The Libertarian Party’s 2010 National Convention
St. Louis Renaissance Grand Suites Hotel
Memorial Day Weekend
Visit www.LPConvention.com for more information
66 Comments
Comments are closed.
July 21, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
The Libertarian Party’s 2010 National Convention
St. Louis Renaissance Grand Suites Hotel
Memorial Day Weekend
Visit www.LPConvention.com for more information
Real Estate, Bicycles, Espresso, Coffee, Chocolate, Jewelry, Tomatoes, Politics, Israel
Comments are closed.
@65:
Nobody said otherwise. I was referring to common sense and the perpetual dema-dog-ery and mistaken reputation that comes for people who don’t understand dogs, and the tragic lack of sense and understanding that comes with it.
If it’s their property, they own the hotel, they own their own home, they can tell you whether or not they the owners can let you have a pet. Not you. It is not your property. Excluding service animals for people who are in need.
The Libertarian Party Convention Committee has proposed that delegates to the upcoming LP national convention in St. Louis (May 28-31, 2010) must pay a $99 “floor fee” before being allowed to perform the functions assigned to them by the party’s Bylaws of voting on the Bylaws and Platform, electing officers, and conducting party business. The fact that the floor fee plan comes with the offer of a mail-in rebate of $50 per room to those staying at the convention hotel only presents additional problems with fairness. California LP member Carolyn Marbry has pointed out that it unfairly penalizes local attendees who would not be renting hotel rooms since they could easily
get to the location from home, families with more than one delegate per room, and delegates who want to economize by sharing rooms.
Delegates bringing more than two pets, which are not welcome at the convention hotel, would likewise be penalized, notes California LP
member and greyhound lover Lidia Seebeck.
I believe the whole scheme is not only an unjust and ill-advised slap in the face to less financially secure delegates, but a violation of
the party’s national Bylaws. The Libertarian Party is not doing its delegates a favor by allowing them access to the convention hall at
the hotel, any more than the party is doing its paid staff a favor by allowing them access to the national party offices where they do their jobs. The *delegates* are doing the *party* a favor by *volunteering* their time to fly or drive to St. Louis and incur the costs of lodging and meals in order to perform the functions assigned to them by the party’s Bylaws.
Convention meeting space is normally provided free by hotels as a condition of the contract they sign with the Convention Committee, and I expect that is no different this time around. Advocates of charging a “floor fee” (really a poll tax on delegates) insist that the real
cost of this meeting space is thus unfairly borne by those convention attendees who meet the terms of the contract by renting rooms at the
hotel, even though:
• hotel rooms are normally made available to convention attendees at a discount
• it is being proposed in St. Louis that one must still pay a $49
floor fee even if one does rent a hotel room
• the cost of the hotel meeting hall where convention business sessions will be held is almost certainly *far* less than the conservative estimate of $19,600 which the tax would bring in even if there were only 400 paying delegates and all of them received $50 rebates
Advocates of this poll tax claim that to allow delegates to be present and conduct party business in the meeting rooms used for that
purpose without paying a separate charge amounts to a “subsidy” to those delegates. Some have even used insulting terms like “povertarian,” “freeloaders,” and even “socialist” to describe those opposing the tax.
The *real* subsidy, which has received less attention, is convention attendees being forced to subsidize the preferences of those party
members who want the party’s conventions to be held in hotels where free meeting space is only available with a contract guaranteeing the
hotel a certain number of room night rentals. The party Bylaws do not require LP conventions to be held in hotels. Many members would be
perfectly happy to meet in less expensive venues such as community centers, college campuses, or even outdoors under tents in parks during the summer, and to see the money saved go toward the cause of promoting liberty, which is what we are all here for.
Some LP members, however, appear to believe the party must maintain an upscale or “professional” image, and/or that the party must offer convention attendees a certain amount of comfort and luxury in order to attract donors, or it will suffer. While this has not been proven, they are entitled to their preference for hotel conventions. But they should not force less well-heeled LP members and delegates, who may have trouble affording the cost of attending a convention in another part of the country at all, to subsidize that preference via a special
fee or tax, or to feel they must accept charity if they wish to be a delegate. This is true more than ever during an economic downturn when many people are feeling a financial strain.
Fortunately, the party’s Bylaws do not contain any provision for the national party to require delegates to pay fees in order to conduct
party business. I believe some members of the party’s National Committee understand that a floor fee is wrong and not permitted, but others need convincing. Here is my analysis of the Bylaws on this topic — my letter continues below.
—————————————————————————————
LP BYLAWS DO NOT ALLOW FLOOR FEES
To begin with, the Bylaws clearly stipulate that it is not national party officials, but the state party affiliates which get to select the methods by which delegates to LP national conventions are chosen:
ARTICLE 11: CONVENTIONS
Section 3. Delegates:
a. Delegates shall be required to be members of either the Party or an affiliate party. At all Regular Conventions delegates shall be those
so accredited who have registered at the Convention. At all Non-Regular Conventions, any person who wishes to attend may do so.
b. Any federal or state law to the contrary notwithstanding, delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party; provided however, that only members of the Party as
defined in these Bylaws, or members of the affiliate party as defined in the constitution or bylaws of such affiliate party, shall be eligible to vote for the selection of delegates to a Regular Convention.
