I like Nick, a lot, as a friend and as a public spokesman for the party. At the same time, I like a lot of what Brett has done in Nevada and the direction he wants to take the party in, organizationally, as well as his reform/modernization attitude towards LNC operations. This will be a difficult decision for me. I’m not willing to endorse either over the other at this time, but I’d be happy to work with either of them (and I have spoken to both of them about their plans). I’ve been less impressed with Rutherford’s campaign so far, but he does bring some relevant experience and credentials to the table, too.
I guess what I’m getting at, is that we have good choices to pick from in Orlando, and that’s great.
Commenting to subscribe.
So far I’m aware of three candidates — Nick Sarwark for re-election (I’ve endorsed him), Mark Rutherford, and Mr. Pojunis.
Hopefully between now and the convention, we can get them stacked up against each other in debate, or at least by resume.
Since I’ve endorsed Nick, I’ll leave it up to others to ask him any hard questions they may have.
My first two questions for Mr. Pojunis would have to start with some past projects of his.
1) How much money did the LNC invest in “Double the LP,” a program you heavily promoted and seem to have been the prime mover in? What goals were set, were those goals achieved, and if so were the achievements commensurate with the cost?
2) At the last LNC meeting, there was discussion of a dun for unpaid bills from the Las Vegas hotel at which the “LPEX” was held. My impression is that you were a key player, if not THE key player, in running that event (you’re listed as the registrant and admin contact for the domain name LPEX.org). What’s the story on that? Were there unpaid bills? If so, why … and how did the LNC come to be seen by the hotel as responsible for those bills?
Also commenting to subscribe.
And don’t forget the money that he talked the LNC into giving him — can’t recall if it was $35K or $50K — for which he was going to instantly (ok, 9 weeks) write a complete replacement system for Raiser’s Edge. HA!
The money was returned, but it was a fight.
I don’t trust Pojunis. I have seen a number of reasons over the years to not trust him and have never been given a reason TO trust him.
Has he made progress in Nevada? Sure. But considering how decimated their state party was, the only way to go was up. But he does deserve credit for pushing for change.
Does that make him a good candidate for national chair? The job of national chair is a heck of a lot different from being a state or county chair. There is no comparison.
I’ll continue to support Sarwark. I know he does a good job, and Brett is still a bit new as a leader. I would certainly vote for Brett over Rutherford, though.
I wonder if we’ll have anyone else join the race.
Ninety percent of what u know about Brett is stuff I’ve been told by others. Very little of it good. Opinions of him that I’ve heard, from people that I trust, range from incompetent to fraudster.
I’ll continue to support Sarwark for at least one more term. I’ll need to see a turnaround of this declining membership and fundraising in the next term though.
I also like Nick, and I’m certainly supporting him and recommending him to our state delegation. But no matter who we elect as chair, we need regional representatives and at-large members of the board who are not as polarized as the last several boards have been.
I’m not saying that everyone on the board is a bad choice. There are several members that I respect highly and that I believe try to work through the issues. But there are a number of people who do not belong on the board of any organization, and certainly not the board of a political party.
The at-large and judicial elections are Monday morning. I am not planning on leaving until the final bang of the gavel. Hopefully enough sensible people will be there Monday to stop the insanity we’ve been living with.
“The at-large and judicial elections are Monday morning. I am not planning on leaving until the final bang of the gavel. Hopefully enough sensible people will be there Monday to stop the insanity we’ve been living with.”
I’ve attended 5 Libertarian National Conventions, and I hate to say this, but the elections remind me of student council elections. Most of the delegates are not really well informed on the candidates, or their actual records (not their rhetoric, but what they have actually done in office), and a lot of the voting seems to be based on cronyism, name recognition, and over-inflated reputations, which are not exactly the best reasons for vote for anybody.
I can say that I voted for several LNC members who went on to severely disappoint me after they obtained office.
I imagine that stuff like this goes on in all of the political parties as well as some other organizations (but of course if it were a business that had to make a profit to stay in business, and it operated in this manner, that business would not stay in business very long), but still, I would have expected more out of the Libertarian Party.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that Libertarians are great people for the most part (with very few exceptions), and I think that Libertarians are better on philosophy and issues than any other segment of the population (in general), but this does not mean that there is not lots of room for improvement in the way that the Libertarian Party operates.
