The 2014 Libertarian Party Bylaws and Rules Committee will hold its first meeting on Friday, February 28, 2014 beginning at 3:00 pm in the Edison E/F Meeting Room at the Westin Alexandria Hotel, 400 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314
All bylaws amendments proposed by committee members so far are available here:
http://lpbylaws2014.blogspot.com/2014/02/draft-proposals.html
Note, the proposals are in draft form; in accordance with Robert’s Rules no votes will be held by the committee prior to their first in-person meeting.
LP members not on the bylaws committee may comment below each proposal and may also offer suggestions for other proposals:
http://lpbylaws2014.blogspot.com/2014/02/open-forum-for-non-members.html
Copies of the current and some past Libertarian Party Bylaws can be found on lp.org:
http://www.lp.org/bylaws
Interim Chair Chuck Moulton reports:
“We will probably send out an email survey to the membership about the proposals that are adopted next week and meet right before the convention to make any changes to our report that we feel necessary due to the survey and changed circumstances. The public is welcome at the in person meetings (as observers, not participants — though there will be an opportunity for public comment at the beginning and end of the meeting).”
IPR hopes to be able to provide a live blog and/or regular updates from the meeting.
I posted several LNC meeting comments on this thread by mistake and have now also posted them on the correct thread
“Nicholas Sarwark March 1, 2014 at 10:15 am
I was pleased that the committee powered through all of the proposals on the agenda, even though it put us about an hour and a half over what was already a very long meeting. Everything that the members wanted debated was debated and there wasn’t anybody able to run the clock out on proposals near the end of the agenda.”
Couldn’t all of this debating take place on a message board online rather than wasting everyone’s time and money traveling across the country so they can debate in an overpriced hotel room?
15 Y – 1 N (Starchild)
Adjournment til 9 AM
Correction. I think Blau said it was Wiener, not Goldstein. Tired so I may be wrong
Starchild/Neale sniping — a legendary part of every LNC Meeting this term
Goldstein, I think, moved to make it quarterly
2nded – I missed by whom
I’d love to be there. Doing a lot of travel to do a lot of this coverage last few weeks. It looks like I will have to cut some of my planned travel out due to how much it costs. If we can raise money to keep me going to these things and doing liveblogs on the weekends I will keep it up, otherwise I will have to scale my plans for how many events I will try to make back.
For those interested in the next “Bylaws-Mandated Committee Meeting” that will be the Platform Committee, I believe; Indianapolis, IN, May 2-3-4 at the Plainfield (Airport) Baymont Inn and Suites. Visitors/observers welcome although seating is limited to about 40 (20 members, up to 6 alternates, and 15 or so observers/visitors . . . Hope to live blog that here on IPR as well. Look for details a few weeks out.
I wasn’t suggesting my day was longer, just noting why I had not checked anything since the night before.
Nick Sarwark wrote:
My day was longer than yours.
You woke up about when I did. I slept through a 6 am alarm and got a voicemail from my friend who I was supposed to meet at the gym 7 am.
I’ll probably get to the LNC meeting around 2 pm.
I was pleased that the committee powered through all of the proposals on the agenda, even though it put us about an hour and a half over what was already a very long meeting. Everything that the members wanted debated was debated and there wasn’t anybody able to run the clock out on proposals near the end of the agenda.
That said, I just woke up, since my day yesterday went from 4:30 am to 2:30 am.
If anyone has specific questions about the meeting, I’ll try to check comments throughout the day.
Handing the results over to a style committee on which Aaron and Alicia are a majority may lead to some interesting outcomes. Actually, it sounds like a seriously not very bright decision, so there is much room for a more positive than expected turn of events.
Paulie–please consider the sources of the people making you feel bad. We know Aaron has serious control issues. Do your best to ignore him. We need you on the opposite side to counteract what he says and does. If there’s a popularity contest there, I don’t think Mr. Starr would win.
After the secretary distributes the minutes to the bylaws committee I will post the proposals that passed (as amended) to the blog.
Thanks to the bylaws committee for flying across the country, enduring the marathon meeting, and crafting many thoughtful proposals!
Thanks to Starchild, Paulie, and Nick for live blogging the meeting!
Thanks to everyone who left comments on the bylaws blog and on IPR!
Sorry you felt shitted on, Paulie. The judicial committee was also disrespected by some committee members. And Starchild. And Oregon. I think the vendors LNC proposal was a lot more about Cloud than you — I doubt it would have gotten any traction without that scandal. The people who supported the proposal were seeking a bright line rule to deal with situations like that in the future; they were not trying to denigrate you or your hard work as a paid petitioner.
