October 2016 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Re: [Lnc-business] LP.org website transition botched (as predicted)
by Caryn Ann Harlos 25 Oct '16

25 Oct '16

Excellent points Chuck though I disagree with calling for anyone's head. Let's figure out what to do. As a member (I wasn't on the LNC) in those same IPR discussions I was opposed- vocally. The removal of archival information such as minutes and the LNC business list link are alarming. I assume those are being re-added, but I would have considered those essential prior to launch. It is the culture of transparency not being a prime directive I need to do a research project in past LNC minutes- now what? I do not know why we rolled out a buggy website before election. I have been getting numerous FB complaints. *Is the old site merely "turned off" - could this be postponed until after election and allowing time for the archives to be imported? If so whoever has the authority to make that decision should bite the bullet and make it. I would make a motion but I do not know if what I would ask is even possible..* On Tuesday, October 25, 2016, Chuck Moulton <chuck(a)moulton.org> wrote: > LNC members, > > Many of the problems I warned about have in fact come to pass. It is > Cassandra's Curse: always right but never believed. > > See the exchange from IPR quoted below (in the P.S.) for context and > institutional memory. I'll quote and discuss some of the highlights here. > > > WARNING #1: TRANSITIONS CAN BE BOTCHED, LEADING TO DOWNTIME — AT THE WORST > TIME IN THE ELECTION CYCLE FOR SUCH DOWNTIME: THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. > > This buggy transition was implemented 13 days before the presidential > election. That is the 13th worst day in a 4 year cycle to unveil a new a > new website. There were/are 1,448 better days to change to a new website > in a 4 year cycle. > > Whatever MORON decided to switch to a new website today instead of after > the election should be immediately FIRED. Do not pass go, do not collect > $200. FIRED. I can't imagine a stupider, more incompetent, strategically > insane decision than pulling the plug on a working website and trying out a > new, buggy website immediately before a presidential election. It is > INSANE. > > I like staff, but if Wes Benedict made this idiotic decision, FIRE HIM > IMMEDIATELY. > > I like much of the LNC, but if Nick Sarwark made this idiotic decision, > SUSPEND HIM FOR CAUSE IMMEDIATELY (I'll gladly recuse myself as a member of > the Judicial Committee if he appeals). > > If Kevin Ludlow made this idiotic decision, RESCIND THE FEBRUARY 2016 > MOTION GIVING LUDLOW UNILATERAL AUTHORITY OVER THE LP'S MOST IMPORTANT > ASSET IMMEDIATELY. > > Everything we were told about a professional transition that does not > suffer from the pitfalls I highlighted was a lie. > > It takes significantly more time for lp.org pages to load than before. > The site has been down on & off all day long. For a while people were > directed to another domain whenever they went to a LP page: > libparty.zocalodesign.com. > > > WARNING #2: A LOT OF CONTENT IS REMOVED. LACK OF THAT CONTENT MAKES IT > MUCH HARDER TO ENERGIZE PROSPECTS; GET DONATIONS, VOLUNTEERS, AND > CANDIDATES; AND TRAIN LIBERTARIANS ON BEST PRACTICES. > > In fact (as predicted), a lot of content has been removed from lp.org. > > For example, as chair of the Judicial Committee I wonder what happened to > the webpage listing bylaws mandated committee members? > > Where is the link to the LP Business list? > > Where are the LNC minute archives before 2015? > > I could go on and on, but I cover this point more broadly in my next > unheeded warning. > > I was repeatedly assured that content would not be removed, except that > the front page would be made less cluttered. That was a lie. > > > WARNING #3: BOTH CONTENT REMOVAL AND TRANSITIONS TO A NEW SYSTEM MAY LEAD > SOME PAGES TO BE REMOVED OR MOVED, BREAKING LINKS TO PARTS OF THE SITE FROM > ALL AROUND THE INTERNET AND MAKING US LOOK UNPROFESSIONAL WITH 404 ERRORS. > > The number of 404 errors is shocking! Activists have been out there for > months / years promoting our website by linking to it -- especially during > this presidential election. Most of those links are now broken. > > Just try clicking on many of these links: > https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=site%3Alp.or > g&oq=site%3Alp.org > > I've been told the solution is just to report each broken link. That is > ridiculous! It is completely unprofessional for a website transition to be > reactive instead of proactive -- especially given that broken links > probably number in the thousands. We were assured that this would be a > professional transition, but that was a lie. > > > WARNING #4: A NEW SYSTEM REQUIRES RETRAINING STAFF ON PROCESSES — TIME > THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DEVOTED TO OTHER THINGS. EVEN AFTER RETRAINING THERE > WILL BE A LEARNING CURVE… EXTRA TIME FOR WEBSITE RELATED TASKS THAT COULD > HAVE BEEN DEVOTED TO OTHER THINGS. > > In fact (as predicted), staff has mentioned that the website transition > has taken staff time that could have been devoted to other matters in this > busy election season. > > Wes Benedict wrote: > http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2016/006577.html > >> I hope we can get those things below implemented early in 2017, >> however, and get back to LPedia and many other projects, but first >> we're trying to roll out the new LP.org website. >> > > > WARNING #5: INTERNAL SCRIPTS THAT CURRENTLY AUTOMATICALLY SHOOT DATA TO > STATE AFFILIATES SUCH AS THE VOLUNTEER FORM, THE WANT TO BE A CANDIDATE > FORM, THE INFO FORM, ETC. MAY STOP WORKING, WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE STATES OF A > VALUABLE SOURCE OF LEADS DURING A TRANSITION PERIOD. > > Do these all still work? I don't know. I can't currently test this as I > am not a state chair right now. I hope someone is testing this stuff. > Based on all of the other monumental errors highlighted above, I certainly > don't trust whoever oversaw the website transition to have done this > testing. > > > You all made a monumental error when you voted on this website. Please do > whatever you can to minimize the damage and triage the website that is > being butchered before your very eyes. I hope the lost content can be > restored and the bugs can be fixed ASAP. Even if everything is fixed > within the next week though, the timing is still horrendous. > > Chuck Moulton > Life Member & Monthly Pledger, Libertarian Party > > > > P.S. See below for context on this botched website transition and eerily > accurate prophesies from people with a clue. > > Kevin Ludlow wrote: > http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2016/004164.html > >> 1) Our website is a joke. I mean a real, horrible, laughable, "maybe >> it's 1996 and the www portion of the internet has just been >> unleashed" joke. It's got ridiculous internal ads all over it. It's >> terribly organized. It uses bad images. It has an outdated font, not >> great font colors, and antiquated font-spacing and sizing. It barely >> functions on mobile devices. It's full of information it doesn't need >> to have. It conveys that we're not a serious organization. >> > > Kevin Ludlow wrote: > http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2016/004283.html > >> We want to do all of these things. So I’m asking you, just stop what >> you’re doing for 30 seconds, reflect what could happen if we >> actually tried to accomplish this one little task. What is the WORST >> that could happen? We fail? We’re in a very slightly worse financial >> position than we already are? But now consider what is the BEST that >> could happen? Maybe this tailspin of a cash hole we’re in stops. >> MAYBE people would see that the LNC is doing something external. >> MAYBE people would have their