The Libertarian National Committee meets in Phoenix, AZ, Saturday, March 28 and Sunday the 29th.
Location and hotel details:
http://www.lp.org/lnc-march-2015
The LNC will attempt to stream the meeting live on the Internet.
Preliminary schedule (subject to change):
Saturday, Mar. 28, 2015: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Pacific/Mountain Standard Time) (12 pm – 9 pm EST)
Sunday, Mar. 29, 2015: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Pacific/Mountain Standard Time) (12 – 9 pm EST)
Broadcast channel #1 – video and audio:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/libertarian-party1
Broadcast channel #2 – audio-only:
http://libertarian.caster.fm/
The proposed agenda and drafts of reports to be presented at the meeting can be viewed by clicking the file links below. More files will be posted as they become available. Agendas are usually modified after the start of the meeting. The meetings usually end earlier than 6:00 p.m. Sunday.
Chair’s Report
Secretary’s Report
Region 1 Report
Region 2 Report
Region 3 Report
Region 4 Report
Region 5 Report
Region 6 Report
Region 7 Report
Region 8 Report
Ballot Access Report
Campus Report
EPCC Report
EPCC Employment Contracts Report
Financial Report
International Rep Report
IT Committee Report
Membership Report
Staff Report
It’s too bad April 1st was a weekday. It would have been great to have that coincide with an LNC meeting!
First draft of the official minutes of the meeting:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/attachments/20150403/b5921302/attachment-0001.pdf
Unfortunately, it does not seem that there is any perfect remedy at this point. I don’t think it would be too terrible to have a re-vote for purposes of ranking the alternates though.
Really, the best thing would be for Ms. Schum to come forward and say that she considers the matter settled, forgives the mistake, etc. Take one for the team, so to speak.
I don’t think Aaron is even close to getting all the changes he wants on platform, bylaws, etc.
In other LNC meeting related news:
Alicia Mattson to LNC
Knapp said:
I don’t think he’s *trying* to destroy it.
But with membership down to a 22-yar low, and almost all of the changes he wanted now implemented (to the platform, bylaws, which presidential candidates we choose, how most of our candidates don’t say anything edgy/radical, etc), I have to wonder just what it is he thinks he’s accomplishing.
The LP is being hollowed-out but no one seems to think that’s a rather more desperate problem.
“Or here’s another alternative
We take 95% of your company and you take 5”
-Geto Boys, Do It Like a GO
Sorry…autocorrect…hate it. Lose.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I do not want to see the LSLA to loose their money, but the situation they put themselves in isn’t good. The pool of potential contributors at LPEX is comprised almost entirely of the same people who gave them the money they gave Brett — for the purpose of being permitted to beg for more money!
Brett worked a fantastic deal for himself. Regardless of how LPEX does financially, the LSLA only gets what they manage to make in donations at the dinner. He gets to keep the $8K, as well as the $3K the LNC just forked over.
And who will know what LPEX makes? Brett. It is a private LLC, with no accountability to anyone other than the owners of the LLC.
Stewart:
I hope you’re wrong. In fact, I hope everyone who predicts failure is wrong and LPEX is a resounding success so LSLA can get its money back (what other organization foolishly agreed to donate 95% of its assets to a single conference?) and also that way Brett and LPNV can enjoy their success.
Paulie: “at this point it’s moot.”
I agree that it is moot. Unfortunately, so is LPEX. 🙁
Nicholas Sarwark: “I consider it important to back up the unanimous decision of the Affiliate Support Committee on how to spend affiliate support funds. If it turns out to be a bad choice, we’ll learn from it, but I’m trying to encourage more swings so we can get more hits, even if it necessarily means we’ll get more strikes.”
I agree with you that actually have the national party do things to support affiliates is the right thing to do. The affiliate support committee did not exist until I lobbied the votes to create it five years ago. But the intent of the committee was to have it populated by the regional representatives and pull them together to actually work on support for the state parties.
The committee was changed the next term into something else. It doesn’t really do support for affiliates, but just appears to talk about ways to spend money. Now they have money in the budget, which leads to the question that if this money is out of budgeted funds, why was the LNC voting on it?
My guess is that staff gave the opinion that it was a bad idea. Perhaps the concern that paying training organizations with heavy ties to right wing conservatives and populating panels with more right wing conservatives was something they considered. Maybe they also considered the fact that the LSLA, the organization previously tasked with internal training and leadership growth, gave all their money to Pojunis’ LPEX in trade for the “opportunity” to fund raise at the event. I would hope that the LNC considered all of this, as well as the fact that LSLA events normally have between 50-125 people in attendance, making your per person cost potentially as high as $30 per person. And these people will already be members of the party, so I doubt they’ll want to sign the pledge at the booth.
We ran an LSLA conference in Charleston. We started with about a thousand dollars to work with and ended with about two thousand. This was years ago, so I can’t recall the actual numbers. It was an average LSLA, so there were good sessions and “not as good” sessions as you normally find. If we had been given the opportunity to run an event with eight thousand in the treasury and another three from national…wow! I wonder what the LSLA could have done this year if they had organized it themselves — perhaps in a city less remote and that hadn’t been used for events so often in the past few years.
It was authorized after the fact by a subsequent vote of the LNC this weekend, so while I agree with you that it shouldn’t have been deemed valid the way it was done, at this point it’s moot.
In my comment, which I made in reply to someone else’s statement of what was going on, I included “(that is what supposedly happened?) ” which should make it clear that I was not sure what happened. Exceeding the authorized spending limit is the issue. If it wasn’t authorized, so the contract should be invalid.
I would also like to publicly recognize that it’s only thanks to the willingness of this LNC to read the reports ahead of time, show up on time to meetings, and remain focused on the business at hand that every meeting this term has finished in the morning or very early afternoon on Sunday.
It’s not required by the policy manual, but it is required by this Chair.
I am very judicious with the use of executive session and was disinclined to have the morning one on Saturday. On the other hand, if the committee votes to override me, I will abide by their decision. It did take a second vote to go into executive session on Saturday morning, and it was close. I consider that progress.
There are still complaints, but this term they are a minority.
Thanks to Nick and a majority vote of the LNC, albeit with some vocal dissenters, it is now indeed being done by the party itself rather than just whenever volunteers happen to be able to make the meetings, have webcams available and be able to catch motel wifi or use phones as tethers.
Yes. Last term Starchild and I were in the minority on that; this term Nick had a majority, although not anything like unanimous (most of the losing side have generally accepted their loss on the issue for this term, but Dr. Lieberman still makes a regular issue of it).
It’s been a long fight, and I don’t know if it’s done yet (we’ll see how things go in upcoming LNC terms), but I too am encouraged by the progress we have made on this. Thank you to everyone who joined me in this effort over the years and don’t become too complacent just yet! 🙂
Just to take a break from being a Negative Nelly on transparency issues:
Thanks to a number of people, to especially include the IPR crew and Starchild, LNC has become MUCH more transparent since about 2008.
IPR started making an effort to live-blog, and later live-stream, LNC meetings. At first there were complaints and resistance. Now there aren’t. If I’m not mistaken, it’s actually policy to live-stream them.
Starchild carried the torch for making the LNC’s work email list publicly accessible. Now it is.
Committee reports used to be invisible. Now they’re available for discussion, if anyone cares to discuss them.
Thanks to everyone who made this happen.
Vis a vis transparency, my only real remaining complaint is the continuing abuse of executive session to hide things that aren’t legitimately covered by it (e.g the use of executive session to verbally harass and abuse Rachel Hawkridge, out of public sight, for asking questions about what appeared to be — but turned out not to be — an illegal and/or undisclosed campaign donation; the in camera portions of the “trial” of Angela Keaton; etc.).
On that issue, there are a couple of ways to go.
One is, as I have suggested, amending the bylaws to prohibit executive session, and keeping that bylaws amendment until the LNC makes a convincing argument that it’s reformed itself and can be trusted not to abuse it.
The other is for LNC members themselves, perhaps with the encouragement of the chair, to straighten the hell up and stop abusing the privilege.
Video conferencing technology is now being used by the LNC for e-meetings. As far as I know it has only been tested so far, not used in an actual e-meeting that took any actions, but the May meeting for logo design selection will presumably be done this way.
If a party logo switch is to be made, and I’m not really all that hot about such a change, I’d definitely say that the L with the outline of the liberty bell as the negative image is by far the best design I’ve seen.
Darryl W. Perry writes (March 29, 2015 at 7:14 pm), “It would be great if there was a technology that allowed people to have a meeting without the need for all of the members to spend hundreds of dollars traveling to the same location! Seriously, the financial cost prohibits most party members who would otherwise be interested in serving from even applying.”
I agree, Darryl. Obviously the technology exists — but implementing it so that remote meetings by videoconference can become a routine and smoothly functioning option has not seemed to be a high LNC or staff priority.
I’m generally in favor of looking for volunteer solutions to technical issues first before expending party funds that can be better used to spread the message of liberty, but I would much rather see the LP spend money on a working off-the-shelf technical solution to the videoconferencing issue than pay $2500 per LNC meeting for expensive hotel meeting rooms and other meeting-related expenses. (That’s the figure I was quoted last term by LP operations director Robert Kraus when I complained about too much money being wasted on meetings and tried to get the numbers nailed down, and is in addition to what LNC members have to spend out of pocket to get to meetings and for accommodations).
I consider it important to back up the unanimous decision of the Affiliate Support Committee on how to spend affiliate support funds. If it turns out to be a bad choice, we’ll learn from it, but I’m trying to encourage more swings so we can get more hits, even if it necessarily means we’ll get more strikes.
Mark, I’m glad LPNY will continue to use the Statue of Liberty. I agree with your rationale.
New York will continue to use the Statue of Liberty as the symbol of the Libertarian Party as we have for the last 43 years.
Taking her out of shadow is a good idea, but jettisoning the only symbol most people associate with the LP, to the degree people even know who we are, is not wise.
Please note also Chuck Moulten’s comment (March 28, 2015 at 2:25 am):
“The secretary’s lack of transparency has prevented members from providing input to their representatives on how they should vote for committees.”
Platform and Bylaws typically have one single in-person meeting each other than at the convention itself. Most of their work is over email or other web based platforms.
Mark Axinn writes (March 29, 2015 at 3:25 pm), “Regarding committees: Both Alicia and Emily have done superb jobs in the past on Platform and Credentials, and the LP is fortunate to have these two highly competent, hard-working women as Chairs of those two committees once again.”
From what I’ve heard I generally agree in the case of Emily Salvette, although I have not served on the Credentials Committee myself. While the seating of Oregon delegates was mishandled, she was not responsible for that if I recall correctly.
In the case of Alicia Mattson however, I disagree. The LP secretary is certainly intelligent, competent, and and hard-working. No one can dispute that. However she is also strongly anti-transparency, and I believe she has abused her position as Platform Committee chair in the past.
Last term when I was an alternate on the committee, she sent out a biased, leading survey to thousands of party members without authorization from the committee, or even consulting the full committee. Then she refused to share the full raw data results, even with other committee members, on the grounds of not wanting to reveal the identity of respondents. Nor was that the first time that she has been responsible for similarly abusing the survey process. She has been advised multiple times in the past to word surveys in such a way that the feedback garnered can be shared unless a respondent specifically asks his or her feedback to be kept secret, and has evidently refused to do so.
I am sorry to see that she has been appointed interim Platform Committee chair, in addition to serving on the Bylaws Committee. The secretary position by itself is plenty of power enough for one person; it may be the second most powerful office in the party after the chair. I would strongly urge members of the Platform Committee not to appoint Ms. Mattson as the permanent chair of the committee.
Unfortunately, the sad reality is that a lot of people flake out from these responsibilities after being elected. That is a major reason why proven people are the go to option most of the time, even if they are far from perfect. It would be great if we had a lot of qualified applicants who were actually both willing and able to do all the work, but it’s hard to know which ones they are.
It would be great if there was a technology that allowed people to have a meeting without the need for all of the members to spend hundreds of dollars traveling to the same location!
Seriously, the financial cost prohibits most party members who would otherwise be interested in serving from even applying.
Paulie writes (regarding people serving on convention committees, March 29, 2015 at 6:44 pm)“Unfortunately, the sad reality is that a lot of people flake out from these responsibilities after being elected.”
There are ways that issue could be addressed. For instance, prohibiting people who don’t follow through from being appointed again for some length of time. But bottom line (which we know as libertarians!) is that people are individuals. We should not treat LP members prejudicially just because they are not longtime insiders.
My sense is that people who aren’t well-known by LNC members are generally given little consideration even if they may be well-known as activists or candidates by other LP members in their own states.
Requiring (or at least asking) committee applicants to include their Nolan Chart scores with their applications, especially for Platform Committee, could help.
Tom Knapp (March 29, 2015 at 12:45 pm) nicely articulated my own feelings on the logo:
“I can’t see any good argument for abandoning the Statue of Liberty in some form as our logo.
It’s instantly recognizable.
It has a key part of our name in it.
It evokes feelings/sentiments that tend to accord with our platform and our vision of what America should be like.
And I’m pretty sure we’ve been using it for about 45 years now.
Nothing wrong with either embellishing or simplifying it, but abandoning it just seems stump-stupid.”
I’m not crazy about the existing Statue of Liberty logo however, and have the same concerns voiced at this meeting by Bill Redpath (Liberty’s face in shadow sends the wrong message).
I do like the Texas LP’s graphic combining the classic “Rosie the Riveter” image with the Statue of Liberty, as shown by Aaron Starr during public comment at the beginning of Sunday’s LNC session, and feel something along these lines has excellent potential as a party logo.
This doesn’t mean I oppose other logo designs being used as Libertarian graphics or symbols of course — in general I favor the “let 1,000 flowers bloom” approach, and encourage people to create their own graphics to promote the cause.
Unfortunately, the sad reality is that a lot of people flake out from these responsibilities after being elected. That is a major reason why proven people are the go to option most of the time, even if they are far from perfect. It would be great if we had a lot of qualified applicants who were actually both willing and able to do all the work, but it’s hard to know which ones they are.
Joe – I’m sorry you didn’t get appointed too. I am glad newcomer Mike Shipley did get on Platform, at least as an alternate; maybe there are other folks who haven’t served before too. But I think the vast majority of those appointed have been in these positions before.
Given how often many of the same folks tend to get appointed to convention committees year after year, it seems to me that reform is needed.
While the “usual suspects” tend to be long-time, committed party members, and some of them are very capable people whose priorities I tend to agree with, it is in the interests of the party to have a greater number of folks given the opportunity to serve, and to build a “farm team” of people who have expertise working for the LP in various capacities.
Here are a few specific ways the issue could be addressed:
• A prohibition on any individual serving on more than one convention committee at the same time
• A weighted voting system that gives preference to those who haven’t served before, or who haven’t served recently
• Term limits on how many years a person can either serve on, or chair, a given committee, either in a row or within a fixed time period
Unfortunately these changes would require Bylaws amendments — thus we are in a Catch-22 situation.
Another possibility: LPEX may be paying Big L for web design and hosting. It is a private LLC, so you can’t get the records, but I’d bet that invoice will be at least five to ten thousand dollars. If LPEX actually brings in money, they’ll probably pad the invoice by giving Big L a commission for sales.
Follow the money. It goes back to Big L. We know how Pojunis operates.
A separate LLC, but probably tied to Big L since they did the website. Whether it is or isn’t, Brett taking a financial hit will affect Big L, and therefore his investors.