I’m sorry we were not able to craft and vote on proposals for all of the ideas suggested by party members. We have limited time at the committee meeting and the delegates have limited time in convention to consider the proposals we report out, so we had to prioritize. We went an hour over as it was. Suggestions from LP members not on the committee were summarized at the link below. Several bylaws committee members told me they read all the suggestions, and a few of them made their way into proposals. Similarly a comment from the blog inspired an amendment or two.
http://lpbylaws2014.blogspot.com/2014/02/open-forum-for-non-members.html
From my perspective the biggest frustration was lack of brevity in the discussion. In my opinion many of the committee members took 4 minutes to make a point that could be made in 30 seconds and repeated what others had said a minute ago ad nauseam. I think we could have done things 3x as fast, which would have left more time for other proposals or for hanging out following a shorter meeting. I was reluctant to cut people off though — even when time expired I always let the speaker finish his monologue before noting that we needed a motion to extend. I figured it was better to waste time overindulging in debate than to end the day with committee members annoyed that they hadn’t been able to express their views.
The committee passed some proposals I didn’t like and failed to pass some proposals that I liked, but I think we passed a few good ones too.
I fucked off for most of it after I got shitted on for no fucking reason during the dumbass no vendors on LNC proposal (which passed). Dicked off in the bar for about 6 or 7 hours and came back for the last half hour or so only to get shitted on again by Aaron Starr (not quite sure why he singled me out) and I did not realize until a few minutes later that I could have asked to be recognized to respond. Not that it would have mattered. Anyway, I’m pretty pissed and apparently Aaron is really pissed at me for some reason. Also, I think Alicia Mattson did not want to be in the elevator with me, but maybe that is just my imagination. On the one hand I want to shrug and say “whatever”, but on the other hand I have to acknowledge that I’m not really able to just shrug it off, even though I know I should be able to.
The same goes for anyone else (Starchild, Paul?) that made it through the whole thing.
BTW, props to everyone on the committee for powering through that marathon meeting.
Starchild–Will do (i..e., will ask Bylaws Comm. to let delegates know in advance exactly what is being referred out of committee).
However, that may be limited to members of the stylish committee.
“The bylaws committee is obligated to do what Matt Cholko says, and each member of the committee shall pay him $1000.”
Makes sense to me.
Obviously, the style committee will critique the clothing, and overall appearance of the members of the bylaws committee.
(My previous comment about the question not being answered was referring to the question about what the Style Committee does, but I didn’t hear any plans discussed for publishing the proposals that were passed today either.)
Mark – Good question; I don’t know whether that question was clearly answered. I hope the proposals will be published in advance, but please push the Bylaws Committee members to do this.
Rob Latham wanted me to clarify he wasn’t suggesting paid arbitration as an alternative to Judicial Committee jurisdiction. He says there are free services in Utah that he’s referred people to before.
LSLA workshops on June 26.
What does the style committee do?
When will a list of finalized bylaw proposals be available for the delegates to review?
Style Committee created, populated with Alicia, Aaron, and Nick.
Aaron Starr, Alicia Mattson, Nick Sarwark nominated for Style Committee.
The Style Committee concept seems like a way to take some of the committee’s powers and put it in the hands of a smaller group — probably with no transparency. Not good.
Nick sensibly proposes no Style Committee — let entire Bylaws Committee decide matter of style and presentation on email list.
There must be a diversity of styles. 😉
Starchild should be on the style committee
Now discussing Style Committee. Dan Wiener nominates Aaron Starr and Alicia Mattson.
Date set for June 26, but time not set.
Bylaws Committee now discussing when to meet next. Proposed to meet day before the convention, as it traditionally has; Geoff Neale says LNC already scheduled to meet the day before the convention from 1-5pm (June 26?);
Proposal #36 passed 6-3 – Chuck Moulton, Nick Sarwark, Mark Hinkle, Rich Tomaso, ?, ?; Rob Latham, Alicia Mattson, Dan Wiener(?) voted against.
Mark Hinkle – Says Oregon was supposed to have 3-member Judicial Committee, but they only had two; they had no resource to turn to. If the members say there are serious grievances, it behooves us… (speaking in favor?)
Nick Sarwark speaking in favor – There are other arbitration agencies available, but not comprised of people who’ve been LP members for a long time.
Aaron Starr – “Vote this thing down” – “You’re just opening the door to a bunch of malarkey”. Brett Pojunis recognized and now speaking from the gallery in favor of the motion, with reference to recent dispute in Nevada.
Alicia Mattson opposes the proposal. Says it would “force a Judicial Committee on states that have chosen not to have one”. Says “there’s no power” for the JC to do anything, “just bragging rights”, so what’s the point?
(She just voted previously against giving them more power by making the decisions binding!)
Now debating Proposal #36 (by Rich Tomaso) – More jurisdictional authority for the Judicial Committee. Rob Latham (current JC member) speaks against it — he doesn’t want to expand the JC’s current workload; says there are other alternatives like binding arbitration.
I don’t understand why he thinks paying for such a service is better than doing it in-house with a group of Libertarian Party volunteers who’ve been elected for such a task.
