The Libertarian Party National Convention will be happening in Columbus, Ohio, the weekend of June 26th to the 29th. It is my understanding that there will be an election for LNC officers. This thread is dedicated to discussing who might be running for those positions. Which incumbents will want to keep their position? Will the body of the Libertarian Party agree he or she should stay, or be voted out of office? What new people might be interested in running? We have a little over two months until the election, and here is a good time and place to start talking seriously about this.
The theme of the convention will be “Character Matters”.
Here is a list of the current LNC members:
Officers
Chairman – Geoffrey Neale
Vice Chairman – Lee Wrights
Treasurer – Tim Hagan
Secretary – David Blau
At-large Representatives
Michael Cloud
Mark Hinkle
Bill Redpath
Starchild
Arvin Vohra
Region Representatives
Region 1 — AK, AZ, CO, HI, ID, KS, MT, UT, WA, WY
Norman Olsen
Alternate – Tony Ryan
Region 2 — FL, GA, TN
Vicki Kirkland
Alternate – Doug Craig
Region 3 — IN, KY, OH, MI
Sam Goldstein
Alternate – Steve Linnabury
Region 4 — AR, CA, NV, NM, NY
Regional Rep
Dan Wiener
Alternate – Scott Lieberman
Regional Rep
Brett Pojunis
Alternate – Audrey Capozzi
Region 5n – CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, RI, VT
Rich Tomasso
Alternate – Vacant
Region 5s – DC, DE, MD, NC, PA, VA, WV
James W Lark III
Alternate – Scott Spencer
Region 6 — IL, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD, WI
Dianna Visek
Alternate – Michael Knebel
Region 7 — AL, LA, MS, OK, TX
Gary Johnson
Alternate – Paulie Frankel
Disclaimer: Both Paulie Frankel and Starchild are writers/contributors here at IPR
I would normally consider donating to a local candidate’s campaign, but I doubt if Starr needs the money. He can afford to send $100,000 to Oregon to wreak havoc, and also has enough money to lend to the Ohio LP.
I do wish him luck, though.
I sent a large contribution to the Aaron Starr for Oxnard City Council 2014 campaign a couple of weeks ago, at 2130 Posada Drive in
Oxnard, CA 93030, and would like to urge others to do the same. While there are certainly no guarantees in politics, Aaron has an excellent chance of winning. He is the Chief Financial Officer of Haas Automation, which is headquartered in Oxnard and employs hundreds of people there. (Haas Automation is the largest CNC tool maker in the western world, with revenues in the vicinity of a billion dollars a year.) It’s early, but Aaron has been getting an excellent response so far in his campaign efforts. Most of all, he knows how to win city council races. He was Sandi Webb’s campaign manager back in the 1990’s when she was elected and re-elected to the city council in neighboring Simi Valley.
And for those of you who have clashed with Aaron in the past, think of it this way: He’s only human (really!) and there’s only so much time in the day. If he’s busy as an Oxnard council member as well as with his job at Haas he’ll have a lot less time to spend on LNC matters. So empty your pockets and donate to his campaign!
Course there’s also this:
http://www.gofundme.com/heartsforhealingwi
Hearts for Healing
P.O. BOX 407
Waukesha, WI 53187-0407
Looks like we can all donate to Aaron Starr
HERE:
https://democracy.com/AaronStarr/donate.aspx#form
Mark,
Please drop me an email or Facebook message with your contact information. I’d like to discuss the chair race as well as specific NY electoral strategy.
Andy–
We have Paypal and Click & Pledge on LPNY and Manhattan LP websites, and are going to add bitcoin. I just want to make sure I help Chuck get rid of all those obsolete checks burning a hole in his pocket.
Nick–
I should add that right now we have endorsed the four statewide and eight local candidates. I expect that will increase to about a dozen local by the time petitioning starts on July 8. We only have six weeks to get the sigs.
Nick–
Local candidates have to petition as well, but the requirements are different. For example, state assembly is 1500 sigs, Congress is 3500, while the four statewide offices (Gov., Lt. Gov., AG and Comptroller) are 15,000. US Senator and Pres/VP are also 15,000.
Importantly, local candidates outside of NYC may have their sigs count twice, both for themselves and for the statewide slate if their assembly or state senate district is cross-county (pretty arbitrary rule, eh?!). This is an important consideration and I have spent the last few months encouraging my chapters to find candidates who want to run locally to do so. For example, Mark Glogowski will run in the 139th Assembly District which cover four different counties between Rochester and Buffalo. If he gets say 1500 sigs., which he did two yrs ago and will do again this year, they count not only for him but for the statewide guys too. That’s that many fewer sigs that we have to pay for. Even if someone just gets 500 for his local race, if it’s cross-county we can use it towards the statewide total.
We are a challenge state. Four years ago, the Republicans were going to challenge, and we submitted over 34,000 sigs to make it not worth their while. When Johnson/Gray ran, we got 25,000 for them, which included some local guys collecting petitions that added their own names too. We can’t do it without paid petitioners and some help from National, but the more we can do locally, the less we are dependent on outside help.
I accept checks, bitcoin, litecoin and several other forms of payment. 100% of the money you send me, minus transaction fees if any, will go to me personally.
“Mark Axinn June 5, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Checks may be obsolete, but they work just fine for me.
Please send all your obsolete checks payable to Libertarian Party of New York, PO Box 728, Bellport, NY 11713. I guaranty that 100% of your contribution will be used to help get our dozen-plus candidates on the ballot. Not one penny of overhead.”
You ought to accept donations in cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Darkcoin, etc…).
If you sign up with http://www.BitPay.com they will convert your Bitcoin donations to Federal Reserve Notes.
Mark Hinkle announced on LNC-discuss that he is running for vice chair, but he did not treat it as an announcement but as old news. However, it was news to me.
No one goes there anymore; it’s too crowded 🙂
Mark,
Quick question. If you are successful in ballot access petition, is it only for statewide races, or does it also allow you to run state legislative candidates?
Checks may be obsolete, but they work just fine for me.
Please send all your obsolete checks payable to Libertarian Party of New York, PO Box 728, Bellport, NY 11713. I guaranty that 100% of your contribution will be used to help get our dozen-plus candidates on the ballot. Not one penny of overhead.
I would send Aaron Starr a campaign contribution if he accepted online donations. Checks are obsolete.
I sent Mr. Starr a check earlier this week. Checks should be made out to:
Aaron Starr for Oxnard City Council 2014
and sent to
2130 Posada Drive
Oxnard, CA 93030
I believe he’ll also happily take your contribution at the national convention.
I am not aware of anyone who I would support against NOTA who is running for Treasurer. Joe, above, would be a superb candidate if he could be persuaded to run. Perhaps we need a “Committee to Draft Dr Joe Buchman”. It is possible that Chuck Moulton could be persuaded to run for Secretary if Sarwark and Vohra were elected.
Aaron Starr is running for City Council in Oxnard, California and will apparently not be running for Treasurer. I urge Libertarians to send him at least a small campaign donation. Hopefully someone local can supply the committee name and address, which a web search declined to reveal to me.
George–Do you have any idea who is interested in the Treasurer position?
Mark Hinkle is rumored to be running for Vice Chair. I have had several confirmations that Aaron Starr will not run for Treasurer. He may be hoping to be reappointed to the Audit Committee, where he did a superb job.
It is interesting to note that the global warming denier has disappeared from the main schedule.
