July 2014 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

LP Web Site Building Fund page
by SAM8074＠aol.com 21 Jul '14

21 Jul '14

Wes or Robert, I thought that we had already bought an office condo and have moved into it yet our web site has the following active page requesting donations: http://www.lp.org/office-fund This is very misleading and I would like to know how much, if any, money has been contributed to this effort since the purchase closed. Is it being held in a encumbered account as were the contributions prior to the purchase? Will any contributions be used to pay down the principal on the mortgage? Having this contribution page still up might be interfering with efforts to raise money for ballot access, candidate training, affiliate support or other important party functions. Please advise. Thanks and Live Free, Sam Goldstein At Large Representative IT Committee Chair Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Mobile sam.goldstein(a)lp.org Email

1 0

Procedural rules for electronic meetings
by Daniel Wiener 21 Jul '14

21 Jul '14

Nick, This is an early request for you to add an agenda item at the September LNC meeting to define procedures for teleconference and video conference meetings for the LNC and other committees, as required by the recent amendment to the LP Bylaws. Also, people should be thinking about the optimum way to implement this, as well as what the potential problems are and how to best avoid them. If anyone is aware of how other comparable organizations handle such meetings, it would be good to build on their experiences. Dan Wiener -- *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”* -- Richard Feynman

2 1

Re: [Lnc-business] Socializing thru servers?
by Scott L. 21 Jul '14

21 Jul '14

Mr. Katz: There is no question that in-person meetings are far, far, better than "videoconferences." Considering that many of our members already think the National Libertarian Party does not provide any added value to their state LP affiliates, why would we want to risk making our Board meetings less effective than they currently are? http://www.wired.com/2011/08/can-online-social-networks-replace-real-sociali zing/ "After analyzing more than 35,000 different peer-reviewed papers and mapping the location of every co-author, he found that scientists located closer together produced papers of significantly higher quality, at least as measured by the number of subsequent citations. In fact, the best research was consistently done when scientists were working within roughly 30 feet of each other-that is, when they didn't need to interact via screens. This doesn't mean that we should stop socializing on the web. But it does suggest that we reconsider the purpose of our online networks. For too long, we've imagined technology as a potential substitute for our analog life, as if the phone or Google+ might let us avoid the hassle of getting together in person. But that won't happen anytime soon: There is simply too much value in face-to-face contact, in all the body language and implicit information that doesn't translate to the Internet" [I added the boldface font to those two sentences - they were not boldface in the original - Scott L.] Scott Lieberman _____ "Following our SCC meetings, in CT we used to spend 2-3 hours standing in the parking lot, socializing and talking informally. When we went to quarterly in-person meetings and monthly videoconference, I pointed out that "online there is no parking lot." I proposed two remedies, and will leave it to you to decide which is more reasonable. The first is to keep the conference going, with people coming and going as they please, and talk informally. The second was for everyone to form a Second Life account and, after our meetings, log on there and find a parking lot to hang out in. (I'm a vampire, by the way. My name is Godelfan if you're ever looking for me there.) The former idea was adopted. Joshua A. Katz"

2 1

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] Introductions and personal goals for the 2014-2016 LNC term
by Daniel Wiener 21 Jul '14

