*As I previously noted,
the Libertarian National Committee will be meeting next weekend near Dallas-Ft. Worth airport. See details here. IPR is looking for volunteer correspondents to help us cover the meeting. If you can be there in person to help livestream, liveblog, tape, provide equipment for any of these, provide a phone internet connection if the hotel blocks wi-fi in the meeting room, or record your own version of the events to post after the fact or with periodic updates, please let us know in the comments or by calling or texting me at 415-690-6352. If we are able to get a livestream, we’ll also be looking for people to provide text comments on what is happening as it occurs for the benefit of those unable or unwilling to watch the livestream themselves.
So far I have had one person say they will check to see if their cousin may help with recording. We are still looking for additional help. I have received no calls or texts about this at all. Earlier I wrote:
*The main items for consideration at the meeting will be next year’s budget and the discussion of the findings of the Audit Oversight committee. The preliminary agenda for the meeting is here. For anyone unable to open the document I have a text version here. It will be subject to amendment by the LNC at the start of the meeting as well as by votes held throughout the meeting.
An additional item that many of our readers may be interested in is the issue of floor fees. The subject has been at the center of numerous debates at IPR in the past, as well as in other venues. At the last national convention, floor fees for delegates to be allowed to vote were made mandatory for the first time ever (as far as I have been able to determine). Some of our commenters have alleged that they are implicitly against existing bylaws or even government laws. Others have said they are not addressed in the bylaws and are permitted under Roberts Rules of Order. There is also debate over whether they are necessary to keep the party from losing money on conventions and/or a way to keep out the less well off delegates and change the outcomes of convention votes as a result. At the 2012 convention, a majority of delegates voted to prohibit floor fees in the future, but less than the 2/3 required to make this an explicit bylaw. There are two convention-related items on the preliminary agenda:
Convention Oversight Committee (Goldstein) 15 Minutes
Convention Management Committee (N. Neale) 15 Minutes
In an LNC email exchange indicate floor fees will be likely to be voted on at this meeting:
Geoffrey Neale
7:17 PM
to lnc-business
Hopefully yes——– Original message ——–
From: Rich Tomasso
Date: 12/01/2013 6:03 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Dallas LNC meeting proposed agendaIs the intent to have the motion about the convention “floor fee” during
one of the two convention committee reports?~Rich
Region 5N Rep
Additionally, there will be a goals discussion – but only for 15 minutes, unless the agenda is changed.
Regarding the other items I discussed in the prior post:
*I’ve received no response as to whether the preliminary budget has already been publicly posted anywhere. I would like to get some feedback about budget priorities from our readers, but I would rather not post it unless it has already been publicly posted somewhere since it is marked confidential.
*So far, no one commented on that post as to what questions LNC members should ask, or what further actions should be taken, in response to issues brought up by the audit oversight committee.
*It appears I most likely will not be voting, but I’ll try to be prepared in case I will be, since no definitive answer has been posted. However, even if I am not voting, I still don’t have a phone internet convention, so unless we find someone who can provide that or unless the hotel makes their wifi available to us at no charge, there may not be any live coverage of the meeting.
*In the comments on the previous post, interim chair Chuck Moulton said that rank and file members who have proposals they would like to have considered by the bylaws committee can write to him at [email protected] and that these can be either specific language or broad ideas for proposals. To date, we have received no similar reply from the platform committee to the same question.
62 Comments
Comments are closed.
The key is: “in all cases to which they are applicable” AND “not inconsistent with”
Applicable means “fitting, relevant and appropriate” and in the light of language and law, this takes on the meaning as “when called upon”.
“Not inconsistent with” means to ‘move along the same path’ or to not hinder or hold back.
There is no support as to create new bylaws via Roberts Rules when the bylaws are silent. However when it comes to delegates and seating, the bylaws are not silent and Roberts is not evoked or cited, and to apply floor fees would be ‘inconsistent with’ the stated bylaws.
How is it that little ol’ me can see this but the LNC brain trust cannot? I don’t claim to be smart person, or have any special degrees of knowledge, or even trained in the area of law and governance. But I can see that Floor Fees for Delegates is NOT supported and cannot be arbitrary created.
FROM THE LNC BYLAWS…
ARTICLE 16: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY
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.