So I am leaning toward Swarwark and Vohra but mainly just on the theory that new energy could be a good way to get out of a rut and end any current financial relationships that are unproductive legacies. But I am still open and undeclared as possibly the only one of DC’s 3 delegates who will make it to the convention.
Am I correct that only 3 people have made actual announcements that they’re running: Nicolas Swarwark and now Geoff Neale for chair, and Arvin Vohra for vice-chair?
“Kevin Knedler June 3, 2014 at 10:48 pm
Everyone should try to attend ComFest. Mr. Linnabary is the answer-man for the event. It fits in perfectly with Libertarians. Only three blocks from the convention.”
How about we Libertarians do some kind of outreach activity at ComFest?
I cleaned up getting petition signatures for the Libertarian Party of Ohio at ComFest several years ago.
Everyone should try to attend ComFest. Mr. Linnabary is the answer-man for the event. It fits in perfectly with Libertarians. Only three blocks from the convention
Kevin, many thanks for the recommendations. Sorry to read that we scheduled our event against a major local holiday.
George, when you leave the convention center and walk north you will find a plethora of trendy restaurants every 20 or 30 feet or so. I don’t even try to keep up with what is the trendiest of the trendy anymore. Too damned many people in those places for my tastes!
That said, I do not recommend them on this particular weekend. If there are typically too many people for my taste, that weekend will be horrendous for traffic or merely getting decent service as it is ComFest weekend.
PEACE
Mark, since I am the “godfather” of the LPOhio bylaws and constitution, I made sure there were term limits in place. They apply to ME also ! Kevin
George, I have some ideas for nicer dining downtown Columbus. Stay in the Areana District or Short North area which are two to 6 blocks away. Try Columbus web site http://www.experiencecolumbus.com They have a dining link. I would suggest Ted’s or Mongolian BBQ in Arena District. Hyde Park or Lemon Grass in the Short North. Plus M Restaurant is very nice. A ton of places to eat near the convention center. This is NOT the Red ROck situation of 2012 !
In the context of the discussion here, the way you expand that is by amending the Bylaws.
The most important Bylaws amendment, as shown by North Carolina, is
“The Democratic Rules of Order (Francis & Francis, 9th ed.) shall be the parliamentary authority for all matters of procedure not specifically covered by these Bylaws.”
With respect to officers, the delegation object now under the Vice Chair should be under the Chair, where it belongs.
Phiillies: “see Bylaws 7.5, saying the Chair may delegate such powers as he sees fit to the Vice Chair. I would expand that,allowing the Chair to delegate to any officer or At-Large member.”
So, WHY didn’t the folks who wrote and approved Bylaw 7.5 SAY that this provision applies to
ANY officer, much less “At-Large” members?
Americans have been debating for 150 years whether the Constitution says what it means AND means what it says; are we NOW going to have this revisionist v. literalist debate within the L.P.
Kevin,
Best of luck with your final term. May it be terminal for a few of your statewide elected Republicans, too.
Having said that, if you are aware of a good local restaurant guide, please advise. I am interested in sit-down restaurants with table service, not the local food court. The hotel is set up, it appears, for a different clientele, so that in-hotel dining looks to be space-constrained.
Paulie, see Bylaws 7.5, saying the Chair may delegate such powers as he sees fit to the Vice Chair. I would expand that,allowing the Chair to delegate to any officer or At-Large member.
Kevin–
You can check out, but you can never leave!
I announced my final terms as State Chair in 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Looking forward to seeing you in Columbus.
Can’t wait for the national convention in MY home state of Ohio in just a few weeks. Columbus has a lot of things to offer outside of the convention in the short North area and the Arena District. Much more lively than St. Louis in 2010. And we won’t feel caged in like Las Vegas in 2012–not good for a Libertarian.
All those LNC candidates are invited to make their pitch to the Ohio and Region THREE delegations ! You best bring your “A” game. Good luck and may the best person win.
Kevin Knedler. Newly elected (and final term) Chair of the Ohio LP Executive Committee.
Please explain more fully.
You would have to look. I was not discussing the order of succession to fill vacancies.
I believe there is an order of secession after Chair and Vice Chair, is there not?
There is an important positive Bylaws feature, if the chair has a good Vice Chair. the Chair may delegate aspects of his authority to the Vice Chair, as he sees fit.
An interesting Bylaws change would be to allow the Chair to delegate to any officer or At-Large member.
I like Mark a lot more than most people here seem to, but I really like what Arvin has done this term a lot and am most inclined to support him.
I’m not sure he would be any more effective as Vice Chair than as At Large, but I am not against trying the experiment. Moving him into a more prestigious role would be a good signal that we like what he has been doing with facebook and his other work.
I would not rule out the possibility. Depends on who all runs, who all the delegates are and who runs what kind of campaign for the spot.
It depends on the attendance, the effort put forth in favor of alternatives, etc.
Does anyone think that Hinkle will have enough support to be elected vc?
Latest word is that Mark Hinkle is also running for Vice Chair. It was mentioned casually on LNC list like it was a well-known fact, but I did not know about it up til then.
What are you talking about? Is this Ogle?
He said he is too busy right now, and also seems to be pessimistic about the likely composition of the delegates at this convention (as am I). I agree that I would love to see Sarwark, Moulton and Vohra as LNC officers.
I don’t support them, at least until and unless we make Secretary and Treasurer something other than voting LNC positions. However, I predict Mattson will win and Starr very well may as well. Wish I had had the money and time to join you all in Florida. I wanted to, but had to stay and work here. Would love to see additional reports and pictures from that beyond what we have already posted in IPR comments.
A good chair can control the parliamentoonian issue, though one may hope that the convention will follow North Carolina in changing the parliamentary lack of authority. Important answers include ‘chairs only appoint a parliamentarian if they are uncomfortable with doing their job’ and ‘dilatory motion’ come to mind.
Amusingly, when I attended the wonderful LPFlorida state convention I found that most people who did not like Mattson and Starr thought they had no chance to win, while those who supported them thought they were sure to win.
Chuck Moulton should run for Treasurer. Sarwark, Vohra, and Moulton would make an excellent ticket (or “ticket,” since none of them are willing to form a ticket officially), and would likely capture at least two of those three seats. Mattson unfortunately may have Secretary locked up, although another strong candidate could still emerge.
The Worldwide Libertarian Party is the guiding light.
I’ll support Vohra for vice chair, then, most likely.
“Andy May 23, 2014 at 11:29 pm
“were there were three petitions”
Should read, “where there were three petitions…”
Andy: there is a bylaw proposal to allow virtual meetings. Hopefully it will pass and the next LNC will start having some.
“were there were three petitions”
“Joshua Katz May 23, 2014 at 10:09 pm
I will not run again for at-large, nor will I seek a regional rep position. My financial situation makes it impossible for me to commit to traveling. ”
This is one of the reasons I’ve been floating the idea that the number of in person meetings should be reduced.
The current system of having to travel around the country 3 or 4 times a year to go to meetings prices some people out of being able to serve on the LNC, and with others, they are either too busy with work or family to make the trips.
Paul became an LNC alternate during this term, and for some reason, he’s had a compulsion to attend all or most of the meetings since becoming an alternate, even though he does not get to vote unless the person for whom he is an alternate is not there. I know that on at least one occasion, Paul was working on a lucrative petition drive, were there were three petitions, and he missed out on the last few days of being able to work on the highest paying petition, as that one out of the three was over by the time he returned from the LNC meeting. I’d say that his opportunity cost from missing those few days of work could have easily been $2,000, not to mention whatever costs he incurred by going to the meeting. This is all money that he could have used later on down the road.
