Posted to the LNC list by Chair Geoff Neale:
Last Sunday afternoon, I received a phone call from Ruth Bennett. In that conversation she informed me that she was resigning, and that she would send notification to the LNC within “a few days”. I asked her to get it to us by the end of the week. Perhaps I’m over-stepping something here, because my assumption of “end of the week” meant by Friday, and I’m pretty sure I did NOT say “by Friday”. However, I am also quite sure that “a few days” has passed without a formal non-verbal communication, and I need to be able to move things forward.
Therefore, I am accepting Ruth Bennett’s verbal resignation as a formal resignation, and am declaring that the position of Secretary is as of this point open.
I also am appointing Dr. James Lark as secretary pro tem. For the record, Dr. Lark offered his services to the LNC in assistance of the Secretary at our last meeting, and there was no objection to this offer. I do not recall a formal motion, and this was not an appointment. Additionally, Dr. Lark has communicated to the members of the Executive Committee that he is willing to take on this duty in the short-term, until we choose a replacement, but is not interested in taking on the role formally. He is also hopeful of being relieved of this duty as soon as possible, and would like us to fill the position before the next LNC meeting. Therefore, his appointment is effective immediately, and will last until he resigns from the appointment, or until a new Secretary is chosen.
It should be clear that there is nothing within our Bylaws that specifically grants me the authority to do this. However, there is also nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits me from doing this. In RONR, it is considered a normal action to do so, in order to keep the operation of the organization moving. While some may question the authority to select a secretary pro tem, I think it is more of an imperative that we do so. Since I am not filling an LNC position, I believe my authority to appoint a volunteer (Dr. Lark) falls within the following: “The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to direct its business and affairs, including hiring and discharging of National Committee volunteers and paid personnel, subject to express National Committee policies and directives issued in the exercise of the National Committee’s plenary control and management of Party affairs, properties and funds.”
During our discussion among the EX members, it was mentioned that there is precedent for the EC making this selection, as was done when Bill Redpath was appointed treasurer pro tem by the EC upon the resignation of James Oaksun. However, there is also precedent for the Chair making the appointment, as was done when Bill Redpath was appointed treasurer pro tem by the Chair upon the resignation of Deryl Martin (2003).
It should be noted that the discussions between EC members about Dr. Lark filling this role came down to four in favor (Hagan, Redpath, Wiener and myself), one willful abstention (Dr. Lark) and one abstention by absence of stated opinion (Wrights). Since we now have only six EC members, and one known abstention, a vote in favor of four members of the EC is more than sufficient to formalize the appointment of Dr. Lark. We can still subsequently hold a formal EC vote to confirm my appointment, but my appointment is consistent with what the EC would do if it met, and I’d rather save the time inherent in scheduling and holding an EC meeting.
Of course, I recognize that one or more of you could object to my ruling that I have the authority to make this appointment, and I respect your right to do so. However, if you think I do not have the authority, I’m afraid we’re in a true Catch 22 scenario. If you believe I have over-stepped my authority, you can get enough others to join in the request for a mail ballot, but such a mail ballot can only be submitted to the LNC by the Secretary. If you do not accept this appointment, then who can submit the mail ballot to the LNC?
So I hope that we all accept this appointment and get this train back on the tracks.
Now, as to procedure for replacement, I intend to send a notice to the State Chairs list and membership that we have an opening for Secretary, and solicit self-nominations. I propose that we have a submission deadline of January 31, 2013 at midnight Eastern time. As soon as possible after that time, the secretary pro tem will submit a mail ballot on voting for the replacement from the full list of nominees, with our normal mail ballot deadlines. At first I thought this could take several votes, but I now think that this could be resolved in a single vote for the simple reason that any LNC member can change their vote prior to the deadline. If supporters of one or more minority candidates see that their choice is trailing, then they will be open to change their vote to a subsequent choice.
I want to send this email to the State Chairs no later than next Monday. If you have suggestions or feedback on better ways to proceed, please get them to me ASAP.
Geoffrey Neale
Chair, Libertarian Party
59 responses so far ↓
1 George Phillies // Jan 12, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Neale made a highly reasonable decision. There is a specific base in the party bylaws, namely that we reject the use of fraud for political purposes. Promising to resign on a specified date, other than with the intent of resigning, for example to postpone a motion of impeachment, would be a use of fraud for political purposes, forbidden under our bylaws. Therefore, the resignation statement was bylaws enforceable.