21 Jul '14

Hello everyone. For those who don't already know me, you're probably better off that way. Still... I'm Daniel Wiener, and I'm an electronic engineer working in both digital circuit design and embedded software engineering. I've been an LP member since 1972, and this is my third term as the California/Region 4 representative to the LNC. Over the years I've busied myself in a variety of roles: I worked on John Hospers' Presidential campaign and was the first editor of the California LP newsletter. I served as Treasurer of the California McBride for President Campaign in 1975-76; Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of California in 1976-77; Treasurer of the Ed Clark for Governor Campaign in 1978; and Treasurer of the Committee to Nominate Clark for President in 1980. I was the LPC Southern California Vice-Chair in 1979, and then LPC State Chair in 1979-1980 when the Libertarian Party mounted a massive registration drive (about 80 thousand new registrants) to achieve ballot status in California. I was also the LPC Secretary in 2004-2006. As far political campaigning goes, I was a Libertarian Party candidate for California Assembly in 1980; for State Senate in 1982; and for Congress in 1986. I helped elect my wife Sandi Webb to the Simi Valley City Council in 1990 and re-elect her in 1994. The Libertarian Party has endured a lot of ups and downs over the past 42 years, and I've often felt frustrated by the apparent lack of progress. But I've also learned to cultivate patience; Change simply does not happen overnight, no matter how urgently we think it needs to. It can often take decades. Despite the many harmful trends we see in our country, there are also many favorable trends which libertarians can claim a good deal of credit for. Our ideas are entering the mainstream, even though they still represent a minority of the populace. My goal is to keep pushing libertarian ideas and growing the Libertarian Party until we finally reach a tipping point and become the new political paradigm. We are resource-limited, which is the main thing preventing us from taking advantage of some huge opportunities. I want to increase Libertarian Party membership, by prospecting to target audiences such as newly-registered Libertarian voters and taking advantage of all the new social media and Internet channels. I want us to run libertarian candidates for non-partisan local offices and elect them, while also running quality candidates for higher partisan offices to impact those races and garner earned media for our policies. One of the major lessons I've learned from my experiences is that there's no magic wand in politics. Libertarian Party members are full of bright ideas and master plans for electing our candidates and remaking society, then get upset when their plans aren't magically implemented. But successful politics involves a lot of infrastructure and money and (above all) hard work, much of it behind the scenes. Rhetoric and wishful thinking won't cut it. So my other main goal is to support our staff and all the unglamorous but essential work they do at our headquarters; carefully manage our budget and prioritize our expenditures; and improve our underlying financial foundation. Daniel Wiener On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair(a)lp.org> wrote: > All, > > I would appreciate it if you could take a couple of minutes and send > an email to this list with a brief introduction of who you are, your > history within the Libertarian Party, and what you would like to > accomplish in this term on the LNC. I would like to address our goals > as a group at the September meeting, and I thank Dr. Lark for starting > that discussion, but I think it's also important to get to know each > other as well. > > I'll start: > > I'm Nicholas Sarwark, former Chair of the Libertarian Party of > Maryland, former (as of tonight) Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party > of Colorado, deputy public defender, former computer guy, husband and > father of two kids. My goals for this term are: (1) to put out a > consistent Libertarian message that will appeal to millennials and > unaffiliated voters and contrast the Libertarian position with people > like Rand Paul in a way that will allow us to pick up voters if/when > he is eliminated from the GOP contest and (2) do whatever I can to > assist with the success of state affiliates and candidates. My belief > is that if I can accomplish those things, revenue and membership > numbers and convention attendance will increase as well. > > -Nick > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-discuss mailing list > Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org > -- *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”* -- Richard Feynman

2 1

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] Oregon Resolution - is Wes Wagner chair of the Oregon affiliate
by Joshua Katz 21 Jul '14

