216 thoughts on “LNC Meeting (March 2012 in Orlando, FL)

  1. Pingback: LNC Meeting Feed | Independent Political Report

  2. paulie

    Relevant comments from previous thread

    (at least most of them are about the LNC meeting, with a few exceptions):

    Joe // Mar 10, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Anyone covering the LNC meeting this weekend?

    80George Phillies // Mar 10, 2012 at 9:07 am

    @79 trying to find out

    81Carol Moore // Mar 10, 2012 at 10:01 am

    Hmmm… first we have a non=explanation of what an “open thread” – “hey stupid, go look around and figure it out.” Then we have a long explanation of – not an open thread? IndepPolReport Policy? Not clear what. Not very good editorial practice, IMHO.

    82paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 10:19 am

    Marc copied the text from two of my past open threads and combined them, apparently. I would have just went with the first line and left it at that, as I have been doing more recently.

    83Doug Craig // Mar 10, 2012 at 10:21 am

    I am at the meeting right now. Look at replacing Randy Eshelman on the LNC .

    84paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 10:31 am

    Anyone covering the LNC meeting this weekend?

    I tried to recruit someone to broadcast it. As far as I know at this point I have not had any luck with that.

    85paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 10:34 am

    I am at the meeting right now. Look at replacing Randy Eshelman on the LNC .

    Doug, is anyone broadcasting it? Tweeting? If so, where’s the feed?

    If not, does anyone have a computer with a webcam and someone else in the gallery that can push the buttons?

    Also, I haven’t received that email I called you about. If you get a chance to send it I would really appreciate it.

    86LNC MEETING UP // Mar 10, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Flickboy2 is source

    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/this-is-my-meeting

    87LNC MEETING UP // Mar 10, 2012 at 10:48 am

    I will do some delayed coverage. If you goo to the source, you see the video from the start.

    88LNC MEETING UP // Mar 10, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Doug Craig is being elected to the APRC.

    89LNC MEETING UP // Mar 10, 2012 at 10:59 am

    They are discussing an executive session. Some people are very hard to hear . Issues include the LSLA-IT matter, the Oregon lawsuit and the LNC’s local attorney’s involvement in it. Tehre are presentations at 2PM so there is a cutoff on executive session times. Aaron Starr is apparently being invited in to part of the executive session.

    90paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 10:59 am

    Streaming video by Ustream

    91LNC MEETING UP // Mar 10, 2012 at 11:00 am

    And they have gone into execution session, so the signal is gone.

    92LNC MEETING NOW DOWN // Mar 10, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Executive session.

    These messages brought you by George Phillies.

    93Wes Wagner // Mar 10, 2012 at 11:05 am

    @92

    What was professed subject of executive session?

    94paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 11:06 am

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-8-2012/the-socialist-network

    95paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 11:10 am

    @94 Featuring the Socialist Organizer Party, which I don’t remember hearing about before, and Wayne Root.

    96paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 11:11 am

    Re LNC meeting

    Is anyone tweeting it?

    97Wes Wagner // Mar 10, 2012 at 11:12 am

    @94

    That last part of the segment totally made it worth it

    98paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 11:13 am

    My email to IPR writers sent a few minutes ago:

    …..I’m still on break from posting IPR threads myself due to my lack of access to computers that don’t totally suck at the moment. I also need to get my butt out to work today, hopefully sooner rather than later. After I leave here for the day I will not be on email but phone calls and texts at 415-690-6352 would be good.

    ………….

    Someone please post article to ipr

    thx

    …………

    99LNC MEETING STILL OFF AIR // Mar 10, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Phillies writes:

    Friday noon. LNC still off air.

    100LNC MEETING STILL OFF AIR // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    @93 The issues I could hear included “the LSLA-IT matter, the Oregon lawsuit and the LNC’s local attorney’s involvement in it”. ma not sure that list is complete.

    Phillies writes:
    Saturday noon. LNC still off air.

    101Mark Hilgenberg // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    George,

    When you get to the floor fee debate, let them know states are on your side.

    The Utah EC voted to approve this resolution today.

    “Whereas the Libertarian Party bylaws do not authorize a floor fee for delegates, whereas in forty years of LP conventions no attempt to impose a floor fee on delegates has ever been sustained, and whereas the imposition of any floor fee constitutes an unjustified interference in the right of the affiliate parties to select their own delegates to the national convention, therefore the Utah LP hereby rebukes the convention oversight committee’s attempt to impose such a fee as a condition of delegates performing their function at the business meeting, urges the LNC to reverse the proposed floor fee, and encourages our delegates to oppose, and if necessary make motions from the floor to invalidate, any such fee as it may be used to prevent any delegate from access to the business of the convention.”

    102paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    George is covering this remotely form the ustream feed.

    Maryland passed one of those resolutions also.

    103Jonathan Loesche // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    So any word on the floor fee or the 2016 convention?

    104paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    Seems that much of or all of the meeting might be executive session? Is that going to become the new norm? I guess the trend has been heading that way for years.

    Or, did the stream just not come back on because someone forgot to turn it back on or had computer problems or something?

    If anyone knows of other tweet feeds about it, other feeds etc please post.

    105paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Talked to John Wayne Smith …still exec session, he will try to find some other feeds

    106paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    Reportedly Brett Pojunis, recently made Region 4 alternate, has now replaced Randy Eshelman as LNC At Large Rep

    107paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    GRRR.

    I guess I’ll put up the thread.

    I really hate having to do it just because no one else will.

    108Marc Montoni // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Regarding the article header… Never posted an open thread before, pulled text as Paulie said. Sorry if it doesn’t suit the libercops.

    Why isn’t there a DC committee again?

    Regarding LNC meeting, there is now an article up for posts about it.

    109LNC Meeting Thread | Independent Political Report // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    [...] Comments Marc Montoni on March 2012 Open ThreadWes Wagner on LNC Meeting (March 2012 in Orlando, FL)paulie on March 2012 Open Threadpaulie on March [...]

    110Marc Montoni // Mar 10, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Sorry Paulie, have been out and about with some small people who live in my house. There’s a lady who also lives in my house, who says she’s my wife, who says they’re my kids. I’m sure she means well, so I have to believe her. Heading out and about again in a few minutes. Love the company of the cops mentioned above, of course, but love running around the local arboretum with these guys so much more.

    Have a good day petitioning.

    111paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    Marc,

    No slam was intended at you or any one individual personally, we have about 30 people signed up at IPR now so I was hoping that between all of them someone would be around to do it.

    It looks like we posted our articles at almost the same time, so I turned mine into just the live feed article and yours can be the one for posting comments.

    112paulie // Mar 10, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    And thanks!

    LEAVE A COMMENT
    Logged in as paulie. Logout »

  3. Marc Montoni

    @93 The issues I could hear included “the LSLA-IT matter

    This is supposed to be a database solution for state affiliates.

    I find it extremely annoying that apparently NONE of the state database administrators have been asked what they need in a database solution. Someone just decided to write up a 300-some page proposal and is bypassing entirely finding out what states actually need — and the LNC appears to be buying it.

    I am always surprised at the collective lack of common sense exhibited by the LNC. Various members at times have keen insights; but most decision-making seems done with “dartboard management”.

  4. Wes Wagner

    MM @4

    You presume the purpose of the project is to succeed rather than a half-baked plot that was sold to some other well meaning people who thinks its a good idea to just spread a little money around to buy the loyalties of the people of ethical caliber that are swayed by such things.

  5. Wes Wagner

    Paulie @7

    Surprise Surprise ;)

    This is just classic cronyism and enterprise corruption, and has Starr’s fingerprints all over it.

    Will the delegates choose something different?

    The first clue that something is not what it seems to be is when you have to advertise about what it is.

    If you show up and there is a large banner advertising “The Party of Principle” … that is your first clue that it probably isn’t. If it were, you wouldn’t need to advertise it… you would be a lighthouse to the world through your deed.

  6. Wes Wagner

    Were there any actions voted on immediately after exec sessions ended or was it just alot of talk?

  7. Carol Moore

    108Marc Montoni // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    Why isn’t there a DC committee again? John Vaught LeBeaume (on facebook) who the LP office recognizes as the only remaining elected officer (even though by constitution he long ago lost that position) has repeatedly told me he intends to hold one. Maybe if you facebook him he’ll do it. Guess I’ll tell him I’m calling up LP office monday to get the list if he doesn’t.

  8. Carol Moore

    Jonathan Loesche // @13: 2004 was Indiana which isn’t the east coast :-) DC in 1998 was last east coast – and I agree. East Coast.

