Does anyone wish to announce plans to run for LNC now, or know of people who have announced? Who is considering running, but has not decided yet? Please post in the comments.
One person who is not running, after having made tentative plans to run, is IPR’s Peter Orvetti:
As some of you know, I had been publicly considering running for the Libertarian National Committee in 2010. After some very helpful consultations with current LNC members, I have decided not to run. The financial and time commitment would be more than I can handle. Also, while I would like to be useful to building the LP, I am relatively new to activism and the LNC is a bit high an initial aspiration. There are many other committed veteran activists — some of whom write and comment here at LFV — who would be stronger candidates. I hope some of them will run. Thanks to all who offered their support, encouragement, and advice.
You know, there’s a new Bylaws Committee this time around. If you have specific bylaws proposals that you would like a committee member to introduce, please forward them on. You can send them to Dan Karlan (the Chair) or Chuck Moulton (a member who has supported similar reforms in the past) or me.
Yep.
The Internet Archive is a wonderful thing.
I’m almost certain that Redpath’s ’06 chair platform included something like “Being on the LNC is too expensive. We should consider the use of videoconferencing…” I remember because I expressed agreement in my own bid for Rep. However, I don’t know that any evaluations were ever done.
“Id like to announce officially that I am officially not running for any official position. Officially.”
I guess that makes it official.
George Donnelly said:
Thank you for the sentiment, but: Not a chance, at least in the near future. I enjoy my weekends with my kids too much. Now…
You know, all that’s really required is a Secretary committed to transparency. There is nothing preventing **anyone** — including the Secretary — attending the meeting from distributing an “executive summary” of actions taken immediately. If the LNC objects to calling them “Minutes”, fine — call them “Actions” or something.
OTOH, I am certain the proposal to change the model for Secretary/Treasurer will require a bylaws change; and the suggestion for moving to videoconferencing and eschewing F2F meetings will likely require another bylaws change (I may be wrong on that one though). So, assuming bylaws changes are required…
1) If there were some possibility that bylaws motions from the floor could be introduced at conventions, and
2) If two subsequently adopted motions could be the above proposed changes to the bylaws, then,
Yes, I could do it.
However….
The Bylaws Committee did a wonderful job in Denver creating just enough parliamentary fantasies to “run out the clock”. The Bylaws Committee for the next convention will be no less determined to shut out the loyal opposition. So … There is no reason to believe either proposal would ever get any floor time. Personally, I am not willing to waste the kind of time it would take to fight for two relatively simple reforms that should be painfully easy in this day and age.
I’ll do something else, thanks. Not into talking to a rock. It just frustrates me, and annoys the rock.
Besides, George, any “slate” I’d want to be part of would need to have some other things in mind besides transparency. Transparency won’t make the LP any better if the LNC isn’t also willing to overhaul office practices (including suppressing anti-libertarian media releases), and isn’t fully committed to reintroducing an intensive member recruitment program like Project Archimedes.
Paulie said:
I wouldn’t. His ideas about disbanding national or closing the national office, for example, are just plain ludicrous.
Peter,
Please reactivate the DCLP. I promise to attend (most) meetings and potentially serve as a delegate.
If elected to the LNC, I will ensure that executive session is never used, and that the minutes are released within one day.
Talk to Ernie Hancock and John Buttrick, theyu got something brewing.
Marc
Fantastic ideas/thoughts. I hope you’re going to run for LNC. Let me know how I can help.
If we can get together a slate of candidates committed to these kinds of transparency proposals, we can implement them right after the convention and keep in-person meetings to 1 or less per year.
well I don’t see why the minutes can’t be released in 24 hours. Anything sensitive/personnel related can be withheld.
And my phone number is out there for all to see.
Hey — maybe I ought to run!
Last time I saw Bill Redpath was on Monday night, September 8, 2008, during one of his US Senate campaign visits. Unfortunately I didn’t get a chance to discuss that weekend’s LNC meeting with him; perhaps by his design; I don’t know.