21 Jul '14

Here's my position, in brief. I don't think there is a definitive answer to who gets the benefit of the doubt. As I see it, there are three positions possible: 1. The JC gets the benefit of the doubt, for the reason you summarized above - the job of the JC is overseeing decisions of the LNC, this is the intent in the bylaws, and the JC is elected with this understanding. 2. The LNC gets the benefit of the doubt. I can see two arguments for this. One is the one you presented briefly in your email. Another is that the LNC is, ultimately, the governing body of this organization outside of conventions (in turn, the LNC itself has a governing body when it isn't meeting.) The JC has oversight within its jurisdiction, but in keeping with Locke's principles, the JC cannot decide what its jurisdiction is. Therefore, the only reasonable body to make that decision is the LNC. 3. There is no answer, and each case is just decided on its merits. In this case, 2 and 3 result in the same actions, but there remain practical differences. I believe you have presented arguments for 2 and for 3 (or, at least, you've argued for 2 and given other arguments, on the details of the JC decision, that are only necessary if one accepts 3.) I tend towards 1, but at a higher level, as I argued here, I don't think I have any knock-down argument for 1, I just also don't find a knock-down argument for 2. As for 3, I find it very attractive, and wish I could embrace it, but I cannot accept the idea of simply having no answer at all as to which committee has the say in cases of dispute. Maybe I should embrace 3, but at the moment I can't do it. I presented my reasons for 1, but I don't think they're conclusive. My position has the serious weakness of allowing the JC to decide its own jurisdiction. But 2 allows the LNC to exempt its decisions from JC oversight. I'll take the first weakness over the second. Both allow someone to be a judge in their own case. Joshua Katz Joshua A. Katz Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate Libertarian National Committee Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Joshua, that's an excellent question. I'm sorry that I don't have time to > write a more thorough answer, as I am fairly pressed for time this week. > But my short answer is that since the JC stepped well outside of its bounds > of authority, and as I earlier described that I see it as being null and > void, therefore I will not give it any consultative value, and I believe > that it leaves the LNC decisions on the question still in effect. > > In another email, though I don't have the time to go find it right now, > you discussed something to the effect of who gets the benefit of the doubt > in situation like this, and your sense (if I recall correctly) was that > because the purpose of the JC was to oversee the LNC, the JC should get the > benefit of the doubt. > > However, I would ask you to consider that the bylaws put very strict > limits on the JC powers of oversight and actually give benefit of the doubt > to the LNC in that the bylaws say an appellant (not the LNC) has the burden > of proof for a JC hearing, and if the JC issues no ruling, the LNC decision > stands. > > -Alicia > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Suppose one were to accept that the JC made an incorrect decision. >> Clearly, a majority of a past LNC agreed. Also clearly, the JC at that >> time did not agree. What would follow if one accepted this? Suppose that, >> as in a past LNC, the majority of the LNC held this view. Again, what >> would follow? Would the JC decision not be binding anyway? Is there an >> applicable rule covering such a dispute? >> >> A reasonable digression: One argument regarding minarchism/anarchism is >> that government is not so much undesirable as impossible, given the ways it >> is usually defined. In particular, Locke argues for government because one >> may not be a judge in one's own case - and he considers anarchy to be >> simply the situation in which each is a judge is their own case. To the >> extent that one is a judge in one's one case, then, anarchy reigns. >> >> So, the argument goes - what happens in the case of internal >> disagreements in the government, especially given a government in which >> power is divided among 3 branches with a system of 'checks and balances?' >> If a court claims that an act of Congress is unconstitutional, and the >> Congress believes that the court has overstepped its power, the only >> solution - exactly the same as the nightmare scenario presented of anarchy >> by those who favor the state - is for either one side to give in for no >> good reason, or for the two branches to go to war in one way or another. >> Indeed, the latter has happened in some form or another at various times. >> Lincoln ordered the Chief Justice arrested. Jackson was more restrained >> (perhaps a sentence never before written) in simply declaring that the >> court has made its decision, and now is free to enforce it, but he would >> not. There have been attempts, some successful, in recent days to declare >> members of other branches in contempt of Congress and have them arrested. >> >> The LNC governs the party under delegation of authority. It seems that, >> in the scenario I outlined (and which clearly existed in the past, and >> could well exist again) we face the same problems actual governments face. >> What is to be done