Alicia Mattson Elected Treasurer of Libertarian State Leadership Alliance

From: Brett Bittner
Date: Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 5:52 PM
Subject: [Statechairs] Please Welcome The New LSLA Treasurer
To: statechairs <statechairs@lp.org>

All,

I’m pleased to announce that at tonight’s Executive Board meeting, we elected Alicia Mattson to serve as Treasurer for the remainder of the term vacated earlier this year.

 

Live Free,
 
Brett C. Bittner
 
Executive Director
Chairman
The Libertarian State Leaderhip Alliance (LSLA) is an organziation provides support to affiliates of the Libertarian Party. From the LSLA website: “The The Libertarian State Leadership Alliance is organized exclusively for educational purposes, more specifically to coordinate activities and share knowledge among Libertarian Party State Chairs and Affiliate Parties. Each year the LSLA puts creates an agenda which identifies the main areas of support for local affiliates. This agenda is created with valuable input from all participating affiliates.”

Alicia Mattson is the former secretary of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC).

38 thoughts on “Alicia Mattson Elected Treasurer of Libertarian State Leadership Alliance

  1. Wes Wagner

    The LSLA died the day they conspired to run out Rachel on a rail for political purposes to do a power grab.

    The double-tap was the Reeve’s email list incident over Oregon.

    Although most state chairs can’t be bothered to fix it, they will not support this organization and give it no credibility.

    The attendance numbers in CO reflect that.

  2. Thomas L. Knapp

    LSLA … LNCC … how many potentially valuable organizations have become moribund after being hijacked as flags of convenience by the Starr Chamber?

  3. Wes Wagner

    TK @2

    You forgot the LNC Inc 😉

    It is nowhere near repaired from the damage that was done.

  4. Ad Hoc

    @3 And each of the other LSLA officers? I know some of them are state leaders, but I believe several aren’t.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    WW@6,

    I’ve always assumed that the other hijackings were undertaken in service to an ultimate goal of either controlling, or, failing that, sidelining LNC, Inc.

  6. Wes Wagner

    TK @7

    You would be very correct. It goes further, even into attempting to take proxy control of state affiliates, like the failed attempt on Oregon.

    Attempts on other states have been more successful and less visible.

  7. paulie

    The LSLA treasurer doesn’t do a whole lot. It’s an organization with a four figure budget which basically puts on a conference once a year and has an email list, and that’s pretty much it, as far as I know. I considered applying myself, but never did. I did apply when they had a chair vacancy and was told that they only wanted people who are in state leadership in their states, although several LSLA board members aren’t.

  8. Jill Pyeatt

    They really need to change their name to”AFLSLA”–“A Few Libertarian State Leaders Alliance”

  9. paulie

    There’s a fair number of states on the email and at the conferences I have been to, although I heard the latest one was pretty small.

  10. Kevin Knedler

    Let’s not forget that after Rachel, we had a large LSLA gathering in COlumbus, Ohio in August 2011. 71 people attended from 20+ states. It was a success. So the LSLA did not “die” in 2011. Plus, it made some money at both that event and also by coordinating the vendors at the 2012 National LP Convention.

  11. Wes Wagner

    Kevin @13

    That was all queued up as part of the plan with a support network prebooked to help. Once the coup was complete the initiative to actually do the real work was gone and the games began.

    To date I am still not sure if you were an unwitting host or were in on it.

  12. Ad Hoc

    Alicia Mattson is detail oriented, and treasurer of LSLA is an easy volunteer task. Even if you don’t like her positions on party factional issues, what exactly do you think she would screw up as treasurer of LSLA? It couldn’t be her vote on controversial issues, given who all else is on the board. What’s the gnashing of teeth all about here?

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    AH @ 16,

    Given past performance, it’s reasonable to assume, and naive not to assume, that if Mattson is involved in something, it’s pursuant to some shady scheme.

  14. paulie

    Shady scheme to do what exactly? Misappropriate a couple of thousand dollars? Schedule crappy speakers at an LSLA conference? There’s just not that much power in the LSLA.

  15. Susan Hogarth

    Gotta say I’m with Paulie and Ad Hoc here. We can’t make so many intra-party disputes about personality.

  16. Steven Wilson

    I think Paulie has a point. The LSLA has very little impact for a party that has very little impact. If the state chairs trust her, then they should be held accountable like everyone else.

    If you are going to pretend to have a political party, then you should at least keep players around that offer some entertainment value.

    Think about how boring and empty the conspiracy wing would be if there was no Starr or Mattson.

  17. Ad Hoc

    So you are saying that Warren Redlich is the mastermind behind this move, so as to increase ad revenue for IPR?

  18. Jill Pyeatt

    I think the whole discussion has been more about the validity of the LSLA, rather than about Alicia Mattson. There really wasn’t discussion of her personality, just whether she was a leader in any state.

  19. Mark Axinn

    Ad Hoc hit the nail on the head.