THIS MEANS:
Saying that Roberts Rules is applied when the bylaws is silent is not supported. The above only gives authority to Roberts when the bylaws specificity evoke or cite Roberts and only for those issues where evoked and cited. Otherwise, Roberts is moot on silent issues and cannot be used to support creating new bylaws out of silence.
So far they have always come up with fig leaves at the very least. We shall see what happens next.
“Roberts Rules have been interpreted to mean that floor fees are allowed whenever they are not specfically prohibited in the bylaws, although there is some dissent on that.”
Then why not require loyalty oaths to a faction, only seating those who wear a particular ribbon, or have a particular ancestral heritage. This is where it goes you know.
The standing interpretation of the bylaws is that they are.
That happened last time. The delegate was not seated. It may have been more than one, but I know at least one for a fact. He remained there protesting outside.
Roberts Rules have been interpreted to mean that floor fees are allowed whenever they are not specfically prohibited in the bylaws, although there is some dissent on that.
Nick
The ‘Floor Fees’ are not supported in the LNC bylaws. There is going to be a real problem when a delegate shows up who won’t pay the floor fees but demands to be seated.
What has happened is that a cliche that HAD power in the LNC created legislation out of the silence of the bylaws in that, “we charged floor fees because the bylaws did not say we couldn’t”. Such legislation never stands up in a court of law, or with reasonable people.
Absurdity is also not a factor of law that you can make a stand on either. Just because some absurd position was taken once, does not mean it can be taken again.
When any governance stands on the ‘Absurd’ as Law and grounds for creating new laws, under the color of “we say it is, so it is” then the group becomes a despot government. This is no governance that I can support, contribute to, and I will actively work against it to remove those who support the absurdities.
I wrote a brief note in opposition to the floor fee to my regional representative, Norm Olsen. Since some comments on the issue are being memorialized here, I’ll go on record as being opposed to the imposition of any floor fee.
Like Chuck, that position is in my personal capacity as a member, not as Vice Chair of Colorado, Bylaws Committee member, or member of the Judicial Committee.
Is the LNC an Imperial Republic system of Governance?
An Imperial Republic system rule is simply governance by a political hegemony that keeps power with a closed circle.
Now, if the Delegates to a convention where to be called ‘Lords’, because they can afford the travel and cost of attending a convention, AND pay the Floor Fees (Payment for rights and nobility), that might not be affordable/accessible to the working class Surf. The surf often don’t elect these lords, where as the lords simply appoint themselves to the positions if only due to their ability to ‘pay to play’, and the surf will go along with it because after all, someone has to go, right?
These Lords then agree to appoint Dukes (At-large representatives) and elect an Imperial court (Chair, Vice-Chair, treasurer and secretary). The State Chairs (Counts) then elect the Barons (state Reps and alternates). Those elected to such positions are also Lords of stature or influence.
The above then create the Imperial Senate (LNC board) , and the Imperial court is the Executive committee. The Chair of the LNC would then be the Regent, able to command the resources with the approval of the Senate.
Republics keep closed systems of power, often it is tied to families and clans who have invested much in Imperial system and has a keen interest in who the regent is, and who is in the Imperial court.
But what happens to a renegade in an Imperial system? Such as the case of a Count who is plotted against, or a Lord or even a Baron who displeases the Regent? They are cast out!
We saw this casing out within the Imperial LNC Senate quite a few times with LNC Lords to remove another lord from their ranks, and even recently with an attempt to remove a displeasing Count (Wes Wagner) from their ranks.
Imperial Republics work because they hold power within a closed set of families or clans. This tends to ensure that alliances can be forged and honored with the families and clans, that tend to make it easy to predict political outcomes. Imperial Republics are Stable Political systems, but the drawback is that they don’t adapt well to changes and become stuck in their ways and stagnant.
The American Democratic Republic, changed things by saying “no more closed systems”, with dominate families or clans running the show. With a FREE VOTE, this means that diversity can enter the system of politics that will spark change and innovation that ever eludes an Imperial Republic. This spark is needed for growth, to adapt to changes, to bring in new ideas and even try new things.
Now you might say “donkey wings” or “Black helicopters” or even “Rubbish” about the above, and that is your right and I don’t take any offense about it. I am just sharing a view of the LNC that I have been thing about, that is all.