Poll tax proponents will no doubt try to draw a distinction between “delegates” and “credentialed delegates” or “registered delegates” in terms of who is allowed to take part in floor votes and other convention business, but the Bylaws do not support any such distinction.
The phrase “credentialed delegates” appears only once in the Bylaws, with regard to voting on platform retention (Rule 7, Section 2, subsection g):
“As its first item of platform business, the convention shall vote whether to delete each of those planks that received a number of tokens for deletion equal to 20% or more of the number of credentialed delegates.”
The phrase makes sense in that context, because unlike in other votes a delegate need not be present on the floor in order to vote on
platform retention, but must merely have submitted the tokens given to him or her at the time he/she was credentialed.
Article 8, Section 11, contains the similar phrase “delegates credentialed” (the only place this phrase appears in the Bylaws), but once again this refers to a procedure that would usually occur not on the convention floor:
“Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular
Convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws.”
The phrase “registered delegates” appears three times in the Bylaws, first in Article 4, Section 1:
“The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is
founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail. The enduring importance of the Statement of Principles requires that it may be amended only
by a vote of 7/8 of all registered delegates at a Regular Convention.”
It appears again in Article 14, Section 2:
“Article 4, Section 1, shall not be amended by a vote of less than 7/8 of all registered delegates at a Regular Convention.”
And then again in Convention Rule 9, Section 1:
“No person shall be nominated for President or Vice-President unless at least 30 registered delegates join in the nomination in writing submitted to the Chair. No delegate may join in nominating more than one candidate for each office.”
In each of these cases, it appears clear that the Bylaws refer to “registered delegates” to make it clear that the reference is to *any*
delegate present at a convention, and not only those on the floor and able to vote on ordinary matters, or those who are credentialed, at
the time of the action.
Convention Rule 2, Section 1 (Voting Eligibility), states that the Secretary *acting on behalf of the Credentials Committee* shall report the number of delegates registered in attendance and eligible to vote:
1. The Secretary, acting on behalf of the Credentials Committee, shall report the number of delegates registered in attendance and eligible to vote directly after the opening of the first business session, and at the beginning of each succeeding session.
The language “acting on behalf of the Credentials Committee” is important, because the Bylaws do not empower the Secretary to
independently say who can and cannot vote.
Convention Rule 2, Section 2 (Voting Eligibility), states that “all delegates shall be eligible to vote on all matters,” and that in order
to vote on a given matter, a delegate must simply be present on the floor when a vote is taken:
2. All delegates shall be eligible to vote on all matters. In order to vote on a given matter, a
delegate must be present on the floor at the time the vote is taken. Each delegate present shall have one vote. Use of the unit rule or unit voting is prohibited at national conventions.
The Credentials Committee’s role is described as follows (in Article 11, Section 5):
“A list of the names and addresses of all delegates and alternates chosen by each
affiliate party shall be sent to the Credentials Committee no later than one month prior
to start of the first general session of the Regular Convention. Amendments to such lists
may be made by the affiliate parties and submitted to the Credentials Committee until
the close of the Credentials Committee meeting preceding the Convention. The number of alternates’ names submitted shall not exceed the greater of 50 or the number of delegates allocated. Failure to submit a listing of delegate/alternate names and addresses,
as prescribed within these Bylaws, shall cause no delegation to be registered from that affiliate party.”
In other words, the Credential Committee’s function is to receive the lists of delegates provided by state affiliates, make sure the persons on the list meet the membership requirements listed in Article 11, Section 3, and then at the convention, to issue delegate materials to those persons on the lists with valid memberships as they arrive, and to keep the Secretary appraised of how many such persons are present.
Note also in the section quoted above that the failure to submit a list of delegate names to the Credentials Committee results in no
“delegation” being registered from that state, i.e. the failure to be “registered” as a result of non-compliance with Credentials Committee
procedures applies to *delegations*, not to *individual delegates*. “Registration” as the term applies to delegates appears to mean simply showing up and letting the Credentials Committee or the Secretary know that you are present. The phrase that appears in the aforementioned Convention Rule 2, Section 1, “registered in attendance,” reflects this understanding.
Article 11, Section 8, uses the same phrase to define a quorum:
“A quorum shall consist of 40% of the total number of delegates registered in attendance
at the Convention.”
Convention Rule 2, Section 3 (Voting Eligibility) also gives state affiliates the power to replace absent members of their delegations by
any procedure they adopt and give notification of in advance, and does not specify that these substitute delegates must be approved by the
Credentials Committee or registered in any way other than by the Secretary being provided with a list of their names:
“Duly selected alternates may be freely substituted for any members of their delegation
who are temporarily or permanently absent from the floor, provided the procedure has
been clearly specified by the affiliate party in advance of the Convention, and the Secretary has been provided with lists of the affiliate party’s delegates and alternates as well as a copy of the affiliate party’s rules governing substitutions.”
Indeed, Article 11, Section 5 clearly implies that if one has been properly selected as a delegate, all one must do to be credentialed is
to submit one’s name and address to the Credentials Committee, because convention delegates themselves are empowered to approve additional delegates in this manner who have *not* been properly selected:
“By seven-eighths vote, the Convention may approve additional delegates and alternates
whose names and addresses are submitted to the Credentials Committee during the Convention.”