about this seemingly irresolvable conflict? >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, let's discuss the Judicial Committee ruling regarding Oregon. I >>> have attached it for the benefit of those who have not seen it before. >>> >>> Wes Wagner appealed to the Judicial Committee the decision of the LNC's >>> Executive Committee to recognize Tim Reeves as the Chair of the LP of >>> Oregon. Mr, Wagner claimed it was a disaffiliation of his group. >>> Obviously, for it to be a disaffiliation, his group would have to actually >>> be the affiliate, and the brief from the large group of LNC members argued >>> that he was not. >>> >>> The party bylaws put limitations on what the Judicial Committee can do. >>> If it were a case of disaffiliation, the operative bylaw would be Article >>> 6.6. If you take out the timeline language and strip it down to the core >>> elements, that article states: >>> >>> "The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any >>> affiliate party, for cause, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National >>> Committee. A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause >>> must specify the nature of the cause for revocation. The affiliate party >>> may challenge the revocation of its status by written appeal to the >>> Judicial Committee within 30 days of receipt of notice of such >>> revocation...[snip]...At the hearing the burden of persuasion shall rest >>> upon the appellant. The Judicial Committee shall either affirm the National >>> Committee's revocation of affiliate party status or order reinstatement of >>> the affiliate party...[snip]" >>> >>> In a disaffiliation case, the Judicial Committee options are limited to >>> to either a) affirming the revocation, or b) reinstating the affiliate. >>> The majority of the JC stated, in reference to the recognition of the >>> Reeves group, >>> >>> "This action was beyond the authority of the LNC or EC based on the >>> bylaws, and is void." >>> >>> In deciding whether something is a violation of the bylaws, logically, >>> the standard to be used should be the bylaws themselves. But the majority >>> of the Judicial Committee stated the basis for their decision was, >>> >>> "We find that the Libertarian Party of a particular state, in this case >>> the State of Oregon, is the entity that is recognized by the secretary of >>> state, in this case the Secretary of State of Oregon." >>> >>> Mr. Sarwark, can you show the LNC where this "rule" is found in the LP >>> Bylaws, thus can be used as a standard by the Judicial Committee? Our >>> delegates have not agreed to this standard for identifying who our >>> affiliate is. >>> >>> Since that "rule" is not in our bylaws, can you show the LNC where the >>> LP bylaws grant the Judicial Committee the authority to legislate from the >>> bench and construct this new "rule" for affiliate governance? >>> >>> Article 6.2 of the LP Bylaws give the LNC, not a secretary of state, the >>> power to create affiliates. It gives the LNC, not a secretary of state, >>> the power to revoke an affiliate status. The same body that can affiliate >>> or disaffiliate naturally has the power to later identify who it is they >>> have affiliated. >>> >>> Application of this "rule" in this particular case would directly >>> interfere with the autonomy of the Oregon affiliate, in that the LPO >>> members operating under the bylaws to which they mutually agreed selected >>> one set of officers, but the Judicial Committee has declared that the >>> affiliate is instead whoever is on file with the Secretary of State's >>> office in Oregon. Article 6.5 of the LP Bylaws states: >>> >>> >>> >>> *“The autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be >>> abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party, >>> except as provided by these Bylaws.” *(underline added for emphasis) >>> >>> Autonomy, by definition, is the right of self-rule, and an acceptance of >>> that statement in the Judicial Committee decision would in this case >>> effectively deprive the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon of the >>> right to choose their own officers. >>> >>> Thus the LNC adopted the resolution spanning pages 11-13 of the December >>> 2011 LNC minutes (found at http://www.lp.org/lnc-meeting-archives) >>> calling the Judicial Committee's ruling an "arrogation of power". >>> >>> This Judicial Committee ruling itself violates the bylaws, thus is null >>> and void. >>> >>> Additionally, as was referenced in the email we received from Tim >>> Reeves, the Oregon Secretary of State has been advised by their legal >>> counsel that Oregon state law forbids from them doing what the Judicial >>> Committee prescribed. Thus they filed a declaration in the court case that, >>> >>> *"The Secretary of State's Elections Division has not and will not >>> enforce or adjudicate disputes about political party bylaws. We have told >>> the parties that they have to go to court to adjudicate this matter if >>> there is to be any change because we do not adjudicate this type of >>> dispute."