  9. Carol Moore

    Just like in Congress, people hate the body but love their representatives, no matter how corrupt they are. Or at least they vote for them for whatever blinking reason. — So no resolution yet to dump the Chair? That’s a good sign.

  10. Carol Moore

    Hartz left LP office and DC a year or more ago. I don’t remember ever getting meeting announcements for any meetings in DC for last 5 or 6 years, just found stuff on internet when searched. There’s a DC libertarian meetup site dominated by Bruce Majors who mostly post republican/tea party stuff; little LP interest. I’ve been chair twice and other offices several times and just don’t have a lot of energy for chasing around the transient libertarians who tend to work for more conservative organizations in DC. Want to move somewhere there’s a more permanent base of organizers so I don’t get stuck with all the work and hassle. VA and PA on top of list. (MD STILL chasing me around for 20 year old taxes so the heck with ‘em!!)

  11. Carol Moore

    Atlanta. I was there. How could I forget the pollen?? Well, I guess that’s east coast, though they might not admit it.

  12. paulie

    Atlanta is not on the coast, although some other parts of Georgia are.

    Hartz was still in DC for some time after no longer working at LPHQ. If he has moved out this is the first I have heard of that.

    Whatever happened to the plan to have an LP convention in Texas? When they selected Vegas over Dallas for 2012 people said Texas would get either 2014 or 2016.

  13. Carol Moore

    Marc Montoni @29: “Frankly, I hope the national office considers carefully. There are some people I just wouldn’t *want* to have access to my private data.” Like when Marianne Volpe was chair and you wouldn’t let her have it?? Don’t worry, I’ll never run for Chair of the VA party. I’m not suicidal. Sorry if I’m not willing to be part of “Marc’s Mafia” as you call it on your web page.

  14. Carol Moore

    But if you WANT there to be a DC meeting and You’ve now made it clear you’ll sabotage my attempts to hold a meeting, do you think you’d like to do it. Hey, if it helps, I won’t even come.

  15. Marc Montoni

    Once again, Moore opens her tremendous mouth about subjects about which she knows nothing.

    The individual you cite received the same data distributions from the national LP while she was chair that I received while I was chair.

    Why isn’t the DCLP organized, again? No excuses, no blaming others, just answer.

    You want to control everyone around you so desperately, that you have no time to organize local libertarians once or twice a month. You don’t even need the national database — meetup has a ready-made list of local libertarians waiting just for you. Your time could be spent so much more productively.

  16. Carol Moore

    Oh, and there wasn’t another big list of non-national members?? Don’t make me review my copious records of all the help that was withheld from Marianne, not to mention the personal attacks. The meetup is NOT the full list of DC members which must be contacted to call a meeting under DC constitution. And at this point they are only giving it to someone who was elected last time around. That ain’t me and I’m sure you’ll be on the phone first thing Monday morning to make sure it is not me.

  17. Carol Moore

    Anyway, back to topic. Is that OUR HERO Wayne Root sitting in the corner closest to the camera. He’s SO exciting… :-)

  18. Marc Montoni

    Hah! Yet another in your long litany of excuses! Now I’m going to “sabotage” a meeting I’d have to drive 100 miles to attend. What a control freak! Would you even invite me?

    Really, you should do stand-up!

    I don’t really have any clue what you think I can do from 100 miles away to sabotage anything you can motivate yourself to get up off the couch enough to put together, so please feel free to self-start. You have so many advantages — large very localized and provincial population, many available venues, heightened political interest merely because it’s the political capitol of the world… An active Libertarian group is a natural fit.

    You just have too many excuses; but none that hold water.

    Use your time for productive endeavors. There should be Libertarians attending every city council meeting. All the bile you spew at me and the various population groups you’re prejudiced against could be much better spewed at the people who really are deserving of it. The council meets twice a month, I believe.

    Nothing stopping you, controllfreakanomous. Go for it. I’ll stay the hell out of your way, gladly. If you actually manage to organize a group and hammer the council into changing a few things, hell, I might even make a cash donation to your efforts, if you want it.

    Use your time for productive endeavors.

    Use your time for productive endeavors.

    Use your time for productive endeavors.

  19. Doug Craig

    Orlando has offered the best deal. Mr. Said he would pay for the opening sinner out of his pocket. Plus they are offering the beat deal on hotel prices

  20. paulie

    OK lovebirds. We have the rental car so now I really am outta here.

    Phone calls and texts to keep me updated on LNC inaction will be appreciated at 415-690-6352.

  21. Phil Laibe

    Hoping it goes to Jax, If they pick LA they are out of touch with fairness as many Libertarians live in the east and the current convention is in the west.

    There may be some cost offsets that help Jax compete with Orlando like cheap/free parking in Jax on the weekend and cheap food ($5-$10)at this place called the Landing which has a 2nd floor with a food court.

    Hopefully the LNC does consider cost but the fact that the Jax hotel is on the water and has open air meeting rooms shouldn’t be under estimated. Also, you can smoke there. Orlando is smoke free.

  22. Carol Moore

    Pauli 37: “OK lovebirds.” — So you think there IS some unacknowledge SEXUAL tension going on here. I always thought I saw longing looks 20 years ago when I was such a fox…

  23. Stewart Flood

    A slight correction to what Doug said: Mr Rosen offered to cover the cost of an opening reception for up to 500 people for an hour and a half.

    It has been very interesting to see the bidding between the three finalists. They all want our convention and they are revising their bids literally as they are making their presentations.

    The Rosen Centre bid is $95/night with up to four occupancy without additional fees. I agree that this appears to be the best price at the moment. We obviously have to look at all the costs during our deliberation.

    This will be an interesting selection process. We have three very good finalists.

  24. Phil Laibe

    I also feel that Jax is more accessible for drivers. Have driven from Jax FL to Southern Ohio in 11 hours. Also, the hotel in Jax is a few hundred feet from an exit off I-95 and Jax is also intersected by I-10.

  25. Stewart Flood

    As far as executive session is concerned, we are not permitted to comment on the topics discussed or the nature of the discussion.

    But to this question of turning off the feed during voting: We have taken no votes or had any motions made since early this morning.

    We sat through the presentations by the three finalists, but we have taken no vote. We are currently discussing ballot access, which was scheduled for 4:30pm to allow representatives from several states to join us.

  26. Joe

    I’m confused . . . did anything productive get accomplished today? Is the meeting still going on? Maybe someone could post “Today’s Results” after the meeting adjourns for the day?

  27. Stewart Flood

    The meeting is still going on. We’ve been out of executive session for about an hour. Several of us (about half) want to keep going and get things done.

    I just looked over, and I see that the broadcast does not appear to be online right now.

    A summary of today’s results? Ummm….we had some pretty good cookies after lunch…no…guess that doesn’t count…

  28. Stewart Flood

    The topic of floor fees is likely to be discussed when the convention committee report is presented. That should be tomorrow morning.

    Yes there was actually some constructive work. Mr Redpath asked for funding for ballot access in several states. His request was approved.

    Infrastructure? My IT committee report tomorrow may prove interesting, but I will keep you in suspense.

  29. Stewart Flood

    Certainly. I would probably write more during the meeting, but we’ve been dealing with so many things that require executive session.

    The split on voting this meeting is really strange. There have been several votes where the only opposition has been either myself (1) or just me and Dr Ruwart (2) or her, me, Doug Craig and maybe one other (4 or 5 votes).

    The issues are not ones of radical vs non-radical. I do not see that as the dividing line on this board.

  30. paulie

    Thanks for helping to keep us updated Stewart. I sent you that reminder email we mentioned on the phone.

    Doug gets the win for hilarious typos tho:

    Orlando has offered the best deal. Mr. Said he would pay for the opening sinner out of his pocket. Plus they are offering the beat deal on hotel prices

    Is everyone getting in a Vegas state of mind already or what? Lulz…

  31. Marc Montoni

    Infrastructure? My IT committee report tomorrow may prove interesting, but I will keep you in suspense.

    It would be better if you wouldn’t.

    Is your report going to include the LSLA IT proposal? If so, please explain why no state database admins were asked for suggestions/requirements for any future affiliate data solution.

    Thanks!

  32. Wes Wagner

    MM @55

    Because the project is about minor but perhaps legally defensible financial embezzlement/payola for what will be a failed project. :)

    Asking people questions would possibly cause it to become recognized that the project is doomed to failure and they the money won’t get approved/distributed.

  33. paulie

    Marc,

    I hope I am not revealing any secrets here: Stewart is very unhappy with the LSLA IT proposal.