That aside, LPEX is not run by the LSLA. They gave eight thousand dollars to LPEX for the “opportunity” to fund raise at the event. Since the money the LSLA paid was from attendees to previous LSLA events and vendors at the national convention, asking the attendees this year to give money is insulting. The first eight thousand they contribute is really just going into LPEX — and therefore to Brett and his investors. That’s assuming that anything is raised at all. I seriously doubt it.
Asking the LNC pay to have a booth after the LNC gave the LSLA the booth sales last year that raised most of the eight thousand that Pojunis already took is also insulting. Agreeing to pay for a booth was not a good decision. I realize that it was a tough decision, but I believe you made the wrong one.
I agree. The change was a downgrade.
Thanks, I like that one much more than the current logo
Sad I didn’t get appointed to either the Credentials or Bylaws committee, but am pleased and feel honored that I did win 1 vote to be on the credentials committee and 2 votes to be on bylaws committee :). Hopefully next time I’ll do better.
My understanding was that LPEX was being run under a separate LLC specifically created for the event, not by Big L Solutions.
https://web.archive.org/web/19990208005132/http://lp.org/ Look for the statue on the left.
regarding logos: can someone provide a link to the pre-2005 LP logo? I can’t seem to find it online
New York is like the qualifying round for Florida. If you start in NY and stay in the game long enough Florida is where you end up 🙂
Regarding committees:
Both Alicia and Emily have done superb jobs in the past on Platform and Credentials, and the LP is fortunate to have these two highly competent, hard-working women as Chairs of those two committees once again.
I know IPR readers will be pleased with someone as skilled as Chuck as Chair of By-laws and of course no one should be leading Ballot Access more than Bill Redpath.
My only quibble is with the erroneous listing of Audrey Capozzi as FL on the Convention Oversight Committee.
Like Vicki, Audrey will always be a New Yorker. As we all know, Boca Raton is only a suburb of NYC anyway.
I’m pleased to read that the weekend seemed to be quite productive. Congrats to all involved!
And thanks to Mike, Chuck, and of course Paulie for live-blogging.
I’m hoping to recruit someone to liveblog the CA convention. I expect to be a bit too involved in the day’s events, which will undoubtedly go by very quickly, to be able to consistently report. A little bird has told me to expect fireworks. If anyone is willing to help with blogging, that would be excellent.
It will be May 31 in Las Vegas.
I’ve been quiet about the logo contest because I don’t love any of them. That kind of bothers me–whatever we decide on needs to jump out and speak to lots of people. That doesn’t seem to be happening, which makes me hope we keep looking..
We all make mistakes … I am sure I made some, so I apologize for whatever they were, although I don’t know what all of them were exactly.
Thanks to Paulie and Mike for your live blogging!
Sorry for any inaccuracies or oversights in my own reporting, including my unfortunate summary regarding Aaron Starr, which I have retracted.
And everyone else for reading and commenting!
Thank you to Mike and Chuck for helping liveblog
I missed some stuff on logo but I believe they said they will also do some kind of fundraiser/questionnaire on the website and/or snail mail, in addition to LNC members considering logos, although the final decision will be up to LNC.
Meeting ended
Starr thanks LNC for taking their time to travel to the meeting and for appointing him to bylaws
Shipley says Outright Libertarians are happy with recent direction of the party and making it more friendly to people coming from the left, platform alternate appointment
Katz “In the words of Wayne Root you can’t get rid of me”
Sarwark, Lark that LPAZ for hosting LNC
Thanks Emily Goldberg for organizing reception, shuttling LNC to botanical gardens, etc
I agree that the distinction between “investor” and “donor” does seem important.
FYI: the question has been asked by several people whether the LP of CA has any financial committment to LPEX. The answer, of course, has been silence. I hope that means “No”.
That doesn’t really answer if he gets a cut of the profits, if there are any. I think the answer is yes, but I don’t know for sure.
Starchild: “Stewart – By “investor” here do you mean simply “donor”? Or do you really mean investor? The distinction seems critical.”
You have to follow the money. Brett Pojunis has a company called “Big L Solutions”. It is running the event called LPEX. Norm Olsen told me personally that he is an investor in Brett’s company.
Norm was one of Brett’s first victims.
8 logo proposals remain – 9 pm eastern Sunday May 3 will be the e-meeting
I missed some of these votes, but here are the tallies I saw.
Logos (approval voting):
Torch eagle – 9
L-bell: 6
Circle squiggle – 4
Torch flower – 5
Crown torch T – 11
Charging torch – 4
5 S flame – 0
Zippo lighter torch – 0
Negative space L 50 stars – 3
Vertical name statue – 9
LP Leaf – 0
Stars & flame over T – 4
Retention of current logo (option of modifying) – 9
Prior statue of liberty logo (pre-2005) – 9
Shark bite (Chuck’s modified liberty bell) – ?
Texas Rosie the Riveter – ?
8 of the logos were supported 5 and above, and therefore will be considered at a future electronic meeting.
9 pm eastern Sunday May 3
Nick just read a list out loud that went by too fast, it was everything from Rosie and the Torch Flower on up the list from there (five votes or more) I visually counted 8 or more as a majority for a “Yes” … so basically those are at this point nonsensical to what actually occurred. DERP!!
They have winnowed down the proposals and will have an electronic meeting in about a month to decide
There is some kind of heavy equipment outside the door behind me and I’m having trouble hearing. There weren’t enough with a majority so they’re going through the number of votes for each. I have no idea what’s going on.
(my yes/no’s above were based on visual assessment of whether it had majority. apparently those were not final decisions) ……. stay tuned.
Stars in Flame over T – No
Retain Current Logo – Yes
Old Statue Logo – Yes
Chuck’s P – No
Rosie Liberty – No
Blue Flame L – No
Zippo L – No
L Stars – No
Liberty Silhouette – Yes
LP Leaf – No
LP Triangle – No
Torch Flower – No
Crown Torch T – Yes
Charging Torch – No
S-Flame – No
Logo back up for discussion. Entering a straw poll phase …… passing through approval-voting style seeking a simple majority to stay in the running.
Torch Eagle – Yes
L-Bell – No
Scissor-L – No
LP Squiggle – No
Chuck wrote: “I misheard what Sarwark said, and therefore my earlier summary was in error and I retract it.”
Thank you.
Winnowing logos
Thank you to LNC members for ballot access committee appointment and Jeffco funds
Back to logo discussion
Motion for ballot access in Jefferson County passes.
Mattson, Goldstein opposed
Vohra, Redpath, McLendon in favor
Wiener N
Lark Y
Olsen Y
Kirkland Y
Tomasso N
Hagan N
Sarwark Y
Mattson Y
11 Y 5 N
I make my pitch for Jeffco/AL
Aaron Starr wrote:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/03/lnc-meeting-mar-28-29-2015-phoenix/#comment-1147732
I misheard what Sarwark said, and therefore my earlier summary was in error and I retract it.
My earlier comment (incorrect, and retracted):
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/03/lnc-meeting-mar-28-29-2015-phoenix/#comment-1146233
I misheard whose signature was on the document. When originally listening to the video the words “of the audit committee” did not register with me, which was my error (it is difficult to follow the audio at times). I heard Starr signed a document as chair that spoke for the LNC, then I heard that Sarwark didn’t authorize the signature, and I made the mistaken inference that Starr had signed as chair of the LNC, which he did not. Therefore my summary was incorrect.
The word “purported” is supported by the transcript. Sarwark said “the contract which was purported to be executed by Mr. Starr”.
The words “on behalf of the LNC” is supported by the transcript. Sarwark quoted “This letter correctly sets out the understanding of Libertarian National Committee, Inc.”
The words “in excess of the budgeted amount for the audit” is supported by the transcript. Sarwark said “that contract is for $15,000, which exceeds the budget”.
The words “Sarwark says this exceeded the scope of the audit committee?s authority” is supported by the transcript. Sarwark said “This violates at least 2 policy manual provisions that I’m aware of.” and made other statements about that outside of this excerpt.
The relevant excerpt is at 22:00-24:00:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/60461866
Sarwark said (transcription from the video):
And I want you to stop trying to destroy the LP, Aaron.
I guess now you know how it feels to want.
Since when do people need to retract transcription errors in a live blog?
Goldstein opposes 2,500 for Jeffco AL
Jay Estrada – address Alabama request for 2,500 for Jeffco
Those will be the 3 without objection
Winger and myself appointed as the non-LNC members
Redpath is chair
Redpath nominated, accepts
Ed Marsh nominates himself
Jay Estrada nominates himself
meeting is back in session – ballot access committee is next
Chuck, I want a full retraction from you immediately.
I can confirm I can hear that on the speakers right now.
Let me clarify, I did not ever say or suggest that Mr. Starr used my signature without authorization. I don’t know if it was bad sound or whatever that led to that confusion.
Looking at the history of Aaron’s comment at 12:43 it appears that what Chuck edited was Aaron’s quote of Chuck’s own comment which Chuck also edited when the error was pointed out.
This is getting too complicated, but the bottom line is that I believe it was an almost certainly an inadvertent mistake by Chuck in transcribing what Nick said, which he will correct when he gets a chance to watch the archived video; right now he has it “pending review.”
I am here in the room with Nick Sarwark. In case I happened to be out of the room at the time, I just confirmed with him that he never stated that I forged his signature.
Chuck, I want a full retraction.
Dunno. Most likely a typo.
Aaron:
I agree that any suggestion that you forged Nick’s signature should be fully retracted. I understand that Chuck wants a chance to rewind the tape and watch it again first.
I don’t know why your comment was edited by anyone other than you; Chuck, or whoever did that, can and should address that separately.
I’m just starting to read comments, but why is Joshua Katz listed twice on the bylaus committee?
I don’t think Chuck intentionally misrepresented what Nick said, I can see why people would have a hard time with following and transcribing everything with computer speakers, ustream audio, multitasking etc. But I do see why Aaron would take offense at the suggestion that he signed Nick’s signature rather than his own.
Paulie, Chuck posted the libelous statement at 11:29 am. He has now edited, which he is free to do. He then edited my 12:43 pm post, which he did without my permission. Stewart Flood has repeated the libelous statement, most likely based on Chuck’s posting.
I will not tolerate being accused of a criminal act. I want a full retraction.
DC land (VA near national office) Jul 18-19 picked. Break for people to go check out of their rooms.
Chuck,
My recollection is that Aaron is correct.
Your summary was that Nick said that Aaron signed it with Nick’s signature. What I recall Nick actually saying is that Aaron signed it, without any consultation or authorization, on behalf of the audit committee and then presented it to the LNC as a done deal. However, I do not recall Nick ever alleging that Aaron forged Nick’s signature. I believe that portion of your summary, which you now removed, was not completely accurate. I recall noticing it at the time and then forgetting to get back to addressing it now that you and Aaron have refreshed my memory.
Aaron Starr wrote:
If he never said it, I will retract what I wrote — though it was not intended to be a “statement”, but rather a summary of what I heard. As I said, I need to review the video, which I will do at the conclusion of the meeting.
Actually, I will review the video now that the LNC is in recess.
Possibly near DC
Nick (I believe) has conflict Jul 31st , would like Jul 18-19
Looking at the weekend of July 18/19 for the next LNC meeting, and having that be in DC at headquarters. Passes without objection.
Jul 17 and 31st proposed
Freedom fest Jul 11. Redpath can’t be there.
Paulie wrote:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/03/lnc-meeting-mar-28-29-2015-phoenix/#comment-1146233
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/03/lnc-meeting-mar-28-29-2015-phoenix/#comment-1147732
Now scheduling next meeting. Redpath proposes Jul 25-26
Doug Craig wins
Aaron – what time was the comment posted?
LNC at-large vacancy nominations:
Doug Craig
Joshua Katz
Johnson moves for a roll call vote. It fails by a show of hands. (I was not fast enough to write down the roll call.) The vote will therefore be by ballot.
Doug Craig – 11
Joshua Katz – 3
Doug Craig is appointed to fill the at-large vacancy.
Chuck, Nick Sarwark never stated that. I am here at the meeting. It’s not enough to edit the comment; I want a retraction.
Probably some of both
OK I get it now …… I didn’t realize we had moved on to the LNC vacancy. I thought we were still talking about convention oversight. Duh!!
Chuck @ 13:32
I am missing the prior posts you and Aaron are responding to. That is I don’t see a post by Aaron at all, other than you quoting him, and don’t know what he is referring to.
I am missing why this is such a contentious vote. Is it the risk of offending two very qualified people or is it because the position itself is politicized?
Secret ballot wins
Discussion of whether the ballot will be secret or roll call
Doug Craig on the speaker phone
Aaron Starr wrote:
Not purported by me. I was attempting to summarize what Sarwark said. I am not fast enough to transcribe verbatim. There is a video of this meeting archived. I will review that video when the meeting is over and see if I can find a more accurate summary or quote of what was said. Until such time as I am able to do that, I will edit my previous comment to remove that statement.
Withdrawn, Bittner will not run against Doug Craig. That’s all for nomination.
Brett Bittner nominated
Mattson nominates Katz, he accepts
Postpone indefinitely fails
Vote on Wiener motion to postpone
Thank you to the LNC for appointing me to the bylaws committee and as interim-chair of that committee!
There were ties for some position in the convention committees and some people who didn’t get a majority. Mattson will produce a run-off ballot while people do the logo discussion.
Credentials (4 elected, 2 way tie for 5th with majority):
Vicki Kirkland (FL) – 16
Mike Kane (FL) – 14
Gary Johnson (TX) – 13
Emily Salvette (MI) – 12
Beth Duensing (IN) – 10
Steve Linnabary (OH) – 10
Roger – 5
Colin Nicol (LA) – 1
Joseph Wendt (FL) – 1
Zachary – 1
Beth Duensing (IN)
Gary Johnson (TX)
Mike Kane (FL)
Vicki Kirkland (FL)
Steve Linnabary (OH)
Colin Nicol (LA)
Roger Roots (MT)
Emily Salvette (MI)
Michael Schoenike (MT)
Lorence Wenke (MI)
Michelle Wesnofske (TN)
Zachary Yutzy (OH)
Redpath moves to resolve the tie through a coin flip to resolve the tie. Johnson moves the LNC use a show of hands instead. Redpath withdraws his motion.
Tiebreak:
Beth Duensing (IN) – 8
Steve Linnabary (OH) – 5
Goldstein moves that Emily Salvette be interim chair. It passes without objection.
Credentials committee:
Vicki Kirkland (FL)
Mike Kane (FL)
Gary Johnson (TX)
Emily Salvette (MI) (interim-chair)
Beth Duensing (IN)
Steve Linnabary (OH) (alternate)
Bylaws (9 elected, no majority for the rest):
Sam Goldstein (IN) – 13
Dan Karlan (NJ) – 13
Chuck Moulton (VA) – 12
Alicia Mattson (NV) – 11
Rich Tomasso (NH) – 11
Joshua Katz (CT) – 10
Joshua Katz (CT) – 10
Aaron Starr (CA) – 10
Dan Wiener (CA) – 10
Jeff Orrok (CO) – 9
M Carling (WA) – 8
Matt Wittlief (IN) – 8
Daniel Hayes (LA) – 6
Jim Fulner (MI) – 4
Richard Burke (OR) – 4
Joseph Wendt (FL) – 2
Starchild (CA) – 2
Zachary Yutzy (OH) – 1
Redpath moves for a show of hands to fill the 10th seat between M Carling and Matt Wittlief. It passes without objection.
Tiebreak:
M Carling (WA) – 10
Matt Wittlief (IN) – 3
Without objection Matt Wittlief is designated as an alternate.
Nominations for interim chair: Chuck Moulton,
Interim chair:
Chuck Moulton (VA) – ?