I did bring up my concerns about the LNC’s over-use of Executive Session over the last six years, and he said that he’d been on the LNC for most of that time and felt that there had been no abuse of Executive Session. Naturally, he then asked me how I could know if ES had been abused; knowing full well I couldn’t tell him anything I knew without exposing my source. In any case, basically his attitude boiled down to “what problem”?
Our state chair, Jeff Bowles, mentioned that he couldn’t understand why it takes so long for LNC meeting minutes to be released. I agreed. My contention was that the party of tech geeks should be able to print Minutes out and distribute them at the end of the meeting to anyone in attendance — as I do as the Secretary of the Virginia Libertarian Party affiliate. Likewise, the draft should be uploaded to LP.org the same evening or at least within a day or two, so that the members who pay the bills don’t have to wait until everything is old news before getting to read what their elected representatives did.
Bill knocked over that suggestion also, saying they couldn’t release Minutes until they were approved by the LNC, and that they were always available after about a month. I understood that was the proper “policy of the LNC” answer, but I thought it was a stupid answer six years ago and I think it’s a stupid answer now. His answer was also, frankly, flat-out wrong. It was Chuck Moulton who pressed the LNC to get the minutes out in a timely way; now that he’s gone, there appears to be no urgency to finalize and distribute them, once again.
I admit some disquietitude to hear no apparent concern for the desire (or perhaps rights) of average members to know what is being done in their names.
* * * * *
PROFESSIONALIZE THE LNC
One change I think is very much needed is that both the Secretary and Treasurer positions should be hired, nonvoting positions. These positions take an enormous amount of time and aggravation to do properly; and with the myriad of laws that both titleholders must comply with, the job would be much better suited to a professional or professional corporation which would have proper liability coverage for any mistakes.
An executive-level hired secretary should be able to have minutes avilable right up to any minute within the meeting — and then be able to print them out immediately upon the close of the meeting. Such an individual should have no problem auto-sending meeting note updates at various intervals. Simple and free software is available to facilitate just this sort of practice.
NET CONFERENCING
Another reform that’s long overdue is to start having meetings via net videoconference.
The LNC is long overdue for getting up-to-date with technology. With videoconference meetings, there could be more frequent meetings with less on the agenda. The pool of LP members who could handle a one-hour video meeting from 7-8 on two weekend nights a month is a lot bigger than for four in-person meetings a year with thousands of dollars given to hotels, airlines, and rental car companies. This profligate waste of Libertarian resources in this day and age doesn’t make any sense to me, whatsoever. How much in lost (or spent) libertarian time and wealth is sunk into in-person meetings? Let’s see… Airfare probably averages $250… Hotel another $250… Time value probably $250… low, because I know lawyers like Bill Hall charge $250 *per hour*… Time away from family, fishing, video games, going out on a date with your spouse… Anyone’s guess what the cost of that is… Multiply it all by 15 members and a few guests…
Further, one LNC web video meeting every two weeks would negate the need for the EC; and it would be easy for LP members nationwide to observe — in real time — meetings of their “representatives”. Some packages also allow those logged in to the conference the ability to send messages to other users — which is a great tool to enable constituents to contact their regional rep (etc) while the meeting is in-progress.
I could never understand how a body is “representative” of anyone when it:
1) refuses to provide meeting agendas in advance to a list of members who request it (it should be posted on LP.org well in advance of each meeting and an announcement sent out as soon as it’s available via LP-Announce or similar venue);
2) **refuses** to release minutes until weeks have passed; and
3) makes itself available only via email (see how many phone numbers are listed here.
I have an easier time getting minutes out of my billion-dollar county government than my million-dollar LNC.
I announce that I will be running for the LNC in 2010. I just became an LP member today, and since I won’t give out my real name at this point yet, you can’t check to see if that’s really true. I may be an inexperienced candidate, but by the time of the 2010 elections, I will have had the massive joint fundraiser for the Milnes and Knapp campaigns under my belt as part of my activist experience.