I can’t disagree with your assessment. I’ve had the same thing happen a few times. I pay a lot more attention to who is running for the JC than I used to!
A big part of the problem is that there is usually next to zero campaigning done pre-convention for any of the positions other than the officers. And, even then, there’s often not much done for the officers other than Chairman.
Nobody even knows who’s running for most of the stuff until the nominations open. I think a lot of the candidates don’t even know they’re going to run until they get drunk on the early evenings of the convention and their friends urge them to do it…..or, something like that.
True. Many decide at the convention, after they see who elso is still there on Monday.
I know that I will not be running for anything. Being a state chair in a small state is enough of a job for anyone.
I won’t being going to the convention but if Bret screams as loudly as he did in Vegas I’ll be able to hear everything here in Washington.
No more WAR.
Wasn’t there just an new LNC meeting on Monday? Some of us will be heading home Monday morning.
Yes, the LNC will meet right after the convention adjourns.
The theory behind convention scheduling seems to be this:
Most delegates will be able to be there AT LEAST on Saturday and Sunday.
Quite a few will be able to be there on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and even perhaps Monday.
Some won’t be able to be there on Thursday, Friday or Monday, but there’s enough business to get done that the convention really needs to cover those days, and the people who are involved or interested in the early committee work (Thursday) or the post-presidential-nomination stuff (Monday) are just going to have to block out enough time on their calendars to be there.
It sucks for some people, but that’s how it is. A national convention is a pretty big deal, and it takes time.
Personally, instead of scheduling for holiday weekends when airlines and hotels are busiest, I wish they would schedule a convention to run from Monday to Friday of a non-holiday week.
MAYBE not as many people would be able to attend. Or maybe more would, because it would be at a time when everyone else where they work wants vacation too.
And the weekend at both ends of the convention could be travel time or additional socializing time.
Like I said, a national convention is a big deal. If you’re not willing or able to take a full week of vacation from work, I understand, but hey, that’s the breaks. It’s probably actually easier to take that full non-holiday week than it is to take most or all of a holiday week, starting in the middle of the previous week.
March 18, 2016 at 18:38
A big part of the problem is that there is usually next to zero campaigning done pre-convention for any of the positions other than the officers. And, even then, there’s often not much done for the officers other than Chairman.
March 18, 2016 at 18:40
Nobody even knows who’s running for most of the stuff until the nominations open. I think a lot of the candidates don’t even know they’re going to run until they get drunk on the early evenings of the convention and their friends urge them to do it…..or, something like that.”
Yes, these things are a part of the problem. It would be nice if more candidates announced that they were running prior to the convention so delegates had time to find out more about them before the convention voting took place.
Another problem is that the people who get elected are not really held accountable for living up to their campaign promises, or much of anything else for that matter. I’d like to see a list of campaign promises made for each candidate, and then if elected, I’d like to see an evaluation as to whether or not they lived up to each campaign promise. Now I understand that given the nature of committees, it may not be possible to get every campaign promise enacted, but even so, I’d like to see some evidence that the committee members at least TRIED to live up to each campaign promise made, as in committee member ______________ (insert name) made the following proposal (fill in proposal) to the LNC on _________ (fill in date), but a majority of the committee voted it down.
There should also be some parameters set to judge the success of the LNC. Has the party grown in membership since the last national convention? Has fundraising gone up or down since the last national convention? What has the committee accomplished since the last national convention? Etc…
After attending 5 Libertarian National Convention, and talking to lots of delegates, it is my contention that most delegates can’t answer any of these questions, and that they vote based on superficial criteria, like name recognition, and not based on who is actually getting the party ahead.
Short takes: Pojunis comes across like a bro. I find him extremely unappealing. Nick comes across like a really thoughtful, kind, intelligent, telegenic leader. Rutherford seems a bit rumpled, but my problems with him are his allies and political ideology, not his self-presentation.