    If I wasn’t supposed to say even that much I apologize, but I think he has made that amply clear to the LNC. They are getting started early tomorrow morning so I guess we’ll get more details tomorrow.

  34. Jill Pyeatt

    I read previously that Brett Pojunis, who was voted onto the LNC today, is the owner of that IT company. Did I understand that correctly?

  35. paulie

    Pauli 37

    Paul, or Paulie. The i and the e are a package deal.

    So you think there IS some unacknowledge SEXUAL tension going on here.

    I don’t care to speculate. My name’s not Bennett and I ain’t in it.

  36. Wes Wagner

    JP @58

    Yup… you have to put people you just paid off in a position that they can pay you back. Haven’t you been taught how this works yet?

  37. Stewart Flood

    @55,

    I am unable answer your question. As the chair of the IT committee I was intentionally locked out of the process and have no knowledge regarding who was or was not consulted. I have not been permitted to even view the specifications. It could be a great plan, or it could be a total design failure.

    I do not know what this project encompasses, what relationship anyone involved has with the project, or how the considerably large amount of money the LNC voted to give to the LSLA will be used. Again, it could be wonderful, or it could be a waste of money. I have no idea.

    The project is so secret that even those of us who have previously signed non-disclosures have no access to information. This appears to specifically apply to those that are believed to be supporters of Mr Hinkle, as I previously outlined in a memo I wrote and sent on February 28.

    But since the project is secret, I believe it would be safe to guess that someone with access may eventually be unable to resist the urge to leak it to IPR or to another publication. We might then see what they think is so important that it has to be managed in this extremely authoritarian fashion.

    I wish to repeat the following one last time: they could have a great plan or one doomed to failure. I will probably never see the project specification.

  38. George Phillies

    @62

    You are being asked to vote on a project so wonderful as to guarantee of great returns, but whose nature is a secret…That’ the South Sea Bubble, isn’t it?

    Of course, you did not ask to see the specification. Anyone who can read the statement you published can see this.

    George

  39. George Phillies

    @55 “Is your report going to include the LSLA IT proposal? If so, please explain why no state database admins were asked for suggestions/requirements for any future affiliate data solution.”

    My State Committee did receive the proposal. It’s in our minutes. Now, the difference between “not asked for” and “given under 10 days for volunteers to look at a 300+ page document” is purely notional, but I know you like to be precise, so I am clarifying *which way* the not consulting usefully was carried out.

  40. Stewart Flood

    Dr Phillies statement is completely inaccurate. I did ask to see the specification. I was informed that I could not see it. The 300 page document is not the specification.

  41. Stewart Flood

    Let me clarify this. The 300 page document, which I have been told about but have not read, is the fluff user requirement promotional material. It reportedly even includes their reasons why they have chosen the specific name for the project.

    A specification document does not include marketing material.

    While I have never seen either, I have an understanding that the real specification document is about 30 pages. This is the document that vendors bidding on the project will receive or have received. It is the document that will be used to verify what the chosen vendor creates.

    Yes, I have heard that a number of people have the 300 page document. I am certain I can obtain a copy. But that document is not THE document.

  42. Carol Moore

    Difficult to hear and follow, but they are talking about the floor fee now. Whining about how they’ll be “in the hole” if they don’t get the money that way, as opposed to other ways it has been raised in the past. Lark objects to it because of bylaws and that concern poo poo’d by a female speaker. Root saying “no one objected in CA to floor fee, it was a great convention.” Someone says Southern states don’t charge floor fees and have good conventions…and other points can’t quite catch about “if they don’t like it they can leave” so not sure if for or against…. TBContinued

  43. Carol Moore

    Best I can hear: Without floor fee we have to cut out all the speakers. Somebody says “socialism.” Sounds like a resolution to refund floor fee. (You mean they get a FREE binder??)

  44. Carol Moore

    As I hear it: “you spoke, give me a chance.” Word voluntary thrown around a lot – regarding amendment? It will be financially disastrous but there are real questions about whether bylaws allow it. (CM: Stupid advertisement. (Geez, nothing for free! :-) What about people who only make $30,000? People who don’t know about it and aren’t expecting will just walk away when find out. Wayne Root’s crowing about – sure we had less people with our floor fee but we had QUALITY PEOPLE, HIGH QUALITY PEOPLE. (None of that damned riff raff making under $50,000 a year??) Roll call on the (unhearable) amendment to resolution; fails. Now they are talking about the web site, so not sure what’s going on. Next time, sit closer to the secretary and then will be easier to figure out what’s going on.

  45. George Phillies

    @66 That’s very interesting. There are *two* documents. You appeared to be referring to the only document that I have seen mentioned until now, which in 62 you clearly do not ask be sent to you.

    Handing over money for a project kept secret from the board would appear to be a gross breach of fiduciary responsibility by the board, or at least the members who vote in favor of spending money on the project.

  46. Carol Moore

    Dang, so it sounds like floor fee kept, in interest of getting HIGHER QUALITY PEOPLE in the party… grrrr…

  47. Stewart Flood

    @74,

    I did not ask that it be sent, since others have offered it. But it is a marketing document, not a technical specification. I’m not interested in their dissertation on why they call this Project Saratoga.

  48. Carol Moore

    My grandfather was from Saratoga. And a gambler all his lilfe. Despite his HIGH QUALITY management job and income -during the Depression no less!! – sometimes there was no food in the pantry because he’d blown it on the ponies.

  49. Carol Moore

    Lay off the chocolate. FAT IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE. (Dang, and I bought brownies yesterday.)

  50. Stewart Flood

    Passed without objection: Funds raised for ballot access may be used to fight top two.

    (Top two obviously being one of the most serious threats to ballot access we have seen in a long time)

  51. David Blau

    is this thread still alive? The meeting has been going for some time now without any comment

  52. Wes Wagner

    DB @87

    Yup, its pretty much just that everyone is speechless at the concept that the ruling class of aristocrat-wannabes think that a closed off, inaccessible party of middle to late aged white men who wish they were rich, but really aren’t sitting around talking about Robert’s Rules and policy in peace after eschewing all the young, active, involved and motivated members actually have the gall to think they might accomplish something.

    There is precious little that can be said to that.

  53. Carol Moore

    I know my speakers aren’t carrying her voice, whatever she’s talking about. Come on, Wayne, entertain us. Shoot off that big loud mouth from which issues such gems.

  54. Paulie

    I’ve been dealing with some other BS which may or may not come up in the meeting later on.

    Have any actions been taken since @86?

  55. Phil Laibe

    Top two is a California deal. I thought this was a national party but with all the conventions being in one part of the country and all the money being spent on the areas that the majority of the board comes from don’t expect more dues (to the LNC)from this east coast “povertarian” anytime soon. It will just be used to subsidize meals and plane rides for LNC board members who want a free ride.

    Also, since the LNCC started e-mailing me I have begun to get snail mail from the republican party and Mitt Romney. The mail contained Libertarian styled themes. Hopefully this is a coincidence and not because WAR sold my contact info to his republican buddies.

  56. Phil Laibe

    @ Wes agreed. I think the LNC is getting a free lunch.
    I should send them a bill for all the time and money I have spent being a candidate, helping candidates, doing outreach, raising money.

    Of course it may not be an issue much longer since I live in Florida which may loose ballot access due to the floor fee being perceived as a poll tax by key parties in the SOE office.

  57. George Phillies

    @63 I shall apologize for having been imprecise in a way that perturbed Mr. Flood. When I said “Of course, you did not ask to see the specification. Anyone who can read the statement you published can see this”, I was referring to his statement in 62, in which he does not ask that he be sent a copy of the specification, in a way that suggests things between the lines, and I assumed that the specification in question was the only specification that most of us knew about, the 300+ pager.

    It turns out that there is another specification, the secret specification, and that he is being denied access to it.

  58. Stewart Flood

    Just finished the IT report. As noted, we are now on the new phone system. An inquiry was made regarding completing plans for expansion to support affiliates by the national convention in May.

    My response, of course, was that we will attempt to be ready by then but that there is no guarantee.

  59. Stewart Flood

    @95,

    Completely understandable now that you are aware of the fact that we were talking about two different documents.

    At least the IT committee has successfully completed the two major tasks we were given in St Louis. We have also conducted annual audits, recommended upgrades and replacements for equipment where needed, as well as minor technical support when requested.

    We met the goals that I promised to complete when I was made chair of the committee.

    There is certainly a lot more to do, but that will be up to whoever is on the LNC and appointed to the IT committee in the next term.

