Meeting about to start.
I have a computer and a videocamera, as well as a livestream channel set up to go, but don’t know how to make them work together.
Hope to have that figured out later. Taping for now.
LNC meeting thread
December 5th, 2009 · 103 Comments
Filed Under: Libertarian Party
103 responses so far ↓
1 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 9:46 am
Approval of agenda
2 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 9:54 am
Lee Wrights wants to remove the resolution from agenda about removing felons from LP leadership.
Ruwart, Lark also oppose.
3 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 9:54 am
Hinkle, Sink-Burris also would remove.
4 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 9:55 am
passes overwhelmingly…sullentrup was the only one I heard say he would keep that item
5 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 9:58 am
Measure to move metrics agenda item (to earlier?) fails 7-5. Starr calls for hand vote, still fails.
6 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 9:59 am
Every lnc member who was supposed to be here is here except Jake Porter who is supposed to be alternating for Julie Fox
7 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:06 am
Discussion on rules for changing/approving agenda
8 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:08 am
Starr, Wrights sniping about whether this is all part of one agenda item or separate items
9 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:10 am
Starr says proposed change is actually already in effect. Passes without objection
10 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:11 am
Chairs report
11 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:13 am
Says he talks to Benedict 4-5 times a week, has done some media interviews, got together with Constitution Party chair in Pennsylvania and they now speak on the phone occassionally met with Students for Liberty chair.
12 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:15 am
Redpath cont….almost went to be an election observer in Gabon, Africa, but did not end up going. Went to Cato event, on the board of Fair Vote and Citizens in Charge, worked on Matt Cholko campaign in Virginia
13 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:16 am
Some losses on local, state ranked choice voting issues
14 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:17 am
Libertarianish party in Germany got 14%
15 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:19 am
Redpath cont…networked with Independent Institute, Cato again, met with RI and MA state LP chairs
16 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:20 am
Redpath…recruiting candidates in VA
17 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:21 am
Thanks Lee Wrights for becoming a life member
18 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:22 am
Gambling vote in Jefferson Co. WV which he lives next to.
19 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:25 am
Treasurers report
20 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:27 am
Sending out quarterly financial reports to delegates and sustaining members on request seems to be working well.
21 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:29 am
Asks for input on how to make them better. Hawkridge suggests printing them on 11 x 17. Starr suggests using pdf zoom feature.
22 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:30 am
2 quarterly reports went out so far.
23 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:30 am
First one paid for itself. Too early to know about 2nd one yet.
24 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:34 am
Believes November numbers which are not yet ready will be good. Decembers are typically bad.
25 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:35 am
Expects January to be good.
26 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:38 am
Secretary report
27 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:39 am
published 2010 delegate allocation
28 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:40 am
Will not print delegate manual this time, just email it.
29 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:46 am
Seeking help for convention.
30 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:48 am
Needs to test e-voting system at a state convention but has not identified one yet. Dixon suggests state chairs conference/LNC meeting in Austin
31 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:52 am
Looking for way to recover old LNC minutes that were in the possession of John Famularo. Jim Lark believes that will not be feasible, but several people have suggestions.
32 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:52 am
8 min break
33 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:02 am
staff reports
34 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:02 am
Wes Benedict
35 Robert Capozzi // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:04 am
pc, can you batch these comments? You’re clogging the comment header with these one liners.
36 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:05 am
Priority on fundraising and membership
37 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:07 am
Problems w/ this computer make that less workable. Is anyone interested in these updates? If not, we are taping and hopefully that can be made available later.
38 Third Party Revolution // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:07 am
But paulie is part of PC.
39 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:08 am
tpr…huh?
40 George Phillies // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:20 am
Jake Porter had previously indicated that his travel times would mean he would arrive a few hours late.
George
41 robert capozzi // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:30 am
pc, not as a live blog. perhaps post a summary 2x a day…
42 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:34 am
I’ll post the videos if/as they are in a format that can be played here. Other than that I can do my best to answer any questions anyone may have, but my memory won’t be near as good w/o the liveblog. In any case so far we have one no vote on liveblog and no yes votes, so I’m done with that for now.
43 George Phillies // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:51 am
I vote for LiveBlog! It is an excellent idea.
44 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:52 am
1-1.
Tiebreaker?
45 Chuck Moulton // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:53 am
I like the liveblogging, though I realize it clogs the comment stream. Perhaps it could be liveblogged on another blog linked to from here, then batched comments here later for those who don’t like it live.
46 Ralph Swanson // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:57 am
I vote you keep commenting here. Ochen Korosho?
47 LNC Nashville liveblog « Next Free Voice // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:58 am
[...] by pauliecannoli Continued by request from http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/12/lnc-meeting-thread/. Updates will be in [...]
48 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:58 am
ok……..
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/lnc-nashville-liveblog
49 Third Party Revolution // Dec 5, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Actually my comment was a reference to my previous belief that paulie was in charge of the technical stuff here at IPR. But who has that authority?
50 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Trent Hill
51 Ralph Swanson // Dec 5, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Very nice, Paulie. Keep it up!
52 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Batched thru lunch:
#
pauliecannoli
Staff reports done. Missed liveblogging staff report from Wes.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.00.49 pauliecannoli
Now discussing timing of executive session
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.02.57 pauliecannoli
Pat Dixon suggests there is nothing except counsels report to discuss in exec session.
Stewart Flood wants to discuss a contract issue in exec session.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.05.14 pauliecannoli
Campus report….
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.06.01 pauliecannoli
Jim Lark thanks Joel Cox for help with campus organizing
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.07.44 pauliecannoli
Lee Wrights commends Jim Lark
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.10.04 pauliecannoli
Reports that there is a strong tendency towards libertarian thought among college students.
Says SIL is doing a very good job and has good relationship with LP.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.10.31 pauliecannoli
Region reports
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.11.49 pauliecannoli
Vermont in progress of being reorganized. Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine “in need of serious help” esp. Maine.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.13.44 pauliecannoli
Sink-Burris…had regional conference initiated by state chairs, urges other regions to do same.
Hinkle urges regions to update campus contact list.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.15.46 pauliecannoli
Jack Dean – pensiontsunami.com ?
Keeps track of cities and counties going bankrupt due to pensions
Richard Rider – list that focuses on corporate welfare e.g. stadia
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.16.09 pauliecannoli
Flood – NC has new (political?) director
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.17.02 pauliecannoli
Spending time working with chairs, staff from other regions
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.18.56 pauliecannoli
Tony Ryan – missed it – refer to tape
Jim Lark – something about IL … talks some more about pensiontsunami, suggests press release, confirms on NC political director
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.20.38 pauliecannoli
Wes needs press releases and articles that are ready to go, more so than ideas
KY report will be in exec session
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.22.48 pauliecannoli
Colley – conventions 2010, 2012
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.23.58 pauliecannoli
Goes to corp HQ of hotel chains and gets deals that way..
