By request of one of our other editors I am setting up this thread for liveblogging during the upcoming LNC meeting this weekend. Links to the first few reports posted for the meeting, chair’s proposed agenda, live broadcast, LNC and staff listings, and information on the venue were posted previously. https://www.lp.org/event/lnc-meeting/ will have additional reports as they come in.
Anyone and everyone attending the meeting or watching the broadcast can help us with liveblogging and discussion in the comments on this thread. If time and health permits I plan to do so myself, but please don’t rely on just me 🙂
-paulie
What ever happened with the Sharpe/Somes committee? The last thing I remember was that some people were still pushing the company they had present at the meeting after the meeting…but then, as far as I can remember, the discussion stopped with no further action. I also don’t remember hearing anything out of the social media process review committee after it was created.
Final minutes https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017_04_15-LNC-Minutes-approved.pdf
Since the pingback did not work for some reason:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/04/lnc-2017-summary-first-draft-of-meeting-minutes-of-last-weekends-meeting-in-pittsburgh
Chuck I share your concerns, but I am also willing to try new things. I voted for it, because I want to try. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. I am not clueless. But maybe I am hopelessly optimistic. I hear from Party members that they want us to try to new things, and even if it gets the word Libertarian out there and know – this may not *directly* lead to any appointment, but I see an indirect value.
I could be wrong. And if there are no results, I will question it in a future budget. But it certainly is money better spent than the 10K we threw after assemblyman Moore – which I also voted for because I am in favour of trying new appproaches. Some will win,some will fail. I felt it a risk worth taking *on a limited basis.*
I will be asking if there is any success. I suspect it will be very small scale and will pay off in indirect ways. I could be wrong. But I am not a fan of abstentions… we are there to make decisions, and sometimes they will be wrong, but that was my thought process.
@ Shane
If the LNC is going to continue the stupid identity politics game, then I’ll register my complaint that they are requiring staff to work on a Christian holiday.
Or do they just want to target their outreach efforts to fake religions like the Church of Satan? Why not target Scientologists? At least they are known to have and easily part with their money.
The incredibly odd thing to me is this: They ALREADY did one of these from the Satanic Temple several weeks beforehand, which I guess didn’t prove controversial enough to get deleted:
https://www.facebook.com/libertarians/photos/a.10150126121157726.302978.5978057725/10155153634417726/?type=3
So why do another one? Especially because, as you note, the Satanic Temple is a fake religion–it’s just a liberal activist group that tries to look like a religion in an effort to offend people and get attention. The quoted tenants aren’t religious, they’re political tenants. Trying to use quotes from that as part of some “religious quotes” series makes about as sense as using quotes from the Democratic or Republican platforms. Heck, THAT would make more sense, because at least there’s a lot of Democrats and Republicans, so you’d have a better chance of potentially swaying someone than by trying to appeal to a small activist group.
And on this topic, having scrolled through a lot of facebook posts from the Libertarian Party to investigate this, I have a suggestion: Cut down on the memes. They clutter up the timeline and make it harder to find anything actually relevant. And far too many of them feel like they’re more likely to drive someone away than make them interested. Truth be told, looking through all of those posts has made me LESS interested in the Libertarian party.
In response to my previous comment, Chuck Moulton writes, You clearly were not paying attention. The maker of the motion, Joshua Katz, gave a long speech about the purpose of the motion. He said he wanted staff to throw parties for congressional staffers and buy them food.
Wow, maybe I wasn’t! Somehow I missed that. My thoughts do sometimes wander during long speeches. That makes it a worse idea than I thought. I believe I abstained on the main motion after my amendment was voted down, but if I’d caught that bit I would have voted against it. My bad.
I did suggest previously, when the LP was throwing an office party for the opening of our national headquarters during my 2012-2014 term on the LNC, that we invite people from the neighborhood (e.g. neighboring businesses and groups on Duke Street) and solicit from them ideas of local regulations and anti-freedom rules that could be opposed. In short, to make it a “Red Tape Cutting” instead of a “Ribbon Cutting” party. Using our members money to pay for other people’s food in a situation like that would have made a lot more sense to me than subsidizing people working for the cartel parties, but there seemed little inclination on the LNC to pursue the idea (Paulie did respond favorably, iirc).
Oh, also Trent Somes.
The Easter meeting was a terrible idea. I’m an atheist now, but I was raised Presbyterian. My extended family is very Christian. I missed Easter dinner and my niece’s first Easter egg hunt.
But very few LNC members had a problem with it. I think only Ken Moellman and staffer Lauren Daugherty had somewhere else to be.
Shane wrote:
Exactly.
The really sad part is this was not a close vote — not a 9-8 or 8-7, which might give hope half of the LNC aren’t insanely naive. It was a blow-out. With very few exceptions, they are all completely clueless on this topic.
Starchild wrote:
You clearly were not paying attention.
The maker of the motion, Joshua Katz, gave a long speech about the purpose of the motion. He said he wanted staff to throw parties for congressional staffers and buy them food.
Maybe hor d’oeuvres, wine, amd steak dinners are the way he was influenced on the East Bumblefuck Planning Commission, but that’s not the way Washington works.
It’s cargo cult mentality. Do Reason and Cato and other liberty organizations throw parties which some congressional staffers attend? Yes. But those staffers are already sympathetic. They attend to hang out with friends and network. That’s not how you lobby.
Is it good to hang out with congressional staffers? Yes. Relationships like that can help you get your foot in the door and your proposal looked at.
Will it get your proposal passed? Hell no. Appointment decisions are not made by low level staffers. The way to influence is strong lobbying or a proposal so bang up great that it speaks for itself. With all due respect, we have neither.
Starchild said: “In the past he has told me that the average LNC meeting costs the party about $2500, and I consider this an unacceptable and unjustifiable expense. Further I’m not even sure whether staff airfare and the cost of time spent away from the office was included in that estimate.”
I’m pretty sure that that cost is just the cost to rent the meeting room.
Another cost to factor in is the time and money for all of the LNC members to attend the meetings. This may not come out of the LNC budget, but it is money that each LNC member has to spend out of their own pocket, and this is money that they could use for other things.
Responses on several topics here…
Meeting on Easter
When dates were being considered at the last Libertarian National Committee meeting, this weekend seemed to be the consensus choice that had the fewest issues for most numbers of people present. There was no particular agenda or considerations beyond that, that I’m aware of. Personally it worked out well for me because I’m in a construction training program taking place on weekends this Spring which gave us that weekend off, and otherwise I would have had to skip the meeting because they are unforgiving about unexcused absences. However I was unaware of this at the time the meeting was scheduled. Usually my schedule is more flexible than most people’s and I don’t lobby hard for particular meeting dates, being happy to meet when is good for most of my colleagues. I do favor locations which meet the following criteria:
• Venue which is free or low cost and does not waste our members’ money paying for things like room rental fees or catered food/beverages out of party funds
• Location where there is a tie-in to local activism or some other (l)ibertarian event to enable us to take advantage of having a concentration of Libertarians present at the same time and place
• Availability of local activists to host out-of-town visitors so that we can further get to know each other and build party/movement solidarity while saving money spent on hotel rooms and make it more practical for low-budget attendees to come to our meetings
Lobbying Washington staffers
There was nothing in the motion about, and no discussion of, buying dinners for these folks, and I certainly hope that’s not what anyone has in mind. To the extent there are costs involved, I would hope those are limited to the costs involved with LP staffers or others involved in lobbying being away from the LP office, attending events, having their own meals covered, etc. I think Shane and others are correct that we can’t compete with professional lobbyists and big-money special interest groups in this regard, and should not try. I don’t think “cultivating relationships” is limited to that, however. I think young interns and junior staffers working for members of Congress and other Washington power players are potentially worth approaching, talking to, building relationships with, etc., as long as our people are vigilant in not allowing themselves to be negatively influenced or drawn into the world of power politics in ways that undermine the party or the freedom movement for which it stands. I tried to amend the motion to officially require attention be paid to such vigilance in the form of having written guidelines about these interactions and training on how to influence without being influenced, but sadly the majority of the LNC apparently did not think this was important. I’m not sure whether that’s because they think our people could never be influenced or corrupted in such a way as to sell out the party or movement to any degree, or some other reason(s).