Poll tax proponents have also suggested that Robert’s Rules of Order makes it legal to charge such a fee. The LP Bylaws state (Article 13) that:
“The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.”
However, California LP member Mike Seebeck has pointed out that while Robert’s Rules (pp. 593:13-21) describes such fees for the use of meeting rooms as ‘normal’, it does not say they are required as a rule. Since Robert’s Rules does not offer any *rule* on the subject, it would not meet the Bylaws criteria for providing governance in this matter even if other Bylaws provisions did not already make such fees
illegal (which the arguments outlined above establish is the case). Therefore RRONR provides no legal authority for charging LP delegates a floor fee. “The absence of consent by the delegates does not imply consent is given by the delegates,” Mike points out. “In fact, the
absence of consent implies NO consent.”
Missouri LP member Tom Knapp has also pointed out that “While the matter has not been litigated in this specific context (an ‘off-year’
national convention in which no presidential candidate is nominated), the courts have held in similar contexts that a delegate ‘floor fee’ constitutes an illegal poll tax.” So it is possible that legal authority to charge this fee does not exist under current U.S. law even if the LP’s Bylaws did allow it.
In conclusion, here are three key points:
(1) Nowhere in the Bylaws is the Convention Committee or any other body or individual authorized to charge delegates a tax or fee in
order to vote on party business.
(2) Nowhere in the Bylaws is delegate “registration” defined as anything other than simply showing up and letting the appropriate
persons know you are present, nor is being “credentialed” defined as anything other than being certified by the Credentials Committee as a current party member who has been duly selected as a delegate by a state affiliate party.
(3) Nowhere in the Bylaws is the Credentials Committee or any other body or individual authorized to refuse to “register” or credential a
delegate who shows up at the convention having been properly selected by a state affiliate, or to thereby deny a delegate his or her ability to vote.
————————————————————————————–
This message was sent to members of the Libertarian National Committee and various email lists. LNC members have the power to
require their Convention Committee to eliminate the “floor fee” proposal. Please contact them, especially the LNC members who
represent your state, and let them know you want them to comply with the Bylaws and eliminate this fee. If any of them write back to you, please share their responses — they are our representatives, and this is an important party matter — on as many LP lists and forums as possible, so that LP members can see where
they stand.
It is important that those who do plan to go to St. Louis know which LNC members are for this illegal, elitist tax, and which are against
it, so that we can take this into consideration when electing LNC members in convention.
Oh, you mean like Lassie in the capitol in Sacto lobbying against having his nuts cut by MSN?
You don’t own pets, do you?
AFAIC, except for restaurants and grocery stores, there is no reason to exclude dogs anywhere, but each owner is responsible for cleaning up after them.
People who force pets into public places that will only allow service dogs for examples. Service dogs and police dogs that are qualified to be as such.
HP, what are you talking about? My hounds are my pets and that’s it. They aren’t delegates, they aren’t people, but they are family.
Trust me, no animal rights whackos in my house!
I suppose people who want to push soo called pets as other than what they really are, pets. Could these be the same people who think they should park in handicapped parking spaces as well.
I should point out that the people advocating this BS are well known both here and elsewhere, as are the wonderful people fighting it. I shouldn’t have to name names at this point.
BTW, there are multiple reasons people travel with dogs.
We own Greyhounds and have for ten years. Greyhounds come off the track complete with a VERY detailed adoption contract that specifies many aspects of their care.
Allowing them to be boarded on concrete is (justifiably) considered to be cruel, and is not allowed. However, that’s exactly what you get at most boarding kennels.
So we’ve learned to travel as a pack. It’s a little chaotic but it’s what works for us. I might add, mine are not watchdogs. They are highly social dogs who thrive on attention. About the only reason we didn’t bring them on the floor in Denver is that it would have been a little crazy juggling the dogs and John in that situation. (That, and I wasn’t sure what Ginger or Molly would think of each other, so I wanted to avoid any issues “under fire”)
Other people may travel with dogs for companionship, or for other reasons.
Some things should be clarified. Don’t mind the snark-asm.
According to Ms. Mattson, she of the “professional registered parlaimentarian” ilk who is 0-for-life against me on Bylaws rulings, the LNC supposedly delegated the duty of setting fees etc. to the Convention Committee. That is dependent on verifcation of the wording of the motion at the time, and you can expect Solitaire Sullentrup to have it recorded wrong in the minutes because A) it suits his agenda, and B) it interfered with him playing a jack of diamonds onto a queen of clubs for the zillionith time. But assuming it’s true, then a LNC vote on the issue is irrelevant, except to override the ConComm. That may still happen.
But the idea that RONR allows for a fee is just incorrect. The only mention of a fee is in passing in the description of the duties of the Credentials Committee, on page 593, and nowhere in all 700+ pages of RONR is there anything at all about whether a society may or may not authorize a fee. Those who say there can be one are confusing descriptive details of one committee (CredComm) with enablement to do something by another committee (ConComm). That does not follow. In the absence of that in RONR, and since there is no Bylaw or Convention Rules on the subject, the entire issue is silent. There is no consent by the delegates to such a fee, and no consent is implied either, and lack if explicit consent does not mean implied consent. Yet these folks claim it does as a means to try to ignore the Bylaws and do whatever they want. That idea was shot down by the JudComm in the Wrights case.