Nick’s proposal adopted 5-4. Voting in favor: Nick, Rob Latham, Chuck Moulton, Jeff Orrock, Matt Wittlief(?) Rich Tomaso(?); voting against Alicia Mattson, Dan Wiener, Mark Hinkle, Geoff Neale(?) Rich Tomaso(?)
Proposal 35 adopted 5-4.
Nick Sarwark – The Credentials Committee ruled that a different organization was the affiliate than the one that the Judicial Committee recognized, and the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance (state chairs’ group) did similarly.
Rich Tomaso – “I’m not sure I understand why (JC decisions) wouldn’t be binding.”
Aaron Starr speaking against #35: “I would NEVER vote to give the JC more power” — says he can’t trust them to follow the Bylaws.
Proposal 35 being debated now. A great deal of debate is coming back to disagreements with the Judicial Committee ruling in Oregon.
Alicia Mattson now speaking against Proposal #35 by Nick Sarwark which would make Judicial Committee decisions binding on the LNC and any subcommittees or organizations that are authorized to use LNC resources.
I generally like the proposal — the JC could provide a kind of check and balance to the LNC if it had a bit more teeth.
Proposal #34 failed 5-5. Didn’t catch the individual votes — a little distracted here.
Proposal #33 passed (I think) as amended by Nick Sarwark. Reduces the size of the LNC, cutting # of at-large reps from 5 to 4 and also reducing number of regional reps. I don’t think this is a good idea at all. Less participation, fewer voices in the leadership is not the answer.
Modified 33 passes 7-2. Would change bylaws to have 4 at-large and a maximum of 8 theoretical regions.
Proposal 33 being debated now. I moved to amend to reduce at-large seats to 4, increase region percentage to 12.5%. Debate going on now.
I think that’s a great idea. I’m glad that it passed.
Modified 32b passes 9-1.
Modified 32b would give 5 platform committee members from highest per-capita membership states, 10 from highest membership states, and 5 from the LNC.
Starchild, there’s no guarantee that there will be more time for proposals from the floor, but there is a good chance that there will be more time to debate those proposals that there is controversy on.
Geoff Neale proposes amendment to Proposal #32b — reduce number of LNC appointments to Platform Committee by 5, to enable more representation for small states. I like it.
Matt – If there were a guarantee of more time for proposals from the floor included in the proposal, I would definitely support it. Without such a guarantee, it’s like the Republicans in Congress who go along with more spending now in exchange for the possibility of reduced spending later.
Proposal 31 was not presented. Proposals 32a and 32b discussed informally in a recess. 32a dies for lack of a second. 32b proposed and being debated.
Thanks for all the updates everyone!
I understand your concern with 30 in a theoretical sense Starchild. But, I think, as a practical matter, its simply a way to save time on tedious business. That time can now be put to better use – like maybe considering items from the floor.
Bad proposal #30 just passed 10-0 (lets Bylaws Committee propose en masse a “consent calendar” of up to 10 items to be voted up or down by delegates as an entire group). This will tend to lead away from bottom-up membership participation and toward more top-down governance.
Changed order of convention (29) fails 1-6. Moving to proposal 30. Proposal 30 with a minor amendment passes 10-0.
Orrok does not have a ‘c’ in it.
27 skipped. 28 proposed by Moulton. Alicia, Geoff, Aaron in opposition, I spoke in support. Failed 4-5.
KEY VOTE:
Chuck Moulton’s transparency motion fails 5-4.
Voting in favor:
Chuck Moulton
Nick Sarwark
Jeff Orrock
Rob Latham
Voting AGAINST transparency:
Mark Hinkle
Alicia Mattson
Dan Wiener
Matt Wittlief
Geoff Neale
Voting to abstain:
Rich Tomaso
You’re never going to be able to keep people from communicating secretly. Even if that was somehow possible, it may not be a good idea. However, making the LNC’s primary e-mail communication list public at the very least will result in marginally more transpareny. Just as importantly, it reminds committee members that the membership expects them to be transparent. It is one step towards changing the culture of the organization.
Geoff says he’s now speaking in favor of the proposal(???)
Says contracts are not disclosed to LNC because of Social Security numbers being kept private, etc. Misrepresents my position on confidentiality without mentioning me by name.
Says there’s some lists that are secret, nothing ever gets leaked, e.g. a “little secret council” — the APRC.
This is a very good idea. I kind of wish I was still there so I could ask to speak on the matter.
Aaron Starr says “This is a poorly written proposal” – complains that we haven’t defined what “confidential” is. “Simply cause the LNC to be less effective”
“If it puts people on better behavior, because they know other people are reading what they write, that’s probably (a good thing)” -Nick Sarwark
Nick Sarwark speaking in favor of Chuck’s proposal.
Geoff “I have no problem with this… all it does is drive all the discussion off the discuss list to private lists.” “I’m not the problem — the problem is from some people on our committee”.