  60. Carol Moore

    Phil Laibe @ 93 wrote: LP $ “used to subsidize meals and plane rides for LNC board members who want a free ride.” Is that happening currently. I always thought it would be a good idea to subsidize lower income people who actually might have time to do something. But is it already used to subsidize los ricos??

  61. Michael H. Wilson

    So the convention goes to LA in 2016. Well that is interesting. Given the ongoing decline in membership by then they should be able to hold it at a McDonald’s drive-in.

  62. Dan Karlan

    @98: Top Two started in Louisiana more than a decade ago. Washington (state) took it up recently, and then California. Arizona is considering it.

  63. Carol Moore

    So the rumor the cabal would try to replace the chair was unfounded, or just a dream unrealized??

  64. Jill Pyeatt

    CM @ 105: That appears to be the plan, but at the convention. It will likely happen, especially with so many “high-quality” people who will be attending.

  65. Michael H. Wilson

    I guess from the lack of replies nothing was done to bring the web site up to date historically, but we now have a fee for the blue collar working people in the LP.

  66. Jill Pyeatt

    Something we can do to counter those elite rich people on the LNC is to plan events for the $94 people who won’t be attending the break-out sessions. Seriously, there should be radicals willing to speak or entertain who simply don’t want to spend the higher amount as a statement to the LNC (although they clearly don’t care). We have tons of guitar-playing Libertarians. Maybe we can assemble outside and have a jam sessions. I’m serious about this. We should set up a panel of a few people to plan alternate events.

  67. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ll chip in to pay for a room we can use. If many of us chip in, we can have a room in the hotel to assemble for much less than $200 per person. I’ll bet we can even find speakers of our own who are willing to speak for free.

  68. Wes Wagner

    JP @112

    I am thinking the Wagner-Weston-Phillies-et.al. courtesy suite might need to be larger now…

  69. Wes Wagner

    JP @114

    I seriously was considering buying a gold package since I figured given my candidacy for office I would need to have access to people … but, I need access to the right kind of people, so I am there with you.

  70. Darryl W Perry

    Louisiana’s system was not a “Top Two” system, they held a genereal election in which all candidates were on the ballot (no primary) with a run-off; where the top two vote getters would advance only if no candidate received a majority of the vote in the general election.
    While it’s similar to “Top Two” it’s not the same.

  71. Jill Pyeatt

    I was trying to decide between the bronze and the cheapie. I’ll be signing up for the cheapie.

  72. Jill Pyeatt

    I imagine someone needs to just call the hotel. I would imagine they’d have plenty of rooms, and we’d just have to pay for it. I’m busy today, but I can try calling tomorrow.

  73. Mark Hilgenberg

    Back in 2000 we were able to ride on the coattails of the LNc and they gave us a room for “How to outreach” presentations, etc. We even had a long registration table filled with our “alternative” stuff.

    If someone on the inside could help us, it would help a ton. Usually there are meeting rooms just not being used but are already paid for.

  74. Marc Montoni

    @120 I think our current leadership has an entirely different mindset than that which governed the party in 2000. The terms of the contract with the convention hotel may prohibit the hotel from knowingly selling meeting space to “competing” organizations, and with the “Floor Fee Convention Committee” and a lamestreamer LNC both circling for cash, one would be wise to assume they would whine about any other events — such as any set up by/for those uninterested in the “Floor Fee Elite Packages”.

    However, they can’t control people socializing in their rooms or suites.

    Sigh. I was all ready to buy a Gold this year. But since the floor fee is now confirmed, I’m buying the stupid $94 package and showing up to vote in favor of a refund. The irony is I would acquiesce to a floor fee if **the delegates** adopted one; although as I’ve made clear on previous occasions, I’d vote against it myself — because I’d much prefer an increase in dues and some basic grade-school competence at budgeting. The latter which we don’t have at the moment.

  75. Doesn't matter

    This is for all delegates attending the national convention. Look at which boneheads voted in favor of removing all legitimacy of the LP.

    > Voting to REMOVE Libertarian Presidential Candidates’ Names and Contact Information from the National LP Website:
    >
    > Mark Rutherford
    > Wayne Allyn Root
    > Alicia Mattson
    > Rebecca Sink-Burris
    > Kevin Knedler
    > Scott Lieberman
    > Randy Eshelman
    > Andy Wolf
    > Norman Olsen
    > Audrey Capozzi
    > Dianna Visek
    >
    >
    > Voting to KEEP Libertarian Presidential Candidates’ Names and Contact Information at the National LP Website:
    >
    > Mark Hinkle
    > Mary Ruwart
    > Jim Lark
    > William Redpath
    > Vicki Kirkland
    > Daniel Wiener

  76. Thomas L. Knapp

    An appeal to the judicial committee is definitely in order on the floor fee, but there should be more than that.

    Those who are interested should be contacting past convention vendors and letting them know — “I hope you haven’t rented a table from LPHQ yet; I bought from you last time, but this time the LNC is raping every delegate for an extra hundred bucks, so it’s gonna be tight and you shouldn’t expect to make many sales.”

    And as far as internal campaigning goes, those LNC members who voted in favor of forcing delegates to subsidize vacationers should be outed as such early and often, before they stand for re-election.

  77. Darryl W. Perry

    I barely broke even last convention as a vendor – there is no way I can afford to attend this year; and even if I could, everyone has less money to spend on books & t-shirts.

  78. LP Observer

    Perhaps the ACLU of Nevada would be willing to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the District of Nevada seeking an injunction and declaratory relief against the Libertarian National Committee’s intended denial of credentials to national convention delegates who refuse to pay the registration fee on behalf of said delegates … and perhaps some under- or dis-enfranchised affiliates who send such delegates to the national convention.

    The lawsuit by Libertarians M Carling, Richard Burke et al against Wes Wagner shows that the litigation genie is out of the bottle.

  79. Steven Wilson

    For a party that is identifiable as the LP can be in finance, why is it so hard for anyone to acknowledge the motive. Increase in revenue to replace the loss elsewhere. This is a zero sum game.

    Root might be a whore, but he is far from stupid. He recruited Johnson as a pathfinder. In this season, if other players are elected as nominees in other parties wherein Johnson can get a favorable look. The chance is there if the other variables work themselves together.

    What is the utility of Johnson getting the 5%?

    The 2016 LP presidential candidate will get close to 100 million in matching funds. That would make for a very visible campaign. Many chances to sell books and gain exposure in getting a talk show post hoc.

    Roger Stone is not a babysitter. Johnson has experience in campaigning and a voting record.

    Could any other player match Johnson possible vote totals? Harris, Wrights, or Still?

    If you control the theater, you control the show.

    I think many of you are just being innocent. There is no conspiracy. It is a strategy to win a game. He is not stupid.

  80. Wes Wagner

    SW @130

    I wish intrade would let me setup a category: Johnson gets 5% or more of vote in November …. I could personally make the market on the “won’t happen” side. Beyond that it would show how laughable this notion is to the public writ large.

    People simply do not elect presidential candidates from third parties that don’t have their house in order … and for the past decade we seemingly have been confusing “becoming as corrupt as them” as an acceptable solution to deal with our failures.

    Well it won’t work, they are better at it than we will ever be — plus it is not who we set out to be so it will only put us at war with ourselves.

  81. Starchild

    Wes Wagner @12 writes, “The first clue that something is not what it seems to be is when you have to advertise about what it is. If you show up and there is a large banner advertising ‘The Party of Principle’ … that is your first clue that it probably isn’t. If it were, you wouldn’t need to advertise it… you would be a lighthouse to the world through your deed.”

    Insights like this are very dangerous… they can lead one to start questioning the entire paradigm of marketing!

    Doug @72 – Disappointing, but thanks for keeping us posted. At least it’s good to know who may deserve to be reelected to the LNC (the folks who voted against a floor fee/poll tax):

    Doug Craig
    Mary Ruwart
    Norm Olsen
    Vicki Kirkland
    Jim Lark

    The rest of the LNC members, maybe not so much.

    Jill @111 – The jam session sounds like an excellent idea. I’ll try to bring some instruments & noisemakers I’ve got around. Not that I know how to play them!

    Mark @120 – Good idea about trying to get an unused room. Another possibility is just doing our thing outdoors. It probably won’t be too cold in the Vegas area at night in May.

  82. Jill Pyeatt

    Start spreading the word about the “Povertarians’ Alternative”. I think this can work!

  83. Thomas L. Knapp

    SW@130,

    “What is the utility of Johnson getting the 5%?”

    The same as the utility of me being able to launch myself to the moon by spitting really hard. That is, quite a bit of utility … if there was a chance in hell that it could actually happen, but there isn’t.