I am left with the distinct impression that some of the individuals involved in this party, if they had been born and were raised in 18th century America, would be first and foremost to the political tabel to argue that only higher quality people with better quality skin complexion and the resources to own land should have a right to decide which other persons of other complexions should be denigrated and regarded as property.
Their depraved indifference to the third leg of the stool of freedom (egality) is striking … and it implies their nature is exploitative.
There is a wonderful crossword puzzle word mumpsimus, an action of an ineducable person.
Let me suggest that in light of the new information noted above by Chuck Moulton that if the LNC votes for floor fees, we should go to the Judicial Committee again, promptly. “new facts” “wrongly decided”.
In my opinion, given the 2010 poll and 2012 vote, anyone on the LNC who votes for a floor fee should be viewed as unfit to serve on the LNC.
See, I don’t really care what you call what…I only care about not excluding potential delegates through imposition of a financial/psychologcal barrier to entry.
The LNC has received our second letter from a member against the floor fee, from Chuck Moulton (unless the full voting members received additional emails that I as an alternate was not copied on). Hopefully Chuck’s letter will be posted as an article but in the meantime here it is as a comment:
Libertarian National Committee,
I strongly object to a mandatory floor fee for delegates and urge the full LNC not to impose such a fee for the 2014 convention.
I have already written about this issue extensively. Rather than rehash my points in a long email, I will simply link to my past writings and add one additional point that recently surfaced.
First, I sent the LNC a letter in March of 2012 urging it to overturn the floor fee imposed by the convention committee for the 2012 national convention. In that letter I discussed the floor fee as relates to bylaws, Robert’s Rules, a poll tax, subsidization, and the cost of conventions. I stand by all of these points.
Moulton open letter to the LNC (re-posted in its entirety on Independent Political Report):
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/moulton-open-letter-to-lnc-regarding-floor-fees/
Second, I sent a brief to the judicial committee in June of 2012 on the floor fee issue. In my brief I responded point by point to briefs from the convention oversight committee and from Thomas Balch, which were so riddled with non sequiturs I had to chime in. Seeing as floor fee proponents persist in making many of those same points, this brief endures as a useful refutation thereof.
Moulton judicial committee brief (re-posted on pages 11-23 of George Phillies’ Liberty for America newsletter):
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/May-June-Liberty-for-America-2012.pdf
The judicial committee upheld the LNC’s 2012 registration fee, which I believe was a grave mistake. I find the minority opinion much more compelling than the majority opinion.
Judicial committee opinion:
http://marketliberal.org/LP/JudCom/2012Ploeger/Opinions.pdf
Third, at the 2012 convention a majority (but less than 2/3) of delegates voted to prohibit future floor fees — specifically, 165 delegates voted in favor of prohibiting floor fees; 112 voted against prohibiting floor fees. That same amendment was in the 2010 bylaws committee survey, with 85.8% of 592 survey respondents who were LP members in favor. The will of both convention delegates and LP members on this matter is quite clear.
Registration fee bylaws amendment proposed by Lark (page 12 of the 2012 Libertarian Party convention minutes):
https://www.lp.org/files/2012%20Libertarian%20Party%20Convention%20Minutes.pdf
Fourth, a bit of new information: Many proponents of a floor fee argued that Robert’s Rules of Order supports such a fee. However, the bylaws committee of the National Association of Parliamentarians recently weighed in on the matter, writing “Members should not have to pay to vote.” in urging members to defeat a bylaws proposal moving from conventions to mail voting and imposing a fee for such voting (Balch was on that committee). The amendment was not adopted in convention.
NAP bylaws committee recommendations (page 25 of Notice of Amendments to
NAP Governing Documents for the 2013 Convention):
http://63.247.128.171/getdocument.php?id=1979
For the reasons above, I strongly oppose imposition of a mandatory floor fee for delegates.
If anyone would like to discuss the floor fee issue with me further, I am available by email or by phone at 215-768-6812.
Chuck Moulton
Interim Chair, 2014 LP Bylaws Committee
Chair, Libertarian Party of Virginia
P.S. I speak only for myself here, not for the 2014 LP Bylaws Committee or for the Libertarian Party of Virginia.
