC meeting of the new term (2012 – 2014) LNC was held July15 thru 16, 2012 in Las Vegas. Nothing earth shaking occurred at the meeting. However, my take on the following issues is provided in the order I consider them to be of interest to you. Should anyone have any questions about these issues, or any of the issues addressed by the LNC which I chose not to include; please e-mail or call. Contact information is given below.

    These comments represent my take and are subject to legitimate disagreement by other participants/observers in the meeting. Any and all sustaining members of the Libertarian National Committee (i.e. $25 annual dues are current) and members of any of the 10 state LNC affiliates associated with Region 1 of the Libertarian National Committee will be added to the distribution list of this newsletter upon request; use the e-mail address given below. Requests to remove are also honored with equal vigor.

    Saratoga Project

    Brett Pojunis and Jillian Mack announced the decision of the LSLA and themselves to take the Saratoga project private. That is, Brett and Jillian intend to form a private business organization to complete the development and implementation of the Saratoga project. The result will be available to affiliates which chose to use it as a service for hire. A check which represented the return of the check that was eventually written in Orlando for $33,000 was presented to the chair. Thus, the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) is no longer involved with the Saratoga Project. I was advised that 14 state affiliates have indicated their agreement to pay a monthly fee to the new private firm for the services (as described in the Saratoga Project requirements document) to be provided by the private firm.

    In my opinion, this means that:
    1> the Saratoga project will be completed without any further meddling by the LNC, and

    2> demonstrates the inability of the LNC to deliver on a simple “something all 50 affiliates need” type of resource procurement. This was an obvious need which has been on the LNC plate for 8 years. The LNC embarrassed itself by not being able to deliver for reasons which I still do not understand. And

    3> Affiliates will be better served by this private organization than they ever would by their own national organization.

    A pilot project involving three states is expected to be in operation in late August, early September; and an additional 11 states have already committed to using the product of the private organization. Unfortunately, due to LNC political manifestations, this will not be available to most states before the November elections.

    Lieberman and Oregon

    As some of you know, Dr Lieberman (an Alternate Regional Representative from California) wrote a controversial e-mail message to a Mr. Burke of Oregon suggesting that the Gary Johnson campaign forego being on the ballot in Oregon as a means of discrediting the Wes Wagner faction of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Of course, the Wes Wagner faction is that which is recognized by the Secretary of State of Oregon, and which was recognized by the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party. Further, there is an ongoing law suit between the two Oregon factions claiming to be the legitimate Board of Directors of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. The court decision in that case is not expected anytime soon (i.e. before election day is possible, but considered likely).

    Dr. Lieberman’s message was considered by some LNC members as a violation of the Libertarian by-laws, specifically Article 14, Section 4:

    The National Committee shall respect the vote of the delegates at Nominating
    Conventions and provide full support for the Party’s nominee for President and nominee
    for Vice-President as long as their campaigns are conducted in accordance with the
    Platform of the Party.

    As I read the above bylaw section, it specifies what the LNC (as a whole) shall do, and implies what the LNC (as a whole) shall not do. That an Alternate Representative, unilaterally, sends an e-mail message suggesting an action which is contrary to the intent of this provisions is not a violation of the by-laws. Further, note that, by the same set of by-laws referenced above, the LNC cannot in anyway remove or otherwise discipline a Regional Representative or an Alternate Representative. That is the sole prerogative of the region which the representative or alternate represents.

    Those being the facts of the case, in my opinion an admonishment by the national chair would have been appropriate and removal by the region which Dr Lieberman represents is totally up to them without any input from the national organization.
    Those that desired to censure Dr Lieberman brought this issue up at a point in the agenda where it was ruled to require a suspension of the rules. This being a ruling issued several times previous in the meeting for other reasons, it was critical that it be used consistently and was applied to this issue. The motion to suspend the rules for this purpose failed (requires 2/3rds); I voted no. As I mentioned I felt an admonishment by the chair would have been sufficient. While such was not forthcoming, I decided it best not to spend another hour of LNC time on an issue which was promoted by those who disliked Dr Lieberman, or often disagreed with Dr. Lieberman’s positions.

    Secret(?) Meeting(?)

    You may read elsewhere of accusations of a “secret meeting”, at which was “chaired” by Aaron Starr, which occurred on the Saturday evening before the LNC meeting. This is total nonsense; the type of stuff you see on IPR which is why I seldom waste time frequenting the site. This is included in this report only because I was invited, and gladly attended, the event which has been dubbed a ”secret meeting”.

