LNC Meeting Comment Thread (New Orleans, Nov. 20-21)

November 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Oct		Dec »
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

November 20th, 2010 · 324 Comments

The Libertarian National Committee meets this weekend in New Orleans, Louisiana. Live video at Justin.tv/LNC7. Discuss.

Watch live video from RevoLNC on Justin.tv

Filed Under: Libertarian Party

324 responses so far ↓

1 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 9:50 am

The picture is up but there is no sound. I have successfully phoned Pauli to tell Rachel; perhaps the mute is on on her phone.

The Dallas bid is in serious trouble, I am advised. There are a substantial number of Hyatt Regencies in the Dallas area, and no one at the event seems to know which Hyatt is being proposed.

Supposedly Nancy Neale is at the NOLA meeting, but she is not yet in the meeting room, or so Paulie tells me.

Meanwhile you can watch the vigorous LNC in action picture on Justin.tv on channel LNC7.
2 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 9:55 am

I am in phone contact with someone in the room, and the issue appears to be being worked upon.
3 Be Rational // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:01 am

Volume please!

Need to move the mic closer.
4 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:12 am

Now with sound. THey just struck discussion of the Florida resolution from the Agenda.
5 Be Rational // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:13 am

Still not enough volume though.
6 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:18 am

They appear to be discussing conflicts of interest. Someone who raises moeny for several L-Leaning groups notes that he does so.

Chair report.
7 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:19 am

Mic is weak and can’t be moved closer , I’ll try to liveblog but having some keyboard issues as well
8 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:21 am

Chair(?) We got a lot of attention for the Special Senate race and for the TSZ Pornoscanners. Did 45 minutes on Ernie Hancock on the pornoscanners. Talked to Carla Howell from MA and Sharon Harris about doing training videos like success 98 success 99. Went to (I think he said ) RI and OR conventions.
9 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:26 am

Discussion of Florida resolution against Root and private LNC list taken off agenda
10 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:27 am

ExComm encumbered $12,500 — I think — for MD to preserve ballot access. I think he said that Oaksun raised an issue about the bylaws on encumbrances.

Some discussion of web sites…hard to follow.-
11 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:28 am

Treasurer’s report
12 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:30 am

They discussed MD additional $, if they said yes or no I missed it
13 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:30 am

Oaksun now speaking. You can hear him clearly.

Thanks people. Apologizes he was not at last meeting. Report provided. Material changes since report…Cash on hand net of liabilities $232,000 vs negative 7000 a year ago.
14 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:31 am

Serious keyboard problems, sorry
15 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:31 am

Income this year v strong 20% ahead of last year. New member acquisition has not been going very well. Loss of signal.
16 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:32 am

JustinTV now offline for this channel
17 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:34 am

While we had a signal, Oaksun was coming through very clearly.
18 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:35 am

Finances generally decent but new member acquisition still disappointing
19 Kimberly Wilder // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:35 am

Oh…the national meeting…I was wondering why things were so quiet here yesterday. Everyone must have been traveling and preparing.

The lull before the storm.

Looking forward to the deluge of information, ideas and decisions that a national meeting brings…
20 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:39 am

Sound is back.

Discussion of allocating resources to staff.
21 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:40 am

Ruwart total membership. Curve is flat. Flatness of curve is due to renewals. Staff has worked very hard on this and should be complimented.
22 Andy // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:41 am

“The Dallas bid is in serious trouble, I am advised. There are a substantial number of Hyatt Regencies in the Dallas area, and no one at the event seems to know which Hyatt is being proposed.”

How about Austin, Texas? I’ve long thought that Austin would be a cool place for a Libertarian Party National Convention.
23 Robert Milnes // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:42 am

Well we can start by everybody contacting LNC & saying we want AT LEAST a discussion of Florida & Nolan resolutions.
Don’t let them get away with avoiding a very important issue.
Boot Root!
24 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:43 am

Discussion of finances.

Secretary: reports on sets of minutes. Mattson comes through very clearly.
25 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:44 am

@22 You are six months too late for this suggestion to matter.
26 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:45 am

10:44 EST Loss of signal.
27 One Who Knows // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:51 am

There’s a report of a fourth convention proposal there. We’ll see if it is taken seriously.
28 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:55 am

Ontario, Ca
29 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:56 am

Dallas proposal needs address of hotel. There are 8 hyatt regencies and no one knows which address
30 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 11:00 am

wes report
31 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 11:02 am

Yep. Ontario is my work, my work alone, and it is a serious proposal with mega-delegate flexibility, and in line cost-wise with other conventions I’ve worked with.
32 Michael H. Wilson // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Let’s holdout for Memphis!
33 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:03 pm

Too late to consider any cities that have not put forth a concrete and detailed proposal
34 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:05 pm

If anyone is still watching and can hear please blog what’s happening – keyboard issues making that way too hard…
35 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:23 pm

12:21 Flood is giving an IT committee report. He is discussing, as well as I can hear, a process for processing credit card transactions using various electrical gadgets, cell phones, etc.
36 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:32 pm

Plan for updating telephone communications
37 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Discussion of the idea that LP is knowledgeable in 3rd party ballot access and people come to us.

Project: we have to modernize our telecomm systems. Better service, less cost. Replace our 30-year-old phone system with a new phone system of some sort. Proposed savings $30,000-$50,000 per year across all state affiliates. Claims it will states large sums of money, and save LNC ca. $10,000/ya. [Not clear where affiliate numbers are coming from.] It will be free for most states, except BCRA issues for states without FEC filing (I think that was what was said). I am not sure whether the dadget in question only works with cells phones, or if ‘cell phone’ is being used as an example.

There are a half dozen vendors, one giving us phone numbers everywhere through the LNc phone system. Gadget is said to be technically stable. Can make calls in state A and appear to people being called as though caller is in state A. There are still tests being made.

Comment: Our phone system is old. Concern: why is there only one vendor doing this? A: there are a lot doing this but some of our needs there is only one vendor doing it yet. Does this system log all calls?

Voice quality vs land line? Plan is to replace current phones with DSL gadgets.

Starr started talking. Objection: Gallery needs permission to talk. Roll Call requested. Motion carried. At least one nay. Can allocate bandwidth to phone calls first.
38 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:40 pm

Geoff Neale(?) — in Badnarik campaign nothing to full in two weeks. Voice over IP is robust and has good quality.

Discussion of phone quality.
39 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:42 pm

yes, Neale
40 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:44 pm

Bullshit. Besides, it *IS* a concrete and detailed proposal, had they bothered to read the thing.
41 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Anybody wants to see it, email me and I’ll be happy to send it over.

What’s ironic is that I came up with it based on a one-hour walk-in and the rest was done by the convention center folks in six days around everything else they have going on, and the COC has taken months to produce 3 poor choices.

Their time thing is just a lame excuse and everyone knows it.
42 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Mike yours is concrete. Austin, memphis mentioned above are not. Dunno who has or has not read your proposal.
43 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:51 pm

To claim that is isn’t detailed and concrete means they A) didn’t read the thing, and/or B) think that the convention center organizers are idiots.

A) is most likely. B) is just insulting.
44 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:52 pm

I take, Paulie, you’ve read it then? If so, thanks. At least one person there has.

If you have the e-copy, feel free to publish it.
45 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:57 pm

Discussing number of years of contract to be signed, up to 5 years mentioned. That’s a future issue. Allows mobile telephone wherever there is phone access.

Ballot access (Redpath):

Now they are discussing executive session. They will come back from lunch in executive session. I think. They will come back at 1 oclock their time in executive session.

Updates: Worked with ACLU re LP Nebraska. Lawsuit on circulators, outlawing out of state petitioners. Spent much time on this. Suit progressing.

W Va. Redpath quotes Richard Winger; special election for Gov does not get us ballot access.

NY Redlich does not yet have 50,000 votes, but they are not all counted yet. Republicans had a very weak candidate. There are vote total issues out there yet. Redpath reads emails from several people. Cannot tell what he is saying.
46 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm

I do not have e-copy. I saw Rachel had stack. I haven’t tried checking email, too many problems trying to use this computer
47 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 1:06 pm

May need total recount to get to 50,000 votes.

There is a long ballot access report. There are reports in multiple states. We are lobbying in OK. Took a day to lobby in OK. There is a hired lobbyist. OKLP will meet speaker of house. Past speaker was terminated out, which may be good. Other small parties have no money to support. Proposal for $10,000 for OK lobbying. Committee encumbered $12,500, asks in in budget more money to cover ballot access through 2014 and maintain voters. OK has only run candidates for President as partisan (but ran people this year as independent).

Thanked Paulie Cannolli for doing petitioning.

Request from Diane Visek for $15,000 for LPIL. She is mostly inaudible.
48 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 1:08 pm

That was arkansas not okla for pres only
49 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 1:21 pm

Visek goes on at great length. Occasional words can be made out. There are references to litigation.

$50,500 for Arkansas, Oklahoma, KY, and Illinois, I think he said.

For some reason I was getting the impression that the LNC is dependent on outside experts for ballot access, rather than having internal staff etc exercise.

Volunteers are great but sometimes they are inadequate. (I think re signature collecting).

Lark: (?) Sometimes major state parties have additional requirements that minor parties do not, and you need to be sure that you can do it.

Starr: Wants to correct limit on 1% rule — thinks that rule was suspended for 2010 for ballot access.

Oaksun: Right thing? Right way? We spent 3/4 million in some years. Are we getting the back end outputs that we want? I do not have an answer.

Redpath? Important for political parties to show up for elections. It would help if members did more with clipboards.

Inaudible parts

Adjourn until 1:30 local time.
50 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 1:22 pm

Paulie, Thanks for corrections. George
51 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 20, 2010 at 2:08 pm

I can think of two Ontario, Cas.

One is a province in another country (Canada).

One is a city in an American state (California).

Which one is this?

If it’s the latter, it’s not a bad idea, generally speaking, but it is essentially a replication of the 2000 convention (which was technically in Anaheim, but close enough to Ontario that that’s where I flew into — John Wayne airport). If the LP is going to do another California convention so soon, why not let another metro (San Francisco, San Diego?) host it?
52 Darryl W. Perry // Nov 20, 2010 at 2:16 pm

I’d prefer San Diego… I could drive & stay with family
53 LibertarianGirl // Nov 20, 2010 at 2:26 pm

roflmao…I thought Mike meant Ontario Canada , I was thinking ‘thats a exclusionary venue , how do I get across the border?’
54 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 3:38 pm

California.

I chose it for the fact that I was familiar with it, has all the amenities, is cheaper than OC, and is location-neutral for the Presidential candidates at the moment.

I also looked at the Burbank Marriott, but it was just costly and not as versatile.

BTW, Ontario Airport is 5 minutes away by hotel shuttle, and literally across the tracks.
55 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 3:39 pm

As for SD and SF, the LNC rejected SD back in 2008 with the Keaton trial, and the Burlingame in SF is under consideration now, and it’s lousy.
56 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm

as for Canada, I thought we’d prefer the foreign land within the United States proper.
57 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 3:44 pm

They appear to remain in executive session.
58 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Paulie, Thanks for corrections. George

Thx for liveblogging, we’re back from lunch and executive sessions.
59 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Paulie,

Are they still in executive session?

George
60 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 4:04 pm

No we are back
61 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 4:09 pm

There is no picture or sound from Rachel.
62 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm

Try reload and hit play
63 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 4:11 pm

Discussing ballot access formula, Bill is against it
64 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 4:27 pm

Worked.

Comment: rigid formula may be self-defeating. Requirement was originally that a state collect half the signatures before LNC will come in.

At some point we have to balance assistance for ballot access and for other issues.

Rachel: Many matter vary from state to state. We should do something different. Ballot access should be a civil right.

Oaksun could tie our selves in knots.

Mattson Lays out clear standards. Always an emergency. ExComm has 30 minutes to make a decision.

Need to do a better job to tell our affiliates what we expect form them. Something like this would make very clear what affiliates are expected to do.

States may say: we don;t have more than x dollars. Ballot access generates a lot of volunteer activity.

My attention was to amend this but in general important that we have something taht deals with the issue systematically. Don’t support doling out money however much it takes without looking ahead and seeing if it makes sense. Ned to set goals for what we expect from affiliates, as opposed to assuming we come up with unlimited money. We can overrule guidelines but we need control so we can properly estimate what it will cost.

Money for ballot access is only the front. If the LNC makes it harder people will give up early. We should look state by state. See how we can help each state.
65 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 4:31 pm

Alternative: We should decide if we want 47 or 51 and decide how to get there. Or decide if we should spend a fixed amount or what it takes.

Motion.

Loud applause for someone who did work.

Five minute break.
66 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 4:52 pm

Meeting started again. I was out for a few minutes.

Sound is very weak. Discussion of virtues of various people for appointment to the 2012 Bylaws Committee.
67 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 4:59 pm

They appear to be voting on candidates.