Aaron Starr (CA) – 4
Bylaws committee:
Sam Goldstein (IN)
Dan Karlan (NJ)
Chuck Moulton (VA) (interim chair)
Alicia Mattson (NV)
Rich Tomasso (NH)
Joshua Katz (CT)
Joshua Katz (CT)
Aaron Starr (CA)
Dan Wiener (CA)
Jeff Orrok (CO)
M Carling (WA)
Matt Wittlief (IN) (alternate)
Platform (3 elected, lots without a majority for the remaining 2 slots):
Guy McLendon (LA) – 12
Alicia Mattson (NV) – 11
Hollie Ryan (VA) – 10
Dean Ahmad (MD) – 8
Lynn House (FL) – 8
Mike Shipley (AZ) – 8
Nick Frollini (PA) – 6
Andy LeCureaux (MI) – 6
Chris Colvin (MT) – 4
Bill Hajdu (CA) – 3
Roland Riemers (ND) – 3
Thomas Knapp (FL) – 3
Starchild (CA) – 3
Fred Stitt (CA?) – 2
James Felber (TX) – 2
Tom Lippman (CA) – 2
Alexander Pease (RI) – 2
Jeffry Sanford (LA) – 2
Zachary Yutzy (OH) – 2
David Williams (CO) – 2
Run off ballot (with approval voting) between … Show of hands instead (with approval voting).
Run off vote:
Dean Ahmad (MD) – 9
Lynn House (FL) – 7
Mike Shipley (AZ) – 8
Nick Frollini (PA) – 5
Andy LeCureaux (MI) – 7
Redpath moves to appoint Mike Shipley to the last slot. Mattson moves to substitute a show of hands run off between Lynn House, Mike Shipley, and Andy LeCureaux. The substitute motion passes by a show of hands. The motion as substituted passes without objection.
Run off vote:
Mike Shipley (AZ) – 8
Lynn House (FL) – 8
Andy LeCureaux (MI) – 5
Redpath moves to have a show of hands between Mike Shipley and Lynn House. It passes without objection.
Run off vote:
Mike Shipley (AZ) – 7
Lynn House (FL) – 8
Hagan moves to appoint Mike Shipley as an alternate. Goldstein moves a substitute to appoint 3 alternates in ranked order:
Mike Shipley (AZ)
Nick Frollini (PA)
Andy LeCureaux (MI)
Mattson nominates herself for interim-chair of the platform committee. McLendon nominates himself for interim-chair of the platform committee, then withdraws his nomination. Mattson is selected as interim-chair of the platform committee by acclimation.
Platform committee:
Guy McLendon (LA)
Alicia Mattson (NV) (interim-chair)
Hollie Ryan (VA)
Dean Ahmad (MD)
Lynn House (FL)
Mike Shipley (AZ) (alternate)
Nick Frollini (PA) (alternate)
Andy LeCureaux (MI) (alternate)
Convention oversight committee non-LNC members (selected by LNC chair):
Audrey Capozzi (FL)
JJ McCurry (FL)
Bette-Rose Ryan (AZ)
Which states appoint to credentials committee?
Wiener – we should advertise for applicants and have an electronic meeting
LNC Vacancy
Redpath nominates Doug Craig
I am looking forward to serving my third term on the Platform Committee. Mike, I would have been happy whichever way they went. I think you’d be a fine addition to the committee.
Lynn House
Convention oversight committee Audrey Capozzi (FL), JJ McCurry (FL), Bette Rose Ryan (AZ)
McLendon withdraws, Mattson by acclamation
McLendon also nominated as interim chair
That entire little scene was pure wonk bliss!! I am honored to serve as an alternate to this committee, thank you everyone for making space for newer voices at this table. #PorcupineLove
Mattson nominated as interim chair of Platform
Amendment Shipley, Lecureaux, Frollini all alternates in rank order
Tomasso moves another round of approval voting between those with 6 or more votes. There is an objection, discussion on the motion, amended by substitution to a show of hands approval vote, that is seconded, the amendment passes, the motion is now to approval vote from Ahmad, House, Me and Ferlini, no objection, that will be the procedure. There’s a fifth name I didn’t catch. Ahmad: 9 votes, House, 7 votes, Shipley, 8 votes, I’m getting distracted. There is a motion to appoint me to the fifth spot but there’s a question about majority. Weiner speaks in favor of holding the spot open. They are moving to a vote on the appointment. Mattson amends by substitution a show of hands runoff approval voting with the three names, House, Shipley, I’m sorry I don’t know how to spell the other name. It passes and is now the main motion and taken without objection. I’m starting to lose track but now it’s between myself and House, we tied again. Now it’s just a straight show of hands by plurality. House is elected, three of us are named alternates.
House elected
Shipley – alt
Show of hands Shipley v House
what? 🙂
Is this exciting or what?
Shipley and House – 8 votes each
Show of hands runoff will proceed
Mattson proposes show of hands runoff Shipley, House and Lecureaux
Coming back towards end of meeting if I understood correctly.
Redpath moved to appoint Shipley
Wiener objects
Results
Ahmad 9
Shipley 8
House, Lecureaux 7
Frollini 5
Shipley – I did not hear result
Frollini – ” “
House … I think I heard 7
2nd ballot
Ahmad 9
Was there a motion to table/delay the logo selection, or are they coming back to that?
“We can’t make a decision so let’s just put it off to the next meeting.” is rather infuriating. What possible consideration could be raised in a month or two, that hasn’t already been hashed-over ad nauseum?
They missed Andy Lecureaux also got 6 so will be on 2nd ballot
Motion to have approval voting 2nd round ballot
Ahmad, Frollini, Shipley and House
Motion to amend – show of hands .. still approval voting
Platform: 3 elected w/ majority: McClendon, Mattson, Ryan. 2 remaining to be chosen by runoff. I got 8 votes!!
3 way tie Dean Ahmad, Mike Shipley, Lynn House
Mattson, Holly Ryan, Guy McLendon elected to platforms
Chuck gets it
Show of hands
Moulton vs. Starr for interim Bylaws Chair. Show of hands: 8 for Moulton (I think, hard to see with people standing) ….. 4 for Starr.
Mattson declines interim chair of bylaws. Moulton proposed, Starr also nominated for interim chair
Carling gets last spot; Wittlief alternate, no objection
That bylaws committee has me very worried.
Carling gets the 10th Bylaws spot.
Redpath proposes show of hands on Carling, Wittlief
Bylaws: Golstein, Moulton, Mattson, Tomasso, Katz, Starr, Weiner, and two others I did not catch are elected by majority …. 10th position will require a runoff … Redpath moves to do a show of hands between the tie for next place.
Carling and Wittlief are after that
Bylaws:
Goldstein, Karlan, Moulton, Mattson, Tomasso, Katz, Starr, Wiener, missed one…Jeff someone
Friend more people on FB 🙂
Sorry for not knowing anybody’s name who isn’t my friend on Facebook. LOL
Motion to make Linnabary alternate. No objection.
Motion to make Salvette interim chair. No objection.
Linnabary is named alternate and Emily appointed interim Chair.
Dunsing gets the 5th seat.
Johnson proposes show of hands tie breaker
Redpath withdraws coin flip
Alternate methods proposed – hand vote, 2nd ballot
I can also hear her a lot better today than usual. She’s often too quiet to hear during the broadcasts, or even in the room depending where you sit.
Redpath proposes coin flip
Oh, wow. I agree with Alicia Mattson! That’s probably not a first, but it’s unusual.
Credentials tie for last (5th)
Elected Kirkland, Kane, Johnson, Salvette
Tie Beth Duensing, Steve Linnabary
Credentials: 5 available, 4 elected: Kirkland, Kane, Johnson, Salvat and tie between Dunsing and Winneberry (?) …. need a runoff vote for the tie.
Back from recess. Committee appointments.
I guess it’s not of earth-shaking importance, but I can’t see any good argument for abandoning the Statue of Liberty in some form as our logo.
It’s instantly recognizable.
It has a key part of our name in it.
It evokes feelings/sentiments that tend to accord with our platform and our vision of what America should be like.
And I’m pretty sure we’ve been using it for about 45 years now.
Nothing wrong with either embellishing or simplifying it, but abandoning it just seems stump-stupid.
Chuck Moulton writes:
“Starr purported to contract with an audit firm on behalf of the LNC (using Sarwark’s signature without authorization) in excess of the budgeted amount for the audit. Sarwark says that this exceeded the scope of the audit committee’s authority.”
Chuck,
Purported by you? Normally, I do not respond to baseless rumors, but in this case you have accused me of forgery, a criminal offense. And I see that at least one other person has repeated it, probably based on your post.
The actual executed contract was emailed to the entire LNC on its public list on March 16. Anyone subscribed to that list can review the document and plainly see that I signed it with my signature in my capacity as Chair of the Audit Committee of the Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
On what basis have you made this demonstrably false, libelous statement? If you were acting as your own attorney, what advice would you give to yourself at this time?
I agree with Sarwark the choice should be made today. Having another round of public comment and feedback isn’t going to bring much more in that hasn’t already been said. This whole thing has already dragged on for two years (!).
If the concern is the new logo being unpopular, that’s just another reason to stick with some version of the Statue, ideally the Statue-silhouette Shipley and I referred to earlier. It’s easily adaptable, instantly recognizable as “Liberty”, the monochrome with the flowing robe looks good, and it keeps with the tradition of Statue-themed branding. The only thing I would change, other than maybe tweaking the flame and some of the details to make it scale better, is like Sarawak said gold and black isn’t the ideal color combo. But that design is easily used in whatever color desired, and I think looks best in simple black-on-white.
The L-bell, though I can live with it, is a lot more likely to get some strong negative reactions. It seems to be a very much love-it-or-hate-it thing. The Statute (or torch) motifs won’t raise as much ire or controversy, because we already use those symbols. Whereas we haven’t really used the Liberty Bell in branding and promotional materials…. ever, really, so far as I know, unless you dig back into pre-history days before social media.
Recess
Leigh,
The training event appears to be very conservative-heavy.
I trust conservatives about as far as I can throw a full-grown version of their proper logo, the wooly mammoth.
George Phillies
Redpath moves to knock down the other new business and then come back to the logo: Convention oversight, LNC vacancy, next LNC meeting, I think something else. We are having a quick 5 minute recess first.
McLendon wants to punt to next in-person meeting
Goldstein wants it sooner rather than later for IT committee to get the website redesign process underway
There is tension between wanting time to decide, and needing to get the rebranding underway. Sarwark suggests a 10 minute recess for informal discussion and then start straw polling.
Redpath wants more time to decide
Redpatch would prefer to be alone and “commune” with the logos before voting.
Nick’s favorite is Taylor torch. Has about 5 or 6 that he thinks are pretty good.
Sarwark is urging a choice today.
Sarwark reminds us that the target for new branding is non-Libertarians, who would necessarily be excluded from a vote limited to the membership.
Benedict speaks to the value of a voting process that helps build consensus and reduces the potential for hatred of the logo.
Nick: house letter poll/fundraiser may be better than a FB poll
Johnson is still for NOTA.
Goldstein suggests $1/vote to verify membership through a poll on LP.org.
Mattson isn’t blown away by any of the choices and thinks keeping the current logo should be an option.
Mattson: Logo is not really our biggest problem. Maybe just tweak the current one. We just need something that is not horrible.
Redpath has reservations about having a public choice be binding. I can relate to that feeling. I believe in decentralization and all that but the public can be fickle and have very poor taste. This decision is too important for the whims of direct democracy.
Redpath – LNC should decide, not random people on FB some of whom may be against us rather than for us.
Benedict points out that choosing a few quality possibilities and sending them out with a fundraising letter might generate responses with checks in the envelope.
Arvin suggests possibly having FB users vote by changing their profile pic to the one they like. Clever 🙂
Alicia – Some people don’t really like to use FB for politics. Olsen – a lot of older people don’t use social media.
Mattson has concerns about using the logos for promotion before paying for them. Also that not everybody on social media uses it for politics and we may be omitting valuable voices with that tactic.
Arvin suggests a promotion where votes are cast by changing their profile image …… to signify buy-in and positive commitment to that logo. I think that’s a great idea also for the promotional aspect.
Scrolling through the remainder of submissions now just letting the members view the choices that didn’t get a lot of support from the design team but fairly ought to receive a view in this forum.
The leaf-shaped liberty silhouette was just shown. I like that one too!! The time is nearly expired, brief choice between extending for 10 or 30, Redpath objects, extending for 10.
Oh OK … that explains it!! I exited my browser and came back in, thinking it was on my end. Thanks!!
Got it fixed, I can see my own comments and your replies now. The L-Stars are now on the screen. I like this one too!! The first time I saw it I was so caffeinated I couldn’t sit still long enough to count the stars but later that I day I finally figured out there are 50 of them.
Mike. Not sure why some of your comments were in spam. Hopefully I caught them all. Text me if it happens again 205-534-1622
The FB page doesn’t really qualify as a focus group. But, I suppose its better than no testing at all.
Thanks, Nick!
I don’t know what’s going on but it says my comments are being submitted but I’m not seeing them appear. I’m just going to keep posting and hope they are appearing elsewhere.
Feldman suggests test marketing different prospective logos on the FB page
The L Bell is being shown very clearly on the screen right now, next to the Moulton-P. This is the first time it has been shown large enough in the room to even see the Bell.
Chuck got thru 🙂
You may want to text a couple of people too since they may not be checking email.
The liberty silhouette is now on the screen. I like this one too, use it a lot already not only for AZLP but superimposed on a pink triangle for Outright. It’s versatile and looks sharp and also unobtrusive in the corner of a meme. I think that is what Andy Craig referred to earlier … I’ve kind of half made up my mind that if this committee picks something ugly I’ll just keep using this one.
I think we’ll ideally want a lot of different materials translated, so I would suggest joining D4L but whether you really have time you want to put into it is obviously up to you.
I know a lot of them thru the Design for Liberty group. I’m not a designer at all but spend a lot of time on there discussing and suggesting ideas. If you are willing to put in that kind of work we can add you to the group. They tend to remove people who don’t actively participate and I need to give Matt Hasty a heads up to add you if he doesn’t already know you.
That was Goldstein who talked about Black & Gold and said it was actually a football reference.
Sixth choice(? – I have lost count) …. Is the T-Torch …… It has the flame stylized onto the “T” in Libertarian with the liberty crown negative-spaced into the base of the flame. I like this one too!! I voted for this one in the informal poll that was taken in the social media group.
Chuck Moulton wrote:
Since no LNC member is bringing it up, I just emailed it to the whole LNC.
Torch only idea being discussed..
Next choice of which there are a few variations is the L sort of flowing into the P, cursive style.
Regarding outreach materials, I was able to find a translator to fix up the Agenda en Espanol (2014 platform, translated in Spanish) on lp.org, translate one of the general LP tri-fold brochures (that should be available very soon through LPUS) and translate the political puzzle brochure sold by LP Stuff. I need a graphic designer to help with that last one. So, if anybody knows someone who may want to help out, for free, please send them my way.
Thanks for Stella Covre for translating and Wes Benedict for helping to make this stuff happen.
Someone (Nick?) doesn’t want black and gold as the color scheme.
Wes is not very optimistic that any new logo will actually be picked.
(I might have been talked into being a bit of a Torch-Flower fan) … Moving on to the fourth choice: The L-Scissors …. It looks like an “LP” where the L is a pair of scissors symbolizing “cuts”. I am personally not a fan of this one at all. It’s a nice idea and I don’t know maybe could be improved but as it is, kind of looks like just a piece of free clip art that somebody pasted a P on.