    “Could any other player match Johnson possible vote totals? Harris, Wrights, or Still?”

    The likely minimum-maximum spread is contained in such a small region so close to the bottom of the scale that the question doesn’t really mean that much.

    Wrights would probably be looking at ~400k if nothing went horribly wrong, and Johsonson at perhaps ~600k if everything went exactly right. Big whoop.

  84. Starchild

    Jill @133 – I suggest we bill it as a soiree for “people of dubious quality”. Or perhaps we could just call ourselves “Quantity Over Quality”. ;-)

  85. paulie

    Sorry to IPR regulars for the repetitive comment, but for anyone reading this thread and not the other one,

    Some of you may find Shane Cory’s comments in this thread (starting @163 and several followups) interesting, given the source

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/02/roberts-author-gives-opinion-on-lp-convention-registration-fees/

    You may also be interested in

    Ride Share board for Vegas LP convention

    http://lp_lv.erideshare.com/

    A roomshare board may also be in the works.

  86. Steven Wilson

    I didn’t mean to sound as if it was certain, but in reading this anger movement about floor fees and what happened in Nevada and Oregon, the people here seem aloof as to how it can happen.

    The people in the LNC function like the people in congress. They take care of themselves. Nothing new. But the idea of someone using the LP for their own gain is what?

    I can’t say how many votes Johnson will receive. There are people in Jefferson city that don’t even know he is still running.

    My point is if something is wrong then there is a cause. The point of the LNC setting up a financial velvet rope to control the convention is not a conspiracy or even news.

    I don’t understand why people complain when voting is a consent mechanism.

  87. paulie

    @137

    I fail to grasp the meaning of what you wrote. Maybe you can try again, or perhaps someone else can translate it for me.

  88. Steven Wilson

    My point was that if you are the cause of your problems then you shouldn’t complain about your problems.

    I can’t make it any easier than that.

    The LNC wants Johnson to run the ticket period. The floor fee is a velvet rope format. That don’t want an open floor to risk a Johnson loss.

    Root wants Johnson to get for him what he can’t get himself. If Johnson gets the 5%, the 2016 ticket gets matching funds. Root is helping form the state chairs where he can.

    He wants a career in TV being famously clever. A national campaign bashing progressives could help him replace Judge Nap or even Rush, for those who are really confused.

    The people who post here seem totally unable to grasp a strategy. Big tent is central planning.

    And for the people here that are constants or lifers in the LP, I am having a hard time understanding why they complain about the same things over and over.

    Your vote is consent. You got the LNC you voted for. Deal with it.

    Nobody forces you to participate or remain in the LP.

  89. NewFederalist

    @139… “Nobody forces you to participate or remain in the LP.”

    You got that right! That’s why so many have left.

  90. paulie

    @139 Very few or no people got the exact LNC they individually voted for. I made my votes, other people made theirs, and the winners in each particular race were the ones that got the most votes.

    In my case I “won” on some LNC races and “lost” some (lost more than won iirc), but my wins were not necessarily pure wins either – while I preferred them to available alternatives, some of them have cast some votes and taken some actions I strongly disagree with.

    And, two of my “wins” have been replaced after vacancies on the LNC this term by (relatively speaking) “losses.”

    I am a life member of the LP by virtue of a $1,000 donation in 2000 and a pledge signed in 1994 or 1995, which I don’t intend to revoke, but it’s true that no one forces me to participate.

    I participate for a variety of reasons – the alternatives are worse, sunk costs/momentum, relentless hope that it will get better (mixed with some pessimism), the overwhelming feeling that AN LP, even if not THIS LP, is badly needed, professional interest (although the case for that is increasingly weak, and it is becoming more and more clear to me that my active participation in the LP is probably more of a negative than a positive when it comes to having them as a client).

    My vote is not consent. My vote is trying to get the best, or least bad, outcome.

    The LNC wants Johnson to run the ticket period. The floor fee is a velvet rope format. That don’t want an open floor to risk a Johnson loss.

    Root wants Johnson to get for him what he can’t get himself. If Johnson gets the 5%, the 2016 ticket gets matching funds. Root is helping form the state chairs where he can.

    He wants a career in TV being famously clever. A national campaign bashing progressives could help him replace Judge Nap or even Rush, for those who are really confused.

    This is true, although 5% is a pipe dream.

    “The people who post here seem totally unable to grasp a strategy. Big tent is central planning.

    Sorry, too cryptic. What do you mean by that?

  91. paulie

    @140 The flip side of that is that the LP is worse off for many of them having left (and better off for at least some of them having left).

  92. George Phillies

    Johnson’s campaign, financially, is imploding.

    As will be covered in the next Liberty of America.

    Johnson is attached, thus far, to the high-budget-Republican campaign approach, which will do very poorly under Libertarian financial constraints.

  93. NewFederalist

    @142… or BETTER off for many of them having left and WORSE off for at least some of them having left. The frustration is just not worth it for many people.

  94. paulie

    @146 I said the party is better off… and the party is worse off…

    Whether they are individually better off or worse off is a separate question. In fact, it is at least two separate questions (do they perceive themselves to be better off – objectively the answer is yes, or they could have rejoined – or are they in fact better off).

  95. Losty

    I still don’t get it..

    Johnson’s the Nominee (Unless Paul gives up the ghost of a campaign and wants the line..)..

    If it’s for that, why do the fee anyhow? Just upset a core part of the membership?

    Ohio just had a primary, by rule all voters in it are automatically OH LP members.. Maybe other states are similar..

    Why Upset a core member group just for $94 and to get the guy who has the nomination anyhow the nomination?

  96. George Phillies

    @149 Your numbers are correct but miss something.

    Go to the itemized donations (easier if you download the spreadsheet). Break them down by week in January. His donations are imploding.

  97. Thomas L. Knapp

    Johnson got a little bump when he declared LP, but that bump apparently didn’t translate into real fundraising momentum.

    I wouldn’t say he’s necessarily to blame for that — he’s been an active candidate and his town halls have been well-done events. But it’s fairly obvious there’s no burgeoning desire for a Johnson presidency among the American grass roots.

    There’s a good chance he’ll arrive in Las Vegas in last place fundraisingwise, due to the large debt he racked up before he jumped the GOP fence.

    Not that that will hurt his chances. This is the LP, after all. Even the most lame claim to fame trumps everything. If Pol Pot rose from the dead on American soil (to satisfy the natural-born citizen requirement) and spent a couple of years on the reality TV circuit, he’d have three LNC members dogging his heels and begging him to run.

  98. Losty

    George (@152..)

    No I can’t.. With the fee I can’t go..

    No US Public Company charges for their annual business meeting of Shareholders..

    Now, If I want to see Wayne’s Bracket (Which I do), or hear him discuss handicapping (Which I do) I expect to pay for that. If I want more than Soda, pretzels and Water, say a lunch so I can hear how Mr. Badnarik, Boddie, and Barr are doing, I expect to pay for that.

    But, to place the name of our Presidential Candidate in Nomination, whether or not the one I choose wins, and whether or not depending on polling in November whether I can reasonably vote for him/Her? No.

    Or, Do you think with or without the fee another candidate (Other than Mr. Johnson or Mr. Paul) has a chance at the Nomination?

  99. Jill Pyeatt

    I called Red Rock Resort today to see about the availability of a room for the Povertarians’
    Alternative (I’m only calling it this until someone comes up with a really great name.) The lady at the sales department said that, during the LP convention, all requests for rooms should go to Ruth Bennett. I don’t think we’re ready to talk to her. There have been a couple suites offered, but it’s possible that we’ll have more people than that, if we start getting the word out now. Is anyone friendly with Ms. Bennett, comfortable enough to ask about a meeting room? It would be nice to get some prices. As I said yesterday, I’d much rather chip in on a meeting room than pay $201 each for the break-out sessions of the main convention.

  100. George Phillies

    @153 However, seeing things where you went is a challenge.

    The easier place to read for January is

    http://query.nictusa DOT com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00495622/768155/

    That’s more easily found from

    query.nictusa DOT com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00495622/

    which starts at

    fec DOT gov/finance/disclosure/efile_search.shtml

    and search on Johnson 2012. By the way, that does not find FEC inquiries, for which you need to look at the paper forms, next line down from ‘electronic’ on the pop-sideways segment.

  101. Robert Capozzi

    155 tk, do you discount 100% GJ’s receiving matching funds for his campaign’s efforts in the primary, then?

    Are you saying GJ = Pol Pot? Who might those 3 LNCers be?