They are discussing how much more work to do today. The convention site and budget are effectively on tomorrow’s agenda. They are waiting for the ballots to be counted.
68 Jill Pyeatt // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:04 pm

Why is Aaron Starr being allowed to speak so often? Doesn’t everyone remember he wasn’t voted back to the LNC?
69 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:14 pm

Root reporting on what the LNCC is doing. Tere was little time before the election. We decided number one was to appoint board members and raise money for candidates. He is listing people who were recruited to the LNCC Board. They supported 13 candidates to a total of $7500. Building up a web site to support all our candidates, and hiring people to raise money.

Goal: More board members
Raise more money for candidates
Recruit more candidates who are impressive and can raise money
Candidate training. Help candidates raise money.
Continue to get media for the LP.

Redpath: Need for campaign manager training.

Old LNCC Bylaws limited what LNCC could support. LNCC can now support everything except President and candidate.

Root is indicating that they gave checks to every candidate who asked for one, and I think some others. LNCC raised if the numbers I heard correctly over ten thousand, give $7500 to various candidates, and has some thousands in the bank. LNCC currently cannot under its policies support Senate candidates, but may change this.

Ruwart: Why is there a separate committee? Answer Federal law says LP may have up to three national committees. LNCC and LNC are legally separate. At least some of their candidates did quite well. Root promises a detailed report in answer to this question which was spontaneous.

Results: Bylaws Comm: Starr Karlan Morris Carling Goddard Rutherford Johnston Oates Kirkland Moulton

Karlan got the most votes.

Alternate Mattson

Other candidates did not get a majority for approval.

Karlan was appointed chair.
70 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:15 pm

Going to executive session to discuss legal assistance to a state.

Loss of signal.
71 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:16 pm

LNCC is the Libertarian National Congressional Committee, a national committee co-equal with the LNC and chaired by Wayne Root.
72 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:17 pm

I anticipate that there will not be more public session today, though such things have happened.
73 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:22 pm

Jesus, that Bylaws Committee SUCKS! Exceptions are Moulton and Oates.
74 Jill Pyeatt // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm

Phillies @ 71: ” LNCC is the Libertarian National Congressional Committee, a national committee co-equal with the LNC and chaired by Wayne Root.”

Says who? Is this supported in the by-laws?
75 Chuck Moulton // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:35 pm

Thank you to the LNC for appointing me to the bylaws committe.

Were Rob Latham and Nick Sarwark considered? Did someone speak against them or something?
76 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:41 pm

We are back in open session and video should be working again
77 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:42 pm

Chuck…no one spoke against…they got less votes than other people and were not elected
78 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:43 pm

BTW….people have asked me if they are in exec session above…when they are in exec session I have no computer and no way to answer your question
79 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:49 pm

Computer seems to be more stable now, maybe Rachel straightened it out. Thanks to Rachel for computer and camera. Also thanks to South Carolina Convention Host Committee for ride and room. And to Mark Hinkle for dinner last night.
80 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:49 pm

They are discussing convention proposals now. Alicia is presenting for Red Rock.
81 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:51 pm

@74

No, its a matter of Federal Law

I have picture but no sound.
82 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:52 pm

Alicia says rooms are bigger in vegas
83 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:52 pm

I predict a lot more unanimous proposals will come out of this term’s Bylaws Committee, and unless a procedure is put into place for consideration of minority reports, those will probably not be heard at convention in 2012 (based on experience in St. Louis).
84 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:54 pm

Lower minimum payment in Vegas 40k vs 80k in Dallas, SF

Mike, it appears you submitted your bid too late to have it compared here, sorry
85 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:56 pm

I have no sound, and have tried reloading, restarting my software,… All my volume controls are at maximum, but there is no hear here.
86 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:58 pm

Any sound now?
87 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:59 pm

Rachel just tried to fix it, try again
88 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:59 pm

It appears that the Red Rock Resort is a little over 17 miles from the airport, which puts it 15 miles from the part of Las Vegas people generally come to visit.
89 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:11 pm

Kimberly,

Oh…the national meeting…I was wondering why things were so quiet here yesterday. Everyone must have been traveling and preparing.

The lull before the storm.

Looking forward to the deluge of information, ideas and decisions that a national meeting brings…

The big difference was I was not online. I will not be online much after this weekend. Dunno for how long. Suggest other writers post a lot more articles and comments like I was doing while I could. Several people here have told me they no longer read IPR because the noise to signal ratio in the comments has gotten too over the top. (Milnes, Lake, US Parliament guy, etc).
90 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:18 pm

Mike S

Rachel says she passed out your proposal w LNC binders last night. Realistically, I doubt may people read it…everyone was socializing and strategizing, then sleeping, and getting up early for the meeting — when would they have read it? Maybe you emailed it to them earlier, I don’t know.
91 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:25 pm

It was in their emails this morning too.

The total bid for Ontario was 65K–right in the middle of the other ones, which simply proves my point they didn’t look very hard.
92 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:27 pm

Anyone watching? If so, is sound working?
93 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm

Frankly, if my bid wins, I’d be surprised as the majority in this group isn’t as forward-looking.

Hinkle said that a convention center-style bid would be too expensive. I guess I proved that one wrong.
94 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm

I tried and could not get sound. Then things shut down completely. I suspect the session ended.
95 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm

Sound is up, but quiet, paulie.
96 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Mike – you’ve been to plenty of conventions, serve(d) on committees.

You know as well as anyone if it was in their email this morning that is too late, they have been busy with the meeting.

Your proposal may very well be competitive, but it should have been made earlier.
97 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:33 pm

Session has not ended. Scott L is discussing Dallas and Geoff Neale will also speak about Dallas as well. I don’t know how to make sound better.

George, please try reload and play again.

I will post a comment when session ends for the day.
98 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:38 pm

Problem is, their argument on being late is bogus, unless they really suck at planning things 18 months ahead.

The real reason they won’t read it is because they can’t have some outsider present a real proposal that actually makes sense for delegates.

That and it’s me, and there’s enough of a contingent up there that are fools enough to File 13 anything from me without even showing proper respect for me or their office by actually reading it.

In any case, my point was made: in six days I came up with a viable proposal that took them months to figure out, I did it on a one-hour walk-in request, one person, and the LNC by refusing to read it or consider it seriously made themselves look foolish.
99 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:41 pm

BTW, the proposal arrived to me on late Thursday, and I had to header it up and get it sent out around my work schedule on Friday.

The net result is that the COC looks foolish beyond what they already were with the Hawkridge situation.
100 B4Liberty // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:57 pm

Red Rock is very far from the strip and a 30 to 45 minute ride from the airport depending on traffic. The resort is beautiful but so are so many other places in town that are closer to the strip.

Using Bally’s for an example where Freedom Fest is held every July would give convention goers a choice of less expensive hotel rooms as it is in the center of the strip. Red Rock is out on it’s own with out inexpensive hotels anywhere near by.

There is however a shuttle to the airport and strip every two hours during the main part of the day.
http://www.redrocklasvegas.com/hotel/shuttle_info.php

Las Vegas is great for conventions but this hotel choice adds expense for the attendees.
101 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 6:59 pm

If it ain’t the Strip, it ain’t happenin’…
102 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:09 pm

b4L do you live in NV these days? Wayne says everyone in NV is unanimous for LV

Bill Redpath says he is not ready to vote

Wayne, Alicia say vote now
103 Rodger Paxton // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:09 pm

Is it just me or is there no sound on the video?
104 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:10 pm

Rodger it is not just you. I’ll give you a call a little later.
105 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Bill Redpath says he is not ready to vote

Wayne, Alicia say vote now

Vote in haste, repent in leisure….
106 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:14 pm

Motion to postpone convention vote failed. I don’t think Rachel’s vote got counted. They will vote today.
107 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:17 pm

Based on who wants vote now I predict Vegas, we are about to find out
108 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:18 pm

Rachel was in back talking to people and did not raise hand high when hands were counted. Postpone failed by 8-7. My guess is that Hinkle would have broken a tie in favor of postpone, but that is only a guess.
109 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:20 pm

Alicia moves for Vegas
110 B4Liberty // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:20 pm

@Paulie – No, I’m not in LAS anymore, but am very familiar and have planned several events there over the years.

Vegas is fine for the convention but the Red Rock is just a high end property without inexpensive options for delegates.

If they vote for LAS and I assume they will, I hope they leave the option open to choose a different hotel. There are so many cheaper options.
111 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:21 pm

Seconded….Dan W? Stewart? Missed who it was
112 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:22 pm

B4L the choice of hotel is an integral part of this choice. The vast majority of the discussion was comparing the three hotels in particular, not so much the cities.
113 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:23 pm

They are shooting for first weekend in May but the dates will not be firm if I understand correctly.
114 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:24 pm

Oaksun moves to substitute Dallas for Vegas and Add Columbus 2014
115 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:25 pm

Point of order is whether it should be done now or after everyone speaks to Vegas
116 Darryl W. Perry // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:26 pm

when will they pick dates?
117 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:27 pm

My bid was presuming May 18th weekend because that was what was discussed in Vegas.
118 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:27 pm

@dwp Negotiation w hotel, after they pick which hotel is how I understand it
119 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:28 pm

Columbus? Talk about third-tier…

Besides, I may resubmit this bid for 2014 with more pitch.
120 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:29 pm

Redpath is still undecided how he will vote as of right now. Sounds like SF is eliminated so it’s between Vegas and Dallas
121 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:30 pm

That’s the beauty of my proposal: no hotels to dicker with, and FOURTEEN of them within walking distance, from a Motel 6 on up to a Residence Inn, Ayres, and Doubletree.
122 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:30 pm

Visek also says she wishes they were not voting tonight
123 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:31 pm

Visek: “probably leaning to Vegas”
124 Darryl W. Perry // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:31 pm

I think a convention center would be MUCH better than a high-price hotel…
125 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:34 pm

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ontario+Convention+Center,+2000+East+Convention+Center+Way,+Ontario,+CA+91764&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.02306,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=Ontario+Convention+Center,&hnear=2000+E+Convention+Center+Way,+Ontario,+San+Bernardino,+California+91764&ll=34.066774,-117.606239&spn=0.008425,0.027466&z=16&pw=2
126 B4Liberty // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:34 pm

@Mike – Even though I have family in Orange Cty, I hate the thought of going to Kalifornia, but your bid for Ontario should be considered. I think it’s great that you took the initiative to submit a proposal.
127 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:36 pm

@126 Agreed completely. Thank you Mike. Wish it was done before people started comparing three choices on spreadsheets.
128 B4Liberty // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:37 pm

Taxi – from LAS to Red Rock $46.38

http://www.lasvegas-how-to.com/taxi-fare.php
129 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:37 pm

Thanks, B4. Since the other choices kinda ain’t that good, I figured that *somebody* needed to add something creative to the mix. These guys are too hotel-centric.
130 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:38 pm

The stupid thing is, based on the cost numbers, it is completely competitive and has a ton of delegate options as well, far more than the others.
131 Buckeye // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:41 pm

Go to hell, Seebeck. Sure as hell beats fucking Ontario!
132 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:41 pm

Lark leaning to Vegas. To me that indicates Dallas is cooked.
133 B4Liberty // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:41 pm

Delegate Options? I’m not watching the video – what are the options? What are the room rates?
134 Darryl W. Perry // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:43 pm

B4L – Mike is saying a convention center gives delegates more options on where to stay, as opposed to having it at a hotel 20 miles from other hotels
135 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm

substitution – Oaksun was only aye – now for vote on Vegas
136 B4Liberty // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm

@130 – never mind, I think you’re talking about options in Ontario. I know there are many great places to stay near there – even camp grounds!

Did they state the room rates at Red Rock? It’s always been too high for me to stay there. Usually over $200 on the week-ends.
137 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:47 pm

Redpath voted for Vegas but Visek against

11 ayes, 5 nays

Red Rock it is
138 paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:48 pm

Adjourning til 8:30 tomorrow. Hopefully I will see you all then.
139 Rodger Paxton // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:51 pm

Thanks for the updates, Paulie.
140 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:54 pm

Well, East Death Valley it is. The LNC is officially stupid.
141 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:55 pm

Sorry, Buckeye, but I’ve been through Ohio. The best part is the “Now Leaving” signs.
142 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:57 pm

And judging from that level of class from Buckeye, my point is made.
143 Michael H. Wilson // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:58 pm

Okay! I meant Memphis as a bit of humor.

