[Lnc-business] A couple of items for your consideration

[James Lark]

Dear colleagues:

     I hope all is well with you.  I am writing to offer a couple of 
items for your consideration.  I hope you find them worthy of your 
attention.

1)  Thank you for appointing me to serve as an International 
Representative.  I am honored and flattered to receive this appointment; 
I shall always strive to be worthy of the trust you have placed in me.

     At this time I am planning to visit France, Spain, and Iceland 
within the next three months.  Specifically, I shall give addresses at 
European Students For Liberty conferences in Paris, Madrid, and 
Reykjavik.  (I have also been invited to deliver the keynote address at 
the ESFL conference in Amsterdam next month, but I am uncertain whether 
I shall be able to accept the invitation.)  I have already made 
inquiries about meeting with people associated with libertarian 
political organizations in those countries.  I also hope to visit South 
America within the next six months, in addition to making at least one 
trip to Europe early next year.

2)  Earlier this morning I sent a message to the State Chairs' e-mail 
list concerning some ideas that Libertarian candidates (and state 
parties) may wish to consider.  I have taken the liberty of enclosing 
this message below.

     Allow me to suggest that as we consider LNC goals and associated 
strategic and tactical matters, we may wish to incorporate some of these 
ideas where appropriate.  For example, as we develop new and improved 
literature, we may wish to develop literature that addresses issues 
raised in Radley Balko's article and my article. Perhaps Mr. Sarwark's 
experience as a defense attorney would be particularly helpful in 
crafting our message regarding some of these issues.

     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.  I look forward to 
seeing you next month in Alexandria.

     Take care,
     Jim

     James W. Lark, III
     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
     University of Virginia

     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
-----

Message to State Chairs' list:

Dear colleagues:

     I hope all is well with you.  I am writing to share some ideas that 
may be useful for Libertarian candidates.  I hope you find these ideas 
worthy of consideration.

1)  Yesterday Radley Balko posted an interesting article to the online 
edition of the Washington Post.  The article, entitled "Police cameras 
are important, but they're useless without policies to ensure they're 
used properly,"  is available at 
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/19/police-cameras-are-important-but-theyre-useless-without-proper-policies-to-ensure-theyre-used-properly/.

     Of particular interest is an idea expressed in the last two 
paragraphs of the article:

One policy that would go a long way toward achieving those three 
objectives is what defense attorney Scott Greenfield calls /the missing 
video presumption/ 
<http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/03/30/the-missing-video-presumption/>. Currently, 
the courts generally treat important video that goes missing as a 
harmless mistake. They assume no ill will on the part of police. If you 
discover that the police were or should have been recording an encounter 
that would vindicate you of criminal charges or prove that the police 
violated your rights, and that video goes missing, you're simply out of 
luck.

Under the missing video presumption, if under the policy agency's police 
there /should/ have been video and there /isn't/, then the courts will 
assume that the video corroborates the party opposing the police, be it 
a criminal defendant or the plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit. The 
state could still get over the presumption by presenting other evidence, 
such as witnesses, medical reports, and so on. But if it's the police 
officer's word against his antagonist's, there should be video to 
validate one side or the other, and that video mysteriously goes missing 
while in police custody, the police should have to pay a penalty in 
court. Otherwise, there's just too strong an incentive for vindicating 
video to be leaked and for incriminating video to disappear.

     As your parties and candidates are formulating campaign platforms, 
perhaps the platforms that address state issues should include proposals 
to amend state laws to incorporate the "missing video presumption."

2)  In my opinion, proposals of the type suggested above fall under the 
heading of what I refer to as "Goo Goo legislation." Such legislation 
promotes open and transparent operation of government.  (If I understand 
correctly, the term "Goo Goo" arose in the Nineteenth Century to refer 
to advocates of civil service reform legislation.)

     I wrote an article about "Goo Goo" legislation that appeared in the 
May 2004 issue of LP News; I have enclosed the article below for your 
consideration.  I believe that Libertarian candidates should advocate 
"Goo Goo" legislation where appropriate.

     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.  I hope you find this 
information helpful.

     Take care,
     Jim

     James W. Lark, III
     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
     University of Virginia

     Vice Chair, Libertarian Party of Virginia
     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
-----

 From LP News (May 2004):

"'Goo Goo' Libertarians:Advocating 'Good Government' Laws to Promote 
Liberty"

Should Libertarian candidates be "Goo Goos"?I believe that advocating 
certain types of Goo Goo legislation is basically a low-risk tactic that 
may produce liberty-enhancing outcomes.

