IPR received a copy of this letter from Pasco County Libertarian Party Activist Danielle Alexandre. Danielle has served in numerous positions with the Libertarian Party of Florida and was Campaign Manager for Adrian Wylie’s 2014 run as Libertarian candidate for Governor in Florida.
Last week I did something I never thought would happen in the nearly 16 years I have been a Libertarian. I relinquished the last tie I had to the Libertarian Party of Florida. As of today, I am no longer a part of Libertarian politics.
For full disclosure, I had relinquished my membership to the state party nearly a year ago. I had, however, stayed the treasurer of my county affiliate, was key in hosting the LPF state convention this year and have been an advocate for the Libertarian Party in all of my activism. While I gave up my delegate status in the state party, I had in no way given up being a part of Libertarian politics in the state. I was proud of the party and all that we had accomplished, I just no longer wanted to be a part of the inner workings and separated myself from it.
Now it’s become a sad time for me and one I never thought would come. I never believed the “Party of Principle” would lose all sense of ethics nor did I ever think that the people within the party would allow such an authoritarian move take over the party as it did.
Please do not misconstrue my words to mean this had anything to do with a US Senate candidate. It doesn’t. I always knew as the Libertarian brand grew, opportunists would come to use the name. So when an opportunist with delusions of grandeur came to use the party label, I was not surprised nor worried. This was par for the course in politics.
Please also do not take my words to mean that I stand with the former chair who left abruptly. I don’t. He handled the situation entirely wrong from the start and continued to be wrong until the day he left. It was foolish and unnecessary. He gave importance to a person who was plainly undeserving and created a divide that the party did not need.
Neither of these things would make me cut every tie with the party. These are growing pains and something I was prepared for. It showed that the work that had been put into the party over the last 5 years had grown our label to that stature. What I was not prepared for was the complete abandonment of everything we hold dear to us as Libertarians when it comes to our leadership within the party.
In the aftermath of the party chair and several other Executive Committee members resigning, the party was left with vacancies that needed to be filled as soon as possible. I understand the need for urgency in the situation but urgency does not excuse authoritarian style installations of leadership. However, that is what happened and in my opinion the leadership was appointed in an illegal manner.
Florida Statute 103.095 Section (3) states:
“The members of the executive committee must elect a chair, vice chair, secretary, and treasurer, all of whom shall be members of the minor political party, and no member may hold more than one office, except that one person may hold the offices of secretary and treasurer.”
This would be clear that an election was needed to fill the vacancies left by the resignations of certain officers of the party.
I know this statute well from my experience with the Libertarian Party of Florida. Florida Statutes 103.095 is the statute relating to minor political parties in Florida. It was created in the 2011 session and was enacted toward the middle of that year and after the Libertarian Party of Florida state convention for that year. Until 2012 it was not an issue that state party had ever had to deal with. In 2013, while I was serving on the Rules Committee of the LPF, we had to propose adjustments to the bylaws to accommodate this provision and many others that had been created in this statute and it’s sections and subsections.
To further my knowledge of this particular section of the statute, I personally had to enact it’s meaning when I became treasurer of the state party upon the resignation of my predecessor. In 2013, only days before the state party convention and in a very reluctant manner, I was elected by the Executive Committee as treasurer. Our bylaws did not allow for special election because that would move the current election cycles for the positions. I was not appointed, as many had said the treasurer should be. I knew the statute was clear and asked the chair to hold an election with NOTA being an option and opening the floor for other nominees. There was none and NOTA did not prevail, and subsequently I was elected. It was the first time the party had to deal with the new statute and it was dealt with legally. I made sure of it.
This time it was not and not because the positions needed to be filled immediately or because of a lack of nominees. It was done in a manner that derailed the fundamentals of the party. No one person should have sole authority over the party, yet one person appointed himself as the chair and went down the line appointing other officers to the state party. Even after it had been said for days that there would be open nominations and elections.
In fact, up until the start of the meeting it had been made public that there would be elections for the vacant positions. There was a list of nominees that had expressed interest in each of the positions. No office was without several people looking to fill the vacancy. Yet, as the meeting started the “interim chair” changed the elections to appointments and did not take any nominees or even consultation from another executive committee member. There was simply a vote to “confirm” the appointments after the “chair” had installed his personal choices for each position, including his own.