Anyhow there is also an Ontario, Oregon.
144 Michael H. Wilson // Nov 20, 2010 at 8:00 pm

Seebeck I think you are wrong. This is meant to be exclusionary. Low income people, students and those on fixed incomes need not apply.
145 Darryl W. Perry // Nov 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm

* Ontario, California
* Ontario, Illinois
* Ontarioville, Illinois
* Ontario, Indiana
* Ontario, Iowa
* Ontario, New York
* Ontario County, New York
* Ontario, Ohio
* Ontario, Oregon
* Ontario, Pennsylvania
* Ontario, Virginia
* Ontario, Wisconsin
146 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 8:13 pm

We’re the LNC. We’re using convention siting to help you choose our Presidential candidate.
147 Andy // Nov 20, 2010 at 8:14 pm

“paulie // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm

substitution – Oaksun was only aye – now for vote on Vegas”

As much as I’d love to go to a Libertarian Party National Convention in Las Vegas, I really don’t want to see it held there in 2012. Why? Because I don’t want to Wayne Root to become the Presidential candidate for the party and having the convention in Las Vegas will give him an advantage due to him living in that area.
148 Michael H. Wilson // Nov 20, 2010 at 8:37 pm

Andy it really is not a big deal from my reading of the tea leaves. He gets the nomination and a footnote in history and not much else.

Things could change though. A major quake could hit the west coast or an asteroid could smack us.
149 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 8:39 pm

I’ll take the asteroid. It’ll give the religious right something to freak out about for the comedy, and I don’t need any quakes.
150 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 8:47 pm

Michael @144: Of course it is! That’s why I presented an anti-proposal that did exactly the opposite with competitive costs and many more delegate options.
151 Michael Seebeck // Nov 20, 2010 at 8:49 pm

BTW, they are talking $119 a night. AGAIN.

And I’ll be finding a much cheaper rate nearby. AGAIN.

And giving them major headaches. AGAIN.
152 Stewart Flood // Nov 20, 2010 at 9:19 pm

George @37,

I will certainly be more than happy to get you details early next week, but I would like to correct two small errors in what you believe you heard:

First, I said that there are no BICR issues because of the way we will be implementing this. I have this from staff, so it is not just a personal opinion.

Second, while there are many dozens of voip vendors, what I was saying was that at the oment there is only one that offers the entire combination of features that we need. There will certainly be more vendors in the near future who do, but right now there is a clear “best choice.”
153 Stewart Flood // Nov 20, 2010 at 9:22 pm

Sorry for misspellings…typing on iPad while eating dinner.
154 George Phillies // Nov 20, 2010 at 9:22 pm

Stewart,

I am happy to hear that there are no BCRA issues. BCRA can be a nuisance.

Apparently I did a poor job of reporting on the vendor matter in that your summary matches what I thought I heard and meant to get across. Liveblogging is not the world’s easiest occupation. Better one vendor than no vendors.

Best, George
155 Andy // Nov 20, 2010 at 9:32 pm

“Michael H. Wilson // Nov 20, 2010 at 8:37 pm

Andy it really is not a big deal from my reading of the tea leaves. He gets the nomination and a footnote in history and not much else.”

Yes, it is a big for those of us who’d actually like to advance the Libertarian Party and the greater libertarian movement.

Wayne Root is not a good presidential candidate. He calls himself a “Ronald Reagan Libertarian” which in addition to being an oxymoron, alienates people who might otherwise be open to joining/supporting the party. Root has said that he only wants to focus on reaching out to Republicans/conservatives. This leaves out lots of people on the left and in the center who are open to the libertarian message. Root has been in the Libertarian Party for several years and he still has not shed his neo-conservative past. I’m not convinced that he really favors a non-interventionist foreign policy. I really don’t see the people who support Ron Paul in 2008 flocking to support Wayne Root. I think that it is going to Bob Barr all over again, and this is NOT a good thing.

I suspect that there are Root supporters on the LNC who did this on purpose because they want to give their “boy” and edge to get the nomination. This is quite disappointing.
156 Stewart Flood // Nov 20, 2010 at 9:50 pm

Agreed. And of course there will also be no BCRA issues either.

The microphone was in the corner behind me, so it was probably very difficult to hear what I was saying.
157 Catholic Trotskyist // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:13 pm

At 89, well well well, I can be glad that I’m not encouraging people to leave IPR. I guess that means that even though I’m thought of as a troll like Milnes, Lake, USA Parliament guy, and AIP faction fighters, I am actually signal and not noise. that’s good to know.

I disendorse the LP for having a convention in Las Vegas, that city of deplorable sin. But I am glad Seebeck lost because of his harsh criticism of Catholic Trotskyism a couple years ago.
158 Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor // Nov 20, 2010 at 11:27 pm

@157
We can still bring the LP back into the fold, and we don’t even have to travel to Las Vegas – we can do it from the comfort of our own homes.

The good news is the AIP factions have a tool to unite now, and we just elected Prime Ministers Chelene Nightingale [Constitution], Nathan Johnson [American Independent] and Don Grundmann [American Independent] to the Central California Parliament.

We have a four-way tie for the two secretarial posts, but both Darryl Perry [Boston Tea] and myself, James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], are online here, and we can easily break the tie if we work together.

He and I are the two voters, and the four names in the tie are Mike Bogatirev [Environmentalist], Jane Heider [Libertarian], Laura Booth [Free Parliamentary] and Cory Nott [Libertarian].

However, the unelected two secretaries are not a road block, because it takes only a 3/5ths vote to elect the Cabinet, rules and make decisions.

I have talked to all three Prime Ministers and they are pleased to participate.

The US prez/vp election is a long time away in the future, and if we play our cards right, there’s no reason to believe we can’t still win as a team.
* * *

Join the Frees,
opposite gender #1!

“Why do you THINK they called it Google?’

Paul/Lightfoot [Republican/Libertarian] for President in 2012!

Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012!

http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.htm
159 Robert Milnes // Nov 20, 2010 at 11:47 pm

You people call yourselves radicals?
The fix is in for Root to get the nomination.
All thatballot access & wherewithall KEPT AWAY from someone that might make a difference. e.g. me with a libertarian woman fusion ticket.
Right in front of you!
160 Robert Milnes // Nov 20, 2010 at 11:53 pm

It will be 2008 do-over.
Everybody give 35 million to counterrevolutionaries The Pauls.
Present your rears to Barr & Root & bendover.
& beg for lube!
161 Robert Milnes // Nov 20, 2010 at 11:56 pm

Losertarians!
162 Robert Milnes // Nov 20, 2010 at 11:57 pm

Povertarians & anarchists-get lost.
163 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:06 am

Lose, lose, lose!
Everybody lose!
Ahhhhhhhhh, ha, ha, ha, ha!
164 Michael H. Wilson // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:07 am

re Andy @ 155. I understand what you say and I too have been doing this for a number of years. Going on 30, but this next election round looks like it is going to be about beating Obama and the media is going to be on Palin if she decides to run. The issues will be forgotten unless we have a nice bit of inflation to put up with, or some other economic dislocation. I would guess at this point that the Libertarian candidate will be an afterthought for the most. Look for All Sarah All the Time!
165 Michael H. Wilson // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:23 am

BTW looking at Google maps there seem to be a number of places on W. Desert Inn Dr. which is not too far away, maybe three miles , that seem to be better priced.
166 Michael Seebeck // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:43 am

Ontario had 14 hotels within walking distance, including six mere feet away.
167 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:06 am

I just noticed http://www.robertmilnes4president2008.com has some computer stuff on it. I ran out of credit a couple of months ago & it lapsed. I was going to renew & put a link on it to an updated 2012 site. I guess somebody took it over.
Now, why would somebody take over my website & put some computer stuff on it?
168 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:18 am

Oh yeah, everybody stop reading IPR.
& all those lackeys at the LNC meeting who spread the word to stop reading IPR because of the trolls, good job!
& special mention to paulie for posting it at IPR comments @89.
You know of course that no one forces anyone to read IPR comments. You can read just the articles.
But if someone wanted to try to lessen IPR readership because someone didn’t like what some commenters were saying, just spread a rumor about how obnoxious the comments are. & just don’t read IPR like a lot of others.
169 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:32 am

You people want to see political dirty tricks, just follow me & see what happens to me.
I guarantee I am under intensive surveillance & a focus of dirty tricks.
& so is LP, GP & BTP.
Sipos, if you don’t think LP is a worthy target, then what is?
Enough ballot access to POSSIBLY win the presidency & a large contingent in Congress & governors & state legislatures & the judiciary?
Seems like that would be a PRIME TARGET.
& some crazy guy that says he can get 40% of the vote? Better than Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912?
Sipos?
170 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:38 am

Counterrevolutionary Ron Paul lover, Sipos.
171 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:59 am

& whobetter to spread a rumor in IPR comments than paulie?
172 JT // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:59 am

Milnes: “Now, why would somebody take over my website & put some computer stuff on it?”

Who cares? It’s hilarious! Toner…Ahhhhhhhhh, ha, ha, ha, ha!
173 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:02 am

Boycott campaignsitebuilder until they return my website to me.
174 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:14 am

Oh yeah, hilarious. People are donating 35 million to counterrevolutionaries & all the reactionaries get reelected to POWER OVER YOU.
Meanwhile poor schmuck Bob Milnes has to ask his dad for emergency food runs to Walmart & can’t spare the $ to take a cat to the vet.
No thanks to anybody I got my too little too late inheritance a few days ago.
I gave the kitten to my uncle when he promised to get it vaccinated against FHV.
Feline herpes 1 upper respiratory very contageous permanent infection carrier.
Why is there no HUMAN vaccination against herpes 1?
175 Lucy chronicles // Nov 21, 2010 at 3:32 am

Red Rock is way the hell out in Summerlin. It’s a beautiful property but lingering on Bankruptcy as part of the Stations Casino problems… so the deals are probably rife.

Why the hell any of the hotels on the strip weren’t considered is beyond me. Freedom Fest every year is at Bally’s, there are tons and tons of deals from downtown Vegas to the strip and further south. And all the sane, active Nevadans are spread throughout the state – NOT many of them are centered in Vegas outside of 1/2. So good luck getting any decent local LP party help to get the thing moving! HA!
176 Thomas M. Sipos // Nov 21, 2010 at 3:38 am

What do you want from me, Milnes?

If Root gets the LP nomination, and Palin gets the GOP, then the LP will see it worst totals since perhaps ’84.

The same mostly white, middle-aged conservative men who sorta like Root are head over heels in love with Palin.

I only hope Ron Paul runs in 2012 so I can have someone to vote for.
177 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:30 am

“Why the hell any of the hotels on the strip weren’t considered is beyond me.”

The standard modus operandi of the Starr/Carling/Mattson junta, which apparently still carries great influence on the LNC, is to make conventions as expensive and difficult to attend as possible.

Presumably they’re acting on their perception (whether it’s actually there or not) of a high correlation between personal wealth (or at least willingness/ability to commit more money to convention attendance) and support for them and/or their agenda.

I generally discount the whole “convention packing” thing in the traditional sense. Regardless of where the convention is held, neither Root nor anyone else is going to mount one of these alleged “bus in a bunch of ringers” operations.

Here’s how Root will probably benefit from the convention being in Vegas:

- He does a certain amount of billboard advertising and such anyway. By convention time in 2012, he’ll probably have made sure that some of his billboards are visible on the route from the airport to the convention venue, to make him look “bigger in Vegas” than he really is.

- If I were a presidential candidate seeking the LP’s nomination in Las Vegas in 2012, I’d be campaigning heavily in California and Texas … and if the money is available, sponsoring charter buses available to any and all delegates, departing from and returning to Los Angeles and Dallas.

- This time, apart from the general principle of locating conventions as far from area airports as humanly possible, that inconvenience may very well be LEVERAGED. Look for Root to sponsor a “free” shuttle from the airport to the convention venue, and to make sure that everyone knows he’s the one who saved them $50 in cab fare.

- Look for a Root-sponsored “evening event” or two — free transport to the strip or downtown and back — get on the bus, listen to Root speak, maybe a reserved buffet room free or cheap at the strip/downtown destination, and a couple of hours to have fun and think well of Root before getting back on the shuttle to return to Red Rock.

BTW — none of these things are illegitimate as campaign tactics, nor should the LNC avoid a city just because a likely candidate is headquartered there. Root’s opponents will probably have a bit of a harder time pulling them off, but they should try to compete with Root on his own ground by doing the same kinds of things.
178 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:06 am

Sipos, don’t worry. The Pauls will be running in 2012. Ron & Son.will hit all the GOP primaries. There is 35 million to be had from suckers like you.
What do I want from you? PEACE, peacenik. You think peace is easy? You think The Pauls are going to hand it to you?
Tom is right. Further, All this has been planed in some think tank years ago.Advantage-Root. All these little things add up. From hijacking my website to shooting Duensing(a radical) to holding the convention in Root’s home state.
The items mentioned by Tom are legitimate campaign tricks. But how much support is behind the scenes? We can speculate-a LOT. Using government supercomputers? Operatives?Paid informants? GOP connections? etc.
All to make SURE the LP loses.
179 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:13 am

“…listen to Root speak…”.
LOL!
Rootspeak!
180 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:27 am

Sipos, are you a Rand Paul-Tea Party-lover, too?
181 A Different Green Party Conservative // Nov 21, 2010 at 6:35 am

Robert, what do you mean by “the Pauls are running in 2012?” Do you actually think both Ron and Rand will run for President? That means they would be running against each other; that would be pretty interesting. In the end I think that would hurt both of them. It might even help PLAS because the counter-revolutionaries would be even more divided.
182 Catholic Trotskyist // Nov 21, 2010 at 6:36 am

Sorry, I was using an alternate personality; that last comment was really from me, Catholic Trotskyist.
183 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:32 am

And we are back
184 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:33 am

Anyone watching…if so, is video coming in…how about audio?
185 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:35 am

Thanks for the updates, Paulie.