    The claim is that the subject event was a “secret meeting” is totally false on two accounts. First, it was not secret. An individual, current and past LNC member, resident of Las Vegas, invited friends (past and current LNC members among others) to dinner at his private home. Those invited were notified, others were not. Two hours before the event was to begin the individual making the “secret meeting” accusation asked me if I was invited. Given this fact, how can this individual legitimately claim that the event was “secret”?

    Second, the purpose of the dinner was for old friends to connect with each other. There was no purpose or agenda to the event; it was a dinner for old friends. Besides catching up (I learned that an old friend has been recently divorced), I spent most of my time there (other than eating Chinese take-out) describing my latest private business venture to another attendee who was describing his latest private business venture to me. After we had eaten, we joined a conversation with others concerning the prospects of retaining ballot access in California; the outlook for which is not terribly rosy.

    The greatest folly is that the referenced statement includes the accusation that Aaron Starr chaired the “secret meeting”. The accuser was not there, wasn’t invited. Yet the accuser claims the ability to specify that Aaron Starr “chaired” the co called “secret meeting”. Is s/he physic? This is all nonsense. Aaron Starr was invited to the dinner, did attend, and did inform us about the ballot access situation in California. Other than that, I am unaware of Aaron Starr saying much at all. To suggest that he “chaired” the so called “secret meeting” is absolute nonsense and totally discredits the individual making that claim.

    Ballot Access Budget Increase

    A motion to increase the Ballot Access Budget line by $25,000 was approved, I abstained. Ballot access expenditures continue to increase. Thus, as in previous election years, the total expense to get the presidential ticket on the ballot in all 50 states is now budgeted for $390,000. (That’s the budgeted amount of now $350,000 plus the funds raised at the convention banquet of $40,000, additional funds raised for ballot access not included; all numbers approximate.)

    I am opposed to this traditional cycle of spending the national committee into a financial hole every four years providing ballot access to our presidential candidates who never receive more that 0.5% of the vote. The cycle then continues with three years of working ourselves out of the financial hole thus created, only to repeat the cycle again (we’ve done it about 10 times now). The end result is that there is always a dearth of discretionary funds to fund projects which could provide resources which most all of the 50 state affiliates desperately need.

    My personal emotions, and financial contributions, are very optimistic about the possible results of the Johnson/Gray ticket. However, as a representative of all LNC members in 10 states, I feel obligated to be a bit more pragmatic.

    Nevertheless, since the committee has so far committed $365,000 to this project, it would be somewhat foolish not to support the final push in this regard. Therefore, I chose to abstain as opposed to my previous conduct of voting No on ballot access expenditures in excess of that originally budgeted. There were 14 Yes votes on this motion, the suppressed reporting of the actually tally.

    Oregon Dilemma

    The Oregon issue continues to linger. The recognized chair of the Oregon affiliate (recognized by the Oregon Secretary of State, our Judicial Committee, but not our Convention Credential Committee (if you can believe that)) Wes Wagner, has indicated to the LNC that he would submit paperwork to the Oregon SOS to put the Johnson/Gray ticket on the ballot, PROVIDED that the LNC indemnify him from the costs of a legal suit brought against him as a result of such action.

    Considering that our legal counsel advised that any such suits would be without significant merit (but that you can never assume that you would not be sued), several considered indemnifying Wes Wagner the appropriate course of action. Others felt that indemnifying Mr. Wagner was caving in (i.e. extortion) and should be avoided. The motion to NOT indemnify Mr Wagner passed on a 10-5-3 vote.

    I voted to approve indemnifying Wes Wagner (i.e. the motion was to preclude such indemnification, thus my vote was NAY) and getting the Johnson/Gray ticket on the ballot (and in the statewide voter guide) as soon as possible. We have too much invested in this concept to bug out because of a personality conflict. Further, we will not know the results of the Oregon faction dispute for several months. The Wagner faction could indeed prevail; meaning we will want to, and need to, cooperate with the Wagner faction in the future. We should not be stirring up unnecessary animosity in this area when there is only three months before mail ballots are actually received in Oregon. (We never should have involved ourselves in this Oregon dispute in the first place, but that’s water under the bridge now.)

