Would you please contact me? My eMail is LPWA.com1@gmail.com.

Thanks so much – )

As a member of that LNC (which dragged the party from the literal throes of bankruptcy and dissolution, and which provided for several vital new pathways [e.g., scrapping the "membership dues" funding model, and instituting a "slef-funding project" basis for most activities] to get the LP out of the hole and into prosperity … I’m just glad I stopped pissing away my resources on keeping the neocons fat and lazy … I wonder when Lee will decide in the same direction that the LP (national, and perhaps even deeper?) has outlived its usefulness to the cause of liberty. Without massive re-creation (one I thought the BTP might be capable of … alas!), the LP cannot be saved.

And that goes for your little dog, too!

Me __ Mattson over Salvette ? no shit ,interesting.

Round 1:
Alicia Mattson, 8 top-choice votes, 50%
Emily Salvette, 6 top-choice votes, 37.5%
Rob Power, 1 top-choice vote, 6.25%
Susan Hogarth, 1 top-choice vote, 6.25%

Round 2:
Alicia Mattson, 9 top-choice votes, 56.25%
Emily Salvette, 7 top-choice votes, 43.75%

One wonders whether it was Lee Wrights or Mark Hinkle, who nominated Susan Hogarth and Rob Power respectively, who voted for Mattson over Salvette. It could have easily been a tie vote.

For: (7)
Patrick Dixon
Mary Ruwart
Tony Ryan
Mark Hinkle
James Lark
Julie Fox
Rachel Hawkridge

Against: 3
Bill Redpath
Bob Sullentrup
Aaron Starr

Unknown: 6
Michael Jingozian
Michael Colley
Alicia Mattson
Rebecca Sink-Burris
Stewart Flood
Dan Karlan

The Secretary must have failed to notice that contributions made during the year were actually made on behalf of Lee Wrights.

Name that tune.

The parliamentarian should be appointed by the body for the benefit of the body.

Yea and I’ll bet I know who the parliamentarian was. How many guesses do I get? Bet I can do it in one.

And I have seen similar decisions

You would need either a majority or a supermajority. Whereas, they would need a 2/3 majority to remove for cause, which it appears they can’t (or worry they can’t) muster, so the bar is being lowered (as Brian Holtz put it) over an accidental one week lapse in dues, even though, as Brian also says, “Nobody is saying that being a week late with dues is grounds for keeping somebody off the LNC.”

I am sure this will end up with the parliamentarian making a decision, so place your bets.

Parliamentarians don’t make decisions; they only advise. The chair is free to accept the advice, or not; and the body is free to accept the chair’s ruling, or not. Overturning the ruling of the chair should never be regarded as a “nuclear” option that’s “just not done”. Robert’s itself says that on issues of heated opinion, the chair should not only not resist, but actively encourage the body to weigh in on a controversial ruling by deciding whether to overrule him.

Parliamentarians have their limitations — which was rather obvious at the national convention.

Their training covers standard parliamentary practice. However, when presented with an organization’s bylaws that have a few points of divergence with standard Robert’s Rules, many Registered Parliamentarians seem to have a lot of trouble making peace with the fact that organizations are free to adopt rules other than those suggested by Robert’s.

I have watched several parliamentarians in action at LP meetings in the past 3 to 4 years; and I have yet to see one that had adequately familiarized themselves with our bylaws before presuming to advise on them. And on one or two occasions, I have witnessed glaringly and consistently wrong advice that tended to support his factional loyalties — a big no-no for Registered Parliamentarians.

Three guesses on who it was.

I too would like the LNC to focus on raising money, and that’s why I think the most interesting thing here is the allegation that Wrights publicly suggested that the LP is not to be donated to. You ask when will enough be enough. I ask: how many LNC members should we tolerate who publicly suggest that the LP is not to be donated to? If you think the answer is something other than zero, I’d love to hear your reasoning.

Sigh. I know age catches up with us all, but really — you’re embarrassing yourself. Please try to follow the discussion as it reads, rather than as you want it to read.

First:

It is my understanding you made clear at our most recent LNC meeting, when you announced during one of the breaks, that you will never again give a dime to this Party.

Then:

While it is true I have refuse [sic] to support certain “projects” of the LNC financially, I have never made the statement attributed to me in your response.

Unless there is evidence beyond he-said-she-said that Mr Wrights is a liar rather than his accuser, you can’t ask me to defend Wrights for saying something I’m not even certain he said. Nor should you expect me to defend him for saying such a thing in any case, because I raise money for the LP myself.

It would be much better if you could engage in a conversation without resorting to cheap, insulting, and disingenuous rhetorical trickery.

MW

RILP hasn’t even had a web page in quite some time, at least not one linked to LP.org

“I urge readers to avoiding funding fraud by sending their donations beyond minimum dues to organizations other than LNC, Inc, e.g., your fine state party organization, at least in states where there is a state party that has not been taken over by Republicans.”

That is a hypothetical. Nor did I claim that there is a secret list of such parties. However, I call your attention, as reported a month ago on The Daily Liberty, to

“Writing on the LPRI Yahoo Group, long time (former libertarian) activist Mike Rollins wrote in part:

“In addition to being a long-time Libertarian Party activist, I am myself now a member of both the North Providence and Rhode Island Republican committees… I also switched from personally appearing on the ballot as a Libertarian to appearing as a Republican back in 2002… This past election our incumbent LPRI State Chairman David Bibeault made the same switch…Our immediate past LPRI State Chairman Dan Harrop made the same switch in either 2004 or 2006–he won the 2006 Republican Primary for Mayor of Providence–and is also now a member of the Rhode Island Republican State Committee. ”

There is a Republican takeover.

“Plausibility”? I’ve seen zero evidence, and a clear denial by him that he said it.

(or joining, as Angela did in writing months before her resignation).

Lee and Angela are two different people. If you want to remove Lee for cause, you should

1) Demonstrate that the alleged cause for removal is real and not a rumor (I would think if such evidence existed, it would have been posted here by now, but I could be wrong)

2) And not do it through a backhanded removal
over an accidental one week lapse in dues, which you yourself said no one thinks is a reason to remove a member.

So, logically, if it’s not a reason to remove a member, he should still be a member.

IF there is reason to remove him for cause, don’t sneak it in through the back door over a one week lapse in dues – do it the right way.

I won’t insult your intelligence if you don’t insult mine.

I haven’t insulted your intelligence.

You fail to distinguish between the two hypothetical cases of 1) an 8.5 removal-for-cause for the aforementioned suggestion and 2) deciding the LNC should fill a vacancy with someone other than a person who has made the aforementioned suggestion. The bar is lower in the second case, both on the merits and by the number of votes required to clear it.

Except that the removal happened over something which you already said is not a cause for removal.

Therefore, logically, it is an attempt to lower the bar by backhanded methods – as you just pointed out.

Otherwise I agree with you.