  102. Robert Capozzi

    156 Losty: No US Public Company charges for their annual business meeting of Shareholders..

    me: True, but irrelevant. The LP isn’t a public company. Apparently, some private associations do charge such a fee. I think the floor fee’s a bad idea, too, but introducing irrelevant points seems counterproductive.

    L: But, to place the name of our Presidential Candidate in Nomination, whether or not the one I choose wins, and whether or not depending on polling in November whether I can reasonably vote for him/Her? No.

    me: Being a member doesn’t entitle you to vote for a nominee. You have to be a delegate, chosen by your state LP. The floor fee is a SECOND barrier to entry, not the first.

  103. Daniel Wiener

    Losty @ 150 wrote: “I still don’t get it.. Johnson’s the Nominee (Unless Paul gives up the ghost of a campaign and wants the line..).. If it’s for that, why do the fee anyhow? Just upset a core part of the membership?”

    Perhaps that means that you should re-think your underlying assumption that the purpose of the floor fee is to gain the nomination for Gary Johnson.

    Gary Johnson has been winning the straw polls at state LP conventions by huge margins. For example, a week ago in California he received 73% to Lee Wrights’ 20%. While there are still two months until the national convention and anything can happen, at this point an objective observer would have to extrapolate to the conclusion that Johnson will receive the LP Presidential nomination in a landslide.

    I think that’s prima facia evidence that Johnson has nothing to do with the floor fee. Maybe the simplest explanation is indeed the correct one: Ruth Bennett, who is in charge of the national convention (and who has to a large extent cut the rest of the Convention Oversight Committee out of the loop) decided on a set of convention packages and prices, including a “TANSTAAFL” minimum floor fee of $94. Ruth Bennett essentially handed the LNC a fait accompli, and the LNC was reluctant to overturn that decision at this late date and thereby leave a gaping financial hole in the convention budget.

    Did Ruth Bennett do this because she’s a Gary Johnson supporter and is desperately trying to tilt the convention in his favor? Somehow I doubt it.

  104. Bill Wood

    According to what I’m finding at FEC the only Libertarian Party Candidates for POTUS is Gary Johnson and and LeeWrights. Is this correct? I don’t see where Lee Wrights has filed for Jan. ’12

  105. George Phillies

    @166 Roger Gary had raised money, but has withdrawn and (I gather) endorsed Lee Wrights.

    I would have to do the calculations, but I believe that Wrights may under the rules still be on a quarterly filing schedule.

    @160 Are you claiming that Johnson said he will accept matching funds? Which rules does he think he is under, major or new party?

  106. Losty

    Robert @163:

    I may have received bad information, however, in the past I was informed that some states had difficulty fielding full Primary Delegate slates, much Less Primary and Alternate delegate slates. I was also informed that as a member of the party in their home state once could, and has been before, approved to be a delegate of another state’s delegation.

    Now, According to the 2012 Delegate Chair’s Manual (On “BetOnLiberty.org, not LP.org, Interesting). There are 1,042 allocated delegate positions. This equates to a total of 2,084 Primary and Alternate Delegate slots are available. Browsing through the states, I assume every state on the West coast would be full to capacity, also a number of the smaller delegate count states would not be expected to have openings (from someone not in the day-to-day affairs of smaller state parties). There may be a number of vacancies in nomination from the larger delegate states, and states further away from Nevada.

    My current home state does not offer anything in writing showing membership via the Primary balloting, but attesting to the fact that according the the laws of my state I am a member: If I am not a delegate of my state, the possibility exists that to fill the delegation there is a chance of appointment.

    With that understanding, and even without it as a Primary or Alternate Delegate from my home state, the second barrier appears harder to climb than the first.

    Also, why would you erect MORE barriers of involvement in a political party.. To be Chairman of the party? that I can see.. Erecting MORE seems pointless, especially at this stage of the Party, or any third-party.

  107. Losty

    Daniel@165:

    Yes, unless Paul enters into the fray, it is just about a fait accompli. That makes the idea simply financial, or what some have said: to change the makeup of the delegates and the party.

    However, Why would anyone make a barrier of entry to participate in a growing party? Heck, why would anyone make a barrier of entry to participate in a shrinking party?

    It basically leaves the choices of upsetting a good part of the membership (there is a 1%/99% in every group, remember? Romney is Poor compared to some people as well), and limiting involvement, or simply money, that goes back to the first point. Charge me for lunch with Wayne and Michael. Charge me for a “Homecoming” Banquet.. Charge me for Breakfasts (I expect I would eat out or at the buffet, but you can try..)

    But, again, For involvement in the business segments, candidate endorsement and nomination, etc.. It makes no sense.

  108. Daniel Wiener

    Losty @ 171: There is no final Bylaws Committee report yet, but my understanding is that there are proposals in the preliminary report to allow any national or state LP member to attend a national convention and serve as a delegate without having to first be selected by a state party. Furthermore, there are proposals to allow amendment of the Bylaws and the election of national officers and LNC representatives by mail ballot of the membership.

    Now I have no idea whether any of these proposals will be adopted at the May convention, and even if they are adopted they won’t take effect until after the convention. But efforts are definitely being made to lower barriers to participation by the membership.

  109. Losty

    Daniel@173,

    Need to be sustaining it appears, Hopefully the “affiliate Party” under state laws (Voting in party Primary where applicable = member) will apply.

  110. Marc Montoni

    Daniel Wiener said:

    I think that’s prima facia evidence that Johnson has nothing to do with the floor fee.

    I don’t think **Johnson** has attempted to weigh in on the floor fee. I don’t think it was even on his radar. And frankly, it’s a straw man to for you to suggest that anyone *has* said that.

    However, it is certainly clear that the majority on the LNC is generally in favor of a floor fee, and the same subset of the LNC are also all or mostly in favor of Johnson over any other current candidates.

    That “convergence of interests” certainly helps those LNC members decide that it’s “too late to change anything”.

    Maybe the simplest explanation is indeed the correct one: Ruth Bennett, who is in charge of the national convention (and who has to a large extent cut the rest of the Convention Oversight Committee out of the loop) decided on a set of convention packages and prices, including a “TANSTAAFL” minimum floor fee of $94. Ruth Bennett essentially handed the LNC a fait accompli …

    I think Mark Hinkle and Ruth Bennett are long-time acquaintances, and they have communicated in the past about their mutual desire to have a floor fee. In addition, Bennett has been involved in organizing past conventions (certainly Seattle 1987, and others). So knowing his goal seeking a floor fee was safe in Ruth’s hands, and knowing she would handle the convention with relative aplomb that comes with experience, she was a natural choice for him, and thus she was appointed to “take the heat”.

    It is certainly reasonable to believe that the **reason** Bennett waited so late to release the convention package prices was the anticipation that doing so would allow the majority faction to claim it was “too late” and a “fait accompli”.

    Often in politics, timing is everything.

    … and the LNC was reluctant to overturn that decision at this late date

    Nonsense.

    It wasn’t the LNC — it was the majority faction on the LNC that was “reluctant”. And they were reluctant to overturn not because of the supposed late date, but simply because they wanted a floor fee. The floor fee has only been known for a couple of weeks.

    … and thereby leave a gaping financial hole in the convention budget.

    You guys keep bringing up that claim, that not charging the delegates will cause financial hardship.

    Problem is, if there is a financial hardship, it is the LNC’s own poor planning that caused it. There are two ways for a convention to cause financial distress: 1) Revenues insufficient to support it; or 2) Expenses beyond revenues. In our case, on the revenue side, 1) the LP has failed to reserve a portion of dues to supply mandated activities such as the convention, and 2) failed to take advantage of the political party convention host committee loophole” to raise corporate cash. On the expense side, the LP is likely simply not minding the p’s and q’s regarding not laying out too much cash for the venue (meals, etc), speakers and other perks that are NOT part of the *required* Business Session.

    The LNC’s amateurish (and apparently multi-year) failure to properly budget for the Bylaws-required biennial convention doesn’t turn it into an emergency that requires the soaking of 100 to 150 delegates.

    I have organized conventions for the Virginia LP where ~100 individuals attended, and I have organized or helped organize conferences for other organizations that were larger than that — such as a 1,500-car, ~2400 attendee car show with an associated club meeting for about 900 members. I also organized several multi-day conventions for a couple of fraternal organizations as a contractor, which involved roughly four times as many people as the largest LP convention I know of. So I do have some idea about how these things are put together. The only time I caused a loss for an organization as a result of a convention I put on was my very first attempt, when I was 23, in 1985 (Libertarian Party of Virginia, state convention, in Charlottesville). I learned a lot of lessons from that loss, and managed breakeven or a surplus on every one since.