Thanks for reading and commenting everyone. I’ll put in a word for Arkansas if they let me.
186 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:37 am

As much as I’d love to go to a Libertarian Party National Convention in Las Vegas, I really don’t want to see it held there in 2012. Why? Because I don’t want to Wayne Root to become the Presidential candidate for the party and having the convention in Las Vegas will give him an advantage due to him living in that area.

Does anyone have an example of any one time when an LP national convention was successfully packed…ever?
187 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:38 am

Voting on convention dates now
188 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:41 am

That’s why I presented an anti-proposal that did exactly the opposite with competitive costs and many more delegate options.

They don’t like convention center idea as there is no hotel room block buy to waive/set off meeting space cost.
189 Robert Capozzi // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:42 am

pc, I don’t think such records were or can be kept. You’d have to see who was added to the state delegation, what their intentions were, and what how they voted.
190 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:45 am

They are meeting. The are discussing issues for the hotel contract. It is to be determined if there is extensive wifi in the hotel. Paulie recommends some version of this be in the contract.

The sound is much better today.
191 Sunday meeting now audible // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:45 am

http://www.justin.tv/lnc7#/w/574131168
192 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:46 am

They want to discuss setting 2014 and 2016 conventions now as well
193 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:47 am

@190 thx, let me know if that goes out. I assume that was typo in “Paulie recommends” – I am not on LNC and have not been speaking, just typing, lol
194 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:50 am

At 89, well well well, I can be glad that I’m not encouraging people to leave IPR. I guess that means that even though I’m thought of as a troll like Milnes, Lake, USA Parliament guy, and AIP faction fighters, I am actually signal and not noise. that’s good to know.

Opinions vary.
195 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:53 am

I understand what you say and I too have been doing this for a number of years. Going on 30, but this next election round looks like it is going to be about beating Obama and the media is going to be on Palin if she decides to run. The issues will be forgotten unless we have a nice bit of inflation to put up with, or some other economic dislocation. I would guess at this point that the Libertarian candidate will be an afterthought for the most. Look for All Sarah All the Time!

Expect some curveballs in the mix.
196 Sunday meeting now audible // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:53 am

For our listening audience, we have something. They are discussing whether the current LNC should decide where the 2014 convention should be, thus locking the 2012-elected LNC out of the siting decision for the 2014 convention.
197 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:55 am

2016 as well.
198 Sunday meeting now audible // Nov 21, 2010 at 9:55 am

Perhaps we should withdraw this and discuss it by email.

Total loss of signal.
199 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:00 am

Still no signal.
200 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:01 am

Paulie, I am unable to liveblog this.
201 Robert Capozzi // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:04 am

sunday: thus locking the 2012-elected LNC out of the siting decision for the 2014 convention.

Me: Is that true? Future LNC’s can’t reverse such a decision?
202 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:08 am

Should be working again…try reload and play
203 Carol Moore // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:08 am

Keep it public and searchable by major media
Hoi Poloi should have snuck in earlier and moved all the chairs up for better view/sound. Oh Well, that’s what you get when you don’t pay my way by limousine to an LNC meeting. (F*ck airtravel.) Start organizing ground transport for 2012 now.
204 THE Robert Milnes for President! // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:08 am

@159

RM; You people call yourselves radicals?
The fix is in for Root to get the nomination.
All thatballot access & wherewithall KEPT AWAY from someone that might make a difference. e.g. me with a libertarian woman fusion ticket.
Right in front of you!

JO; Robert, we can sure use you (and anyone else) on the US Parliament operation.

Please do sign up, we have plenty of posts available. It’s you’re name #1!

My email and phone number are in the contact us area, I’m very easy to reach.
–James
* * *

Join the Frees,
opposite gender #1!

“Why do you THINK they called it Google?’

Paul/Lightfoot [Republican/Libertarian] for President in 2012!

Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012!

http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.htm
205 Carol Moore // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:09 am

Phillies #69: Root reports LNCC “They supported 13 candidates to a total of $7500. “
*And no one brought up that Root managed to raise $20,000 for his run for chair? Which was supposed to be proof of what a big fundraiser he was. That’s what is called “non-performance”.
206 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:09 am

Comments here work better, I am checking them more frequently than email. Periodically the video cuts out. If you let me know when, all I have to do is hit start in the tab where the video is.
207 Carol Moore // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:10 am

those on fixed incomes need not apply.”
Lucy chronicles 175: “Red Rock is way the hell out in Summerlin. It’s a beautiful property but lingering on Bankruptcy as part of the Stations Casino problems… so the deals are probably rife.”
Who is on Las Vegas committee anyway? Will be amusing if they end up having to move to cheap hotel on the strip because of bankruptcy. Searching Red Rock Resort I see “$160 and up (up to 4 people)”. So if lower rate remains 4 people per room, it will be easy to pack with LUFTMENSCHEN. Take that you, APPARATCHIKS!
208 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:10 am

Well, if they pay the penalty/cancellation fee in the contract, they could cancel. That could be quite substantial as witness 2000 and them paying us. Also, the parliamentarians will claim that a 2/3 vote is needed.

Sound is back. They are discussing meetings for next year. They will not meet at the LSLA meeting. The discussion is a bit hard to follow

LNC Meetings for 2011 being discussed.

LNC 15-17 April

I hear Columbus in August and at the Red Rock

Red Rock Room rates and $30 a night extra being discussed.

2011 Dec 10 and 11

Lark is saying the LNC has not done visit to a convention site prior to their being a convention contract signed.
209 Moore/Milnes for President! // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:11 am

How about Moore/Milnes [Libertarian/Info. Not Avail.]?
* * *

Join the Frees,
opposite gender #1!

“Why do you THINK they called it Google?’

Paul/Lightfoot [Republican/Libertarian] for President in 2012!

Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012!

http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.htm
210 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:12 am

I check it from time to time regardless, but comment here alerts me to when it goes out more quickly.

Start organizing ground transport for 2012 now.

Excellent idea.
211 Carol Moore // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:16 am

WHO for VP 2012. Serious LIBERTARIANS running for Prez candidate ALSO should be willing to run for VP so someone out there is countering Root’s message. But note that once Root gets the nomination, he’ll probably be cut off from major media like all LP candidates are, and for at least a year after wards so no one can hear him complain about it. He’s sacrificing more than he realizes.
212 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:16 am

Q What is the Red Rock fee for a third person in a room. I think Mary Ruwart said it was $30.
Motion/Amendment

April 16/17 Washington DC
August 20 21 Columbus Ohio
Dec budget meeting 10/11 Las Vegas

Dec 10/11 location is up in the air.

Proceed to vote. Without dissent, passed.
213 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:16 am

Building fund is next on the agenda
214 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:19 am

Now the building fund. It sounds like Geoff Neale presenting his plan. The proposal is to put a building in MEtro DC. The 2002 benchmark was nearly-new building. We are off line again.

Paulie, could you check if something is happening near Rachel’s camera? Someone with a completely innocent metallized purse, e.g., might without their knowledge be killing the signal.
215 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:19 am

Q What is the Red Rock fee for a third person in a room. I think Mary Ruwart said it was $30.

She said 35. I have no other source on this.
216 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:21 am

She said 35. I have no other source on this.

IE, I don’t know whether it would be waived or partially waived as a part of our package deal. Mary got the quote on the standard deal without a package deal is my guess.
217 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:22 am

Geoff Neale makes presentation on building fund. He says it would be a permanently restricted fund.
218 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:22 am

Sound just came back.
219 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:25 am

Paulie, could you check if something is happening near Rachel’s camera? Someone with a completely innocent metallized purse, e.g., might without their knowledge be killing the signal.

Nothing visible that is responsible for periodic disruptions. Just keep letting me know when they happen
220 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:28 am

FUnd must be religiously guarded against misappropriation.

Neale: I want a larger group of people, with cachet, to approach major donors and ask for bigger numbers. Use this as matching fund for high propensity donors. Then you go to the general population. At front you are doing 1 on 1, then you would like cash now. Pledges are nice but you hold them until you have enough.

How much can people give. FEC says its the same as all other donations. There will be some loss of income to the building fund.
3 ways to raise money. We have great project. We are about to sink. Capital campaign..easiest way to raise money. Give us $200,000 and we’ll call it the George Phillies Building…That was Geoff’s remark, since I am one of the members who could write such a check.
221 Robert Capozzi // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:28 am

cm: But note that once Root gets the nomination, he’ll probably be cut off from major media like all LP candidates are, and for at least a year after wards so no one can hear him complain about it. He’s sacrificing more than he realizes.

me: I don’t think Root’s a sure thing. I don’t believe I agree “all” LP candidates are, as Barr did better than most, if not all, in getting media. Pat Buchanan has had quite a career since running for prez, so the revolving door of candidate/pundit has been established.
222 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:32 am

Ballot access money says Neale is not sexy. We have to do it all the time. It’s like mowing the lawn. Capital campaign is like digging the rocks out of the lawn. It’s done and makes a difference.

If this is successful you can run additional campaigns and raise the rest in 7 years or so. We want to raise the money (for a down payment?) in seven years. Do not do this in even years; do not compete with election fundraising.

Q with business and stock amrkets are currently unclear for three years out. Low mortgages, and booming markets are currently favorable (That was ahrd to hear.)
223 Robert Capozzi // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:32 am

gp: we’ll call it the George Phillies Building…

me: I have the perfect location. 997 E St, NW, WDC.

Look who’s next door: Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463
224 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:36 am

Nothing visible that is responsible for periodic disruptions

I’m sure Milnes or someone will come up with a conspiracy theory, lol…
225 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:42 am

Sorry I’m doing a terrible job liveblogging, not much sleep, hellatired. George and anyone else who wants to help with that, thanks again for your help.
226 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:42 am

Q What is the point of being in DC. We do not do Federal lobbying. Need to look at that first.

Neale Not going to argue whether or not we should be in Arkansas. He compares witha straw man a double-wide in Arkansas. Says it is easier to raise money for a fancy office in DC than for converted warehouse near Dulles.

Neale pinned on this by someone — we could do something less expensive out of cash flow. Colley did Lease options near DC. Claimed watergate was not such a bad deal. Neale proposes to raise money without choosing site. Parameters on choosing site “were given me by the office staff”. Neale: No one has ever contacted me about this and I am a big donor.

Issues: what are the rules. Political consideration: We are building a crystal palace and not doing real politics.

Neale I spent six terms on teh LNC. Tell the donors who do not agree “then do not give money”. There is a market for people who want to do this. It’s not their money. It’s mine and list of other LNC members. You’ll get the benefit.

There may be some merits to being on the outside not the inside. Neale: The people who want in the outskirts are the people who wont give us money anyway. The people who want the DC office are the people who will write the checks.

Back in the 80s and 90s we had a much more modest arrangement and were doing better.

Office condo options? Could we do a tour of some places when we go to DC in April.
227 Tony Wall // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:48 am

Friends,

I forwarded the following this morning:

LNC members,

When considering Red Rock for the convention, we you aware of the
following:

1) A mandatory $24.99 +12% tax ($27.98) daily resort fee is added to the
room rate.

2) A major credit card must be used for reservations and a 1 night room
and tax will be charged to your card.

3) Rates are based on double occupancy; each additional adult is $35
each night. (Room sharing is very expensive)

4) An incidental deposit of $100.00 per night will be required at check in.

5) Red Rock Resort does not permit any bulk beverage or beverage
containers on our property. This is to include, but not limited to:
coolers, cases, kegs, ice chests, etc.

6) Packages do not include gratuities. The following are items that a
standard 20% gratuity will be charged to your reservation, the gratuity
is not included in the package price. This applies to packages with
cabanas, daybeds, and ca-beds. (The list doesn’t appear to be complete.
Other ‘packages’ may be included.)

7) Were food and beverage costs at the facility reviewed and considered?
It appears the facility is in a residential area and alternate dining
options may not be an option. Most complaints from travel sites with
this facility are the hidden fees and expensive food and beverages. By
the way, refrigerators are $15 per day. Diabetic libertarians should be
aware.
228 Carol Moore // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:49 am

Root definitely not a sure thing. After all, LP rejected Gary Nolan for The Constitutionalist, just because he gave one great performance in the debates. The OOPS factor can’t be ignored. especially if Root comes up with some new charge of PEDOPHILIA against his opposition.