Chuck Moulton
Mark,
OK — I see that we are pretty much in agreement, except about the semantics of what a convention is/isn’t.
Have fun in Columbus! (I can’t imagine I’ll be there — it’s a 900-mile trip and I’m not an LP member any more; IIRC, the 2016 convention will be in Orlando, so I might make the 100-mile trip just to catch up with old friends)
Thomas,
I actually don’t see a difference in our positions. It costs money to rent a room, AV equipment, etc. to hold the Convention. The best way to raise that money is to have the frills and fun stuff and charge for them, so those who are just there for what I called the business session and you called the Convention may attend as delegates without having to pay for their attendance. Another way is to set it aside as a line item in the overall budget so that donations, membership dues, etc. all go towards the cost.
I prefer the former since I believe Conventions should make money, not cost the Party to run them, and have always made money on those I have ran in New York.
We’re defining our terms slightly differently, but we’re in agreement on principle.
See you in Columbus!
Has the LNC ever used sensible budgeting? Not as far back as I can remember.
I would prefer either Knapp’s or Axinn’s way of looking at it to what we are likely to get, which is probably a jacked up floor fee.
Which is pretty imminent.
So far we received one actual email against it that I ever saw, from Mike Kane. That was it.
Mark,
You seem to be a little bit confused here.
If it’s not the “business session,” it’s not “the convention.”
While it’s true that it does cost money to hold a business session, that’s something that the membership paid for when it paid its dues.
Putting on that business session is one of the few bylaws obligations of the LNC. Almost everything else is extra and optional, and the extra and optional stuff that the LNC continually chooses to put AROUND the convention (luxury hotels, pseudo-celebrity events) should be paid for by the people who want to partake of it, not by the people who are just there to do the members’ business and aren’t interested in that other stuff.
Don’t count on it. Joe was, as of the last time I heard from him, planning to skip most of the meeting.
As for me, I’m still planning to be there (if Greyhound service is not cut off due to the storm), but if there’s no wi fi in the room you may be out of luck, since I don’t have phone internet.
There’s also a small, but greater than zero, chance that I may be voting. If that happens I’ll be too buy to liveblog.
Those, among other reasons, are why I am asking if anyone else here, other than LNC members, is planning to be there.
I as all ways get an additional vote by whether and how much I will donate to the candidates and to the LNC (and California LP).
When the behavior of the convention offends me I have the right and will execute it by not putting cash into the party and the campaigns.
The people attending the convention can decide whether their objectives require my contributions or not and behave accordingly.
I often suspect, that the party really doesn’t care about the beliefs and desires of the party members. If they did the party leadership would find ways for the party members to have input into party decisions rather then seeking to limit decision making to a small committee much like the behavior of the Bolsheviks.
On the povertarian/ain’t no free convention argument:
It’s 100% accurate; there is no way a convention can be put on without funding and some people will pay more than others. I am able to pay a little bit more than some of my fellow Libertarians are. Accordingly, I am willing to pay a few extra bucks, for which I will expect to get perques like better seating or inclusion at more than just business sessions, so those of my fellow Libertarians who are willing to come to the Convention but cannot pay are able to attend the business sessions as delegates from their respective states.
I have run several albeit significantly smaller conventions in New York. We have a business session and don’t charge people, just credential them before voting. Then we kick anyone out who has not paid before lunch, speakers, whatever.
Last year, we had Gary Johnson and Lee Wrights debate (it was a couple weeks before the LV Convention). We charged a fee for full day event, but let anyone in who wanted to come for free for the last two hours. A bunch of NYU students came, heard Johnson and learnt about the LP. Yes, we lost money on them. Yes, it was the kind of outreach we try to do every day and we made money on enough other people to carry the povertarians.
There are tons of ways to raise enough money and still allow some freebies. They don’t get the good seats up front and can’t stay for the speakers and fancy dress party, but they get in for the no frills business sessions (you know, the exciting shit like, “We are going to vote now on the amendment to the motion to delete the sexist humanoid pronouns in Article VI, Section 4 of By-law chapter 17….”), and they sit in the back or on the sides.
It’s harder with such a large group, but we have experts at running our 2014 Convention and I am sure they can figure out a way to do it.