In other words, if the delegates want it, they can amend the Bylaws to get it, but absent that, the LNC cannot presume an ability not granted to them by the delegates. A floor fee is such an ability.
Furthermore, delegate selection is the exclusive pruview of the states, and per the Bylaws, the states set those criteria and the LNC may not infringe them. If a state wishes for some bizarre reason to invoke a registration fee for the natcon, and if their Bylaws permit it, then they can. But the LNC, absent a Bylaws change, cannot.
Now, on the LNC list there has been several commentaries by the Secretary in between his deck shuffling both between the ears and on the card table, implying that the LNC members who object to this fee (not to mention the preferential treatment of Root in speakers slots while he’s running for LNC Chair) are “paranoid”, “going loopy” and are “socialist-aholics”. He also called Ms. Mattson’s obviously flawed analysis “masterful” and “like a Bobby Fischer chess game.” Sorry, but as a chess player myself, Fischer was great in his time, but the current Russian K-boys (Karpov and Kasparov) would wipe the board with him or Spassky. And besides, only on MASH can you play a five of hearts on a black pawn and get away with it.
But let me ask you something serious: Does the LP membership really want leadership that treats the delegates with that level of contempt and condescension? I give them the snark they so desperately deserve in kind to what they give us. They seem to treat the members as serfs instead of bosses, and they seem to forget that they work for us, and the LP does not revolve around them.
For that reason alone, fees aside, they need to be shown the door in St. Louis.
Bob,
I’m going to set aside Boortz for a moment, as he wasn’t one of the features in 2008.
In 2008, party members heard from Barr and Root because they WANTED to hear from Barr and Root. In order to speak from the main stage and participate in the C-SPAN debate, each candidate had to demonstrate support for doing so from a reasonably large number of delegates.
In point of fact, delegates saw and heard MORE of Kubby, Phillies, Ruwart, Jingozian, Gravel, Smith and, until he switched to the VP contest, Burns than they did of Root and Barr, because those other candidates attended more of the events organized by the grass roots.
For that matter, right outside the convention hall there was a soapbox with a sign next to it inviting ANYONE to speak. Nobody had to listen, but you could talk.
Barr, Root and Boortz will stop talking to the LP when the LP decides to stop listening to them. They don’t have to be dis-“allowed” from doing so, nor should they be.
To say we’ve heard enough from Barr, Root & Boortz et al & want to hear others isn’t censorship. It is The Law of Supply & Demand, not parasitic nonsense. or Throwing Good Money After Bad.
The LP needs Prof. Phillies as LNC Chair asap A REAL LOT.
Hook up with leftist radicals, anarchists & progressives & see how long THEY tolerate the rightist assholes.
Bob,
Censorship is not a radical libertarian value.
A radicalized LNC probably wouldn’t tout Barr, Root and Boortz as its representatives, but that’s a different story.
A radicalized LP/LNC would not even allow Barr, Root & Boortz to speak; having already indulged rightists so much for so long. Bring on the radicals & their ideas & plans for the LP.
If I we’re betting on who will win the LP nom , I would put my MONEY on Burns , but like I said Jim D has indicated he will still be running.
If Jim Duensing runs that will not be a good sign. That is all I can say.
an LP will run for Senate. Either Jim Duensing or Jim Burns will be the LP candidate unless NOTA wins . I think if Duensing or Burns doesnt get the LP nom they will both get the sigs necessary to run as an independent.
All that bickering on the Arch photo
and no word on whether it is the biggest
crochet hoop or one half of the world’s
largest McDonald’s sign …………
How much is the LP paying Boortz to speak?
I helped at the convention where they had shut down the Ron Paul Convention. I was hoping Danny Tark would have been better. But the media is pushing Sue Lowden. I would have preferred an LP to run for Senate. I am personally friends with the people who ran the Ron Paul Convention. Good People.
john estes you need to work on your writing style its barely comprehensible.
however if Im not misunderstanding you are talking about Nevada. I wonder if your misspelling of Reid to Rid was intentional , either way it’s funny.
rest assured the LP is running a US Senate candidate. People please hope that the gOP noms Sue Lowden because a large faction of the GOP here , RP folks , Hate her. she shut down the state convention when they were winning , and if she gets the nom , those folks will come oir way.
HOWEVER , that may give the seat back to Reid so Im torn. …
What kind of food do you get for 75 bucks for 2 lunches?
And 175 bucks for 2 breakfasts and a Neal Boortz!
http://www.FirstGov.Gov (A-Z) by state? 1-(202) 456-1111 call every Day?! WhiteHouse.gov (fax) commet’s form/letter’s; FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter, ect…
“Pst-card: 100 Pennsyvila Ave., NW 20500-0001 (zp+4) USPS.com
Speaker.gov & Govenor’s, Mayor’s, staff & govt worker’s, too?!? Recapture the LP, Preamble, spak for “the Party” alone……
Take out a Petion torun for Any(all) office’s 2010!!! or Friend’s will, campaine YOU as a Unsolicated, “Write-In” any Web-page (MySite.com)
Rid’s, Gibbion’s, Goodman conspericy HAVE (L) 4-NV U.S. senate race. Shot on order’s of Clark/metro (elected) Shreiff…!?