morale boosted just a little bit and >> be more inclined to donate. MAYBE we could use it as a way to >> leverage requesting donations from people. >> > > Chuck Moulton wrote: > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na > tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1321872 > >> What’s the worst that can happen? It’s not $20,000 wasted. That is >> pretty stupid thinking there… accounting rather than economics. The >> worst that can happen is the site is much worse than before. A lot >> of content is removed. Lack of that content makes it much harder to >> energize prospects; get donations, volunteers, and candidates; and >> train libertarians on best practices. A new system requires >> retraining staff on processes — time that coupd have been devoted to >> other things. Even after retraining there will be a learning curve… >> extra time for website related tasks that could have been devoted to >> other things. Will conversion of new visitors go up with a new >> flashy styled website? Maybe, but it could also go down, which is a >> potential cost. This is especially likely when the focus is on >> design/style rather than the technical features under the hood. When >> content is removed it may piss off current donors and activists, who >> may reduce their donations and activism. Both content removal and >> transitions to a new system may lead some pages to be removed or >> moved, breaking links to parts of the site from all around the >> Internet and making us look unprofessional with 404 errors. New >> sites often start out with a few bugs and errors which can take a >> while to track down… the site may look less professional in the >> interim. Transitions can be botched, leading to downtime — at the >> worst time in the election cycle for such downtime: the presidential >> campaign. Internal scripts that currently automatically shoot data to >> state affiliates such as the volunteer form, the want to be a >> candidate form, the info form, etc. may stop working, which would >> deprive states of a valuable source of leads during a transition >> period. That’s just what I could come up with off the top of my head… >> there are probably a lot more. >> > > Kevin Ludlow wrote: > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na > tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1321907 > >> I’ve launched many large scale sites just in the past year and not a >> single one of those sites had any of the problems you’re referring >> to. They DID – when they were on our development and testing servers >> – but not when they went into production. That’s how web launches >> are done professionally. A thorough maintenance schedule would also >> be implemented and the website would be designed for minimal >> maintainability in the first place. …also in accordance with best >> practices. >> > > Kevin Ludlow wrote: > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na > tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322226 > >> Furthermore, there is absolutely NO intention to remove Libertarian >> content from the website. This crowd has an astounding ability to >> spin half-truths and bake them into something entirely different. I >> will clarify specifically what is meant by moving them around. >> >> The FRONT PAGE of a website (for a non-profit, business, or any >> other organization) is NOT to leave people with walls of text. It is >> to create a fast and positive impression and to get a call to >> action. >> >> Having dozens and dozens of options is incredibly poor design, >> thoroughly proven to be ineffective, and generally an archaic >> website idea. The current website is not responsive; it does not work >> well (and not at all in some cases) on mobile and tablet devices. >> > > Chuck Moulton wrote: > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na > tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322257 > >> Great! Somehow in all your emails to the LNC (I read every LNC >> business list email) you never mentioned anything about the >> transition process. All you talk about is design/style. >> >> If you can manage a transition process well, that’s wonderful. It >> certainly hasn’t been done in the past. The transition from FoxPro >> to Raiser’s Edge was a disaster… it resulted in states not receiving >> working dumps for a year and a lot of records being screwed up >> (e.g., deceased coming back to life, etc.). During the website >> transition a decade ago, the LNC meeting minutes archive and the >> Success 97 and Success 99 seminars were removed. >> >> See the IT Committee discussion and report (pp. 15-16, pp. 51-59): >> https://www.lp.org/archives/lnc20061111.pdf >> >> If there will be no transition hiccups, that’s wonderful news. You >> still didn’t address all the scripts on the website right now and >> the technical considerations Shane discussed. >> >> I’m concerned about giving management of the transition job who only >> talks about design/style, wants to remove content (supposedly… >> though I see you have now clarified that), and never mentions a >> transition plan to minimize problems. >> >> It’s great that you’re finally talking about a transition plan! It’s >> not my fault it’s the first I’ve heard of it though. >> >> There are lots of people in the LP (myself included) who have seen >> transitions mismanaged and are worried of a repeat of those >> disasters. We’re not saying the sky is going to fall because of you. >> We’re saying the sky has fallen in the past, we have documented >> evidence of this, and you don’t seem as on top of the process as we >> would hope to prevent similar problems. (You also seem to lack the >> institutional memory to be aware of these past issues.) That’s a >> matter of you not communicating your transition plan and experience, >> not a matter of us being overly pessimistic. >> > > Kevin Ludlow wrote: > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na > tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322261 > >> I’m sorry you’ve had people half-ass these efforts in the past. I >> definitely cannot say I’m surprised. I focus on style because to the >> external world, style IS the most important thing. This in no way >> means I neglect the engine, but in 20 years of delivering projects, >> nearly 100% of clients will respond positively to a broken system >> that looks amazing over a badass functioning system that looks ugly. >> It’s just psychology. Again, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t all get >> done. >> > > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na > tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322267 > >> I’ve found libertarians have a different psychology than much of the >> world. The tech saavy folks will feel talked down to or ignored if >> you only talk about style, ignoring tech under the hood. The >> ideological folks will feel defensive if you malign content. I fall >> in both categories, as do others on this thread. >> >> Just something to keep in mind for the future. >> > > Stewart Flood wrote: > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na > tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322926 > >> So they’re creating a new website committee and giving it authority >> to screw everything up without having to go back to the LNC to get >> approval on which one of their pals they give the money to? >> > > Chuck Moulton wrote: > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na > tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322930 > >> Yes, they created a new committee with unlimited power over the >> website. Then they spent the whole time debating an irrelevant >> $10,000. >> > > Chuck Moulton wrote: > http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-na > tional-committee-meeting-streaming-now/#comment-1322938 > >> I am hugely concerned about giving any one person carte blanche over >> the website. >> >