    It ain’t rocket science.

    Did Ruth Bennett do this because she’s a Gary Johnson supporter and is desperately trying to tilt the convention in his favor? Somehow I doubt it.

    I don’t know of anyone who has suggested that, so chalk up another straw man.

    As above — she was already known to be in favor of a floor fee, and was appointed partly because Hinkle thought it likely she would implement one. I don’t know whether she favors Johnson — I have my doubts, but it’s possible. But in any case, I don’t think that’s a factor in her decision. I think she just likes floor fees.

  111. Losty

    Marc@175,

    Think it was my fault, I posited that other than limiting the party, or Fundraising,the fee may have been to clear the field, and then assumed the field (With the exception of Mr. Paul if he wants it) is already clear.. Meaning it has to be fundraising at the expense of broad based (what it is) activism, or Simple Fundraising/Financial issues. My phrasing could have been better I think

  112. George Phillies

    @175

    Revenues? I am personally getting inquiries from vendors at past conventions, asking me if I had any idea about who to contact for vendor tables etc at the national convention, because they have not heard from anyone. (Incidentally, I took a table at the last two conventions, and I have not heard from anyone, either.) I did my best to suggest contact points.

  113. paulie

    Perhaps that means that you should re-think your underlying assumption that the purpose of the floor fee is to gain the nomination for Gary Johnson.

    Gary Johnson has been winning the straw polls at state LP conventions by huge margins. For example, a week ago in California he received 73% to Lee Wrights’ 20%. While there are still two months until the national convention and anything can happen, at this point an objective observer would have to extrapolate to the conclusion that Johnson will receive the LP Presidential nomination in a landslide.

    I agree. I don’t think Johnson needs the floor fee; at this point he is on track with or without it.

    If someone wants to go the conspiracy route they may be more on track looking at consolidation of LNC control (especially the race for chair), bylaws and platform debates, etc.

    Again see Shane Cory’s comments from a previous thread…

    (starting @ comment 163 and several followups) interesting, given the source

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/02/roberts-author-gives-opinion-on-lp-convention-registration-fees/

    I think that’s prima facia evidence that Johnson has nothing to do with the floor fee. Maybe the simplest explanation is indeed the correct one: Ruth Bennett, who is in charge of the national convention (and who has to a large extent cut the rest of the Convention Oversight Committee out of the loop) decided on a set of convention packages and prices, including a “TANSTAAFL” minimum floor fee of $94. Ruth Bennett essentially handed the LNC a fait accompli, and the LNC was reluctant to overturn that decision at this late date and thereby leave a gaping financial hole in the convention budget.

    Did Ruth Bennett do this because she’s a Gary Johnson supporter and is desperately trying to tilt the convention in his favor? Somehow I doubt it.

    I think it’s most likely she just got stuck with an inordinately expensive contract to fulfill. I have been told that it got changed, and not in the LP’s favor, from what was initially negotiated before the LNC picked Vegas. Someone who knows more about that can correct or confirm.

  114. paulie

    According to what I’m finding at FEC the only Libertarian Party Candidates for POTUS is Gary Johnson and and LeeWrights. Is this correct? I don’t see where Lee Wrights has filed for Jan. ’12

    I thought that there were a couple of dozen or so LPotus candidates filed with the FEC?

  115. George Phillies

    @180 But perhaps not enough to have needed to file a form 3. THere are not to my knowledge anything like a couple dozen POTUS candidates for the LP. See politics1.com.

  116. matt cholko

    This is BIT off topic, but I figure it is close enough to be acceptable on this thread. For purposes of answering this question, please try not to include your opinion on the floor fees (like most of you, I am opposed to it.)

    Having only attended one previous convention, I am wondering whether the “breakout sessions” are generally of any real value. I am on the fence about purchasing a bronze package for the convention. I would like to go to the Nolan and presidential banquets/receptions, but I’m having trouble justifying spending $201 for them. If the breakout sessions are worth something, it may push me over the edge.

    What do you IPRers think?

  117. Jill Pyeatt

    mc @ 184: I’ve certainly been wondering if the break-out sessions are worth the $201, and I’m sure other people would like to know as well. If someone finds someone willing to talk about it, we’ll be happy to post the info here.

  118. paulie

    THere are not to my knowledge anything like a couple dozen POTUS candidates for the LP. See politics1.com.

    I’ve seen some FEC filer list of those that was even longer than the one at p1, not sure when/where I saw that but it was fairly recent.

  119. paulie

    Roger Gary’s website does not have an announcement that he has dropped out and endorsed Wrights, and IPR has not received anything about that.

  120. Daniel Wiener

    Marc Montoni @ 175: “I don’t think **Johnson** has attempted to weigh in on the floor fee. I don’t think it was even on his radar. And frankly, it’s a straw man to for you to suggest that anyone *has* said that.”

    me: Losty @ 150 had suggested that Johnson or his supporters might be behind the floor fee as a means of greasing the skids for Johnson’s nomination. So I was not responding to a “straw man”; I was responding directly to Losty. Steven Wilson @ 139 had made a similar suggestion.

    Marc Montoni @ 175: “However, it is certainly clear that the majority on the LNC is generally in favor of a floor fee, and the same subset of the LNC are also all or mostly in favor of Johnson over any other current candidates.”

    me: And this correlation means what? The majority of ALL LP members appear to be in favor of Johnson, based on the recent straw polls at state conventions. Why would you expect the majority of LNC members to be any different?

    Marc Montoni @ 175: “That “convergence of interests” certainly helps those LNC members decide that it’s “too late to change anything”.”

    me: And why would that supposed “convergence of interests” between Johnson supporters and the floor fee even matter? You just finished saying it was a straw man argument!

    I tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories, and this one holds even less water than most. There are valid reasons to be for or against a floor fee, but those reasons should be examined on their own merits.

    As far as Ruth Bennett is concerned, I have no doubt that she “likes” floor fees (in the sense that she believes they are justified and desirable), and she also thinks they are vital to putting on a financially viable convention. That is an entirely adequate explanation for why she chose to go that route.

    However, Ruth Bennett did not give either the Convention Oversight Committee (COC) or the LNC a chance to weigh in ahead of time. I think that was a very poor decision on her part. There’s a better than even chance that she’d have gotten prior approval if she’d have just asked for it, instead of trying to force the LNC’s hand with the prospect of a huge convention budget shortfall. I guarantee you that neither the COC nor the LNC are happy with the way this happened.

    And just to be clear, I personally favor the idea of a minimum floor fee so that all delegates shoulder their share of the cost of the convention facilities. But I don’t like being blindsided with a fee, and I don’t know if $94 is the correct amount — Ruth has still not shown her budget to the entire LNC, and she failed to present a convention report at the just-completed LNC meeting.

    I and other LNC members have been critical of the cost of the convention packages and the selections (and non-selections) of various speakers. (Incidentally, Wayne Root is one of the LNC members who has complained most vociferously.) Consequently I am very concerned about whether the convention will lose money even with the floor fee. But I think the potential financial downside is even worse without it. We’ll soon find out.

  121. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@160,

    “155 tk, do you discount 100% GJ’s receiving matching funds for his campaign’s efforts in the primary, then?”

    I have no opinion on whether or not he will receive a welfare check from Uncle Sugar.

    Debt is debt whether you expect pennies to fall from heaven and fix that debt for you or not.

    “Are you saying GJ = Pol Pot?”

    Um, no. That was just hype. But given past public support by self-declared libertarians for every man on a horse from Agosto Pinochet (Milton Friedman) to Hosni Mubarak (Wayne Allyn Root), I wouldn’t predict Pol Pot arriving at the national convention any further back than second place, and then only if he was in contention with a former Republican.

    “Who might those 3 LNCers be?”

    Furthermore deponent saieth not.

  122. Robert Capozzi

    194 tk: Debt is debt whether you expect pennies to fall from heaven and fix that debt for you or not.

    me: I take it you are not an accountant or a finance person, then, based on this statement. “Debt” is certainly not “debt,” as the terms and conditions of accounts payable vary.

    If we look at political campaigns like a business (they aren’t, but we’ll play along) most start-ups are in the red at the outset. This is perfectly normal.

    Your (admitted!) use of hype might convince some, might plant some seeds of doubt, might create static around GJ 2012, but it doesn’t seem to be working on the assembled.

    There ARE good reasons not to nominate GJ, but you undermine your credibility by casting false aspersions in with the true-ish ones. IMO.