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.25.37 pauliecannoli
head counts issue w/ hotels
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.28.01 pauliecannoli
Packages…wants to keep gold under 300
Silver – skips lunches
basic – how many people we commit to
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.30.40 pauliecannoli
Wants to stay on top of cheap room/food options that Knapp is tracking, so that the party does not overcommit to hotel by promising more people staying and eating there than actually will…encourages ppl to stay and eat at convention hotel so party does not lose money to hotel
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.33.11 pauliecannoli
Going over menus or something. I am suddenly feeling the need for a 12-ounce cup full of espresso shots.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.35.05 pauliecannoli
“Starbucks, blah blah blah” – – exact quote.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.37.29 pauliecannoli
Target Jan 15 to have packages ready to sell
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.39.57 pauliecannoli
Lark: will we lose money?
Colley: no
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.41.11 pauliecannoli
Colley looking for volunteers to help with convention planning
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.43.12 pauliecannoli
Skipping desert after lunch to save money
Thanks Sullentrup
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.44.59 pauliecannoli
Speakers: Boortz, Barr, Gary Nolan, David Nolan, Jeff Davis. Sullentrup will give welcome to StL speech.
Lark has suggestions for free speakers.
No breakout rooms to streamline costs.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.46.01 pauliecannoli
Redpath, Dixon favor weekly conference call to keep on target for convention
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.46.40 pauliecannoli
Hinkle points out that many people will not show up for meals they bought
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.47.52 pauliecannoli
2012: Suggestions Nashville, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, DC
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.49.35 pauliecannoli
Charlotte is unlikely due to high cost
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.50.08 pauliecannoli
Problems w/ remodeling at Pittsburgh hotel
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.50.56 pauliecannoli
No big enough hotel in Manchester NH
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.51.46 pauliecannoli
Louisville KY wanted to split it up between 3 hotels w/ shuttle bus, rejected for that reason
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.52.44 pauliecannoli
Lark: are we trying to decide on 2012 convention this term?
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.53.21 pauliecannoli
Colley wants contract for 2012 done before 2010 convention
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.54.59 pauliecannoli
Calls setup in Nashville “confusing”
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.56.09 pauliecannoli
Good meeting room but meal rooms are not as good. Other aspects of Nashville hotel are good.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.58.56 pauliecannoli
Nashville has best price
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 11.59.59 pauliecannoli
1/2 price on rooms as DC and parking here is much cheaper. Staff has been very cooperative.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.01.10 pauliecannoli
box lunch as alternative?
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.02.42 pauliecannoli
Dixon: tradeoff in losing speakers
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.03.38 pauliecannoli
Nashville is currently 1st choice
DC is 2nd
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.05.41 pauliecannoli
Counsels report – exec session?
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.07.07 pauliecannoli
not yet
Mass. litigation may be planned
Moving to proactive stance in litigations such as DC write-in vote counts, Mass. regulations on internal governance of alt parties etc
Hinkle suggests joining RNC suit against FEC
Considering moving discussion of legal strategy in Illinois gun rights case in exec session
Bob Barr may assist w/ that case
53 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Jumped the gun.
Not exec session yet. Will include any additional comments at next batch. Meantime see cannoli wordpress.
54 George Phillies // Dec 5, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Mass Litigation
There was a final decision in Massachusetts at the District Court level on our estoppal issue. The Secretary of State’s counsel had said that we were allowed to substitute and would send us a form. He then changed his mind when we asked post-convention for the form. There was a suit. Substitution won. The Secretary of State has filed notice — public record — that he is filing an appeal, which is due this month.
There is no Massachusetts issue here.
55 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Different issue I think…IIUC this is the one where the state tells parties they have to collect an unreasonable number of signatures to have a candidate in the primary even if it is the only candidate in that party for that office, but i could be wrong.
56 Thomas L. Knapp // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“Wants to stay on top of cheap room/food options that Knapp is tracking, so that the party does not overcommit to hotel by promising more people staying and eating there than actually will…encourages ppl to stay and eat at convention hotel so party does not lose money to hotel”
I, too, encourage people to stay at the convention hotel if they can afford to. If nothing else, it’s just easier than schlepping back and forth between there and some other sleeping space.
On the lodging side, I’ve only identified two alternatives to the convention hotel. Both are limited in size and unlikely to draw any great number of convention attendees away from the Renaissance Grand. But I’d rather see someone attend the convention and stay elsewhere, than not be able to attend the convention because they can’t afford 3-4 nights at an expensive hotel.
On the food side, I think it’s unrealistic to expect that many people will eat most, let alone all, meals at the convention hotel.
Cost is an issue, but even if it wasn’t, people like variety. Most of what I’ve been blogging involves inexpensive meals within walking distance of the convention hotel. Not only do I believe that easy access to this variety will make the convention more enjoyable, but once again — I’d rather have someone attend the convention and be eating $5 meals from Hardee’s than not attend the convention because they can’t afford to drop $20+ on three meals per day.
57 George Phillies // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:20 pm
In addition to Tom’s points, the hotel did not appear to be set up to handle a large fraction of the convention attendees at meal times.
58 George Phillies // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I do presume they can handle banquets, but the size of the hotel restaurant appeared to be a bit limited relative to a thousand-person convention. However it was a very nice restaurant with good food.
59 George Phillies // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I just spoke to Paulie Cannoli. The LNC is back in session, but his computer link is misbehaving, and he needs a recess to be able to have happen what needs to be done to fix it. Until then, no more liveblogging.
George
60 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Got it just now
61 Kimberly Wilder // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Thanks, Paulie, for the live blog. Since I ain’t a Libertarian, I only skimmed. But, found some interesting stuff.
Looking forward to more reports of whatever your tech capabilities are.
I think there is no problem making long lists of comments. As long as you are not making too many new posts, it is great to hear fresh news!
Thanks,
Kimberly
(P.S. Would also be nice if someone had time for some kind of summary report, or highlights. The felony thing sounded interesting…)
62 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:50 pm
That was taken off the record.
Fresh updates at
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/lnc-nashville-liveblog
Will be reposted here in batches later
63 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Record, er, agenda
64 Robert Milnes // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I am a felon & proud of it. I dare the FBI to take another run at me. I won’t let a federal defender run the defense, that’s for sure.
65 Thomas L. Knapp // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:54 pm
George is correct on the food situation. The hotel restaurant is not especially large. I don’t see any way that it could handle 500-1000 guests at a time, which is what we’re talking about for the convention.
The only “outside franchise” I saw at the hotel was Starbucks, which is fine if you want coffee and perhaps a danish, but not really a meal alternative.
In the area around the hotel, there are options ranging from the upscale (sushi bars, etc.) to fast food (Hardee’s) and everything in between (Chinese buffet, TGI Friday’s, etc.). I’m trying to catalog these so that convention attendees can find them as easily as possible and not waste time wandering around hoping to find something to eat.
66 George Phillies // Dec 5, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Tom,
There did not seem to be a lot within, say, two blocks. The Chinese buffet we hit was four or five, if I recall.
Of course, as a Presidential candidate you get to spend the lunch hour gladhanding, and then get to eat in relative comfort between-times.
67 Thomas L. Knapp // Dec 5, 2009 at 5:55 pm
George,
So far, all I’ve found within a block of the hotel are “high-end” establishments — places where you’ll get a fine meal, I’m sure, but at a minimum cost of $25 per person or so. That can add up very quickly.