A vote to concur with the appointments is not an election. Only in places like North Korea and Iran (or as Republicans choose a Speaker of the House) is a ballot with only one name a proper election. Is that the road the party is traveling towards? Then I want no part in it. This is not the “Party of Principle” that I have sacrificed my relationships, financial security and enormous amounts of time for. Libertarians don’t believe in authoritarian rule. Yet, that is what the Libertarian Party of Florida did and with no one to even speak up.
To make matters even worse, my region was denied representation to even object to this illegal proceeding. Days before the North Korean style election my region’s representative also resigned. In his resignation he named a replacement. His replacement was ready to take his place immediately and made sure to let leadership know. In the LPF’s Standing Rules Article V Section 2 it states:
“The Executive Committee may without meeting, conduct business by communication, voting on questions put to them by or with the approval of the chairperson. Such vote shall be kept by the Secretary until the next meeting and then such vote shall be incorporated in the minutes. A majority vote of the committee shall prevail. If a majority of affirmative votes is not recorded within fifteen (15) days, the question will have failed to pass.”
Our new regional representative could have been appointed by email before the election. It was even suggested by Dana Cummings that it be done that way since many regions would like representation in something as important as elections. As of May of this year my region was the home of 20% of the members of the LPF, the largest region in number of registered Libertarians and home of the largest county of registered Libertarians. That is a large amount of Libertarians to deny representation to but convenient if you are going to install leadership in an illegal manner. Our representative certainly would not have stayed quiet as our principles were torn to shreds. I can only speculate that it’s why he was not appointed beforehand.
I have not forgotten that the now newly appointed chair (appointed by himself) was once removed from his position as Vice Chair in 2013 for conspiring against the party and giving information, including donor information, to someone with a vendetta against the party in an attempt to have the party disbanded. The newly appointed Vice Chair (appointed by the chair) knew about the entire plot in 2013 as she was copied on all the emails that were sent and later claimed she “reads every email” although she denied it at the time. Due to the bylaws being written in a way that would exclude special election, both of these people will be in office until 2017 to finish out the terms that were vacated.
At this time I have no faith that the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Florida can function as an effective organization. The state party has shown a repeated bias towards my affiliate and has now shown that this bias is not only against my county affiliate but against my entire region. For this reasons and the complete illegality of the appointments as well as the abandonment of Libertarian principles of the state party officers, I will have no part of nor any affiliation with any organization that is a part of this legally defunct and ethically offensive organization.
The “Party of Principle” no longer exists and I for one will not stand by and lend my name to what has been left in it’s place.
Danielle Alexandre
Thanks for the update.
A quick follow up. The Chair asked the DOE if the process he used was legal. They responded by phone call
November 17, 2015:
“I just received a phone call from Liddia Strom, Assistant General Council at the Division of Elections.
She was unwilling to give any email or written response, thus I can only relay what was in the phone call. I’m going to paraphrase as best I can our brief conversation here.
Their office was unwilling to say if the LPF was in compliance or not, mostly based on FS 103.095 not defining the term “elect”. She did say she was keeping her comments only to FS 103.095 and other things may apply here. She did note that other requirements of FS 103.095 were covered, such as the 5 day notification of officer changes were in compliance.
I hope this will lay this issue to rest,”
Char-Lez Braden
Chairman
You would know better than me. The meeting seemed well handled from my perspective of limited knowledge and looking at the vast array of issues they had to deal with in one meeting and their seriousness.
This whole article is written by someone who hasn’t even been a party member for almost a year. I’m surprised IPR even posted this garbage.
Danielle was an awful treasurer. (I’m still waiting on those balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and statements of reconciliation). During her disservice, she repeated referred people to FEC filings to show the party’s finances. Ironic, considering most Libertarians believe the FEC should be abolished. The FEC report itself was so very basic it was hard to ascertain any pertinent information from it.
If anyone but Char-lez (and perhaps half of the other people in the party that Danielle doesn’t like) had been elected Chair, she wouldn’t have said anything.
The fact of the matter is that Char-lez did a great job of Chairing the meeting… despite the humongous shit storm of things happening leading up to it. Would I have done certain things differently — yes for sure. But that doesn’t take away the way he handled things.
And Danielle and other people crying about “we didn’t have a regional representative” to the meeting….well maybe at last year’s convention you could have elected someone who wasn’t a quitter. Plus, as was pointed out, that’s what the at-large representatives are for.