Sure; I will observe by reading the great contemporaneous reporting as in the past from Paulie Canoli and Joe Buchman.
So is anyone here who is not on the LNC planning on observing the meeting?
It was asked:
“how about setting aside $1 of every person’s dues for “Business Sessions at Convention.””?
People have been calling for that for years and have been roundly ignored as that would require competent budgeting by the LNC–nevermind that it actually makes sense and saves cents. (BTW, it’d be $28K and not $14K as the convention is every two years–even more $$ to make it a good one!)
Of course, there will be the usual crowd (the ones who complain about those objecting to floor fees by calling them “povertarians”) who will drag out the usual tired argument that such an arrangement is “subsidizing” the convention attendees on the backs of those not attending. Well, the LNC budgeting ballot access money to certain states and races does exactly the same thing, yet gets no similar objection. That’s either inconsistent or hypocritical.
In simple terms, there are more than a few states in the LP that do not charge a floor fee for the business end of their conventions and they do fine. A typical national convention runs in the neighborhood of $25-35K when planned correctly. based on that, $1 of the dues or even $1.50 or $2 would be ample to make it work.
So…have you ever seen an LNC budget that was anywhere close to good in your opinion?
Four years ago, 3/4 of the budget was for “administrative” and “compensation”. That fraction in the proposed budget is about 5/6. With two lines this huge, and no more detailed specification, the budget has almost no effect on governing how the money is spent, because those items cover all sorts of things. However, payroll bloat is often an indication of an organization in trouble.
That’s different from the LP.
That’s all subjective. All potential attendees have to decide those things for themselves. There are other factors, such as the business of the party.
There are always vendors/exhibitors.
None of this is known yet, or at least not public. That includes me – I haven’t seen anything about who the speakers will be or any other details.
Again no idea, but as for parties, there are always informal ones happening every evening.
I don’t know what kinds of hotels you consider acceptable. There are certainly motels in Columbus that are less than $75, although of course the convention hotel is more.
There’s apparentl a new Casino in the Columbus area, if Casinos are your thing. Not sure what other things various people are looking for, so again, that is subjective.
I don’t believe there should be any convention fees, other than for meals and speakers, which should not be mandatory to be a delegate. As for people who believe there should be convention fees I don’t think they want them anywhere near that low. I think they are more likely to make them higher, not lower, this time.
Perhaps, but it appears to be a non-starter – virtually zero interest and a lot of hostility on the current LNC. I don’t think the convention committee is looking at an such options. They did point out a lot of potential logistical problems with the more concrete ideas on alternative venues. Perhaps those could be overcome, I don’t know.
The value of the convention is subjective. At least some people on the LNC are talking about doing away with midterm conventions and having them only in presidential years, although that would require a bylaws change.
Convention fees are normal, if not expected for the professional trades. Registration fees can be anywhere from $300 to $1400 a person or higher depending on the “What’s in it for me” factor.
Free passes that are often handed out are often to just get in to the exhibits and vendors area only.
The “What’s in it for me” factor has to be carefully worked out and assessed to the value.
First, what is the location of the convention? It it somewhere I want to go, or it it in the middle of nowhere?
Second, what will be presented to me that will help me? What will I learn that will better myself and the world around me?
Third, who will I meet? What sort of networking will go on and resources can I bring home?
The convention organizers also need to assess the attendees as to:
What is the value of the convention to them?
What is the value of the information to them?
What is the value of the networking and resources gained to them?
Do they have the means to travel to the convention and for lodging and food?
Do they have the income to pay for the convention cost?
Lets look at the Las Vegas Convention.
1. It is a place that people want to go, so that works.
2. The basic convention fee was low enough as to not become prohibitive, however fee reductions and waivers should be given for those who have need, and ask for them
3. The “what is in it for me” factor was lacking. I did not think Speaker Cloud or the other speakers where very informative or interesting. The candidate class given was almost laughable as to the information put forth…
4. The networking events was lacking
5. few exhibits and vendors
The ‘What’s in it for me” factor was very lacking. True, my delegation was not seated and later I was seated with Georgia ( THANK YOU! ), and I did not think any of the classes or keynote speakers where anything of interest. I also was very unimpressed with the lack of exhibits and vendors, and was not at all impressed with the one networking event.