Sure Barr got more publicity than past LP and green candidates. But it wasn’t all the same number of major media appearances Root gets now for being a freelance – whatever. And remember Barr is former US representative already famous for role in Clinton impeachment and therefore credible.

Root is a Born Again Christian/Jew for Jesus self-promoting gambler who will have a bad reputation for scamming the LP if he wins. (The Wash Post already has reported on Libs problems with him.) On the other hand, libertarians protesting him every time he goes off track might bring in a little extra publicity.

And as a Jolly Fool he should be fun to watch, even when he’s calling for war against Iran to protect Israel. Or is he for war against Israel so that Jesus will come back and kill all the Jews who don’t convert to Jesus-anity. So many questions for Wayne. So many questions!!
229 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:50 am

1) A mandatory $24.99 +12% tax ($27.98) daily resort fee is added to the
room rate.

That was covered in the discussion. They said it was being waived.
230 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:51 am

@223

George Phillies Building: That was Geoff Neale’s suggestion. Given my opinions on the topic, he is unlikely to get my money.

Proposal: We go to major donors with proposal and see if there is money first. GP: Neale is giving the “What if we…” it’s straight out of a Harry Browne just imagine speech. What if we get all the money we need.

Major issue: status of the real estate market. What if we end up with a building worth less than we currently owe on it?

You are never going to know unless you try the firs t phase if we can raise the money or pledges. Want to avoid using money for expenses so we cannot make donors whole if things failed.

Neale offers to cover expenses personally. Move to extend. Objections. Needs 2/3 vote. Passed

If we want to move before lease expires in February 2012 .. if we start now donor can give the max three times before then. Cap donations at $25,000.

Neale Americans give far more to charity than someone. I want the party to benefit from these efforts and the resources are there.

Q comissions for fundraising.
231 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:51 am

3) Rates are based on double occupancy; each additional adult is $35
each night. (Room sharing is very expensive)

It may be that this is waived as part of our deal, but I haven’t heard a definite on that either way.
232 Rodger Paxton // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:53 am

I must have missed the rates for the hotel. Does anyone have that?
233 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:57 am

I must have missed the rates for the hotel. Does anyone have that?

There is a deal being negotiated, they will not be the standard rates. Not quite sure beyond that. They were claiming it was not substantially different from Dallas and SF.

Bathroom break for Paulie.
234 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:01 am

With occupancy in Vegas being what it is, I would expect that contracted rates should be $100-120 per night, if not a bit less.
235 Rodger Paxton // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:06 am

So the rates would be similar to St. Louis convention. Has anyone answered why they picked a hotel way out in the sticks?
236 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:06 am

Mr Starr speaks: people asked me to look at the proposal. I like the idea of a capital campaign. Do not think about change of price of property. We are buying this to having this place until the end of time. There is not a fixed fundraising pie, but there will be some impact on operational income. This will impact 2012 ballot access money to some extent, because there will be some cannibalizaiton of general fundraising.

Starr:I am a bit concerned that in the 7 years the market may not be where we want it to be. I think we might be better off trying to raise the total. It may be hard to raise money to cover the mortgage, it’s like raising money for the rent. Try to raise it all. I am concerned if this does not do well at all we have money in the bank, we have to return it, and it will cause problems. We should not charge fundraising expenses to this fund. I would not give if I thought I was covering fundraising charges. Go to legally enforceable charges. Talks of $1 million target. I am in general positive. Woudl want to see the adjustments I recoemmended

Ruwart: My calculation is that we are raising only about half the funds we need. Perhaps can get people excited about paying off the mortgage. If we pay it off, we have a million dollar asset. We can save the rent money once it is paid. We can raise money buy saying ‘we are buying a building we are moving ahead.’

What is the motion: The LNC shall set up a Headquarters building fund. Funds, pledges, etc. to be used only for that purpose.

Neale: Want to go now because we can use 2010 donation limit of big donors.

How do we reward all our donors. How do we thank people to participate in this?

Q WHat is the typical income of a nonprofit that does this. Neale says other nonprofits do different things and really does not answer the question.

Move to amend: None of these funds shall be used for fundraising or other expenses; fundraising money shall come out of the general funds. Neale is being allowed to answer each speaker.

Even if we return the money, we can go back to the donors.

Yes this goes into a separate bank account.
237 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:10 am

Mattson reads motion

First vote, on amendment: passes almost unaimously.

Main motion as amended:
y y y y y y y n y y y n a y <– could not hear all votes but there were two or so nays and an abstain.

I am not sure if $1 million was what they were planning to spend or if it was a hypothetical. Neale says you will clearly know by the next meeting is it is going to work.

Meeting takes bio and checkout? break.
238 Thomas M. Sipos // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:13 am

Milnes: “All to make SURE the LP loses.”

Who cares if the LP loses? I already told you, I don’t give a damn about the LP winning elections.

The LP can be a useful educational tool. If the LP were loudly antiwar, it would create the perception that “right-wingers” can be antiwar too — but the neocons can’t allow that.

The neocons seek to neutralize all “right-wing” antiwar voices, so as to create the false perception that to be antiwar is to be an “American hating leftist.” That way, half the population would discount antiwar views without giving it a thought.

To succeed, antiwar requires a Big Tent. We need loud voices across the political spectrum.

Alas, Root neutralizes the LP, keeping it in the neocon camp. Many of his supporters are prowar, but deny it. They say “antiwar will lose votes,” but only as an excuse to justify pushing antiwar off the table.

Thank God for Ron Paul, whose visibility creates the perception that antiwar is Big Tent.

Only a Big Tent, non-partisan/multi-partisan, antiwar Mass Movement can challenge the empire.

Milnes, when you disagree with me, please don’t argue about LP vote totals. I don’t give a damn about winning elections. I care about winning hearts and minds, and influencing the culture.
239 Carol Moore // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:18 am

Even our lily livered LNC might disavow Root if he started spouting pro-war BS after he got the nomination. If only to save their own jobs 2014.
240 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:23 am

Offline
241 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:23 am

Has anyone answered why they picked a hotel way out in the sticks?

They were claiming they got a really good deal. We shall see.
242 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:25 am

Discussing Oregon convention mess now. Karlan presenting. Video went out while I was in bathroom and helping Jeff DeMint pack car, I just turned it back on.
243 Rodger Paxton // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:28 am

Paulie, or those of us who couldn’t be there, we all appreciate the live blogging. Keep up the good work!
244 Thomas M. Sipos // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:29 am

Carol Moore: “Even our lily livered LNC might disavow Root if he started spouting pro-war BS after he got the nomination.”

As I’ve predicted since 2007, Root is using the LP as a booster rocket to media stardom. Like the space shuttle, Root will ditch the LP booster rocket if he no longer needs it.

Look at radio talk show host Larry Elder. He ditched the LP because of the LP’s foreign policy. Prowar conservatives admired Elder all the more for it.

Once Root feels he’s big enough, and needs another “event” to make the next news cycle, he can impress the Tea Party/Fox News crowd by ditching and slamming the LP. Root will say, “I love freedom and America too much to embrace Islamo-fascism, even if it means I must lose my LP positions.”

Then all the Fox News pundits will praise Root for his courage and integrity and self-sacrifice.

Yes, Root is cunning enough to see that political “about faces” can make for a wise career move.

Ariana Huffington was a nobody who got some mileage out of being a Republican, then when that petered out, she converted to progressive to boost her media profile. She’s no more qualified to be pundit than is Root, yet she’s made a sort of career out of it.

David Brook (is that his name?) did the same, converting from neocon to liberal.

Wisely planned, a political conversion can reinvigorate a hack pundit’s fading career.
245 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:30 am

Did anyone catch the results of the building discussion while I was out, or did the video go out first as well?
246 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:31 am

Karlan making various claims about Oregon.

He is attacking the LPO leadership. There was a question of whether some people were life members. There was a

The bylaws violations were flagrant and egregious, but the purpose of the special conventionwas to revise the byalws of the LPO.

Claims that if the bylaws revisions had taken place atthe special election, the later choice of NatCon delegates would have been invalid. Claims that this could have invalidated the National convention.

The LNC would have had to become involved because the special convention acts would have messed up delegate appointments. Therefore sent Mattson and Carling to Oregon.

Urged Mattson and Carling to go to LPO to support claim that there were bylaws violations. Took statements from alleged life members and alleged new LPO members.

If they had not acted, LNC involvment in the event would have been needed.

Invites Mattson to testify.
247 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:33 am

Dr. Phillies is doing most of the liveblogging. I’m just the dummy who pushes the start button in the justin.tv tab when somebody lets me know it has gone down again
248 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:42 am

Rachel moves to extend discussion
249 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:45 am

Did anyone catch the results of the building discussion while I was out, or did the video go out first as well?

Going once..twice…
250 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Kevin Knedler proposes Nolan motion. Mattson is concerned with interpretation that it will be seen as attack on Root. Flood says motion is unnecessary as it is stating the obvious. Redpath agrees with Flood.
251 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:01 pm

What do the planners of the Oregon intervention recommend that a state party that cannot obtain a quorum do to become manageable?

And was sending LNC representatives halfway across the country to make sure that Roberts Rules were being properly followed by a state party the best use of energy?
252 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Alicia asks to amend Nolan motion
253 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Mattson claims she is an LPO member. Claims she did not represent herself as an LNC member. She is I think presenting a written statement and docuemntation. Claims docuemntation on life members and new members.

Then met with Jeff Weston and Wes Wagner in Oregon. Informed them that they had large numbers of bylaws violations and tried to reason with them.

There were challenged members who were alleged to be life members and people applying for membership. Then they raised the issue of the quorum in Oregon.

Mattson is a bit hard to hear.

Karlan. They have faction differences yet. They did implicate our involvement?

Inaudible remarks from someone.

Q how do we build parties. Faction fighting…we need something (inaudible).

Ruwart: I spoke to chair and VIce Chair of Oregon. Also had material form Chuck Moulton and very diffeernt rule interpretation. I am not saying our secrety is wrong but someitmes things cna be interpreted differently. When Moulton reviewed Oregon positions, other state parties have the same rule problem. Did not thinnk it was necessary to disrupt OR convention. CHair is now not sure that he should have beleived claims of LNC members.

Are we going to go to all these other states and shut down their conventions? I hope not. This is a difficult issue that will recur. My discussion with Wes and Jeff what they want on our agenda. They said that if the LNC wants to interfere in states because they dont like what we are doing they want more than four hours notivce. LNC was not notified of this activity. I have a big problem being represented as an LNC action when I did not know about it. Why did you think it wsa an LNC action: Jeff was told that the LNC sometimes steps down and interferes n LNC affiliates. Extend for ten.

Soemone We did nto agree. What I ehre is that the precedent using color of office stepped in and said because you choose delegates we have right to interfere. This is a dangerous thing. Staet affilaites are going to amke mistakes. Going and and saying your delgates are bad. We are becoming a star chamber.

Mattson: Takes issue with claim we wen there to shut down there convention. There were egregious bylaws violations. Claims these issues were brought up well in advance. Its not dfair to say these things about us.

Claims LNC officer showing up is not LNC intervention.

?Got calls from Richard Burke and Jeff Weston…I did go to the convention (this has to be Hinkle) Met with the various factions.

Inaudible.

Q Was Weston told that there would be LNC consequences if he did not do as he did? Was there any objection at the time to what happened.

Mattson claims Weston made his own decision and there was no objection.

GP:So far as I can tell there is no one represented the LPO there.

Mattson is saying something about bylaws and denying that she represented herself as representing an LNC message.

By virtue of adjournment they may have issues with doing things in the future. Does this lock them out of being a political party?

Mattson makes inaudible claims.

GP: THe issue is that it was claimedthat the LPO had absentmindedly increased their quorum to half of their membership.

Hawkrdige, Ask that LPO be allowed to answer Karlan-Mattson claims.

Hinkle Oh they can do that whenever they want.

They still have not reached the budget.

In essence, Karlan claimed that because state affiliates select delegates to NatCon, the LNC has the right to intervene in how state affiliates conduct themselves.

They read the Nolan motion.

Someone: I do not disagree with the concept but how do you enforce, how do you do it.

Q What does it saY? What does it me?

Redpath: What is the point? What is the end–a resolution libertarianism is good. What is the objective?

A; There is concern over rightward drift.

Ruwart: response to impression that (left) libertarians are not welcome. there is concern about (something).

Have real issue of dissnsion on the LNC about ideology.

Concern that people will start complaining that others are not obeying the resolution.