I would strongly prefer that staff not be required to attend LNC meetings in general, whether on Easter or otherwise, because having them do so costs the party money and is an unnecessary expense. At this meeting, three staffers were present: Executive director Wes Benedict, operations manager Robert Kraus, and development director Lauren Daugherty. Wes and Lauren both gave informative reports and I understand Lauren helped set up donor meetings with LP chair Nick Sarwark in the Pittsburgh area, however I think these things could have been accomplished by phone without requiring their physical presence, just as we heard from our legal counsel Oliver Hall and took his report by phone. I asked Robert at the meeting to provide a breakdown of the costs of this meeting, which I believe he said he would be sending us later in the week. In the past he has told me that the average LNC meeting costs the party about $2500, and I consider this an unacceptable and unjustifiable expense. Further I’m not even sure whether staff airfare and the cost of time spent away from the office was included in that estimate.
If you are reading this and agree with me, I encourage you to contact your other LNC reps and especially LP chair Nick Sarwark [email chair(at)lp.org] and let them know that you do not want money taken away from outreach, supporting candidates, advertising, and otherwise directly spreading the message of freedom, and spent on flying staff to meetings, paying for meeting rooms, or buying catered food for LNC members.
Paying Libertarian petitioners rather than mercenaries
I think Andy is right about this, and have said so previously. We should favor hiring our own people, both as a matter of movement solidarity and rewarding those on our side, as well as for the practical reasons he mentions (e.g. Libertarian petitioners are more likely to get new LP registered voters, put people in touch with local party chapters, etc., than folks who are simply trying to make a buck). However Andy has not yet that I’m aware of taken me up on my suggestion to come up with some specific motion language on this, in particular language amending the Libertarian National Committee’s Policy Manual. Although it’s possible he has approached the Ballot Access Committee, as I’m not on that committee (I did strongly support its creation, so that we’d have more of a transparent and participatory structure around the party’s ballot access efforts instead of simply Bill Redpath, Wes Benedict and others making decisions on stuff like hiring behind the scenes).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
(415) 625-FREE
Thanks Andy. I’ve worked a lot of booths, collected a fair amount of signatures and in 2012 I think I collected the first petitions for the Johnson campaign here in Washington. I don’t intend to brag about my experience but it is almost impossible to get new people to listen to anyone who has done some of this before.
Andy, regarding the DC presence, I was always told by others (who had less fundraising experience than me) that a DC office helped bring in donations.
It never seemed to hurt the NRA which is located in suburban VA (outskirts of Fairfax).
I agree that there’s no need. Members of Congress don’t walk in and say, “Hey, I’m switching to you guys.”
We did however get a few homeless folks who walked in and asked for an application to be president (no joke).
The only benefit is that the staff lives in the area — and no matter what others may say, we do need the staff.
sc: Being a libertarian means that we don’t have to love and respect each other — we just have to tolerate each other. But does that mean we have to tolerate stupidity from our own leadership?
me: I have a different take. It’s my practice to love and respect everyone. Sometimes, that means telling the truth as best I can, and my truth is this one’s a REAL bad idea. It’d be interesting to hear an actual counter of why it’s a GOOD idea, but I suspect there isn’t one.
If “Observation” is correct, it’s definitely a problem with self-styled pragmatists propose naive courses of action that almost certainly will not be productive and most likely will be a poor allocation of resources. I’m open to theories about why “pragmatists” seem to lack any sense of pragmatism, at least on this initiative. It may be that they suggest pragmatic tactics to paper over NAPsterism’s obvious unworkability. If so, it’s a setup for failure, given all the self contradictions.
“Michael H. Wilson
April 16, 2017 at 22:57
Web sites and social media are all good but we still need to get out and meet people face to face and I get the impression a significant number of people are not in favor of that. Maybe their social skills are lacking. I know mine are.”
This is one of the reasons why I have been saying for YEARS that Libertarians, whether they are paid Libertarians or unpaid Libertarian volunteers, should grab clipboards and pens, and go out and get their own damn ballot access petition signatures, rather hiring non-libertarian mercenaries to do this work. The Libertarian Party has for far too long unnecessarily over-relied on non-libertarian mercenaries to gather ballot access signatures. This is work that SHOULD be done by actual Libertarians, given that it is a great opportunity to talk to large numbers of people about the Libertarian Party and philosophy. There are still lots of people out there who have little to no exposure to the Libertarian Party and its candidates. The word libertarian has gotten more popular, but there are still people out there who are unfamiliar with it, or who are confused as to what a libertarian is. Going out and gathering signatures on ballot access petitions, or registering people to vote, is a great way for Libertarians to interact with the public, and to spread the message about the party and philosophy. I could see hiring a few non-libertarian mercenaries on a limited basis to fill in gaps, but using a super-majority of the LP’s ballot access budget to pay people who are not even libertarians (which is what the LP has been doing for years), and who’d be just as happy to be working for some anti-liberty cause just so long as they are getting paid, to go out and talk to the public about the Libertarian Party, is just flat out stupid, and is in some cases, counterproductive to the cause. The “Who cares?” attitude displayed by some in the party when it comes to issues such as this is part of the reason why the party is not more successful.
“ATBAFT
April 17, 2017 at 07:58
It was surprising, even for this atheist, to learn that the LNC held a meeting on Easter. What, is the LNC all non-Christians, singles, social misfits, and family outcasts that a meeting on Easter is like any other weekend? Or maybe we should just appreciate the total commitment and dedication to the Party that compels these individuals to gather on such a day to debate and decide, say, who should be on the Platform Committee, instead of waiting a week to do so. Can’t wait to see what crucial topics the LNC will address at their meeting on Christmas Day.”
I agree. Even if what you asked in the first sentence is true, if the party is to grow, scheduling meetings on days that many people consider to be holidays where they may want to be with family is in bad taste.
“And this is why, among many reasons why the LP will never achieve anything.
Cucks never win.”
Exactly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHM6HtPuVxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EVWkwmEVfc
“Shane
April 17, 2017 at 06:31
Wow. Just read the proposal to have LNC staff forge relationships with Senate staffers.
That really does show how out of touch the LNC is with how Washington works.
First, no congressional staffer would ever put their neck out for the LP no matter how close the relationship is. Second, that’s not even how it works.”
Considering that the LP has basically zero influence in Washington DC, and considering that the number of elected Libertarians is way down from what it was 14 years ago, and considering that dues paying party membership is way down from what it was 16-17 years ago, I question the wisdom of the party shelling out such a large amount of money for an office building in Arlington, VA, when the there are plenty of other places where the office could be located (including other parts of Virginia) where the price of real estate is much cheaper than it is in the DC metro area.
In a twist of irony it was the “pragmatist” LNC members who originated this lobbying nonsense which will be a big waste of staff time and most likely party money as well.
RC, the LP always finds a way to entertain me.
To have leadership this naive is so sad that it’s cute. Like a kitten that gets its head stuck in a jar.
But if you consider that this party has been around for 45 years and has chased stupid ideas year-after-year, it’s upsetting.
On a positive note, I found Arvin’s note above smart. The LP should not be chasing Identity Politics and pandering to every minority out there.
Being a libertarian means that we don’t have to love and respect each other — we just have to tolerate each other.
But does that mean we have to tolerate stupidity from our own leadership?
s: Second, that’s not even how it works.
me: Yes, the naivety is stunning. The “moral”/”immoral” worldview of NAPsters leads to such conclusions. If only the staff were exposed to the NAP, they’ll convince their bosses of the error of their ways.
Astounding.
They met on Easter to worship the devil!
ATBAFT, great point. If we take a look at the LNC, how many have families? While I’m a Christian, you don’t have to be to appreciate family holidays like Easter.
If the LNC is going to continue the stupid identity politics game, then I’ll register my complaint that they are requiring staff to work on a Christian holiday.
Or do they just want to target their outreach efforts to fake religions like the Church of Satan? Why not target Scientologists? At least they are known to have and easily part with their money.