There are several people with a record of having done secretarial roles or the like, and being competent at it. Chuck Moulton has an established record, and would be a superb candidate.
If you feel a need for alternatives, the 2010 runner-up for Secretary, Rob Power, comes immediately to mind, though he may decline.
2 Wes Wagner // Jan 12, 2013 at 12:29 pm
I would suggest backing Chuck … he is fair, reliable, has an attention to detail and is willing to do the job with all the effort required that it deserves.
3 Chuck Moulton // Jan 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm
I will be self-nominating for the open LNC secretary position. I plan to call LNC members today and send an email tomorrow night. (I’m currently traveling in Florida.)
4 Chuck Moulton // Jan 12, 2013 at 1:11 pm
I get the impression David Blau probably has the votes (perhaps on the 2nd ballot). He’s the 2nd choice of practically all the Alicia Mattson votes, and Mattson doesn’t have 9 votes. Some people who I had thought would support me will be supporting Blau instead from the 1st ballot (though I would be their 2nd choice). Others who outside observers would think would support me will be supporting Mattson from the 1st ballot. Some will support Gary Johnson of Texas.
Blau is currently traveling out of the country. If when he returns it turns out he isn’t interested in the position, then it would be more of a race.
In any event I’ll keep calling people, send an email, and otherwise try my best to lobby for the position — even if I only end up with 1-3 votes.
5 George Phillies // Jan 12, 2013 at 2:18 pm
@4 Exposing the Mattson supporters is still a good thing.
6 Mark Axinn // Jan 12, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Well, George, expose me.
Here (in alphabetical order) are three truly excellent choices for Secretary, each of whom I could support without hesitation:
1. David Blau.
2. Alicia Mattson.
3. Chuck Moulton.
Isn’t it nice to blessed with multiple highly qualified, hard-working (instead of just bitching and complaining about every fucking thing) people for the position?
My interest is who is qualified to do the work and who will help advance liberty. In this case, all of the above.
7 Mark Axinn // Jan 12, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Regarding Rob Power who is a member of LPNY and the Manhattan LP now that he moved here:
Rob is also incredibly well-talented and dedicated to the LP, but lately his business has taken off (good for him!) so I doubt he’s interested at present.
I will see him next week at our chapter convention and can confirm same then.
8 Anti Starrist // Jan 12, 2013 at 2:53 pm
What about Starchild? Isn’t he doing an excellent job with transparency on The LNC. Would it not be great to have a Secretary that embraces an open and fair LNC. Jill, George, Wes, Paulie what do you think about a Starchild for Secretary campaign? He is a hard working activist and eminently qualified candidate.
9 Jill Pyeatt // Jan 12, 2013 at 3:02 pm
With all due respect to Starchild, I don’t anticipate that he would be interested, since he’s also on the CA Executive Committee. California has a convention coming soon.
10 Jill Pyeatt // Jan 12, 2013 at 3:03 pm
I sincerely wish Ruth Bennett well. I hope the reason she resigned is that she’s just too busy with her other activities, as opposed to some health issue.
11 George Phillies // Jan 12, 2013 at 3:13 pm
@9 Similarly, David Blau is the Massachusetts State Chair.
12 Anti Starrist // Jan 12, 2013 at 3:39 pm
@9 If my memory is correct, Starchild was elected to a 2 year term on The California Executive Committee in 2011. His term is expiring in April 2013. If he does not run again, he would have more free time to devote to The LNC.
Unless of course, he thinking about running for Chair of California, which would be a good thing also.
13 Rob Power // Jan 12, 2013 at 4:06 pm
This verbal-to-one-person, not written-to-the-whole-LNC, resignation seems just not-business-as-usual enough that I don’t think anyone on Judicial Committee ought to be involved in any of this, including running for the supposed vacancy, just in case it’s appealed to us. So I’m out this round.
14 Jeremy C. Young // Jan 12, 2013 at 4:15 pm
@11, I don’t think being a state chair precludes one from being a national officer. For instance, George, you were an extremely active candidate for the presidential nomination in 2008 when you were also Massachusetts State Chair, and no one ever accused you of shirking your state chair duties. For another, I believe Kevin Knedler was an active Ohio State Chair and LNC member at the same time from 2010-2012.