Pause in conversation.
254 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:03 pm

Ruwart opposes Mattson amendment to Nolan motion
255 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Kevin Knedler proposes Nolan motion. Mattson is concerned with interpretation that it will be seen as attack on Root. Flood says motion is unnecessary as it is stating the obvious. Redpath agrees with Flood.

Stating the obvious would be unnecessary, were it not for Mr. Root loudly and publicly ignoring and contradicting the obvious.

A word, to the wise, is sufficient. Others need a resolution.
256 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:07 pm

Rachel told me the LNC authorized Geoff Neale to start raising money for building fund. As I understand it this does not actually mean they have to spend the money, if he underperforms in fundraising they can scrap it and return the money.
257 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:07 pm

They appear to be amending the resolution.

Ruwart I speak against. Other language directed to LNC representatives and staff.

Seems like innocuous motherhood and apple pie. Have no rpoblem. Seems not to do anytihng, could later be invoked in way we did not intend.

No one seems to have brought up Root’s plans to reconstruct libertarianism.

Out of time. First amendment: carries except a couple.

Motion as amended. Carries.
258 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:09 pm

I believe Mattson’s amendment to Nolan’s motion passed easily. I may have misunderstood that. There was also a minor wording change proposed by Visek. The overall motion passed without objection.

My crystal ball was obviously cracked
259 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:10 pm

If Nolan wanted to pass a resolution, it would have been better for him to be present, or make sure that he had enough votes to pass as written.
260 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:13 pm

GP: On the Karlan claims, the LNC did not disagree.

Move to amend policy manual. Three weeks notice rule on something. There should be warning to members so that they know that something is coming up.

Mattson: problem if we define notice prior than Roberts. Moving to three weeks notice so it works to us.

Objection: Our bylaws and votes supersede Roberts. Karlan claims that we have to send three weeks notice that there will be two weeks to vote on mail ballot.

GP: The budget is being ignored and the parliamentary people are chewing up time left and right.
261 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:14 pm

Too much focus on doing things right, not enough focus on doing the right things.
262 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:16 pm

My understanding is that Mr. Nolan is possibly ill, I seem to remember someone saying that they wish he gets well. If so, I add to that sentiment.

I don’t know that he had any way to keep anyone else from introducing his resolution once he floated it. Ms. Mattson’s amendment replaced one sentence in the last paragraph. I missed what the substance of the change was.
263 Andy // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:16 pm

“Does anyone have an example of any one time when an LP national convention was successfully packed…ever?”

Well sort of for Barr. But regardless, this is an obvious attempt to give Wayne Root an advantage at winning the presidential nomination.

Man, this Party sure has gone downhill. I wish that some better candidates would emerge. Harry Browne was a MUCH BETTER candidate than Wayne Root.
264 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:20 pm

Well sort of for Barr.

To the degree I investigated those claims, they turned out to be much more smoke than fire. If there was any fire at all, it was so small as to be insignificant. A couple of vanpools of libertarians, not all of whom were Barr supporters (example: Knapp), does not a convention packing make.
265 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:28 pm

There is something about goals. Hard to hear again. They are discussing something from the July LNC list. Confirmed that the list of goals si ok with Wes Benedict. We are six months into our term already. If we debate these goals, it will draw out and be far through the term.

Proposed that we should agree with goals even if we do not agree with all of them, because if we sit and talk it will be a year through our term before we start.

Proposes to defend goals regardless of strategies used to reach them. Need to start thinking strategically.

GP Aside: The delegates were presented with a group that was ahead of this, to be elected and launch, and rejected the possibility.

Propose we are generally supportive of the goals.

Claims no one can disagree with any of these goals. Hard to hear again. I am inclined to say that some people mumble.

We raised the bar. We got good results. We ought to add (d) attempt to place candidates on the ballot in attempt to maintain ballot access — not acceptable for states not to run anybody.
(e) Affiliates will send bylaws to National or post on state website –this turns out to be in the bylaws.

Above two are amendments.

Proposes mandate for review. Asks Executive Director to report on occasion.

I think we can eliminate all of that in favor of something. Time has expired. Move to extend. Rejected.

They are sorting out something on the motions up for a vote. Someone is having a whisper conversation right on top of the microphone and it is causing hearing challenges.
266 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Discussing policy manual changes, I think. I am zoning out. Not enough sleep last couple of nights, and I’m never good with this kind of stuff anyway.
267 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:34 pm

They are arguing about something related to the bylaws or not related.

They have agreed that these are additional requirements that do not conflict with the bylaws.

ADD: place candidates on the ballot in order to maintain ballot access
ADD:Send us your bylaws.

The amendment carries.

Go to vote on main motion as amended. Roll call
y.y.y.y.y.y.y.n.y.y.n.n.y.y.y 12-3 motion carries.

Goes for break to check out. Hotel hours are ending.
268 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Goals statement as amended by Knedler passed. Knedler amendment passed 7-6 I think, overall thingawhatever passed 12-3 as amended.
269 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Paulie,
The building fund was approved.
George
270 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:38 pm

10 min break
271 Andy // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:42 pm

“To the degree I investigated those claims, they turned out to be much more smoke than fire. If there was any fire at all, it was so small as to be insignificant.”

Considering that Barr won the nomination by a thin margin, perhaps it was not so insignificant.

Regardless, booking the 2012 convention for Las Vegas is a BLATANT attempt to give Wayne Root an advantage. I mean come off it, Root is on the LNC, there are Root supporters on the LNC, and by golly, they just so happen to pick the area where Root lives as the site of the next National Convention where the next presidential candidate will be chosen. Well suprise, suprise…
272 Michael H. Wilson // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:44 pm

There have been problems in the LPO and I am sure other state organizations for years. This goes back to the ’90s and much of it can or could have been solved years ago simply by writing about Robert’s Rules in the national news letter and how they are used. That alone would keep much of the general membership informed as to what to expect of their officers.

Other than that to read that this was brought up without much of an effort to allow anyone from Oregon to present the other side is unfair.
273 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Mr. Karlan provided me with the text of his statement about Oregon:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/On-the-matter-of-the-Oregon-LP-Special-Convention-of-Novem%E2%80%A61.pdf

Someone else can post it as an article if so inclined.
274 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:50 pm

They are reassembling
275 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:52 pm

budget budge it
276 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Oaksun proposes budget alternatives
277 B4Liberty // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:04 pm

@269 – NV gets 9 or 10 delegates many of whom do not support W.A.R. The city selected will not make any difference to his campaign.
278 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Oaksun presents budget.

Philosophy perspective: Successful groups have discussion or agreement on objectives. Before we go into detailed budget organization ened to know where we want to go and how to get there.

One answer is to continue what we have done in the past.

Need inmy opinion to step back and ask what are we doing, what are we not doing that we should or vice versa. Then got to operational plans.

In 2000 had a 200 page docuemnt–not suggesting this. ExComm should step back look where we want to go, and match with our current environment.

Should we do so? Then decide what to do.

Option 2011 Option 2…Keep doing what we have been doing pending a strategic review. Everything we are currently doing will be funded and after strategic review can be reexamined in April at our next meeting.

Karlan: There is a bylaws option. If there is no budget. treasurer may approve expenses based on current budget month after month.

Someone: month to month looks ineffective. Do nto speak well of us. Better to adopt the current budget.

We must leave in fifty minutes. Ballot access needs structural assistance.

They actually have some hours available to discuss this. Q Where would ballot access be covered. A Under programs.

Propose to let the EC think and do mail ballot and conference calls.
279 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:06 pm

Flood says Oaksun proposals are not detailed enough, proposes we stay with 2010 budget until a more detailed budget is proposed. Mattson, Karlan agree, if I understand correctly.
280 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Wes Benedict says the proposed budget is specific enough for staff.
281 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Oaksun wants strategic review to take place before details.
282 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:28 pm

Someone: We dont shut down if we do not have a budget. We could just repeat last year’s budget. It’s even in the bylaws.

Mattson (fairly sure)The Policy manual says the ExComm and Executive Director shall develop a budget. Some years this was done in great detail. That kind of analysis has not been performed. The ExComm has not done this. I am not comfortable with calling something a budget if it has not received (suitable analysis?)

Discussion: 2010 budget had special rule for ballot access.

Someone attempts to explain why the ExComm did not present a budget.

Concern that ballot access is covered until we straighten out the ballot.

2010 budget had 13 lines. We can look at this, in detail, but what we passed was 13 lines.

Someone else claims that the budget had been prepared, and it was prepared int eh detail of 14 lines.

Someone: There is a budget here, btu historically the treasurer has been the driver of the budget. There were multihour phoen discussions. What ultimately passed was boiled down from that.

[GP: Those of you in San Dego will recall that only 14 lines were passed because the votes were not here for something more detailed.]

Oaksun: in the absence of detailed guidance, I could have spent 20 hours preparing something, but it would have been my guess as to what sort of strategy we wanted. THEN you present a detailed budget. That did not happen
so I am syaing let us take a step back and do it.

Redpath I am skeptical that a strategy process cna do something. 90% of what the party does happens at local levels. Strategy should be supporting strong state affiliates. Goes on his proportional representation idea.

Ruwart: We have a target of 20,000 members. We may need to spend something to get there. If we accept our goals, we may have to change the 2010 budget to make it a 2011 budget. Now that we passed those goals, we may need to act on them.

Pr of past strategic planning objective Need to discuss strategy.

Where is branding? Did we only spend $35 on branding? Really?WHere does branding fit in this. Assertion that $50,000 on branding.

Noted that a high-level budget was adopted.

I don’t see an appropriate amount of detail. Mattson quotes from bylaws, appears to sustain point that needed detail is not there.

We elected a new treasurer and our delegates trusted him to do his job.

Why didn’t you ask this question earlier this week? How much detail do you want? I can produce as much detail as you want, but in the absence of guidance as to what we want to do as an organization?

States are most important. What are we doing to create a positive environment for states to do things. If we ask states to do something good, we will get a lot of buy-in (Olsen). Look at this docuemnt. Activities. Affiliate support. Annual extrapolated plan $400. We need to do something about that. We’ve got issues out there. Mr. Oaksun is exact ly write. We need to establish strategic priorities so that Mr Oaksun knows what we want done.

Lark: I do not know why members voted for Oaksun. There is already a lot of discussion that has taken place. In some sense there was discussion supporting the old budget.

Ruwart: Don’t have enough details. Suggest the treasurer supply us with whatever level of details he thinks is needed. Have come to the point we clearly are not going to have a detailed budget.
283 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:37 pm

Lark: I do not know why members voted for Oaksun.

In text this sounds like he was slamming Oaksun. What I heard was more like, we can’t draw conclusions from Mr. Oaksun’s election that delegates wanted specific budget items passed or not passed. Not exactly that but closer to it.
284 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:40 pm

fyi. Just so no one is surprised. I mentioned this several times, including in this thread, but after this I will not be able to devote a lot of time to IPR (or be available by email, etc) for an unknown length of time. My computer access will be limited to colleges and city libraries, and will be time taken away from work, so hopefully other IPR writers will make up for it.
285 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:48 pm

We need to discuss this on LNC discuss and have a discussion.

Proposal:Annual goals are 80% of what we need.

Someone mumbling.

We need a detailed list of plans and objectives before we can deal with numbers. We have time to do this but first need to decide what we want to accomplish. How much cash would we need in order to get 48 states operational?

In a future discussion need to discuss operational issues not strategic issues. E.g. do we need a political director/what do we want done. We have no one reaching out to state chairs. [GP:isn't that the national chair?]
I don’t think we abandon the strategy of running good candidates at all levels.

Previously we knew what we spent not what we do in fine detail. Would like outline to show what we are doing with the money. We need an operational plan.

Policy manual: There is supposed to be a report two months before (I think this) to the LNC. It lists 16 things that are supposed to be reported .

We do not have the staff resources for something. Until we give some thought what we are trying to achieve…Got almost no feedback on strategic plan. Tried to start this discussion on these issues in June and there was almost no discussion. We might choose to do the same things, but lets pass through some process to decide that.

Oaksun: I did suggest in June that this be on the July agenda and it was not and there have been no discussions since.

Someone: This would better be done in a non-election year. Now is the time to think about it. How we do this, e.g., advertising, and focus on teh appropriate process for getting this done so that we get to an actual budget by, say February. We can’t do the work here, but we can set the process.

Can this be done by the start of the year?
Answer. Needs guidance. Notion that ExComm would supply leadership and decide seems to be missing from discussion.

ExComm can’t but staff can do this for the ExComm. If you want something like what was done in 2009, staff can prepare that.

Could we do something in 3 months. Olsen: Motion. Move that by 1st of year the ExComm provide the staff with strategic priorities and by Feb 1 the staff will have a proposed budget to be voted on by email ballot.

Can this be doen by the 1st of the year.