Arvin presenting Aimee’s L/scissors cutting P/capitol
Discussion of color schemes….
Benedict speaks to the relative experience of the designers involved and that the flower examples shown were thrown together at 2am. We can work with whatever is picked.
Some work on that has been done. Part of the delay is in sticking the new logo, if there will be one, on the new materials before printing up large quantities (to get volume discounts).
Tomasso points out the imagery of the flower as a thing symbolizing growth, potential, creativity, the blossoming of the individual, and he likes it more than he dislikes it.
Mattson suggests that she prefers a logo that does not emphasize just one aspect of our platform. For example just having a gun would also be problematic.
Next choice: The “Torch Flower”. Combines “torchness” and “flower of peace”. Has simplicity, flexibility, sends a message of peace, Vohra suggests, do we want to convey peace or action?
Nick says there can only be one logo, although we can have additional informal symbols.
Arvin presenting the torch flower.
Mattson: we need to consider the impact on all the state and local parties.
Mattson reminds that affiliates use derivations of the current logo and the impact must be considered there as well.
McClendon thinks looking at the cost for changing the logo first might not be a bad idea.
Johnson has general logo comments. He doesn’t like any of them and votes for NOTA. He appreciates the work but …. the labor theory doesn’t hold value here. The work has not produced anything but blah. Letting all the members vote would be a good idea if there were actually good choices but we don’t.
Guy McLendon likes the pre-Cory version of the Statue.
McClendon: Likes simple and self-evident. Wants something that looks good on a shirt. Wants the colors to be few to save printing costs. Has a logo to submit, it’s the old lady liberty, and is going to use it for Louisiana pretty much no matter what.
Redpath: But it should be some version of the statue. 2nd choice liberty bell.
Should be something easy to understand right away.
Redpath suggests that we can use more than one logo if we want. The current logo was never voted on in the first place. Has two problems w/ current logo: 1) sees symbolism of the sun setting on liberty, w/ the shadow over her face, sits not well with him and is glad we are talking about it. 2) Doesn’t understand the 1971 on the logo. Why is it even there? What does it add? That we’ve been around only 40 years and accomplished so little … (my thought: I question whether getting this far is really something to be ashamed of … the duopoly has had a special access to power in the age of broadcast media and we have managed to break through that. What is a reasonable length of time to expect this to take, we have no gauge … humanity has never had broadcast media before).
Redpath: doesn’t like the face obscured on the current version or why 1971 is on there.
Redpath: we could have more than one logo. Current version of the statue was not voted on by LNC. Shane Cory showed it to then chair Mike Dixon who took a quick look on it and said OK.
Anyone know if they are going to pick a new LNC at large member today? If so I am putting my hat in the ring…
Feldman comments on the balance between conceptualism and visual appeal. Has experience with a 99design contest for his campaign logo. Ended up getting the one he didn’t like as much, but it was simpler and it worked. His likes-per-week doubled when he switched it out as his FB icon. He likes several of the designs, especially ones with a torch. Also is scared of strong muscled women ( reference to Starr’s earlier suggestion ). Alludes to a design we haven’t seen yet, the torch flower, he likes it too. He does this the LBell is cool and clever but it doesn’t work as a logo.
Oh goodness …. cola wars have entered the room!! Katz is on record for Pepsi ….
Olsen says logo is a mark that carries reputation, that building meaning into the logo is a mistake and all we need is a “squiggle” like nike. Something elegant and unique.
I hope someone at the LNC meeting brings up my P idea.
http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/logo/new_P.png
Mattson is concerned that not seeing the bell changes the meaning of the bell, unlike Fedex where the arrow is unnecessary.
Considering all of the problems the LP has, I fail to see why the party logo is getting so much focus. How many people really care that much about the logo? How about focus on making better outreach material to hand out to the public, or better yet, how about increasing the amount of outreach that actually takes place?
I love the L-Bell so much …. it says a lot in a very simple way and it puts our famous “capital L” front and center in all its awesome glory.
Arvin presenting Ben Requena’s hatchet/liberty bell/L logo
Suggestion to have the LNC propose a logo for a vote by party members (through what means?) … yes, that would be in order.
Second one: The “L-Bell” … I am a huge fan of this logo!!!!
Intent is to have the LNC select a logo at this meeting, but may not get that far….it will just get the process as far along as possible.
Will Taylor logo up on the screen now. I think there was a link to it sent to the business list.
It’s been the clear anecdotal winner among non-Libertarians that Arvin has shown it to.
It’s also my favorite, though I am not fighting what the committee chooses.
Logo selected will not necessarily be the final version.
First one: The “Eagle Torch” …. it’s a stylized eagle on a torch. I am not a hater but not a fan of this one. I could live with it if I had to ….
Arvin is presenting various logo proposals…
“That’s great as a matter of principle, but as a matter of practical reality you really believe you will find a lot of people who want their personnel matters made public? Our conversations with legal counsel, etc?”
To be clear here, I am not quite as big a transparency advocate as Starchild.
I don’t object to e.g. discussions with legal counsel, personnel reviews, etc. being treated as confidential ON PRINCIPLE.
However, the LNC has proven over time that it can’t be trusted not to abuse the ability to conduct executive sessions. And while I haven’t been keeping CLOSE track of that, the abuse seems to be getting worse over time.
I consider taking away their ability to have secret sessions for at least two years (with a bylaws amendment, which can be repealed at any subsequent biennial national convention) to be along the lines of grounding a kid for bad behavior and then watching to see if the behavior improves. If it does, the grounding gets lifted. If it doesn’t, the grounding remains in force.
Is it a somewhat extreme measure? Yes. And it has to be, because it needs to be proportional to the offense, which is itself extreme.
Are there possible negative side effects? Yes. Who’s to blame for the negative side effects of necessary measures taken in response to bad behavior? The bad behavers.
Vohra says there are two types of logos:
1) That convey depth and meaning by making a statement
2) That are slick and polished for a quick impression
He is now showing logos on the screen.
Vohra leading logo discussion while tellers count committee appointment (I think) ballots.
Mattson motion to have general counsel draft standard employment contract passes without objection.
We have called to order and currently under public comment. Starr is showing an image he would like to see adapted into a logo, suggests we vote down the logo today, stick with the status quo and develop that concept.
Starr’s logo idea is interesting.
Starr has logo idea from LP Texas…statue of liberty meets Rosie the Riveter, but wants a simplified version.
Public comments
Ustream just started.
If I did the time zone calculation right the meeting should have already started, or about to start if running a few minutes late. Ustream not working yet though.
That’s great as a matter of principle, but as a matter of practical reality you really believe you will find a lot of people who want their personnel matters made public? Our conversations with legal counsel, etc? There are limits to what’s reasonable in advocating transparency. For example, I won’t insist on toilet cams at LPHQ.
Or, for a more square form, how about the statue to the left of the the letters LP?
Though the aspect ratio is probably a bit outside of the norm for a logo,I don’t think its a big deal. If its needed in a more “horizontal” form for some things (letterhead, maybe), just use a small picture of the statue to the left of the words Libertarian Party.
It would also be pretty easy for affiliates to customize for their state, if so desired.
Does anyone have concerns with the aspect ratio of the tall statue? Do we have mockups of how it looks in a more square aspect?
At the end of the day, not everything that is an offense is a hanging offense.
Lesson learned.
After sleeping on it for a night, I strongly favor that new statue logo (linked above) over the L bell logo. Again, it is consistent with previous logos, which minimizes the negatives that come along with a change.
Of course, I still prefer no change to the logo at all.
It would seem to me that it should be common sense that power to select would not mean unlimited, unilateral spending authority with zero associated fundraising responsibility. So I understood why you would fight them on this point as a matter of honor and doing the right thing. As a practical matter, however, I’m surprised that you went for it when you clearly did not have the votes lined up to prevail.
Wagner needs to learn how to accept victory.
I just thought of one downside of putting up a separate thread today, which is that there are already a lot of links back to this one from various FB groups and pages, maybe some twitter feeds and so on, and if I start a separate thread they will be going to the wrong place.
I’ve only had one request for a new thread…I won’t say who it was since it was over email rather than a comment on here, so you can email me if it’s a secret, but would it be a really big deal if we just kept going with this one?
Thanks for correcting that. For some reason I thought that Burke/Reeves voted at the last LSLA meeting of state chairs.
My understanding is that Wagner wants apologies, censure of past officers, etc.
Leigh,
Thanks for the information.
I apologize for my unclear phrasing in the form of “give money.” Yes, I understand that the LNC is purchasing a sponsorship in return for which it will receive valuable considerations, not just making a donation.
As far as my question was concerned, it was the only question I had.
To the extent that LPEX is providing some valued services, I would consider it inappropriate for the LNC to sponsor the intentional provision of such services to organizations that compete against its affiliates, e.g. the Reeves Gang, just as I would object to the LNC sponsoring a National Republican Campaign Committee training event for prospective GOP volunteers.
Since I’ve now been assured by several people, yourself included, that that’s not an issue, I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the LNC should purchase an LPEX sponsorship. I trust them to decide, on behalf of the LP, whether or not that’s a good investment of funds.
In case anyone wonders why yesterday morning went long, Article 7, Section 3 of the Bylaws seems very clear to me:
There is a disagreement over whether the phrase “power to select,” located in Article 10, Section 2 of the Bylaws, trumps that “full authority”:
Is LSLA still treating the Reeves Gang as its Oregon affiliate (or one of its Oregon affiliates), or has it recognized the legitimate Oregon LP?
If LSLA and/or LPEX are encouraging and/or associating with impostor organizations that compete with the LNC’s affiliates and with legitimate state LPs, why is LNC giving LSLA/LPEX money?
Mr. Knapp,
The LSLA officially recognizes the same group in Oregon that the LP does. I have contacted Mr. Wagner about rejoining the organization, however; we have been unable to come to terms. To answer your other question, the LP is not “giving” money to LPEX, they purchased a Bronze Sponsorship.
The Bronze Sponsor package includes everything in the Standard Exhibitor Package and the following;
• Booth on the LPEX Exhibit Floor (Standard)
• Promotion and recognition throughout LPEX as a Bronze Sponsor
• Signage with corporate logo displayed throughout LPEX
• Two (2) complimentary General Admission passes
• Company name, logo, description and link to company website on LPEX web page
• Exhibitor listing in the LPEX Official Guide including company name/booth number/logo
• Half-page ad in the official program guide
• LPEX conference bag insert (Standard)
• List of conference registrants (Standard)
I am not sure what all the debate is about. Didn’t this LNC state as one of their goals to create regional training events and didn’t the Affiliate Support Committee report indicate state chairs wanted activism training? .Hopes are to turn LPEX into an annual event concentrating on activism training in odd years and candidate training in even years in the western region. The LSLA’s Platinum Sponsorship has allowed the event to get professional conservative political trainers who are tweaking their presentations to suit a more Libertarian crowd. After the conference we hope to have videos of the presentations at LSLA.org. I encourage everyone to look at the activism presentations http://lpex.org/training/workshops Additionally, the LSLA’s sponsporship has provided up to two free admissions to each state affilate that will promote LPEX and have their attendees stay at the Tropicana. My hopes are that people will see the benefit of this training and give back to the LSLA so that we can continue to provide this training to the state affiliates at next years LSLA conference in Orlando (May 26, 2016). Not to mention that this is in conjunction with hosting two state affiliate conventions and the LSLA annual business meeting.
I’m sorry to hear it and hope you will reconsider.
Even if you don’t thank you again for your support in the past. Thank you as well for your service on the IT Committee, which I hope will continue.
It depends on what you mean by recognizes. I think that Mark Axinn is probably referring to the LPHQ administered email list, which as I mentioned switched from Burke to Wagner (I believe last year). But that was a decision of LPHQ, not LSLA, if I am not mistaken. It is my understanding that the only other way in which LSLA recognizes state affiliates – voting at the yearly meeting of state chairs – it was the Burke/Reeves side which was allowed to vote in Columbus. Someone can correct that if it is not correct.
There is also a LSLA run email list, separate from the one at LPHQ. I subscribed to that one too, so unless someone unsubscribed me, it is basically not used at all. I don’t know which Oregonians if any are on that one, although since essentially no one uses it from any state, I don’t think it makes much of a difference.
Mark,
Thanks for providing that information.
Just to fill in another gap, LSLA recognizes the affiliate headed by Mr. Wagner as the official LP state party in Oregon.
By my very unofficial count, there are at least 49 state chairs who do not want to have any further involvement in the Oregon situation and consider the matter closed.
We are going to waste how much money, even before you get to state parties, on yet another logo?
I agree this is by far my favorite of my designs, even if it could use a few minor tweaks to polish it up. Mike Shipley has a similiar one, if not identical, that he’s already been using on some memes. I really hope this one wins over the L-bell, even though I don’t totally hate that one.
https://d3p25cxtnsb4bm.cloudfront.net/_dkC8o8ON19LJV1Qj00Gex1zZ-M=/filters:quality(100)/99designs-contests-attachments/53/53785/attachment_53785192
Thomas L. Knapp writes (March 28, 2015 at 3:11 pm), regarding the possibility of lawsuits if employee/employer matters are discussed in public,
“That’s easy to solve. Just make it a condition of employment to sign a waiver acknowledging that LNC meetings are public.”
…to which Paulie responds (March 28, 2015 at 3:12 pm) “I’m sure that will do wonders for our available hiring pool.”
In some ways, it might. It would help ensure that our hiring pool is composed of people who understand and respect the need for transparency. Since a person interested in advancing his or her own prospects will naturally have a greater interest in keeping the details of his/her employment secret than one who does not, making transparency a condition of employment would tend to guarantee a staff more likely to put the good of the party and the cause ahead of personal interests, than in the absence of such a condition.
In short, I agree with Tom, and have previously suggested such a clause be made part of any LP hiring arrangement. I’m not talking about disclosing anyone’s Social Slavery number — there’s no reason for that — but it should be standard party policy for all compensation, terms of employment, and personnel matters impacting on the operations, finances, or governance of the party to be made public to the maximum extent allowed by law.
Stewart Flood writes (March 28, 2015 at 8:12 pm), “Sorry to hear that they passed a motion made by a person who has a conflict of interest. I’m not sure if his conflict of interest was discussed, but it should have been. Olsen is one of Pojunis’ investors.”
Stewart – By “investor” here do you mean simply “donor”? Or do you really mean investor? The distinction seems critical.
If Norm Olsen simply donated some of his own money to support the LPEX event, I don’t see any issue there — if anything, it would seem to add legitimacy to his request for the national LP to pony up some money as well.
But if he really is an investor, and stands to lose or gain money depending upon how the event does financially, then I agree with you that is a serious conflict of interest that should have been reported. In fact, if that is true, I don’t think he should have voted on the motion at all, or perhaps even brought it forward.
If you have evidence the latter is the case, please post it.
Paulie – Facebook kicked me off for having a non-standard name. They wanted me to send them proof of my identity, which I refused on principle. I said if they wanted to confirm Starchild is the name I usually go by, they could do a web search like anybody else would, and told them to either give me access to my account, or delete it.
Thank you to everyone for paying attention to the business of the party. It’s been a long day.
I’ll go with the first request unless I hear otherwise.
Anyone have any strong feelings pro or con for a separate thread for day 2? I have had one request for one over email.
Starchild,
Thanks for helping fill in the gaps.
BTW, did you get off FB? Your name was unclickable as of a few days ago.