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] New LP.org website overhaul!
by Wes Benedict 25 Oct '16

25 Oct '16

The new website launched today. Expect lots of problems, and lots of fixes, some within minutes and hours, others days or weeks. Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict(a)lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership On 10/25/2016 12:53 PM, Starchild wrote: > Yesterday, I'm told, the launch of the new and improved LP.org > <http://LP.org> website took place. And on the whole, at a quick look, > I'd say it /is/ an improvement. Both appearance-wise and > organizationally, I like the new site. I wouldn't call the difference > earth-shattering, but my initial impression is generally positive. > > There are however a number of issues that have come to my attention > which could use fixing, some more serious than others: > > • While the site looks good on the web, it looks terrible on my phone! > The "Latest News" boxes show up as long, narrow, unreadable columns of > type with a couple letters on each line. Considering how many people > access websites on mobile devices, fixing this should be a high priority. > > • I don't see either the "Party of Principle" or "Minimum Government, > Maximum Freedom" slogans shown anywhere (a search for key terms > doesn't turn them up). Nor do I see the Nolan Chart except buried in a > link. Each of these ought to be listed prominently, imho. The brief > introduction statement when you click on "Libertarian Party" at the > top of the main page is rather weak ("The Libertarian Party (LP) is > your representative in American politics. We are the only political > organization which respects you as a unique and responsible individual.") > > • The more detailed description of the party has a conservative > leaning. Under "The Libertarian Option" (at > http://libparty.zocalodesign.com/about/ , a URL that like that of many > pages should also be fixed so that it doesn't include the web design > company's website), it reads: > >> Consider voting Libertarian or joining the Libertarian Party because… >> >> * We seek to substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of >> government and cut and eliminate taxes at every opportunity. >> * We believe that peaceful, honest people should be able to offer >> their goods and services to willing consumers without >> inappropriate interference from government. >> * We believe that peaceful, honest people should decide for >> themselves how to live their lives, without fear of criminal or >> civil penalties. >> * We believe that government’s only responsibility, if any, should >> be protecting people from force and fraud. >> > The first two points above appeal more to conservatives or people on > the right (economic freedoms), while the second two points are more > neutral in terms of left/right appeal. There is no balancing appeal to > people on the left by explicitly mentioning things like a > non-interventionist foreign policy or civil liberties such as ending > Prohibition and reining in police abuse. > > • The URL for the candidate page has changed (hat tip to Thomas > Knapp), and entering the former URL > (http://www.lp.org/2016-libertarian-party-candidates) apparently > now results in a page error rather than connecting people to the new > page (https://www.lp.org/2016-candidates/) > > • If the information about how to subscribe to the LNC email list as a > non-LNC member got ported over, I cannot find it. I would suggest > listing this both on the LNC leadership page, and on the LNC meeting > archives page. > > • The LNC page only lists email addresses. Previously at least a > couple LNC members' listings included phone number and/or other info > such as Twitter address, but now those listings are gone and only > email addresses are listed. I would personally like my phone number > and Twitter handle listed, and encourage my colleagues to request > their phone numbers likewise be listed, so that our members can > readily reach us directly as well as in writing. > > • Where email addresses are listed on the website (for candidates, LNC > members, staff, college chapter reps., etc.), they are spelled out. > That's unfortunately asking to get us spammed by web-crawling bots > that harvest email addresses. I recommend changing this so that > addresses are listed in a less literal format such as > Nick.Sarwark[at]LP.org > > • The page https://www.lp.org/_2016/ mentions Johnson and Weld being > our presidential and VP candidates, but the photo next to the text is > /not/ a photo of Johnson and Weld, but of Johnson and a woman I'm > guessing is his girlfriend (which is fine, but should be labeled as > such so as not to give visitors the impression that the images reflect > the text). > > • Our bylaws are referred to in the info at the bottom of each page as > "LNC Bylaws" rather than "Libertarian Party Bylaws" > > • A number of people (staff, LNC members) are missing photos. To whom > can we send photos of these individuals, if we have them, as well as > our contact info updates for the LNC page? > > I realize the site has just been updated; hopefully some of the above > issues are being addressed even as I type this message. And on the > bright side, the new "candidate pledges" section listing candidates > who've signed each pledge is a nice addition, along with the listing > by name and state of life members, candidates, and elected officials, > not to mention the attractive photos from the convention scattered > throughout the site. I like that the membership and donation forms are > single-page, and that the FAQ page addresses arguments against > participating in the system at all. And I love the "Help Us Grow" page > (http://libparty.zocalodesign.com/how-to-help/) and the addition of a > "worldwide" link in addition to the state affiliates and campus > organizations! But I would suggest that link directly to a list of the > libertarian parties around the world, with that page then containing a > link to and information about the International Alliance of > Libertarian Parties. Right now it immediately leads offsite to the > IALP page, which is a little confusing. > > That's my feedback at this time. If staff would acknowledge receipt of > this message and keep us appraised of the progress in addressing the > above-mentioned issues, that would be great. > > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee > (415) 625-FREE > @StarchildSF >

3 2

Re: [Lnc-business] Affiliate Support Committee Meeting Invitation/Notice
by Steven Nekhaila 25 Oct '16

25 Oct '16

Hello gentlemen, I might be a little late to this weeks meeting as I have a Finance & Marketing meeting for my State's affiliate so I will try to get out of there as soon as possible but it starts at 7:30PM. Sincerely, Steven Nekhaila On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Andy Burns <andy.burns(a)lp.org> wrote: > I've created this page to store your minutes and any other info: > https://lpaction.org/asc/. Let me know if you want anything else on there > changed or added. > Andy Burns > LP Affiliate Development > 763-528-5163 > www.LP.org <https://www.lp.org/> > www.LPAction.org <https://lpaction.org/> > > On 10/13/2016 10:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote: > > The ASC has standardized distribution of call in information and its > tentative agenda. I will be sharing it with the ASC members and the LNC > business list one week prior to each ASC meeting. I will attempt to share > this email in 24 hours. > > The Affiliate Support Committee will be meeting at it's regularly > scheduled time. > > > > Date: Thursday, October 27th, 2016, > > 8PM Eastern > > > > Dial in Number:(712)775-7031 > > > > Access Code: 571-973-866 > > > The meeting is open to LNC Members, LNC Staff, State Chairs, Party > Members, Libertarians, libertarians and invited guests. We are a service > oriented committee so we encourage attendees to participate in an orderly > manner. If you have a matter you wish us to consider please contact me in > advance if possible. I can be reached at Daniel.Hayes(a)LP.Org or by phone > at 504-258-6176. > > > TENTATIVE AGENDA: > > *Minute transparency/distribution policy > *Annual affiliate survey update > *On going development of membership marketing plan > *On going register/reregister project > -meme and video stash/archive > > > > Daniel Hayes > LNC ASC Chairman > LNC At Large Member > 504-258-6176 > > > > > > >

1 1

Re: [Lnc-business] Gary Johnson campaign lying
by Starchild 25 Oct '16

25 Oct '16

Chuck, Thank you for sharing this concern and trying to keep our candidates honest. I agree that the claims you mention sound misleading at best. But let's not assume it isn't an honest mistake. Whoever is writing copy for the campaign may not be as well versed in ballot access matters as yourself and some other members of the LP are. I feel like I've seen similar claims about the consequences of receiving 5% of the vote made by media outlets, so I'm not sure we can be clear where the rumor is coming from. Have you responded to the campaign emails in question with the information you present below? I would encourage you to do that. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Oct 24, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote: > Interesting. It seems like it would be more effective for the campaign to make a long list of states that would benefit at each level. -Arvin > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:47 PM, George Phillies <phillies(a)4liberty.net> wrote: > As I am on the email, Massachusetts does not do that all, except for President, and that based on vote totals in the off-year election or on voter registration. For posts other than President, there is no automatic ballota ccess for anyone. > > On 10/24/2016 6:39 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote: >> what are the CO cutoffs for automatic ballot access? >> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> The 5% major party status was on the website .... that is false. There are some states in which that is true (Washington) but this was stated as nationwide. I have had people very confused here in CO. >> >> I believe it is just one state in which this gives ballot access (nationwide totals) but I am not positive of that. Winger would be the one to ask. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Arvin Vohra <arvin(a)arvinvohra.com> wrote: >> My understanding is that in many states, either 1% or 5% gives ballot access. I know that MD is 1%. Do we have a chart on which states have what cutoffs? >> >> -Arvin >> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Chuck Moulton <chuck(a)moulton.org> wrote: >> 10/21/2016 GJ fundraising email: >> If we get 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian Party will have automatic ballot placement for future elections, >> >> 10/24/2016 GJ fundraising email: >> What the two major parties don’t want voters to know, is that for every vote we get over 5% comes major party status for the Libertarian party. It means automatic ballot access for Libertarian candidates. >> >> >> Is there any recourse for LP members concerned our presidential campaign is flat out lying to donors and supporters? This isn't a matter of opinion... the claim that a 5% vote results in major party status and automatic ballot access is demonstrably false. >> >> By the time the duped voters and donors realize the campaign intentionally deceived them, Gary Johnson and his conservative Republican staff will be long gone, leaving party officials holding the bag. >> >> I have to hear about the 5% canard every day... it's pretty clear where this unfounded rumor is coming from. >> >> -Chuck Moulton >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> -- >> In Liberty, >> Caryn Ann Harlos >> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org >> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