15 Kevin Knedler // Jan 12, 2013 at 7:20 pm
I agree with Mark @ # 6. Three very qualified people for Secretary. Let’s get it right.
16 George Phillies // Jan 12, 2013 at 7:34 pm
It is possible that her supporters have the votes to elect Mattson, though my count is a bit lower than that.
Perhaps there will be a fourth candidate. Perhaps Aaron Starr will run.
I suspect that member response may be highly amusing.
17 Jeremy C. Young // Jan 12, 2013 at 9:59 pm
In order to safeguard voter intent, the LP should pass a bylaw at the next national convention that states: “Any individual who is a candidate for an LNC or Executive Committee position, but who does not win that position, is ineligible to be appointed to that position until the next national convention.” As #6 shows, there are apparently plenty of high-ranking LP members who don’t understand what it means when the delegates choose not to elect someone to a position. (Hint: it generally means the delegates don’t want that person serving in that position.)
18 George Phillies // Jan 12, 2013 at 10:22 pm
@17 Excellent thinking.
I see what you said and am noting alternatives:
Question: Should it be “not elected” or should it be “any incumbent who is defeated”? Should it be “to that position” or “to the LNC” ? For example, if as a result of appointments we had Treasurer Hinkle and Chair Starr, what would be your take? Your wording is celar, but I am suggesting alternatives for fine tuning the thinking.
19 Steven Wilson // Jan 13, 2013 at 9:13 am
Regardless of the person, the fact that the LNC is again worthless for a period of time is being ignored. It doesn’t matter why (resignation).
Even after the convention and a few meetings, has the course changed from previous years?
If the expectations were to tie your shoes and open a door, well yes, they have done a great job.
If you are going to play party, stop complaining about membership and buying a building.
Serious people need a serious solution which require leadership, vision, and professionalism.
You bring back half the people you cleaned off because of what? You are tired? You missed blaming someone else?
20 Fred Jabin // Jan 13, 2013 at 10:21 am
Rob’s comments @13 are evidence that he would do a good job as secretary. I wonder if he would be willing to run if Ruth submits a formal written resignation.
Chuck Moulton would also be an excellent choice.
21 Jeremy C. Young // Jan 13, 2013 at 1:17 pm
George @18, I thought about that, but I was trying to go with the least-controversial way of putting it. I can imagine a few (though not many) situations where the delegates might reject a candidate for a particular office but not mind if that candidate ends up serving in a different office. For instance, if Ruth Bennett ran for Secretary again in 2010, I’d expect her to be defeated on the basis of job performance; but if the LNC then wanted to appoint her to an At-Large vacancy, I can see the same delegates not really objecting to that, because it’s a different job description and the duties are different.
Also, I think my proposal would have to be tweaked so it didn’t relate to the At-Large LNC elections. I don’t think a lot of people mind when there’s a vacancy and the LNC elects the person who came in sixth in a field of 20 candidates. In fact, I could see that as actually reflecting voter intent. The real problem occurs when the people being appointed lost in a single-elimination race (i.e., executive board positions).
22 Dave Terry // Jan 13, 2013 at 3:20 pm
M.A. (6)
“1. David Blau.
2. Alicia Mattson.
3. Chuck Moulton.
In anticipation of the direction of the LPNC,
how about a “triparte secretariat”. NOBODY WINS – NOBODY LOSES – EVERYBODY IS HAPPY”
23 Slingblade // Jan 13, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Alicia Mattson is a hack!!!!!!!
24 Q2Q // Jan 13, 2013 at 9:49 pm
I hope Carl Person runs for Secretary.
25 Mark Axinn // Jan 13, 2013 at 10:29 pm
Jeremy at 17 wrote:
>As #6 shows, there are apparently plenty of high-ranking LP members who don’t understand what it means when the delegates choose not to elect someone to a position.
Actually, after 32 years as a lawyer in Manhattan, I think I understand exactly what votes and by-laws mean. If your proposal passes to limit future choices, then it will be effective but until then, the LNC is free to replace Ms. Bennett with anyone it pleases, including someone who ran but lost the race to her at the last Convention.