We have not procrastinated. We were scheduled to do this. The Executive Committee was supposed to have done this. To me to direct ExComm to do the job they were supposed to do? We are giving them an extension and a deadline. We have goals; they are mandates to the Excomm to address. Let’s let the excomm do that.

Hinkle: As a general rule when I notify people that there is an ExComm meeting anyone on the LNC including alternates is welcome to phone in.
286 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:51 pm

Redpath favors carrying forward 2010 budget
287 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Aye votes carry for Olsen motion 11-2. Nays were Weiner and Redpath. Lark and some other(s) abstained.
288 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 1:59 pm

Discussion of rides to airport.

ExComm member saying he is willing to do this.

Need to have tactics before EC comes up with budget. Strategic review by 1st of year, then incorporate by 1st of year into staff directives.

Need to get things going. Take gloves off and get it done.

Redpath speak in opposition. The bdugeted numebrs are annual numbers, We have not doena strategic or operational review. If we simply let the 2010 budget go into 2011 and then email devote a day of the next LNC meeting to a serious review. We should just continue with what we were doing and change it later.

Disagreement, we should just get going.

There are columns in the budget for actual fundraising to date and for budgeted fundraising for the full year. Question called. out of time.

Is there a motion on the floor? They are arguing this. They are voting on the Olsen motion above. It passes.

Move to allow the excomm to encumber funds for ballot access irrespective of the 1% policy manual rule.

How much are they allowed to encumber?
289 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Loud laughter.

Changed irrespective to notwithstanding. Question voted. Voting on main motion. Passes. More whisperers directly near our mike.
290 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:05 pm

11-1 Motion passed…I think lifting cap on ballot access encumbrance
291 Rodger Paxton // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:09 pm

Thanks, Paulie!
292 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Ruwart: we should be discussing strategic and operational issues and send them to the full committee or the excomm.

Lark Thanked Paulie for making the meeting available to the members.

Public comments or announcements.

Define what ‘sufficient’ “detailed” means for a budget. Not clear what detail the treasurer should present. Make it clear and he will present it.

Bylaws. Flaw. VP selection process. Almost guarantees that VP will not be an optimal choice. Let the Presidential candidate select one or two VP choices and the convention must choose from his choices.

Thank National party to address the TSA. The TSA has been terrorizing for long enough. Arkansas would be a good project. 80% of State legislative seats there are running unopposed. Greens are doing very well there and we could do the same.

Break and reconvene the Executive committee.
293 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:11 pm

@289 My pleasure. BTW I think they are about to kick me out of here again. 415-690-6352 if y’all want to talk some more.
294 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:12 pm

Meeting adjourns.

They failed to adopt a budget.

They will roll along with last year’s budget.
295 Rodger Paxton // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:13 pm

Kick you out? I thought they were wrapping up.
296 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:15 pm

We could use a distinct ‘discuss the meeting’ thread.
297 paulie // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:15 pm

I may have misunderstood, I think it is the Exec Comm that is or will be meeting, not executive session. Either way, I need to make calls, use restroom, eat, talk to people in person and on the phone etc and I imagine Rachel needs her computer back soon. So thanks for watching/listening/reading and commenting everyone and I’m off here!
298 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:21 pm

The Karlan Statement as given to Paulie:

On the matter of the Oregon LP Special Convention of November 6-7

I propose to clear the air on at least one extremely important point: there has been no
interference by the LNC with the LP of Oregon. The LNC has taken no action with
respect to the LPO, the EC has taken no action, and in this entire discussion there has
been no mention of any future action by the LNC.

The Chair attended the Special Convention, as an observer, as did the Secretary. There
was another LNC member in attendance, who participated entirely as a member of the
LPO. (The participation of M Carling will be discussed separately.) In addition, I
participated behind the scenes, in a manner and for reasons which I will go into in much
greater detail.

I will make an introductory statemen t, I will explain that statement, and then I will repeat
that statement for final emphasis.
The leadership of the LPO were on the verge of committing so flagrant and egregious
and far-reaching a transgression that intervention by the LNC would have been
practically imperative. That they did not is substantially owing to the presence of two
Professional Registered Parliamentarians, including the Secretary.

There were two crucial factors that would have composed this transgression, with one
related but tangential matter. The two crucial matters both relate to outright
disenfranchisement of legitimate LPO members. But first some explanation of how I
became aware of these factors, and why I played the role I did ultimately play.
Sometime about the middle of October, I was contacted by a member of the LPO who
was concerned about the developing situation regarding the runup to the Special
Convention of November 6-7. I was contacted simply because I am the Regional
Representative for region 5N, which includes Oregon. I might have also been contacted
because of my reputation for adherence to both rules and principles.

This person revealed to me some of the particulars regarding members who were not
allowed to participate at the upcoming Special Convention, yet who deserved to be so
allowed. That they were not going to be allowed was because the LPO leadership had
decided these people were not, in fact, members of the LPO, and this person believed
that decision represented a violation of the LPO Bylaws.

That Bylaws issue started earlier because the current LPO Bylaws do not appear to
provide for Life Memberships. The leadership decided that the change to the Bylaws
that implemented that exclusion thereby also cancelled all pre-existing Life
Memberships. That matter was taken before the Judicial Committee, which ruled in
favor of continuing to honor past Life Memberships. But the leadership continued to
treat SOME of those Life Members as no longer members – a total of near 3 dozen, in
fact.

This is where the tangential matter came into play. Some of you might have read that
the Judicial Committee (JC) is currently deadlocked at 2-2. You might have wondered
how it is that the JC has an even number of members. In fact, the LPO Bylaws call for 5
members of the JC. In anger with the decision of the Judicial Committee to insist on
restoration of Life Members, a petition was circulated recalling the Chair of the JC, Ms
Christiana Mayer. The success of that petition rested on the exclusion from the
membership rolls of those 3 dozen Life Members. If they had been counted, the recall
petition would have failed. But because those 3 dozen Life Members had been rejected,
the recall petition was argued to have succeeded.

That is the flagrant transgression.

The person who contacted me also mentioned that he had signed up on the order of 15
new members prior to October 5. That date is important. The Bylaws require that in
order to be able to vote, a person must have been a member of the LPO for at least 30
days. The cutoff date for voting in the Special Convention then was October 6. The 15
members signed up by October 5 should have been entitled to vote at the Special
Convention. But the leadership of the LPO decided to ‘review’ 13 of those 15
memberships – on the authority, as conveyed to me, that because the Bylaws don’t
prohibit such review, the leadership is therefore allowed to conduct that review.

Because the review was not completed before the October 6 deadline, it was argued
that those 13 members would not be eligible to vote at the Special Convention.

That was half of the egregious nature of the transgression.

The other half was the refusal to allow those 3 dozen or so Life Members to be
recognized as members of the LPO eligible to vote at the Special Convention.
That was the other half of the egregious nature of the transgression.

But none of that would have implicated involvement of the LNC. I would have been
among those strenuously arguing that while the Bylaws violations were flagrant and
egregious, they remained a matter internal to the LPO, for Libertarians in Oregon to
settle. What made the transgression far-reaching was the purpose of the Special
Convention.

The Special Convention was called specifically to revise the Bylaws of the LPO. As
soon as I was informed of this aspect, a direct connection between the LPO and the
LNC was clear in my mind. Within a fraction of a second, I saw the connection: if the
revision of the Bylaws was conducted at a Special Convention at which legitimate LPO
members had been disenfranchised, then all future actions taken under cover of the
new Bylaws would be null and void. Such action would have included election of new
officers at their regular Convention early next year, and in particular would have
extended to the selection of the delegates to the 2012 National LP Convention.
While I have great respect for the people who have served and continue to serve on our
Credentials Committee, I have reason to believe they would not have taken the drastic
step of refusing to credential every LPO delegate on the basis of their Bylaws as of
2012 having been revised at an illegitimate Special Convention. Or if they had made
such an unprecedented decision, the rest of the Convention delegates would probably
have overridden that decision. What I saw therefore was that the events of the Special
Convention of early November 2010 would have rippled directly to the National LP
Convention in 2012, and would have rendered highly suspect every decision made at
that National Convention.

That was the far-reaching aspect of the transgression. Had the Special Convention
come off as planned, and the LPO Bylaws been revised, the LNC would have HAD to
become involved, because the illegal events in Oregon in early November 2010 would
have poisoned the entire National LP Convention in 2012, if allowed to stand.
But that’s not all. The adoption of the highly controversial Bylaws revision would have
encouraged the LPO to splinter into two organizations, each claiming legitimacy as THE
Oregon affiliate. This would have been a repeat of the 1995 mess, in which the LNC
had to become involved to resolve the dispute that could not be settled locally.

I saw those connections practically instantly when I learned of the purpose of this
Special Convention. At that point, I realized expert help was needed. (I would have
been unable to attend in any case – ironically, because of a prior commitment to attend
the Annual Convention of the New Jersey State Association of Parliamentarians, the
New Jersey affiliate of the National Association of Parliamentarians. We were slated to
adopt a Bylaws revision, and I was on that Bylaws Committee, so my attendance at that
Convention was required.)

So while I do have some credentials in this regard, being a member of the National
Association of Parliamentarians, I knew of two others with much greater credentials. Ms.
Mattson, the LP Secretary, is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP), and Mr.
Carling, also a PRP, is not only a member of the LPO but an important contributor to the
construction of the current Bylaws of the LPO. I informed the person who initially
contacted me that I would bring those two individuals into this discussion, with the hope
that one or both of them would be able to attend the Special Convention to be on hand
to advise them of the serious Parliamentary questions that had arisen.

Over the course of the next several weeks, I
first urged Ms. Mattson and Mr. Carling to
attend the Special Convention – one of them as an observer, the other as a member
with particular interest in their Bylaws – and also assisted in further discussions
regarding gathering the essential evidence in support of the claims of Bylaws violations.
These included, for example, statements from many of those 35 Life Members, as well
as from the 13 new members. The evidence also included e-mail exchanges between
the LPO leadership and this person regarding these memberships.

Armed with that evidence, and hoping to avoid the far-reaching consequences, Ms.
Mattson and Mr. Carling flew to Oregon for the Special Convention. The role they
played will be reported separately.
To repeat: The leadership of the LPO were on the verge of committing so flagrant and
egregious and far-reaching a transgression that intervention by the LNC would have
been practically imperative.

I took my actions not to involve the LNC but to try to avoid involving the LNC.

Dan Karlan
LP and NJLP Life Member
Libertarian since 1969
299 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:25 pm

The lack of a preview command means that somethings two passes are needed. Here we go again:

On the matter of the Oregon LP Special Convention of November 6-7

I propose to clear the air on at least one extremely important point: there has been no interference by the LNC with the LP of Oregon. The LNC has taken no action with respect to the LPO, the EC has taken no action, and in this entire discussion there has been no mention of any future action by the LNC.

The Chair attended the Special Convention, as an observer, as did the Secretary. There was another LNC member in attendance, who participated entirely as a member of the LPO. (The participation of M Carling will be discussed separately.) In addition, I participated behind the scenes, in a manner and for reasons which I will go into in much greater detail.

I will make an introductory statemen t, I will explain that statement, and then I will repeat that statement for final emphasis.

The leadership of the LPO were on the verge of committing so flagrant and egregious and far-reaching a transgression that intervention by the LNC would have been practically imperative. That they did not is substantially owing to the presence of two Professional Registered Parliamentarians, including the Secretary.

There were two crucial factors that would have composed this transgression, with one related but tangential matter. The two crucial matters both relate to outright disenfranchisement of legitimate LPO members. But first some explanation of how I became aware of these factors, and why I played the role I did ultimately play. ometime about the middle of October, I was contacted by a member of the LPO who was concerned about the developing situation regarding the runup to the Special Convention of November 6-7. I was contacted simply because I am the Regional Representative for region 5N, which includes Oregon. I might have also been contacted because of my reputation for adherence to both rules and principles.

This person revealed to me some of the particulars regarding members who were not allowed to participate at the upcoming Special Convention, yet who deserved to be so allowed. That they were not going to be allowed was because the LPO leadership had decided these people were not, in fact, members of the LPO, and this person believed that decision represented a violation of the LPO Bylaws.

That Bylaws issue started earlier because the current LPO Bylaws do not appear to provide for Life Memberships. The leadership decided that the change to the Bylaws that implemented that exclusion thereby also cancelled all pre-existing Life Memberships. That matter was taken before the Judicial Committee, which ruled in favor of continuing to honor past Life Memberships. But the leadership continued to treat SOME of those Life Members as no longer members – a total of near 3 dozen, in fact.

This is where the tangential matter came into play. Some of you might have read that the Judicial Committee (JC) is currently deadlocked at 2-2. You might have wondered how it is that the JC has an even number of members. In fact, the LPO Bylaws call for 5 members of the JC. In anger with the decision of the Judicial Committee to insist on restoration of Life Members, a petition was circulated recalling the Chair of the JC, Ms Christiana Mayer. The success of that petition rested on the exclusion from the membership rolls of those 3 dozen Life Members. If they had been counted, the recall petition would have failed. But because those 3 dozen Life Members had been rejected, the recall petition was argued to have succeeded.