  123. paulie

    But given past public support by self-declared libertarians for every man on a horse from Agosto Pinochet (Milton Friedman) to …

    Baby Doc Duvalier (Bob Barr)

  124. paulie

    No, it wasn’t. It was only people from this year, most of whom I haven’t heard of and whose names I don’t remember. All listed as LP presidential candidate.

    Where did you see Roger Gary’s withdrawal btw?

  125. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@195,

    —–
    “Debt” is certainly not “debt,” as the terms and conditions of accounts payable vary.
    —–

    “Accounts payable” are debts.

    Trying to change that by saying “oh, they’re just accounts payable” is similar to the general insisting that he’s not retreating, just advancing in a different direction which happens to be away from, rather than toward, the enemy.

    —–
    Your (admitted!) use of hype might convince some, might plant some seeds of doubt, might create static around GJ 2012, but it doesn’t seem to be working on the assembled.
    —–

    The paragraph above clearly assumes that I’m interested in influencing the LP’s choice of presidential nominee, and further assumes that that interest tends toward influencing the LP away from nominating Johnson.

    You might want to re-evaluate those assumptions — whether or not they’re true at all, and if so the strength of motivation involved.

  126. Robert Capozzi

    200 tk, hah! Last I checked, there is a wide range of directions, not just 0 and 180 degrees. Perhaps you are inadvertently agreeing with me!

    Check with any accountant…there is a wide array of “debts”…A/P, short-term and long-term debt, for ex. Absolutism in financial matters is especially dysfunctional and in fact false.

    You’re right, though, I sense you are tearing GJ down as the LP’s standardbearer, but, OK, what is your motive?

  127. Robert Capozzi

    oh, yes, that fundraising vendor for the GJ campaign has filed suit for MORE than what the campaign itself reports.

    As I understand accounting practices, IF the suit has merit, A/P should be increased to reflect the likelihood that the vendor will win the suit and is indeed owed more.

    Accounting involves estimates and judgment. Like politics, it’s not (Newtonian) physics.

  128. Wes Wagner

    RC

    I think you should take a step back and look at TK objectively. My assessment is that although he would probably want the people in the LP to do the right thing, realize their mistakes, and reform themselves, he is fairly much of the opinion that the probability of that event is near zero.

    Therefore, if he has presumed that the natural cycle of decay, collapse and rebirth must happen — he would look forward to a GJ nomination with a certain unfortunate, albeit necessary, outlook.

    Also, pointing out why this is a bad idea and why the party is committing suicide by doing this is a certain public service – but it is not intended to be effective to the people who have any ability to change anything.

    Also, his locus of control is so limited … he finds your accusations of his influence peddling absurd, because form his perspective he sees a 500 car trainwreck approaching and at best he has the rusty detached handle to a malfunctioning manual brake for just the caboose, and he already jumped off the train and didn’t leave the handle behind.

  129. Robert Capozzi

    203 ww: …LP to do the right thing, realize their mistakes, and reform themselves…

    me: TK may want that…dunno. I certainly do. The Big Mistake — the Statement of Principles and the thought process behind it — is certainly something to be fixed. And, yes, though it came close in 06 to being expunged as the useless construct that it is, it takes a lot of energy to overcome even that level of unworkable self-sabotage.

  130. Robert Capozzi

    195 rc: [TK's] (admitted!) use of hype might convince some, might plant some seeds of doubt, might create static around GJ 2012…

    203 ww: …[TK] finds your [RC's] accusations of his influence peddling absurd…

    me: Is this the sort of thing we can come to expect from you as Chair? In your mind, does “planting seeds of doubt” and “creating static” = “influence peddling”?

    Really?

  131. Robert Capozzi

    205 gp, right. There are a range of defendants, depending on the count. Whether GJ’s treasurer has or will make adjustments to the aggregate campaign payables in light of the suit remains to be seen. Maybe they should, maybe not.

    I’d be interested in the opinion of a CPA with federal campaign law experience on this. I know enough to know that it’s not just a matter of simple math.

  132. Wes Wagner

    RC @208

    I am not a CPA with federal campaign law experience. I can however comment on how liabilities are supposed to appear on books due to being an MBA and having some practical financial analysis background.

    In theory, if you have a probabalistic expectation that you might lose litigati0n, you are supposed to reflect it on your books proportionally and recognize the liability and loss as reserves.

    For a very very basic example. if you reasonably thought you had a 50% chance of losing a 80k lawsuit, you would typically put that on books using accrual accounting at 40k. You would bother to do this though only if it were material (not a rounding error… ). A $50B corporation generally just keeps a loss reserves aggregate and adjusts it appropriately after doing analysis of only material issues.

    If you were using only cash based accounting you would have nothing on your books.

    However, a full financial report in either case should disclose the item – so even if an organization like the LNC were to use cash based accounting, an item like this would still be disclosed in reports, even though it would not be part fo the general ledger.

  133. Robert Capozzi

    209 ww, sounds about right. OTOH, it would work the other way, too. If GJ2012 is likely to receive matching funds for its R primary efforts, that too would be reflected in the financials using GAAP, and noted using cash accounting.

    My guess is campaign’s — being short lived — use cash accounting.

  134. Wes Wagner

    RC @210

    I suspect they use cash accounting, but that there are FEC rules about reporting unpaid payables. I am better at Oregon Campaign finance for reasons which may seem obvious :) … but here in Oregon you have to account for payables within the reporting periods if you have not paid them yet – so they force you to do a little accrual style accouting when it comes to reporting.

  135. Jill Pyeatt

    As for the question above about what the break-out sessions might actually be, I emailed Ms. Bennett late last night asking for info, and she forwarded my email to someone who can answer it for us. I’ll post here if and when I get the info.

  136. Kevin Knedler

    Daniel @ 173.
    Hello Dan.
    I saw your comment about lowering the thresholds to be a delegate. I assume that would work unless a state has higher standards. I can’t imagine the national bylaws would trump a state.
    IE: Ohio LP has it built into their bylaws that a member of the Ohio delegation MUST be a pledge signing member of the national AND have voted in the LP Primary of OHio to be considered a member of the state party LP. Ohio law sets the rules on state party membership and its in our LPO bylaws. We don’t plan to change them.

  137. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@201,

    —–
    Check with any accountant…there is a wide array of “debts”…A/P, short-term and long-term debt, for ex. Absolutism in financial matters is especially dysfunctional and in fact false.
    —–

    Yes, there are varieties of debt. “Accounts payable” is one of them.

    If the suit is correct, it would appear, though, that Johnson’s organizations (I see Phillies covered that) decided not to handle Bydlak’s invoices as accounts payable (a short-term bookkeeping entry — you get what you bought, you get an invoice for it, you pay the invoice in a timely manner, but rather as a no-fixed-term loan from Bydlak to the campaign, without bothering to ask Bydlak if that was okay.

    “You’re right, though, I sense you are tearing GJ down as the LP’s standardbearer, but, OK, what is your motive?”

    I don’t see myself as “tearing him down.” He is what he is.

    My motive is that I enjoy discussion.

    My toes are tapping any way things go.

    If Johnson wins the nomination, he will either surprise me and do good things (my toes are tapping) or his flaws will serve to further reduce the influence of the LP in the libertarian movement (unless the party turns around, my toes have reason to tap for that outcome as well — I’m still nominally on the fence as to whether electoral politics can accomplish anything worthwhile, so a Johnson debacle would help me down a bit more on the “no” side).

    If Wrights wins the nomination, the LP will at least be able to (metaphorically speaking) stand tall and say “hey, we decided to be the Libertarian Party instead of the Republican Party (Mini-Me version) for once!” I don’t know that Wrights could prove electoral politics to be effectual, but at least his campaign would be something the LP could be reasonably proud of rather than the equivalent of taking a shit on the public stage and then rolling in it just to get some attention.

  138. Robert Capozzi

    214 tk, it’s my practice to not pre-judge. Anyone can make an accusation.

    Yes, it is all good.

    To the extent that an RP bolt to the LP is still an outside possibility, that is the one scenario where the upside and the downside are both in play. Upside is RP approaches Perot exposure. Downside is a SuperPAC decides that Paul is such a threat that they REALLY take him down with, say, relentless ads on NewsletterGate.

    Even that, though, could be cleansing. So, full circle, it IS all good.

    (And I guess rolling around in metaphorical shit is in the eye of the beholder. You might say that about GJ and the FAIR Tax. I see that as disappointing.)

  139. Shane

    Wow, Paulie. Great memory in recalling a comment from a few years back.

    Hope you’re doing well.

Leave a Reply