Of course, that was not my point. I want people in positions on the LNC who will actually get things done to grow our Party. Alicia, Dave and Chuck each fulfill that criterion.
26 Googlenaut // Jan 13, 2013 at 10:36 pm
I want people in positions on the LNC who will actually get things done to grow our Party. Alicia, Dave and Chuck each fulfill that criterion.
But only one of them was rejected in a head to head matchup by the delegates. It wasn’t for lack of secretarial skills or performance, so that means the delegates have other criteria also. If we have other good choices – and we do – why pick that one, against the wishes of the people who picked the LNC?
27 Googlenaut // Jan 13, 2013 at 10:43 pm
If your proposal passes to limit future choices, then it will be effective but until then, the LNC is free to replace Ms. Bennett with anyone it pleases, including someone who ran but lost the race to her at the last Convention.
“Free” as in not prohibited by the bylaws? Yes.
Is it a good idea for them to do so? No.
Would Jeremy’s bylaw be a good one to pass? Yes.
Would it be a good idea for the LNC to act as if it has already passed even though it hasn’t? Yes.
Why?
Because even though it’s not a bylaw (at least not yet) it’s still a bad idea for the LNC to bite the hand that elects them.
It would be one thing if Alicia Mattson was the only competent person interested in serving as Secretary.
But she isn’t the only one.
No one is saying that she wasn’t a competent secretary, so clearly there were other reasons she was not re-elected.
Why would the LNC want to ignore those reasons when filling the vacancy? An overwhelming desire for a clean sweep at the next convention?
28 Googlenaut // Jan 13, 2013 at 10:46 pm
Alicia Mattson is a hack!!!!!!!
You didn’t put enough exclamation points there. A few more and your carefully reasoned argument would have been much more convincing.
29 Googlenaut // Jan 13, 2013 at 10:48 pm
In anticipation of the direction of the LPNC,
how about a “triparte secretariat”. NOBODY WINS – NOBODY LOSES – EVERYBODY IS HAPPY”
That would be against the bylaws.
I’m not sure what North Carolina has to do with this, so I’m assuming you meant LNC.
BTW, Gary Johnson of Texas is also running.
30 Googlenaut // Jan 13, 2013 at 10:58 pm
Starchild is doing a fine job as At Large.
Why play musical chairs?
At Large would then have to be filled.
Chuck Moulton would be as close to Starchild’s positions as anyone could possibly be and have a chance in hell of winning this election with these people voting.
Also, Starchild has not expressed interest.
31 Mark Axinn // Jan 13, 2013 at 11:01 pm
Googlenaught @ 26-27 (no comment on 28 or 29)–
Those are all considerations that the LNC members should take into account. But they still may elect Alicia to fill the vacancy. Or not. So long as they act to appoint a competent Secretary who will fulfill the job requirements.
That said, I do not agree with Jeremy’s bylaw change. Circumstances change from the Convention and Convention attendees do not necessarily represent the will of the Party after the Convention. For example, the 2006 Portland Convention was such an abomination that people like me who hadn’t been to a National LP Convention since the 90′s went to Denver 2008 just so we could mend the eviscerated platform. (Okay, I also went so I could vote for Mary six times, but that’s another story…)
32 Googlenaut // Jan 13, 2013 at 11:14 pm
“Those are all considerations that the LNC members should take into account. But they still may elect Alicia to fill the vacancy. Or not. So long as they act to appoint a competent Secretary who will fulfill the job requirements.”
I think we all agree that a competent Secretary who will fulfill the job requirements is the first and most obvious criterion.
I think – at least so far – no one has disagreed that more than one person who is willing to serve is competent and would fulfill the job requirements.
Given those two points of agreement, unless someone would like to dispute them, we can move on to considering additional criteria.
“Circumstances change from the Convention and Convention attendees do not necessarily represent the will of the Party after the Convention. ”
Granted, we don’t know exactly how the vote would have turned out with the benefit of hindsight or who will choose to attend one convention versus the next one. But in the absence of knowing those things which can’t be known, it would seem to me to be a good idea for the LNC to go by the best signal of the will of the party that they have available, which happens to be the will of the voters at the last convention who actually attended and voted as expressed by the results of those votes.
Otherwise why even have conventions? The LNC could just perpetually pick their own successors.
After all, we have no way of knowing that that isn’t how the delegates would have voted if we were still having conventions…right?