The Chinese buffet we ate at was about four blocks away, and came to less than $10 per person. Also in that area are Hardee’s, TGI Friday’s, Imo’s, etc. There was a Lion’s Choice (roast beef oriented, like Arby’s only better), but I noticed last weekend that it has closed.
There are also some local non-chain establishments that look reasonable — I’m going to sample them over the next few months and blog them as well. One in particular looked like a real — and really cheap — Mexican place that caters to the area’s construction trade with sack burrito lunches. If they’re open on weekends, that could be a good idea for people who want to grab something and bring it back to the convention floor.
Just to reiterate, people who can afford to stay at the luxury hotel where the convention is held should certainly do so. It’s easier and more convenient. And if you don’t mind popping $25 per person per meal, that’s great, too. I’d like to see more “povertarians” able to attend the convention, though, and I’m hoping that shaving several hundred dollars off the cost of doing so will increase participation. Some suggestions:
- Use mass transit. If you’re coming from the airport, it will save you $80-$100 round trip over taking a cab. If you’re driving in and don’t expect to need your car during the proceedings, you can use the “park and ride,” and the cost of a two-way train ride is less than the cost of one day’s hotel parking. The taxes on your hotel stay, etc., help pay for that mass transit. Might as well use the subsidy you’re paying for.
- Bring some of your own food — cold cuts, etc. — and either bring a cooler or arrange for a fridge in your room. That way you can grab a quick lunch sandwich or snack for much less than the cost of an appetizer at the places within a block or so of the hotel.
- Make a group outing for dinner after the day’s proceedings are done, to a place a little further afield. The family and/or fine dining food price drops dramatically when you get out of the downtown area. I’ve blogged Talayna’s, which is a 5-10 minute train ride from the convention hotel. $10-15 per person, maybe a little less, will get you the best pizza/pasta meal available in the area. The service is great, and the staff knows and likes Libertarians (the city and county parties frequently hold events there). I plan to try to get together a group for an evening meal there one night.
68 paulie // Dec 5, 2009 at 7:09 pm
#
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.20.59 pauliecannoli
Bob Barr may assist w/ that case
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.26.01 pauliecannoli
Hawkridge: deadline for amicus brief passed
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 12.30.35 Stewart Flood
You forgot to mention my response, which is:
ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 13.20.26 Michael H. Wilson
paulie at some point, not today, we need to get more information as to what Wes means when you wrote; “Wes needs press releases and articles that are ready to go, more so than ideas”.
I’m sure there are some of us who can help.
Thanks
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 13.46.22 George Phillies
Where on earth is this Massachusetts litigation stuff coming from? Not Massachusetts.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.39.34 pauliecannoli
Colley: there will be a convention fee around $30 for those who do not buy rooms and meals
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.40.57 pauliecannoli
Michael, I think it is more or less self explanatory. If you have something that is ready to go, rather than just an idea for what Wes needs to put together, shoot it to him and he may be able to put it to use.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.42.33 pauliecannoli
Hawkridge: The 30 is supposed to be for materials – not seating and voting. [/hawk]
Some disagreement over whether charging delegates to vote is against the bylaws.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.45.19 pauliecannoli
Discussion for goals –
15k members by May(?) 2010
All states to have affiliates by 2010
Profit or loss of no more than 10k on convention
One more I missed
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.47.49 pauliecannoli
Ruwart point of info, will compensation for staff be threatened if goals are not met.
Reply – forgot from whom – No.
unanimous roll call vote yes on goals
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.51.46 pauliecannoli
Ballot access report – 27 states at present
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.55.19 pauliecannoli
To do: Alabama extremely difficult, more like ind. pres.
Arkansas – 10k statewide, 1k ind more likely
CT, DC waits til 12
IL – 25k 2012, 2010 ea
…going too fast to take notes…
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 14.55.46 pauliecannoli
NM asap
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.00.59 pauliecannoli
WV – substitution issue
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.02.13 pauliecannoli
4151 valid NM, Apr 1 2010 deadline, good for both 2010 and 2012. NM state money tied up in a lawsuit.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.04.43 pauliecannoli
About 15k needed for about 7700 sig nm. Redpath wants it considered in budget. Wants to help IL in 10. May want to start Nebraska.
Winger is paying Kohlhaas in some state. Missed the state.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.12.34 pauliecannoli
Redpath – 15k NM
IL – 80k NM, IL might do 5-10k
NE – 15k
100k total
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.13.07 pauliecannoli
Needs to verify w/ Winger that includes 2012 Nebraska
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.13.53 pauliecannoli
Dixon – don’t want to go negative on budget
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.16.26 pauliecannoli
5% retention in Nebraska – Winger says that they have always met the 5% test before
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.16.49 pauliecannoli
Starr – how much more expensive would it be to do it in 2012?
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.17.55 pauliecannoli
5% NE above refers to any statewide office
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.19.46 pauliecannoli
Believes Fox has good chance at 5% for IL comptroller, would save from having to do 2012
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.20.53 pauliecannoli
Starr: chance to fail in 2010, better to just go for 2012
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 15.22.21 pauliecannoli
Redpath: Chance to run 2010 candidates
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.07.02 pauliecannoli
..some more I forgot, then exec session…now back from break
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.07.49 Michael H. Wilson
Thanks I should have been clear. We need to know what he is looking for when he says articles. Does he want them for the news letter or something else, op-eds?
I’ll contact him and ask.
Thank again for the work.
MW
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.08.18 pauliecannoli
Waiting for Sullentrup
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.10.13 pauliecannoli
Flood’s b-day. He says he would rather not hear happy birthday song being sung.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.13.01 pauliecannoli
It is apparently illegal to sing badly in Nashville
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.13.48 pauliecannoli
MW – anything and everything.
Moving to budget discussion
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.17.15 pauliecannoli
Starr – increase ED/chair solicitations budget to fund ballot access proposals; they would be conditional on money being raised.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.22.41 pauliecannoli
Dixon – no need to further complicate budget (as best I understood what he said)
Starr – this would make it clear that if money is raised for ballot access it should be spent for ballot access)
Redpath – likes Starr’s plan but would like immediate authorization for 15k for NM
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.24.27 pauliecannoli
Jingozian – two budgets: minimum budget and performance-based budget
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.25.45 pauliecannoli
Hinkle motion – ballot access line item be raised from 0 to 15k, surplus reduced by 15k
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.29.02 pauliecannoli
Hinkle speaking to motion – need to fill in some zeros on budget so we send message to membership that all these other categories are important (EG see Phillies article at IPR:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/12/lnc-meeting-thread/
2nded by Wrights – passes without objection
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.30.28 pauliecannoli
Lark – expenditures on campus organizing?
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.30.59 pauliecannoli
Points out he is spending large amounts himself.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.33.37 pauliecannoli
Discussion of convention. Lark says Colley “guaranteed” it will not lose money, Colley says he can’t control how many people buy which packages
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.34.34 pauliecannoli
Lark says there is 5k for ballot access which he contributed several years ago which he has just not submitted reimbursements.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.35.39 pauliecannoli
Starr – reason for zero line items is to keep them in mind as ideas of what the party will hopefully fund in the future
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.36.36 pauliecannoli
Ruwart questioning number projections
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.37.56 pauliecannoli
Starr – precedent for better than numbers than we had in 2009, eg 2007, 2008
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.38.48 pauliecannoli
Starr – most cost effective method of fundraising is in person – holds down costs as opposed to other methods (direct mail, phone, etc)
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.40.23 Stewart Flood
The reference to violating local anti-bad-singing ordinances came from another board member.