Danielle is the nastiest person I’ve ever dealt with in the LP. Her “sweet but fair” demeanor never fooled me. She has alienated dozens of good hard working activists, members, and donors. I’m glad she’s no longer in a position to continue her witch hunts.
This may sound like a brash personal attack but it’s the truth. And sometimes the truth hurts.
Chuck, I did listen, but was concentrating on the IA drama. I cannot say they explicitly agreed to this manner but they didn’t disagree, and proceeded with it. It might be interesting to go back and relisten.
Like I said, I was just relying on what was said in this thread. I did not listen to the audio of the meeting. If a majority of the EC voted to conduct the appointment in that manner, then it’s fine.
But the Chair didn’t unilaterally decide. The EC approved the decision. I don’t have an issue with your interpretation (in fact, it is the one that I think best–your post was very helpful in clarifying the issue) but I also do not think the one done is entirely unreasonable. I certainly do not think it merits the drama accorded by the author.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
See page 467 of RORN 11th ed. for general rules on filling vacancies. Unless specified otherwise the body that elects/appoints also has the power to fill vacancies — except that if bylaws grant full power and authority to an executive board between meetings of the assembly and there is no explicit bylaw about vacancies, then the executive board can fill vacancies. In this case that is not relevant because there is an explicit bylaw.
I think part of the confusion is with the word “appoint” vs. “elect”. Often these words are used interchangeably, but sometimes people confer meaning on using “appoint” instead of “elect”. I think when some people see the word “appoint” they think of that power being vested in a single person — like the President appointing ambassadors or judges, which in the U.S. happens with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s not actually what “appoint” means. Appointment is vesting someone with a job or role. Appointment authority may be given to a body larger than a single person — and often is.
Why not use the word “elect”? Election occurs when the body that selects someone for a job or role is a large community. It makes complete sense to use the word “elect” for selecting people in convention and “appoint” for selecting people by the board or EC. In this context I believe the word “appoint” indicates that the body doing the selection for vacancies is not the large community of a convention, even though the positions being filled are ordinarily elected in convention.
See page 492-496 of RONR 11th ed. for a discussion of appointment of committees. (This is an analogy only, as it wouldn’t apply to appointments filling vacancies of chair, vice-chair, etc.) Note lines 13-15 of page 492 “In an assembly or organization that has not prescribed in its bylaws or rules how the members of its committees shall be selected”. The list of possible appointment methods only applies in the absence of a rule. But many of those appointment methods conflict with the explicit rule that the Executive Committee appoints — the chair appointing for example would be a direct conflict. Even if they did not conflict with the bylaws, RONR still makes clear that the appointment method is decided by unanimous consent or majority vote, not by the chair unilaterally deciding or by custom.
I would interpret (a) exactly as the text reads: the appointing authority is the Executive Committee. Therefore the executive committee makes nominations and votes on those nominations.
Tom Knapp wrote:
I’m not familiar with all the facts of this particular situation and I haven’t read the LPF bylaws in their entirety recently. Based only on what I’ve read in this thread though I get the impression that there was a tradition which was never voted on properly, and thus is totally irrelevant. Custom falls to the ground when any member of the body raises a point of order about a conflict with the bylaws.
See page 19 of RONR 11th ed. on custom.
The EC could adopt a procedure that delegates the appointment power (or part of the appointment power, such as nomination) for one particular appointment to another body like the chair or a nominating committee (absent bylaws provisions that prohibit such delegation). The EC cannot delegate the appointment power in one circumstance or in many repeated circumstances and assume it stays delegated forever by custom without voting to adopt a special rule of order.
There were nominations. I asked people on a Facebook page to submit their name and desired position to the Chair, the EC recruited people, and an email to the membership went out. Two days before the meeting there were two people who wanted to be Chair, four people who wanted to be vice chair, and a new volunteer for secretary.
There was a question of how the vacancies would be filled. After studying the question, the Chair announced the day before the meeting that he would continue to use the appoint and confirm method. He relied on the bylaws to support his decision that an election was not required. There was no objection to his choice
Remember he moved from being the Secretary to Acting Chair, in a very short span of time. He suddenly had to sort out the process, ask and receive information from the DOE, figure out who was doing what, find people to fill those vacancies, and deal with other motions, including a rare motion to suspend a membership. He was given 5 days to accomplish this.