As an observer, I have seen Brett Pojunis work up close on more than several occasions. Simply put, he is a dogged and tireless worker who deserves a great deal of thanks from all of us. We are all lucky to have him on our side.
Mr. Pojunis belongs on the LNC. He is a go-getter. He is a leader. He has put forward an amazing amount of effort and garnered significant successes.
Conversely, in my not-so-humble opinion, Brett Pojunis is not the right man for Chair of the LNC. That makes me feel bad to say because I admire his work and I want him to feel appreciated. As it is, the problem is not with Mr. Pojunis himself, it is in how we have culturally developed and it is demonstrated as a gross disparity for how the role of Chair plays out for it’s purpose.
If you read all of Robert’s Rules (not just the cheat-sheet version of the rule set, but also the important guidance for how and when to apply the rules) the Chair of an executive committee is not meant to be a leader. By design that role is specifically a referee and a position of highest trust for the organization as a whole. The person who takes that position is charged with making sure the purpose and integrity of the whole organization is defended; that all constituents are fairly represented in the conduction of business.
The right person for Chair is the FAIREST person in the room, the most trusted by all. A go-getter intent on realizing a vision is conversely the worst sort of person to do that job. A high energy get-it-done type of person would be constrained and rendered useless in such a role. Either they would have to drop all of their activities or inevitably they would be viewed as being obstructive to others with differing views.
If our culture were healthy, Mr. Pojunis would avoid positions like Chair because the necessary constraint on the position would fetter his goals.
This problem is not one that Mr. Pojunis is responsible for. In this thread alone I have counted numerous instances of criticizing Mr. Pojunis’s hard work in ways that are plainly unfair. Allusions to wrongdoing without evidence are leveled and that tactic is pure poison and deeply skirting fraud. Politics as usual in the world of mainstream parties – anathema to a true party where the ethic of the NAP is the core principle.
There is way too much Schadenfreude around the LNC. The participants raise my ire far more than a go-getter who did not meet an ambitious goal. I am far more respectful of Mr. Pojunis and his hard work – his impressive attempts at growing the party – his successful promotion of our organization – than I am at the venomous rancor the peanut gallery consistently throws at hard working activists.
Overall, this dysfunctional attitude forces ambitious and successful people into seeking positions of perceived power. In what is a reasonable and expected reaction, they seek defense in titles and fine hats. For our purpose, this culture is specifically destructive. The worst part of this culture is manifest in these tragic criticisms posted above. Frankly it turns my stomach in disgust.
Mr. Pojunis deserves nothing but respect for his hard work regardless of return. This ubiquitous desire to turn every success upside down is sick. It is aggressive. It is corrosive and serves no purpose but to evoke the worst of human nature in the audience addressed: The want to see someone held high, brought low. This is why our conventions, and our meetings are far more concentrated on division than coalition. Too many seem intent on the promotion of a Roman Holiday for their own entertainment than creating an environment for winning.*
If you are going to criticize someone running for Chair do it on an axis that is germane to the race and the role. There is one place where I am deeply concerned about Mr Pojunis as chair beyond the fact that the position would destroy his ability to do his greatest work.
Mr. Pojunis has expressed a a desire to eliminate the NAP. The NAP is the one defining statement of purpose in our organization. It is sacrosanct. You cannot be chair and at the same time disrespect the definition of the organization you are charged with maintaining.
If you want to criticize Mr. Pojunis’s trajectory against the role he seeks: Do it where it counts and keep it real. That way there is a path for growth and reconciliation, and you do not hazard treading into amoral behavior yourself.
*Granted, it is literally the Ides of March, but please people… We are not the Senate and we should not be inculcating in ourselves a paradigm where our Generals are motivated to become Caesar in order to feed their troops.
With shame I would like to point out that I misspelled Mr. Pujonis’s name in the above comment. At least I was consistent. Both are weaknesses of mine that an edit button would really help alleviate… I’m just saying…
I was in the room, on the committee. I saw what he did. Pojunis cannot be trusted. He also suckered the LSLA into giving him around $6,000 for the “opportunity” to do fundraising. HA! Money washed down the drain for an event filled with GOP operatives and training sessions.
