Hi Mark,
Thanks for weighing in and taking the time to listen. Unfortunately it
did not go our way, despite my best efforts. Mark Hinkle, Bob Weber and
Rodney Austin all clung to the idea that if the bylaws don't prohibit
the ExCom from adding this requirement for delegates to participate,
then the ExCom is allowed to do it.
When it seemed from our discussion last night after the hearing that
things were going this way, I asked for another 24 hours to look over
the materials and we talked again at 7pm tonight. After over an hour of
arguing with the three of them, things were moving toward an impasse,
and I saw the writing on the wall and did not object to taking a vote.
Gail never called in for the discussion and vote tonight (she was out
doing outreach), but her vote wouldn't have made a difference and I
doubt any arguments she made would have changed the outcome. I had also
forwarded some good feedback from Michael Seebeck, though I'm not sure
everyone saw it before we spoke again tonight. We agreed she'll still
be able to have her vote formally recorded since the deadline for that
hasn't passed.
In my opinion we simply have to get the bylaws changed. I have started
a new reform caucus list called Grassroots Libertarians which I will be
inviting you to join [if anyone on LPSF-Activists is interested too,
please let me know]. If you'd like to chat, my number is (415) 621-7932
-- feel free to call any time. I would have called you, but don't seem
to have your number and couldn't find it on the Monterey County LP
site. Gail, whom I spoke with earlier, had it, but only at home and she
was out.
By the way, the session apparently did not get recorded -- Rodney told
us tonight that last night he failed to execute the proper procedure to
start the recording (not realizing it until later). He promised to let
me know when he hears definitively from Aaron Starr and M Carling
whether any official LPC recording was made, since this was all handled
remotely.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
On Friday, September 23, 2005, at 03:26 PM, mark dierolf wrote:
> I listened to the hearing last night and in my opinion, if the LPC
> wants to
> sponsor a cruise, then let them, but for them to deny any delegate
> complete
> access to the meetings is both unethical and should be prohibited by
> the LPC
> bylaws.
>
> One of our likely delegates, Robert Ratto, would be denied access to
> the
> proposed convention because his job only allows him one day off, and
> the
> ship will be inaccessible to him once it sets sail. Ratto has been
> able to
> make other conventions for one day, so it's unfortunate that he and
> many
> others like him are now unwanted. Dan W. sent me his unofficial
> minutes of
> the last convention and the record shows that at least 55 delegates
> credential AFTER the convention began. It's reasonable to assume that
> many
> of those delegates would have been denied their right to vote if that
> convention had been like that which has been proposed. Dan W. must
> have
> been joking when he suggested delegates like Mr. Ratto could fly to
> the boat
> or try to board in Mexico.
>