The term "Goo Goo" is political slang for advocates of so-called "good 
government" reforms.(I believe the term was widely used during civil 
service reform campaigns during the Nineteenth Century for elimination 
of political patronage.)Unfortunately, many contemporary self-identified 
Goo Goos support activist government, and much legislation they support 
would reduce our liberty.(The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is a prime 
example.)

However, in my opinion some types of Goo Goo legislation tend to be 
liberty-enhancing.These include:

Sunshine legislation:The term refers to laws that make it easier for 
citizens to monitor the activities of government.Provisions in such laws 
may include requirements that government agency meetings be open to the 
public, and that certain types of documents be made available at 
reasonable cost to citizens upon request.An important example of a 
sunshine law at the federal level is the Freedom of Information Act 
("FOIA").

Sunset legislation:The term refers to laws mandating that government 
programs automatically end by a specified date unless the programs are 
explicitly reauthorized.Many such laws were passed by state governments 
in the 1970s and 1980s.A few states subsequently repealed these 
laws.Such repeals were sometimes justified by claims that the task of 
reviewing whether endangered government programs were actually necessary 
imposed too heavy a burden upon legislators and staff.

OIG legislation:Several government agencies have an Office of Inspector 
General ("OIG").Many federal departments and agencies have OIGs, as do 
several departments and agencies at the state and local level.

Robert Redding, a consultant to the Office of Inspector General in 
Montgomery County, Maryland, wrote about the importance of local OIGs in 
/Capital Ideas/, a National Taxpayers Union Foundation publication.He 
noted that the statutory mission of the Montgomery County OIG includes 
the following:

*To prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in government activities

*Review the effectiveness and efficiency of county programs and operations

*Propose ways to increase the legal, fiscal, and ethical accountability 
of county departments and county-funded agencies.

Additional types of potentially liberty-enhancing Goo Goo legislation 
include establishing ombudsmen for government departments and agencies, 
developing nonpartisan commissions and processes for redistricting, and 
establishing proposed legislation review committees.(Such committees 
would vet all proposed legislation to determine whether such legislation 
passes Constitutional muster.)

I believe there are several potential advantages to Libertarians 
advocating Goo Goo legislation, including the following:

1)Advocacy of Goo Goo legislation by a Libertarian candidate may force 
his opponents to address and perhaps support such legislation.In my 
experience, candidates find it very difficult to oppose openly the 
concepts of sunshine, sunset, and OIGs.Libertarian support for 
well-crafted Goo Goo legislation may push other candidates to climb 
aboard that bandwagon.

2)Many journalists I have met are (or consider themselves to be) 
protectors of the citizens against the power of the state.Hence, many 
journalists who cover politics and government affairs frequently support 
Goo Goo legislation, especially sunshine laws.I believe LP candidates 
who promote such legislation well are more likely to gain the attention 
and respect of "the Fourth Estate."

3)Some LP candidates I have met have little idea how government actually 
works or what powers they would have if they were actually elected.Such 
candidates are easily dismissed by voters as being ignorant concerning 
the offices they seek.Candidates who promote Goo Goo legislation are 
more likely to be seen as serious, thoughtful, and responsible advocates 
of reducing the size and scope of government.

By suggesting that Libertarians promote such legislation, I am not 
suggesting that we avoid advocating the elimination of government 
programs. To the contrary:we should be bold in calling for elimination 
of programs that do not pass muster on moral, constitution, or 
prudential grounds.However, given that big government is likely to be 
around for a while, enactment of such legislation should make it easier 
to keep government from growing even larger.

Promoting Goo Goo legislation should be an adjunct to, not a replacement 
for, promoting hallmark Libertarian positions.Libertarians who advocate 
Goo Goo ideas are unlikely to be elected due solely to such 
advocacy.Indeed, I suspect it would be difficult for any candidate to 
win simply by promoting good government ideas.(If support of such ideas 
clearly becomes popular, all candidates are likely to become advocates 
of the ideas.)

Please note that crafting specific Goo Goo proposals properly can take a 
great deal of time and effort.Moreover, adoption of sunshine, sunset, 
and OIG legislation, even when such legislation is well crafted, will 
not necessarily reduce the size and scope of government.Restraining 
expansive government through sunshine, sunset, and OIG laws usually 
requires a great deal of hard work by citizens.

However, I believe promoting the right type of good government 
legislation will be helpful, both in aiding our campaigns and in moving 
us toward a Libertarian society.I hope LP candidates will give the Goo 
Goo tactic a whirl.


James W. Lark, III is a professor in the School of Engineering and 
Applied Science at the University of Virginia.He is the Region 5S 
representative on the Libertarian National Committee, and served as the 
national chairman of the Libertarian Party during the 2000-2002 term.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140820/30942086/attachment-0001.html>