    2016 Convention

    Barring any unlikely negotiation hick-ups, the 2016 presidential nomination convention will be held in Orlando, at the Rosen Center, beginning on May 27, 2016 and ending at (approx) noon on May 30 , 2016. This is a Memorial Day weekend. It is hoped (previously offered, and hopefully still obtainable) that the attractive convention room rate will be available for five days before and five days after the actual convention for the benefit of families who wish to take advantage of the amenities of the Orlando area (i.e. Disney World, etc.). This was part of the original Rosen Center proposal when the LNC chose (not me) the Los Angles proposal which eventually the Los Angles venue subsequently defaulted on.

    Straw Vote ofn Building Purchase

    The chair took a straw vote of those who would vote to purchase a building if an acceptable property and financing terms were located. The vote was 14-1. Three LNC members were not present and my vote was the sole dissenter.

    Membership is declining (now below 13,000), revenues are down, the financial reserve is being drawn down below policy manual mandated levels to finance ballot access, the economy remains in sad shape, federal government deficits continue to soar, the DC real estate market is the only market in the nation which has not yet suffered a major decline, evidence has been provided that residing in the DC beltway is as much as four times more expensive as elswhere; yet the LNC board wants to buy a building in the DC beltway. Go figure! The major reasoning: We don’t want to give back any of the $144,000 of cash collected for the building fund. Note that the existing $144,000 in cash represents about a 16% down payment on a suitable office building (within the DC beltway) for the LP.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Norman T Olsen

    Regional Representative, Region I
    Libertarian National Committee
    7931 S Broadway, PMB 102
    Littleton, Colorado 80122-2710

  77. paulie

    From John Jay Myers via the Texas list:

    During the meeting this weekend we accomplished a lot more than usual, I scheduled a pool side meeting a day before the actual meeting that was open to EVERYONE, I actually worked with Brett, Arvin, & Jillian to put some heat out over the fact that our national facebook page is only updated once every 7 to 9 days. Now Arvin and I will be posting at least once a day just to keep content circulating. Our posts will generally be funny cartoons that get shared with a tag on the bottom that encourages people to join the LP. The first one we posted on Friday night became the most shared & liked article from the LP website in months, if not ever. (We could only go back months to check) I would be interested to see if there was any increase in membership.

    We made a push for transparency when populating the committee in the event of vacancies, the shocker was that the motion was pushed by Daniel Wiener, who had argued against transparency, but decided in the interest of unity and working together to come up with a compromise motion, unbelievably, that motion failed, and I am still in shock about how those votes went down. You can check out the minutes if you like.

    After seeing Brett & Jillian’s reports and reading the rest, I was going to push a motion to remove the “region report” oral reports from the meeting agenda template, unless someone had “action items” ie “My state needs this from the LNC”. That had no support so I withdrew the motion. To be clear the reason I wanted to do it is because we allotted 15 minutes to information on buying a building, with a member who came loaded for bear on the topic, but it became clear we weren’t going to have time to do it justice, so it was tabled for a future meeting.

    I believe if a region needs something from the LNC that should be an action item separate topic from region reports. But the actual reading of the reports is just redundant when you have a limited time to get things done and a very full agenda, as well as the report sitting right in front of you.

    From what I was told and understand (now) most regions traditionally do not say anything during their allotted time if they do not have action items.
    Still learning here.

    I felt the same way about the 83 minutes we spent on Ballot access where 55 of those minutes were just telling us where we did not have any problems with ballot access, and the crucial information “where do we not have ballot access?” was really what we should have focused our time on.
    I believe Geoffrey Neale is going to get with Mr. Redpath and trim that down a bit.

    There were 3 different events where members of the LNC were invited to attend and have drinks and talk and have fun, however half of us were not invited to the late night event that Aaron Starr chaired. I would say that these types of events (the ones that are not secret like Aaron’s) are great at getting us to work together towards common goals. Ways to see where we agree, and then formulate motions where all sides agree, so we can attempt to get things done.

    After the meeting adjourned a large group of us stayed on and did a SWOT evaluation program (without Robert’s Rules) (SWOT meaning Strengths, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats assessment) I have to say it was probably one of the more productive things I have participated in with the party, and it really helped us to understand the views of the other members, yet another opportunity for us to try and see common ground.

    Overall I had a great time, and got along much better with all the members of the committee, I also got firm commitments from other members that they would not participate in “secret events” moving forward as long as we all agree to have transparent events like ours, where we just get together and hammer out ideas.