Said he’s been running stats on communication on our list:
1. Paulie Frankel
2. Geoff Neale
3. Starchild
4. Scott Lieberman
(Didn’t catch which period of time)
Proposal #28 (Chuck Moulton) – Make LNC email discussion more transparent by making LNC-discuss list public. THIS IS A VERY GOOD MOTION, DEFINITELY NEEDS TO HAPPEN!
Modified 26 fails by vote of 4-5.
The two handouts are very similar to proposals 25 and 26 previously distributed.
Mattson’s proposal referenced above was not one of the numbered proposals; she handed out copies separately. Not sure why it was taken up out of order in this fashion.
Alicia Mattson’s proposal failed 4-2 (she and Mark Hinkle voted in favor, Chuck Moulton, Nick Sarwark, Dan Wiener and possibly Rob Latham, not sure, voted against). Everyone else apparently abstained. I suspect the high number of abstentions at this meeting is in part because roll call votes are not being taken.
Modified proposal re: presidential ticket fails 2-4.
Now moving on to a modified proposal 25, which would punish affiliates who do not respect the Presidential ticket.
I just got back from dinner with Brett Pojunis, Norm Olsen and his wife Dorothy, Tim Hagen, and Sam Goldstein. Proposal #23 failed (thankfully!), with only Alicia Mattson voting in favor, after Aaron Starr gave a long-winded speech for it.
23 fails 1-9.
Debate on 23 has begun. I am opposed.
22 passed 6-3.
19 fails 2-6. 21 dies for lack of a second. Debating 22 now.
Motion to substitute 18b for 18a fails. Last 2 minutes of debate on 18a. 18a fails 3-7.
Now discussing 18a and a motion to substitute 18b.
17b passes 6-4. Very close vote.
17a passed by a vote of 7-2. I did vote to report it out, since it’s somewhat better than the status quo, but I prefer 17b.
Debate on 17a now, I will propose 17b next. I don’t think anyone is going to discuss 17c.
It appears that the Aaron and Alicia Act is not making a lot of progress.
In a recess now discussing proposals 17a, 17b, and 17c informally.
Repeal GAAP for accounting,.
Chuck says we’re not doing motion to reconsider, but motion to amend something already adopted.
Nick Sarwark makes a very good motion to reconsider Proposal #11, adding the language at the end of Proposal #13. This better reflects the intent of what I wanted Rich Tomaso to amend than what he crafted on the fly.
Proposal #13 passed. Not a good change imho, but not a disaster. “Non-substantive” is too vague compared to the current “provided it does not change the meaning or intent”.
Proposal #12 – VERY bad idea from Aaron Starr to add language – “Any motion from the floor shall be considered seconded only if 20 or more delegates second the motion”. Alicia proposed, but (thankfully!) failed for lack of a second.
Amendment passed 4-2 (four abstentions). I didn’t get who voted how.
Rich Tomaso moved as I suggested, “The draft convention minutes shall be posted to the party website within two weeks of receipt, and shall be subsequently replaced by the approved minutes.”
I’m trying to get them to have draft minutes published to LP.org for some time before LNC vote to approve, and minutes published afterward.
Amendment passes 5-4.
I know, but I was in that direction anyway due to issues with a current contract as well as the fact that 3 EC members (Neale, Hinkle, Wiener) who are also on bylaws all voted for it and Neale used me as specific example in his argument.
Proposal #11 – Amended by Nick Sarwark to require 2/3 vote of LNC to approve (instead of majority).
Proposal #10 passed by vote of 9-0 (Rob Latham abstained).
Proposal #7 by Geoff Neale to make the Statement of Principles a stand-alone document instead of part of the platform passed 9-0. As did Proposal #8 and #9. Going very quickly.
Rob Latham, Nick Sarwark, Chuck Moulton opposed, Jeff Orrock abstained, passed 6-3 (Tomaso, Neale, Hinkle, Wiener, Mattson, Wittlief voted in favor).
Proposal 6 passes 6-3.
Proposal #6 – Very bad change to require delegates to national conventions to be members of the national party (not just a state affiliate party). Nick Sarwark just made very good arguments against it. Mark Hinkle now speaking in favor. (The proposal was made by Rich Tomaso and Alicia Mattson).
Proposal #5 passed 6-2 (only Chuck Moulton and Nick Sarwark opposed). Shame on the rest. I think Rob Latham did not vote, must have been one other abstention but they’re going too fast.
I think proposal 4 failed 5-2.
I believe Proposal #4 passed by the way, with slightly altered wording.
Brief break, committee is back now. Discussing Proposal #5 (by Aaron Starr). This would put the power to set membership dues in the hands of the LNC (right now it must be decided by the membership). This is a bad change that would make power in the LP more top-down.
Now on Proposal #4 (I think all these that those of us here in the room have print-outs of are all listed at http://lpbylaws2014.blogspot.com/ ).
I was already heading in that direction with LNC needing to vote on a contract that was already passed by EC which already has other people working on it just because I plan to also work on it.