1 0

Candidate contracts - legal advice?
by Arvin Vohra 25 Oct '16

25 Oct '16

Hi all, A few years ago, we started doing candidate pledges. We basically based them off the Norquist tax pledge, but made them about cutting government instead not just not growing it. Some include sponsoring legislation to cut spending to 1998 levels to eliminate the income tax, sponsoring legislation to cut military spending by 60 percent, sponsoring legislation to repeal the Patriot act, etc. The pledges are obviously voluntary. I've been considering advancing this from a pledge to a (voluntary) contract. There are two versions I have considered so far: 1. The contract would be signed by the candidate, with any voter able to act as a cosigner. The voter would download a signed pdf, sign it, and that would put the contract into effect. 2. The contract would be between the candidate and the LNC. Unlike the pledge, the contract would have clear, defined, monetary penalties. As in: "The candidate will oppose any tax increase for any purpose, unless it is accompanied by a larger simultaneous tax decrease, or will pay $10,000." Or something along those lines. Looking for legal and other input. -Arvin -- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra(a)gmail.com (301) 320-3634

8 17

Access to the books of the organization
by Nicholas Sarwark 25 Oct '16

25 Oct '16

Dear All, We're going to be passing a budget at our December meeting. In advance of that meeting, a member of the LNC has requested a spreadsheet of all of the entries in our accounting software for review in preparation for that meeting. It is my opinion that this is an appropriate request. There has also been a request to share some or all of the information regarding the LNC's revenues and expenditures with people who are not members of the LNC. This does not seem prudent to me, but I thought I would ask the body what their opinion is on whether they believe that information could be propperly shared by an LNC member. Thoughts? Yours in liberty, Nick

5 6

draft alternate motion regarding Assemblyman Moore
by Alicia Mattson 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Below is my first draft of an alternate resolution to email ballot 2016-15. Features: - The only reason for us to say anything about it at all is our financial donation, so I have used that as context. - It does not contain language to discourage other elected officials from switching their registration to the LP in the future. - It is less lecture-y. - I did not opt to include a clause about returning our donation because it ain't gonna happen. - I initially thought I would mention the detail that he cast a deciding vote on the stadium deal, but when I went that route it got wordy and drifted into the weeds. - I phrased the resolution as an expression of deep disappointment rather than a censure, as censure is typically applied to someone who is a member of the censuring group. I'm just asking for feedback over the next day or so before I seek co-sponsors. If you'd prefer something along these lines, but couldn't support it without some particular content, please let me know promptly. I might or might not agree to add it to my draft, but this is the best time for me to consider such requests, before it becomes a motion. ----------DRAFT RESOLUTION---------- To rescind email ballot 2016-15, if it was adopted, and to adopt the following resolution: Whereas, One of the bylaw-defined purposes of the Libertarian Party is to move public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office; and Whereas, The Libertarian National Committee donated $10,000 to the re-election campaign of Nevada State Assemblyman John Moore with the expectation that he would work to move public policy in a libertarian direction; and Whereas, Assemblyman Moore has recently cast legislative votes which were contrary to core concepts expressed in the Libertarian Party platform, and were contrary to the advocacy efforts of the Libertarian Party of Nevada; and Whereas, Such votes reflect poorly on the Libertarian National Committee’s decision to assist Assemblyman Moore’s campaign financially; Resolved, That the Libertarian National Committee wishes to convey its deep disappointment over these votes and the squandered opportunities for one of our elected officials to implement our shared principles. -Alicia