My father always sang happy birthday to me, up to and including my 38th birthday when he called me as usual to sing. He passed away unexpectedly three weeks later on the day after Christmas in 1995 at the age of 83. I have elected since then to request that happy birthday not be sung to me. I am quite confident that the LNC chorus would have been able to sing happy birthday in a manner that would comply with local laws.
Aside from Mark Hinkle throwing a spit ball past me this morning that was clearly aimed at the Treasurer, we are having a very productive and cooperative meeting which has been a very good birthday present.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.40.37 pauliecannoli
Ruwart – based on 4 year cycle 2010 will not be as good as 2007, 8. Has optimism in process as explained in ED report by Wes and in Wes personally, but still cautious as to the projections.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.42.49 pauliecannoli
Stewart – yes, this does seem more friendly than last couple I was at. And happy birthday.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.44.19 pauliecannoli
Ruwart, Lark motion – raising fundraising cost projection by 20k at cost to bottom line. This was suggested by Starr in discussion leading to motion based on objections/questions raised by Ruwart.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.44.45 pauliecannoli
Dixon in opposition
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.45.48 pauliecannoli
Dixon – “we don’t have to allocate everything we can anticipate” – numbers can be adjusted in a few months if we are doing well.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.47.24 pauliecannoli
Just remembered before break, motion to iextend time to discuss ballot access did not get 2/3…Porter, Sullentrup, Dixon were against extending time.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.48.10 pauliecannoli
Hinkle, Starr speaking in favor of Ruwart motion
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.48.56 pauliecannoli
Jingozian in favor
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.50.09 pauliecannoli
Flood – appears to be making points both for and against – I missed conclusion
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.50.44 pauliecannoli
Moved to a vote – majority vote
Passes with I think 2 nays
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.51.25 pauliecannoli
Colley – what happened to reserve
Starr – now called surplus
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.54.32 pauliecannoli
Question (Karlan?) as to whether Lark spending is in-kind contribution. Lark says no. Starr says questions like this should be in executive session.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.57.17 pauliecannoli
Dixon wants more spending to be flexible rather than specifically allocated
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 16.58.17 pauliecannoli
Starr says that if we go to 6 issues LP News there should be more budgeted for it.
Hinkle wants to allocate 5k more to litigation.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.02.15 pauliecannoli
Dixon – we can’t allocate money we don’t have yet – that revenue is just projected, not actual
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.05.20 pauliecannoli
Ruwart – doing things like ballot access and litigation help raise money because they give donors projects they want to fund
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.06.22 pauliecannoli
Starr – allow for specific authorizations as year progresses, or base on revenues raised by personal solicitation
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.07.04 pauliecannoli
15k was authorized for ballot access, not authorized to NM
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.07.42 pauliecannoli
Lark – call all pending questions
Dixon – objection
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.08.13 Stewart Flood
My conclusion was that I supported Dr. Ruwart’s motion (which I’ve already voted for at time of this posting) but that I agreed with Mr Dixon that we can very easily modify the budget later if things change.
This is just a budget. Ink on paper. We haven’t raised one single dime for 2010 (other than the estate disbursement) so we have no idea how things will turn out.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.09.41 pauliecannoli
Lark – special point of privelege – why oppose
Dixon – wants to address question on budget after amendment addressed
Lark – withdraws motion
Sullentrup (?) – objects to withdrawal
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.12.29 pauliecannoli
Motion to call all pending questions
nays hawkridge, porter, hinkle, ruwart, one more I missed – Wrights?
fails 2/3
Proceed to Hinkle motion
passes on voice majority vote
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.13.00 pauliecannoli
Proceeding to vote on budget as amended
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.14.48 pauliecannoli
Nays – Porter
Wrights
Hawkridge
Redpath abstains
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.15.46 Stewart Flood
And the budget passes 13-3.
There is $15K for ballot access. That does not mean we won’t end up spending more than that in 2010. The budget may change later in the year.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.16.13 pauliecannoli
Stewart – thanks for clarification – hard to follow what ppl are saying sometimes esp, when I am liveblogging @ same time
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.21.23 pauliecannoli
Wrights, (Ruwart?)
Motion for EC encumbrance for ballot access
Wrights says ballot access is most important thing we do, without it we are nothing
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.21.53 pauliecannoli
Passes without objection
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.23.07 pauliecannoli
Karlan
5 policy (manual?) changes that are separate agenda items
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.24.07 pauliecannoli
1st one – issue regarding compensation
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.26.25 pauliecannoli
Starr points out that Colley is already doing what is being proposed here.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.32.02 pauliecannoli
Dixon – ED should not be micromanaged by LNC
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.34.57 pauliecannoli
Wes is asked if he is for it
Says no but it will not be a disaster if it passes
Points out that the hiring/firing he has done has been with Redpath’s approval as stated in policy manual and that it is possible that the same changes would have taken place had the proposed changes been in place
Points out that employment manual has been worked on for years, still not ready
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.36.16 pauliecannoli
Ruwart – difficult to fire people under this system and it wastes time – if the system we have is not broke don’t fix it
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.37.16 pauliecannoli
Colley – “I’ve never told the ED to do anything”
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.39.36 pauliecannoli
Colley – this is to help, not to micromanage
Sink-Burris – comments in favor
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.40.16 pauliecannoli
Alabama 26 FL 13. Starr asked this be included.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.41.06 pauliecannoli
Time extension voted down. Passes with two abstentions on close vote.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.42.01 pauliecannoli
Apparently there was one other no on budget, not sure I got who it was – Ruwart?
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.42.38 pauliecannoli
Next agenda item, policy on merit based relationships
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.46.16 pauliecannoli
Redpath point of info – why? Specific incident spurring this?
Karlan – dunno
Starr (coauthor) – No. This is standard procedure in corporate world. Why is this controversial?
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.46.35 pauliecannoli
Wrights motion to divide question
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.46.59 pauliecannoli
Hawkridge 2nd
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.47.59 pauliecannoli
Lark — point of clarification/personal privilege – what does this mean?
Starr explained but I missed it
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.48.30 pauliecannoli
Question is divided. I think unanimously. I don’t have it in front of me so I’m fairly lost.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.50.03 pauliecannoli
Something else happened while Andy was texting me to make sure I am not a total moron.
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.51.55 pauliecannoli
Lark – something like this should pass but current language is too restrictive – inclined to vote no as written
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.54.26 pauliecannoli
Wrights – far too restrictive – too many people are friends, associates, etc of each other
Jingozian – question about contracting with companies owned, co-owned etc by LNC members
Starr – it would have to be cleared by EPCC, not just ED
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.56.14 pauliecannoli
Wes – if this passes it should also apply to LNC members engaged in selecting contractors; Starr – Wes and Redpath are the only ones who can ink deals
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.57.06 pauliecannoli
More argument I missed
Time extension voted down
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.59.02 pauliecannoli
Can’t keep up but looks like it will be voted down
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 17.59.39 pauliecannoli
4 yes, 4 abstain, 8 no
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.00.04 pauliecannoli
Correction 9 no
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.01.33 pauliecannoli
Question of how much more to do today
Redpath: To hear from Sinawski on new info on RNC lawsuit against BCRA
Would like to end for day other than that but it is up to the board.