Not that I want to tell you what to do Paulie, but this proposal will not take effect (if it does) until the convention, which is in June.
Paulie – This won’t go into effect now, and won’t at all unless convention delegates pass it — no need to resign now because of this!
Alicia Mattson says she has mixed feelings but probably opposes because she doesn’t necessarily want to ban board members from being vendors.
Passes 5-2. I will probably now resign from LNC.
Brett Pojunis is now here.
Moving closer and closer to resigning before the end of this LNC term.
At the least, LNC members who want to be vendors should not be allowed to vote on approving their own vendor status.
I like the proposal, but think it does not go far enough. Letting the LNC approve its members’ vendor conflicts of interests is itself a conflict of interest.
Proposal #3 – Vendors & The LNC
Article 10: Finance and Accounting
6. While serving in office, no National Committee member, or related party, shall serve as a paid vendor or employee of the Party, or otherwise receive any remuneration beyond the reimbursement of Party expenses authorized by the National Committee. During the twelve months following the member’s service in office, the member or related party may only become a vendor or employee with the express approval of the National Committee
(Proposed by Geoff Neale and Aaron Starr).
Geoff is now speaking to this proposal.
Proposal 2 as amended passes; modified language as follows: “No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate of another party for public office in any partisan election unless state election law permits fusion candidates and the candidate has the Libertarian Party ballot line as well.”
Main motion passes unanimously (10-0). Sorry couldn’t write down the exact language.
Substitute amendment passed 5-4 (as amended Geoff Neale)
The interests of the libertarian movement (freedom movement) should come before the narrow interests of the party.
Geoff Neale points out he doesn’t have a problem with, for instance, LP affiliates endorsing Gary Johnson for the GOP nomination when he was running as a Republican (I agree with him).
George, Rob Latham just proposed to delete “member” and replace it with “nominee”.
Alicia’s amendment failed (didn’t catch the vote count). I asked Chuck to do by roll-call; he said only main motions, not “procedural”. (Unfortunately stuff that’s merely “procedural” often greatly affects the outcome)
LOL, am getting error message “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.”
Most parties do not have members in our sense. Perhaps ‘candidate of another party’.
1c passed as amended. Hinkle’s motion to bring email ballot time down from 10 days to 7 days was ruled out of order in the form it was in.
Chuck Moulton’s change is good in my opinion, though it does not really fix the issue that the LP should be able to endorse non-LP candidates *if they are libertarian*. Alicia’s change is bad in that it refers to “sustaining” (i.e. dues-paying) members. Endorsements should be based on the beliefs/platform/etc. of a candidate, not having paid money to the LP (pay-to-play).
Starchild types way faster than me. Will let him liveblog until he needs a break.
Alicia Mattson proposing to ad language after “partisan election”, “who is not a sustaining member of the party”
Currently debating proposal from Chuck Moulton:
Article 6: Affiliate Parties
“No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election unless state election law permits fusion candidates and the candidate has the Libertarian Party ballot line as well. No affiliate party shall take any action inconsistent with the Statement of Principles or these Bylaws.
Moving on to #2. I think 1c was tabled.
Bylaws Committee members present by the way are:
Chuck Moulton (interim?) – chair
Aaron Starr – (non-voting alternate, acting as secretary)
Rich Tomaso (LNC regional rep)
Jeff Orrock (Colorado)
Geoff Neale (LNC chair)
Mark Hinkle (LNC at-large)
Dan Wiener (LNC regional rep)
Alicia Mattson (Nevada)
Matt Wittlief (Indiana)
Nick Sarwark (Colorado)
Rob Latham (Utah)
Also present in the room:
me (Starchild – LNC at-large)
Paulie Frankel (LNC regional alternate)
Bill Redpath (LNC at-large)
Gary Johnson (LNC regional rep)
Not sure which one we are on now. Maybe Starchild will fill in how far we got while I was away.
Alicia referencing Robert’s Rules (page 140) – Saying without motion to reconsider, it would be out of order to change 10 day electronic ballots to 7 days, because this language has already been “touched” by the body.
The full committee is here now, so alternates are not voting, but can still participate in the debate.
I’m back
Amended motion – Delete Article 8, Section 10, insert new Article 14 “Electronic mail ballots” – passed 9-0. Nick Sarwark’s amendment passed allowing either secretary or chair to send out email ballots on any question submitted by the chair or cosponsored by at least 1/5 of the members of a board or committee. (There are currently no rules allowing other bodies besides the LNC to conduct business electronically.)
This is Starchild, using Paulie’s computer while he takes a break (can’t seem to log in on the hotel wi-fi on mine).
1c – extend electronic mail ballot voting to committees.
1b is not introduced.
1b is now being considered separately. Maybe.
Main motion passes. 9-0 with Mattson abstaining.
Passes.
Amdendment to move conduct of teleconference from each committee making its own rules to LNC deciding for all.