The Ohio convention will face some challenges in that
1. It is not a place people want to go
2. It is a non-presidential convention
3. Are there any vendors or exhibitors invited this time?
4. How interesting or engaging will the keynote speakers be? (Ill barf it is Cloud again!)
5. What parties, discussions and other networking events will be scheduled?
6. Will there be any qualified people to teach anything of interest in the breakout sessions? (And I mean qualified this time, not someone who is 20 years out of date, or a failure in everything they do)
Ohio is not cheap to get to, not cheap to stay in – $75 or higher a night. And the only entertainment is the Hollywood Casino that is 15 minutes away but that is not for everyone.
Keep in mind that:
Most libertarians are not wealthy nor monied people,
The convention is not about how to make money, nor
will teach me anything about how to make money.
Most people combine a convention with a vacation – This needs to be considered as to “what else can we do” for the convention attendees and their familes
Therefore, the convention fees need to be small (under $50)
In a lot of ways, Starchilds idea of having the convention in a park or FREE SPACE has merits given that the value of the convention is negligible.
It looks like we will have bad weather in Dallas this weekend. May possibly interfere with some travel plans.
The problem with all this behavior on the part of the LNC is that if they do not show the leadership to clean up their own act, and quickly, someone will send a letter and video to all of their donors explaining the problems with the party and why direct membership intervention is needed to correct the systemic problems with the organization.
That is highly disruptive, and the existing power base often decides to go to war against their own membership directly (as opposed to the indirect conflict right now) and it takes significant time to sort it all out and get the organization back on the right path.
Unfortunately, if the leadership of the organization does not demonstrate the ethics necessary to correct these issues, the long-term game theory tree supports the choice of this type of destructive resolution.
If pigs flew on Mars, we could go to Mars and watch pigs fly.
Right now the only accounting we can get includes the dog and pony show and we’ll be lucky if we get straight answer on that – see varying opinions on whether some past conventions made or lost money.
We’re probably out of luck in trying to stop floor fees also, but we can try.
Yes, I know that it’s a long-standing practice to pretend that the dog and pony show surrounding the convention IS the convention. That doesn’t make it so.
If the LNC wants to arrange a “package deal” in which they get a room for the business meeting and a dog and pony show to boot, they should arrange for those who want the dog and pony show to pay for it instead of demanding a subsidy/redistribution of wealth from those attending the business meeting.
That’s not the accounting people are talking about. And since the room is typically part of a package deal, I’m not sure how you would even calculate that.
The convention is a business meeting. Its costs are pretty minimal — a room big enough to hold the delegates and a sound system sufficient to make the deliberations audible to all.
Those costs could be brought down further by reducing the number of delegates to 538 and apportioning them by state on the same formula as the electoral college.
Everything that is not the business meeting is also not the convention.
That depends on who you ask. The numbers on the conventions, what they cost, how much they bring in and what they make or lose seem to vary quite a bit. Some clarity there would help.
Well if there is no “movement” to allow every member to vote by mail- in ballot or proxy, then how about setting aside $1 of every person’s dues for “Business Sessions at Convention.” I’m pretty sure that $14,000 would be more than enough to cover the small number of “free-loaders” who might show up and not buy any other convention package to help underwrite the cost of the show.
Quoth Nick:
“The bylaws are not currently explicit on the issue of whether floor fees are allowable.”
The bylaws list the qualifications for delegates. Those qualifications do not include paying a bribe to the LNC.
If there was a “debate” on whether or not delegates could be required to cut out their own livers and donate them before being allowed on the floor, nobody would be arguing about whether or not the prohibition on same was “explicit.” They’d just note that nowhere in the bylaws is organ donation allowed for, let alone required, and tell those suggesting it to knock off the idiocy.
I am inclined to allow the existing “leadership” to commit political suicide … it works well as a strategy for reformation.
Thanks Mike. Not sure if those letters will help but if they will we’ll need a lot of them.
Dear Members of the Libertarian National Committee,
I’m writing you this evening regarding the 2014 National Convention and the possibility of imposing a floor fee on the delegation.