Here are the results I tallied from Norm Olsen’s two motions…
Roll call vote on Olsen’s motion to form a new Ballot Access Committee:
Wiener – yes
McLendon – no
Johnson – no
Goldstein – no
Toole – no
Lark – yes
Redpath – abstain
Olsen – yes
Tomasso – yes
Estrada – no
Vohra – yes
Sarwark – yes
Mattson – yes
Hayes – ?
Feldman – ?
Totals – yes=9, no=6, abstain=1 (passed)
Olsen’s motion for the LNC to sponsor at the bronze level ($3000) the LPEX event in Nevada [reportedly also being sponsored by the LSLA (LP state chairs’ organization), but run as a for-profit event by an LLC set up by Nevada state chair Brett Pojunis]:
Wiener – yes
McLendon – yes
Johnson – no
Goldstein – no
Lark – no
O’Toole – no
Redpath – no
Olsen – yes
Kirkland – yes
Tomasso – yes
Estrada – yes
Feldman – no
Hagen – yes
Vohra – no
Mattson – abstain
Sarwark – yes
Totals – yes=8, no=7, abstain=1 (passed)
After a couple people initially passing before voting, it came down to a tie, which was broken by LP chair Nick Sarwark voting yes after some agonized deliberation (he said his decision turned on the Affilliate Support Committee’s recommendation) – motion passed, barely
Just finished reading through the comments here. I’ll post a few responses in no particular order…
Paulie writes “It was hard to hear and I wasn’t watching the picture but I think one of the yes votes said he was more reluctant to vote yes because of this but would vote yes anyway.”
That was Dan Wiener. I watched a good chunk of the USstream video link, and found it audible for the most part (I wasn’t sitting in a noisy cafe). The video camera could have been better placed — only about 7 LNC members were typically included in its field of vision, so many of the people talking were off-camera.
I just sent the following message to members of the LNC, letting them know I’m applying to serve on the Bylaws and/or Platform Committee.
Dear LNC members,
I am writing to express my desire and willingness to serve on either the Bylaws Committee (1st choice) or the Platform Committee (2nd choice) for the upcoming term. In the interest of sparing you from reading two separate letters, please consider this letter, which I’ll keep brief, as my application to serve on both committees. My history and relevant experience in the Libertarian Party includes:
• Currently serving on the California Libertarian Party’s Bylaws Committee (through May 2015)
• Serving on the LP Platform Committee in 2014 (As an alternate, I nevertheless took the time and expense to fly from California to attend the committee’s May 2014 meeting in Indiana)
• Serving multiple times as my local county party’s representative on the California Libertarian Party’s Platform Committee
• Attending every national convention of the Libertarian Party since 1993, and every California Libertarian annual convention save two since 1992, actively participating in Bylaws and Platform debate at virtually every convention I’ve attended
• Serving as an at-large representative on the Libertarian National Committee (2012-2014), during which term I attended every meeting
• Running five times for public office (once for State Assembly, twice for School Board, and twice for county Board of Supervisors), twice winning citywide high school mock polls for School Board, and once polling over 20,000 votes in the general election
• Serving as county Chair, Vice-Chair, Newsletter Editor, and (currently) Outreach Director of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco
• Twice serving as an At-Large representative on the California LP’s Executive Committee
My commitment to the libertarian cause is deep and longstanding, and I am actively engaged in spreading our message through my activism with the LPSF and other local groups seeking more freedom. Living and campaigning in San Francisco has given me a good perspective on how to communicate with the general public and the political left in particular.
As a member of either the Bylaws or Platform committee, I will seek to ensure that our committee’s operations are fair and transparent and that LP members are readily able to stay informed of what the committee is doing and voice their input.I believe in a strong LP Platform that sets us apart from the “cartel parties”, and in Bylaws that reflect our grassroots, bottom-up values and model best practices of accountable leadership and open, participative governance.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and apologies for not getting this to you sooner – it just now came to my attention that you will be populating these committees tomorrow. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me any time at (415) 625-FREE (3733) or by email at sfdreamer[at]earthlink.net.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
>I think that, if the event flops, it will reflect badly on the national LP.
I disagree. It’s being done by LPNV, not National. It has not been well-promoted and is being held in an incredibly remote part of the country (sorry, but most people live on the east coast or in CA or TX; not Nevada which has a total population only slightly more than my county). It’s also a new event without the history of regular attendance that many other liberty-minded events have.
It may reflect badly on some people, but should not on national LP. Exactly how much was national LP consulted regarding planning LPEX?
Also, in furtherance of Marc’s comment, I promoted LPEX on my own to my members; as far as I know no one from New York is attending. Now, we’re not as large or close as CA, but we are still a significant affiliate and there is zero interest that I have seen here in LPEX.
I will promote it again for Brett’s sake and to help LSLA cover its incredibly idiotic investment, but attendance from the northeast is not likely to be very great (in fact other than Josh, I don’t know of anyone else east of the Hudson River who is planning to attend).
It’s the one housed at lphq.
Hopefully the event will do well and create positive outcomes for our party.
However, if the event flops some people may criticize how the LNC money was spent. They may be distracted by the $19,000 bonus during a period of cash-cease.
There is a state chairs list that is in fairly regular use at the moment. I don’t know which one.
Is anyone planning to answer Brett’s letter, or will everyone just blow it off? I’m not sure how I’d handle it if I was on the committee.
I was called by someone associated with LPEX, asking if I would be willing to promote it to LPVA members. I said sure, and indicated our two main methods of communication were our Virginia state announcements email list, our website, our activities Calendar, and our Facebook page.
He said he would send me a boilerplate announcement that I could adjust and send via all those venues. The only thing I asked is that it be sent in plaintext as our email list strips out html (by design) so it needed to be a text announcement.
I never heard from them again.
I think this concern was also voiced in the discussion.
It was hard to hear and I wasn’t watching the picture but I think one of the yes votes said he was more reluctant to vote yes because of this but would vote yes anyway.
That one is my second favorite of the proposed logos. But, it is the one I would most like to see adopted, because it is reasonably consistent with the last two logos.
“Question (Arvin?) is LPEX designed to have Republican consultants find LP activists/candidates to pick off and switch?”
Wow. This has certainly been my concern, but I haven’t said it out loud.
I found Brett’s letter to be more of his bad attitude toward the LNC, which probably just keeps pissing off the people who were pissed off about him before. I wish he would keep up a positive front, at least until the event is over with.
I think that, if the event flops, it will reflect badly on the national LP. I can’t think of a way to mitigate that. I really, really hope it at least breaks even.
However, I still don’t know anyone from Southern CA who is planning to attend. I also haven’t heard any promotion of the LPEX coming from the CA Ex Com. Ca’s convention doesn’t even have its own site–just someplace to click on the state page.
Just followed the links to see some of the designs. My favorite is https://d3p25cxtnsb4bm.cloudfront.net/_dkC8o8ON19LJV1Qj00Gex1zZ-M=/filters:quality(100)/99designs-contests-attachments/53/53785/attachment_53785192 which seems to be just a slight variant of the current logo
LPEX is also associated with the LPs of CA and NV, which will both have their conventions in conjunction. WA state is hosting a competing state convention the same weekend.
I don’t know the answer. I also don’t know whether they approached individual states besides just posting announcements to the list housed by LPHQ.
IIRC the Burke/Reeves side voted at the most recent meeting of state chairs the LSLA held in Columbus.
The LSLA has its own list, but as far as I can tell it is rarely used.
State chairs primarily use a list housed by LPHQ on its servers. That list switched from Burke to Wagner some time ago – very roughly a year – but even more recently neither side is using it. As far as I know Wagner is still on the list. That is also the list LSLA minutes and announcements of LSLA phone conferences get posted to.
Yes. 3 of 5 LSLA board members, none of them state chairs, voted to spend 95% of their treasury on LPEX, and the minutes of the meeting aren’t posted in the archives as of the last time I checked (there’s an incorrect link but it actually has minutes from two weeks later). There was no discussion on state chairs list, I found out when Stewart mentioned it in another thread and I looked into it. It was not mentioned on state chairs before the vote or for quite some time after.
If I’m not mistaken, LPEX is an LSLA-sponsored event. Is that correct?
Is LSLA still treating the Reeves Gang as its Oregon affiliate (or one of its Oregon affiliates), or has it recognized the legitimate Oregon LP?
To the extent that LPEX approached state LPs to participate in or sponsor the event, did it approach/invite the legitimate Oregon LP or the Reeves Gang?
If LSLA and/or LPEX are encouraging and/or associating with impostor organizations that compete with the LNC’s affiliates and with legitimate state LPs, why is LNC giving LSLA/LPEX money? Would it entertain a motion to make a donation to, say, the Iowa Republican Party or the Prohibition Party of Kentucky?
Wow. I just sent them notice to cancel my $100 monthly pledge. When I made it at the convention last year, I said I’d contribute as long as I thought the party was moving forward. It stalled a while ago, and is now clearly moving in reverse.
Olsen moved that the LP allocate $3,000 to supporting the LPEX event.
Redpath – no
Wiener – yes
McLendon – yes
Johnson – no
Goldstein – no
O’Toole – no
Lark – no
Olsen – yes
Kirkland – yes
Tomasso – yes
Estrada – yes
Feldman – no
Hagan – yes
Vohra – no
Mattson – abstain
Sarwark – yes
Passes 8-7-1
[Lnc-business] Affiliate Support Committee
Guy McLendon guy at mclendon.net
Thu Mar 19 20:15:11 CDT 2015
Previous message: [Lnc-business] An example of a successful initiative/cause website
Next message: [Lnc-business] Revised Agenda – 3.28.2015 LNC Meeting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Please review attached minutes from tonight’s ASC teleconference, and
provide comments by 3/21/2015.
Guy McLendon
Vice Chairman
Libertarian Party of Louisiana
Cell 832-372-8131
~
ASC Meeting Minutes
March 19, 2015
In attendance:
Guy
Vicki
Joe
Norm
Absent:
Rich
Michael (part time)
Beth
Visitors:
N/A
Call to order @ 8:04 PM CST
Comments:
1. Motion:
a. Motion by Norm “ASC recommends LNC purchase a LSLA bronze
sponsorship package for $3,000 with funds charged against ASC budget item.”
Seconded. Motion carries unanimously.
2. Discuss ASC quarterly report.
3. Discuss pending tasks relevant to 2014 annual report.
Adjourned at 8:10 PM CST
Sorry to hear that they passed a motion made by a person who has a conflict of interest. I’m not sure if his conflict of interest was discussed, but it should have been. Olsen is one of Pojunis’ investors.
Several people participated in that discussion including Redpath and Sarwark. There were others, but I could not hear all of them.
“Talking about Massachusetts now.”
Who is talking? If it is someone other than Sarwark, what is he she it they saying?
I talked to Sarwark. He asked if someone here would write a letter to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, asking a particular question. I said I would ask my state committee for a volunteer. I have been in good health, not counting occasional bits of fatigue, etc., e.g., from shoveling snow and weight lifting.
The new logos meet with event less of my approval than the current logo did. Anything with large inked areas and little white letters should be deleted…it costs a fortune to run through a home printer.
Some of the proposed new logos are other versions of the same statue.
“I haven’t looked at the logo entries”
I’ve tried, but they are all listed as “hidden” on 99designs.com
I haven’t looked at the logo entries, but that’s mostly because I don’t see anything wrong with the existing logo. To the extent that the LP has a recognizable symbol on a national level, the Statute of Liberty is, and always has been, that symbol.
The Missouri LP used to use the Liberty Bell as its ballot symbol. IIRC, that was because there was some weird law forbidding us to use the Statue. When that law changed, we changed to the Statue (I seem to recall that we may have briefly used the Missouri Mule, or that there was an Eric-Harris-backed effort to get us to, but we went to the Statue when we could).
Why in the blue fuck would it be a priority to change our most recognizable branding graphic?
I’ve generally been against the logo change, but I really, REALLY hate the L logo with the liberty bell in the white space. It’s so generic & awful.
So LPEX funding passed.
I believe exec session now and then done til tomorrow.
I’m having trouble posting ….. my machine is starting to hang up. There is spirited discussion. Many members are hesitant for a variety of reasons: the Republican speakers, the involvement of a private LLC, the fairly low balance of the LNC’s bank account, the potential for the event to flop, whether or not it counts as “affiliate support”, whether it is geared toward giving L’s an advantage or not.
They are voting now … the count comes down to the Chair’s vote ……. He sides with the affiliate support committee and votes Aye.
Shutting it down here, way too loud to hear anything. I’ll go next door to see if I do better there.
Voting happening but I can’t hear most of the votes
During a quick break in the noise it sounded that Redpath is against giving LPEX because with 9 weeks left most of the schedule is not set but does not rule out supporting it later
Try the broadcasts if you can or maybe someone besides me can fill it in
Chuck? Mike? Anyone else?
They are discussing it now but it’s too loud here so I can’t hear anything
So what happened regarding Olsen’s motion to send money to LPEX? Keep in mind that he is an investor in the company running LPEX.
In Phoenix? Is there a window that opens?
Question (Arvin?) is LPEX designed to have Republican consultants find LP activists/candidates to pick off and switch? Or something like that.. Norm responding but not loud enough for me to hear.
Been a long day…..
Oops, you got that one already
I believe Redpath abstained.
I’ve just been using booze, caffeine and adderall for that. Not sure that I would do LSD again, but if I did an LNC meeting may be a somewhat interesting choice … then again …. maybe not.
What could possibly go wrong? LOL
I was distracted and missed a lot of this vote… I caught a few of them as below.
[I am editing this comment to fill in votes I missed based on Starchild’s later comment. My edits are in brackets.]
Ballot access committee formation.
Redpath – abstain
Wiener – [yes]
McLendon – [no]
Johnson – [no]
Goldstein – [no]
O’Toole – [no]
Lark – yes
Olsen – [yes]
Kirkland – ?
Tomasso – yes
Estrada – [no]
Feldman – ?
Hagan – yes
Vohra – yes
Mattson – yes
Sarwark – yes
Passed 9-6-1.
Starting to have freezing issues. Did not capture the roll call but the ballot access committee vote passed.
Well, you are one of those who’s put in long hours earning the status of “entitled to bitch.”
One of these days, I’m going to attend another LNC meeting. But I want to drop about 2000 mics of acid about 45 minutes before first gavel. THAT should keep it interesting.
Sarwark says he would name Richard Winger and Paul Frankel to the committee if the committee were authorized and he had to select the members now.
Yes. I was just bitching about it. Blowing off steam helps me to keep from wearing out..
Paulie,
As long as you’ve been around the LP, and given that you’ve served on the LNC, haven’t you figured out yet that NOTHING ever gets really settled and discussion never really ends? That’s one of the aspects that tends to wear people out.
Damn. I thought we already had all that discussed and covered in New Orleans.
Much discussion regarding intended function of committee. Does it gather data? Can it spend money?
Working now but it’s loud in here now so I can’t hear anything
Sound went out
Redpath is concerned about “committeeizing” ballot access because sometimes it needs to move more quickly than a committee can.
Fellow on the left above willing to serve on it. Woman on right above would be good too but I doubt she is interested.
He also has one to have LNC help pay for LPEX . then exec session.
They have amended the agenda to go into Mr. Olsen’s motions and then adjourn to Executive Session, moving everything else to the morning.
Olsen motion to create ballot access committee
I am extremely concerned that there are several names listed above for the platform committee who should organize their own precinct and county parties before presuming to craft our ideological document.
No, I did not put in an application. I do not have the patience to work with a group of people the majority of whom are embarrassed by Libertarian ideas.