7 pm reservation
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.03.01 pauliecannoli
Lark – one other item
Starr? – 6:30
Sullentrup, – tired, had heart attack a month ago
Redpath – OK, Sinawski (counsel) only
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.05.07 pauliecannoli
Currently at federal district court level
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.06.05 pauliecannoli
Motion to close til 8 am
#
edit this on 2009.12.05 at 18.06.39 pauliecannoli
Adjourned. Alabama 32 FL 13
69 Chuck Moulton // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Paulie Cannoli wrote (NFV at 14.39.34):
Paulie Cannoli wrote (NFV at 14.42.33):
Did they succeed in slipping a floor fee in? I had been the most vocal opposition in past terms. It may require a Judicial Committee challenge if they try.
70 Rachel H // Dec 6, 2009 at 12:58 am
Chuck Moulton @69 – decided 1 or 2 meetings ago that there would be no “floor fee”, but also not to print materials – materials (binder) will be available online in advance, and some enterprising wench may be printing materials, selling them on site.
71 Carolyn Marbry // Dec 6, 2009 at 5:02 am
“Lee Wrights wants to remove the resolution from agenda about removing felons from LP leadership. // Ruwart, Lark also oppose. // Hinkle, Sink-Burris also would remove. // passes overwhelmingly…sullentrup was the only one I heard say he would keep that item”
Wonderful. I’m pleased that they opted against giving time to that resolution as written. It was deeply flawed and would have hurt a lot of otherwise innocent people who are not in a position to do the party harm and would have had the national party intruding on what should have been handled by the state and/or county parties.
72 Robert Milnes // Dec 6, 2009 at 5:11 am
Seems real coincidental that it could be applied to me.
73 Robert Milnes // Dec 6, 2009 at 5:34 am
Who is the source of this coincidentally colaterally attacks Bob Milnes resolution? Let’s examine that person’s motives & recent contacts.
74 Robert Milnes // Dec 6, 2009 at 5:35 am
& bank account.
75 Carolyn Marbry // Dec 6, 2009 at 5:56 am
Bob, here’s the text of the resolution in question:
****
Resolution on Standards to Hold Positions of Libertarian Leadership
Whereas, the Libertarian Party believes that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world,
and that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships;
Whereas, individuals who commit crimes against persons or property violate the rights of others and are anathema to our ideals; and
Whereas, having such individuals represent the Libertarian Party is morally wrong and an affront to their victims, in addition to beinginjurious to our organization and its purposes;
Resolved, it is the position of Libertarians that neither theLibertarian Party, nor any affiliate thereof, should place or keep in a leadership position as a candidate, party officer or any other position of trust or responsibility any individual guilty of a felonious crime against persons or property; and
Resolved, Libertarians find particularly reprehensible any adult who would sexually exploit children, who by their nature and lack of maturity are incapable of consenting to sexual acts and hence cannot be willing participants.
****
I sincerely doubt this was aimed at you specifically. It attempted to address a specific situation in California, but it’s far too broad in scope and there have been some questions as to the motives behind it.
The LNC should either address the specific issue directly and in a one-time manner since hopefully this is a one-time issue, or they need to take some time to craft a policy on this that is not cobbled together to address a single issue and stomp on the state organizations’ right to manage themselves.
It’s possible they need to do both, but regardless, this resolution was not the way.
76 Robert Milnes // Dec 6, 2009 at 6:57 am
Carolyn Marbry, thank you for that resolution text. I had already figured that it-ostensibly-applied to the CA sexual misconduct situation. But then it occurred to me that it also-undeniably-could be applied to me-an Independent seeking LP (& other parties much like Ralph Nader) endorsement. How better to deny me any possibility of the LP’s ballot access in 2012? A resolution passed in 2009. At the time of my arrest-1985-I suspected the FBI’s motives were political and sought to damage my credibility & future in many ways. However I had a federal defender & lost the case where I subsequently realized I had a perfectly good defense-not guilty by variance. And also ground for dismissal-require a showing of previous surveillance. Now, decades later, more residual consequences of that conviction. No convictions since-a striking anomaly, wouldn’t you say? A 2 count indictment. Plea bargained down to one count. So please bear with me my suspicions. Still unanswered is who is the source of this resolution?
77 Robert Milnes // Dec 6, 2009 at 7:36 am
Really, is any conviction under the present unreliable circumstances, something any libertarian can be confident with? Any conviction being used in any way must be very skeptically examined. For example, I had a U.S. Attorney with FBI accusers in a U.S. District Court with appointed Judge & a federal defender! Further, in probation hearings which were unconstitutionally called by the supposedly neutral judge sua sponte, my supposedly neutral probation officer was sitting with the U.S. Attorney. None of this was challenged by the federal defender.
78 Robert Milnes // Dec 6, 2009 at 7:56 am
You want to read a scary statute? Try 18 USC Section 4246. Paraphrasing-an indefinite civil commitment upon expiration of sentence for one certified to having a mental disease or defect such that presents a danger to another or property upon such release.
79 Robert Milnes // Dec 6, 2009 at 8:01 am
In the very least I should have had effective AND compatible counsel i.e. one of similar political views & experience. Then when I brought up the idea that the FBI might have political hidden motives in this case, it wouldn’t have been knee jerk dismissed as being unreasonable-even foolish and MENTAL!
80 paulie // Dec 6, 2009 at 9:16 am
back on liveblogging at NFV
81 paulie // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:33 am
#
Chuck Moulton
Is there some reason why IPR is down so frequently?
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 07.56.54 Kimberly Wilder
I hope all you Libertarian folks are having fun. Because, I think you are draining all the energy out of the political universe…
I think that when a national, party convention goes on, there is so much energy needed and attention given, I swear the rest of the political world takes a breather.
For whatever reason, seems to me like all the regular political blogs, and even our local political news, has been excessively quiet for over 24 hours.
(Really, have fun. Get stuff done. Nice that someone is hard at work.)
Peace,
Kimberly Wilder
Long Island, NY
P.S. Looking forward to more reports
P.S.S. Hi, Paulie!
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.00.23 pauliecannoli
I’m sure there is, but I don’t know what it is, nor any server access.
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.12.56 pauliecannoli
Hi Kimberly.
We are back on.
Affiliated services committee passed without objection.
Now on to Karlan, policy on hiring and termination.
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.15.11 pauliecannoli
Hawkridge in opposition – violation of contract?
Starr responds – this does not change existing contract, just sets policies for future contracts.
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.17.42 pauliecannoli
Wes – what if someone worked for companies that went out of business?
Lark — various points of clarification
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.19.57 pauliecannoli
Dixon – Does not say we can’t hire someone with [?problem] gives Kubby and Paul Jacob as exampes, just give notice
Sinawski – it just says employees have to notify EPCC (on?) not chair, ED etc
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.23.19 pauliecannoli
Var. amendments to include chair and ED
Starr – Wes would be required to inform anyone he hires. Could hire someone who has whatever
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.23.57 pauliecannoli
problem it is
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.26.19 pauliecannoli
Wes points out that it will cause job candidates to go elsewhere.
