Attached are the minutes of the post-convention Libertarian National Committee meeting and subsequent LNC Executive Committee phone conference, as posted by LNC Secretary Ruth Bennett to the LNC-discuss list (unfortunately closed to non-LNC members at present). Please feel free to forward and distribute so that LP members can be more informed about the actions of elected and appointed party leaders, and I look forward to seeing the comments on IPR and elsewhere.
SOME THOUGHTS/CLARIFICATIONS ON THE 5/6/12 LNC MEETING
• I voted "no" on the motion to negotiate a contract with the Johnson campaign because I agreed with LNC regional representative Rich Tomasso that the full LNC should at least *see* the contract *before* it is approved, and have the opportunity to give input. This was unfortunately *not* part of the motion that was passed. I frankly question the need for the LNC to have an Executive Committee at all. The whole LNC could hold votes by email within a short time frame when rapid turn-around is needed. The argument that having a committee (the LNC) negotiating with the Johnson campaign would have been too many cooks spoiling the soup also applies (albeit to a lesser degree) to the 7-member Executive Committee. I would rather leave negotiations with the Johnson/Gray campaign(s) solely to the Chair, and have him report back to the entire LNC.
• Excellent call by Bill Redpath in asking newly chosen VP candidate Jim Gray to have the campaign include the word "libertarian" in its materials and thereby securing Gray's promise to do so.
• Since I was not sure how I felt about the proposed new membership level structure, delaying its implementation seemed desirable, thus I voted along with the rest of the LNC to do so. Input from LP members (or anyone else dedicated to the cause of freedom) on this or any other points of LNC business is most welcome.
• Despite the supposed triumph of the radical faction at the May 2-6 Las Vegas convention, the mere 4 votes I received (including my own) to sit on the APRC (Advertising and Publication Review Committee), as opposed to 15, 16, of 17 votes received by each of the other five nominees for that committee, shows that the new LNC is perhaps not as different from the old LNC as some may be dangerously assuming. We've still got a long way to go before we're out of the woods, imho. I'm guessing that those who voted for me, and thus along with myself are likely the most reform-minded LNC members were Lee Wrights, J. J. Myers, and Arvin Vorha, but if anyone cares to share knowledge to the contrary, I am open to being shown to be mistaken on that. Naturally my hope is that more discussion and working together will eventually bring more LNC members around to views that are more radical, bottom-up, and in sync with the Five Key Values of the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus which were my campaign platform (see www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/grassrootslibertarians -- anyone who agrees with the 5KV is welcome to join the caucus and be added to our 79-member email list).
• On Bill Redpath's affirmation that it was necessary, I reluctantly went along with the LNC going into a secret meeting -- not that my sole nay vote would have stopped this from happening in any case. And I admit that as it turned out, I can see how the secrecy did seem to have been justified in this instance. However, I think the topic of the secret meeting should at a minimum have been described much more specifically than it was. This could have been done without giving away any of the specifics whose revelation could potentially cause problems for the party. I propose that in the future, the LNC immediately upon emerging from a secret meeting, issue a statement describing the content of the meeting as specifically as possible without jeopardizing material legitimately being kept secret, and also that there be a sunset clause limiting the duration of time for which any official secrets are kept. This of course suggests that minutes of secret sessions should be kept, and I favor that as well. In truth I am not fully convinced that the harm of revealing all such secrets outweighs the harm of having a culture in which the LNC holds proceedings kept secret from members. In this case, not bringing the issue to the LNC in the first place might have been the best option, since there was really nothing we could do about the issue anyway. Those who may feel I am being excessively "obstructionist", failing to "pick my battles", etc. in my new role as LNC At-Large representative, please note that I am *already* making an important compromise by seeking to find a reasonable middle ground between abolishing the culture of secrecy altogether (as my gut tells me ought to be done), and going along with the views of the LNC majority who appear to believe that secrecy is often necessary (despite the apparent resistance to naming the secrecy for what it is, rather than cloaking it in the "executive session" euphemism).
• I voted no on the appointment of Bill Redpath to be Assistant Treasurer for several reasons:
(1) This post and all other positions appointed by the LNC should be open to non-LNC members
(2) Since the post was only created by a change to the bylaws made during the convention, people should have been allowed at least a few days to spread word about the vacancy and submit nominations before a selection was made (preferably the Assistant Treasurer should be elected by delegates, not appointed).
(3) I would have preferred Joe Buchman, who ran for Treasurer, to be the Assistant Treasurer. The LNC could use more fresh blood. Redpath has been part of the insider group for a long time, and while I appreciate his hard work on ballot access and dedication to our cause, I also think he has tended to vote too often with what I have lately been calling (for want of a better term) the "top-down faction" (Starr, Root, Mattson, etc.) Lest this comment be misinterpreted, I want to stress that I bear no personal hostility toward any of these named individuals, and neither intend nor consider my comments to be uncivil or inappropriate. I simply feel that their priorities for the LP tend to be wrong for the cause of freedom, and thus I oppose their agenda and respectfully feel that our party/movement would be better off if they were not in the party's leadership (assuming better replacements, of course). I also strongly feel that such political disagreements *should* be out in the open and stated honestly and forthrightly, so that LP members can get an accurate sense of where their elected representatives stand on the important issues and controversies in our party and movement. I understand if some people oppose me politically for this. I hope they do not hold it against me personally as I attempt to follow my conscience.
• Ruth Bennett's minutes seem pretty good -- somewhat more detailed than the minutes we've been getting on the California LP's Executive Committee. I do think there is some room for improvement in capturing additional detail -- my take on minutes, which is not shared by everyone, is that their purpose ought to be to present a full and accurate picture of meetings, not just what official actions were taken, so that anyone not present (or anyone with an imperfect memory who was present) can look back and get a sense of what really took place, including the discussion that produced the actions. Of course I also realize that Ruth like all of us is human and it is tough to get everything written down accurately and completely, thus the need for LNC proceedings to be videotaped. I thank non-LNC member Joe Dehn for voluntarily being there and providing that important service, and hope his video will be made available for posterity on the party's website, LP.org.
• New Libertarian Party chair Geoff Neale has invited me to submit ideas for revising the LNC policy manual, which I also hope to see posted on LP.org if it is not already there. Again I welcome any suggestions and ideas that folks in the libertarian movement may have on this topic, and will listen to your input. Feel free to write or call me any time, and/or post your thoughts publicly. Please let me know if you do *not* wish to have any specific input you send me made public. I do reserve the option of making public any input sent to me by other elected/appointed party leaders that is political (as opposed to personal), and invite you to follow the same policy with regard to anything I may send or tell you -- elected leaders should be held to a high standard of transparency when it comes to their political comments and views. If you as an elected/appointed party leader want me to keep something you tell me which concerns the party/movement confidential, you would be well advised to secure my consent to keep your remarks private *before* you express them to me.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
RealReform@...
(415) 625-FREE
noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)
noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)