It was surprising, even for this atheist, to learn that the LNC held a meeting on Easter. What, is the LNC all non-Christians, singles, social misfits, and family outcasts that a meeting on Easter is like any other weekend? Or maybe we should just appreciate the total commitment and dedication to the Party that compels these individuals to gather on such a day to debate and decide, say, who should be on the Platform Committee, instead of waiting a week to do so. Can’t wait to see what crucial topics the LNC will address at their meeting on Christmas Day.
Wow. Just read the proposal to have LNC staff forge relationships with Senate staffers.
That really does show how out of touch the LNC is with how Washington works.
First, no congressional staffer would ever put their neck out for the LP no matter how close the relationship is. Second, that’s not even how it works.
Two things work: campaign money combined with aggressive lobbying (there’s a reason why the health insurance industry wrote the AHCA — they were in the top three industries who give to Republicans). In the absence of direct money to campaigns (or when you need both) — you spend more money on direct advocacy with phone and letter campaigns.
If you want a lesson on how Washington works, pay attention to the coming FCC battle on Net Neut that will start next week. The ISP side (led by AT&T and Verizon) will submit a combined 4 million plus official comments to the FCC to support reversal. The Netflix side will do the same. All told, $12 million will be spent over a 60-day period.
And then the rules will be reversed because of Paj (new pro-business FCC chairman) was given enough cover with the comments to do so.
That’s how Washington really works.
Whoever proposed that with the LNC is embarrassingly out of touch with reality. A $200 dinner for a staffer does not compete with advocacy campaigns that cost industries millions.
Don’t get me wrong, reality is twisted. There are no prohibitions or regulation of advocacy campaigns. So industries dominate and groups representing citizens have zero chance. It’s indicicative of how elections would work in the absence of campaign finance laws.
If the LNC knew how Washington worked, they would take a Verizon rep (or me) out to lunch and ask that the LP be the face of the advocacy campaigns. Since corporations don’t lobby directly (they use front groups), millions are spent collecting signers under the brand of the organization and in return for being a bitch for industry, the group gets to keep the names for their own purposes (including fundraising).
So sure LNC, waste pocket change on steak dinners.
The nicest thing I can say is you all have strange obsessions.
Thanks for live blogging everything, Paulie! Sometimes I got so caught up in the moment that I forgot to live blog.
Web sites and social media are all good but we still need to get out and meet people face to face and I get the impression a significant number of people are not in favor of that. Maybe their social skills are lacking. I know mine are.
Good luck, hope they appoint you.
FYI – I am seeking Virginia’s appointment to the Platform Committee.
For that matter, while I have no plans to seek appointment by any other state, I would accept it.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/libertarian-party1 has the archived videos of the meeting if anyone wants to watch those. They won’t necessarily be up there for any guaranteed length of time, although as of right now at least the ones from the previous meeting are still there. That’s as far back as I went so there may or may not be even older ones there.
Thanks to Starchild, Caryn Ann, Chuck and all who helped liveblog, comment and read. And of course to everyone on LNC and gallery who travelled to the meeting in person.
If anyone has any additions, corrections, photos, videos, links to coverage elsewhere etc please add.
Both good guys and eminently qualified. I would tend to agree with Matt more but I respect Andy Craig, his knowledge and work ethic and demonstrated ability. I guess he was more popular with the in crowd. You have to be involved, stay involved and show up for votes, run for positions and keep running, and figure out the internal politics game if you want people you like to be elected to party committees. Be assured that people you disagree with on those intra-party matters know these things, know how to get their ducks in a row and don’t have that “I’m taking my ball and running off” attitude. Well, except when they do 🙂 But you having that attitude and expecting things to just fall into place without significant effort just plays into their hands.
Instead of voting for people to be on committees why not put the names of those qualified into a hat or something similar such as a bowl and draw names out?
That would save a lot of time and the LNC could get to some of the other issues that seldom get discussed.
Look at the platform nominations…. Andy Craig?? Da Fuq? No Matt Cholko?? LOL… I have been holding out hope for the LP for a long time but the non voter libertarians are starting to sound more right nearly every day.
The 2018 national convention is June 30 – July 3 in New Orleans. Daniel Hayes advises to check dates to be able to attend, as the timing is a little unusual (ends on a Tuesday).
We are now adjourned! Next LNC meeting is August 18-19 in Kansas City, Missouri.
Social Media Committee voting results:
Brett Bittner – 10
Daniel Hayes – 10
Steven Nekhaila – 9
Caryn Ann Harlos – 8
Arvin Vohra – 6
Joshua Katz – 6
Bittner, Hayes, and Nekhaila are appointed to the committee.
APRC results:
Whitney Bilyeu – 11
David Demarest – 4
Whitney is elected to the vacancy.
We’re now going through regional reports. Regional reps taking questions.
Nominees include Arvin Vohra, Caryn Ann Harlos, Joshua Katz, Daniel Hayes, Steven Nekhaila, and Brett Bittner. We approved voting for up to 3, and voting will be by signed ballot.
Steven Nekhaila (LNC alternate) moved (adopted without objection) to refer the social media topic to a committee composed of 3 LNC members and 2 non-LNC members. Now voting to populate those LNC seats.
Nekhalia speaking for the motion. Sounds a lot like what was defeated as an amendment to the motion yesterday.
Motion to reconsider study committee for social media.
Hayes withdraws from nomination. We’re now voting between Demarest and Bilyeu.
The APRC approves messaging/content that goes out in the name of the Libertarian National Committee / Libertarian Party.
Bill Redpath moved to take up topic of filing vacancy on the Advertising & Publication Review Committee (APRC) to fill the vacancy created by Joshua Katz’s resignation.
David Demarest nominated by Caryn Ann Harlos
Daniel Hayes nominated himself
Whitney Bilyeu nominated herself
Current APRC members are Brett Bittner (chair), Trent Somes, Caryn Ann Harlos, and Arvin Vohra.
Document destruction policy. I zoned on what went before that.
If I heard correctly Mattson was elected interim platform committee chair.
Alicia Mattson appointed interim Platform chair. I objected, but was sole opposing vote (she has been biased and anti-transparency as committee chair in the past in my opinion, sending out leading survey questions, opposing sharing of survey results, etc.)
Katz vs. Moulton for interim chair of the bylaws committee.
Katz – 10
Moulton – 5
Katz is elected interim chair.
Joshua Katz voted as interim Bylaws chair (over Chuck Moulton), 10-6.
Anyone who chooses New Jersey over head deserves to be on the platform committee 🙂
Harlos won the coin flip.
Here’s the crazy thing… the person who selected Adam Bates for 548269842894568 rounds will be revealed eventually because they are signed ballots.
Congratulations on the hard fought victory!
We adopted the coin flip, and Caryn Ann Harlos won. She’s now the 5th appointed Platform rep, with Aaron Starr as alternate.
It’s Starr vs. Harlos decided by a coin flip.
Latest Platform Committee appointment results (Round 6):
Starr – 8
Harlos – 8
Bates – 1
Redpath moves to resolve the tie with a coin flip, with the loser becoming the committee alternate. Now voting on that motion.
Agreed with Chuck.
The LNC is debating directing staff to forge relationships with senate staffers to promote Libertarian appointments.
This is IDIOTIC. I favor going for appointments. But throwing lunches and dinners for congressional staffers is a huge waste of money and mostly ineffective. Having staffers go to cocktail parties every night to schmooze also means staffers have less time to do actual useful work.
The right way to promote appointments would be to:
1) figure out who in the LP is interested in various appointed positions
2) figure out who in the LP is qualified for various positions by getting CVs
3) figure out who in the LP currently serves in, previously served in, or is networked to various positions who can appoint people by asking them and looking at things like LinkedIn
This isn’t rocket science. I’ve been helping behind the scenes with the FEC appointment. None of this happened by spending thousands of dollars buying food for congressional staffers.
And of course the LNC approved the motion to throw donor money down the drain.
Round 6:
Starr 8, Harlos 8, Bates 1
Motion carries.
My amendment to Joshua Katz’s motion on contacts with congressional staff failed 6-10 (I was trying to add a requirement that staff develop written and oral guidelines for persons engaged in such contacts on how to exert influence without being influenced.
Katz motion directing staff to develop relationships with congressional staffers.