In the meantime, key candidates were switching parties, a big affiliate left and several others threatened to, EC members were resigning, and he was being flooded with applications to fill vacant Rep positions that needed to be sorted through. At one point, someone suggested that they needed a spreadsheet to keep track of the activity.
The normal agenda was set aside and as much work as he could achieve was added to the meeting. He did drop appointing Reps from the agenda. There was just too much to work through there and no time to do it. By the time of the meeting there were 5 Representative positions vacant. Danielle’s region had a lot of company, but they were the only one that thought they were inappropriately represented. They, in fact, were represented though the three at-large Reps. Those Reps could have had their concerns addressed for them, but none of them were asked.
All in all, given what had to be done, Char-Lez and the entire EC did a really good job keeping the LPF together. They should be given a lot of credit for that.
I missed some comments… but Tom made the same point I was thinking on “c.”
Hmm still not getting notifications…
Chuck,
How would you interpret (a)? I am not disagreeing, I am just wondering. I don’t see a big problem with (c)… which is what happened. But I would like to hear your thoughts. The bylaws are what is at issue though.. AFAIAC and not the statute.
That sounds about right.
Paulie,
That’s a hard question to answer. I listened to the EC meeting (it was a conference call). My read of what was going on was that a few people had heartburn with both the procedure and the candidates, but that they didn’t particularly care to rock the boat at that time.
Why? I can only guess, just like I’m guessing above.
The chair had just resigned. The vice chair had just resigned. The media was full of goat-sacrificing Roman Sun God stuff.
My guess it that the general attitude was “even if I am unhappy with some of the specifics, right now is not the time for a brawl — let’s just get this business done and over with and save the arguments for another time.”
If that guess is right, well, yes, there may be negative consequences, some of them as yet unfelt. On the other hand, I can certainly understand why some would feel that way. If there were daggers going into backs and agendas being pushed forward or suppressed and so forth, I could not tell, but like I said — that’s because I don’t know the players or the issues inside LPF yet.
If there was significant support for other candidates among EC members why did they not object to the procedure, or why did not more of them object to the candidates who were appointed?
Chuck,
You write:
“However, it is unreasonable for a chair to come up with and implement such a procedure without the EC approving that procedure in a vote.”
I agree.
When I heard what the intended procedure was and responded (on an LPF-related Facebook page) that, in my opinion, it should be a standard election scenario, the main answer was “well, how we’ve always done it is the chair appoints, the committee confirms.”
I did not investigate that claim and have no idea whether or not it’s true, but if it is true, then presumably at some point in the past the EC discussed how it was to be done and either formally or informally agreed to it.
I did not know, at the time, of the representation issues Ms. Alexandre brings up in this post, and those concern me. I’ve not been around LPF long enough to know the people on the EC, to know whether or not conspiracies and plots were afoot in this matter, etc.
So, I treated it as a minor thing, when I suppose it might be a major thing.
Whatever IS going on, I hope that the LPF can hang together and move forward. As a long-time and fairly experienced party in-fighter, I suspect that as time goes on I’ll more closely study the LPF’s internal situation, form opinions, take sides, duke it out, etc. But I’m not looking forward to it being an ongoing brawl and hope it won’t be.
They could have objected and voted against that procedure.
Tom Knapp wrote:
Yes, it would be reasonable for the EC to come up with such a procedure on the fly or in a policy manual.
However, it is unreasonable for a chair to come up with and implement such a procedure without the EC approving that procedure in a vote.
TLK @ 2:43 pm makes sense.
See my next comment after that one. Duh.
Paulie:
“Is anyone else besides Caryn subscribing to email notifications of new comments on IPR threads and then not getting them?”
If we weren’t paying close attention, how would we know?
Chuck,
I agree that a and b are not equivalent at all.
However, unless a (or some parliamentary authority of resort like RONR, to be applied due to the lack of a’s clarity) specifies the MANNER in which the executive committee appoints, it seems to me that there’s plenty of room for c.
The executive committee might appoint people by having a committee vet and nominate candidates and then voting on those candidates.
The executive committee might do c — ask the chair to nominate candidates, and then vote on whether or not to appoint them.
Hell, the executive committee might decide to tear a random page out of the phone book, cut it into individual names, and then vote to appoint whoever’s name gets drawn.
In all three cases, the executive committee would, in fact, be appointing.