Starchid taking pictures.
Starchild is here.
Neale speaking in favor. Wiener agrees. This only allows conferencing, does not mandate it.
Mattson moves to substitute 1b for 1a – fails for lack of second. Mattson speaking in opposition to main motion.
Missed this. Going to list http://lpbylaws2014.blogspot.com/2014/02/draft-proposals.html Starting with #1
Selection of style committee.
Mattson is only one voting against – passes.
Mattson against. Says Chuck already has public blog.
They have now noticed that Starr should no longer be voting. Starr asked first and Neale said he was just about to point that out.
Motion fails. Latham new motion to make new public list.
There are now 11 people at the table. The full committee is present but Starr is still at table (as Secretary?). But he also voted.
Starr agrees with Mattson and Hinkle. Various people agreeing and disagreeing.
Jeff Orrok is now here.
Mattson speaking against. If it was going to be open it should have been open from the start rather than retroatively. Hinkle makes same point.
First motion is to make the bylaws discussion list archive retroactively public.
Adoption as listed is passed without objection.
Bill Redpath has joined the gallery.
List of proposals is at http://lpbylaws2014.blogspot.com/2014/02/draft-proposals.html
Dan Wiener is now here.
Gallery right now is only Gary Johnson of TX and me.
Bylaws and Rules Committee
LNC members:
Mark Hinkle
Geoff Neale
Rich Tomasso
Dan Wiener
Non-LNC:
Rob Latham (UT)
Alicia Mattson (NV)
Chuck Moulton (VA)
Jeff Orrok (CO)
Nicholas Sarwark (CO)
Matt Wittlief (IN)
Starr is the only alternate here. The others are Monteleone (not here) and James L. Burns (passed away).
All bylaws committee members here except Orrok and Wiener who are in the building but not here yet. Starr is filling in as alternate. Moulton unanimously elected permanent chair (he was temporary chair). Starr elected Secretary.
Actually scratch that – I’ll just use this.
I’ll put up a liveblog shortly.
Apparently the bylaws room is “Wright”, not “E/F”.
If anyone is around and wants to talk anytime between now and then I’m in the hotel.
Late. Probably until 10 pm.
Any idea how late the meeting will go? I may come by after work, if there is likely to be much meeting left.
3 pm. The room opens at 2 pm, but the meeting starts at 3.
Gary Johnson of TX and Norm Olsen are here.
3:00 pm is what I have down as the planned start time. I will probably be to the hotel by 2:00 pm.
I’m at the hotel where the Bylaws and LNC meetings will be, if anyone’s around. 415-690-6352
So, is the meeting at 2pm or 3pm? It says 3 on here, but 2 on lp.org.
Thank you Jill.
I’m planning on posting the Region Reports tonight. I’ll try to get everything that should be posted before the weekend up tonight and tomorrow night.
I’ll get on it tomorrow. I’ll also be at the meeting site, for any of you who are there early.
FYI, there are now more proposals up on the blog. Read and comment if you want to provide input to the committee in advance of the meeting this Friday.
I would suggest eliminating one region and one at-large seat. That way both oxes are gored.
Does anybody see any realistic chance of passing a bylaws change that simply eliminates 2 of the at-large positions? Honestly, I’d much rather eliminate 2 or 4 of the regions. But, I figure there is even less chance of that passing, as people seem to believe their state reps fill an important role of representing their state on the LNC. Or, maybe I’m wrong……
Anyway, I would like to see the LNC shrink. Any ideas on how best to make that happen?
George Phillies said: “Getting someone on the ballot for US Senate here is about $35,000.”
Interesting side note here, and that is of a Republican candidate for US Senate spending far more than the estimated amount above to get on the ballot in Massachusetts. Check out the link and focus on the exert below:
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/02/11/gabriel-gomez-pulls-nominating-papers-for-senate-special-election/tZOKXPSVSf1jceHFAOGqpO/story.html
Exert:
“Gomez is in the process of hiring a major firm to gather his signatures, SpoonWorks Inc., at a cost of more than $100,000, according to a top GOP official who has been consulting with Gomez.”
This is an example of how the Libertarian Party usually gets on the ballot paying out less money than most groups pay for to get on the ballot. Now one may say, “Yeah, but this was a major party petition and in Massachusetts, when a party gets major party status only registered voters under that party’s banner, or those who are registered with no party banner – which is known as being an unenrolled voter in Massachusetts – can sign the petitions, whereas with minor party petitions, any registered voter can sign.” This is true, however, even when the Libertarian Party had major party status in Massachusetts, and they had candidates for Governor and US Senate, they managed to get on the ballot cheaper than that, even when adjusted for inflation (the last time the LP of MA did this was back in 2002).
This is for those who think that the Libertarian Party spends too much money on ballot access. I can show documented evidence that the Libertarian Party actually spends less than average to get on the ballot as compared to the money spent by most groups who seek access to the ballot.