4 7

Fwd: Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
by Joshua Katz 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Forwarded on behalf of David Demarest. I will have more to write on this topic later, but for now, let me note that I plan to have a motion to introduce in December. I don't see any rush at this point to do it by email ballot. When I have drafted it, I will distribute my proposal for comment. I'll state ahead of time that my support for such a committee is not conditioned on any other policies being passed, and I do not fully agree with the comments about transparency for this particular committee either, at least, at the moment. Once I've thought through the committee question more fully, I'll have a more fully developed position on how it should operate. Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Demarest, David P. <David.Demarest(a)firstdata.com> Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:31 AM Subject: RE: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors To: "lnc-business-bounces(a)hq.lp.org" < IMCEAMAILTO-lnc-business-bounces+40hq+2Elp+2Eorg(a)firstdata.com> Cc: "Cari L. Garcia (GarciaCL(a)C-IV.org)" <GarciaCL(a)c-iv.org>, " ken.moellman(a)lpky.org" <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org>, "Starchild ( sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net)" <sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net>, "William Redpath ( wredpath2(a)yahoo.com)" <wredpath2(a)yahoo.com>, "planning4liberty(a)gmail.com" < planning4liberty(a)gmail.com>, "chair(a)lp.org" <chair(a)lp.org>, " vicechair(a)lp.org" <vicechair(a)lp.org>, "secretary(a)lp.org" <secretary(a)lp.org>, "Demarest, David P." <David.Demarest(a)firstdata.com>, David Demarest < dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net> A Candidate Support Committee might encompass the following functions, many of which are overlapping: 1. Candidate recruitment 2. Candidate vetting for endorsement 3. Candidate endorsement 4. Endorsed candidate training 5. Endorsed candidate campaign financial contributions 6. Endorsed candidate logistical support 7. Endorsed candidate promotional support 8. Endorsed candidate moral support In the wake of Assemblyman Moore’s votes, the question from my perspective is NOT whether we need such a committee. My question is whether or not the significant responsibilities and workload suggest that two committees might be warranted. I recognize, however, that separation of the overlapping tasks might be more trouble than it is worth. It makes more sense to start with just one committee, see how that works out and expand to two committees if necessary. I would cosponsor a motion to create an LNC Candidate Support Committee (CSC) with the proviso that the motion to create the committee address Caryn’s transparency concerns and her objections to creating an opaque committee. I would be glad to help those who are expert in the wording of motions develop such a motion. Thoughts? *The War on Majority Rule Authoritarian Cronyism Begins Now* ~David Pratt Demarest *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com>] *Sent:* Sunday, October 23, 2016 10:04 PM *To:* Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org> *Cc:* David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net>; lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org; William Redpath <wredpath2(a)yahoo.com>; Demarest, David P. < David.Demarest(a)firstdata.com> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors There has been such talk. Primarily by me and Joshua. And I will not vote for or support an opaque committee. I want this committee, but this institutional fondness for opacity must be overcome as a condition for my support. Of course, I am but one person, but I am laying my cards on the table. On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org> wrote: There has been talk of creating a Candidate Support Committee. I would suggest that this be a task given to that Committee in future elections. They will be working directly with candidates. They will have the best idea of which candidates qualify as both a serious candidate and a "good" Libertarian. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-23 22:20, David Demarest wrote: How is candidate endorsement and vetting for endorsement handled by the LNC? Does the LNC need a candidate endorsement committee? The LP Radical Caucus has a strong candidate endorsement committee and process. All candidates requesting LPRC endorsement and campaign contributions must pass muster with the endorsement committee before their request is presented to the board where they must receive 100% approval. It is a stringent process and a responsibility that is taken very seriously. Thoughts? *The Invisible Hand of Rational Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government!* ~David Pratt Demarest *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Ken Moellman *Sent:* Sunday, October 23, 2016 8:37 PM *To:* Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> *Cc:* William Redpath <wredpath2(a)yahoo.com>; Demarest, David P. < David.Demarest(a)firstdata.com>; lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors I do think that larger the lesson here is that this body, in present and future forms, should do a better job of vetting where money is given. I think the Candidate Support Committee should be tasked with the creation of a qualifying checklist for vetting and recommending financial support for certain races. I think the idea of a candidate contract as a prerequisite for financial support from the LNC is reasonable (it even provides the candidates with some cover when the political pressure gets really high). I try not to dwell on the failures of the past, but on how to avoid them in the future. Perform root cause analysis and implement procedures on how to avoid the problem in the future. Having everyone get together and scold someone for a failure is not productive, nor is it conducive to a positive environment. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-23 20:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: A future tyrantatarian LNC will do what it wants anyways. And we gave money to this campaign. This is not at all a grey area and thus the analogies not even remotely relevant. The precedent that is being set now is that the LNC will never give money to another candidate again if we do not retain this right if we want to talk precedents. Living in a spirit of fear is the surest way to cripple and ideological movement. On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org> wrote: I can point to specific members in the party who would claim: 1A. Anyone who supports mandatory GMO labeling isn't libertarian. 1B. Anyone who rejects GMO mandatory labeling isn't libertarian. 2A. Anyone who supports mandatory vaccination isn't libertarian. 2B. Anyone who rejects mandatory vaccination isn't libertarian. 3A. Anyone who supports keeping abortion legal isn't libertarian. 3B. Anyone who supports making abortion illegal isn't libertarian. Some of these members find these issues to be single-issue "disqualifiers" for being a libertarian. And certainly others exist. Now, this case isn't as controversial; I'm not sure I know any libertarians who are pleased about a $750M project. But I fear that the LNC censuring a candidate is opening Pandora's Box. Think about 10 years from now, when some faction that's hot-and-bothered about one of these divisive issues listed above gets a majority on the LNC and decides to start censuring people under the precedent. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-23 19:01, Starchild wrote: I agree that the precedent we set here is a matter of concern. The precedent I'm concerned about is the possibility of a Libertarian officeholder casting votes like the ones in question and not facing serious repercussions from the party. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Oct 23, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I doubt NV would not support the censure. A Nevada board member asked me. This is not blanket precedent. We have money and it is egregious and we can't not do the right thing because we fear a tyrantatarian future LNC. On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org> wrote: Thank you on the clarification on who's asking for the censure. I do think it would hold a bit more weight if the affiliate was officially asking. This body's interference in affiliate matters has caused problems before. My greatest concern, after considering this for days, is the setting of precedent. Who's to say that a future LNC might censure for something far less; for something legitimately disputed in the party or within the broader philosophy? I don't recall the LNC ever censuring a candidate. In 2008, we had an issue with a candidate in KY. We took care of it our way, and we didn't look to the LNC to do anything, though many others did ask the LNC to intervene. In that scenario, we were able to block the candidate from the ballot line and that was that. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-22 00:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: The goal is for Libertarian candidates to not completely fundamentally betray basic principles in such a flagrant manner and sabotaging the efforts in a specific issue of the Party (the affiliate in this case). The Motion itself says what we hope - for the candidate to take Libertarian stances in the future. If he cannot, then switching to an affiliation that accurately reflects his principles is a choice he would have to make. That isn't our goal. But it certainly isn't our goal to assist a betrayal of the affiliate and principles. I do not know if we have before. And if there is censurable behaviour to a candidate that we have spent members' funds supporting, then yes. That is something we should consider doing. Once again, we are the "party of principle" and if voting for a 750 million dollar crony capitalist subsidy isn't a censurable violation then we have truly lost our way. Asking for a bright line rule is once again appropos to my pornography analogy. There are a host of factors, and we know it when we see it. The LPNV has spoken to the candidate. He has given a public explanation. This is public accountability. The affiliate has not officially asked National to censure. Some LPNV members have. As have members elsewhere. On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org> wrote: I would submit that prior to censure, a conversation might be in order to get more information. We don't even have all of the facts. Here's what we know: 1. We have a candidate who is an elected official, was approved by an affiliate to run as an L, and to which the LNC gave money. 2. The candidate voted for 2 tax increases, the latter of which is to entice a franchise in a monopoly to come to his district. 3. The candidate claims 60% of his constituents supported the latter one. 4. The affiliate that nominated him is angry, has censured the candidate, and has asked National to censure as well. Now, if the goal is to get Moore to switch to some other affiliation or to Independent, then certainly censure would be a good start. But I think it might be good to speak to the elected official first. And the question about "what's the line for this body?" is extremely relevant. Has this body ever censured a candidate or elected Libertarian before? Is this a practice we want this body to make more regular? Again, I'm not in favor of this cronyist garbage, and after Cincinnati signed a similarly-stupid deal with the Bengals, and tied revenue to an increased local sales tax, I just avoid buying things in Cincinnati when possible. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-21 23:22, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And I would distinguish greatly a state candidate from our national candidate which was ratified and consented to by delegates at a national convention. A state candidate is ratified by those delegates (in most states and in normal circumstances which do not involve a mid-term Party affiliation switch). In such a case I give great deference to the affiliate that welcomed and championed. And once again, Nevada has made their absolute displeasure and sense of betrayal clear. On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: I find what if's and mining the subjunctives to be unhelpful personally. I do not know what kind of transgression would warrant in a "what if" situation. I would say yes, we should always be willing. Our duty is not to any elected person but to the Party itself and the principles for which we stand. This is a clear egregious violation which is somewhat like what some say about "pornography" - I know it when I see it. I would ask if someone commits to be a Libertarian and acts completely against Libertarian principles and received money from the National Committee of said Party is that committing fraud against the body? If the constituents feel defrauded (particularly since they elected a Republican, not a Libertarian) then it is up to them to deal with, not us. Our standing and duty is to the LP and the members. This isn't a minor issue. This was major with a capital M. And Nevada has made clear how they feel about it. The minute was have the "uncensurable" we are doomed. We are the "Party of Principle" and we need to have the backbone to at some point say enough is enough, particularly when we spent $10K of our members' money. On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org> wrote: I'm glad that the dilemma is understood. And you did bring up the other question I had, after further consideration; would we, as a body, be willing to censure an elected Libertarian President Johnson? If this is the case, how bad would the transgression need to be before this body rebukes its own first elected President? We really need to help give our candidates and elected officials, to the limited extent that they exist, be successful champions for liberty. And by "we", I mean every person who says they're a libertarian. If we can't go out and help convince other people's minds, then we're failing as activists and supporters. IMO, the root problem here is that 60% number. Why do 60% of the people in Moore's district support this? As I further discussed this with a few others this afternoon and evening, I had another thought. If someone is elected to represent the people of his district and fails to do so, would that person be engaging in fraud against the constituents? Every candidate and elected official has negatives. I personally prefer to focus on a candidate's positives, rather than dwelling on their negatives. If the negatives exceed the positives, then I start looking for an alternate course of action. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-21 16:05, Demarest, David P. wrote: Ken, Thank you for your honest and thoughtful devil's advocate response regarding the proposed censure of John Moore. We can, however, view Assemblyman Moore's two egregious votes as an golden opportunity for LNC members to think outside the box to examine root causes and design short and long term solutions to the difficult dilemma faced by all Libertarian politicians. The dilemma is how to reconcile the dictates of one's Libertarian conscience with the realities of our current political environment that is rife with the cronyism necessary to get elected or reelected. The choice is between voting your conscience at the risk of not being reelected or violating your conscience to get reelected and live to fight another day in office. I would submit that Moore's violation of his conscience to get reelected makes him part of the problem of spiraling cronyism that is inexorably destroying our way of life and accelerating our economy and society down the path of destruction that history demonstrates is the inevitable fate of all compulsory territorial governments. Most of us support Gary Johnson in spite of specific misgivings because it is obvious that Gary is so much better than the other choices and would undoubtedly make things far better than the other candidates. If Johnson is elected, however, we know that despite his honestly about his platform, many of his decisions will give us heartburn. Our short-term act of censuring Moore will send a clear and unambiguous message that statist actions by Libertarian officials to save political seats are unacceptable violations of conscience that will not be tolerated. The proposed censure of Moore will serve as an educational message for all present and future Libertarian officials including those who switch from other parties. Long-term solutions require that we understand that cronyism does not fare well in the competitive context of the free-market. By contrast, cronyism is aggressively fostered in our current compulsory authoritarian majority rule system. We as Libertarians face an uphill battle if we choose to rely solely on a top-down legislative authoritarian approach to rescue us from the tsunami of cronyism that will swamp our ship of state if we do not reverse course promptly and with a sense of urgency. The crushing curse of cronyism will not be reversed until we change the context of government to minimize instead of fostering cronyism. To get straight to the point, that change in context to discourage cronyism will not occur until we achieve competitive governance and competitive social services. I would further submit that we must supplement our top-down legislative strategy with a robust, bottom-up entrepreneurial peaceful freedom revolution fueled by peer-to-peer technology. Then and only then will we create the political climate necessary to elect Libertarian officials to all levels of government and establish the environment of competitive governance and social services that is an absolute prerequisite if we seriously intend to minimize cronyism and save our way of life for future generations. Thoughts? *The War on Majority Rule Authoritarian Cronyism Begins Now* ~David Pratt Demarest Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com>] *Sent:* Friday, October 21, 2016 12:50 PM *To:* ken.moellman(a)lpky.org; lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org *Cc:* William Redpath; Demarest, David P. *Subject:* Re: Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors We have enough cosponsors for a ballot. I will argue for it in the ballot. It was an LPNV who last broached this action with me - I believe it has the support of the aggrieved affiliate - and members- who's money we spent. The second vote was expressly against something the LPNV was opposed to actively for years. This is a betrayal of the LPNV. And I certainly did not vote (and I argued zealously) to support a candidate - out of many worthy candidates - who would take such crony capitalist anti/libertarian power. On Friday, October 21, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org> wrote: Please allow me to take the Devil's Advocate position, since I probably won't have a vote that counts anyway. I realize that this position is unlikely to be popular. Politics and philosophy can be a tough balancing act. Certainly, there are instances of this problem with our presidential ticket (bake the cake, for example) and probably every other campaign out there (vaccination debate, etc.). Elected officials, and indeed individuals, are faced with tough decisions between philosophy and reality all the time. Perhaps the most famous was Jefferson's opposition to slavery while also owning slaves. Assemblyman Moore reported that a poll of the constituents of his district showed that about 60% of the constituents supported the deal, including the associated taxes. Certainly, there could and should have been a coordinated effort by the opposition to stop this deal by educating the public. Based on the level of support reported within Assemblyman Moore's district, those efforts were obviously unsuccessful. Even taking what was said above into account, I personally think Assemblyman Moore's greatest failing in this situation came was in how he supported the deal. A statement about "While I personally do not support this deal, I voted in favor because my constituents wanted me to do so" could have been a very good moment. It would have provided an opportunity to educate the public about the negatives of the deal and hopefully prevent this type of situation from happening the next time. So I ask these questions: Do you think that what John Moore did was driven by philosophy, or by politics? Do you believe that John Moore wanted higher taxes? As an elected representative, should he represent the people of his district, or ignore those people in favor of his own philosophy? Is it more wise to go against the constituency, especially this close to election day, or is it more wise to fight another day when your "army" is more organized and can help you win the day? Just something to think about. I'm not pleased at the idea of yet another billionaire getting a taxpayer-funded stadium and I don't believe they create enough economic activity to offset the costs. At least the team name is appropriate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-21 09:27, William Redpath wrote: I will also co-sponsor, as I was opposed to the $10,000 motion at the LNC meeting in July 2016. Bill Redpath -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 10/20/16, David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net> wrote: Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Cc: david.demarest(a)firstdata.com Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016, 9:20 PM #yiv9175739729 #yiv9175739729 -- _filtered #yiv9175739729 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #yiv9175739729 #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729 li.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;} #yiv9175739729 a:link, #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv9175739729 a:visited, #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729 li.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;} #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-m-7066241125321024756gmail-m637561545514884297m- 7093137337385855135gmail-s1 {} #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-im {} #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729EmailStyle20 {color:windowtext;} #yiv9175739729 .yiv9175739729MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv9175739729 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729WordSection1 {} #yiv9175739729 Caryn, I will co-sponsor your motion to censure John Moore and request that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution from the LNC. Mr. Moore's two votes were egregious. Thoughts? Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE! The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government! ~David Pratt Demaresthttp://www.lpne.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpne.org&d=CwMFaQ&c…> secretary@lpne.orgdpdemarest@centurylink.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__centurylink.net&d=CwMFa…> david.demarest(a)firstdata.com Cell: 402-981-6469Home: 402-493-0873Office: 402-222-7207 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org <lnc-business-bounces(a)hq.lp.org>] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 7:45 PM To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Subject: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors Multiple party members including region 1 members have acted that the LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally, I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this case, we spent National Party member's direct monies, and thus I do agree this is our responsibility. As someone who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my responsibility to address this once members raised a concern: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -- In Liberty,Caryn Ann HarlosRegion 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listi…> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listi…> -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org&d=Cw…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify First Data immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org_&d=C…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org_&d=C…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org_&d=C…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org_&d=C…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listi…> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listi…> -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org&d=Cw…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org&d=Cw…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…>