Round 5 Platform results:
Caryn Ann Harlos – 8
Aaron Starr – 7
Adam Bates – 1
Discussion ensued. Apparently it is always a right to vote for any eligible candidate (e.g. Bates) even though the chair’s instructions were that the balloting was between Harlos and Starr.
Now we’re going to one more vote, same process.
Harlos 8, Starr 7, Bates 2 …going to round 6
You definitely did. I am proud of you, and would of course vote for you if I was on LNC this term.
I asked passionately for their vote. If I lose, I lost with a fair and honest vote and fight.
Discussion of lobbying elected officials. I’m not sure if there is a motion attached to this.
Redpath’s motion fails, 5-10. We now go to 5th round of voting, between Starr and Harlos (write-ins are allowed). Now an opportunity for the candidates to speak, and take questions.
Rules are suspended to consider Bill Redpath’s motion.
Results for latest round of Platform Committee appointment voting:
Aaron Starr – 8
Caryn Ann Harlos – 6
Adam Bates – 3
Nick Sarwark proposes runoff between Starr and Harlos (neither received majority); someone else (Redpath?) moved to appoint Aaron Starr to the committee and Caryn Ann Harlos as alternate. (Requires suspending the rules).
Talking about LNC Policy Manual, Section 2.05 (Membership Policies), subsection 5, footnote 48, according to Nick Sarwark (90-day renewal period for lapsed members).
Robert Kraus (LP operations manager) says he constantly updates member dates in Raiser’s Edge software.
We’re now discussing membership renewals, technical dates of expirations, etc. (discrepancy identified by Brett Bittner).
Round 3 voting for Platform was a tie again:
Caryn Ann Harlos – 8
Aaron Starr – 8
Adam Bates – 6
We’ll now go to a 4th round where people write ONE name (no longer doing approval voting).
Back from break. Winner take all election between Starr, Harlos and Bates.
A 1-3 hour phone/video meeting every other week should be workable.
That has to be up there for ridiculous time wasting debates/votes even for LNC.
Pretty ridiculous that there’s any opposition to transparency. These people are representatives. How can the people they represent judge their work if their votes are not known?
I missed the announcement but there appears to be a break.
Second round voting results:
BYLAWS
————-
Kim Ruff – 10
Darryl Perry – 6
Mike Kielsky – 5
Brian Holtz – 5
TImothy Perkins – 3
David Stewart – 2
Carolyn Clift – 2
PLATFORM
—————
Caryn Ann Harlos – 9
Aaron Starr – 9
Adam Bates – 8
Joseph (J.D.) Henchmann – 5
We’ll now go to round 3 to resolve the tie for Platform.
Kimberly Ruff was elected to the bylaws committee.
Platform has another tie:
Caryn Ann Harlos – 9
Aaron Starr – 9
Bylaws 2nd ballot announced but I was distracted.
Platform 2nd ballot Harlos 9, Starr 9, Bates 8, Henchman 5
Paulie – Thanks, you are correct.
LNC alternate Ken Moelmann was thanked for his work in getting the old content from LP.org over to the revamped version of the site.
I think Ken is actually the IT committee chair. Sean O’Toole is presenting because Moellman had to get back home last night.
It is. http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_IT_Committee_Report.pdf
IT Committee chair and LNC regional alternate Sean O’Toole is giving his committee report. Using open source software for creating email system and database system for the LP. He’ll be putting out a survey in the next couple weeks seeking input on what people feel they need, and then in the next couple months start working on the project.
I zoned out. Sounds like IT report.
Chuck Moulton said: “Chuck Moulton
April 16, 2017 at 09:08
Sorry, I’ve been at the meeting but dealing with an IT issue I was emailed about.
Paying attention more to the meeting now.
It continues to annoy me that people feel the need to give long oral reports repeating what was submitted in their written reports. I think Lark has the right approach when he says ‘I’ve submitted a written report. Any questions?'”
I agree. If the report is written, why can’t people just read the report if they want to know what is in it? Paper copies of the report are handed out at the meeting. The reports should also be posted online (in a timely manner) so all party members are able to read it. What’s the point of wasting everyone’s time by repeating what is already written in the report? If they have questions, ask them, but there’s no reason to waste time by repeating what is already written in the report when people can read the report themselves.
I still question the wisdom of why the LNC is still operating as if we are back in the 1980’s with all of these in person meeting. Why not reduce the number of in person meetings to only happen at national conventions and state chair’s conferences? The rest of the meetings could be conducted via videoconference or teleconference. Why continue to waste time and money on so many in person meetings when technology has made it possible to have meetings without spending a bunch of time and money traveling across the country for them?
paulie wrote:
That is right.
Goldstein’s motion passes, I believe 11-3 (I voted yes). People can still write in Brian Holtz, who was nominated, or anyone else eligible (per Robert’s Rules of Order).
I think it’s the other way around – platform was the 4-way tie.
Sam Goldstein moves to limit Bylaws nominees for the second round voting to those in the 4-way tie, and Platform nominees to those who received 4 or more votes in the 1st round.
Wrangling over which names will be on 2nd ballot, but not clear if there is even a printer available for the 2nd ballot as I understood it so it may just be a blank paper ballot. In either case write-ins are allowed. Is that right?
Starr nominates Holtz.
Loses 8-7
Starr wants to reopen nominations to get Brian Holtz on bylaws. Proceeding with vote to appoint Ruff. Needs 2/3, if not then motions to suspend rules and or reopen nominations in order.
BYLAWS COMMITTEE VOTING (10 positions)
————————————————————-
Andy Craig – 14
Joshua Katz – 13
Chuck Moulton – 13
Caryn Ann Harlos – 11
Aaron Starr – 11
M Carling – 10
J.D. Henchman – 10
David Demarest – 9
Alicia Mattson – 9
The 9 persons listed above received a majority under approval voting; those below did not. There was a motion by Bill Redpath to appoint Kimberly Ruff to the 10th position; I seconded. We’re now debating election procedures.
Kimberly Ruff – 6
Mike Kielsky – 5
Timothy Perkins – 5
Darryl Perry – 5
David Stewart – 4
Roland Reimers – 3
Carolyn Clift – 2
Richard Fast – 2
Richard Illyas – 2
Mike Seebeck – 2
Clayton Hunt – 1
Rachel Mace – 1
Daniel(?) Martinez – 1
Mark Petora – 1
All other candidates did not receive votes.
Sarwark suggests the 2nd ballot for bylaws should be the people who got 4-6 votes. Starr says there is a procedure under the rules of approval voting already in place.
Sorry, I’ve been at the meeting but dealing with an IT issue I was emailed about.
Paying attention more to the meeting now.
It continues to annoy me that people feel the need to give long oral reports repeating what was submitted in their written reports. I think Lark has the right approach when he says “I’ve submitted a written report. Any questions?”
I think signed ballots are a better approach than secret ballots for transparency and accountability — especially for regional representatives that more directly represent members and state chairs in their regions.
Starchild was right to ask for signed ballots. Unfortunately, that battle would have had a better chance of success if the issue were raised before everyone turned in their ballots.
The candidate who spoke was Greg Perry, who is strongly considering running for U.S. Congress in a likely to be called special election in Pennsylvania’s 10th district (the current congressman may be appointed to an executive office by Donald Trump).
Platform
Jeffrey Miron – 14 (elected)
Andy Craig – 10 (elected)
John Fockler – 10 (elected)
Alicia Mattson – 10 (elected)
Adam Bates – 9
Caryn Ann Harlos – 9
Joseph Henchman – 9
Aaron Starr – 9
David Demerest – 8
Dean Ahmad – 7
Matt Cholko – 7
etc.
Bylaws
Andy Craig – 14 (elected)
Joshua Katz – 13 (elected)
Chuck Moulton – 13 (elected)
Caryn Ann Harlos – 11 (elected)
Aaron Starr – 11 (elected)
M Carling – 10 (elected)
Joseph Henchman – 10 (elected)
David Demerest – 9 (elected)
Alicia Mattson – 9 (elected)
etc.
Bylaws – 9 elected by majority of 10
Andy Craig 14
Katz 13
Moulton 13
Harlos 11
Starr 11
Carling 10
Henchman 10
Demarest 9
Mattson 9
Ruff 6
Kilesky 5
Perkins 5
Perry 5
Stewart 4
…lost track after that.
Results of the balloting for the Platform Committee appointments:
PLATFORM COMMITTEE (5 positions)
—————————————————
Jeffrey Miron – 14
Andy Craig – 10
John Fockler – 10
Alicia Mattson – 10
Adam Bates, Caryn Ann Harlos, Joseph Henchmann, Aaron Starr – 9 (4-way tie)
David Pratt Demarest – 8
Dean Ahmad – 7
Matt Cholko – 7
Mark Miller – 7
Darryl Perry – 6
Mike(?) Pickerell – 5
Kimberly Ruff – 5
Dax Eubank – 4
Thomas Knapp – 4
Scheeerman – 4
Debbie Schum – 4
Richard Fast – 3
Kielsky – 3
Anderson – 2
Kevin Bjornson – 2
Dycus – 2
Hines – 2
Howe – 2
Hunt – 2
Chris Maden – 2
Dustin Nanna – 2
Patterson – 2
Mike Seebeck – 2
Illyas – 1
Layda – 1
Mace – 1
Macjewski – 1
Martinez – 1
Petora – 1
Roland Reimers – 1
Stewart – 1
Others not named received no votes
———————————
There will be a second election to resolve the 4-way tie, with open balloting.
Platform:
Jeffrey Miron 14 Andy Craig 10 Missed two others at 10
Adam Bates, Caryn Ann Harlos, Joseph Henchman, Aaron Starr – 9 each (4-way tie) for the last of 5 spots
Can’t keep up with the others not elected.
Discussion of LPedia.
Feed is back.
Do we have anyone besides LNC members who can liveblog from the site when the feed cuts out, such as now?
Feed is still down but the election results were not yet announced when it cut out.
[email protected] via googlegroups.com
8:44 AM (2 minutes ago)
to lnc-business
Hi All –
I’d like to request LNC oversight on the Satanic Temple posting as part of the #FreeToBelieve series. I don’t want to see our volunteers raked over the coals for issues related to the LNC or APRC.
Is a Satanic Temple Posting:
1. Fine on any day of the year
2. Never ok
3. Generally ok, but not during a religious holiday of a conflicting religion.
If future posts go up, I’d like it to be very clear on what the LNC views are, so that volunteers are not blamed for our decisions.
My view: I don’t think that this is a battle worth picking. You can already be as Satanic as you want in America, so we’re not gaining anything. I’d much rather focus on repealing laws and taxes that exist.
Personally, I have no opposition to the Satanic Temple. As part of an overall study of religion, I have read sections of various “Satanic” books, and written in non-political areas on mythology parallels between Prometheus in Greek Mythology and Lucifer in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Realistically, I’ll probably look into the religious legal protections they have, based on the comments by the chair, to see how others can do the same. I’d love to see an America in which every single house and apartment building is legally seen as a religious location that pays no property taxes.
-Arvin
who was elected to Platform Committee & Bylaws Committee?
It was approved (I think the tally was 10-5) to hold the Credentials Committee elections via open balloting. I believe the “no” votes (against transparency) were Aaron Starr, Joshua Katz, Bill Redpath, Sam Goldstein, and Alicia Mattson.
Still down…
Feed cutting in and out intermittently.
Starr tries to say that the amendment is not in order. Sarwark rules that it is.
Mattson: move to appoint credentials committee at the next meeting
Starchild: move to amend to establish procedure for the election will be by open ballot
Wes clarifies he has been filling out his TPS reports
I will post my votes with the note that I changed my mind on one candidate when another LNC member vouched that my concern was not founded. All of concerns with any candidate involved unity. Also there is a strategy about how many to vote for. My silence on a candidate is not explicit disapproval.
The candidate was Greg Perry(sp?), running for Congress as a Libertarian in Pennsylvania’s 10th district. He also attended the meeting yesterday, as have a number of other Pennsylvania Libertarians and others not on the LNC.
Plugging “reregister month” and event calendar at LP.org. There was also a short speech from a local candidate/organizer in, I believe, PA.
As I pointed out during debate, we are representatives, and we need to be open and accountable for how we vote on important decisions.
Upshot: The committee voted to have ballot results recorded WITHOUT identifying who cast the votes, because people had already started turning in unsigned ballots before the point of reminding people to sign them was raised. (The secretary Alicia Mattson had issued printed ballots without a place to sign them.) My efforts to have people retrieve their ballots and sign them were rejected. The LNC still needs transparency reform to make open balloting the default.
People trying to get away with having secret ballots on the Platform and Bylaw committee appointments. 🙁
I voted no because I felt we need to follow our rules, even when I don’t agree wit the rules.
I believe approval.
Discussion of whether the ballots should be secret.
Are they using approval voting, or is it “Vote for the number to be appointed”?
Feed is back on. Voting on platform/bylaws apparently. Not sure how much we missed if anything but the feed did not start right at the gavel.
[email protected] via googlegroups.com
11:41 PM (10 minutes ago)
to lnc-business
Clear definitive action needs to be clear productive action that will not kill our page.
Something needs to happen. Something productive, workable, and sustainable.
I intend to either introduce or co-sponsor a motion for a committee to do just that.
I am in absolute agreement of a need for action. Unreasearched action for the sake of action (not whether it is the best plan) is not progress.
I think we all agree we have reached the next stage where things need to be done.
The exact nature of the *things* must be carefully reasoned.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:15 AM Ken Moellman wrote:
I just got home. Spoke to several folks along the way, since I was in the car for many hours.
I still believe that a lack of clear, definitive action will not end well.
ken
“paulie Post author
April 15, 2017 at 15:44
Katz suggests hiring a company to manage ballot access.”
TERRIBLE idea.
” Redpath replies that working with petitioners directly saves the party money.”
Not only does not hiring a “company” save the party money, hiring some outside company would lead to degrading the quality of the work done during the ballot access drives.
“Starchild is right and I am absolutely wrong.” — Aaron Starr
Sorry, had to re-post this.. (The “maybe” that maybe at the beginning could not be confirmed, so there it stands.)
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Wrapped up for the day.
Bill Redpath questioned the process of having people vote on the theme of the 2018 convention by donating to the theme of their choice. Daniel Hayes as a member of the convention committee defended the process. I commended Bill for raising the concern, as I’ve always spoken out against anything smacking of us being a “pay to play” party where people can buy our policies, but said that in this case I did not think the process was inappropriate, because the choices were screened for being libertarian and appropriate, and the theme doesn’t really have any meaning. In the past they’ve always been window dressing; in this case we actually used it to raise some money, without any threat to our principles or actual positions.
COC recommends holding an upcoming meeting preferably in Nov/Dec at the hotel which will be the convention hotel for 2018.
Daniel Hayes; convention committee … theme fundraiser very successful compared to past attempts.
A vote after some parliamentary wrangling. Starr and Mattson prevailed over Sarwark. I think the upshot was that the audit committee gets to keep Mark Fry as the outside auditor.
I may have misheard. That was surprising as well.
I don’t think Goldstein spoke on my behalf. I would love it but I don’t think he did.
Carries on a hand vote. Starr/Audit committee: keep working with Mark Fry.
Goldstein: convention [and audit] committee[s] now, re-convene at 8:30
Lark: no awards committee now, remove that item
Mattson speaking on own behalf.
Goldstein on behalf of Moulton, Katz, Starr, Carling, Harlos, Mattson. Redpath same.
Bittner on behalf of Harlos and Katz.
Moulton on own behalf.
Arvin recommends for bylaws: Andy Craig, Chuck Moulton, Darryl Perry, Kim Ruff. Did I miss some?
Aaron Starr speaking on own behalf.
My Bylaws recommendations
Andy Craig
David Demarest
Caryn Ann Harlos
Joe Henchman
Michael Kielsky
Chuck Moulton
Timothy Perkins
Mike Seebeck
Also himself.
Katz speaking on behalf of Andy Craig.
Caryn Ann giving her list again for bylaws. She will email it so we’ll have the list then or if she comments again. Especially recommends Chuck Moulton.
Nick Sarwark recommends Adam Bates, Joseph Henchman
Dr. Lark speaks on behalf of Jeffrey Miron.
David Demarest speaks on own behalf.
Bilyeu recommends Mark Miller of TX.
Goldstein recommends John Fockler, Andy Craig; asks for info on which states various applicants are from. Is directed to staff on that.
Moellman speaks for Fockler and Nanna.
Alicia Mattson speaking on own behalf. Starchild takes issues with her use of surveys as committee chair.
I recommended
Caryn Ann Harlos
Dean Ahmad
Matthew Cholko
David Demarest
Michael Kielsky
Thomas Knapp
Chris Maden
Warren Patterson
John Pickerill
Kim Ruff
Elliot Schierman
Mike Seebeck
Someone from the gallery speaking on own behalf…Dustin Nanna of OH?
Vohra recommends Dean Ahmad, Matt Cholko, Darryl Perry, Kim Ruff, Jeff Miron.
Pretty sure that’s Starr. I checked the video but not seeing the speaker. Also recommending himself.
Someone else also recommending Miron. I think maybe Starr?
Katz recommends Jeffrey Miron.
Harlos names several others she recommends. Too many names for me to catch or memorize. I recognized some of them.
Bittner also recommends someone else from Indiana who is a recent convert from Republicans, whose name I did not catch. Harlos speaks on her own behalf.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/attachments/20170409/e4a3a880/attachment-0001.xls
John Fockler (sp?) of Ohio speaking on his own behalf. Recurring platcom member.
LNC will select 5.
Redpath: nominates all 84 people who applied to platform committee.
Platform and bylaws nominations are next.
Montana, Dakotas? There is also a top two bill in VA.
Push for top two in Alaska, Florida
Katz suggests hiring a company to manage ballot access. Redpath replies that working with petitioners directly saves the party money.
NC: bills for ballot access improvement, top two in the legislature.
OH: Suspended to give LPOH to catch up on validation and fundraising, with about 21k collected. AR with about 2k in hand so far, need about 15k started Mar 27 due Jun 25 and shooting for being done several weeks earlier. VA has started with several petitioners on the ground, no firm count yet. Jun 13 deadline also need about 15k raw. TN working hard, need approx 35k valid; 4k volunteer in hand, also working on legislative and legal routes. Alabama working on county access, could do statewide if outside money is found. NJ working on 800 valid sig drive, PA will seek to do some statewide races.
I moved to add 4 members to the Advertising, Publications Review Committee, for purposes of having more eyes to review proposed content before it’s posted (to help defuse the issue of controlling content rather than have it come back in some other more objectionable form). However the motion needed 2/3 super-majority as a vote to suspend the rules, and failed by a considerable margin.
Ballot Access Report is next http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Ballot_Access_Committee_Report.pdf
Motion to authorize chair to enter into a contract with Paladin Strategies failed 4-10 with 2 abstentions. I voted against, but wasn’t able to record all the individual votes. I believe David Demarest, Joshua Katz, Arvin Vohra, and 1 other supported.
“Starchild is right and I am absolutely wrong.” — Aaron Starr
I may have cut off the beginning of that quote. An anonymous source says I left out a “Maybe”.
Sounds like most LNC members are not very impressed with Palladin Strategies either.
LNC list:
[email protected] via googlegroups.com
2:33 PM (41 minutes ago)
to lnc-business, Lauren, Wes
My issues are with the (perceived) ‘authority’ that volunteers have over our messaging on FB. Also, I don’t care to burden staff members with a task that is not necessarily their specialty.
I value the contributions and the creativity of the volunteers who put that material out, and I believe they do it better than our limited staff could do. However, I do not agree that volunteers should have the final say when it comes messages that we LNC members are on the hook for.
The motion presented today was too restrictive, and oddly, at the same time a little ambiguous. It could have put our entire social media presence on hold. I am also concerned about the risk of losing those volunteers as a result of such an action.
Yes, we need an intervention, and a temporary policy, along with a steering committee, could be the answer. But, we could have just brought our social media action to a screeching halt, and that is not what we really want.
How about establishing a policy that includes staff or LNC members in posting approval, and holds the APRC more accountable, as well?
I want to see a policy that establishes/clarifies the authority of the FB admins, moderators, and posters (who are not staff members). I also would like to establish specific guidelines for what is put out…in order to avoid these kinds of pitfalls and distractions in the future. Ideally, we won’t put anything out there that causes people to resign their posts, or cease donations.
Whitney
I agree with your sentiments. I’m slightly more inclined to take action now but everything you say is true.
Thanks,
Patrick McKnight
I would really like to work with you all in crafting an analysis committee with well-thought out proposals for August.
Something needs to change. I think everyone agrees on that.
I wish emotions didn’t get so high- I think ultimately we want the same thing. And have the same very deep concerns.
-Caryn Ann
I would also want to be a part of that
Arvin Vohra
I was really trying to address everyone’s concern by championing Steven’s amendment.
I hope we can all pull together that this is a problem I think most of us agree on, and that we might disagree on *how* to solve, but in good faith and good will we can.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Brett Bittner wrote:
I actually liked a lot of what Stephen’s amendment did, however I don’t know who I would punish with the responsibility that his idea created.
I also think that any committee tasked with this should also consider policy recommendations for other social media outlets, as they offer suggestions on Facebook. That would require a strong understanding of those outlets and their mechanics. At the very least, finding members that have an expertise in each of the outlets we utilize (YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and ugh… Google+). There have been discussions about this within the APRC, however due to the confidential nature of the committee, I cannot disclose those discussions or their outcomes (or lack thereof).
Brett C. Bittner
Region 3 Representative
Libertarian National Committee
[email protected]
317.537.8344
John Engle and Mike Fishbein are the principals, and who were on the call with us. I’m not keen on paying outside marketing consultants in general; these guys didn’t impress me as different or outstanding enough to change my general opposition to such proposals.
Should read, “Palladin.. “
Who are the principles behind Pallidin Strategies?
This sounds like something that ought to be rejected to me.
We can’t ask their past or current clients about their services because they have a non-disclosure clause.
Somes motion to hire Palladin Strategies to help with messaging, social media …
…and what service does Palladin Strategies offer?
http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Strategy_Marketing_Proposal.pdf
Palladin strategies does not have a website.
I turned the speakers down but I have hard time hearing the questions now. However I hear the answers just fine. I’m also hitting that after lunch mid afternoon slump so having hard time paying attention in general.
Is this any better on the volume now Paulie? Trent turned the speakers away from the mic.
Pitch is over the loudspeaker and I do mean loud (it must be right by the ustream mic)
Palladin Strategies is the company the committee selected. Pitch from the company to follow.
Maybe I get too pessimistic in the clutch.
I agree!
We dodged a bullet.
Back from break. Trent Somes on branding committee proposal.
Yes, I can hear you.
On the original main motion by Daniel Hayes, it failed on a tie of 8-8, with one abstention (Tim Hagen). Sarwark voted against, none of the other votes changed.
Hayes motion fails 9-8 with one abstention (Hagan).
Referring to committee failed:
Harlos – no
Starchild – no
Demarest – no
McKnight – yes
Redpath – yes
Lark – no
Starr – yes
Bilea – no
Nikhailia – no
Katz – yes
Moellmann – yes
Hayes – yes
Goldstain – yes
Hagen – yes
Vohra – no
Mattson – no
8 – yes
8 – no
8-8 on final passage of Starr motion. Fails on tie. Goes back to original Hayes motion.
Correction, it becomes the main motion. Hasn’t passed yet but I don’t see it being stopped at this point.
9-6 in favor, 1 abstention. Starr neutering and death panel for social media passes.
Starr amendment passed 9-6, with Bilyeu abstaining. 🙁
Steven Nekhaila’s amendment to have APRC control over social media rather than kicking it to staff failed 8-7 with 2 abstentions:
Starchild – yes
Harlos – yes
Demarest – yes
Mcknight – no
Redpath – abstain
Lark – no
Starr – no
Bilyeu – yes
Nikhaila – no
Moelman – no
Katz – no
Hayes – no
Goldstein – no
Hagen – yes
Mattson – no
Sarwark – abstain
Now back to Aaron Starr’s amendment to refer to committee AND pass Daniel Hayes original motion limiting posting authority to staff.
Starr amendment to be voted on next
Fails 8-7 with 2 abstentions
Vote on Nekhalia amendment (the last one discussed) comes first.