Those of us who have been around know him for what he is. I wouldn’t trust him on the LNC. He’s proven that he will go for whatever he can take us for. Cloud is the same way. Neither will ever get my support to sit on the board again.
Perhaps it is time to recruit Chuck Moulton. What he lacks in social charisma, he more than makes up in intellect, problem solving, and systems management.
I also believe it would be a great way to begin his US Presidential Campaign. Perhaps not in 2020 race, but if he can prove himself as a leader for the LNC and fix the fundraising, state party in-fighting, and candidate recruitment issues, he would have a great advantage when he did decide to declare himself for the nomination.
Chuck needs some “meat” on his resume. Currently, it is too academic. What he has done in Virginia and how that ended can be used as proof of his maturation.
Just my opinion now that LINO’s have/will get the nomination for: 2008, 2012, and 2016.
Were you to laying out some actual evidence of malfeasance I would be very interested in a complete and coherent outline of facts for consideration. But I would be careful of doing damage to people with less.
If you are simply pointing out that he tried and failed, I would call that infinitely better than him doing nothing and succeeding.
Exactly what percentage of the total LNC budget is 6,000 BTW. Did it break the bank or was it a reasonable risk? Were there other less tangible gains made from the effort?
Were you, or projects you materially support, competing for a share of where those funds were allocated?
I would like to reiterate that I am especially unhappy with a near epidemic of pathological accusations that skirt fraud coming out of the national party operations. This politicing for position in and around the LNC is not excusable against the NAP. I can tell just from your tone, tenor and use of emotional pleas that your purpose is to harm a taget, not to pose a fair illustration for people to consider for themselves. If it is really just you and your friends who know this “secret”, how exactly are the rest of us served by public unfounded accusations?
If true, with this sort of expose, we are all weakened by potential liability for a display that has no teeth that would darken any attempt at . If false, it is an egregious violation of the NAP.
Either way, only evil is given strength by your report. I recommend you back it up… or back it down.
If there is real peril here, you should concentrate your energies on gathering and presenting real evidence in a forum that will make a difference. Right here, right now, you are pissing on allies in public and it is quite unseemly.
“Mr. Pojunis has expressed a a desire to eliminate the NAP.”
I missed that one. Is there a linkable source? Link?
“Exactly what percentage of the total LNC budget is 6,000 BTW. Did it break the bank or was it a reasonable risk? Were there other less tangible gains made from the effort?”
Apparently you don’t know the difference between the Libertarian National Committee and the entirely independent Libertarian State Leadership Alliance. The $6,000 was from the LSLA, not the LNC, and it was most of their money.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Google: Nevada Libertarian NAP produces:
CP, the document you just shared is quite interesting. Was this from the convention the LP NV just had? Were these changes approved? You can contact me privately if you want to: email@example.com.
Heat? Fire? If you are going to violate the NAP and damage people, get ready for a bucket of water. No fraud, no violence. Those are the rules.
I hope you are not mistaking my weakness for kindness Mr. Phillies. I am not making a plea in defense or on behalf of Mr. Pujonis; We don’t exactly exchange birthday gifts. I could give a shit except for the good parts of moving freedom forward that he represents. I am sticking my pseudonym claoocked but not anonymous neck out for a principle. Unless challenged by person or in personal point I see no reason to personalize any of it if principle stands.
I am making an accusation toward the general strategy of misfraternization. I am blaming poor social skills and very poor examples being set by the very people we are trying to deny offices of power by engaging the electoral process. These tactics are anti-NAP and I am calling on it.
There have been plenty of times Mr. Pujonis has been the recipient of similar abstract but biting counsel for similar reasons. I’ve been the recipient of that counsel too. The counsel of our allies is what keeps us honest, even on recurring occasion when ambition turned to conceit misdirects our easily distracted perceptions.
The reason we should want to play strictly within the NAP is that it provides justice without prejudice. The reason we should not want to play loosely with much more outside of the NAP at any scale, is it retires our credibility.
Got truth? Use sunshine.
Got angst? My advice is that you let it go – or crawl into a dark hole and eat it.
Play nice – It is pro-NAP
I have little use for anonymous attackers or anonymous supporters.
Nothing can be verified with either.