>Or would your time and money be better spent building your county party?
That’s an excellent question.
At the same time, if people feel they can’t trust or get excited about the national LP, will they be able to sustain their local activism as LP members?
Or will they take that activism elsewhere, i.e. away from the LP?
Anybody who has signed the “pledge” (and is on file) is considered to be a member.
But as a practical matter, I don’t think anybody has ever checked.
****
I served on the LNC ’85-’89 & ’93-’96.
It was fun. That is not a good enough reason to want to serve.
It is also expensive. Even back then, I could expect to (and be prepared to) spend about $800-1000 on each of the meetings. That is about what I spent for meals, airfare and hotels. Three times a year.
The LNC does serve a purpose. But the LNC is also made up entirely of people with extremely strong personalities. And these personalities do clash.
And after all the time and money I spent (some would say squandered), I cannot point to ANY defining moment or contribution that I made to the LP while serving on that committee.
Today, I believe that my time and money is much better spent locally.
I would urge anybody considering serving on the LNC to really contemplate what they hope to accomplish. After all, the LP is not going to go away. Will YOUR presence make a difference?
Or would your time and money be better spent building your county party?
PEACE
Steve
Art 5 Sec 1 of the LP bylaws: Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
But, in order to run for national office, you have to be a sustaining member, which costs $25/yr.
I am not running, but comment #2 made me wonder whether I am a “member” of the LP or not. I was a dues paying member. After I lapsed I signed up again. After my dues were mis-allocated I decided not to renew the next time. But then the membership was changed so that dues were no longer required. I thought at that point you were basically a member if you said you were, but I could be wrong. Dues were supposed to be optional at that point. What is the current definition of a “member”?
Right now I’d only run if I won the lottery. Or if certain individuals on there now suddenly got smart and resigned.
I work better in other capacities behind the scenes.
Besides, my blowtorch got confiscated by the government after I got it fixed, and my bulldozer has a blown axle. 🙂
I probably won’t run in 2010 and probably will run in 2012. It’s too early to be sure though.
Yes, that’s what I meant, thanks.
Though I have nothing against the current secretary personally. I don’t know him. I’m just less than thrilled with his record on party transparency and his refusal to respond to polite, legitimate requests for information from an LP member and donor.
Readers should consider that being an LNC member opens them to the level of abuse that poor Angela Keaton has suffered, even though her acts — revealing what was said in closed session about her — are allowed, while the acts I discuss in the latest piece of her defense, visible at http:/TheDailyLiberty.com , would be much harder to defend.
If no one else runs for Secretary, I will.
I think you mean no one except Sullentrup, correct?
Orvetti withdrew for LNC, too? Bummer.
Yes and yes.
If no one else runs for Secretary, I will.
I say this because:
– the secretary position is key to general LP US transparency efforts, which are key to rebuilding some trust in the party, which is key to having a strong libertarian presence in future elections.
– the current secretary ran unopposed in ’04, ’06 and ’08. Contested elections are a chance to influence the public debate. Uncontested elections are not healthy.
– the current secretary is not entirely complying with the LNC’s own rules on transparency-related issues. We need someone in there who is at least willing to answer emails from the membership, and hopefully someone who is not opposed to our members viewing videotapes of the LNC meetings.
If, through some unexpected series of events, I am actually elected, I am prepared to serve actively, attend all meetings and otherwise fully discharge the duties of the office.
I expect I would advocate for fewer in-person and more on-line meetings though, as I think that can promote greater transparency and member participation.
I would also take personal responsibility for recording meetings and posting the (non-executive-session) video online. This would not only allow members to directly experience LNC meetings but it would free up the Secretary from being a note-taker to an active participant.
I think we need to more strictly define and limit executive session use, as well.
Orvetti withdrew for LNC, too? Bummer.
I don’t think you are eligible to run anyway, Trent. Unless you are an LP member and didn’t tell us.
Id like to announce officially that I am officially not running for any official position. Officially.