So, the question is, is there anybody that won’t vote Vohra for VC? I can’t imagine that there are many.
I am not running for Vice Chair or Chair or any other LNC position. On one hand, I have other commitments. On the other hand, a successful change requires a whole new LNC. Running for Vice Chair seemed reasonable last time, as the race I could win. I had planned to run for Treasurer. Then the Texans recruited several more people into the race for Treasurer. The resulting four-way race for Treasurer required that the numbers break very well before I could win. The evening before, when I made my decision, Vice Chair looked eminently winnable. That was before it was known that Lee was running for Vice Chair. I therefore decided to try for Vice Chair, which turned out to be a total waste of effort, rather than Treasurer.
It turned out that there had been several people I knew not about, who had been lobbying intensively to persuade friends to vote for me as Treasurer; they were extremely disappointed when I withdrew from Treasurer. .
Oh, and I will also support Brett for something, maybe vice-chair. If he runs for chair, I’ll support Nicholas, but if he runs for vice-chair, I’ll be likely to support him, unless George is also running or Lee Wrights is running again.
Vohra is running for Vice Chair. I am not running for anything this time. I have short-term professional commitments that would exclude being on the LNC.
I will not run again for at-large, nor will I seek a regional rep position. My financial situation makes it impossible for me to commit to traveling.
I support Nicholas Sarwark for chair. I hope to see Starchild continue as at-large, as well as Arvin. I hope that the delegates will, again, get Hinkle off. I hope to see Redpath on the LNC in some capacity. If the Secretary and Treasurer did not get a vote on the LNC, I’d be happy to see Mattson and Starr in those positions, but since both are voting members of the LNC, I will strongly oppose both – Starr more so. Maybe Redpath for Treasurer? I’d like to see George run again for an LNC position – maybe Secretary?
In the context of these other candidates, I believe that Starchild is most effective as an At-Large.
Dave Terry: “Maybe some “NOTA” signs will materialize by spontaneous generation”
.
Maybe your buddy Burke will show up and repeat his great 1996 pitch: “We’ve shown that we can run candidates; Now let’s show that we cannot.”
.
Bob T
IIRC, the signs in 2012 said “Reelect No One”. That really isn’t the same thing.
.
Maybe some “NOTA” signs will materialize by spontaneous generation.(like 2012) :>)
Chuck: me too, and thnks for the link. Nick – wrong thread, it was the one with your name on it. I’ll post them again.
I endorse Arvin Vohra for vice-chair.
Paulie wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/posts/833329453362520
Paul,
I think I missed them.
Nick – had a few questions for you earlier in the thread. Didn’t see your answers unless I missed them somehow. Some other people answered for you but I would be curious in you answers specifically. Still interested in seeing how you would answer if you get a chance.
I missed the Vohra announcement. Where was it?
Starchild for Secretary?
I heartily endorse Nick Sarwark for National Chair. AS he has announced, I also heartily endorse Arvin Vohra for Vice Chair. Of the other At-Larges’, I endorse Starchild for re-election, and Cloud, Hinkle, and Redpath for retirement.
Operators are standing by if you call in the next 15 minutes. Or any other 15 minutes.
What do they say about the Arizona lottery now?
I hope its something like “Realistically, you can’t win, no matter how many tickets you buy.”
I like this new Shakespearean Chuck.
Paulie wrote:
To go, or not to go, that is the question—
Whether ’tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Platform changes,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of LINOs,
And by opposing end them? To go, to vote—
No more; and by a vote, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That members are heir to? ‘Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To go, to vote,
To vote, perchance to Elect; Aye, there’s the rub,
For in that vote of delegates, what wins may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There’s the respect
That makes Calamity of so long tenure:
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of conventions,
The Opposition’s wrong, the radicals’ Contumely,
The pangs of despised Liberty, the Law’s delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his Defeat make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary vote,
But that the dread of something after loss,
The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn
No Traveler returns, Puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all,
And thus the Native hue of Resolution
Is sicklied o’er, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment,
With this regard their Currents turn awry,
And lose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The fair Libertas. Nymph, in all thy Orisons
Be thou all my sins remembered.
More reactions are coming in:
Starchild
10:27 PM (37 minutes ago)
to lpusmisc, Independent, LP, Independent, LP, LNC, Grassroots, George
Nick Sarwark has my enthusiastic endorsement. He’s a terrific speaker who would make an excellent media spokesperson, strongly libertarian, and I think has enough knowledge of the party to be effective while retaining enough of a youthful outsider’s perspective to shake things up. I believe Sarwark as chair would be a marked improvement on issues of transparency and bottom-up governance that I have sought to bring to the table as an LNC representative, and would welcome the opportunity to serve with him on the Libertarian National Committee.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
Joshua Katz
10:30 PM (35 minutes ago)
to LP, lpusmisc, Independent, Independent, George, LNC, Grassroots, LP
I join with Starchild in endorsing Nicholas Sarwark for chair. We don’t need any more of the same old, same old, and we need no more of the clique that has run things for far too long. We need a chair we can count on to be transparent, to run the party in a libertarian manner, and to be a consistent radical libertarian. Nicholas has my vote.
As they used to say about the Arizona Lottery, “You can’t win if you don’t play.”
I’ll mourn for him if and when he gets elected 🙂
In the meantime the question most LP activists are asking about this year’s national convention, from what I have seen online and heard in person:
To go or not to go, that is the question.
Nicholas Sarwark wrote:
Friends, Libertarians, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to critique Sarwark, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Sarwark. The noble Goldstein
Hath told you Sarwark was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Sarwark answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Goldstein and the rest–
For Goldstein is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men–
Come I to speak in Sarwark’s nomination.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Goldstein says he was ambitious;
And Goldstein is an honorable man.
He hath brought many members to the Libertarian Party
Whose dues did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Sarwark seem ambitious?
When that the radicals have cried, Sarwark hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Goldstein says he was ambitious;
And Goldstein is an honorable man.
You all did see that on the Bylaws Committee
I thrice presented him expansive Judicial Committee powers,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Goldstein says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what Goldstein spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is on the stage there with Sarwark,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
“Nicholas Sarwark May 17, 2014 at 9:33 pm
‘If Nicholas were to get elected Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, would he be the youngest Chairman in the history of the LNC?”
I’m 34, Ed Crane was 30, not sure about the other prior chairs. While I can’t be the youngest, I do intend to be the best.”
I don’t think that age necessarily means anything, as I would put more importance on things like ideas to get the party ahead, commitment to libertarian principles, work ethic, character, etc… I just asked the age question out of curiosity.
Regardless of who gets elected to the LNC, it would sure be nice to see an LNC that does not end up being a disappointment. It seems like every LNC since I’ve been following it has been just that, a big disappointment.
I’ve been a member of the LP since 1996, but I did not really pay that much attention to what all was going on with the LNC until sometime in the 2000’s. I do know that the Libertarian Party was growing from 1996 until the early 2000’s, and that since then the party has gone down hill in most areas, and has basically gone through ups and downs and periods of stagnation since then.
I also know that over the last 7 years, name recognition for the word libertarian has actually gone up, thanks primarily to Ron Paul, and I’d say that there are more people now than ever who know what a libertarian is, and who respond favorably to the word. The fact that the Libertarian Party has not been able to translate this into a big spike in membership and fundraising is just one example of the failure of the LNC, but also the failures of many state affiliates and many LP campaigns in general.