2010 LP convention. Don’t go? But turn back to “local” city/town organization’s Hq’s created, by You?!? Wb-Site, MySite.com or HomeStead.com Plus+ IRS.gov & FEC.gov (USA.gov) A-Z…?!! ven if alone! apart from County & State, Hq’s
L.N.C. ( State) have become D.C.-ish as RNC/DNC (GNC/reform) in the “Belt-Way” Hill, Crystal Palace/Shangrla ‘man-tallity’…
Of, macro/mirco Supervisor’s/manager’s; sliping from the Indentured-Servant’s t”Indivual” member’s…! LP, Preamble… the (i)ndivual’s right’s ‘are’ Paramount ALL other’s (thing’s)
Speak & act ASthe’voiceof te “Libertarian Party; U.S. Bill of Right’s, Redress Greivance’s to the Govt'(s) office/r'(s) & (elected) Offical’s…
DON’T need ANY-one’s Premission or Approval, for the Greater GOOD of the Party. Govt (politian) Power does what?!!…
One Party (system) o simular “Spin-Doctor’s” Smoke & Mirror’s Plus Kicking up the Dust. Without the ‘letter’ on their Name & Chest; just Power Grapper’s a Simesse SOUND-a-Like Twin’s. No differnace between parties; NONE, any 3rd party!!!
Last place she and I worked was Albuquerque, New Mexico.
I went to the cops, the Sheriff and their Humane Society/Animal Control. They wanted no certification from me and stated I needed none.
The hotel was super nice to us and the Engineering staff adopted her. We’ve never been turned down after I explained she works.
Rule #1. They look at temperment. If the dog is dangerous it does not qualify.
Note: A CGC (Canine Good Citizen certificate), CGN (Canine Good Neighbor certificate), or any of the Good Citizen Dog Schemes certificates do not make a dog a service dog. While any service dog should easily pass a citizenship test, not all dogs who pass the citizenship test will have sufficient training or an appropriate temperament for service work.
Can I train my own dog to be a service animal?
One of the big challenges for people training service dogs is getting the dog adequately trained for public access. Not all dogs have the temperament to handle the stress of working in public. Remember that you must meet the ADA definition of having a “disability” and, to be considered a service dog, your dog must be trained to perform tasks directly related to your disability.
The Minimum Standards for Service Dogs documents the recommended characteristics and minimum set of skills required of all service dogs. The Minimum Standards also address the health and safety of the public, handler, and dog.
http://www.deltasociety.org/Page.aspx?pid=304#TrainService
Therapy Animals are not legally defined by federal law, but some states have laws defining therapy animals. They provide people with contact to animals, but are not limited to working with people who have disabilities. They are usually the personal pets of their handlers, and work with their handlers to provide services to others. Federal laws have no provisions for people to be accompanied by therapy animals in places of public accommodation that have “no pets” policies. Therapy animals usually are not service animals.
http://rampartsar.com/dogs.htm
K-9 service dogs.
There are hotel and motel that are dog friendly for an extra price, however again as I state, hotel can refuse to allow dogs in without a certification.
They would need a by-laws change and 2/3 of the delegates on the floor to allow it for NEXT convention. As it stands, considering that by-laws trump RONR, it’s pretty clearly outside the by-laws and most likely will be defeated.
National requiring people to pay a fee to vote IS an additional requirement for them to carry out their duties as delegates from the states, and if one would vote, it is certainly NOT optional. I’m not sure you understand what it is we’re talking about here.
We’re not talking about paying for supplies or binders — those are extra anyway. We’re not talking about the dinner packages or the extra speaker packages. We’re talking about a basic fee to vote as a delegate. A poll tax, for all intents and purposes. We’re also talking about an unwieldy mail-in rebate program that has costs associated with it, as well.
I have no idea on what you’re basing your assessment of what the LNC wants since there was no vote on this item, unless you want to consider the LNC to have pre-approved everything ever submitted by any committee it’s ever created…
Well if Carolyn is right that they needed some kind of permission, what motion would have needed to be made to make it technically ok how it is? And if it’s so against the will of the LNC, then why doesn’t someone make a motion and stop it all?
I’m all for playing by the rules, especially considering so many Libertarians seem to want to break them, which really bugs me.
I think the issue is that Roberts says there can be a fee to cover costs of the event. Clearly.
That is no extra requirement. That’s one that’s already provided for.
I’m no Parliamentarian, but that’s sort of common sense and we already covered that.
Ms. Marbury wrote, “The by-laws do not allow national to put further requirements on delegates selected and credentialed by the states, including floor fees in order to vote.”
This is a misleading statement.
Because, there is no, and I quote, “further requirement” being made by the LNC.
This is an additional and optional cost that attendees can be asked to defray.
This is a red herring by the extremists to distract from some other business they don’t want folks to notice. Why else would they jump up and down over a hundred bucks for three days of costs?
Roberts says a reasonable cost can be assessed attendees. If you think this fee is not reasonable, let’s hear what you think is, and get someone to make a motion.
And get the votes.
Otherwise, it seems to me the will of the LNC is to go with how it’s set up for this time.
I adopted her because she is considered a ‘dangerous breed’ and her owners could not close escrow on their house unless they adopted her out. You know how the bank insists you have fire and liability before they will give you a mortage?