There was no petition to put Barr on the ballot in Massachusetts in 2008. The petition was for me, started well before the NatCon. After all, we had in writing from the Secretary of State’s office that we could substitute, and thanks to the ACLU and the Federal courts we substituted.
Underwood was on the 2008 nominating papers because political designations (minor parties) here can use one nominating paper for all candidates for the same district. In practice, that is all Statewide candidates. Bob agreed to run for Senate because putting him on the ballot cost nothing and he would bring in a few extra votes for the national ticket, AND there was no reasonable likelihood that he would cross 3% (the last comparable candidate, Laura Leigh Dozier, got 3/4 of a %) and get us major party status. We urged Bob to run primarily as a way to advance the vote total for the Presidential ticket and build the party in the state. We would have been delighted if he won, of course, but that was not our primary motive.
To his eternal chagrin Bob got 3.1%, not 2.95%. He’s a great guy, and is this year a fine candidate for State Representative.
Getting someone on the ballot for US Senate here is about $35,000. If I had wanted to run this year, I would readily have written the needed check, and considerably more for campaign expenses. However, if I wanted to run, I would have to be the candidate, because there are legal donation limits.
I’m just saying he could if he wanted to. Not anything else.
“paulie February 23, 2014 at 1:22 pm
It could have, if Phillies wanted to spend the money.”
You’d have to ask him if he would have spent sufficient money to get Robert Underwood on the ballot for US Senate. I’d doubt it, and I also doubt that the US Senate candidate or the rest of the LP of MA would have raised enough money during that time frame to get on the ballot if not for the funds from the LNC.
My only point here was that there was a side benefit to getting the Barr/Root ticket on the ballot in Massachusetts, and that was that the petition also included a candidate for US Senate, who, as far as I know, was better Libertarian Party candidate than either Barr or Root.
It could have, if Phillies wanted to spend the money.
“paulie February 23, 2014 at 12:31 pm
‘so if the petition had failed, the LP of MA would not have had a candidate for US Senate on the ballot in 2008. ‘
True, unless they paid to do the whole thing themselves as a separate petition with no national help.”
We all know that that would not have happened.
True, unless they paid to do the whole thing themselves as a separate petition with no national help.
George Phillies said: “In significant part, if I had not acted, Barr would not haev been on the ballot in MA, which he was.”
I recall that the petition to put Barr on the ballot in Massachusetts also included a Libertarian Party candidate for US Senate named Robert Underwood on the same form, so if the petition had failed, the LP of MA would not have had a candidate for US Senate on the ballot in 2008.
Candidate petitions in Massachusetts generally have to be on separate pages for each candidate, however, when a minor party does not have party status they can place a US Senate candidate on the same petition page as their Presidential ticket.
Perhaps they meant NH?
” This is yet another proposal of the “Phillies Rule” that has its origins in the Massachusetts 2008 Presidential ballot issue and lawsuit. ”
The Massachusetts issue was that I agreed to be our stand-in. We had in writing from the Secretary of State in response to our specific question that substitution was allowed. The National Committee put down a substantial sum of money to collect signatures for me. After the convention, I contacted the Secretary of State’s office to check on the required filing.
Fortunately I checked, or we would have discovered with not enough time for litigation that the Secretary of State was now denying that substitution was allowed. I organized the litigation, effort, and at one key point put down my own money to pay certain charges for a following step. I also managed a considerable part of the effort in getting nominating papers processed and to the Secretary of State on time. I also paid for some thousands of signatures. The petitioner I had for had a superb validity rate. In significant part, if I had not acted, Barr would not haev been on the ballot in MA, which he was.
I will try to study them and leave some comments this week, after I am back in Alabama.
From Der Sidelines, I’d suggest commenting on the proposals themselves as well. Other bylaws committee members may be more likely to check comments there before the votes at the upcoming meeting.
OK, thoughts on the way-too-many proposals:
#1: Support. Obvious and long overdue. There is no reason to not do this.
#2: As worded it’s OK, but the locals better be VERY cautious about fusion candidates.
#3: Good. For once Starr has a lucid moment and proposes a good idea.
#4: Seems reasonable, except that means the potential for contracts to be renegotiated every two years. Not sure what if any impact that has.
#5: Nope. This is a members-only decision, and giving the LNC that power has the power to use pricing to eliminate what certain people consider to be “undesireable” such as the oft-used pejorative “povertarians.” The other part of that plan is in #6…
#6: Nope. If you want to have the state parties accept as their members national party members living in those states, that’s fine. But this would limit delegates from the state parties, and that, combined with #5 above, would turn the national party (and national conventions, and the Presidential nomination) into a pay-to-play event.
#7: Housekeeping proposal. No issue.
#8: More housekeeping. The Secretary should be part of the CredCom anyway by default. The real problem is when the CredCom refuses to credential the proper delegation.
#9: Fine. It does waste time.