Amendment passes w/o objection.
Main motion debated now.
Mattson — crimes against property or person — I thought this was what was removed from agenda? I guess not.
Colley – possible problem with confidentiality. EPCC is just acting as a consulting service here.
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.28.10 pauliecannoli
Motion to divide
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.30.18 pauliecannoli
Passes with little objection – Sullentrup was only one I heard object, maybe one other.
Part passed w/o objection.
Main part – nays Wrights, Hawkridge, Ryan, Ruwart, Hinkle, Dixon, Redpath abstains
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.35.41 pauliecannoli
[missed some...something about a survey]
Policy on convention speakers – Karlan
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.39.14 pauliecannoli
No speaker will speak unless they sign that they will not run for an office being contested giving them unfair advantage in race or appearance thereof.
Colley question – Sullentrup giving welcome to St L speech, would this preclude him speaking if he runs in contested race
Answer (who?) – no, he is speaking in his official capacity
Lark – good idea in general but sounds like it goes too far
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.43.35 pauliecannoli
Ruwart – unintended consequence – what about people who don’t know if they will run – some people may want to run for LNC after giving a speech
Karlan – it is not a prohibition, only a peice of evidence that delegates can use or choose to ignore.
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.45.15 pauliecannoli
Nays – Sullentrup, Lark, Ryan, Ruwart, Hinkle, Hawkridge, Dixon
Wrights absent
Sink-Burris abstain
Redpath abstains
failed 7-7
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.46.22 pauliecannoli
LNC budget review strategy – Mary Ruwart presentation – budget as strategy – looking for advice on possible future proposal
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.50.56 pauliecannoli
Need for budget analysis that tells us where to put more in future years e.g. how to increase warm prospects
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.54.12 pauliecannoli
Strategy in last budget was direct mail of cold prospects which was not successful, no strategy beyond directing ED to figure out something
Need to figure out strategy for growth – – have budget out a month early
Dixon – budget is just broad spending categories – more granularity not needed, ED should be free to make decisions
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.57.02 pauliecannoli
Starr – budget is just a model and can be wrong
It’s a battle plan and has to be adjusted as the situation on the ground is faced
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.58.21 pauliecannoli
Starr – our drop in revenues is not near as bad as many other companies, organizations right now
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 08.59.36 pauliecannoli
Lark – goal/strategic planning discussion is being ignored
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.01.55 pauliecannoli
Hawkridge – failure to capitalize on Campaign for Liberty, 9/12, 10th amendment project etc. Budget review could have caused us to capitalize better
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.05.14 pauliecannoli
Wes – Ruwart’s data helpful in helping him focus on renewals rather than cold prospecting
Karlan – presenting too much data to committee will cause endless deliberation, better to present it to ED
Sullentrup – would it be too hard to have rolling 12-month forecast quarterly
Starr – will need to consider this – would need to work closer with ED
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.06.10 pauliecannoli
objection to extend time
extend time fails
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.06.57 pauliecannoli
Porter – brochures have not been updated in years
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.09.45 pauliecannoli
Discussion of whether LPstuff brochures are print qulity
Kraus – No, it would cost more in ink than to order
Flood – this is being worked on
Lark – need for new literature
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.11.58 pauliecannoli
Wes – we can create new materials and encouraging people all over the country to help with writing and design
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.13.15 pauliecannoli
Karlan – no new materials since Bill Winter left
Winter is still available and had help with Cato Institute people who are still around
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.15.04 pauliecannoli
Comment from me: Wes, you should put out a call for materials to be sent to you on the website blog and email blast – if you don’t have time to do it, waiting for people to come to you will not yield much. We may have people who can and would help IF ASKED.
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.15.48 pauliecannoli
Lark – LNC needs to consider what issues we need to address that are upcoming
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.16.22 pauliecannoli
Next item – policy update on APRC
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.19.53 pauliecannoli
Dixon – proposal too on the fly
Karlan – motion to divide
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.20.58 pauliecannoli
Motion to divide passes
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.22.51 pauliecannoli
Starr – call question to divide
Hawkridge – objection
Passes 2/3
Part 1 – Hawkridge nay, Dixon nay, Redpath abstains – all others yes
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.25.40 pauliecannoli
Part 2
Dixon – this introduces changes we do not have time to consider right now
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.30.06 pauliecannoli
Hawkridge – how does this impact things that are time sensitive and have already gone out
Flood – if it’s out, it’s out; review on non-time sensitive stuff, all that changes is chair would be required to notify if ignoring the recommendation of APRC
Karlan – too many changes to consider right now
Starr – would it be in order to defer to mail order
A: It could be voted down then introduced as mail order, withdrawn and introduced as mail order
Flood withdraws motion with that
#
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.32.01 pauliecannoli
…understanding
[Missed point of clarification from Wrights]
Break time 13 min
82 Harold // Dec 6, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Milnes = Entertainment
83 paulie // Dec 6, 2009 at 12:42 pm
190.
pauliecannoli
Steve Gordon and Shana Kluck – mobile texting platform presentation
191.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.50.04 pauliecannoli
Text messaging is becoming much more popular and esp. in younger demographics and time for LP to catch up
192.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 09.54.30 pauliecannoli
Obama, Republicans both using it successfully
Much higher open rate than email – also read more timely
193.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.01.43 pauliecannoli
Advantage over twitter is that most people do not read all the twits that come to them – this comes to the phone and most people read it
194.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.04.55 pauliecannoli
Dixon – Benedict is the one who needs to be sold on this rather than LNC
Next item
Hinkle – Process for informing donors of progress? I think
195.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.10.30 pauliecannoli
Database? Stakeholders access to data? Sorry, not enough caffeine to follow. Sullentrup playing cards on laptop from time to time….
196.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.12.30 pauliecannoli
Ruwart objects that this table does not address concerns that this committee was formed to address which was confidential info leaking out, but instead expands access to data
197.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.13.54 pauliecannoli
Lark – questions on legal matters
198.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.17.54 pauliecannoli
Starr – LNCC has data sharing requirements with LNC under FEC laws
Dixon – asks Wes if he was consulted
Wes – no
Sullentrup – this board has become policy manual crazy. It is too complicated…next EC will have to figure this out. We need to do something useful to move the country to liberty and we are not doing anything useful here. Enough is enough, voting no.
Starr – we are jut the messengers – we were asked to have this report for this meeting
Hawkridge – privacy concerns
199.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.20.25 pauliecannoli
Ryan suggests division
Redpath: already separated
Mattson: we already share this data, the original motion would create a lot of problems. Moves to amend to allow state affiliates to also have access to data.
Donation history etc
2nded….Flood?
200.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.22.47 pauliecannoli
Lark: concerns with national vs. state issues,
Hinkle: Rachel’s criticism is of the current situaton not of the change
Hawkridge: Does LNCC have access currently
Answer: yes
201.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.25.04 pauliecannoli
Flood: massive impact on staff to share info w/ states
Karlan: eyes glazed over, was unable to digest – move to postpone chart to next meeting
Passes without objection
202.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.26.51 pauliecannoli
Next issue, Flood – non disclosure is not mandatory but if they do sign we use a standardized form. Sullentrup is back to cards.