I’ve long thought that the Libertarian Party has the potential to be a lot bigger and more successful than it is. Will this potential ever be realized? I don’t know, but I do know that it will not happen without some changes taking place as to how the party operates.
Although, if Sam needs a speech, I’ve got one written. 😉
Quick, but not sudden 🙂
That was quick.
There are some naysayers of course…
SAM8074 via Independent Political Report
9:32 PM (1 minute ago)
to lnc-discuss, iprtwo, phillies, LNCRegion7, GrassrootsLibe., lpradicals, lpsunshine, lpusmisc
I think I’ll vote NOTA and encourage the Indiana delegation to do the same.
Sam Goldstein
I’m 34, Ed Crane was 30, not sure about the other prior chairs. While I can’t be the youngest, I do intend to be the best.
I think that’s Moulton for President, Sarwark for Chair.
Works in either order for me though.
I support Sarwark for Chair. Heck, I support Sarwark for President.
No. Most LP leaders were in their twenties in the early years of the party.
“Nicholas Sarwark May 17, 2014 at 8:55 pm
I am officially running for LNC Chair. Feel free to publish as an article. See here for a page that outlines what I want to do and why the delegates should elect me.”
If Nicholas were to get elected Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, would he be the youngest Chairman in the history of the LNC?
I guess that will fit the technical definition of “Of all the Chair candidates, I am the only one under 40 years old. ” …if it happens 🙂
I anticipate the incumbent will declare in the next couple of weeks. I’m not aware of any other candidates at present.
Thank you for running, Nick.
I like what you have to say on that page and have a highly favorable opinion of you from the preponderance of everything I have seen you do and say.
One question occurs to me at this point.
You mention other candidates for chair by way of contrasting yourself with them, and say none of them are under 40.
Who are they?
As far as I know you are the first declared candidate for chair, and that includes the incumbent. Last I have heard from him is that he has not decided whether to seek another term.
So who are these other candidates?
I am officially running for LNC Chair. Feel free to publish as an article. See here for a page that outlines what I want to do and why the delegates should elect me.
No one I am talking to has been happy with the convention organizing, planning and promotion.
I’ll be purchasing the Delegate package. It does not have an early bird discount. So, I’ll wait until the last minute to purchase it, in case something comes up that prevents me from attending. If there were even a $5 discount, I would probably buy it now. But, as it stands, there is no reason for me to do so.
Not very many is all I have heard.
Why would you expect to shell out money to buy a meal, if they do not know who the speaker is? I am told by people who have seen the hotel that the regular hotel dining rooms are a bit on the small side so eating elsewise may be challenging. Well, that’s why they have room service.
How many packages have been sold, anyhow?
That’s what I meant by schedule – who will be speaking when. Not having this info with the convention less than 2 months away may be a big part of why so few packages have been sold, along with lack of known candidates/platform drama or big name speakers and too little, too late (thus far anyway) in advertising/promotion.
There’s a schedule, but it doesn’t say who is speaking when.
In any event, I ended up with the Silver package. I don’t generally eat breakfast, preferring to subsist in the mornings on coffee and the tears of my enemies.
I don’t believe the actua schedule has been published.
Just a reminder, the early-bird pricing on national convention packages ends on May 1. You should probably purchase your package today to avoid the price increase.
As an aside, does anyone know who the breakfast speakers are going to be? I’m torn between Gold and Silver, and not knowing the speakers isn’t helping.
On occasion. There was, for example, the 1972 Democratic National Convention, at which Humphrey lost the Presidential nomination to McGovern via a parliamentary procedure error on the part of his campaign. (My source, at one remove, is the parliamentarian for that convention.) The 1964 Republican convention was fairly interesting. The 1860 Democratic convention got fairly impressive.
Do the Republicans and Democrats have this much drama?
Going on a witch hunt, Andy?
Andy
“I have not been following every detail of the dysfunctional soap opera in the LP of Oregon, but it seems to me that this law suit is a waste of time and resources, time and resources which would be better allocated toward things that actually build the party/movement.”
It is worth taking special note that the plaintiffs (you know the people who start the lawsuit) are being represented by the Oregon Republican Party’s general counsel, and being paid by Aaron Starr.
That alone is cause enough to remove Starr and everyone who associates with him voluntarily from all positions of responsibility in the organization.
Mike
It would if we could bury them in activists … and take it for our purposes, repair the brand a make it serve the libertarians rather than a parasitic few.
Nicholas and Wes I don’t need the LP to write to legislators, testify at hearings,write letters or op-eds and work with others all of which I have done in the last six months without the LP. Fact is it seems to me that other groups do a better job of turning out the troops to impact events than the LP does. Three or four days in Ohio is going to change anything.
“Jill Pyeatt Post authorApril 24, 2014 at 8:57 pm
Frankly, I don’t care that Starr has paid for the Reeves group’s legal fees, although I’m certainly curious as to why.”
I can’t say that I agree with this line of reasoning. If a person spends money on something that helps build the cause of liberty, that’s a good thing. If they spend money on something that detracts from the cause of liberty, that is not a good thing.
Is this law suit doing anything to promote the cause of liberty, or is it simply a waste of time and resources?
Is the Burke/Reeves factions electing Libertarians to office, bringing in new party members, increasing the number of people registered to vote under the Libertarian Party banner, increasing the amount of money that the party raises, or doing anything else that helps build the cause of liberty?
If the Burke/Reeves factions wants to control the state party, why don’t they just engage in party building activities and win people’s support at the next state convention?
I have not been following every detail of the dysfunctional soap opera in the LP of Oregon, but it seems to me that this law suit is a waste of time and resources, time and resources which would be better allocated toward things that actually build the party/movement.
The proposal to extend LNC terms to four years is extremely unfortunate. Try imagining being stuck with the 2010-2012 LNC for two more years, out to Summer 2014.
Either spend your money fixing the current org or work towards starting one that actually acts libertarian.
Doing nothing is defeat.
You can’t vote for better people on the LNC if you’re not at the convention to vote.
I certainly won’t be attending and I am questioning paying my dues. My wife has refused to renew and I understand her reasons for doing so.
After years in management and supervising others I learned that the most important thing a supervisor could do was to adequately train their staff and provide the tools to do the job.. I my opinion the LNC has failed to do that. The literature is poor and the issues section of the web site is so far out of date that it should just be deleted. Public relations seems to be non existent. I have written to the members of the LNC a number of times since Redpath was chair with little in the way of results. Someone give me a reason to spend my money.
I am cautiously optimistic for a much less dramatic convention in Columbus. As long as the Oregon delegation is seated without any shenanigans, I don’t foresee much else in the way of drama.
As to the officer positions, it seems like there are some people in the wings keeping their powder dry. I’d expect to hear some more stuff around mid-May. For whatever reason, long campaigns for LNC have fallen out of favor.
Do we know anyone who is running for chair besides the rumor that Geoff Neale willl be running again?
I’m seeing awful slim pickin’s for the officer positions…… no bueno.
I’m kind of done re-running it, also. The upcoming convention is the one we should focus on.
Just because you can do something does not mean you should.
Waste of time. I think all the NOTA votes and drama took up a lot of time. But it is permitted in the bylaws just like challenges are in the bylaws. The 2012 convention is what is was and maybe will be again. It’s a big sandbox for the children to play in.
M. Carling being allowed to vote as part of the group that seated Reeves was a big deal for many people. It made it very clear that the other side wasn’t going to play fair.