    Having Paulie around is great because he is a wealth of information in regards to the party from the past to now.


  78. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote (@92):

    Virginia does pretty well with volunteers, too.

    Unfortunately volunteer participation has been lackluster this year. It’s not for lack of trying: we mailed (and emailed) every LP member in VA a petition and we’re in the process of calling all of them — both to solicit ballot access funds and to encourage volunteer petitioning.

    I believe in some recent past drives 4,000 – 5,000 signatures were collected volunteer. Some outside of Virginia might think we did even better than that because we never ask for national help — it’s a matter of pride to us. However the LPVA pays for a lot of signatures out of its own pocket to resident paid petitioners (like Bob Lynch, who was referred to later in Paulie’s comment).

    This has been a very odd year for Virginia. It was a perfect storm of setbacks: 1) there was redistricting during a presidential year (a once in 20 year event setting us back 3 months), 2) the legislature and governor jerked us around with a change in the law which ended up being vetoed at the last minute, 3) we had to restart the petition drive because one of our electors flipped congressional districts in the redistricting, 4) we had to suspend and continue the petition drive after clarification when it turned out we were using an out of date form (which thankfully will still be accepted). All of that added up to a lot of wasted money and time.

    We’re muddling through and getting it done, but the LPVA is essentially bankrupted from this drive, so it will take a year or two to claw back to the healthy financial levels we were at before. Sadly I’m virtually certain the LPVA will need national help in 2016 — unless UMP is restarted or we get some really big donations. I hope I’m wrong about that and I’m doing my best to help move the LPVA forward.

  79. Mike Kane

    “As I read the above bylaw section, it specifies what the LNC (as a whole) shall do, and implies what the LNC (as a whole) shall not do. That an Alternate Representative, unilaterally, sends an e-mail message suggesting an action which is contrary to the intent of this provisions is not a violation of the by-laws. Further, note that, by the same set of by-laws referenced above, the LNC cannot in anyway remove or otherwise discipline a Regional Representative or an Alternate Representative. That is the sole prerogative of the region which the representative or alternate represents.”

    As usual, another lawyer / parliamentarian trying to justify wrong activity by elected representatives on some technicality. Clearly he broke the intent of the rule.

  80. George Phillies

    Actually, the parliamentarian wing assures us that the LNC can expel a member from the national party. Only sustaining members can serve on the LNC, so the LNC can dispose of Regional Representatives, subject to appeal to the Judicial Committee.

  81. Wes Wagner

    CM @99

    What in general is the annual budget of the LPVA so I have an idea of what type of funds would be required to put you in the black?

  82. Chuck Moulton

    Wes Wagner wrote (@103):

    What in general is the annual budget of the LPVA so I have an idea of what type of funds would be required to put you in the black?

    Our budget is very high during a petition drive and pretty low off years (especially since we haven’t published a state newsletter in a few years due to lack of an editor). Our requirement is 10,000 valid signatures. I don’t want to throw out dollar figures until our petition drive is over August 24 and I get a full accounting.

  83. Marc Montoni

    Actually, Mike, actions that are contrary to the interests of the organization are — under parliamentary procedure — cause for expulsion. Browse through RONR sometime; it’s quite illuminating.

    Of course, don’t expect the parliamentoonians to make that argument right now.

    I suspect that even if they did acknowledge that, the excuse would be that Doc **was** actually acting in the best interests of the organization.

    In any case, I agree the maximum that should be done is to propose a formal motion of censure for the next meeting, and get a roll-call vote on it.

    I fully expect it will fail, but the LNC members who vote against censure should have to answer for it, rather than hiding behind an unrecorded voice vote on suspending the rules.

    There are still people on the LNC who really have no business being on it, and a little sunshine about them will make them easier to replace.

  84. Wes Wagner

    CM @104

    Let me know privately then when you are in a good place to know what is needed to keep the lights on until 2014.

  85. Chuck Moulton

    Wes Wagner wrote (@106):

    Let me know privately then when you are in a good place to know what is needed to keep the lights on until 2014.

    I think I misunderstood your earlier question. I highly doubt we’ll go in the red. We’ve reallocated the budgets of a bunch of our state committees (e.g., county affiliate support, political development, membership retention, communication, etc.) to ballot access. Several of those committees used to have a few grand for their activities and they now have roughly zero. It will take a while to re-fund those committees to their previous levels. We had around $23,000 in the bank the end of January and we’ll probably have $1,000 in the bank at the end of August (if that) — despite continuing fundraising. But we won’t go negative.