#10: More housekeeping.
#11: More housekeeping, but this can be a Policy Manual entry, not a Bylaws amendment.
#12: Whatever. Starr is the king of frivolity at conventions…
#13: Oppose as written. The idea of a Style Committee is fine, overdue, and considering how poorly and inconsistent the Bylaws are, necessary, but the Secretary is already overloaded, and the Chairs of the most previous Bylaws and Platform Committees should automatically be on the Committee for continuity purposes.
#14a, 14b, 14c: Oppose all three. This further weights the voting towards the large states. Besides, the current system isn’t broken and is easily understood, so don’t fix until it is broken and not understood.
#15: Oppose, unless the convention becomes annual. 2 years is already too long to wait to deal with Bylaws and Platform issues, so 4 years would be an eternity. This proposal is similar to the California system where Bylaws and Platform alternate places in the convention order of business, but that convention is annual and both are addressed each year. The longer time between conventions makes this untenable.
#16: Oppose, not enough information. How many convention committees are there, and why?
#17a: Oppose. The LNC needs to properly budget for convention business sessions expenses, not vote to pass the buck to the members for their incompetence/lack of planning.
#17b: Support. This is the BetteRose Ryan Model, and it is well-established that it simply works well.
#18: Oppose. Where do they get the idea that bonus delegates to the national convention are a reward for electoral progress, when that progress may have absolutely zero to do with that state party but instead a confluence of other circumstances? Besides, it creates more work for the LP staff and LNC, and they can’t seem to get their current workload done in the first place.
#19: Neutral. While the point is valid, and it would prevent another BarrRoot catastrophe, and it may save some time in convention, is the current system really that broken that it requires this “fix”?
#20: Oppose in all forms. The LNC needs to line-item budget for the convention, not out of General funds. Period. End of Discussion.
#21: Oppose. There is no reason to do this as the current system works. If there is a need to get politics out of the JudCom, then change the way they are nominated and elected, not how they proceed.
#22: Oppose, for exactly the reasons Cholko stated.
#23: Oppose. There is more to partisan politicking than electing candidates, and Starr knows it. The ultimate goal is to move the government policy in a more libertarian direction, and that is not done only by electing candidates, and the LP would be very stupid to abandon the other methods, even as they do little to much less than they should on them.
#24: Oppose. While this does happen at state levels, imposing this on the states is a bad idea. Besides, what happens if they have more elected officials than delegate seats? Then what?
#25: Oppose. This is yet another proposal of the “Phillies Rule” that has its origins in the Massachusetts 2008 Presidential ballot issue and lawsuit. There is no need to do this, and six years on it should be in the rear view mirror.
#26: Oppose: This is a direct attack on Oregon. If the LNC is so paranoid about its name and trademark, then why don’t they simply file a copyright on it and be done with it?
#27: Support but reword for simplicity:
“Sustaining member” is any Party member who has given at least $25 to the Party in the prior twelve months, or who is a life member. Sustaining members may give for multiple years at once. (Add the last sentence.)
The problem is the Bylaws avoidance of the word “dues” makes the wording complicated. Call a spade a spade, and call dues dues.
#28: Support, but the result will be that certain LNC members will take their discussions off that list onto a second one, as currently happens now.
#29: Oppose, only because of the proposed order: the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominations should come before LNC and JudCom elections. Ideally, it would make sense to have the order be Pres/VP nominations, Platform, LNC, JudCom, Bylaws; IOW, external stuff then internal stuff.
I left comments on several of the proposals.
BTW, if you’re opposed to floor fees, you might want to indicate support for this proposal. Just saying.
Mark, please clarify that this is your proposed language:
The bylaws committee is obligated to do what Matt Cholko says, and each member of the committee shall pay him $1000.
Matt–
I can think of an amendment to that rule.
I also agree with Nick…..the bylaws committee is obligated to do what I say.
Whether or not it should be allowed to happen is a reasonably debatable issue. But, as Nick says, if we’re going to allow it to happen, we should change the rule accordingly.
The fusion issue is important to resolve, since we have current state affiliates acting in derogation of the bylaws, but doing so in a manner that is not really objectionable. If we’re going to let it happen, better to explicitly change the rule.
If Cholko is the only one that comments, then the Bylaws Committee is obligated to just do as he says.
Chuck–
Thank you for recognizing the importance of permitting LP endorsements of fusion candidates in those states which permit it.
This is an issue of tremendous importance in New York, where fusion candidacies are common.
I belong to several organizations that can’t even find their by-laws! No need, because the groups have minimal contentious issues regarding governance. National and state LPs seem to find time at every convention to seek changes to by-laws that many members think have been imperfectly written and need tweaking. One wonders if the U.S. Constitution would have about 1,787 amendments by now if Libertarians were in charge for those two hundred+ years?
Thanks for posting this, Joe!
I guess Matt Cholko is the only one interested in bylaws (judging by comments on the blog).