Mr. Rutherford was also on the side of the LNC members who fought LNC recognition of the Judicial Committee ruling on Oregon and the subsequent resolution against said ruling.
What $3,000 fine, Dave? Do you really think the thousands of people actively involved in the Oregon LP can’t afford that much money?
Do you really want to talk about fines here?
Shane, Mark Rutherford turned a lot of people off because of the behavior of the people he surrounded himself with. He was somehow associated with the credential committee’s seating of the Reeves group,. which angered many people. That made those of us who didn’t know him well suspicious of him. Then there was the waste of everyone’s time engineered by Knedler, and I also remember being surprised that he didn’t drop out of the Chair’s race, when it was obvious the LP body didn’t want him as chairman. We had to keep voting to get rid of him. Those are the specifics I remember.
We just authorized and funded $12,000 to pay for our primary ballot mailing to all 16,000+ registered libertarians.
Don’t have any concerns about Oregon’s ability to do business.
Dave Terry. $3,000 fine? I am looking at this thread for details. Fine for what? That can be tough to handle for a small party in any state.
Losty wrote: “(With the possible exception of Oregon which it appears is boycotting the Convention,
ROFL; What with the $3,000 fine levied against the Wagner group, they can’t afford to subsidize their friendly delegates, so pretending to boycott the Convention is the best way
to save face and avoid embarrassment.
Shane wrote: “This time, the signs just happened to match reality”
……and on the seventh day, God rested..
“LP Watcher,
I assume if other states don’t fill their delegation (With the possible exception of Oregon which it appears is boycotting the Convention, and therefore can have no delegates) that other credentialed delegates can be seated to represent those states, hence my earlier question on Regional LNC.”
Perhaps misleading. The delegates are chosen by the individual states. If State A wants to add some people from State B to its delegation, subject to state A’s bylaws and the usual rules for seating delegates, it may do so. However, that is up to State A. State A, in adding anyone as a delegate, must comply with the credentialing rules. However, if state A does not wish to add delegates from other states, that is also up to state A.
My own state has a bylaws requirement — no one who is not a resident of Massachusetts may be a delegate from Massachusetts.
Losty to your earlier comment about state party and ballot access. Even if a state does not recognize the Libertarian Party as a ballot-qualified party in the state, the LP can still be a PAC if they want. For the National Convention the LNC and delegates set rules to recognize the LP state affiliate. Just because a LP affiliate is not a recognized ballot-qualified party in a specific state, does not mean they can be active with supporting independent candidates and especially issues up for vote in elections. Just depends on how tough the ballot access laws are in each state. Remember the rules are being made by R’s and D’s and they want to protect their turf first.
Losty, you would be correct. The issue is that some folks don’t want to sit in other states. They want to sit in their home state, maybe with other famil members and friends. Some that can’t sit with their home state might not attend the national convention. That is a loss of money to national, loss of potential activist. The situation doesn’t happen often, but could happen to the state hosting the national convention or other nearby states. Also depends on if the state has its act together and is pushing for members to fill the seats.
LP Watcher,
I assume if other states don’t fill their delegation (With the possible exception of Oregon which it appears is boycotting the Convention, and therefore can have no delegates) that other credentialed delegates can be seated to represent those states, hence my earlier question on Regional LNC.
Chuck–
Can I borrow Redpath and Sarvis for a year or so in New York?
Go Virginia (and Ohio and New York)!!!!
Question: Why would ANYONE want to run for the LNC and subject themselves to the crazy LP firing squad? By the time you take all the hits from the naysayers and others in the LP, how much energy is there left to fight the ominiponent state, the GOP, and the DEM–they are the real enemy of Freedom. No wonder Mark Rutherford and others do not want to run for the LNC
Columbo, you give way too much credit to R. Lee. It’s laughable. He has never been a strategist and to successfully pull off Nota in Vegas would be mind-blowing.
Each convention has some guy with a quirky slogan passing around sign and stickers. In Portland it was “Abolish the LNC.”
This time, the signs just happened to match reality.
And Jill, regarding Rutherford, please explain whatever bad acts he was involved in. I’ve always liked Mark and think he is an asset to the party.
Correct.
The NatCon will also be propagandizing for the climate deniers, with a speaker of that ilk.
Readers who belong to the National Party should read the Chair message in the new issue, out about now. Neale advocates for locking the new LNC into office for four years, so the LNC would always be elected by the non-Presidential convention, the one that is easier to pack. He also says that the current LNC ‘failed to establish a coherent strategy during this term.’ I happen to think that he is right, but it certainly is a strong condemnation of the incumbents.
The difference between renewing people without their knowledge and consent to boost your state membership numbers (aka an act of fraud that also simultaneously reduces the number of delegates other states get) is far different from providing some personal financial assistance to knowledgeable parties who want to personally increase their personal participation in the organization they are already involved in for a slot that was already earned by the state that person lives in.
In this case these these actions (if true) ultimately erode our party since the national office is now going to spend almost $25 in services for these members between LP news issues and attempts at renewing actually disinterested parties.
This is not unlike taking registered republicans running for non-partisan office and claim they are libertarians because they paid dues (or had someone else do it for them) in a press release talking about how many candidates you have to also fraudulently boost your numbers to make your party look more successful that it is when bidding to be the site of the national convention – only to post a somewhat anemic local delegation.
I suppose as far as plots go to create animosity and such to continue to erode the effectiveness of the LP (which of course is the goal of a controlled opposition group) it is effective… but we really need to get better at identifying these people and purging them.
Losty, each state has a LIMIT of seats in their delegation. Just because you want to sit in a delegation and have a membership, does NOT guarantee you a seat if they are limited to a fixed number. Probably Ohio is going to exceed their limitations. Who knows. But if you are in Ohio, you best check with them to see if they have any seats left.
DT, I reworded my paragraph. I don’t have a problem with people having their memberships paid for in Ohio if the individual knows about it and approves. My problem was the suggestion that unpaid memberships would be paid for with different people claiming to be that member so they can vote for a particular candidate. I don’t know that is happening and I would hope Knedler wouldn’t allow it if he knew that was the plan, but that was suggested here earlier in the week by more than one person.
That would obviously be fraudulent.
Jill says: “I don’t see anything wrong with Sparkman’s or Wagner’s paying for someone else’s convenience at the convention.”…..”The only thing I have a problem with are the suggestions that memberships are being paid for people in Ohio who haven’t bought them themselves, just to stack the convention with Ohio delegates.”
Can you explain to us how it is ethical for Wagner to subsidize “friendly” delegates to a convention in Oregon, but it is unethical for someone to subsidize friendly delegates to a convention in Ohio?
.
Well, I don’t understand. All that is needed in Ohio to become a state member, and thereby qualify to be a delegate to convention, is to have voted in the most recent Libertarian Primary. The most recent will be the May 2014 Primary. There are 2 valid write in candidates statewide, but no Statewide constitutional officer candidates (pending appeal). Many voters will have no Libertarian candidates to choose, but can write in the 2 candidates. After 2014, unless another ballot access effort is made, or the case is won on appeal and Mr. Earl gets 2%, that requirement must change, as there would be no 2016 Primary if there is no ballot access.
With no floor fee, there is no cost to be a delegate (payable to the LP). One may need to print out the Committee reports and the platform/bylaw changes to be considered when they are posted to the site, but Membership is determined by either the state party, state law, or the LP where there is no active state party, right?