2 3

Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
by Demarest, David P. 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Resend to lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org<mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> after initial delivery failure and fix by Robert… ~David Pratt Demarest From: Demarest, David P. Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 10:31 AM To: 'lnc-business-bounces(a)hq.lp.org' Cc: ken.moellman(a)lpky.org; Starchild (sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net) William Redpath (wredpath2(a)yahoo.com) 'planning4liberty(a)gmail.com'; chair(a)lp.org; vicechair(a)lp.org; secretary(a)lp.org; Demarest, David P.; 'David Demarest' Subject: RE: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors A Candidate Support Committee might encompass the following functions, many of which are overlapping: 1. Candidate recruitment 2. Candidate vetting for endorsement 3. Candidate endorsement 4. Endorsed candidate training 5. Endorsed candidate campaign financial contributions 6. Endorsed candidate logistical support 7. Endorsed candidate promotional support 8. Endorsed candidate moral support In the wake of Assemblyman Moore’s votes, the question from my perspective is NOT whether we need such a committee. My question is whether or not the significant responsibilities and workload suggest that two committees might be warranted. I recognize, however, that separation of the overlapping tasks might be more trouble than it is worth. It makes more sense to start with just one committee, see how that works out and expand to two committees if necessary. I would cosponsor a motion to create an LNC Candidate Support Committee (CSC) with the proviso that the motion to create the committee address Caryn’s transparency concerns and her objections to creating an opaque committee. I would be glad to help those who are expert in the wording of motions to develop such a motion. Thoughts? The War on Majority Rule Authoritarian Cronyism Begins Now ~David Pratt Demarest From: Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 10:04 PM To: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org<mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org>> Cc: David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net<mailto:dpdemarest@centurylink.net>>; lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org<mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org>; William Redpath <wredpath2(a)yahoo.com<mailto:wredpath2@yahoo.com>>; Demarest, David P. <David.Demarest(a)firstdata.com<mailto:David.Demarest@firstdata.com>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors There has been such talk. Primarily by me and Joshua. And I will not vote for or support an opaque committee. I want this committee, but this institutional fondness for opacity must be overcome as a condition for my support. Of course, I am but one person, but I am laying my cards on the table. On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org<mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org>> wrote: There has been talk of creating a Candidate Support Committee. I would suggest that this be a task given to that Committee in future elections. They will be working directly with candidates. They will have the best idea of which candidates qualify as both a serious candidate and a "good" Libertarian. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-23 22:20, David Demarest wrote: How is candidate endorsement and vetting for endorsement handled by the LNC? Does the LNC need a candidate endorsement committee? The LP Radical Caucus has a strong candidate endorsement committee and process. All candidates requesting LPRC endorsement and campaign contributions must pass muster with the endorsement committee before their request is presented to the board where they must receive 100% approval. It is a stringent process and a responsibility that is taken very seriously. Thoughts? The Invisible Hand of Rational Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government! ~David Pratt Demarest From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org<mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org>] On Behalf Of Ken Moellman Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 8:37 PM To: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com<mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com>> Cc: William Redpath <wredpath2(a)yahoo.com<mailto:wredpath2@yahoo.com>>; Demarest, David P. <David.Demarest(a)firstdata.com<mailto:David.Demarest@firstdata.com>>; lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org<mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors I do think that larger the lesson here is that this body, in present and future forms, should do a better job of vetting where money is given. I think the Candidate Support Committee should be tasked with the creation of a qualifying checklist for vetting and recommending financial support for certain races. I think the idea of a candidate contract as a prerequisite for financial support from the LNC is reasonable (it even provides the candidates with some cover when the political pressure gets really high). I try not to dwell on the failures of the past, but on how to avoid them in the future. Perform root cause analysis and implement procedures on how to avoid the problem in the future. Having everyone get together and scold someone for a failure is not productive, nor is it conducive to a positive environment. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-23 20:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: A future tyrantatarian LNC will do what it wants anyways. And we gave money to this campaign. This is not at all a grey area and thus the analogies not even remotely relevant. The precedent that is being set now is that the LNC will never give money to another candidate again if we do not retain this right if we want to talk precedents. Living in a spirit of fear is the surest way to cripple and ideological movement. On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org<mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org>> wrote: I can point to specific members in the party who would claim: 1A. Anyone who supports mandatory GMO labeling isn't libertarian. 1B. Anyone who rejects GMO mandatory labeling isn't libertarian. 2A. Anyone who supports mandatory vaccination isn't libertarian. 2B. Anyone who rejects mandatory vaccination isn't libertarian. 3A. Anyone who supports keeping abortion legal isn't libertarian. 3B. Anyone who supports making abortion illegal isn't libertarian. Some of these members find these issues to be single-issue "disqualifiers" for being a libertarian. And certainly others exist. Now, this case isn't as controversial; I'm not sure I know any libertarians who are pleased about a $750M project. But I fear that the LNC censuring a candidate is opening Pandora's Box. Think about 10 years from now, when some faction that's hot-and-bothered about one of these divisive issues listed above gets a majority on the LNC and decides to start censuring people under the precedent. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-23 19:01, Starchild wrote: I agree that the precedent we set here is a matter of concern. The precedent I'm concerned about is the possibility of a Libertarian officeholder casting votes like the ones in question and not facing serious repercussions from the party. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Oct 23, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I doubt NV would not support the censure. A Nevada board member asked me. This is not blanket precedent. We have money and it is egregious and we can't not do the right thing because we fear a tyrantatarian future LNC. On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org<mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org>> wrote: Thank you on the clarification on who's asking for the censure. I do think it would hold a bit more weight if the affiliate was officially asking. This body's interference in affiliate matters has caused problems before. My greatest concern, after considering this for days, is the setting of precedent. Who's to say that a future LNC might censure for something far less; for something legitimately disputed in the party or within the broader philosophy? I don't recall the LNC ever censuring a candidate. In 2008, we had an issue with a candidate in KY. We took care of it our way, and we didn't look to the LNC to do anything, though many others did ask the LNC to intervene. In that scenario, we were able to block the candidate from the ballot line and that was that. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-22 00:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: The goal is for Libertarian candidates to not completely fundamentally betray basic principles in such a flagrant manner and sabotaging the efforts in a specific issue of the Party (the affiliate in this case). The Motion itself says what we hope - for the candidate to take Libertarian stances in the future. If he cannot, then switching to an affiliation that accurately reflects his principles is a choice he would have to make. That isn't our goal. But it certainly isn't our goal to assist a betrayal of the affiliate and principles. I do not know if we have before. And if there is censurable behaviour to a candidate that we have spent members' funds supporting, then yes. That is something we should consider doing. Once again, we are the "party of principle" and if voting for a 750 million dollar crony capitalist subsidy isn't a censurable violation then we have truly lost our way. Asking for a bright line rule is once again appropos to my pornography analogy. There are a host of factors, and we know it when we see it. The LPNV has spoken to the candidate. He has given a public explanation. This is public accountability. The affiliate has not officially asked National to censure. Some LPNV members have. As have members elsewhere. On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org<mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org>> wrote: I would submit that prior to censure, a conversation might be in order to get more information. We don't even have all of the facts. Here's what we know: 1. We have a candidate who is an elected official, was approved by an affiliate to run as an L, and to which the LNC gave money. 2. The candidate voted for 2 tax increases, the latter of which is to entice a franchise in a monopoly to come to his district. 3. The candidate claims 60% of his constituents supported the latter one. 4. The affiliate that nominated him is angry, has censured the candidate, and has asked National to censure as well. Now, if the goal is to get Moore to switch to some other affiliation or to Independent, then certainly censure would be a good start. But I think it might be good to speak to the elected official first. And the question about "what's the line for this body?" is extremely relevant. Has this body ever censured a candidate or elected Libertarian before? Is this a practice we want this body to make more regular? Again, I'm not in favor of this cronyist garbage, and after Cincinnati signed a similarly-stupid deal with the Bengals, and tied revenue to an increased local sales tax, I just avoid buying things in Cincinnati when possible. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-21 23:22, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And I would distinguish greatly a state candidate from our national candidate which was ratified and consented to by delegates at a national convention. A state candidate is ratified by those delegates (in most states and in normal circumstances which do not involve a mid-term Party affiliation switch). In such a case I give great deference to the affiliate that welcomed and championed. And once again, Nevada has made their absolute displeasure and sense of betrayal clear. On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com<mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com>> wrote: I find what if's and mining the subjunctives to be unhelpful personally. I do not know what kind of transgression would warrant in a "what if" situation. I would say yes, we should always be willing. Our duty is not to any elected person but to the Party itself and the principles for which we stand. This is a clear egregious violation which is somewhat like what some say about "pornography" - I know it when I see it. I would ask if someone commits to be a Libertarian and acts completely against Libertarian principles and received money from the National Committee of said Party is that committing fraud against the body? If the constituents feel defrauded (particularly since they elected a Republican, not a Libertarian) then it is up to them to deal with, not us. Our standing and duty is to the LP and the members. This isn't a minor issue. This was major with a capital M. And Nevada has made clear how they feel about it. The minute was have the "uncensurable" we are doomed. We are the "Party of Principle" and we need to have the backbone to at some point say enough is enough, particularly when we spent $10K of our members' money. On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org<mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org>> wrote: I'm glad that the dilemma is understood. And you did bring up the other question I had, after further consideration; would we, as a body, be willing to censure an elected Libertarian President Johnson? If this is the case, how bad would the transgression need to be before this body rebukes its own first elected President? We really need to help give our candidates and elected officials, to the limited extent that they exist, be successful champions for liberty. And by "we", I mean every person who says they're a libertarian. If we can't go out and help convince other people's minds, then we're failing as activists and supporters. IMO, the root problem here is that 60% number. Why do 60% of the people in Moore's district support this? As I further discussed this with a few others this afternoon and evening, I had another thought. If someone is elected to represent the people of his district and fails to do so, would that person be engaging in fraud against the constituents? Every candidate and elected official has negatives. I personally prefer to focus on a candidate's positives, rather than dwelling on their negatives. If the negatives exceed the positives, then I start looking for an alternate course of action. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-21 16:05, Demarest, David P. wrote: Ken, Thank you for your honest and thoughtful devil's advocate response regarding the proposed censure of John Moore. We can, however, view Assemblyman Moore's two egregious votes as an golden opportunity for LNC members to think outside the box to examine root causes and design short and long term solutions to the difficult dilemma faced by all Libertarian politicians. The dilemma is how to reconcile the dictates of one's Libertarian conscience with the realities of our current political environment that is rife with the cronyism necessary to get elected or reelected. The choice is between voting your conscience at the risk of not being reelected or violating your conscience to get reelected and live to fight another day in office. I would submit that Moore's violation of his conscience to get reelected makes him part of the problem of spiraling cronyism that is inexorably destroying our way of life and accelerating our economy and society down the path of destruction that history demonstrates is the inevitable fate of all compulsory territorial governments. Most of us support Gary Johnson in spite of specific misgivings because it is obvious that Gary is so much better than the other choices and would undoubtedly make things far better than the other candidates. If Johnson is elected, however, we know that despite his honestly about his platform, many of his decisions will give us heartburn. Our short-term act of censuring Moore will send a clear and unambiguous message that statist actions by Libertarian officials to save political seats are unacceptable violations of conscience that will not be tolerated. The proposed censure of Moore will serve as an educational message for all present and future Libertarian officials including those who switch from other parties. Long-term solutions require that we understand that cronyism does not fare well in the competitive context of the free-market. By contrast, cronyism is aggressively fostered in our current compulsory authoritarian majority rule system. We as Libertarians face an uphill battle if we choose to rely solely on a top-down legislative authoritarian approach to rescue us from the tsunami of cronyism that will swamp our ship of state if we do not reverse course promptly and with a sense of urgency. The crushing curse of cronyism will not be reversed until we change the context of government to minimize instead of fostering cronyism. To get straight to the point, that change in context to discourage cronyism will not occur until we achieve competitive governance and competitive social services. I would further submit that we must supplement our top-down legislative strategy with a robust, bottom-up entrepreneurial peaceful freedom revolution fueled by peer-to-peer technology. Then and only then will we create the political climate necessary to elect Libertarian officials to all levels of government and establish the environment of competitive governance and social services that is an absolute prerequisite if we seriously intend to minimize cronyism and save our way of life for future generations. Thoughts? The War on Majority Rule Authoritarian Cronyism Begins Now ~David Pratt Demarest Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus From: Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 12:50 PM To: ken.moellman(a)lpky.org<mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org<mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Cc: William Redpath; Demarest, David P. Subject: Re: Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors We have enough cosponsors for a ballot. I will argue for it in the ballot. It was an LPNV who last broached this action with me - I believe it has the support of the aggrieved affiliate - and members- who's money we spent. The second vote was expressly against something the LPNV was opposed to actively for years. This is a betrayal of the LPNV. And I certainly did not vote (and I argued zealously) to support a candidate - out of many worthy candidates - who would take such crony capitalist anti/libertarian power. On Friday, October 21, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org<mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org>> wrote: Please allow me to take the Devil's Advocate position, since I probably won't have a vote that counts anyway. I realize that this position is unlikely to be popular. Politics and philosophy can be a tough balancing act. Certainly, there are instances of this problem with our presidential ticket (bake the cake, for example) and probably every other campaign out there (vaccination debate, etc.). Elected officials, and indeed individuals, are faced with tough decisions between philosophy and reality all the time. Perhaps the most famous was Jefferson's opposition to slavery while also owning slaves. Assemblyman Moore reported that a poll of the constituents of his district showed that about 60% of the constituents supported the deal, including the associated taxes. Certainly, there could and should have been a coordinated effort by the opposition to stop this deal by educating the public. Based on the level of support reported within Assemblyman Moore's district, those efforts were obviously unsuccessful. Even taking what was said above into account, I personally think Assemblyman Moore's greatest failing in this situation came was in how he supported the deal. A statement about "While I personally do not support this deal, I voted in favor because my constituents wanted me to do so" could have been a very good moment. It would have provided an opportunity to educate the public about the negatives of the deal and hopefully prevent this type of situation from happening the next time. So I ask these questions: Do you think that what John Moore did was driven by philosophy, or by politics? Do you believe that John Moore wanted higher taxes? As an elected representative, should he represent the people of his district, or ignore those people in favor of his own philosophy? Is it more wise to go against the constituency, especially this close to election day, or is it more wise to fight another day when your "army" is more organized and can help you win the day? Just something to think about. I'm not pleased at the idea of yet another billionaire getting a taxpayer-funded stadium and I don't believe they create enough economic activity to offset the costs. At least the team name is appropriate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-21 09:27, William Redpath wrote: I will also co-sponsor, as I was opposed to the $10,000 motion at the LNC meeting in July 2016. Bill Redpath -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 10/20/16, David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net<mailto:dpdemarest@centurylink.net>> wrote: Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org<mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Cc: david.demarest(a)firstdata.com<mailto:david.demarest@firstdata.com> Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016, 9:20 PM #yiv9175739729 #yiv9175739729 -- _filtered #yiv9175739729 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #yiv9175739729 #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729 li.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;} #yiv9175739729 a:link, #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv9175739729 a:visited, #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729 li.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;} #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-m-7066241125321024756gmail-m637561545514884297m-7093137337385855135gmail-s1 {} #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-im {} #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729EmailStyle20 {color:windowtext;} #yiv9175739729 .yiv9175739729MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv9175739729 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729WordSection1 {} #yiv9175739729 Caryn, I will co-sponsor your motion to censure John Moore and request that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution from the LNC. Mr. Moore's two votes were egregious. Thoughts? Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE! The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government! ~David Pratt Demaresthttp://www.lpne.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpne.org&d=CwMFaQ&c…> secretary@lpne.orgdpdemarest@centurylink.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__centurylink.net&d=CwMFa…> david.demarest(a)firstdata.com<mailto:david.demarest@firstdata.com> Cell: 402-981-6469Home: 402-493-0873Office: 402-222-7207<tel:402-222-7207> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 7:45 PM To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org<mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors Multiple party members including region 1 members have acted that the LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally, I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this case, we spent National Party member's direct monies, and thus I do agree this is our responsibility. As someone who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my responsibility to address this once members raised a concern: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -- In Liberty,Caryn Ann HarlosRegion 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.orgCommunications<mailto:Harlos@LP.orgCommunications> Director, Libertarian Party of ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org<mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listi…> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org<mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listi…> -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org<mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org&d=Cw…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify First Data immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org<mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org_&d=C…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org<mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org_&d=C…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org<mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org_&d=C…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org<mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org_&d=C…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org<mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listi…> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org<mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listi…> -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org<mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org&d=Cw…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…> -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org<mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org&d=Cw…> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org…>

1 0

approved minutes of 9/25/16 LNC meeting
by Alicia Mattson 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Attached are the now-approved minutes from the electronic LNC meeting on September 25, 2016. Staff, please post these to the website when you get a chance to do so. -Alicia

1 0