33 Jill Pyeatt // Jan 13, 2013 at 11:19 pm
I’m with Googlenaut on this one. I think if someone was voted down for an office at a convention, he or she shouldn’t be put into that position by the LNC if a vacancy occurs,
at least for that ensuing 2 year term.
34 George Phillies // Jan 13, 2013 at 11:20 pm
@26 Stop asking intelligent questions. You will promote confusion and dissension, not to mention attention to reality. Also, National Party membership is already falling again post-convention.
35 From Der Sidelines // Jan 13, 2013 at 11:33 pm
Mattson was voted out because the delegates were sick of the Starr Chamber, of which she is most definitely a part.
Keep in mind the LNC already has screwed the pooch when they put Hinkle back on the LNC after he was voted off the island by the delegates.
They would be wise to not make that same mistake again.
But who said they were wise?
36 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 13, 2013 at 11:44 pm
How many spots did Bill Redpath run for before winning the at large position?
37 Googlenaut // Jan 13, 2013 at 11:49 pm
Coming in 7th of 19 (iirc) is different than losing head to head.
Hinkle got more votes for At Large than anyone who did not get elected At Large or to another position on LNC (Pojunis). When you only get 5 choices and there are a lot of good people running, you’re not necessarily voting against someone just because they didn’t make your top 5. Maybe if the LNC had room for everyone running and would seat however many people won a yea or nay vote on themselves alone that would be a different thing; I probably would have voted to seat more than half of those running.
Mattson on the other hand did get defeated head to head. And it wasn’t because of bad performance of secretarial duties.
So, I don’t agree that the LNC would just be doing the same thing by picking Mattson as they already did by picking Hinkle. This would be much, much worse.
38 Googlenaut // Jan 13, 2013 at 11:54 pm
MHW @36
https://www.lp.org/files/2012%20Libertarian%20Party%20Convention%20Minutes.pdf
P 30:
LNC Chair – Round 3
Candidate Votes Percentage
Ernie Hancock 21 4.440 %
Geoff Neale 149 31.501 %
Bill Redpath 128 27.061 %
Mark Rutherford 153 32.347 %
Wes Wagner 9 1.903 %
NOTA 13 2.748 %
LNC Chair – Round 4
Candidate Votes Percentage
Geoff Neale 167 36.543 %
Bill Redpath 119 26.039 %
Mark Rutherford 155 33.917 %
NOTA 12 2.626 %
Jennifer Lopez (write-in) 2 0.438 %
Emma Dearest (write-in) 2 0.438 %
p. 32
LNC Vice-Chair – Round 1
Candidate Votes Percentage
George Phillies 20 4.608 %
Bill Redpath 179 41.244 %
Lee Wrights 228 52.535 %
NOTA 6 1.382 %
Mark Rutherford (write-in) 1 0.230 %
39 Rob Power // Jan 14, 2013 at 12:43 am
@20 Thanks Fred, but after having communicated with Ruth on Sunday evening, I’m pretty sure this won’t go to Judicial Committee after all, so a formal letter wouldn’t make a difference now. However, as with the very well-reasoned arguments for the LNC to not appoint someone after she lost the position head-to-head at the last convention, I’d be a bad choice after losing head-to-head with that same someone two years before that. So I’m still out. But I totally agree with everything else you said.
Outright Libertarians had a membership meeting on Sunday afternoon, and I think a scorecard is being developed regarding the candidates for appointment to Secretary, so that we can lobby the LNC for someone who supports an inclusive LP and LP Platform. I’m only aware of one of the current candidates who has consistently failed to meet those criteria.
40 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 14, 2013 at 2:27 am
Thanks Googlenaut @ 38. I was busy working on a news release with my fellow radicals here in the Evergreen State.
41 George Phillies // Jan 14, 2013 at 4:28 am
@37 Is Mattson being put forward as the candidate, or as the bargaining position so that the Starr folks can afterward generate support for a “compromise” candidate?
42 paulie // Jan 14, 2013 at 11:28 am
Dunno. It’s all rumors at this stage – I haven’t seen Mattson or Blau even say they want to run – but the rumor is that Blau is the second choice of Mattson supporters.
43 Stewart Flood // Jan 14, 2013 at 1:32 pm
But isn’t just about everything a rumor these days?