    Warren is the great mastermind behind all the conspiracies of the world, especially the oh-so-important one involving officers of LSLA, and now we know his true sinister motive: to make more money on IPR than its previous owners did!

    Finally, the truth is disclosed.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    Susan@19,

    It’s not about personality, it’s about actions.

    Paulie@18,

    There wasn’t much power in LNCC either, but when SCM’s horse wasn’t able to win election to the chairmanship of the LNC, they installed him as chairman of the LNCC and tried to fool the public into thinking that the latter was the former.

    Yes, LSLA (and LNCC, and LNC) are small potatoes. What of it? Just because I can’t find a rational reason why SCM do what they do, that doesn’t mean I have to pretend they don’t do what they do.

  21. paulie

    LNC has a budget about 2-3 orders of magnitude that of LSLA, several full time employees, and control of resources that in one way or another reach millions of people a year. LSLA, not so much.

    LNCC has a name that can be easily confused with LNC, giving it some propaganda value when Wayne Root was using it in his many interviews and articles. No such thing happening with LSLA.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    If I know someone who, every time she gets hold of a cigarette, lights it and then puts it out on the back of my hand, at some point when I see her hunting for a cigarette I start assuming she intends to light it and put it out on the back of my hand.

    Like I said — I don’t know what precise potential or use SCM see in control of LSLA. But they’ve been seeking, getting and exercising that control in various ways for some time now.

    I can think of one purpose LSLA could easily serve if it could generate a plausible continuing claim to represent the state LPs, and that purpose is “a replacement for the LNC.” I don’t know if that’s what SCM are grooming it for, though.

  23. paulie

    Every time I bring it up for rads to apply for these kinds of positions it either gets ignored or I’m told that the institutions are inherently bad and we shouldn’t bother. Maybe a minimal amount of effort to apply for and fill these kinds of positions would get different results. In the meantime, if the LNC does not meet various needs of state LPs and someone else does, we will eventually get the predictable results.

  24. Steven Wilson

    I don’t think a radical would operate in that environment. The dysfunction of these groups is the proof their own belief.

    The LP is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Can you be a Libertarian without an LP?

  25. Wes Wagner

    p@30

    The people in that organization are so vile no one wants to be seen as a peer with them.

    Once the Starr faction has infiltrated an organization, you pretty much just have to purify it with flame and move on.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    @30, @31 …

    What does “radical” have to do with it? To the extent I’ve ever seen ideological statements from Aaron Starr, he seems as radical as most LPers and more radical than some.

  27. Kevin Knedler

    Wes there was ZIPPO, ZERO, NADA pre-planning or pre-booking of support for the LSLA conference in 2011. Rachel quit and the LSLA was about DOA for any event. I was asked by some state chairs to step in and help organize the event for Summer in Columbus, Ohio. That was because a LNC meeting was already planned. So I did the “one thing” I know how to do and that is get something organized. Thanks to Sam Goldstein and friends from Indiana and the Ohio team–plus others I forget for the moment, we put together a plan together. It took about two months to pull it all together and we had precious little time to make it happen. But it did. The event focused on best practices of a state affiliate, building the organization, leadership, etc. That’s all I’ve got. My goal was to resurrect it and then step back and let some younger folks take charge and run it. Nothing more than that.

  28. Michael H. Wilson

    Kevin there was some planning done because I remember seeing a list and related info prior to Rachel’s health issues causing her a problem. I was expected to do a presentation on a couple of issues. I am getting old but I think my recall is still working.

  29. From Der Sidelines

    The whole point is to add another resume line to campaign for to get back on the LNC next convention, elected by the newbie rubeys that don’t know any better.

    As for the LSLA budget being four figures, is that two on each side of the decimal point?

  30. Steven Wilson

    I think the use of “radical” implies more of a non-statist or organic form of methodology. I think those people might change the course if you had a majority of them, but I don’t think they would join in the first place. These sub-groups are so tainted by now I don’t know if they can be useful to someone who believes in individual sovereignty.

    To people who want to play like a political party, Starr is a perfect fit. That is why a certain kind of person runs for those positions.

    As for Starr himself, I take people for their actions and not their language games. I don’t believe in conspiracy theory and as such I take their actions independent of others.

    Starr seems to me to be a person who only likes it his way. There are many people like that, but he is a constant in the LP. The purpose of a sub-group is to aid in hearing other points of view, which Starr doesn’t feel is a good thing.

    Starr has a radical language game, but his lack of multiple voice is all a radical would need to say no to entering that sub-group.

    Starr also tries to define Libertarian in his own way, which is fine but he does it within the LP. Which goes against the theory of individual sovereignty.

    In theory, individual sovereignty dictates that group votes are inherently flawed due to the implied consent of majority rule. This kind of person would be a hypocrite for participating in majority rule, even if they voted against it.

    That was the point I was trying to make. I hope I didn’t confuse anyone.

Leave a Reply

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