* >>> >>> Spanning pages 3-4 of RONR 11th ed. you will find that, >>> >>> "Aside from rules of parliamentary procedure and the particular rules of >>> an assembly, the actions of any deliberative body are also subject to >>> applicable procedural rules prescribed by local, state, or national law and >>> would be null and void if in violation of such law." >>> >>> The Judicial Committee prescribed a procedure for identifying our >>> affiliates which would be in violation of Oregon state law, thus it is null >>> and void on those grounds as well. Oregon is not the only state in which >>> state law would prohibit the Secretary of State from adjudicating this sort >>> of dispute over the leadership of a political party. >>> >>> Mr. Sarwark, now that you are national chair, should we expect you to >>> broadly implement compliance with this "rule" you helped write and seem to >>> believe is binding? The ruling claimed it applied to any state, not just >>> Oregon. You could direct staff to remove from our website all the listed >>> affiliates. Then they could call all the secretary of state offices around >>> the country and ask them whether they recognize the Libertarian Party as a >>> political party in that state. The only affiliates to be added back to the >>> website will then be those who are recognized by their secretary of state >>> offices. >>> >>> We would likely lose a number of affiliates that way. You could try out >>> a couple by first calling the secretary of state of Oklahoma, then Alabama >>> and see what they say. I would like to be a fly on the wall when you >>> explain to these state chairs that we don't recognize those affiliates >>> because they have no legal status with the secretary of state. >>> >>> How soon should these state affiliates expect you to implement this >>> Judicial Committee-created rule? >>> >>> -Alicia >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair(a)lp.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Subsequent to the 2011 decision mentioned by Alicia above, the >>>> Judicial Committee reversed the decision of the LNC Executive >>>> Committee recognizing Reeves without a disaffiliation vote of the >>>> entire LNC. The LNC never took such a vote. Mr. Wagner is >>>> recognized as the Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon by the >>>> Oregon Secretary of State. Pursuant to the Judicial Committee >>>> decision, he is recognized as the Chair of the Libertarian Party of >>>> Oregon by the LNC unless or until (a) the LNC takes a vote to >>>> disaffiliate the Libertarian Party of Oregon or (b) the Oregon >>>> Secretary of State or the Oregon Courts decide someone else is the >>>> Chair. The Reeves group did sue in Oregon court and had their case >>>> dismissed at summary judgment. They are presently appealing that >>>> decision, but the decision is not stayed. >>>> >>>> In 2012, the Libertarian Party of Oregon placed Gary Johnson and Jim >>>> Gray on the ballot for President. The Libertarian Party of Oregon >>>> will be able to place a Presidential ticket on the ballot in 2016. >>>> Unless something changes drastically in the courts, the Chair will be >>>> Mr. Wagner or his successor. >>>> >>>> For those members of the Committee who were not around in 2000, I >>>> would urge you to contact Bill Hall of Michigan to discuss what >>>> happened when the LNC decided to disaffiliate the group in Arizona >>>> that held ballot access. If we ignore the lessons from that episode, >>>> we risk cutting off our ballot access nose to spite Mr. Wagner's face. >>>> I have yet to hear the argument that action would be in the best >>>> interest of the Libertarian National Committee. >>>> >>>> I will, under separate cover, forward to the list a message from Mr. >>>> Moellman from Kentucky. >>>> >>>> -Nick >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > As I have stated before, I do not agree that Wes Wagner is the chair >>>> of our >>>> > Oregon affiliate. This motion under consideration implies that he >>>> is. It >>>> > suggests the event for which we are apologizing violated the autonomy >>>> of the >>>> > affiliate with Wes Wagner as its chair. >>>> > >>>> > For those of you new to the story, I cannot re-explain it better than >>>> has >>>> > already been done. Attached you will find three documents that lay >>>> out the >>>> > story in great detail. >>>> > >>>> > The LNC's Executive Committee in 2011 voted to recognize the Reeves >>>> group as >>>> > our Oregon affiliate. Wes Wagner appealed this decision to the >>>> Judicial >>>> > Committee claiming that he represented the affiliate, thus the >>>> decision to >>>> > recognize Reeves was essentially a disaffiliation. These three >>>> documents >>>> > were filed with the Judicial Committee as a defense of the action. >>>> They lay >>>> > out the argument that Wes Wagner ceased to be the chair of the LP of >>>> Oregon >>>> > in May of 2011. >>>> > >>>> > The story plot after this JC appeal was told fairly well in the 4-page >>>> > document distributed by the Reeves group at this convention. If you >>>> didn't >>>> > get to read it but would like to do so, just ask. I can scan in my >>>> copy and >>>> > send it to you. >>>> > >>>> > -Alicia >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Lnc-discuss mailing list >>>> > Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org >>>> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Lnc-discuss mailing list >>>> Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org >>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-discuss mailing list >>> Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-discuss mailing list >> Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-discuss mailing list > Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org > >