Q: How do I know a majority of them are embarrassed by our ideas?
A: Because those are the kind of people most of the LNC members — many of whom have been around for the last 10 years — consistently choose to be on all of the convention committees.
It pretty much all is. They are linked in the article above. Except for region 7 which was late and is in the comments above.
We are hearing regional reports right now. I am basically just listening.
I don’t understand why the region reports part of the meeting takes more than 1 minute total. Everything said so far either was or should have been in written reports.
moving to region reports
(the five minutes were over by the time I posted that)
Out of time on ballot access …… Nick extends for five minutes ….. I am not taking notes on this because I wanted to pay attention.
Alabama closing office to help pay for Jeffco ballot access drive
Alabama looking for help with Jeffco funding 2500 to 3k request for LNC
Wants to at least consider doing it otherwise.
Bill says let’s go for OK if ballot access improvement bill passes.
No worries, I got this one
Josh Katz re: possible CT lawsuit against residency requirement for petitioners. sounds promising.
Yeah it sounds like these conversations have backstories I don’t know about, so I’m not able to report accurately what’s being said. I’m having trouble following this discussion.
I am confused what’s happening right now but something about Massachusetts and Dr. Phillies. Possibly having LNC Chair write a letter at Mr. Winger’s request to the Secretary of State ….. he says that’s something to be very careful about. I didn’t quite follow all of that.
Phillies is/was ill. He will follow up. Nick may ask Secretary of Commonwealth for an opinion regardless.
Redpath begins the ballot access report. He and Richard Winger both attended former general counsel Gary Sinawski’s memorial service, Redpath said a few words on behalf of the LP.
The Arkansas petition drive is rolling along at a good pace. Kurt Evans from South Dakota called Redpath saying he wants to put a referendum on the ballot to repeal a bad ballot access law. They discussed piggybacking the referendum on the LP presidential petition.
Talking about Massachusetts now.
I won’t be reporting for a few minutes.
MA: Winger wants to circulate petitions with “to be selected” instead of substitute. Phillies will ask MA state committee.
Redpath brings up a ballot access issue in South Dakota, piggybacking on a referendum drive taking place there. (I think, was spacing out for a minute but think that’s right) …… phone calls are taking place about reducing costs by doubling up those efforts.
Bill verbally says Reistroffer moved.
Kurt Evans wants to do referendum in SD against bad new SD ballot access law, wants to piggyback it with SD LP party petition
ballot access report http://www.lp.org/files/20150328_LNC_Meeting_Ballot_Access_Report.pdf
Redpath attended Gary Sinawski’s funeral service next to the famous Stonewall in. 60 people were there including Richard Winger
Paulie: Reistroffer does not live in SD anymore. I told Bill that last time.
Ballot access report
Platform:
Redpath speaks in favor of Hollie Ryan. Olsen speaks in favor of Chris Colvin and Mike Shipley. [missed the speaker?] speaks in favor of Jeffry Sanford and Zachary Yutzy. Mattson speaks in favor of Lynn House, Andy LeCureaux, Tom Lippman, and Debbie Schum. Mattson says Hollie Ryan and Alexander Pease put a lot of work into their applications. Mattson points out Michael Schoenike is an elected official. Olson speaks in favor of Debbie Schum. Goldstein speaks in favor of Mattson. Vohra speaks in favor of Dean Ahmad, Mike Shipley, and Nick Frollini. Sarwark speaks in favor of Nick Frollini and Dean Ahmad.
Platform: Redpath speaks for Holly in VA. Olsen speaks for Chris from Wyoming and myself. (Thanks Norm!!). Mattson speaks for Glenn of FL, Andy of MI, Tom of CA, Debbie of CO, saying she was impressed with them on prior platform committees, Olsen speaks for Debbie, Goldstein speaks for Mattson as Chair of the committee, Vohra speaks for Dean(?) of MD, myself (Thanks Arvin!!), and Nick, Sarwark speaks for Nick and Dean as well.
Vohra: Nick Fellini (sp?)
Vohra: Mike Shipley
Vohra: Dean Ahmad
Hmm … I don’t see my name on the list of applicants for platform. I could have sworn I applied. But maybe I’m misremembering. No biggie. I do kind of wish Mike Kane had gone for platform rather than credentials, though.
132 page PDF Ah. no transparency within the :NC. That;s a large enough PDF that it will likely bounce in many email systems.
Bylaws:
Sam Goldstein speaks in favor of Matt Wittlief. Olsen speaks in favor of Jeff Orrok. Dr. Lark speaks in favor of Dan Karlan. Arvin Vohra speaks in favor of Chuck Moulton. Vicki Kirkland speaks in favor of Dan Karlan. Dan Wiener speaks in favor of Aaron Starr. Redpath speaks in favor of Aaron Starr, M Carling, and Chuck Moulton.
p-break
Bylaws: Goldstein speaks in favor of Matt. Olsen speaks for Jeff, state chair of Colorado. Lark speaks for Dan. Vohra speaks for Chuck Moulton. Kirkland speaks for Dan as well. Weiner speaks for Aaron Starr. Redbath speaks for (didn’t catch, very quickly) and Moulton.
Roger Roots
Vicki Kirkland recommends Dan Karlan
Wiener for Starr
Arvin recommends Chuck
Matt Witlief (sp?) if I am not mistaken
Several LNC members said Mike Kane phoned them asking to serve on credentials. Marc Feldman, Vicki Kirkland, and Bill Redpath all spoke in favor of Mike Kane.
Vicki Kirkland spoke highly of Emily Salvette, with general agreement from other LNC members.
Goldstein speaks in favor of (didn’t catch name) from Indiana for Credentials … Olsen speaks in favor of Roger from Montana. Kirkland speaks on behalf of Mike Kane. Redpath speaks for Mike Kane as well. Kirkland speaks for Emily. Unknown member speaks for Steve. (not trying to get last names unless I recognize them). … Time is out … Olsen moves to extend 10 minutes, second with no objection … time is extended.
Redpath speaking for Mike Kane, Vicki Kirkland for Emily Salvette. Someone recommends Steve Linnabary and someone else laughs.
LNC VD or rads or something
FU, program, I am not typing too quickly, and I do not want to slow down, you nagging %^&^%&
Up again.
Maybe tag him on the FB thread?
I have two numbers for Marc, an 804 and a 540. Not sure if either one is current cell? I’d text him if I knew. One of those may be his old number or his home phone.
The video is down for me.
Question about whether Marc Montoni has submitted a Platform application. Nick suggests we ask on IPR …. proceeds to nominate David Williams of Colorado from the floor.
Platform names being read now ……… Mattson nominates Fred Stitt from the floor based on a late-arriving application she received.
No further nominations for Bylaws form the floor … Platform is next …. same drill.
Bylaws applicant roll being read. Also posted above.
No further nominations for Credentials from the floor …. Bylaws is the next …. same drill ….
Leading the roll of applicants. Also posted much earlier in this thread.
They are starting with Credentials first. Sarwark is reading off the list of submitted applications ; these are posted elsewhere so I will not attempt to record them.
Redpath wonders where he can find information about these people ….. Mattson states it was sent out in a 132 page PDF to everyone’s LP.org address.
They will have until the morning to vote.
It has been moved and seconded to use Approval Voting …. Feldman speaks against it based on the requirement for 50% that may be difficult to reach given the pool of candidates …. Mattson calls attention to some Robert’s language that confirms this …….. Redpath moves to amend the motion to strike that requirement ….. it is seconded …… Mattson speaks against the amendment, saying that it isn’t difficult to reach a majority with approval voting since you can vote for as many as you want. Tomasso speaks against because we shouldn’t appoint people who don’t get a majority … they can always do another ballot …. Johnson asks a question about runoffs …. Wiener speaks in favor of requiring the majority …… McClendon speaks in favor of striking the majority requirement …. Unknown member conjectures on strategy …. Another unknown speaks against the amendment because we don’t have NOTA ….. Nick calls to vote the amendment to not require the majority, 6 in favor, 8 opposed ….. amendment fails ….. motion is now approval voting with the robert’s majority requirement ….. passes unanimously. approval voting is the chosen method for committee selection.
“You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down. “
Working again
Some arcane discussions of roberts rules, approval voting requiring 50% or not etc etc
Mattson has prepared a written ballot with all the applications that were submitted in advance. She left some blank spaces for new people nominated at the meeting.
There was a motion to use approval voting for the 3 committees.
The LNC appoints 10 bylaws committee members, 5 platform committee members, and 5 credentials committee members.
Platform:
Top 5 per capita states: NV, NH, OH, AL, VA
Top 5 sustaining not in per capita (OH and VA excluded): CA, OH (skipped), TX, FL, VA (skipped), NY, PA, IL, MI, GA, IN, WA
Credentials:
Top 5 sustaining members: CA, OH, TX, FL, VA
Bylaws:
5 of LNC appointees may not be LNC members.
They are debating whether to require winners under approval voting to have a majority.
ustream just died.
LNC appoints all 10 bylaws committee members …. 5 of the 20 platform committee members ….. other 15 will be appointed by NV, NH, OH, Alaska, VA (top 5 per capita) ….. and CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, MI, GA, IN, WA (top 10 total sustaining members) …. and 5 of the 10 credentials committee, other 5 are by CA, TX, OH, FL, VA (top 5 by sustaining membership)
I think they are discussing voting methods. Not sure.
They are talking about what method to use for voting ….. Sounds like there’s gonna be a consensus toward using Approval Voting.
Can’t hear much but I think maybe committee appointments?
I guess we’re back already and going into committee selection. Mattson is passing out packets for members to submit nominations.
Do tell…names plz 🙂
Aaaand they’re back.
For about a minute a Libertarian was telling another Libertarian what he REALLY thinks about how another Libertarian acts… in hush hush “I wouldn’t say this in public” tones.
They are on break for supposedly 5 minutes, which will in reality probably be 15 minutes (judging from past experience).
What about?
Sorry, that’s all I can hear. But I think they are maybe on break? Popped to the video and most of the chairs at the table are empty
This time I can hear some interesting conversations.
If I’d known there was a break coming that soon I could have waited ….. *sigh* ….. Back in I think I heard 15.
IT committee is still exploring options and asks if anybody has ideas to submit them. Another member (don’t know name) mentions Nationbuilder and that he has a business contact there.
Yes, if they had an archive of the broadcast from the last meeting they could just point the timer to this part of the discussion and let it play. Same people saying pretty much same things as last time.
From what little I can make out
Olsen has questions about what is the real purpose of our website. Wants to be sure our new website is easy for staff to update. Current site is Drupal … something easier would be nice.
I don’t think you did either but I can barely make anything out. Sounds like basically the same discussion about the website that I saw at the last meeting in New Orleans.
Aaaaand…they just made the music louder yet again.
Trying to figure out what they are on now. I am guessing IT committee from the few words I am catching here and there.
I’m already back. I don’t think I missed too much.
We may be screwed then 🙁
They just made the music louder here. Trying to think of where else I can go with good wifi, outlets, available tables and no background noise. Sucks that my motel room is useless for that.
My turn to pop out for a quick break.
Good idea.
The existing tips for organizing (such as those found at http://www.lp.org/campaign-resources and http://libertarianmajority.net/tools need to be promoted a lot more! And I do mean a lot more!
We are starting to work on that, as you know.
Yes, a bit of cross-promotion there. I was thinking out loud … in the interest of transparency, might as well elaborate: We have started looking for stuff to share from state pages in order to help them grow. We considered contacting the page admins to establish dialogue but the fear was that it would trigger a “Hi I’m from National and I’m here to help” kind of horrified reaction. If we could contact those admin teams in a more casual / horizontal fashion and integrate them into our social media workflow without pushing the “top-down” panic button it would greatly reduce the chance of that happening. I mean we don’t always have direct knowledge of which affiliates might be sensitive to being contacted in such a way and just being realistic we’re all aware of times where there is some wisdom behind that hesitance.
Alabama has scheduled state convention for June 13. I am hoping it will not conflict with the next LNC meeting. We tentatively scheduled Wes (and possibly Nick if he has time that day) to speak.
https://www.facebook.com/events/632508180217258/
Talk of having the Affiliate Support Committee produce a document suggesting ways for affiliates to organize, for example as a 527 or whatever, that make their lives easiest. Sounds like the kind of standardized information that would be really helpful. Those labyrinthine regulations can be daunting.
We are starting to work on that, as you know.
Redpath brings up communication with state chairs for the second time I’ve heard today. Olsen mentions that the Affiliate Support Committee can help with this. I have often wished the social media team had greater communication with the state-level page admins. There is a lot we can do to strengthen how we’re using social media. The page has become a powerful way we communicate and the state pages are a great tool that affiliates can use to stay in touch with members without producing, for example, a costly newsletter.
Putting out and mailing a print periodical can be pretty labor-intensive.
I publish a newsletter for one of the orgs I volunteer with and it is tiny compared to LP News … I still put a couple hours into it each month for the basically two pages that go out …. Layout, editing, writing of copy … it’s incredibly time consuming to produce a quality product. I was shocked actually the first time I saw LP News that it comes from a single staff member four times a year.
Maybe that was the underlying issue of the executive session and the roberts rules gymnastics earlier in the day….
I was in the middle of typing a comment about how there seemed to be a healthy conciliatory tone in the air when that happened. I assume these things can get tense, I don’t really have enough background information to comment further. I have no idea what that was just about.
Bit of a confrontation between Starr and Kraus. Something about how cooperative staff has been with auditors.
“The dead tree version actually brings in quite a bit of money from a few wealthy donors who prefer to receive it that way, as well as some small donors.”
Well, if it pays for itself and then some, I can see why they’d want to keep it. I was just thinking in terms of the stuff about long staff hours. Putting out and mailing a print periodical can be pretty labor-intensive.
I’ll try to do more play-by-play if you leave the room but I don’t know everybody by name quite as well as you do.
You know what…screw it…I’m taking a break. I’ll miss some stuff but so be it. Hopefully someone else can cover anything of any importance.
I’d get more coffee but I have already had a lot. Actually hoping for a break soon so I can go expel some of it….
Audit report discussion.
Aaron thanks LNC for 10-1 vote of confidence. I’m zoning out a bit…..
That’s been discussed before. The dead tree version actually brings in quite a bit of money from a few wealthy donors who prefer to receive it that way, as well as some small donors.
Have they considered doing away with the dead tree version of LP News? It’s 2015. Anyone who’s politically involved knows what the World Wide Web is.
And here
Agreed!
for now we can try to do that with FB and twitter
I wish we could channel that vibe into social features on our website and transform it into a hub for activism, etc ….. for example crowdfunding features, flashmob-style event planning, an activism app, (just thinking out loud) ….. distracted now that we have moved to another agenda item so just hitting “Post”. *click*
🙂
Me too.
Wes also mentioned he learns info from IPR he would not get elsewhere (during this meeting a few minutes ago).
Not sure if I said that above.
Moving on to counsel report.
Replacing Sinawski taking longer than anticipated.
Arvin says SFL booth was best LP booth he had seen in a long time and best at the event compared with many organizations. thanks Wes; applause.
I love the interactive little social networking vibe we have. I’m looking around and seeing how IPR / Facebook are integrated into our experience of having these meetings …. The dialogue happening here is bigger than just the meeting. What a cool bunch of people … I love being a Libertarian!! #PorcupinePride
Also Bob Johnston took over LP blog and it is becoming more frequent as a result. I’ve been sending him a lot of suggestions. Questions about various web metrics which Wes did not know answers to.
Also DC metro area is very expensive.
Plenty of interns that could work unpaid, but managing them can be a big problem.