The best way to keep up with the Pojunis campaign is by reading his official blog at http://pojunis.com/blog
Steve M, when it comes to some sorta personal recommendation. I’d agree that doing so anonymously or with a pseudonym like you and I would be ridiculous. But for illustrating truth, its a decent if not beneficial device.
The things I like about Mr. Pojunis are all verifiable. He is valuable to movement and to our party.
The reasons I do not like him taking the role as chair are also valid. It would fetter him, the party or both.
When well formed and truthful, Logos, Ethos and Pathos stand on their own.
You also have those Memorial Day Parades on Monday that I’ll miss. We usually have have an entry.
It is easy to determine who I am. You just ask. Most regulars here know that my name is Stephen Meier formerly of Fremont Ca… currently of Federal Way WA.
Will you be so forth coming?
Steve M. I’ll stick with the pseudonym if it’s all the same to you. The viewing public at IPR tends to have a higher concentration of dangerously psychotic people than even 4chan does. Your curiosity is reasonable, but my desire for at least a veneer of safety feels more important to me.
I find your courage very inspiring.
Your insistence on learning people’s personal information on a web forum feels creepy. Do you always engage in this sorta behavior or was there something especially alluring about my writing style that made you want to get to know me better?
Put simply I do not want to get to know you. I have no interest in hooking up through IPR. No means no…
No really Calpurnia, I just think that anyone who claims personal knowledge of another person and writes a long discussion about the capabilities of another but is unwilling to demonstrate that their claims do come from knowledge should have their claims treated as fiction.
Back on subject, I am glad that this time Brett chose to announce well in advance rather than it appearing to be a last-minute decision like the run in Columbus.
I consider Nick, Brett and Mark R. to each be friends and allies in the fight against statism. There is plenty of work to go around, and a role for each of them in spreading the message of freedom and individual rights.
There is a simple reason why some people are so opposed to anonymity. It is because they often have trouble discussing issues in a substantive way, and thus, they rely on ad hominem arguments, in lieu of logical arguments. Anonymity deprives them of this crutch, and exposes their intellectual shortcomings.
Anonymous attacks or support claimed from secret knowledge which can’t be independently verified are simply worthless.
Real information can be verified. Rumours not so easily.
Steve M. I understand what you are asking for and why. Let’s start with the “what”
Brett Pojunis Accomplishments that I admire:
The Nevada Libertarian Party is rocking all sorts of people. Their facebook page is on fire. They have social activities in Las Vegas 4 or 5 times a month and committee meetings more often than that. Verifiable on facebook.
They recruited a standing State Assemblyman to the Party:
They have a very nice website… not as nice as the California Convention site… but very very nice. Professional artwork… good writing…
They keep up their media entries and have great professional copy on their press releases:
He paid for and hosted a convention for the State of California last year:
They held half of their convention this year at a brothel! The owner is running for office and they handle press well.
There’s a few… I have more things that I like about Mr. Pojunis’s work.
I don’t like that he advocates removing the NAP. (evidence of assertion provided several posts ago)
These are NOT rumors however… these are opinions and they were specifically expressed as opinon. What is rhetorically sad about it is that the only opinion that was expressed is that he was Mr. Pojunis was valuable, just like everyone else …well almost everyone. You are stuck on details of my post that weren’t even material to the point; the mention was an illustration. Its like trying to hold a discussion with Rain Man.
The point was that go-getters should not be chair. The right person for that position is the one without an agenda, someone ready to referee all the killer activists like I think Mr. Pojunis is. (opinion alert for the empathicly challenged)
Here I am having to provide “proof” to support my “opinion”… which leads me to the “why” you conflating the definition of rumor to justify demanding my identity:
You are obsessing in creepy ways.
By the reaction of your peers, I am guessing it is a chronic problem. Maybe if you had a friend to talk to?
Technically, the Northern convention venue was not a brothel. It was the Bunny Ranch Bar & Cigar, which is a family-style diner, bar, and cigar lounge.
“He paid for and hosted a convention for the State of California last year:
With $6K taken from the state leadership organization — the LSLA. As I said earlier, he’s very good at getting other people to lose money on his hair-brained ideas.