44 paulie // Jan 14, 2013 at 1:45 pm
No, not everything. Geoff Neale has accepted Ruth Bennett’s resignation. Gary Johnson (TX) and Chuck Moulton have openly said they are willing to serve. Those are facts, not rumors. Other people allegedly being interested in the position, what support levels each of them has, who various people’s first and second choices are, and so on – those are rumors.
45 Be Rational // Jan 14, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Being Secretary involves a tremendous amount of work and responsibility. LNC members should choose someone based on their ability and commitment to the duties of the position. Please use wisdom and care about the LP as an organization, not faction or friendship, in making this appointment.
To Ruth Bennett: Thank you for your efforts and for stepping aside for the good of the LP. I hope you do well in the future.
To the New LNC Secretary: Thank you in advance for your dedication and hard work.
46 paulie // Jan 14, 2013 at 4:57 pm
I don’t really understand this comment. Maybe someone can explain it so I can understand it better:
I don’t think we are entirely worthless, but I would welcome your feedback on specific actions and motions to propose.
Somewhat, but IMO not enough. People sometimes forget that not all of the LNC was changed out. Only 2 of 9 current Officers and At Large were on the last LNC, but most of the Region Reps are the same as last term, so only about half the LNC was changed out. As for whether the new people agree with the group that had a majority of the last LNC, that depends on the issue.
Gee, thanks!
Please explain what you mean. We should NOT care whether membership falls and continue to waste MORE money on rent perpetually?
Well, yes, but what specific solutions do you propose? And are they within the bylaws limited role of the LNC?
Dunno what you mean by “half.” One member who came in 7th of 20-or-so for At Large, behind only the five that were selected and one who is already serving as a Region Rep and didn’t run for the vacancy, was selected (by a fairly narrow margin) to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the guy who got the 5th number of votes for At Large.
Some people are pushing for the runner up for Secretary (last term’s Secretary) to fill this new vacancy, but that hasn’t happened yet, and the rumors are that she does not have enough support to make that happen. Even if it does, that would be 2 out of 18, which is not half according to my calculations. Maybe you’re using some other form of arithmetic?
47 Mark Axinn // Jan 14, 2013 at 5:40 pm
GN @32:
>But in the absence of knowing those things which can’t be known, it would seem to me to be a good idea for the LNC to go by the best signal of the will of the party that they have available, which happens to be the will of the voters at the last convention who actually attended and voted as expressed by the results of those votes.
>Otherwise why even have conventions? The LNC could just perpetually pick their own successors.
Maybe. Clearly the vote at the Convention is a valid consideration, but I do not think it should be determinative. For the purpose of this argument, forget about who is running as I already stated I would support Alicia (who is far more conservative than I) or Dave or Chuck. In fact, forget that this is about the LP Secretary and let’s focus just on whether the LNC or any executive board should be rubber-stamping the vote of the delegates in a general election.
I would argue the answer is No. Once you vote board members in, they have discretion consistent with their fiduciary duties to do what they think is best for the organization. Clearly that includes considering the will of the majority, especially if the precise question was presented before, but they might nevertheless vote against that will if they believe that to be in the best interest of the group.
Most people support statism, but we cheer when a Congresscritter votes against it, even if that’s not following the will of the majority of people who voted for him/her/it.
If we don’t like how our representatives are voting, our remedy is to replace them at the next general election/Convention. But once they are empowered, they should vote as they determine best, and not just parrot what was done before.
That said, if A beat B overwhelmingly, then A resigns, Board members should think long and hard before appointing B to the vacancy, especially if C and D are equally qualified and not tainted by having lost the race to A ten months before. But they shouldn’t be estopped from doing so either, which is why I would never support a by-law amendment which would do so.
48 paulie // Jan 14, 2013 at 6:06 pm
Exactly.
I’m not sure they bylaw proposal is necessarily good – what if no equally qualified C and D were stepping forward, would we still want to eliminate B from consideration?
But, in this case, a very qualified person (Chuck Moulton) is ready, willing and able to serve. Also, David Blau (reportedly) and Gary Johnson (TX) (definitely) are as well. I would consider them ahead of Alicia Mattson, even though she did a much better job with performing secretarial tasks than Ruth Bennett did. I also think Alicia Mattson did a better job at those than Bob Sullentrup did, although he did a better job with them than Ruth Bennett did as Secretary this term (this is all unrelated to any of their voting records on LNC).