203.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.30.08 pauliecannoli
Ruwart – reservation that this is for outside vendors, but supports if it is voluntary for LNC as Flood said.
Out of time, proceed to vote
Hawkridge – objection
Nays Wrights, Hawkridge,
Abstain – Redpath
Ryan – No or obstain?
Passes
204.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.32.22 pauliecannoli
Next item, Karlan on policy for publicizing libertarians in the media
205.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.37.06 pauliecannoli
Starr – get info on what we are doing to get media
Disclaimer that ppl are not necessarily speaking for the party
Chair can remove items but must inform LNC if doing so
Wrights – speaking against
The disclaimer makes it look like we are not backing our candidates
Dixon – shares Sullentrup’s earlier concerns over putting too much in policy manual….Policy manual should be concise, unnecessary micromanagement, not enforceable, let Wes do his job
206.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.41.20 pauliecannoli
Lark – some objection I think, missed it
Ruwart – this makes our nomination for sale, candidates just need to hire a publicist…discriminates against those who are mostly on net, don’t have money, etc
Colley – ED is the right guy to make these judgment calls
207.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.43.54 pauliecannoli
Hinkle – body needs to take a position because it gives equal treatment for candidates and takes decision onus off ED
Mattson – agrees with Hinkle and does not believe blogs should be counted as being the same as mass media
Ryan – agrees with Dixon, Colley et al
208.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.47.22 pauliecannoli
Jingozian – unintended consequences – non-libertarians may run just to get extra publicity
Hawkridge – I believe concurred
Wrights – blogs are putting newspapers out of business and calls question
Nos: Jingo, Dixon, Ruwart, Lark, Ryan, Hawkridge, Wrights, Porter, Colley,
Abstain: Karlan, Flood, Sink-Burris
Fails
209.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.49.02 pauliecannoli
Starr and Karlan
how to give notice – for agenda items?
210.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.53.54 pauliecannoli
Lark, clarifications…
14 days more reasonable than 21
There may be situations where things need to be snail mailed
This may be on timing of meetings, Starr is talking about timing of travel plans?
211.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.58.26 pauliecannoli
People are confused including Redpath. Mattson is asked to comment as a professional parliamentarian.
Defer to tape – hope it uploads – I do not want to follow this discussion right now
212.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 10.59.47 pauliecannoli
Sullentrup is back on cards. I don’t think it would be physically possible for me to drink enough espresso to follow this.
213.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.01.07 pauliecannoli
Passes without objection. After the fact Wrights says he did not realize that had been asked. Moving on….
214.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.04.17 pauliecannoli
Something else that sounds related. I need drugs. Someone poke me in the ribs if I begin snoring….
215.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.06.06 pauliecannoli
Most of the gallery and some of the committee is out in the shall
Jingo: Is this really the business of the committee
Starr: yes
216.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.11.10 pauliecannoli
Passed without objection I think. Mind drifting.
Now on to discussing some type of performance metrics.
217.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.16.53 pauliecannoli
Wes was apparently not consulted
Lark – not enough time to consider this
Wrights – gives too many extra responsibilities to staff they do not have time for
Dixon – opposition, let Wes do his job, stop micromanaging
218.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.19.05 pauliecannoli
Jingo – also against it for these reasons, but would like some simpler metrics (in a future proposal?)
Hawkridge – good intent but many items too difficult to track because state and county chairs will not report and inpossible to know without them
219.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.21.35 pauliecannoli
Hinkle – if we don’t things how do we know what succeeds, what fails
220.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.22.39 pauliecannoli
Ryan – we should postpone this, ED does not have staff or tools for it tho it is a good idea in general
221.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.23.15 pauliecannoli
Call question – unanimous
222.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.25.01 pauliecannoli
Yes – Flood, Hinkle, Starr
Sinks-Burris, Matson – abstain
fails 10-3 ….other abstentions I missed
223.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.26.44 pauliecannoli
9 min recess
224.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.38.17 pauliecannoli
back on
Issue of membership drift from people renewing early and having their expiration date pushed earlier due to language of bylaws
225.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.40.12 pauliecannoli
NOTE: I am not able to follow many of the things going on, and there will be other people’s impressions and corrections once they have time to comment …. Also, hopefully, we will be able to upload the tape.
84 paulie // Dec 6, 2009 at 1:22 pm
225.
226.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.52.40 pauliecannoli
Missed most of discussion
Nays – Hawkridge; Ryan?
227.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.54.55 pauliecannoli
Comments – Gordon
Flood
Lark …thanks to var. ppl including me
Dimmit – asks ppl to be added to credential committee
228.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.56.51 pauliecannoli
Motion?
I am confused, how are we having a motion during public comments?
Is there agenda item after public comments? I did not hear them close or ask if anyone else had comments?
229.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 11.58.41 pauliecannoli
Sullentrup taking off, Carling will now take minutes
230.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.01.43 pauliecannoli
Inquiries as to voting methods, mail ballots etc
231.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.02.42 pauliecannoli
Punted to mail ballot
232.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.03.43 Stewart Flood
I’m currently on my 9th cup of tea this morning. Starting to feel like Frye in that Futurama episode where he drank 100 cups of coffee. Everything is slowing down…
233.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.09.44 pauliecannoli
Missed something. I think agenda for Austin (next meeting).
234.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.11.03 pauliecannoli
They are trying to sort schedule so that LNC members may be able to attend some LSLA events
235.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.12.11 Stewart Flood
We moved to suspend the rules to consider appointing alternates to the Credentials Committee.
The motion was withdrawn after discussion and deferred to a mail ballot.
236.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.12.37 pauliecannoli
Dixon….staff may be needed for some of both
Redpath….allow Sat. AM for LSLA
Sounds like it was agreed to
237.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.14.21 Stewart Flood
LSLA is the weekend of Friday 2/26 to Sunday 2/28. LNC will meet the afternoon of Saturday 2/27 and the morning of Sunday 2/28.
238.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.14.57 pauliecannoli
Redpath announces he will not seek reelection as chair although he may seek reelection to committee.
Sounded like Colley said he is not running for At Large although I think he was joking.
239.
edit this on 2009.12.06 at 12.16.52 pauliecannoli
Andy tries to bring up Kohlhaas, Haugh, ruled out of order, meeting adjourned.
85 Chuck Moulton // Dec 6, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Thanks for liveblogging, Paulie!
86 Robert Milnes // Dec 6, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Thank you, paulie. RP lover.
87 Robert Milnes // Dec 6, 2009 at 2:12 pm
We need Prof. Phillies as chair, Not W.A.R.
88 George Phillies // Dec 6, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“Sullentrup – this board has become policy manual crazy. It is too complicated…next EC will have to figure this out. We need to do something useful to move the country to liberty and we are not doing anything useful here. Enough is enough, voting no.”
Sullentrup really nailed that issue correctly.
89 Jeremy Young // Dec 6, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Thanks for the liveblog, Paulie! I read along yesterday and today with interest.
90 Carolyn Marbry // Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 pm
RM, my understanding is that Aaron Starr authored the resolution. Unless you and he have some kind of history, I think you’re “collateral damage” in this case.