So where were all those Ohio people suppose to sit, if the Ohio folks didn’t increase their delegation size? They have been in the 42 to 45 ranges the last few conventions. Their choice for 2014 in Columbus probably was to go sit with another state or just not attend the convention. Not attending would take money away from the national party. It might be awkward telling activists or even a family member that there is “no room” in the delegation because of the limitations in seating. Let’s see if Ohio has more delegates this round and if they turned people away, before we judge too harshly. Their rules for being a delegate are very clear and in their bylaws on their web site.
Each state that has a national convention coming, should probably see a bump in interest and might need more seats on a one-time basis. Assuming they were using all their allocated seats in the prior national conventions. And what is the difference in giving a gift of a sustaining membership to a basic member vs giving a gift of transportation and lodging and even a registration to a person. Both are gifts.
I don’t see anything wrong with Sparkman’s or Wagner’s paying for someone else’s convenience at the convention. Frankly, I don’t care that Starr has paid for the Reeves group’s legal fees, although I’m certainly curious as to why. The only thing I have a problem with are the suggestions that memberships are being paid for people in Ohio who don’t even know about it, just to stack the convention with Ohio delegates. That seems highly unethical to me.
I also think it was tremendously unethical for M Carling to be on the committee last year who seated the Reves group. There’s no question in my mind that a parliamentarian knew that it was wrong, but decided to vote anyway.
So the record is clear, I did not in any way coordinate with or even know of Mr. Sparkman prior to my NOTA speech. It was based entirely on the fact that both Marks had engaged in some bad behavior in the immediate prior term and I didn’t feel that either would be a good choice to lead the party for the next two years.
Agree or disagree as you wish, there was no conspiracy that I was involved in. For good or ill, I’m usually quite open about what issues (bylaws, platform, candidates) I do and don’t support at conventions; I try to be persuasive, but no shadowy conspiracies are required.
On its own, I’m not sure there is anything wrong with paying for memberships, underwriting the attendance of delegates, etc. As they say on The Wire, “It’s all in the game, yo.” That said, people are free to judge others based on how they feel about those actions and mine is by no means the only opinion on that score.
Mr. Sparkman did pay for fuel, rentals of vans, etc. of delegates. It was typically for people who otherwise may not have attended due to the costs of attending the convention combined with the loss of work, etc.
I paid some people privately as lobbyists out of my own pocket at the convention.
The delegates from Oregon are personally known to me and they were in no way bound or otherwise compelled to vote a certain way. Of course stealing the Oregon delegation slots in an act of fraud did kind of prejudice them against some people.
Go figure.
Jill Pyeatt; “Columbo, I’m not sure what your purpose is. Why are you rerunning the 2012 convention?
LOL!!! We’ve got people still rerunning the 1996 LPO convention and you are wondering why
some of us are upset over the coup d’etat in Vegas.
Mark Axinn wrote:
I sent out a very large membership renewal letter right after I stepped down as chair. That wasn’t to affect delegate allocation (well past that deadline)… I just want more activity in Virginia and it was important that I left my successor Bill Redpath (who is also running for U.S. Congress) with as strong a party as possible.
Probably more importantly though our former Governor and current U.S. Senate candidate Rob Sarvis has been beating the drums lining up congressional candidates and volunteer petitioners, signing up a lot of new members in the process. And LPVA secretary Marc Montoni travels around to local affiliate meetings barricading the doors and wrestling people to the ground until they fill out a membership form.
Columbo, I’m not sure what your purpose is. Why are you rerunning the 2012 convention?
I do recall that the signs said “Reelect No One”. That isn’t the same thing as NOTA. I do not believe that Sparkman went to the convention with intentions to convince everyone to vote for NOTA. Based on the bad behavior of Rutherford and his group, the people at the convention did not believe Rutherford was suitable to be chairman. Mr. Sarwark pointed out NOTA’s possibility as a choice, and that choice was acceptable to many people.
Just one more thing…
FEC records show that Jeff Weston and Wes Wagner donated to the Lee Wrights presidential campaign after he voted in their favor on the Judicial Committee. $800 between the two.
Just one more thing…
Jill, you say that the NOTA movement was spontaneous and was not orchestrated by the Lee Wrights supporters, but a little birdie showed me something.
If you check the Wagner group’s minutes from February 2012, you will find the following:
Here is the link for those minutes:
http://www.lporegon.org/index.php/2013-06-16-01-54-20/minutes/13-lpo-minutes/40-lpo-board-minutes-february-28-2012
How do you argue that it’s a myth with that kind of documentation available? The plan was in place at least three months before the convention.
Perhaps Wrights knew he would lose to Johnson for the Presidential Nomination, so the backup plan was to run for chair. But maybe the plan evolved onsite. According to the convention minutes, Wrights was nominated for chair, but then he withdrew, threw his support to Neale, and then he ran for vice-chair.
That’s how two Texans elected to the top two officer spots, thanks to funding from Mr. Sparkman of Texas.
Chuck wrote:
>Please let us know how Ohio’s membership surge was achieved…
Actually, Virginia is doing very well too, having knocked New York into sixth place (grumble, grumble), no doubt as a result of the fine leadership of Virginia’s past and current Chairs.
I just received another email asking for funds after the BS episode with the language games of the Building/office/Door/Closet.
It won’t matter who serves in the LNC or any of the national posts, because the LP has no money. And in American Politics, if you have no money, then you have no voice.
Also, no money means no ballot access, which means no candidates for races in 2016. Congratulations.
The way the past two years have gone, NOTA would find a way to spend money it doesn’t have. Puke.
Only intel outthere is maybe Brett for Vice-Chair or At-Large. Alicia Mattson may run for Secretary. Nothing else out there. Rutherford not running. Knedler is retiring to Florida or something.
Has Brett declared for Chair, or is it just common knowledge that he wants the job?
Kevin Knedler wrote:
Kevin,
Please let us know how Ohio’s membership surge was achieved, whether it was underwritten by Aaron Starr’s loan, and whether all of the national memberships submitted were paid for by the individual members themselves.
I will be at a loss as to who to vote for if I make it (I must vote first, then I can be credentialed). However, I may just want to stop at Costco on my way and get some popcorn.
nteresting comments by Mr. Phillies with opinions. Looks like most should not e re-elected. That may be OK, but who are the key people that should be drafted to replace them, assuming they have skill sets and funds to serve?
My wish is that we can move the LP into the 21st century. Otherwise, another party will rise up and address the needs of the Middle of America. LNC needs to get professionals with board experience and corporate, business, or marketing experience who will take action and get things done for the party and its brand. I could care less if they are radical or pragmatic–we need results. And “NO” I am not going to help start another party–lol. Time to focus and get this party moving. Too much inward stuff going on.
I expect Starr and Mattson to run for Treasurer and Secretary and win. In terms of performing those tasks they were better than the people I have seen try to perform those same tasks immediately before and after them. We are on different sides within party faction battles, but I have to acknowledge competence, having seen its (relative) absence.
I also expect more-or-less-allies of theirs to run and win for Chair and Vice Chair. E. G. Pojunis, Rutherford, Knedler, and so on. I’ve seen some of them say they probably won’t run, or others make that claim for them, but I expect some of them or some proxy to run. Another possibility is that Geoff will run and get re-elected, but with a significantly de-radicalized LNC. I think Geoff has been around long enough to figure out a way to work with whatever LNC he is given to work with.