So nobody is after me.
But it’s a breed that’s known for that, and I have some experience with training. And she’s a natural. She and I just got back from 41 days on contract with a full ride a few weeks ago.
She does perimeter, entrance/exit, and even some tracking and scent.
As far as the certification requirements, there are all kinds of reasons folks can have dogs with them where they go, restaurants and hotels included.
There is no recognized certifying body for many types of working and service dogs.
For example, if you use your dog for work and must take it with you, what happens when you have to stop and eat or use a restroom?
It’s illegal to leave the animal in the car.
Whatever, I have taken this dog with me all over the usa in restaurants and hotels a million times and been paid well while I was at it.
I dealt with the cops and the Sherrif and the FBI and Homeland Security and so what?
Yeah, and your shrink can give you a note, which I understand means you can actually bring the dog in the cabin of the airplane. LOL
Michael and Lidia Seebeck and their son met her. Bob Barr met her. Look carefully through Youtube for Denver Convention clips and you can find us.
We were on C-Span, too.
I don’t travel without her.
Oh, and she has alerted on dope and firearms and explosives before, with zero training.
Why do you have a guard dog? Do you think someone is after you?
That is funny.
I will agree and add. There has been some rule changes making it harder for people to even take theraphy/emotional support dogs. For example: You can check with the Amtrack, they will not allow these type of dogs at all anymore. Only service dogs, such as you already stated. Dogs for the Hard of hearing/Deaf and seeing eye dogs. I am not sure if the Hotels have started changing the rules or not but it needs to be checked.
As far as so called guard dogs, dogs that find narcotics, and etc, they have to be also certified, like for example. K-9 German Shepherd who’s partner is a Law enforcement officer. There are other types of dogs that do different work in law enforcement. But again certified by the Police Department.
Bruce Cohen: “They voted to give the Committee the job, no? I mean, the LNC can give or take away the responsibility, I mean what the heck are these people supposed to do on the Con Com?”
They did not vote to allow the convention committee to violate the by-laws, however. The by-laws do not allow national to put further requirements on delegates selected and credentialed by the states, including floor fees in order to vote. That’s really the issue here.
Bruce Cohen: “I have a big guard dog named Ginger. Technically, I could force the Marriot to host her in their rooms as she really is a working dog.”
I think only seeing-eye dogs, or dogs to help deaf people used to qualify as “working dogs” that legally had to be let in.
More recently, some judge said “emotional support” dogs counted too, if you had a note from a psychologist or other mental health professional.
I’ve never heard of “guard dogs” qualifying as dogs that had to be let into places.
Why do you have a guard dog? Do you think someone is after you?
They voted to give the Committee the job, no? I mean, the LNC can give or take away the responsibility, I mean what the heck are these people supposed to do on the Con Com?
The LNC did NOT vote on it.
Already established, higher up in the thread.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
And to run a Convention.
Robert’s Rules clearly say the organizers can have a fee of some reasonable sort to cover the cost of putting on the event.
It doesn’t say they have to. It doesn’t say they can’t.
What Robert’s clearly says is that they may.
And that the cost should be reasonable.
And for all the Conspiracy geeks out there about the costs, in every single case where I have been involved in organizing, promoting, marketing or conducting a Libertarian Convention nobody has been turned away for lack of funds.
Paul Ireland was getting all freaked out about a Convention one year, the Hinkle Produced event in San Jose. Finally, I called the guy off the record and asked him why he was freaking out, etc…
This of course, is during a time when the whole ‘it’s a conspiracy to keep the povertarians out’ battle was raging.
Mark Hinkle could never be called anti-radical or anti-povertarian by any stretch of the imagination, and it was his deal.
Anyway, I called up Mister Ireland, we discussed the whole thing, and I cut a deal with the man.
(By the way, Paul is a very smart guy and a powerful force.)
I said, if I can get you comped onto the floor, will you volunteer to do credentialing for a few hours?
Paul agreed.
I called Mark.
Mark agreed and said that since Paul was going to help, he would actually admit him to the events, too.
Gail Lightfoot, too.
She could only afford the floor fee, and asked me if she and her husband could get into an event she hadn’t paid for.
I discussed it with Mark and we let them in.
Why not?
Aaron Starr at the M Carling LAX Convention same thing. Someone came to us and could not afford it, we found a way for them to go, by sponsorship or whatever.
I’m not saying I’m perfect, or anyone has the perfect idea.
I’m saying there is no mal-intent here and we should stick to doing the math on what will give us the best sum (result).
I don’t care how much or little it costs.
Heck, I would be in favor of paying people to go if we could come up with the money and it would give us better results.
So let’s all stick to reality and policy and knock off the silliness about fancy dinners.
Nobody is forced to stay at the Marriot.
I have a big guard dog named Ginger.
Technically, I could force the Marriot to host her in their rooms as she really is a working dog.
But I won’t, because there are better deals on dog friendly hotels right around the corner.
Let’s vote on how to do it, then come together and do it.
Getting all freaked out and accusatory when this is just a conversation about business policy and strategy is silly.
Let’s compare the different business models, and then vote on it.
Errrr Members of the LNC, that is.
Oh yeah.
They already did.