I think there’ll be a strong push for that if the LNC chooses to fill this vacancy (and/or any additional ones if they occur this term) with people who were voted out at the convention.
I would also not be surprised, were that to happen, if a bylaw along the lines Jeremy proposed would gain support and pass, regardless of whether it’s a good idea or not.
49 Outside the LNC // Jan 14, 2013 at 6:31 pm
So Alicia Mattson shouldn’t be appointed since she lost at the last Convention?
And the delegates made their choice at the last Convention for a new Secretary? How did that work out? The newly elected Secretary made it 8 months and there were calls for removal in later part of 2012? Not good.
Was the former Secretary from the last LNC nearly flawless in keeping the party records and minutes?
Sometimes it appears people vote based on emotion instead of a candidates skill sets to get a job done. That is especially important with the job of LNC Treasurer and Secretary.
There needs to be some standards set for some of those jobs on the LNC, just like a real job. Let’s get serious.
50 paulie // Jan 14, 2013 at 6:39 pm
You write as if we don’t have any other choices who are qualified for the position.
Yes, but not that’s not the only consideration and she’s not the only person capable of doing that, even only counting the announced or likely candidates for the vacancy.
They are also voting positions on the LNC, so naturally that is one of the considerations when delegates vote. Nothing irrational about that.
That would be great!
Fortunately, we have several well qualified candidates to fill the vacancy, including several who were not voted out by convention delegates.
51 Outside the LNC // Jan 14, 2013 at 8:31 pm
Maybe someday the LP will have elected public officials and it can focus on those successes. Meanwhile, the off-year national conventions focus on the insane drama around the internal officers and members of the LNC board. That’s about all we have as a draw to the national convention in off-years. Maybe a reason the R’s and D’s only have a convention every 4 years. They are more focused on winning public official elections.
52 paulie // Jan 14, 2013 at 8:35 pm
Columbus should be fun
53 Steven Wilson // Jan 14, 2013 at 11:07 pm
The conventions are a decoy. Those interested in politics can pretend to win and get victory within the construct of the “party politics” rather than real politic.
1. They ask for money for a building for a party who doesn’t fund candidates without favoritism.
2. Fund raising and revenue generators are seasonal.
3. National leadership is hypocritical to the theory of the party itself in the way it treats the state and local groups.
You can’t blame them. These races let people get a victory, any victory, which helps them feel good. The Libertarian brand won’t really begin until there is a Libertarian voting record in congress.
Just bring back the same people because it is their sand box. The conventions are fun and exciting. The drama is manufactured between us and it is for us. Every camp needs good theater.
John Jay Myers and Arvin Vohra need to be cloned, but that would lead to success, and the LNC doesn’t want that. Unable to conduct business when no one even knew you were in business.
54 House Cleaning Supplies // Jan 14, 2013 at 11:12 pm
“John Jay Myers and Arvin Vohra need to be cloned,”
Call and email LNC members.
Ask them to select Chuck Moulton to fill the vacancy for Secretary.
55 Mark Axinn // Jan 14, 2013 at 11:13 pm
Paulie @52:
I am committing right now for a beer in Columbus.
Steve @53:
Yes, the real work is on the local level, but national get-togethers serve many valid purposes too.
56 paulie // Jan 14, 2013 at 11:46 pm
57 Outside the LNC // Jan 15, 2013 at 7:23 am
Interesting that the LNC has already brought back one defeated candidate for At-Large. Will the same happen with the Secretary? Difference is that the Secretary was effective in doing the job the last term.
58 paulie // Jan 15, 2013 at 8:18 am
That’s already been pretty extensively discussed in this thread. If you missed that, please scroll up.
59 JAlanKatz // Jan 16, 2013 at 10:12 pm
This is the second email I have seen from the chair in which he appears to take pleasure in pointing out procedural entanglements that make opposition to his pronouncements difficult to act on. The Chair should try to make correct decisions (for the record, I think he did here), not play Robert’s games.
For the record, if you oppose his ruling, there are other things you can do than make a motion. You can appeal to the JC, for instance. Or you can signal your disapproval by leaving the party and no longer paying dues.
Leave a Comment