Tomasso?
IT committee can help staff with IT/technology issues
The part of me that wants to volunteer for everything wishes I could live in DC and work at headquarters. They sound like they’re doing so much with so little and bearing it with dignity. My guess is that people willing to volunteer their time are rare in a city where getting paid for that type of thing is the norm. That’s unfortunate …
Vicki is asking something, but I can’t hear her.
Carla is working on that.
Need for better and more frequent interaction between office staff and state chairs.
Wes looking for more direction on priorities from LNC.
Wes would like to create various templates for different things but has no time to do it.
Wes:
Carla works long hours, was screwed on audit last year …tried to not take bonus and was not allowed to refuse it… got to work right away and was allowed to take longer to move than her contract allowed … chair then gave verbal OK but then she got socked with it on the audit.
Now has taken on a lot of Eric Dixon’s past responsibilities;
Her and Wes making up for Eric as best they can but can’t really do it as well as he can.
Wes: biggest lost has been Eric Dixon.
Most of it fell on Wes and Carla.
They also hired contract graphic designer.
Eric still does some part time contract work for LP but has a different full time job now.
Wes: Casey Hansen does a good job with adding what receptionist was doing plus what he was doing before.
Mattson: How is workload on staff now as compared with a few years ago
If you had more time what would Wes, Carla, Robert do more of?
Arvin (I think…only listening): We need more messages that don’t just emphasize asking for money
Wes: Matter of priorities…staff work long hours
Someone (Arvin?):
We don’t communicate with members/supporters nearly enough compared with other parties.
Wes: Maybe so. We get complaints about it being too often, especially from NV
Q Why are people not renewing
A Biggest reasons, people moving to Ds, Rs, Tea Party, anti-voting anarchism, or too broke.
From Brett Pojunis
Time spent on implementing membership levels change instead of prospecting, fundraising, renewals.
Wes suggests 12-month trial membership, then try to get people to pay to join after they get a few LP news issues.
We need more aggressive attempts to get more warm leads.
Reasons for why we are not growing more being discussed.
Distractions on staff time.
Website sucks.
Matt Cholko got some outreach materials created in Spanish, and Carla has some new outreach material she has been working on.
They are waiting on new logo to get new stuff printed.
Wes says that with the bequest 2014 revenue was above target.
Back to staff report. 19k was paid up front to telemarketing company to do renewal calls.
It would cut it in half.
IF it passes and IF we can get it started in a *timely* way, the 6k plus the 20k or so that the LNC would spend on the independent presidential candidate only could get us statewide … but that is very time sensitive. That is I could do it by myself, but only if I have time to do it and it doesn’t cut into better paying work elsewhere.
The $1/sig and no expenses offer is not open ended, it is time sensitive.
On region 7 report
“Alabama currently requires 35,000 valid signatures per election cycle to obtain
statewide ballot access. If any candidate running for statewide office managed to
obtain 20% of the vote they wou
ld gain statewide access through the election
cycle. Alabama actually achieved this in 2002 with a statewide Judge candidate
garnered over 20% of the vote. It was lost in the next cycle when another
candidate did not reach that threshold.”
That should be 2000 not 2002. That is, 2000 was when we got 20%, 2002 was when we ran about 60 candidates, but none of them got 20% so we lost it for 2004.
Staff reports
Back in open session
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/attachments/20150328/b0abc399/attachment-0001.pdf Region 7 report now posted (all other regions already in body of main post above)
Dunno. I think we would if we had zero privacy regarding employee/employer matters.
Having HR issues is not necessarily a matter of dishonesty. Nor does it have to mean that you don’t trust the LNC.
There are some other things that legitimately belong in ES, although in general I totally agree with Marc’s cartoon at 15:19.
Has LPHQ ever lacked for applicants for open positions?
In my experience, people who are honest and effective workers generally believe up front that they won’t be embarrassed by prospective disclosures of what they do at work. They might be wrong about that, but they don’t expect it.
If you’re applying for a job at LPHQ and balk at signing a waiver to allow a public body to publicly discuss its employment of you, there are really one of two possibilities: Either you don’t trust the LNC, or you expect to be doing things you shouldn’t do and wouldn’t want people to know you did. In either case, like I said, McDonald’s is almost always hiring.
I am not coming at this from a default “everything should always be done in public” perspective. I’m coming at it from the perspective of “the LNC has abused its ability to keep secrets so frequently for so long that it needs to be taken away from them until they can prove they’ll use it responsibly.”
Here we go again.
The party gives out bonuses using this year’s money for last year’s bonuses because we’re broke?
It is Saturday, so I will have to wait until Monday to call and cancel my $100/month pledge. The ship has water washing over the deck. Bonuses are being given to staff for fundraising when we’re supposedly in negative cash flow. The audit committee chair signs a document using the party chair’s signature (that is what supposedly happened?) then the LNC then wastes time arguing over whether someone with no financial authority — the audit committee no less! — should be allowed to illegally spent money? There’s only one answer: the contract is invalid.
I wonder how that illegal act will appear in next year’s audit report?
I’m sure that will do wonders for our available hiring pool.
On the other hand I fully agree that there has been a history of abusing executive session. My experience on LNC was that many ES discussions started with matters that were legitimately ES topics but then involved many spinoff discussions that could have been had in open session; however, an object in executive session tends to remain in executive session. And that’s all I can say about that.
“employee matters need to be secret, as that could be grounds for lawsuits if employee/employer matters are discussed in public.”
That’s easy to solve. Just make it a condition of employment to sign a waiver acknowledging that LNC meetings are public. If you don’t want your work discussed in public, McDonald’s is always hiring.
The IRS gets employees tax returns … does that mean we can/should post them online complete with SSNs and everything else? That doesn’t really follow. I’m a sunshine/transparency advocate, but that’s going too far.
Yes. although government spy agencies are not the only entities that we have to be concerned about as far as that goes. For example, see my point about employee/employer matters. I take it as a given that the NSA can listen in, and maybe some other similar alphabet agencies (more than one I’m sure) but that doesn’t mean LPHQ staff won’t sue LNC if such discussions get posted to IPR, FB, caster and ustream. After all, there are a lot more people that can see such public postings than have clearance, access and interest in spying on us for the government(s), and unlike with government spying it can be proven in a lawsuit.
People concerned about secrecy need to keep in mind that the government can listen to all of our phone calls and hack into our emails, so they already know what the LP is doing.
I’m a bit surprised that Nick went ahead and tried to chop Aaron when he didn’t have the votes, though. I thought he wasn’t going to make that move unless he had the votes lined up.
Nick and Arvin are pretty sharp, so that they caved on the 2/3 vs majority for this ES it’s probably for good reason. At least I hope and think so.
I’m for transparency, but that would be excessive. Besides legal counsel, employee matters need to be secret, as that could be grounds for lawsuits if employee/employer matters are discussed in public. A few other things.
The LNC has abused executive session so frequently and for so long that it seems to me the only real solution is a bylaws amendment forbidding it for any reason, period.
Some would complain that that would compromise e.g. sessions with lawyers. And they’re right. Which is why they shouldn’t have abused it so badly that it needed to be taken away.
Mike Shipley
Mike Shipley will liveblog at https://www.facebook.com/groups/LNCVotesDiscuss/permalink/1539138576314666/
IE, nothing that implied any special underlying issue that is causing all this controversy.
It sounds to me like there may be one, but I don’t know what it is, nor are LNC members allowed to tell us.
It was not a request she volunteered.
As is normal practice LNC members asked if anything she had to discuss should be in executive session.
And she just gave the standard answer that this is the standard/best practice for audits to have such conversation be secret.
However she also made it clear that it was up to the LNC.
Nothing she said sounded to me like anything but the standard answer she would always give any time such a question is asked.
nd glad to have you on board!
Working fine…thank you!
The reconsideration argument was made but what prevailed was the interpretation that it was a specified cause so only needed a majority.
Testing my connection … I have arrived on site and the members are in Executive Session. We’re waiting in the plaza to be able to go back in.
Her. Jackie Oneto.
The *auditor* wanted the discussion to be private?
And they listened to him/her?
Sounds to me like this should have been a “reconsideration” motion and therefore should have needed 2/3.
Yet again, Mattson, Weiner, Goldstein, Tomasso — same names as always, against transparency. This is just one more example of why I can’t vote for any of these individuals.
Mattson moves the LNC go into executive session for the call with the audit firm for reason of vendor relations and staff matters (Jackie is the auditor).
Redpath – abstain
Wiener – yes
McLendon – abstain
Johnson – no
Goldstein – abstain
O’Toole – abstain
Lark – yes
Olsen – no
Kirkland – yes
Tomasso – yes
Estrada – abstain
Feldman – no
Hagan – no
Vohra – no
Sarwark – no
Mattson – yes
Failed 5-6-5.
The call will be in open session.
(On the audit committee Starr and Carling wanted this call to be in executive session, Johnson felt it could be in open session.)
Once the call was connected, the auditor recommended that the call be in executive session because that is standard procedure to go into executive session with staff not present (“best practice”).
Redpath – abstain
Wiener – yes
McLendon – yes
Johnson – no
Goldstein – yes
O’Toole – yes
Lark – yes
Olsen – no
Kirkland – yes
Tomasso – yes
Estrada – abstain
Feldman – no
Hagan – no
Vohra – no
Sarwark – no
Mattson – yes
Passes 8-6-2.
The first vote I’m pretty certain of. The second vote went by much quicker… I might be wrong on a couple of the voters (O’Toole, for example), but I definitely heard the result was 8-6.
There was discussion of whether the vote took a majority or 2/3. The chair ruled because specific reasons were listed (vendor relations and staff matters) it took a majority.
I’m sure the person who left the bequest would be happy to know what his money went for.
There was argument over whether it needed 2/3, chair initially ruled it did, then flipped on sense of the body.
Going to executive session without staff but with audit committee on a narrow majority vote.
Personnel matters.
They are on the phone with Jackie. Auditor. She recommends they go into exec session.
They are calling someone. I missed who and why.
And I believe it failed. If I understood correctly.
ote going on about whether to go into exec session, i think
I think they said they are going to break. Discussing whether they will be in exec comm and for what purposes after the break.
The LP has been given a $250,000 bequest, which can be received $33,400 per year due to campaign finance laws. Although due to changes in the law the LP can now accept an additional $33k per year for a building fund and an additional $33k per year for a convention, we have not sought to collect more per year that year in order to preserve our pending campaign finance lawsuit to get bequests in their entirety immediately.
The bequest was recognized in December of 2014 and listed in future months as a receivable. Due to the way the bequest was recognized, staff was paid bonuses for 2014 revenue. Of the first $33k received in the first year, $19k was paid as bonuses to staff. Staff contracts need to be rethought and rewritten in the future to prevent a recurrence of this.
Agreed!
Redpath asked whether the restricted building fund could be used to make mortgage payments. The answer was no — that would violate the spirit of the donations, which was intended to pay down the principal of the mortgage.
Redpath asked whether the building fund was used to immediately pay down the principal. Kraus sends the bank a check twice a year instead of monthly to make the bank’s life easier. Redpath points out that is crazy and results in more interest owed… even if it makes the bank’s life a little harder, we should make early payments immediately.
Question about where the bequest payment appears in the finances. Answer December.
All but a couple wanted a reduced binder.
Hagan is suggesting that we don’t print out binders each LNC meeting to save money. Much of it is electronically available.
Some people want financial materials printed and in front of them each meeting.
Wes Benedict is asking how many people want the full binders and how many want a reduced binder. People raised their hands, but no one voiced that count out loud.
Wes Benedict pointed out all the reports for this meeting are on the lp,org blog right now.
Mattson suggested having a few printed copies of the bylaws and policy manual that will be reused.
Hagan pointed out it costs more to ship binders back to DC after the meeting than to buy new binders each meeting.
Question about whether people need their physical meeting binders…the materials are all in the body of the post above or other LNC emailed materials and materials on the website such as bylaws, policy manual etc.
Bob Johnston has been “repurposed” to major donor calls.
Previous firm (not sure which one) has been hired to some calls, and someone else to make some other calls…renewals? I didn’t catch every detail of that.
Budget is still tight but slightly better due to bequest payment.
Goldstein moved to ratify the engagement letter and amend the audit budget to $15k.
(This increases the audit budget by $1,500.)
Mattson moves to amend, making the motion that the LNC will direct staff to honor the engagement letter as presented and amend the audit budget to $15k.
She says “ratify” implies something was done improperly without authority.
Sarwark opposes the amendment because it implies that the previous action was valid.
Amendment fails by a show of hands.
Redpath – yes
Wiener – yes
McLendon – yes
Johnson – yes
Goldstein – yes
O’Toole – yes
Lark – yes
Olsen – yes
Kirkland – yes
Tomasso – yes
Estrada – yes
Feldman – yes
Hagan – abstain
Vehra – yes
Sarwark – yes
Mattson – abstain
passes 14-0-2
“Bill Redpath passionately argued that in his many years on the LNC there has never been any corruption ”
Readers who believe this should read the recent audit report covered by Liberty for America magazine, not to mention my book Funding Liberty on the 2000 Presidential campaign and its interactions with the LNC.
Treasurers report is next.
Sounds like mostly all yes votes, but I can’t hear well enough to tell if there were exceptions. Motion passes.
Question if it is 2/3 because budget is being amended. Chair says it is simple majority.
Back to Goldstein motion to ratify agreement and increase the budget to pay for it.
Mattson asks if it is appropriate for the officers to vote. Chair rules yes.
Mattson amendment (I believe) fails.
Mattson moves to amend the motion to say honor rather than ratify because she says LNC has no power to not ratify it
The ustream video is working pretty well this time (at least so far)
Motion to amend agenda to ratify audit agreement and increase budget to cover it
Sarwark said the auditor’s internal accounting for our last audit was $26,000 even though we paid them far less than that. The audit firm will not accept the 4% increase cap they agreed to previously.
Meeting just started back. Maybe they said 15 min rather than 5 min as I thought?
They just came back into session.
The audio on caster is cutting in and out about every minute. There are a lot of random conversations occurring. So no, they are not back in session yet.
It has been more than 5 min but the broadcast has not started back up. Anyone at the meeting, is it back in session yet?
Mike Shipley is waiting for the bus, he’ll be there in roughly an hour and a half.
Could not hear well, but I though Norm voted yes (on the audit committee motion to remove Aaron)
5 min break.
Nick will give his opinion and concerns in executive session.
Plaintiffs are Johnson and Stein personally as individuals. LP and GP as parties. 50 individuals from each state as individuals.
Sherman Act basis.
OAI is the only entity paying the bills.
Nick: no LNC dollars going to the lawsuit
Nick believes it will be filed even if all the money is not raised in time but not 100% sure.
Tax deductible donations to OAI foundation will be allowed.
I did not catch all the names for that vote. There was 1 yes, 2 abstentions, the rest no. Who was the yes?
I think Tomasso was one of the abstentions.
Rocky Anderson is working on the legal language now. Nick will see the legal briefs and possibly assist although it is not his area of law. Goal is to file the suit in DC. Nick will inform LNC when he sees the draft.
Report on OAI CPD lawsuit. Goal is 850k to pay for all the motions and defense of motions, raised 120k as of a couple of weeks ago. Target is to file in April. Redpath asks what happens if they don’t raise all the money. I did not hear a clear answer.
Moving on to chairs report.
Motion fails. I could not hear the roll.
If I understood correctly Arvin ruled it will take 7 votes of 12 with no abstentions or 2/3 with abstentions. Officers may not vote.
