RONR specifically includes “Refraining from speaking adversely on a prior action not pending” as a key component of decorum, and by extension, speaking adversely on a prior action not pending is a breach of decorum. To the extent that this minority report specifically does that, the content of the minority report is inappropriate. (RONR also strenuously advises against the use of members’ names as much as possible, and this guidance is also violated extensively in the minority report.)”

Mr Karlan may object but I think that it is important that the members of the party know how the LNC officers and representatives conduct themselves with regards to their position. Further more from the standpoint of an employer I want to know who is doing what and how.

We need to remember that we should not be using the rules to hide the facts.

An act of silence is an act of complicity.

Ever?

Brian – used your videos for the new site I am building for the Alabama LP (not yet the official state party site)

http://allparty.wordpress.com/

Hope you’re cool with that

A) It is consistent with our sitemeter stats and

B) It’s the highest populated US timezone, thus statistically the one where the largest percentage of our readers are likely to be.

It was originally set to Central Time because site founder GE lives in Central Time Zone.

Whether this has anything to do with Brian’s alleged source, I have no idea – that’s for him to know.

It’s not always easy to tell on IPR, but I in fact was the author of the IPR story Dr. Ruwart references. She suggests that Starr, or perhaps someone who had early access to Starr’s memo, was a source for my story. However, that suggestion is based on a mistake.

First, I want to make it clear that I don’t confirm or deny who my sources are — to anybody.

Now, Dr. Ruwart’s mistake is that she thinks I had an hour less time to write my article than I actually did. My source(s) forwarded me an email apparently sent to the LNC at what would be 10:00pm in the Pacific Time Zone. I did not post my article until 11:26pm.

While IPR articles are currently timestamped three hours ahead of California time, in April they were being timestamped two hours ahead. I know this because any time I post original content for IPR, I email myself a copy. I emailed myself that April article at 11:26pm, and its posting timestamp on IPR is 1:26am the next day. Similarly, my Apr 26 IPR article on Day 2 of the LPCA convention was posted via email to my
own blog (http://libertarianintelligence.com/2009/04/lpca-convention-day-2.html) at 5:06pm, and then immediately pasted into an IPR posting that became timestamped at 7:07pm.

So however much time Dr. Ruwart believes I had to write the article, I actually had an hour more.

Exhumed – This Axe was made to Grind

Mr. Karlan, we call that hypocrisy, and Dr. Ruwart’s concerns about the operations of the committee, as glossed over and ignored by Mr. Redpath, deserve a full and proper airing before the entire LNC in whatever manner she sees fit. To attempt to censor a minority report of a committee (of which you are not even a member!) is highly inappropriate in itself and speaks volumes of your own selective interpretation of decorum and proper procedure. Witness your own grandstanding in regards to Mr. LaBianca recently in St. Louis as Exhibit A. If the LNC decides to exclude the minority report now, once it is publicly leaked, it dopes so at its own peril, but at the very least it should be given a full and proper vetting before the entire LNC. As libertarians we are supposed to abhor censorship as aggressive force against the personal right of free speech, remember?

Frankly, there is nothing in Dr. Ruwart’s Executive Summary that merits removal; but there is plenty of information in there that warrants at the very least a censure of Mr. Starr for continued actions damaging to the Party and its reputation, including continued creation of risk of legal liability and financial damages.

If anything, the enitre escapade once again illustrates why Mr. Starr is a cancer on the LNC that needs removal.

Lake: so you are are some what familiar with the deform/ reform movement ?????

When I[Ruwart] told Mr. Hinkle that I[Ruwart] was available for the meeting, he told me that I[Ruwart] could not participate because Mr. Starr had specifically asked that I be excluded until the document was “finalized.” ”

For those of you who find something a bit odd here, note “After the meeting, Chairman Redpath assigned Mr. Hinkle, Mr. Flood, Mr. Carling, Mr. Starr and [Ruwart] to the [Donor Confidentiality] Committee.”

That is, here we have the Chair of the DCC, according to Ruwart, acceding to the demand of one committee member that another committee member be excluded from the Committee’s proceedings. This is somewhat the opposite of the Roberts’ concept that the purpose of rules of order is to permit the minority to be heard and the majority to act. The Chair of the DCC is, of course, a candidate to become National Chair of our party, so his ideas on interpretations of Roberts’ is of at least passing interest in the real world.

If you think the Ruwart minority report is a bit odd, wait until you see Dan Karlan’s memo demanding that large parts of the minority report be suppressed. To judge from the CC list, Liberty for America magazine was one of a substantial list of parties that has now seen it.

For real oddity, the new LNC Policy Manual, including the large new parts that do not appear ever to have been passed by the LNC, is even more noteworthy.

RONR specifically includes “Refraining from speaking adversely on a prior action not pending” as a key component of decorum, and by extension, speaking adversely on a prior action not pending is a breach of decorum. To the extent that this minority report specifically does that, the content of the minority report is inappropriate. (RONR also strenuously advises against the use of members’ names as much as possible, and this guidance is also violated extensively in the minority report.)

I ask Dr. Ruwart to remove that material and confine her comments
specifically to the mission of the Committee and her disagrements with the report of the Committee. Until that happens, I strongly oppose inclusion of this minority report in the minutes. (For assistance, those indecorus comments are from the paragraph at the bottom of page 1 beginning “Mr. Starr’s memo … ” through the end of the paragraph on page 3 beginning “As our Treasurer … “)

Furthermore, everything in the report under the heading “Why the Donor
Confidentiality Committee Is Ineffective” on page 4 through the paragraph beginning “Mr. Starr’s reaction … ” on page 5 should be removed as inappropriate. The minority report should limit itself to a statement of what is insufficient in the Committee report, and leave it at that. Using the minority report as the base from which to conduct personal attacks is a gross violation of decorum, and the report with those comments included must not be allowed to appear in the minutes.

Dan Karlan