3 4

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] Email Ballot 2014-09: LNC-Discuss Public v2
by William Redpath 21 Jul '14

21 Jul '14

I vote Yes. Bill Redpath

1 0

updated draft of June 29, 2014 LNC minutes
by Alicia Mattson 21 Jul '14

21 Jul '14

Attached is the updated draft following the comment period, as prescribed by the auto-approval process in section 1.02.6 of the policy manual. This version is a candidate for auto-approval, which means it will be automatically approved without the need for a vote unless an LNC member objects to its contents by July 26th. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

1 2

Email Ballot 2014-08: Oregon Resolution
by Alicia Mattson 21 Jul '14

21 Jul '14

We have an electronic mail ballot. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 19, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Chair Nick Sarwark *Motion:* Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party” (Article 11, 3 (b)), and Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” (Article 6, 3), and Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “the autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party…” (Article 6, 5), and Whereas the Chair of the National Convention incorrectly ruled that it was in order for the convention to vote to seat three delegates in the Oregon delegation over the objection of the affiliate party chair, and Whereas the motion made did not challenge the report of the Credentials Committee as to who was the affiliate party chair, and Whereas the convention delegates subsequently voted to seat those delegates over the objection of the delegate chair, Be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee apologizes to the Libertarian Party of Oregon for the erroneous ruling of the National Convention Chair. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

17 21

Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2014-10: Oregon Resolution v2
by Gary Johnson 20 Jul '14

20 Jul '14

I vote no on Email Ballot 2014-10: Oregon Resolution v2. Gary Johnson 512-441-6378 -----Original Message----- From: Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> To: lnc-business <lnc-business(a)lp.org> Sent: Sun, Jul 20, 2014 1:36 am Subject: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2014-10: Oregon Resolution v2 We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 29, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Dan Wiener, Vicki Kirkland, Tim Hagan, Guy McLendon Motion: Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party” (Article 11, 3 (b)), and Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” (Article 6, 3), and Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “the autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party…” (Article 6, 5), and Whereas, a dispute over the Oregon delegation was placed before the Credentials Committee, which subsequently presented a report to the Libertarian Party National Convention on June 27, 2014 which did not describe the details of that dispute, and Whereas, a motion was made to amend the Credentials Committee report to include three individuals as delegates within the Oregon delegation, and Whereas, in response to a Point of Order the Chair of the National Convention ruled that the proposed amendment was in order, the Chair’s ruling was appealed, the Chair’s ruling was sustained by a vote of the assembly, and the assembly subsequently approved the amendment, and Whereas, the 11th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, which is the Parliamentary Authority for the Libertarian Party as stated in Article 16 of its Bylaws, states (p. 483) that “In any event, no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see p. 577, II. 23-33).”, and Whereas, the Libertarian National Committee nevertheless regrets the situation wherein some delegates believe the above decision was incorrectly decided, therefore Be it resolved that it is the sense of the Libertarian National Committee that it wishes to convey those regrets to the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

1 0

Email Ballot 2014-05: LNC-Discuss Email List
by Alicia Mattson 20 Jul '14

20 Jul '14

We have our first electronic mail ballot of the term. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 12, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Nick Sarwark *Motion:* The LNC-Discuss email list archives will be made available from June 30, 2014 forward and a Google group established, similar to the procedure for LNC-Business. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

17 20