Pisonis, Insults by anonymous individuals are as use full as opinions by anonymous individuals.
Basically just cowardly trash.
Take a look at journalistic history. The Washington Post did not publish the Watergate Stories anonymously they put their name and repution behind everything they wrote. They did use sources that they knew but were anonymous to the readers. But everything they wrote they had secondary sources confirming.
I could give a dam as to who you are and less about your opinions, unless you make them openly.
“He paid for and hosted a convention for the State of California last year”
There are rumors that some of the hotel bill remains unpaid.
“There are rumors that some of the hotel bill remains unpaid.”
This was on the written agenda and discussed at the last LNC meeting. See:
George Phillies @ February 20, 2016 at 13:25 who wrote:
“There was an event held by unaffiliated LPEX. They apparently did not pay the bill for the event. They asked us about paying the bill. We answered in writing in advance that it was not our event; also, the people running it had no authority to enter into a contract on behalf of the LNC. They were reminded of this in writing , and have said nothing since.”
Brett Pojunis’s private business concerns are responsible for dealing with any hotel bills form LPEX. He may be involved in negotiations, he may be contesting their bill or who knows… not our business. The hotel trying to make it the LP’s business is the hotel being dishonest not Mr. Pojunis.
What is my concern is that he took the risk, he made it happen… Can anyone else on this forum, those whom seem ready to sling pejoratives especially, are you able to make that scale of claim? My understanding is that LPEX had more than $50,000 come out of pocket (that is a rumor). So come high.
Brett Pojunis is a valuable person in the LP. He has done a lot. Not all of it was done how I might do it, nor how you might (this is a contrasting statement for those who have trouble with context) but I do not know many others who have put more work into positive action for the LP than he. For this alone we should all be grateful he is on our side.
The only authority anyone has over Mr. Pojunis where criticism could be justly applied is how he represents you as a member of a committee constituted by you. In this case the LNC.
I am frankly surprised that ya’ll are concertrating on the trivia than the real meat:
A go getter should not be the Chair of the LNC, it should be the fairest person in the room. That person’s primary job is to be a referee not a driving force. Brett Pojunis seems like a driving force sort of person.
This NAP thing bothers me as well.
I will be posting an article re: the NV LP and the NAP later this evening. Stay tuned.
Will not have my vote.
“George Phillies @ February 20, 2016 at 13:25 who wrote:”
That is me liveblogging an event, not me having an opinion on whether or not what I heard people say was correct.
Its come to my attention that , as per unwritten protocol , the bullshit is in full fling-fest…. everyone is entitled to opinions, but there are a cpl things being lodged that I cant sit quietly for…The first is that Brett-his team and LPN “fell into ” any of its successes. nothing is further from the truth. As Stewart pointed out , LPN was decimated when he inherited it and he worked veryhard to wrestle it away from from the Silvestri regime. since then he has worked very hard and as of the last year in particular , he has put together a team of people so impressive , Id put them against anyones team in terms of time , energy and commitment.
To have fellow activists question the origin of others successes as anything other than hard work is particularly disappointing as all of us should know what a difficult and thankless job growing the LP can be
Libertarians , just an fyi concerning Brett and the LPNEVADA … its come to my attention that , as per unwritten protocol , the bullshit is in full fling-fest…. everyone is entitled to opinions, but there is one thing in particular being lodged that I cant sit quietly for…..it has to do with the “opinion” that Brett-his team and LPN “fell into ” any of its successes. Nothing is further from the truth. LPN was decimated when Brett inherited it and he worked tirelessly to wrestle it away from from the Silvestri regime. Since then he has worked very hard and as of the last 2 years in particular , he has put together a team of people so impressive , Id put them against anyones team in terms of time , energy and commitment.
To have fellow activists question the origin of others successes as anything other than hard work is particularly disappointing as all of us should know what a difficult and thankless job growing the LP can be—-shame on you who spread this kind of garbage , its the vicious eating of its own w/in the LP that continues to inhibit our success ,drive away countless members and that in the end , leaves us divided and conquered….Debra Dedmon longtime activist-
oops repeat comment lol
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *