The Libertarian National Committee will reconvene on June 1 to resume discussion on several agenda items it was unable to address during its in-person meeting in Michigan earlier this month.
The LNC met in Grand Rapids from May 16 to May 18, where members heard reports from regional representatives and standing committees, elected new Bylaws Committee members, and considered a series of proposed amendments to the party’s Policy Manual, among other business. Third Party Watch provided a live blog of the Grand Rapids meeting, and segmented recordings are available on the Libertarian Party’s official YouTube channel.
The meeting also featured several presentations, including from major donor Chris Rufer on messaging strategy and another from Debbie Masons of Strategists, Inc., the firm responsible for an internal operations report that was previously leaked online. However, despite covering a wide range of topics, the committee was unable to complete its full agenda by the end of the meeting.
According to details on the LNC’s public Business List, members will meet again over Zoom on June 1 to finish any outstanding business. LNC Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos submitted a proposed agenda to the chair earlier this week and, as of Friday morning, was awaiting final approval. Items still pending from the earlier meeting include several deferred motions and the proposed censure of two state affiliates for conduct on social media.
Editorial note: A full agenda has since been released. This article has been updated to include the agenda below:
Thank you again, Jordan, Caryn Ann, and everyone who answered my passing curiosity about party bylaws and parliamentary authority.
I don’t really have any questions remaining at the moment, but I do always have a self-imposed rule to always ask question(s) in each comment, and I felt it would be rude to not thank everyone for answering my questions, so this is the best I could come up with right now, with apologies for presuming to make claims on Jordan’s time allocation or priorities: Jordan, if you get a chance, would you please append that reply or some form of it to the article, and or to other future articles about their meetings?
Why I ask: There might be other readers who don’t necessarily read comments here, and wouldn’t presume to ask, but might be more curious than I am about actually watching the meetings and participation in live concurrent discussion thereof with other viewers (and potentially at least some of the meetings participants who are good at multitasking, viewing such official and unofficial discussions, etc).
“Some readers” does not include me. I do read the comments here, if anything more closely than the articles, and don’t watch much less comment on political YouTube videos, live or after the fact. I’m not a self defined libertarian, LP member (except by a technical, rarely used in practice definition), registered libertarian voter, registered voter of any kind, f***book/X twit/social network participant, etc. I’m a “boomer” who’s not a “zoomer.” I have no public comments for the committee or their observers to consider during their proceedings. I don’t personally know, or want to know and understand, the party bylaws and parliamentary authority.
My questions are asked to defend the interests of readers I think might exist but not be inclined to speak up in comments here. So, if anyone is in any way curious why I ask the questions I ask or making any erroneous assumptions about that, that’s why – although I probably self defeated my purpose by making this way too long.
There, I finally thought of more questions: why am I bloviating so much to explain the background of so few questions this morning? Should I be more or less curious about what my malfunction is there? Is it because it’s raining? Would professional medical mental health help actually help me, make it worse, or just be a waste of time and money?
Curious: The Libertarian National Committee streams its meetings on YouTube here, with recordings usually available soon afterward.
Thanks. What’s the address of the stream(s) in case anyone reading wants to watch in real time and doesn’t use zoom for whatever reason?
@curious the agenda shows an amount of time at the end for public comment. Anyone can email the entire LNC using the contact form on the website at any time with commentary. Comments are generally turned off on the YouTube stream. There is no live chat in the official meeting. Some private members “simulcast” at times, but that is not official and I do not know if any LNC members read or watch those.
I can’t imagine being interested enough to observe the meeting much less provide comments, but for others who might be, do they provide public real time YouTube live, phone conference, or other such options, or is live zoom and possibly after the fact YouTube the only option (s)?
I used an older version of the updated agenda. The most recent version is now reflected above.
Policy Manual 1.02.7(8) – 8. Electronic meetings are special meetings such that only the topics listed in the call of the meeting may be considered during the meeting; however, a regular meeting may be adjourned to an electronic meeting which shall be a continuation of that regular meeting.
To answer the question raised in comments:
Article 12 of the Bylaws states that “Boards and committees may conduct business by teleconference or videoconference. The National Committee shall have power to adopt special rules of order and standing rules to facilitate the conduct of business by teleconference or videoconference.”
So yes, they can conduct virtual meetings (and for years have done so).
As for the question of Fixing the Time to which to Adjourn (which is a terrible motion title in RONR, it should be Fixing the Time to which to Reconvene!), RONR 22:1 is silent on whether the continuance is in-person or virtual. RONR 22:2 indicates that it is in order since there was no other meeting scheduled for later in the same session.
As long as the virtual version meets the requirements of RONR 9:30-36, and to this point they have done so (including the crazy 2020 national convention!), it is in order. It’s unusual, but it is in order.
What recourses might those who believe it is an illegal meeting take 1) in theory? 2) realistically? As yet unaddressed is the issue of lnc meeting precedent, and if such precedent exists, how recent? As well, the discrepancy between Nolan’s Duty and Jake Leonard different claims regarding Robert’s / RONR parliamentary authority, or perhaps the question of who is using the most current version?
A full agenda has since been released. This article has been updated to include the agenda.
Are you two using different editions of Roberts aka RONR?
There does not seem to be any rule in RONR or in LP Bylaws or Policy Manual (which contain Special Rules of Order) that would allow in-person meeting to be adjourned to a later online meeting. RONR prohibits this because it protects minority views.
Has any explanation been offered to the public as the authority to move into an online meeting other than “we have business to do against people we don’t like” (probably)?
Curious –
Pretty sure allowing remote meetings was allowed when RONR was revised in 2020 as corporate boards of directors and governmental entities were restricted from holding meetings in person.
Five years later, the publishers of Robert’s Rules of Order continue to have those guidelines in their most recent edition. The same applies to most other parliamentary procedure guides that continue to be updated to this very day.
The day they’re no longer allowed (which is highly unlikely) is the day it will be removed from RONR and other parliamentary procedure guides.
Is moving business from in person to zoom allowed under their bylaws and or parliamentary authority? Has it been done before? Recently?