91 Carolyn Marbry // Dec 6, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Thanks for liveblogging this, Paulie. It was almost as good as being there.
The only thing missing was some Nashville barbecue…
92 Michael H. Wilson // Dec 6, 2009 at 3:56 pm
paulie, thanks and good job, well done.
93 Ralph Swanson // Dec 6, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Paulie for Secretary.
94 Paulie // Dec 6, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Chuck,
Thanks for liveblogging, Paulie!
Thanks for reading.
Milnes,
Thank you, paulie. RP lover.
You’re welcome. If you mean Ron Paul by RP, as I’m sure you do, I like some things about him and not others. As they say on facebook…”it’s complicated.”
Thanks for the liveblog, Paulie! I read along yesterday and today with interest.
Glad I wasn’t just babbling to myself
Don’t rely too much on my notes tho….I was confused as to what was happening much of the time and couldn’t type fast enough to keep up with many other things, such as votes.
Hopefully the tape will be uploadable.
RM, my understanding is that Aaron Starr authored the resolution.
You are correct.
Thanks for liveblogging this, Paulie. It was almost as good as being there.
You’re welcome. See you in Austin and/or St. Louis, I hope.
paulie, thanks and good job, well done.
I can’t say I did a good job, but thanks for thinking or at least saying I did. ‘
I did try and hopefully this will be helpful to people in figuring out what went on. It is far from being gospel though, take everything with a healthy (or is that unhealthy?) dose of salt.
Paulie for Secretary.
Oh God no. And not just because I don’t look good in a skirt and pumps, either.
L:-P
95 Stewart Flood // Dec 7, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Three major accomplishments:
Corrections to the APRC committee rules that resolve some issues. One part of the recommended changes was deferred to mail ballot, but only so that the LNC can review it more carefully and understand what the five of us on the APRC (Dr Ruwart, Mr Wrights, Mr Starr, Mr Jingozian and myself) all wanted implemented.
I expect it to pass by mail ballot.
Standardized the NDA and corrected a major deficiency in the previous versions. The document that was being used was not even close to adhering to libertarian ideals, this one does. Most importantly it recognizes that the volunteer/vendor/board member may be bringing their own intellectual ideas or confidential information into the process. The old document was completely one-sided and quite draconian. This one works, since it is a mutual non-disclosure agreement.
Dr Ruwart still has some concerns, but they are related to definitions of confidentiality and are really outside of the NDA. I agree with her on her concerns, and also have additional concerns of my own. We both believe that they can be addressed and resolved by the committee, which is why she supported the NDA “with reservation.”
Third, and most important: after months and months and months (actually years at this point) we have created at least the structure of what is needed to begin focusing on supporting our affiliates. I’ve been lobbying for the concept of what we are now calling the Affiliate Support Committee as well as a rational non-disclosure since Portland in ‘06, so I consider getting these two passed this weekend a major accomplishment.
If we move quickly and define the Affiliate Support Committee’s role correctly then we may actually have a functional group that can begin to effect positive change before the convention.
All the other Regional Representatives and the Vice-Chair support the creation of this committee. There were no objection to the motion from anyone on the LNC.
Paul did a great job trying to keep up with the meetings. Enen though there are several gaps in his coverage, it is on the whole a reasonable representation of the events.
I’ll probably add a few more comments later, but right now I’m starting into my first-day back crash. We got in from Nashville about 3am. I caught a few hours of sleep, so I’m about ready to sleep for a week or two.
96 Andy // Dec 7, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“Andy tries to bring up Kohlhaas, Haugh, ruled out of order, meeting adjourned.”
Oh yes, God forbid that that Libertarian Party police itself by punishing the scam artists, liars, and incompetents employed by and/or contracted with LP National.
If the Libertarian Party can’t keep itself clean, then how in the hell can anyone expect the party to clean up government.
The lack of ethics and accountability in the Libertarian Party is truly disgusting and is one of the reasons that this party doesn’t get anywhere and has in fact been on a downward spiral for the past 9 years.
It is blatantly obvious that the Kohlhaas and Haugh fucked this party over royally. Anyone who can’t see that is either delusional or a liar or an idiot.
The LNC acted with gross negligence by allowing Kohlhaas to continue to make $5,000 per month (well into the 2008 election season – as can be verified on the Federal Election Commission filings at FEC.gov) and to hire Sean Haugh as Political Director and keep him on staff until December of 2008 (even though it was blatantly obvious that he was a HORRIBLE choice for the job and was screwing things up and squandering donor money).
This party needs to do a better job of cleaning up itself before it can hope to get ahead.
97 Robert Milnes // Dec 9, 2009 at 2:34 am
So Aaron Starr authored the convict persecution resolution. In my opinion this resolution originated with the reactionary and/or government operations. I don’t think Starr authored it; just presented it. If he did author it, he is extremely reactionary and a menace to liberty. I think he’s just an operative. Either way he is unworthy of LP leadership position. He should be fired. I would like to see him out.
98 Stewart Flood // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Ms Hawkridge was the initiator of the resolution. It was at her request that the issue was raised. I do not believe that she wrote it, but she pushed for it.
I did not support the resolution. It is not the job of the national party to police our affiliate’s executive committees.
99 paulie // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:11 pm
However, I believe Rachel was against the resolution as written.
100 paulie // Dec 23, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Chuck @ 69
According to information I have recently received, they did indeed succeed in slipping in a floor fee for St. Louis.
101 paulie // Dec 23, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Anyone planning to appeal this in some manner?
I’ve read arguments before that it is against party bylaws, but can that somehow be enforced, and will there realistically be any attempt to do so?
102 Michael Seebeck // Dec 23, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Flood, Hawkridge did not initiate the resolution. Starr did, and I have that from multiple independent sources. We informed members here in CA knew about it weeks before the meeting, quite possibly before you did.
Paulie and Chuck, I looked it over and believe it or not, there is a technical argument that it does not violate the Bylaws, because they are silent on the explicit matter.
However, the *implicit* argument is much more damning. The floor fee is set at $49, and frankly, it’s just f’ing stupid. A materials fee I could understand and even agree with, but pay-to-play for the business meeting is just wrong, and there is nothing to prevent a registered delegate, chosen by his state affiliate, from paying the floor fee and then having his credentials yanked by the CredComm and not getting his money back. No JudComm appeal on that, either. I wouldn’t put it past the CredCom to have someone on there try to “short” delegates, if you catch my hint.
Frankly, imposing a floor fee on top of the qualifications to be a delegate set by the Bylaws and the state affiliates goes beyond the pall. If the convention is a meeting of the membership delegates, where does the LPUS get off in imposing further constraints on those delegates, which interferes with the operations of state affiliates?–which *is* a Bylaws violation since Denver, BTW.
The same issue appears on state conventions in several states as well, including CA, unfortunately; however, dealing with it requires good convention planning, good economics, and ignoring the fools who claim all that is a “subsidy” for those just attending the meeting. It can be done.
There is also a way around it that could be used and definitely would raise some hell post-convention, but I’ll leave that method up to speculation.
103 paulie // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Michael,
Interesting.
Call or email me with the details if you would please.
Leave a Comment