My strong PREFERENCE, which I intuit a plain reading of a to refer to, and which I did in fact recommend prior to the meeting, is that a standard election should be held — all executive members free to nominate and second candidates, the executive committee voting on all candidates nominated and seconded according to some pre-agreed scheme, whether it’s approval voting, multiple rounds with elimination, whatever.
But that’s just my strong PREFERENCE based on an intuitive reading and on my own valuation of keep process open. I don’t like c much, but it’s not “ridiculous” on its face.
I realize, of course, that the people who I may want to hear from on that may not see this, but maybe some of them will.
Is anyone else besides Caryn subscribing to email notifications of new comments on IPR threads and then not getting them?
There is a difference between the following 3 bylaws provisions:
a) The Executive Committee shall fill vacancies by appointment.
b) The Chair shall fill vacancies by appointment.
c) The Chair shall fill vacancies by appointment, confirmed by the Executive Committee.
Interpreting the language of (a) as if it were (b) or (c) is ridiculous.
Hi, Caryn — can you hear me now?
testing to see if I get email notifications… can someone please comment?
And as I know this is coming – yes – same thing in Oregon. No, Wagner didn’t follow the group’s bylaws – I have always had an issue with that but that us for Oregonian libertarians to resolve. Not the LNC
Lynn I tend to agree with everything you just said.
I use the weasel word “tend” because I seriously hate sticking my nose in an affiliate’s business.
I find, however, the Libertarian High Drama to be so over the top. I don’t know the characters, but I listened to the whole meeting and know some of them. I have some familiarity with this part of the bylaws….. Calling anything that happened North Korean just seems out of line.
These are imperfect voluntary organizations with agreed upon rules. Absolute ground-up elections on everything might seem to be the libertarian way in a virgin context. But the context here is an existing organization with rules agreed upon by the libertarians that started it and it survived through conventions etc in which it could be changed.
Lynn confirmed that the elections staff understood the statute the way it was intended- but despite that, as far as libertarians go- the bylaws tell us how to run a group – not the state.
Please pretend I edited the previous post for punctuation and spacing errors that appeared only after I posted. Jk
When this question first came up, this is the opinion I offered:
“Regarding the question of how the EC filled the vacancies on the board.. I guess there’s still some questions about that.
In a letter from the DOE, they said we had 5 days to ‘appoint” someone.
Not elect – appoint
“If you are unable to timely appoint replacement officers, the division will begin proceedings to cancel the party’s filings as set forth in rule.”
Our bylaws has the poorly worded. B. The Executive Committee shall fill vacancies by appointment.
Robert’s says do what your bylaws say.”
There are 6 ways to fill a vacancy by appointment, one of them is similar to what we have always done
(Danielle as Treasurer was an exception) which is for the Chair to appoint and the EC to confirm that appointment. It’s not as though the chair worked in a dictatorial vacuum, the EC confirmed his appointments and there were “no” votes to one of his appointments.
I always consider Danielle’s opinion. She is a brilliant woman, but I’m thinking she didn’t have all the facts in this instance. .
For what it’s worth…
If the bylaws specify something other than the “law”- then Libertarians have the right to choose that. Same thing I said in Oregon. Of course they may have consequences, but voluntary organizations can do that.
I also do not find it persuasive to say that a Court will merely follow the brute wording when there is reason to believe that was not the intent.
I find it highly problematic to say a law trumps the bylaws.
Joe, the executive committee could have asked for nominations and made sure that as Large a gathering of the party as possible could participate in the selection to avoid looking like an autocratic organization or they could behave like an autocratic organization.
I agree with Austin’s and Matt’s sentiments.
I’m with Austin.
I’ll also say this, as I’ve said a few times recently – over the last couple years, a few people in the LPF warned us that the “party leaders” with giant egos and delusions of grandeur were running the party into the ground. As it turns out, they were right.
This is a silly food fight between a handful of people who’ve had a falling out. None of this matters and all involved ought to just move on and stop firing these final shots at each other.
It accomplishes nothing. That’s the truth.
What ever the fine print says. Disallowing as much participation as is reasonably possible is not a libertarian ideal.
It is what Caesars would do. So how are we to tell you apart?
@ Knapp,
In your scenario, who would preside over the EC and put forward potential appointees? Common sense would dictate the Acting Chair. If the EC did not approve of an appointee, they can still vote down an appointee and the process would start again. For practical purposes, it is the same thing.