Clarification this would not be amending the voting composition of the APRC.
Proposal is for APRC member to approve each FB post. 3 months to come up with a more permanent solution.
Time extended.
Lost in parliamentary wrangling over whether another substitute can be introduced.
Daugherty: negative impact on fundraising from satanic meme
If staff can’t keep up current pace of posts facebook algorithm could bury us.
Starchild proposes expanding APRC
now it is
no
Is UStream back up?
How about somewhere in the middle of the country where it would be fairly easy for people on both coast to drive to?
Ustream not back yet from lunch but from Chuck’s comment I take it the meeting has restarted.
Arvin Vohra is arguing against the motion to neuter our social media.
paulie wrote:
I asked several questions about wi-fi. He said it could be negotiated in the contract to have free wi-fi in the meeting room, but ordinarily there would be a charge. He said we could negotiate how much of the bandwidth pipe to allocate between a) guest rooms and b) meeting — he said there was about 200 MB/s available between the 2 of them.
Wifi in the convention hall and outlets at the tables would be priorities for me.
I think every convention should be held in a city that people would otherwise want to go to. Vegas and Orlando are good examples.
I asked about visibility (e.g. putting up signs on property, etc.) and promotion by the hotel of our convention, 24 hour access to the facilities like pool, hot tub and gym, and not bugging us about late-night party and hospitality suite noise. He indicated flexibility without much specifics.
Hotel rep is taking questions…. Anybody here have any questions for him?
Seattle would be much better for 2020
Pittsburgh would be a decent location for the 2020 convention; depending on whether or not the convention site is in the City or closer to the airport is another question (the Pittsburgh airport is about 20 miles outside of the City)
LNC list
We’re now having lunch and hearing from the local visitor’s bureau (with an eye toward Pittsburgh potentially being a 2020 convention site – not that this is in any way decided).
Sam Goldstein proposed study committee instead. Then Aaron Starr proposed doing both simultaneously.
Somes; need for spontaneity in social media, although we do need guidelines
Harlos: Staff has a lot to do already.
Katz has the Roberts Rule part figured out.
Starr: Neuter social media, then appoint a death panel after the fact. Some confusion on how to Roberts Rule this.
Redpath: Move to extend 10 minutes and postpone consideration til after lunch
Someone floats a substitute motion to have a study committee instead. Missing a lot due to low volume audio.
Mattson; I believe speaking in favor but too quiet to really make out much here.
Harlos: We will not make good decisions in reaction mode. Missed the rest of her argument due to my pizza getting here.
I asked Nick whether the structure and procedures outlined are published anywhere, and asked that they be published, and sent to the LNC list, so that everyone will understand how stuff gets published.
Nick says fallout from “no more bushes, clintons or pauls” was bigger than from satanic temple post.
Actually I think the posting group is even smaller. I am on admins but I don’t think I currently have scheduling capability.
Arvin says the LP Social Media Volunteers group doesn’t have posting privileges. The posting privilege group is the Admin group. Nick says Facebook is the only place that has this structure of groups. Says the Advertising Publication Review Committee (APRC) members have ability to go in and see 24 hours in advance everything that goes up on Facebook on a posting queue, and can flag it if it appears problematic. This is how we’ve been monitoring content.
Nick says we don’t check dues status of people involved in posting.
Re: Caryn Ann’s comment, that referred to Facebook. Nick says the vetting process is that there’s a hierarchy of Facebook groups. Lowest level is Social Media group on Facebook; the Design Group and another group have more authority to post.
30-something admins on the FB group, fewer on instagram, snapchat etc.
Aaron Starr is asking who currently can post, and who gets added and who gets deleted. Does anyone vet the people who hold these roles to determine whether they are even LP members?
Caryn Ann Harlos says 35 people have posting abilities. Trent Somes says 4-5 people have Twitter posting abilities, perhaps 3 people with Snapchat, Instagram posting abilities.
Nick says he participates in the Admin group and tends to make final calls on who gets added, etc. Some administrators who have longstanding participation can add/delete people. If it doesn’t go smoothly, can “bubble up” to him or LP vice chair Arvin Vohra.
Working fine now.
Q: Someone kicked Alicia off admins FB group. Who decides who is on these groups?
Bill Redpath says he is working on the UStream feed.
Stream is back.
Whitney Bilyeu on LNC list:
P: Problem with that is staff time.
Nick says he made executive decision to pull the meme quoting the Satanic Temple which was posted right before Easter (an impolitic time), and not post any further memes in the campaign until next week.
Nick Sarwark is giving background on the design team and the #FreeToBelieve campaign posting memes with quotes from different religions.
Ustream feed cut out.
Daniel Hayes introduced a motion limiting posting materials online on behalf of the LP (e.g. Facebook memes) to staff. I am opposed to it as written.
Daniel Hayes proposes his motion, quoted earlier above.
MOving to the discussion on neutering social media. Chair asks that LNC members not attack individual social media volunteers to avoid need for executive session.
I asked counsel about filing more amicus briefs on behalf of the Libertarian Party. He sees value in this, but has a fairly heavy caseload; sounds like he is open to doing somewhat more on this front. Especially on cases that are already before courts (in the case of the Rowan Wilson marijuana case, it seemed exceptional enough to weigh in before court had agreed to take it).
Motion to expand legal expense line item by 5k. Passes without objection.
Oliver Hall says we sent a letter to the FEC chairman. Nick says we issued a press release saying that the three people per party on the FEC doesn’t have to mean 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans; we want to work on getting Libertarian representation on the Commission.
Letter sent to FEC commissioners. Trying to get Libertarian FEC commissioner.
http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Special_Counsel_Report.pdf
Redpath says deposition went well.
Bill Redpath mentioned New York case that Hall is not involved with, in which Redpath is a plaintiff. The NY government has banned out of state petitioners and he opposes that.
Redpath is one of plaintiffs in NY case on ban on out of state petitioners.
Aaron Starr asks whether change to the Supreme Court will impact us. Oliver says he doesn’t have any sense of that.
Hall: Not much indication how Gorsuch will rule in ballot access cases.
Counsel says we’ll soon be filing our own separate case against the FEC regarding the partisan and biased “Commission on Presidential Debates” and similar exclusionary practices against state and local candidates. He will be sending to LP chair Nick Sarwark his report on this.
Adding Oliver Hall to LNC email list.
Oliver Hall now talking about case “Arizona v. Regan” (spelling?) in which he helped represent the Arizona state LP. The state redefined in an unfavorable manner the pool of voters from which the party must demonstrate support (including independents, not just Libertarians) in order to get candidates on its own primary ballot, so that signature requirements became much higher.
Discussing AZ primary petition exclusion case.
Oliver Hall now talking about case “Arizona v. Regan” (spelling?) in which he helped represent the Arizona state LP. The state redefined in an unfavorable manner the pool of voters from which the party must demonstrate support in order to get candidates on its own primary ballot, so that signature requirements became much higher.
As a side note it is really surprising to me that very few see the issues with having editorial notes as part of our convention minutes. I happen to find the appendixes useful. But that is not the point.
I have been speaking with the gallery – no one is in favour of this nuclear option with social media. I am trying to gather my thoughts to adequately oppose.
Oops – Thanks, Paulie!
Rowan Wilson of NV. She actually says she does not use marijuana but got a medical card out of solidarity.
The LP filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff in petition to be heard by US Supreme Court. Presented research showing that where medical cannabis is legal, crime rates actually go down. Unfortunately court did not take the case.
Oliver Hall. Bill Hall did use to be the counsel years ago. They are not related as far as I know.
Oops, hit “post” too soon. Bill is talking about a case of a woman denied right to keep and bear arms based on her medical cannabis use.
We’re now talking by phone with legal counsel Bill Hall. He’s talking about
I have been speaking with the gallery – no one is in favour of this nuclear option with social media. I am trying to gather my thoughts to adequately oppose.
Special counsel report and call will go first.
Back in session. Neutering social media is on the agenda. Sarwark proposes talking to counsel (Oliver Hall) first.
15 min break
Wes says new things they are doing with Raisers Edge are working out well.