As important as ballot access is for the Libertarian Party, the most essential function of the national party is to facilitate an every other year convention. I feel strong enough about this to write you this email to urge you to vote against any fee to participate in party business at the 2014 convention. I am not alone with this idea, in fact the majority of LP members who I know feel the same way.
Any delegate who sacrifices both their time and money by attending the national convention shouldn’t be burdened by an additional floor fee imposed by the LP.
Thank you for reading.
-Mike Kane
Region 14 LP Florida Representative
703-962-0720
They have, for example, rules on contracts and their review. See the Audit Committee report. There was a search made for any contracts that have ever been made. The results were singular, or so I am told.
If it isn’t authorized (and it isn’t), then they can’t do it.
Else why have Bylaws at all? Just make it a free-for-all and the LNC can do anything they want, rules and members be damned.
The delegates I believe made it clear enough, a majority voted to prohibit bylaws. It was not 2/3 so it’s not a bylaw, but it was clearly a majority.
The bylaws are not currently explicit on the issue of whether floor fees are allowable. While I am strongly opposed to the imposition of any floor fee, to the extent that the LNC votes on the issue, I would suggest that LNC action should take the form of referring a proposal to the Bylaws Committee to allow the delegates to be heard on the issue at convention.
I asked in the article here and in a couple of previous threads. It was an extrapolation of a question asked by Mark Vetanen. I guess you just saw it now.
Are you going to have any single point of contact for the committee such as a personal or group forward email, google group, yahoo group, facebook group etc?
paulie@ December 2, 2013 at 5:56 pm
>>To date, we have received no similar reply from the platform committee to the same question.<<
Who on the platform committee did you contact and fail to get an answer from? I'm here and not that hard to find. I just don't recall being asked. I do recall posting on the IPR editors discussion list just last week that I was preparing an article for IPR about the LP platform committee.
FYI I've spend most, if not all, of my time as interim chair so far tracking down contact information for the 20 members and 6 alternates; as well as each member's preference for how public they'd like that information to be. (That process is 100 percent transparent, at least on Facebook, if you go to the Libertarian Platform Committee page there.)
Also FYI, last Sunday evening I sent Robert Kraus and David Blau the confirmed list of all 26 members (the last of which got back to me last Friday) so they (or someone) can update the page at:
http://www.lp.org/bylaws-mandated-committees
I'm waiting for that to be updated before posting the article here in response to a request from one member that I not list all 26 names here, but instead link to LP.org's "official" list. Additionally I am not going to post any contact information for the members. Instead I'm encouraging each member to contact Robert and/or David directly with a request to put their preferred contact information at LP.org (or in the comments to the article I will eventually post here.)
So if you ask, or I suppose if you post something like the above and I happen to see it, it's not that hard to find the answer . . .
Hope that helps,
Joe
+1 for ATBAFT
“they should be seen for what they are: An instrument for redistributing wealth from delegates to dog and pony show enthusiasts.”
Of course, we could also see conventions as being an instrument for party control by those wealthy enough to attend a convention.
How about this (which is how a 15,000 member group I belong to does it): You pay $25 if you
attend and want to vote, said $25 also allowing you to buy cut-rate admission to other convention events that the public pays more to attend OR you can send back a proxy ballot
designating management or anyone else you choose to cast your vote on all issues. Every member gets a vote even if they can’t afford or have time to attend the convention.
Regardless of the status of “floor fees” vis a vis the LNC’s bylaws (which forbid them by dint of excluding them from the lengthy description of delegate qualifications in Article 11) or RONR (which neither allow nor forbid them, but merely mention a “registration fee” without elaboration or explanation), they should be seen for what they are: An instrument for redistributing wealth from delegates to dog and pony show enthusiasts.
+1 for Randy
Yes, this is a fee charged to those that volunteer to do the party’s work, set the party’s direction and select the party’s candidates. All to pay for the party’s party.
Are these anything like the house fees that strip clubs charge dancers to perform?
More floor fees mean more fiscal ineptitude by the LNC…so people should pass on the convention. Again,
I’m not sure that will be up for a vote. If it is, it is just a goal. Once we have set some goals we can try to figure out how we can achieve them.
I see that there is a proposal to set an objective of 15,000 members by the end of 2014, with no mention of the means by which this objective is to be reached. Votes for ends without means are pointless. Vote against the proposal.