“The Division of Elections is going to say that the provision I mentioned is only for the FORMATION of a minor party. However, the law does not specify.”
However on an issue like, idk, a law requiring a driver’s license to drive, the government is pretty clear; but of course the candidate (whose campaign you managed) actually broke. So, in the world you are laying out, violating the so-called “spirit of the law” when following the LPF’s Bylaws is a far greater offense than when a gubernatorial candidate actually breaks the law. Again, hypocrisy and sour grapes.
Read that section you quoted again, Joe.
It says that the executive committee fills vacancies by appointment.
It does not say that the chair fills vacancies by appointment, subject to approval of the executive committee.
There’s a difference.
MORE TRUTH
This is the only comment I am going to clear some of the misconceptions up.
Obvioulsy Mr. Wendt did not read the article. Since I made it very clear that I was not appointed. I was elected. From the article:
“I was not appointed, as many had said the treasurer should be. I knew the statute was clear and asked the chair to hold an election with NOTA being an option and opening the floor for other nominees. There was none and NOTA did not prevail, and subsequently I was elected. It was the first time the party had to deal with the new statute and it was dealt with legally. I made sure of it.”
The Division of Elections is going to say that the provision I mentioned is only for the FORMATION of a minor party. However, the law does not specify. So that could have been what they “wanted” it to say but it is not what the wording actually says. In fact, nowhere in the entire statute does it specify that it is for creation only. So if a court challenge was made a judge would very likely rule that the party was wrong. The Division of Elections has the authority to enforce the laws but not to interpret. Only a judge can interpret the laws.
My issue is not even as much that they broke the law. I think that is an issue of “spirit of the law” vs. “letter of the law” but I hold the Libertarian Party to a higher standard. We are Libertarians. We don’t believe that one person should have that much power but one person just appointed nearly the entire EC. Not because no one else wanted the positions but because he wanted to win.
Think about if we went to the National Convention and the chair decided unilaterally that NOTA is no longer an option. Would we, as Libertarians, stand for that? Of course not. Not because there is a law that demands NOTA be an option but because as Libertarians it’s a fundamental principle.
What I saw was a person who, in 2013, used someone else’s login information to download party information and send it to someone else not authorized to have it, who also made it clear that he was trying to have the party disbanded, appoint himself as the chair of the party. The appointment was made while several others were interested in the position. Then appointed his co-conspirator in the 2013 ordeal as Vice Chair even though others were interested in that position and she likely would not have won if he had not appointed her. This person also appointed the new Secretary and can now appoint 7 (possibly more) regional representatives. All the while denying representation to the one region (who also is home to 20% of their members in state with 14 regions) that would have objected.
That is not an elected board any longer. It is a dictatorship. This is a board nearly majority “installed” at the whim of one person. I didn’t leave because they broke the law or did not break the law (although I would stand by the assertion that it was a violation). I no longer will work to build an organization that feels that totalitarian rule is acceptable. It was the reason why I joined the Libertarian Party nearly 16 years ago. If this is the what the “Party of Principle” has become than I define that word quite differently from them and for that reason, I do not feel this is my party any longer.
I hope that clears at least some of the things up.
TRUTH
Rolling my eyes at this idiotic letter. So, she has a problem with the Acting Chair obeying the LPF bylaw Article 2 which state:
“Section 2 Executive Committee
Election of Executive Committee Officers. The Chair, Vice-Chair and odd numbered Directors-at-large shall be elected in odd numbered years. The Secretary, Treasurer, and even numbered Directors-at-large shall be elected in even numbered years and in 2001. Regional Representatives shall be elected at the Annual Business Meeting and shall serve for a period of one (1) year. These Executive Committee members shall take office upon the close of the Annual Business Meeting and serve thereafter until the final adjournment of the Annual Business Meeting at which their terms expire.
A. No offices shall be combined.
B. The Executive Committee shall fill vacancies by appointment.”
It’s amazing how she did not have a problem with the bylaws when she was appointed to the EC by Wyllie. I smell hypocrisy and sour grapes.
NASDAQ not NSADAX….
I am reasonably sure that businesses also screw up from a top down management style. Those that do so repeatedly lose support. Lose investment. There is plenty of back stabbings in the corporate world. But, here in the US, we have two dominant political parties, two also run parties and not much else. But, on the NYSE and NASDAX we have about 4000 corporations. For businesses that aren’t publicly traded or are penny stocks,we have about 200,000 in the US. So lots of room for competing for my investment votes. Not so many for my political vote.
So if you want my vote….. earn it.
Sorry, it sounded like you were expressing a universal principle on the other thread:
That’s why all those other examples occurred to me.
Paulie,
Political parties are different beasts then business corporations.
So the two groups I am highly suspect of if they are organized top down are political parties and churches. My religious affiliation is none… I was raised Unitarian and they are too structured for me.
If the party doesn’t trust me to participate in selecting the candidates and instead selects the candidates via back room deals in non-transparent ways, why should I trust these candidates to not run the government in the same way?
With businesses, I vote on the competency of the management and their teams they put together to create new things. With business and markets I can rapidly pull my investment from one and put it into another. With business, they can screw up my investment but they can’t arbitrarily lock me up.
Businesses earn trust by performance. Political parties must do the same. For a small party to grow it has to demonstrate to its market that it can be trusted while not having significant government participation. Their opportunity is in how they run their own party.
In terms of how open and transparent the decision making of the Libertarian Party through the LNC and state executive committees have been would you describe the LNC has being any better then the Democratic Party or Republican Party? Would you say that the Florida Libertarian Party Executive Committee demonstrated trusty worthiness in their recent changes. If they didn’t would you want them to be trusted with picking the party candidates?
steve m,
All sorts of organizations appoint boards to make decisions at different levels. Corporations have board and shareholders meetings, which are the equivalents of exec comms and conventions. Churches, civic organizations, nonprofits – all have their equivalent. It’s completely rational, because people have a lot of different things they are involved with at different levels, and have different levels of time they want to devote to studying some things so they delegate that to the people they elect to make some of those decisions.
You say you won’t participate in a party where the exec comm or convention picks the candidates. Why candidates and not every other decision of the party? Do you take the same point of view with your investments and other civic organizations/participation? Given that not all states have LP primaries, how would you even manage this at the national level? In fact, how can you vote at all, since some decisions are relegated to congress, legislatures and executive and legislative branches rather than a direct vote of all the people? How can we tolerate a system that even has primaries…shouldn’t the decisions be up to all the people? You can extend your logic to some remarkable conclusions.
not allowing the region with a significant number of lpf members not have representation in the meeting that was selecting the replacement state chair is exactly what I mean by shenanigans..
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/10/northwest-florida-libertarian-party-disavows-augustus-sol-invictus-as-libertarian-candidate-for-u-s-senate/#comment-1258127
What Andy Craig said.
As for the rest of it, my general opinion is that people care way too much about who is or isn’t on a state party cmte. It’s not unimportant, but it isn’t nearly as important as candidate campaigns and local affiliates. That’s where the action is. The party is all the people in it, not just the internal functionaries responsible for keeping the lights on, so to speak. And I say that as an officer of my state party, who regards that position as little more than a necessity so we can do the things we all want to do: which is run Libertarian candidates and build up active local Libertarian organizations.
So I’m generally unimpressed with “I’m leaving the party because the state cmte. broke By-Law 7.1 and didn’t follow RONR!” type announcements. That’s a piss-poor reason to leave the party, even if it’s true. I’ll grant there’s a lot more going on than just that in LPF, but if drama on your state cmte. can upend the whole party, then your party was too heavily centered around the state cmte. to begin with.
I don’t know if it’s relevant, but I’m not sure that law she’s talking about is actually enforceable. There is a similar statute on the books here in Wisconsin that mandates the structure of our state cmte. (i.e., reps elected by cong. dist), and state and local affiliates, etc. We were greatly relieved, when Richard Winger informed us such laws have been struck down by the courts, because LPWI has the right to govern itself as it sees fit.
Does Richard Burke have a second home in Florida?
Now that’s interesting. In the run-up to the meeting, when it was announced that the acting chair would appoint and the committee confirm, I actually brought up the very point that Ms. Alexandre makes here (that there should be an election, not appointments/confirmations). I brought it up based on the language of the bylaws, not state law. I was gently disagreed with and chose not to make a big huge hairy deal out of it (because I am new to LPF, do not serve on the executive committee, and do not have any kind of handle on the history Ms. Alexandre mentions). Maybe I should have been a little more strident.
Commenting to subscribe