Wes is saying that the fundraising letters lead to online donations. I’m not sure how much this is true; lots of things can lead to online donations – LP News, online posts and memes, press releases, media coverage, local activism, candidates, etc.
Wes Benedict says the Johnson list is 175,000 donors. Only 12,000 of them were already in our database (i.e., LP members, lapsed members, or inquiries).
The LP has emailed all of them and sent snail mail to 65,000 out of the 175,000. Wes wants to mail the other 110,000.
Question about matching up emails of that donors list with social media accounts. Starting to work on that.
However need to do snail mail because it helps with online donations. Got Johnson list from the campaign and starting to work on trying to get new members and donors from that list. Not much in the way of calls yet, mostly email.
Wes Benedict notes that fundraising letters are not doing as well as they used to. Instead they are donating more online. I am not surprised. I think we need to switch to better ways of raising money (e.g. crowdfunding, merchandise sales, etc.) Mailings tend to be manipulative, waste money on overhead, etc.
More people donating online, fewer in response to letters.
Benedict: it will be a “small miracle” if we can keep it anywhere around 20k dues paying members.
A lot of memberships expire in the next few months. Ways to head that off?
Daugherty: need for wealth screening of donor list to help target pitches and strategic communication better
I agree we want more people generating content, not less. I don’t think staff should be in charge of Facebook — it’s both a waste of staff’s time and would make the content significantly worse in quality and quantity. The Facebook page grew significantly faster after control was turned over to volunteers rather than staff.
What we really need changed is oversight. We should have a volunteer or a group of volunteers who look at and approve every single post. Right now it seems like they can look at posts, and if they don’t disapprove then the post goes out… but sometimes no one in oversight looks at a post. The policy should be to look at and approve every post and take responsibility for those posts in content and strategy — whether that be the LNC’s APRC or a group of social media administrators. If people can’t take responsibility for looking at and approving every single post, then we either need someone different to take the job or we need less posts.
LNC list:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/attachments/20170415/6ac023b1/attachment-0001.docx
Daugherty: need for long term regular communication with major donors (missed some of this discussion)
Joshua Katz asked what motivates our donors to give. Lauren said they want to see change; they are dreamers, forward-looking. They want to see that their donations are used wisely, that they are making a good investment.
Add LNC members to employees and contractors, strike moderators and post content to. I would be OK with having “responsible parties” hold final approval (admins) but it should be more than only contractors and employees as they may get too busy to keep things timely.
Current double matching opportunity on ballot access.
Need to be proactive to keep historic dropoff of members that happens a year after presidential convention from happening.
Building fund for this year already paid.
Created legacy libertarians. Significant major donor meetings.
Development director Lauren Daugherty is now speaking. We have a double-matching offer right now for Ballot Access fund contributions.
Paulie – I agree that Daniel’s motion as written would be counter-productive. I think we should have more participation/input from LP members other than paid party employees and LNC members, not less. Do you have any thoughts on amendments or alternate language to address perceived issues on this topic in a non-harmful manner?
Lauren Daugherty on fundraising strategy. Jess Mears and Nathan Grabau helped, Grabau moved on. Better post election first quarter than usual. Started conference calls.
Approving convention minutes:
Caryn Ann Harlos – no
Starchild – no
David Demerest – no
Patrick McKnight – yes
Bill Redpath – yes
Dr. James Lark – yes
Aaron Starr – yes
Witney Bileau – yes
Ed Marsh – yes
Joshua Katz – yes
Brett Bittner – yes
Daniel Hayes – yes
Sam Goldstein – yes
Tim Hagan – yes
Arvin Vohra – yes
Alicia Mattson – yes
Nick Sarwark – abstain
It passes 13-3-1.
This vote was contentious because Appendix C includes some Robert’s Rules opinions from the secretary that contradicted the chair’s rulings in convention.
Wes Benedict is giving the staff report. He thanked Ken Moellman for his work on the website and Caryn Ann Harlos for her work with the historical archives.
Lauren Daugherty is giving a fundraising report.
That would be a monumentally gigantic mistake. The social media volunteers have done much good work, with very few mistakes. Paid people make mistakes too, and I’d expect to see a lot less content generated if the number of people allowed to do so is drastically decreased.
Wes thanks Ken Moellman for ballot access and IT work, especially on restoring content to website and Caryn Ann Harlos for historical preservation committee work.
You make a good point; it should be a separate document.
http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Staff_Report.pdf
Wes Benedict presenting.
I objected the approval of the convention minutes. I think the inclusion of editorial addenda is highly improper.
Staff reports, then neutering our social media.
IMO this would be a big mistake.
Question over VA loan encumbrance. Redpath says there is a Gov candidate but does not know yet if the loan will be needed. Moving on to Secretary’s report.
http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Secretary_Report.pdf
We raised over $15,000 on the contest to choose a convention theme (the winning choice was “I’m THAT Libertarian” (a phrase used by the late Dr. Marc Feldman who sought the party’s 2016 presidential nomination).
http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Financial_Report.pdf
Question over the accounting of the convention theme contest and other convention revenues.
In the meantime discussing Treasurer’s report.
Same here.
I asked Nick to justify salary secrecy, or be more flexible on this, but he said he didn’t have the time to address it at present. 🙁
Aaron Starr wants success/activity metrics for press secretary, candidate recruitment.
I am concerned that we will be foolishly reactionary on the Facebook item.
I disagreed with the post – I am just concerned the cure will be ham-handed.
I spoke out in favor of having salaries of new positions open, utilizing competitive bidding, and having the press secretary crowdsourcing people on the LNC and in the LP generally to communicate with the press and get the word out, as opposed to having one person trying to do it all.
Nick Sarwark saying (in chair’s report) that we aren’t renewing political director (Carla Howell’s) contract. Instead have 2 new positions (press secretary and affiliate support) reporting to Wes Benedict (executive director).
Correction, I think the reference to Andy Burns was not meant literally, but rather a new person who will do with campaigns what Burns is doing with state parties. Howell’s contract expires June 30. Casey Hansen has also moved on and lost one of the fundraising staffers. Cost of the two new positions is likely to be roughly 1.5 times Carla’s salary but known until dealing with actual applicants.
Nick is giving his chair’s report. He says they are removing the position of political director — which was currently Carla Howell.
They are adding lower level positions of press secretary (ideally a libertarian leaning journalist) and a campaigns person (candidate recruitment, candidate development).
Carla Howell leaving LPHQ. Instead they will hire a press secretary and expand Andy Burns’ job for campaigns. 50 state strategy.
Part of a series highlighting libertarian views of different religions, this one happened to highlight satanism.
We added an item to the agenda (after staff reports) of discussing social media management (at the request of Daniel Hayes).
The meeting began.
I used a public comment to pitch myself for the Bylaws Committee and Matt Cholko for the PLatform Committee.
LPPA chair Drew Bingaman welcomed the LNC to Pennnsylvania.
The agenda was amended to discuss social media for 15 minutes immediately following the staff report. They are concerned about a controversial Facebook meme this past week.
Broadcast is working now. Modifications to agenda.
Posted at LP.org:
Chair’s Proposed Agenda
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Agenda_Proposed
Reports
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Ballot_Access_Committee_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Bylaws_Platform_Applicants
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Campus_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Chairs Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Conflicts_of_Interest_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Convention_Committee_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_EPCC_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Financial_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Historical_Preservation_Committee_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_International_Rep_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_IT_Committee_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_LNC_Policy_Manual
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Membership_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Reference_Whistleblower_&_Document_Destruction
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_1_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_2_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_3_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_5_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_6_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_7_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Region_8_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Secretary_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Special_Counsel_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Staff_Report
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Staff_Report_slides
2017-04-15_LNC_Meeting_Strategy_Marketing_Proposal
More people are trickling in: Wes Benedict, Nick Sarwark, Caryn Ann Harlos, Brett Bitner, Drew Bingaman (PA chair), Whitney Bilyeau, Alicia Mattson, Sam Goldstein, Joshua Katz, Bill Redpath, Tim Hagan, and Aaron Starr have showed up.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/libertarian-party1
Nothing there yet
I’m in the LNC meeting room. Right now just Robert Kraus, Dr. Lark, and Lauren Daugherty are here with me. Everyone is at the buffet I guess.