Regarding the signs at the last convention, Sparkman told me that he and one other guy had the idea and had the signs printed, not coordinated with anyone else. They did not cordinate with Nick, who made the speech that helped the NOTA movement take off (again according to Sparkman); but once Nick made that speech, the signs were there for people to grab and it helped consolidate the NOTA movement.
I expect another NOTA push in Columbus. I expect a lot of radicals to go for it, and for Starr/Rutherford/whatever you want to call it faction to cynically quasi-ally with the NOTA movement to bump off the radicals while back dooring the NOTA push to re-elect the people they like. And I believe they will succeed.
I don’t relish these predictions, and I would like to make it otherwise but I don’t have the pull to do so, and those are my predictions despite that I don’t like them.
Losty, It depends on the two states. George
Thanks, Which State? the Residing state or the “credentialed” state?
It depends on how your state determines who their regional representative is. Some states just delegate that decision to the state chair. Others have a caucus. Who votes in that caucus is up to that state.
What should happen in Columbus is far more important than what did happen two years ago in Vegas.
Question:
If a delegate lives in one state, but due to that state filling all seats gets credentialed as a delegate from another state, Which region does that candidate vote in for Regional Representative, his Residence state or his “delegation”?
I do not believe that Jill and I are in significant disagreement about what happened, just which words to apply to it. Apparently there are people who believe in much larger conspiracies, but I am not one of them.
Dave, actually you do. The LP is not saving Western Civilization anytime soon so we might as well enjoy the little things.
Those who know the LNC know that the chair is a largely powerless position. The treasurer’s race is vital. He who controls the money, controls the party.
Jill, Assuredly the NOTA signs were not spontaneous. Coroplast does not grow on trees.
Perhaps Jill believes in “spontaneous generation”. :>)
“I switched my vote to NOTA and convinced two others to do the same just because I thought it would be fun — “;Shane
Just the kind of adult delegates we need at our NEXT Conflation
Of course, Sparkman’s friends included many Wrights supporters, but that was not what was happening.
The success of the NOTA effort involved a large amount of spontaneous self-organization as Shane described. However, those signs did not print and distribute themselves; there was a front end effort, like the single crystal of sugar dropped into a supersaturated solution of sugar in making rock candy. If you want to say this was not a superhuge conspiracy, I am happy to agree. If you want to propose that it was not aimed at electing Lee as Vice Chair, I am positive that you are right.At the point I and advisors decided, the night before the Treasurer election, that the Treasurer effort was unlikely to work thanks to it being a four-way race, and therefore I should switch to running for Vice Chair, we had no indication that Lee would run for Vice Chair.
By the way, George, do you see the irony of you saying there was a conspiracy, and I’m saying there was not? 😉
George, great analysis. Thank you.
I disagree with Kirkland. If being ideologically bound to the LP is a leader’s only qualification, we can do better.
On the NOTA thing it was spontaneous. When I saw the race so close, I switched my vote to NOTA and convinced two others to do the same just because I thought it would be fun — and I clearly wasn’t alone in my thinking.
Since I was in the Ohio delegation, the switches led to a cry of some type of fraud.
George, William Sparkman of Texas had the signs made and brought them to the convention. It was his idea. It was not a huge conspiracy by Lee Wrights’ people, as the “other side” tried to portray.
If I recall, the signs said “Re-elect No One”.
Jill, Assuredly the NOTA signs were not spontaneous. Coroplast does not grow on trees.
Nick: I infer that Starr is running.
I noted the recommendation re: Hagan that we can do better, but is there anyone else running for Treasurer? Because we can certainly do worse than Hagan.
DT said: ” Jill: “Judging by Lee Wrights’ comments on Facebook the last few weeks, I’d be surprised if he runs for anything.”
Does this also mean that “none of the above” will NOT be running also?”
Are you trying to perpetuate the stupid myth that the NOTA movement was a planned operation by disappointed Lee Wrights fans? Wrong!!! I was there. It was a spontaneous reaction to the bad choices available for chairman.
Shane: For example,
Geoff Neale (Chair) is said to be running for re-election. Neale apparently approved paying LNC At-Large member Michael Cloud $38,800, as reported here in past issues. Cloud’s pay rates inferred by the LNC Audit Committee report are staggering. Neale’s quixotic campaign to buy a building has apparently met with success. We are about to spend close to $900,000 on an office in the DC area, when the same business space could be purchased elsewhere for far less. The LNC wasted significant time on Neale’s ongoing dispute with Starchild, for example the episodes in which Neale insisted on addressing Starchild as ‘Mister Starchild’, leading to a prolonged parliamentary foofaraw. We evaluate Neale as DO NOT RE-ELECT.
Lee Wrights (Vice Chair) did not expect to be elected Vice Chair, but he was. His resources apparently make it challenging for him to travel to LNC meetings. He is a fine Libertarian, but his time would better be spent saving the Texas LP from far right tea party types. We evaluate Wrights as PROTECT HIM FROM HIS OWN GOOD NATURE; do not re-elect.
David Blau was elected to replace Ruth Bennett, who resigned when it became clear she was not doing her job. Look at LP.org, the party meeting minutes. The last LNC minutes on our web pages are for March 2013. Dave is a good guy, but he simply is not delivering minutes to the members. It is a reasonable bet that the people preparing to re-elect Alicia Mattson as Secretary will deliver a highly detailed and damning indictment of Blau’s performance as Secretary, and they will be largely right. Some readers will note that Blau is also a state chair, recently married, and a new householder, excellent better calls on his time.. We evaluate Blau as GOOD MAN IN WRONG SLOT.
Tim Hagan was recruited by Wes Benedict to run for Treasurer. Wes Benedict’s candidate Hagan failed to alert the LNC to the very large amounts being paid to LNC Member Michael Cloud. Hagan failed to detect significant failings in LNC FEC filings, notably according to the Audit Committee that substantial numbers of different expenditures were being amalgamated into a single line entry, and incorrectly claimed to be being paid to a single named vendor. As a result, the LNC had no way to tell how they had actually spent their money. The LNC’s February financials were not forwarded to the LNC until April 2, 2014, more than a month after the end of the financial period. The Treasurer’s fiscal analysis and interpretation of February 2014 read “As Mr. Benedict noted at the LNC Meeting, we fell below reserve requirements for Feb: $43,050.30 vs. Reserve Target of $59,488.09. “ and provided no independent interpretation.” It is noteworthy that Benedict had reported to the LNC that recent fundraising letters had done less than well; it does not appear that Hagan had warned the LNC on the letter-by-letter results. Finally, the recent Audit report makes abundantly clear that LNC spending has not been adequately monitored. Evaluation: Mr. Hagan is evaluated as WE CAN DO BETTER; DO NOT RE-ELECT.
Then there are the Five At-Large Representatives and the Regional Representatives. Of the Regional Representatives, we note that Norm Olsen has regularly had coherent analyses of LNC proposals. We have not always agreed with him, but his analyses are regularly thoughtful and worthy of careful consideration. Dianna Visek has put real effort into watching whether the LNC was performing its key missions, for example spending its money effectively and maintaining its own minutes. Vicki Kirkland in her quiet way has stood up for the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party. Rich Tomasso has sustained the terrible burden of being state chair in a state party that is not doing terribly well through no fault of his.