Question if it requires 2/3. I believe this would actually remove Aaron as a member of audit committe, not only as its chair. Correct me if I am wrong.
Motion to remove chair of audit committee vote coming up.
Some motion passed, but I think it was just to extend discussion time.
Arvin Vohra is leading the discussion because Nick Sarwark is one of the arguing sides.
I believe that Alicia’s point was that the audit committee needs to be independent in picking the audit firm in case of LNC corruption. Bill Redpath passionately argued that in his many years on the LNC there has never been any corruption and couldn’t be any now (if I understood what they were saying correctly).
The beef is that Aaron signed the contract on behalf of the audit committee and the LNC is responsible to pay for it. Nick is saying he should have been consulted before it was signed, especially since it is above the policy manual cost cap.
Mike Shipley will help with coverage over at LNC Votes Discuss on FB. He is not at the meeting yet but will be there later today and will bring his computer.
Carling said DC audit firms don’t want to work with us because we have a bad reputation. Johnson agreed that we couldn’t find a cheaper firm.
Apparently there were cost overruns on the previous audit.
The audit firm the current audit committee wants to engage had executed a contract in the past limiting cost increases year to year to 4%. The current audit’s cost exceeds that 4%. Apparently when the audit committee decided to engage this firm (based partly on the assumption of the cost contained by the 4% limit), they called the firm to make a contract and the firm wouldn’t return their calls for a month. When they finally got back to our audit committee they said they would only do the audit for a higher price.
Some argument how it was done in the past.
Wiener asked whether there was reason to think they could not get a less expensive bid. I missed the answer.
Didn’t bring them. They are back at the motel and I have no car. I was in a hurry to try to get to the bus stop before the bus ran this morning because I was still planning to work the gun show at that point and wanted to eat before then, and I thought the show started at 8 am (actually 9 am). So, no headphones for me. I’m not taking the bus to the motel (where internet rarely works and is too slow for video/audio when it does) and then back here for the earphones.
Paulie, try headphones maybe?
Not as loud at this cafe but there is still some background here….or maybe it’s my computer audio is not strong enough
I have the volume all the way up on everything but still missing a lot
Chuck got it above
There is a motion but I am not completely sure what it is.
Not sure I get this right but I think Mattson said if the audit committee spends money not authorized by LNC on outside auditor the audit committee could be liable for the difference?
Mattson: bylaws violation for LNC to interfere with Audit Committee
Lark: What if it was 100k, would LNC be allowed to interfere?
Argument between Sarwark, Mattson over whether the audit committee did was allowed. Mattson says bylaws trumps policy manual.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/libertarian-party1 seems to be working now. I missed whatever happened before this because it was too loud at the cafe where I was so I had to switch cafes, order more coffee so I am a paying customer and not just a bum using their wifi, and restart my computer….if anyone can fill in whatever happened before this please do so.
Olsen moves that the LNC remove the chair of the audit committee.
Sarwark handed the gavel to the vice-chair and is speaking to the motion.
[*** EDIT: I’ve retracted my comment here. See my retraction. ***]
Nick says audit committee exceeded its budget authority in hiring outside auditor
Discussing audit committee
The video feed is going in and out. The audio feed (the radio, not part of the video) isn’t working at all.
They’re amending the agenda scheduling things now.
Mattson asked to vote for the platform, bylaws, and credentials committees overnight by written ballot. There didn’t seem to be an objection to that procedure. Wiener wants approval voting for committee members, but that won’t be decided until they get to that agenda item.
Sarwark asked for an agenda item to remove a member of the audit committee.
The video seems to be fixed.
There are 2 images side by side. I think it’s the 3D view… I don’t have 3D glasses though.
The video feed is up.
Have any states appointed platform or credentials representatives yet?
At least on the proposed agenda, if it doesn’t get shifted to later in the meeting. http://www.lp.org/files/20150328_LNC_Meeting_Proposed_Agenda.pdf
I could post that as an article, but the committee selections will be right after reports today, so that’s not exactly a lot of time to round up any lobbying for anyone.
Nick posted the committee applicants.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002686.html
Bylaws and Rules Committee
Richard Burke (OR)
M Carling (WA)
Jim Fulner (MI)
Sam Goldstein (IN)
Dan Karlan (NJ)
Joshua Katz (CT)
Alicia Mattson (NV)
Chuck Moulton (VA)
Jeff Orrok (CO)
Michael Schoenike (MT)
Aaron Starr (CA)
Rich Tomasso (NH)
Joseph Wendt (FL)
Lorence Wenke (MI)
Dan Wiener (CA)
Matt Wittlief (IN)
Zachary Yutzy (OH)
Credentials Committee
Beth Duensing (IN)
Gary Johnson (TX)
Mike Kane (FL)
Vicki Kirkland (FL)
Steve Linnabary (OH)
Colin Nicol (LA)
Roger Roots (MT)
Emily Salvette (MI)
Michael Schoenike (MT)
Joseph Wendt (FL)
Lorence Wenke (MI)
Michelle Wesnofske (TN)
Zachary Yutzy (OH)
Platform Committee
I. Dean Ahmad (MD)
Loren Ameen (MI)
Jake Bryan (AL)
Gene Chapman (TX)
Chris Colvin (MT)
David Demarest (NE)
James Felber (TX)
Nick Frollini (PA)
William (Bill) Hajdu (CA)
Lynn House (FL)
Paul Koksvik (NY)
Andy LeCureaux (MI)
Tom Lippman (CA)
Alicia Mattson (NV)
Guy McLendon (LA)
David Overby (IA)
Alexander Pease (RI)
Robert Peterson (NY)
Donald Reach (VA)
Roland Riemers (ND)
Hollie Ryan (VA)
Jeffry Sanford (LA)
Michael Schoenike (MT)
Debbie Schum (CO)
Mike Shipley (AZ)
Herbert Schoenbohm (USVI)
Fred Stitt (CA?)
Richard Sutherland (FL)
Zeb Sutton (IN)
Lorence Wenke (MI)
Zachary Yutzy (OH)
Unspecified Committee Interest
Marcell Aaron, Jr. (CA)
Gina Aveni (MO)
Eric Cardenas (NY)
Kit (Vera) Carson (WY)
Guthrie Crull (OK)
Sean M. Hayes (AZ)
It’s early. Meeting doesn’t start for another 48 minutes.
Neither seem to be up yet.
For anyone not reading the original post:
Broadcast channel #1 – video and audio:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/libertarian-party1
Broadcast channel #2 – audio-only:
http://libertarian.caster.fm/
I don’t know whether either or both will be working yet.
Thus far the audio-only caster links have had the better audio at the last two meetings.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/LNCVotesDiscuss/permalink/1651652021729987/ and possibly some other threads at LNC Votes-Discuss will also have some meeting coverage. Not sure how much yet. If anyone knows any other twitter, FB, blog, etc coverage at the meeting please let me/us know.
Paulie wrote:
Thanks!
Chuck, I posted your comment and image to the logo contest FB group.
If I get appointed to ballot access or anything else I will be very contactable.
That too!
Beth Duensing wrote:
Thanks!
I hope LNC members at least look at my P idea. I know I didn’t go through the formal process, so perhaps it will get lost in the shuffle and never seen by some.
http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/logo/new_P.png
Andy is telling me on the phone that the gun show he is at is so slow that he may actually not even stay there himself, much less split it with me, and looking outside the window the weather sure doesn’t look too inviting, so it’s looking likely that I can stay and help liveblog here today, although the weather is supposed to be better tomorrow so I am less likely to help with coverage tomorrow.
I think Andy is telling me the truth about the gun show, there are other petitioners who would just tell me a lie like that so I wouldn’t show up and cut into their numbers but Andy tends to be honest to a fault about these things (and in general).
Nicholas Sarwark wrote:
That’s a pretty lame excuse for lack of transparency. The LNC could have just posted the names and states of the applicants to avoid the perceived problem of sharing contact information.
Really though anyone appointed to a committee ought to be contactable by LP members.
I mean, if that was the actual concern, rather than just an excuse.
That could be redacted.
I believe the concern was in republishing all of the contact information provided as part of the application process.
Chuck, I like the addition of the P to Ben Requena’s (#135) logo. Originally I was not in favor of making any change to our logo. Adding the P so that we keep the LP maintains the recognition that is already in place. There is some benefit to having a one color logo to use for imprinting and signage.
Just my two cents
I applied for the bylaws committee.
Just so I don’t misrepresent anything here, I did not apply for platform, bylaws or credentials, because I don’t realistically see myself putting in the work.
I did express interest in outreach committee, affiliate support committee (although I believe that has been filled now), and in the ballot access committee, if it is created.
This is true.
Unfortunately, we never did get a lot of member input on these selections when I was on LNC – perhaps the full members got more than I did as an alternate, but I suspect they didn’t receive very much input either.
And I’m not sure that the input we did receive (at least what was posted to the list; dunno what kind of private emails or calls people may have received) played very much of a role in the LNC’s picks for these committees.
I wish there were more people who cared about these things and were actually ready, willing and able to do all the work of being on such committees, but the sad truth is that there are few people available who actually bother to apply and are willing and able to follow through if selected. And out of the ones that do, LNC members typically vote for the ones that they know, often people who have demonstrated they can do it because they did it before.
Perhaps the LNC will leave the at-large vacancy for a mail ballot so they can have more time to call for applicants.
Brett has expressed relief at not being on LNC this term and being able to focus on Nevada as well. But then he did run, bot for chair and for at large afterwards, so he’s probably interested. He’s somewhat impulsive at times so I guess it would depend on what mood you catch him in.
Phoenix is relatively close to Las Vegas. I’d think Pojunis would attend the LNC meeting.
In case runners-up matter, after Doug Craig tying with Guy McLendon at 136, they were Brett Pojunis (134) and Starchild (124) followed by C. Michael Pickens (97), Will McVay (58), Jim Fulner (41) and Bjorn Pedersen (36).
Craig, Pojunis and Starchild have all been on recent LNCs; not sure about any of the others.
Paulie wrote:
Yes, best wishes for a speedy recovery, Evan. Your health is the most important thing… you should always put that first.
Btw, with respect to my comment about lack of transparency of committee appointments, it’s important to note that the filling of those committees are the most important votes of the LNC according to some — those that are ideological (radical vs. moderate, pro-life, LGBTQ, etc.) are very concerned with the composition of the platform committee; those involved in state disputes (Oregon, formerly Nevada, etc.) anticipate credentials fights and worry about the composition of the credentials committee.
Evan, if you are reading this, I hope you get better – soon, if possible.
It will be interesting to see whether some people had advance notice of the vacancy and have someone at the LNC meeting to lobby for himself / herself.
Yeah, I left a voicemail for Doug. He should contact Nick and/or Vicki if interested.
Evan’s reasons for resigning, for anyone who is wondering and who doesn’t keep up with the LNC list in real time the way Chuck and I do:
I’d suggest checking with Doug to see if he is interested first. When I was at the GA convention he seemed relieved to no longer have to be chair. He anticipated having more time after that, but sometimes it doesn’t work out that way… but if he’s interested he would be good. Honestly, though, I don’t think the LNC votes on the basis of the runner up unless it’s a reason that makes a decision they want to make anyway easier to justify. When it’s not someone they want to work with they just ignore the convention voting runner up factor.
I suggest Doug Craig to fill the vacancy. My recollection is he tied Guy McLendon. I think the secretary recounted and found an error that broke the tie, but Doug was willing to concede because he had votes for Guy in addition to himself.
Evan McMahon has resigned his at-large position, which creates a vacancy on the LNC.
I’ll also update the article with the reports, which were added to the LP.org post after I cross-posted it here (I posted them as a comment rather than adding them to the post earlier).
For the live coverage, I’ll bump this thread up to today, but if anyone would rather start a new one, feel free.
Either way I hope we’ll get comments here to cover it from however many people can do it whether I am one of them or not.
I may be able to liveblog. Still hoping to work this weekend, there is a gun show in town, but I’m also feeling like I am coming down with a cold and trying to decide whether it’s worth pushing myself over the edge…colleges get back from spring break on Monday…
Agreed.
Perhaps a member will forward the list or comment on it.
The secretary’s lack of transparency has prevented members from providing input to their representatives on how they should vote for committees.
Good luck to everyone tomorrow! I hope you can cover a lot of ground with a minimum of discussion (and arguing).
The applications have been sent to the committee directly, rather than on the list, by the Secretary.
I will try to live blog. I’m not certain I will be free the whole time though.
Haven’t seen any public listing.
BTW, can anyone liveblog this weekend? There will be several broadcast channels but I don’t know if any of them will have an archive. I’ll hopefully be working so probably can’t do it.
I haven’t seen a list of the people who applied for the platform, bylaws, and credentials committee anywhere. Did I miss it on the LNC business list? Or are the applications being circulated on a secret list? Or have LNC members not yet seen the applications?
That is the Peace and Freedom party logo. There was once a big contingent of libertarians in that party, but the socialists ousted them in, I believe, 1974, and they went to the LP (or for some elsewhere). Too bad, that would have been a better name for us, IMO.
Hmmm….dunno. Email it to Arvin and the rest of the logo committee then, I guess.
I’m not on Facebook anymore.
I was pleased to see a couple of the logo entries had a dove in it. That would be my choice for a mascot (for lack of a better word) to go along with the logo. Wouldn’t it be great if people started associating the LP as the party that promotes peace?
If you are not in the groups already let me know, they don’t always add people but they will if I give them a heads up to do it.
Chuck, are you in the Design for Liberty or Logo Contest FB groups? You should submit it there and see what people think. If they like it, you may get designers to collaborate with you on the technical aspects of making the design crisper, although it looks fine to my untrained eye.
#135 is the only one that I really care for. However, I don’t think the negative bell will even be recognized by the average Joe. We notice it, because we’re studying the logos. But, the bell doesn’t really jump out.
I also would prefer that we stay closer to the current logo. That would pretty much require use of the statue, rather than the bell.
But, if I throw all that stuff out, #135 does look pretty nice.
Chet, I do like the idea of working the statue in, and popularizing LP, since that’s how us insiders often refer to the party. (I’ve noticed many Ls referring to the Libertarian Party as the LP during outreach to non-libertarians. Since this is unlikely to stop happening, maybe we just embrace it, and start promoting the LP brand).
You guys following the logo discussion?
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002658.html
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002666.html
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002623.html
It seems like the L with the liberty bell in the negative space is getting the most traction (and push from Arvin).
Personally I like the statue of liberty as our logo. The liberty bell is okay. A torch or a porcupine or scissors don’t convey liberty as well in my opinion (the torch can be mistaken for a olympic torch rather than the statue of liberty torch, few people outside the movement get the porcupine, scissors address economic liberty in the form of cutting government but not personal liberty).
Some people are concerned that the LP is choosing a movement logo rather than a party logo if it doesn’t have the word “Party” in it prominently.
I took a crack at expanding the L negative space logo (#135 by Ben Requena) to include a P with a statue of liberty. I’m no graphic designer, so it’s very rough compared to these professional logos above. Feedback on the general concept is welcome though.
http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/logo/new_P.png
Chair’s Proposed Agenda
Chair’s Report
Secretary’s Report
Region 1 Report
Region 2 Report
Region 3 Report
Region 4 Report
Region 5 Report
Region 6 Report
Region 8 Report
Ballot Access Report
Campus Report
EPCC Report
EPCC Employment Contracts Report
Financial Report
International Rep Report
IT Committee Report
Membership Report
Staff Report
The Arizona Libertarian Party will also be hosting a welcome reception Friday evening from 7:00 – 10:00 pm at the same hotel.