Vote
on
it
Seems to me they are putting on a better show than the largest State Party in the USA is and charging about the same.
The same folks who are complaining about the fee at National, somehow think it’s ok at the State level.
Get with the program.
If you can’t afford it, I suggest you call the organizers and ask if you can work (volunteer) it off.
It’s not my deal.
I can’t make that offer, but if you’re that broke, get a sponsor, raise the money, work some extra hours, or make a call to the Convention folks.
Be there.
Vote.
Be nice.
There wil be cameras so wear your Sabbath best, please.
Maybe the LP party should budget within their means and those who don’t should not be in charge. In these economic times they should do everything in their power to make it easy assessable for people to attend the convention and use the money where it needed the most. For our CANDIDATES in the election. You don’t need a high end hotel or fancy room or so called fancy dinners. You can get everything you need in reasonable budget and what is more important to have the people attend in a more affordable way. If you can’t show to budget and be wise with the money now, how do you expect people to trust this party as it can be percieved they don’t know how to use the money wisely, it will look like a repeat of Government on a bigger scale. WASTING MONEY, OUR MONEY. TAX DOLLARS. OUR DONATIONS TO HELP THE LP PARTY.
For those who are not Monty Python fans, Bruce’s references to the soft cushion and comfy chair hark back to an old MP sketch about the Spanish Inquisition.
So basically, the California LP should charge a poll tax because a) they have to and b) it’s ok when the ‘radicals’ are running the Convention.
But conversely, the National LP should not charge because a) it wasn’t our idea and b) we are not in charge?
Answer, or it’s the comfy chair for you, Mike.
gp, I’ve no position on all this, but some questions:
1) Do the Bylaws say the the NatCon must be a charge to core income, or is this your opinion that it should be so?
2) Do you have data on previous NatCons? Have they historically been generating net income or net losses?
3) If they’ve generated income in the past, why are those serious failings? If they’ve generated losses, do you regard them as successful?
The National Convention is the one deed that the National Committee absolutely must perform. Failure to budget for a national convention, as an expense charged to core income, is a serious failing.
Well said, Tom.
Michael,
The “economic reality” is that the membership has already paid for the convention with annual dues.
If the LNC has failed to budget to meet its obligation of providing a venue for the biennial business meeting (“convention”), well, that sucks, but it doesn’t change the economic reality, which is that they took the money and incurred the obligation.
The purpose of the poll tax (“registration fee”) isn’t to make the convention possible. The purpose of the poll tax is to shift costs — to force all of the delegates to subsidize a preference on the part of some for a more luxurious venue and for some extra-convention activities/events.
I have nothing against a luxurious venue or extra-convention activities/events … but those things should pay for themselves. The delegates have no obligation to subsidize them.
The simple fact is that there is a mentality that is going around that everything has to be in one place for the convenience of the delegates, so they do these overpriced hotels without thinking in terms of economy and the financial situations of the delegates. Why in the hell should I spend $114-124 a night at a luxury-hotel-wannabe Marred-riot, plus parking, plus $15 a day for Internet, meals extra, and no pets allowed, when I can hit a Super 8 for less than half the room cost, free parking, pets, breakfast, and Internet? What’s the better value there?
There are better ways to do this, all around. I’m not thrilled with floor fees at any level, but I also recognize economic reality. If LPCA put on a convention with no fee, it would be a going-out-of-business convention, because we’d be broke and done. That’s California.Sometimes principles have to give way to reality, and this is one of those cases. OTOH Colorado has done no-fee conventions for years and done fine, because they could, and because they had to–it was in their Bylaws explicitly.
As for the national convention, we were told originally $49, then this rebate scam came along. I don’t like being lied to.
I could use a soft cushion since my tailbone is sore from a slip and fall on the slick rainy sidewalks. Sunny California, my ass!
As far as the California convention goes, ask those who negotiated the contract, which did not include me.
I would like to see the discussion center on what would be best.
Let’s talk about how we can get the most result out of the time, effort and money at this Convention, instead of ascribing evil intent.
I can see the arguments on both sides making sense and am not set either way.
I notice the ‘radicals’ are in charge in California for three years now and at their Convention, it does appear they are charging about 100 bucks there…
What does Mister Seebeck have to say about THIS?
Answer us Mike, or you get the soft cushion!
Hey Susan, keep your dishonest hands off my stuff. If you have an Editorial suggestion, you have my email and phone number. In the meantime, I don’t go to McDonalds and adjust how much catsup you put on burgers, ok?
Indeed it does violate the Bylaws.
Delegate selection is the exclusive purview of the states. The only reference to a fee is in RONR, and there it only references paying one as a “normal” part of registration process. Neither RONR or the Bylaws require it nor authorize it, and furthermore, teh convention rules indicate that all delegates are eligible to vote on party matters. Denying delegates their right to vote over a floor fee would be a clear violation.
On top of that, the rebate they offer discriminates against couples and locals who won’t be at the hotel, because the rebate is only applicable if you fork out $114-124 a night for two nights to stay in the hotel. But it’s only good on the name on the hotel receipt, not the spouse, too. For the spouse to get the rebate, they’d need a separate room.
Bruce, I fixed the picture so that it didn’t bleed over the entire page, and changed the text a bit to make it read like a news piece rather than an unpaid promo for the LP.