We note two motions from the last LNC meeting, one showing that Visek is a good candidate, and the other showing that Neale is not a suitable candidate. We quote from the March meeting reports on IPR: Dianna Visek has moved that Carla be ordered to repay $449.27 to the LNC to cover these items. [Items being personal objects that were shipped at party expense.] The motion was defeated 4-10 ; Hagan – no, Hinkle – no, Redpath – abstain, Starchild – yes, Johnson – no, Visek – yes, Lark – yes, Vohra – no, Tomasso – no, Pojunis – yes, Wiener – no, Goldstein – no, Kirkland – no, Olsen – no, Blau – no, Neale – abstain
Diana Visek moved to amend the building purchase proposal guarantee that the LNC pays the building off sooner, namely the motion would specify that the mortgage be paid off with a ten year amortization. The motion would tend to ensure that the LNC would not spend money on short-term issues, and end up after ten years with a huge balloon payment. Visek estimated that her motion would save the LNC $265,000.
National Chair Neale moved to take the $65,000 proposed for Illinois ballot access, Illinois being Visek’s home state, and spend the money instead on amortizing the mortgage. This seems to be a remarkable bit of tit for tat retaliation against an LNC member’s home state, based on the LNC member and not the Party State Committee having made a motion that the National Chair did not like. Some of our sources indicate that the money had not actually been appropriated to Illinois yet, so the Neale motion simply removed from ballot access spending an amount dollar for dollar equal to the planned appropriation for Illinois.
In other words, Neale did not agree with Videk, and his attempted albeit unsuccessful retaliation was to try to destroy Illinois ballot access.
The roll call on Diana Visek’s substitute motion was Diana Visek – yes, Johnson – yes, Starchild – yes, Redpath – no, Hinkle – no, Hagan – no, Olsen – no, Kirkland – no, Goldstein – yes, Wiener – no, Lieberman – yes, Tomasso – no, Vohra – abstain, Lark – no, Blau – no (first voted to pass, then voted no), Neale – no 5 yes, 10 no, 1 abstention, motion fails.
What about re-electing the At-Large Representatives? Arvin Vohra has actually done something for youth outreach, using facebook to propagate libertarian memes of interest to young people. He has actually taken his position, and tried to use it to do something positive for the National Party. We rate him WORTHY OF RE-ELECTION.
Mr. Cloud has gained some attention within the party for his consulting and fundraising efforts and fees as paid by the national party. DO NOT RE-ELECT HIM.
William Redpath and James Lark have spent many years on the LNC. As previously noted, Redpath’s ballot access report for Massachusetts, on which we have direct information, appears to us to have been inaccurate. Lark continues to propose that the LNC should spend its time on identifying goals, such as increasing membership, but never proposes what should be done to attain his goals. Whatever these two were going to do for our party they have long since done. It’s time for change. DO NOT RE-ELECT THEM.
Mark Hinkle was National Chair for two years. During his term, membership and income were largely stagnant. During his term, there were no substantial LNC political initiatives, no schemes for putting our message out to the voters. There was a great deal of back and forth about buying a building, but no result came to pass. Hinkle also appointed Carla Howell as Party Executive Director without an orthodox search. Whatever your feelings about party financial outcomes, the recent issues stem back to Mark Hinkle’s decision. Hinkle has pushed tirelessly for buying an office in the belly of the beast, someplace near Washington D.C., at several times the cost of an office located anyplace in most of the rest of America. The rationale, of course, is that the other major parties have D.C. offices, so we should do the same and it will turn us into a major party. This rationale shows a devout belief in sympathetic magic, as practiced by cargo cults around the world. Cargo cults do not work in the real world, and cargo cult thinking will not work for us either. It will, however, waste hundreds of thousands of dollars we do not have. We evaluate Mark Hinkle as UNFIT TO SERVE.
By the way, the voters at the last NatCon voted Hinkle off the committee. The LNC members who voted to re-install Hinkle have shown their contempt for the membership and should be canned.
Furthermore, readers will recall that some years ago the LNC voted to install the Reeves group as the Libertarian Party’s Affiliate for Oregon. The vote was 12-5 in favor. Of the twelve, eight are off the LNC. The other four remain. Also, Hinkle as chair did not vote, but did not rule the motion out of order; he was effectively a fifth vote in favor. For the good of the party, four of these (Hinkle, Lark, Redpath, and Wiener) should promptly be voted off the LNC. A good case can be made that in other cases Visek has been a firm vote for honesty, clarity, and good financial sense. She should be returned to the LNC.
Having said this, re-electing the folks who were canned two years ago will not help.
paulie April 22, 2014; I will not be running again.
Thank you!
Jill: “Judging by Lee Wrights’ comments on Facebook the last few weeks, I’d be surprised if he runs for anything.”
Does this also mean that “none of the above” will NOT be running also?
In the recent LP News, Geoff offered reasons why LNC members should serve four year terms.
Given that it’s the same players year after year who have overseen stagnation and decline, why in the world would we want to lengthen their terms?
The party hasn’t seen a growth trend since 2006 — and that growth is only due to rapid decline after the LNC voted for “zero dues” — It was fairly easy to recapture members after that.
The LNC is filled with people who know little about non-profits, marketing and politics. If LP membership truly evaluates the performance of LNC members, only a few will get a passing review.
Keep the performers and throw out the rest every two years — especially regional reps.
George, how about performance evaluations for LNC members in your next issue?
Candidates used to announce at the state chairs conference, which was held between the last weekend of football playoffs and superbowl weekend. It was a logical announcement point because they could network with activists and build support. Then LSLA stopped having a separate state chairs conference in national convention years…
so is there ANY drama in the LNC elections, like there was in 2010 in St. Louis? Kinda weird that there isn’t any intel or notice coming out yet.
FYI: There is a bylaws proposal that would have the effect of reducing the number of LNC members by 3 (1 at large, 2 regional). If it were to pass, that would change region composition.
I will not be running again.
“Concerned Libertarian Citizen April 22, 2014 at 8:41 pm
I heard Lee Wrights was last spotted panhandling with Robert Milnes in Philly. This is yet to be confirmed though.”
This deserves an LOL!
I heard Lee Wrights was last spotted panhandling with Robert Milnes in Philly. This is yet to be confirmed though.
George Phillies for LNC in 2014!!!
From the latest Liberty for America LibertyForAmerica.com
We are only a few months out from the National Convention. It is about as late as is effective for new people to run for the LNC. How would these people stack up against the current committee members?
Let’s start with a few general issues. Over the much of the past decade, National Party membership and LNC income have been stagnant. Since 2007, Party membership has hovered near 14,000. There have been fluctuations from year to year, but the trend is flat. Since the turn of the millennium, monthly party income has been on a downward trend, falling to $80,136 in February 2014. You will be hard-pressed to identify a current LNC member (though note Arvin Vohra) who has made concrete, systematic proposals that would improve upon these trends. The current LNC has had nearly two years to take positive action on membership and income. It has failed to do so. The LNC should not be re-elected,.
We also note that at the last meeting Starchild proposed that Mr. Cloud should be asked to return the money that he had been paid. Starchild could not get a second for his motion. The remaining LNC members again show that they should not be re-elected.
We are not saying that the current LNC members are not good people. We are not saying that they are not good libertarians. We are saying that they have been tried, and measured, and have been found wanting for these particular jobs. When we say WE CAN DO BETTER, we simply mean that these people are not suitable persons for their positions.
Judging by Lee Wrights’ comments on Facebook the last few weeks, I’d be surprised if he runs for anything.
Well, California just re-voted Dan and Scott in. I know some states vote on their reps at the national convention, though.
Unlikely that Region 4 will remain as is.
Thanks to Brett, Audrey, Dan and Scott for their service to New York during the 2012-14 term.