That is the flagrant transgression.

The person who contacted me also mentioned that he had signed up on the order of 15 new members prior to October 5. That date is important. The Bylaws require that in order to be able to vote, a person must have been a member of the LPO for at least 30 days. The cutoff date for voting in the Special Convention then was October 6. The 15 members signed up by October 5 should have been entitled to vote at the Special Convention. But the leadership of the LPO decided to ‘review’ 13 of those 15 memberships – on the authority, as conveyed to me, that because the Bylaws don’t prohibit such review, the leadership is therefore allowed to conduct that review. Because the review was not completed before the October 6 deadline, it was argued that those 13 members would not be eligible to vote at the Special Convention.

That was half of the egregious nature of the transgression.

The other half was the refusal to allow those 3 dozen or so Life Members to be recognized as members of the LPO eligible to vote at the Special Convention.

That was the other half of the egregious nature of the transgression.

But none of that would have implicated involvement of the LNC. I would have been among those strenuously arguing that while the Bylaws violations were flagrant and egregious, they remained a matter internal to the LPO, for Libertarians in Oregon to settle. What made the transgression far-reaching was the purpose of the Special Convention.

The Special Convention was called specifically to revise the Bylaws of the LPO. As soon as I was informed of this aspect, a direct connection between the LPO and the LNC was clear in my mind. Within a fraction of a second, I saw the connection: if the revision of the Bylaws was conducted at a Special Convention at which legitimate LPO members had been disenfranchised, then all future actions taken under cover of the new Bylaws would be null and void. Such action would have included election of new officers at their regular Convention early next year, and in particular would have extended to the selection of the delegates to the 2012 National LP Convention.

While I have great respect for the people who have served and continue to serve on our Credentials Committee, I have reason to believe they would not have taken the drastic step of refusing to credential every LPO delegate on the basis of their Bylaws as of 2012 having been revised at an illegitimate Special Convention. Or if they had made such an unprecedented decision, the rest of the Convention delegates would probably have overridden that decision. What I saw therefore was that the events of the Special Convention of early November 2010 would have rippled directly to the National LP Convention in 2012, and would have rendered highly suspect every decision made at that National Convention.

That was the far-reaching aspect of the transgression. Had the Special Convention come off as planned, and the LPO Bylaws been revised, the LNC would have HAD to become involved, because the illegal events in Oregon in early November 2010 would have poisoned the entire National LP Convention in 2012, if allowed to stand. But that’s not all. The adoption of the highly controversial Bylaws revision would have encouraged the LPO to splinter into two organizations, each claiming legitimacy as THE Oregon affiliate. This would have been a repeat of the 1995 mess, in which the LNC had to become involved to resolve the dispute that could not be settled locally.

I saw those connections practically instantly when I learned of the purpose of this Special Convention. At that point, I realized expert help was needed. (I would have been unable to attend in any case – ironically, because of a prior commitment to attend the Annual Convention of the New Jersey State Association of Parliamentarians, the New Jersey affiliate of the National Association of Parliamentarians. We were slated to adopt a Bylaws revision, and I was on that Bylaws Committee, so my attendance at that Convention was required.)

So while I do have some credentials in this regard, being a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians, I knew of two others with much greater credentials. Ms. Mattson, the LP Secretary, is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP), and Mr. Carling, also a PRP, is not only a member of the LPO but an important contributor to the construction of the current Bylaws of the LPO. I informed the person who initially contacted me that I would bring those two individuals into this discussion, with the hope that one or both of them would be able to attend the Special Convention to be on hand to advise them of the serious Parliamentary questions that had arisen.

Over the course of the next several weeks, I first urged Ms. Mattson and Mr. Carling to attend the Special Convention – one of them as an observer, the other as a member with particular interest in their Bylaws – and also assisted in further discussions regarding gathering the essential evidence in support of the claims of Bylaws violations.

These included, for example, statements from many of those 35 Life Members, as well as from the 13 new members. The evidence also included e-mail exchanges between the LPO leadership and this person regarding these memberships.

Armed with that evidence, and hoping to avoid the far-reaching consequences, Ms. Mattson and Mr. Carling flew to Oregon for the Special Convention. The role they played will be reported separately.

To repeat: The leadership of the LPO were on the verge of committing so flagrant and egregious and far-reaching a transgression that intervention by the LNC would have been practically imperative.

I took my actions not to involve the LNC but to try to avoid involving the LNC.

Dan Karlan
LP and NJLP Life Member
Libertarian since 1969
300 Rodger Paxton // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:33 pm

Thanks Dr. Phillies and Paulie for keeping us informed!
301 NRPs Rule! // Nov 21, 2010 at 2:58 pm

That’s right folks, these aloof NRPs own you!

Who cares if your name is Abe Lincoln, Joe Schmo? If you didn’t either become “pay through the nose” life member of the LP, or pay $3000. to be a NRP, than you don’t exist!

Who cares about you? The elite snobs with money rule.
302 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 21, 2010 at 3:23 pm

Bylaws. Flaw. VP selection process. Almost guarantees that VP will not be an optimal choice. Let the Presidential candidate select one or two VP choices and the convention must choose from his choices.

This aspect of our bylaws is a feature, not a bug. An attempt to change it is an attempt to make our party work more like one of the legacy parties.
303 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 21, 2010 at 3:38 pm

While I have great respect for the people who have served and continue to serve on our Credentials Committee, I have reason to believe they would not have taken the drastic step of refusing to credential every LPO delegate on the basis of their Bylaws as of 2012 having been revised at an illegitimate Special Convention. Or if they had made such an unprecedented decision, the rest of the Convention delegates would probably have overridden that decision. What I saw therefore was that the events of the Special Convention of early November 2010 would have rippled directly to the National LP Convention in 2012, and would have rendered highly suspect every decision made at that National Convention.

Shorter Karlan:
I don’t trust the convention delegates to do what I think they should do, so I sent Mattson and Carling to Oregon to derail their convention and ensure tge outcome I think is right.
304 Jill Pyeatt // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:15 pm

Can someone clarify what the change was that was voted in from the Nolan resolution?
305 Robert Milnes // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:32 pm

Catholic Trotskyist @181-2, I didn’t mean Rand is running. I meant that Ron is surely going to run in the GOP primaries. Another 35 million is at stake. Of course he knows he can’t win. He knew that in 2008. But now that Rand is tea party Senator, that creates an interesting dynamic where I don’t see how campaigning together or at least Rand occasionally joining Ron on the campaign trail seems inevitable.
306 Chuck Moulton // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Thanks to Paulie Canoli and George Phillies for reporting on the LNC meeting!
307 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:38 pm

To summarize:

LNC fails to pass budget.

LNC hears one-sided report on Oregon.

LNC launches lock up a million dollars or some similar amount in a building in DC.

LNC allocates money for ballot access and places no limit on amount.

LNC puts National Convention in a luxury resort a $50 cab ride from the airport.

LNC refuses to consider Florida Resolution.

LNC refuses to consider Ruwart’s secret list issue.

LNC elects Bylaws committee: Starr Karlan Morris Carling Goddard Rutherford Johnston Oates Kirkland Moulton

Root reports LNCC spent $7500 on candidate support in 2010. The LNC spends no money in support of specific candidates.

Flood reports on extremely interesting path to make drastic improvement in LNC phone system and affiliate phone systems.

Ruwart reports membership for the year is completely flat, and no one appears concerned.

LNC ExComm had failed to carry out its mission to prepare a detailed budget.
308 Jill Pyeatt // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:41 pm

Wow, thanks for the wrap-up, George.

I’m even more depressed now than before the weekend started.
309 Chuck Moulton // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:43 pm

George Phillies wrote (@252):

Ruwart: I spoke to chair and VIce Chair of Oregon. Also had material form Chuck Moulton and very diffeernt rule interpretation. I am not saying our secrety is wrong but someitmes things cna be interpreted differently. When Moulton reviewed Oregon positions, other state parties have the same rule problem. Did not thinnk it was necessary to disrupt OR convention. CHair is now not sure that he should have beleived claims of LNC members.

Paulie Canoli wrote (@271):

Mr. Karlan provided me with the text of his statement about Oregon:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/On-the-matter-of-the-Oregon-LP-Special-Convention-of-Novem%E2%80%A61.pdf

Just to be clear:

It is my opinion that Oregon’s bylaws were misinterpreted with respect to quorum issues and that such misinterpretation could be similarly misapplied to many other state (or county) parties.

My opinion was here:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/oregon-libertarian-convention-broadcasting-live/comment-page-2/#comment-275059

I did not discuss or disagree with Dan Karlan’s claims about life memberships and new memberships allegedly being mishandled, which would be serious problems.
310 NewFederalist // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:44 pm

*SIGH* I sure wish Murray was still with us.
311 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:54 pm

Ruwart was also “shocked” that the issue was dropped on the LPO state chair and vice chair with no warning.
312 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:55 pm

At least one LNC member noted that almost everything happens at the affiliate level, and the LNC budget for affiliate support was $400.
313 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:05 pm

Nick @ 300,

While the “legacy parties” do ratify their presidential nominee’s choice for VP in practice, even they haven’t changed their bylaws to prevent the convention from nominating and choosing anyone it damn well pleases.

The Democrats have some minimum number of delegates required to nominate a VP candidate. In 2004, there was an organized effort to get enough delegates to put Howard Dean up versus John Kerry’s chosen running mate (John Edwards).
314 Libertarian Voter // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:17 pm

Yes they struck down the Florida resolution!
315 Libertarian Voter // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:18 pm

However, in my opinion, the convention was a flop. I am ashamed that the LNC ran such a lousy convention.
316 Nicholas Sarwark // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:22 pm

Yes they struck down the Florida resolution!

Not so much struck down as didn’t act on it. The resolution was still passed by the FL LP.
317 Michael H. Wilson // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:23 pm

Two weeks ago I heard an elected politician say that “The most powerful force in politics wasn’t money. It’s inertia”.

in•er•tia
n.
1. Physics The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.
2. Resistance or disinclination to motion, action, or change: the inertia of an entrenched bureaucracy.

MW
318 George Phillies // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:37 pm

They refused to include discussion of the Florida resolution in their agenda.
319 Carol Moore // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:56 pm

WHO came up with the Bylaws idea on VP?
320 Jill Pyeatt // Nov 21, 2010 at 6:28 pm

I am very sorry to report that David Nolan died this morning.
321 George Whitfield // Nov 21, 2010 at 6:34 pm

Thank you Paulie Canolli and George Phillips for the reporting.
322 Stewart Flood // Nov 21, 2010 at 7:20 pm

Horrible news.
323 Michael Seebeck // Nov 22, 2010 at 1:26 am

Chuck @307 has the accurate analysis of the LPOR situation.

When RONR is used as a club to prevent things from moving forward or being fixed, it’s a problem.

I too, looked at the LPOR situation and arrived at exactly the same conclusion as Chuck, although not as in-depth. Considering that Mattson is nowhere near as smart as she thinks she is when it comes to Bylaws and RONR (as I keep illustrating by wiping her out all the time), and that Carling helped write the mess that is LPOR’s Bylaws, any credibility they may claim is seriously in doubt.
324 LNCrackhead // Nov 27, 2010 at 5:41 pm

Archives:

http://www.justin.tv/lnc7/videos

Just in case anyone who missed itwants to watch the “action”….

Covering America's third parties and independent candidates since May 2008

contact.ipr@gmail.com

Categories

Recent Comments

Calendar

Archives

contact.ipr@gmail.com

Contributors' Blogs

News Sources

Other Blogs

Party Websites

Readers' Blogs

Tech Links

Meta

LNC Meeting Comment Thread (New Orleans, Nov. 20-21)

November 20th, 2010 · 324 Comments

324 responses so far ↓

Leave a Comment

Search It!

Recent Entries

Contributors' Blogs

Readers' Blogs

News Sources

Other Blogs

Party Websites

Tech Links

contact.ipr@gmail.com

Covering America's third parties and independent candidates since May 2008  contact.ipr@gmail.com

Categories

Recent Comments

Tags

Calendar

Archives

contact.ipr@gmail.com

Contributors' Blogs

News Sources

Other Blogs

Party Websites

Readers' Blogs

Tech Links

Meta

LNC Meeting Comment Thread (New Orleans, Nov. 20-21)

November 20th, 2010 · 324 Comments

324 responses so far ↓

Leave a Comment

Search It!

Recent Entries

Contributors' Blogs

Readers' Blogs

News Sources

Other Blogs

Party Websites

Tech Links

contact.ipr@gmail.com

Covering America's third parties and independent candidates since May 2008

contact.ipr@gmail.com