Convention business on Monday morning?
THERE WAS NO VOTE.
From Lee Wrights, moments ago in reply to my direct query.
CEM: “Was there in fact a vote about these packages and the floor fee?”
RLW: “No. These are rules being imposed by the Convention Committee which they do not have the authority to do…. There was no vote on this, of this I am quite sure.”
Since Lee Wrights and Mike Seebeck have made clear that this is a violation of the by-laws, James Lark has also expressed that he wants to know by what interpretation of the by-laws this is allowable and if no such answer is forthcoming, he wants to see it removed and all funds returned to those who have paid.
So as I said, this is not the entire LNC screwing up. It’s either the convention committee overstepping their place or its a misunderstanding on the part of whoever put this information out on the website.
In any case, hopefully it will be resolved soon.
@Chuck 11, I’m looking into this because from what I understand, there was specific discussion in Nashville about how this was NOT going to be a floor fee and that delegates would be seated even if they did not pay.
Of course, that’s not remotely what the website says.
It’s possible this was discussed/decided in email after the meeting or that it was a unilateral decision/misunderstanding. In any case, I’m trying to get to the bottom of it.
be interesting if we get protesters with signs outside the building. That’ll make for great press.
@10 I’m not sure LNC is using its own library of Convention manuals…
I understand times are tough. Not to brag, but to brag on a “National Quality Convention” (per LNC ED) I helped run in 2005 …
>We made a profit of thousands with hundreds of attendees and drop-ins and used the dough to fund 50,000 outreach items and launch many Libs in public office and activist projects…
>We negotiated costs like crazy, had great speakers on topics relevant to getting Libertarian success, turned no one away and hired homeless people to help out which helped build momentum for a county summit on the problem, and directed people to free space and cheaper hotels while meeting are host hotel committment…
>It wasn’t all roses. The “needs to go” GOP contingent in the LP Florida tried several times to submarine the convention, BTW, and have been trying to shut us down since in Pinellas LP …
>Still, any ideas you or LNC could use (they got a full report BTW) in this PDF here?
http://www.lppinellas.org/4pg_LPF_2005_Conv_NewsLTR.pdf
It takes a very small minority to get a vote on the record for issues like these. Even people opposed in substance usually will go along with having a vote. I would only write off the entire LNC if there is no vote to demonstrate who is on the right and wrong side of this issue.
I will be in Austin, and I plan to speak out against this if given a chance. Not yet being on the LNC, if they decide to close the meeting, I may be out of luck. But I know that Lee Wrights opposes this strongly and I would imagine he will speak out against it as well.
Chuck, please don’t write off the entire LNC. That’s too easy. You and I both know there’s a contingent that needs to go, but you also know there are some good people on that board, some folks who have been shouted down and very nearly driven off with a variety of tactics.
Whether this is really a measure to chase off the so-called povertarians or an attempt to cover up their own incompetence at keeping the party solvent or their pathological inability to set aside pomp and circumstance for necessity, it’s unacceptable.
Ironically, requiring people to stay at the more expensive hotel for two or more days or lose their $50 mail-in rebate — anybody thought about administrative costs on THAT little gem? — will send delegates in DROVES to the cheaper hotels because folks can save far more than a mere $50 by staying two or more nights elsewhere. Not to mention how this penalizes those who live in St. Louis…
That is quite messed up. I probably won’t even bother attending the meeting then. Hotel room on top of travel will already run at least a couple hundred then another 50-100 to be a delegate.
They waste enough money that I don’t think we should be eating the “overhead costs.”
Who is on the credentials committee?
It is a nice picture, except that it goes into the Recent Entries section.
http://www.gatewaytoliberty.com/registration
Please note: Access to convention floor permitted only by delegates officially registered by the Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee will only officially register those eligible individuals who have paid the required registration fee (Gold, Silver or Basic Package).
The actual charge for the Basic Fee is $99 ($129 in the near future).
Details: “For a limited time only, we are offering a $50 rebate per room for each paid minimum two-night stay at the St. Louis Renaissance Grand Suites Hotel. There is a limit of one rebate per room and it is only offered to the convention registrant listed as the primary hotel room guest.”
From the convention website:
That’s pretty screwed up.
They finally slipped in a floor fee.
I’ve been the main opposition on the LNC for years, so it doesn’t surprise me very much that they rammed one through with me not there.
I hope there is a roll call vote that can be pointed to showing who supported the floor fee (violating the bylaws) and who opposed it.
If it’s not possible to distinguish the wheat from the chaff on this issue, I’m going to go on record now as advocating that the entire LNC be shown the door this convention.
In that event, anyone I promised to endorse can consider that endorsement withdrawn.
The LNC has very few bylaws required tasks. Putting on a convention is one of them. If they screw that up with such magnitude — disenfranchising all the so called “povertarians” — they don’t deserve to be on the board.
The only valid way to impose a floor fee is by changing the bylaws to allow it.
The admission fee will probably be challenged at the next LNC meeting in February. A lot of people think it stinks. Others say it is necessary to pay for convention overhead costs. But it’s definitely going to be challenged in some venue.
They’re charging to be a delegate? The one thing we were told would never happen? Will this be popular?
As long as we’re talking about sharing liberty in a city known for beer:
That is a fine picture of a fine arch.