    Virginia will keep the lights on. I’m just skeptical we’ll be able to do the 2016 petition drive on our own.

  86. Jill Pyeatt

    MM @ 105, MK @ 100: I’m quite dismayed that there have been no consequences for Dr. Lieberman. I’m afraid now he’ll only be emboldened in his secretive behavior, and those of us who brought the situation to light will be further villified.

    Good thing I no longer care about the latter.

  87. Thomas L. Knapp


    “Actually, Mike, actions that are contrary to the interests of the organization are — under parliamentary procedure — cause for expulsion. Browse through RONR sometime; it’s quite illuminating.”

    Fortunately, RONR only applies to the extent that it is consistent with the bylaws.

    Unfortunately, RONR is such an extended and tangled encyclopedia of fuckery that it is nearly useless for running meetings and nearly limitless in its potential for destroying organizations.

    If the LP’s convention delegates are smart, they will ditch RONR in favor of the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (aka Sturgis) or even something slimmer and purpose-written at some national convention some time soon (no doubt some dickhead “parliamentarian” will advise them that RONR prohibits replacement of RONR during the debate).

  88. paulie

    I don’t believe there is any chance the LNC will vote to revoke Dr. Lieberman’s party membership. If you believe his statement is a problem that requires action, please write Kevin Takenaga. It is entirely up to him what action if any will be taken (my guess is most likely none). Members of his state exec com may or may not have some sway.

  89. Jill Pyeatt

    I don’t think Dr. Lieberman will be removed from being on the LNC, and I never thought that would be the case. Somehow, I’d hoped that he’d be shamed or embarrassed enough by his words that he’ll not do something like that again, but I doubt that even happened. I like to think Libertarians believe in accountability, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, especially in California.

  90. Reflections on the Revolution in Oregon

    I don’t think he would have been in any way shamed had he been censured. The entire discussion of it was a waste of time and would have still been a waste of time even if the censure took place, no matter how wrong he is.

    Failing to indemnify Wagner will, hopefully, not result in the loss of ballot access. Playing chicken with ballot access is irresponsible and deserves condemnation.

  91. Sane LP member

    LNC Audit Committee.
    Michael Howard? Ohio dude?
    Wasn’t he the guy that ran for Ohio State Auditor in 2010 for the LP? Didn’t he have 30 years of service in the Auditors office with state of Ohio? Maybe that is the reason he didn’t get on the LNC auditor committee?

  92. Joe Buchman

    Paulie @ 114 — Aaron wasn’t there (for that vote at least) either . . .

  93. Paulie

    Aaron was there that weekend, so he may have lined up his votes, and in any case is very personally familiar to everyone on the LNC whether they like him or not. Michael Howard was just a name, a written statement and a good speech by Jillian. It makes a difference when you put a face and voice to a name for psychological reasons. Maybe your IPR blogging also helped? LOL…

  94. Marc Montoni

    @109, I agree with what you say here, Tom.

    @111, I also had no expectation the LNC would remove him; and I don’t want to get into whether they even have that power. A motion of censure would have been a black mark on his resume, however; and with all the clowning around he’s done for the past few years, maybe a few resume stains would help him reflect a bit on his behavior.

    All I was doing was the same thing he and his parliamentoonian friends always fall back on whenever they feel they can’t persuade on the merits of a case: appealing to an irrelevant authority.

  95. Joe Buchman

    Paulie @ 166 “Maybe your IPR blogging also helped?”

    Well . . . that’s about all I have going for me some days . . .

    LOL myself.


  96. Jill Pyeatt

    Joe, do you think it will help if some of us write to the Johnson campaign and ask them to make Oregon’s paperwork a priority?

  97. Joe Buchman

    Jill @ 199. Wes just told me he’s been told it’s on its way. Let’s give the private, non US Government, non USPS semi private whatever that is crony-mail?, service a couple of unmolested by us days to deliver first.



  98. Wes Wagner

    JB @120

    I noted that scans of the documents by email will be valid enough for the SoS here in Oregon.

  99. Joe Buchman Post author

    Wes @ 121 — I note they have been valid in the past. I offer no opinion, only admonitions for vigilance, regarding any future actions, or non actions, by any and all governmental agencies and agents. Past performance is not a reliable predictor of future performance, except, perhaps in the inverse.

Leave a Reply

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