Thanks….catch up on what you missed, I hope we can get your input 🙂
Yes, I put it in trash because I saw you had an article on the budget already. I didn’t keep up with IPR much this weekend, but I did read an email a few days ago where Scott was a little upset the audit issue had shown up on IPR.
The comment I was responding to at 2013/12/02 at 6:57 pm was trashed, I guess by Jill so that may make it seem out of sequence.
Version of previous article with budget PDF linked has been restored but for those who don’t want to look it up :
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/LNC-Discuss_Budget_2014_Draft5.pdf
I’d like some feedback from others here about this budget and suggested amendments if possible. .
Voting in favor of floor fees as an LNC representative is more or less a statement of:
1) I don’t want to be on the LNC anymore
2) My region is so politically tied up by a minority faction I have no concerns
I already have it saved in IPR media and included it in my last LNC meeting article. I then redacted it becase it said confidential and I was not sure if it was published anywhere previously. I will now restore it. If you would like to publish it is a separate article that is up to you. It’s already saved in IPR media files.
True. Neither is Geoff, apparently.
Thanks for reminding me of the comment from Geoff. I will restore the previous edit of that article that asks for reader feedback on the budget. I guess I could also update this one, but I don’t feel like it.
I don’t know for sure if it is or not. I know I do that pretty often, and I know that a lot of times people do not respond to anything that is in articles but do respond to comments .. or make comment or ask questions that indicate they had not read the article.
I was trying to get answers/feedback on a few questions/issues. Thus, if people read comments but don’t read articles, the only way they will see the questions is if I repost them in th comments. And if there is not already a string of comments, I don’t know of any other way to jumpstart one.
“For those who read comments but not articles…” LOL! Really?
If that’s actually a common practice on IPR, I suppose I can see reposting information from an article somewhere in the comments on a long thread, but as the FIRST comment? It’s tough to just read comments without reading the article when there are no comments! 🙂
Anyway, this is a very minor quibble; mostly I’m just amused.
On to more substantive matters…
In a response to Scott Lieberman (who, in a welcome change, makes a point here in favor of more transparency), LP chair Geoff Neale stated that the budget we were sent on the LNC is NOT confidential, and I haven’t seen anyone say otherwise:
On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Geoffrey Neale wrote:
Mr. Lieberman,
This version is version 5, which is not confidential. The note you reference is a vestige from the prior version, which was a work in progress.
Geoff
——– Original message ——–
From: “Scott L.”
Date: 11/18/2013 11:34 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] Draft 2014 Budget
“The Executive Committee, Executive Director, and Operations Director
crafted the attached budget for the LNC to consider at the December meeting.
Tim Hagan”
Mr. Treasurer:
The attached file has this notation on the first page:
DRAFT # 4 – CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION”
Why is a draft budget confidential?
Scott Lieberman
The proposed budget was sent to us as a PDF document; I’m not sure how that will post on IPR. I also got Tim Hagan to send it to me as text in the body of an email, but I’m not sure how that will post here either.
Anyone who would like to see a copy is welcome to email me and I’ll send it to you in whichever of those two formats you prefer — realreform[at]earthlink[dot]net.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
For those who read comments but not articles:
Additionally, there will be a goals discussion – but only for 15 minutes, unless the agenda is changed.
Regarding the other items I discussed in the prior post:
*I’ve received no response as to whether the preliminary budget has already been publicly posted anywhere. I would like to get some feedback about budget priorities from our readers. but I would rather not post it unless it has already been publicly posted somewhere since it is marked confidential.
*So far, no one commented on that post as to what questions LNC members should ask, or what further actions should be taken, in response to issues brought up by the audit oversight committee.
*It appears I most likely will not be voting, but I’ll try to be prepared in case I will be, since no definitive answer has been posted. However, even if I am not voting, I still don’t have a phone internet convention, so unless we find someone who can provide that or unless the hotel makes their wifi available to us at no charge, there may not be any live coverage of the meeting.
*In the comments on the previous post, interim chair Chuck Moulton said that rank and file members who have proposals they would like to have considered by the bylaws committee can write to him at [email protected] and that these can be either specific language or broad ideas for proposals. To date, we have received no similar reply from the platform committee to the same question.