[Lnc-business] Fwd: IALP charter questions

[Daniel Wiener]

I sat down just now to comment on Alicia's concerns, only to read Geoff's
response which contains the same points I was going to make.  Organizations
don't spring full-blown into existence with all their structures and
procedures already agreed to and in place.  They need an initial outline
followed by formal meetings to develop the details.  After all, it's been
forty four years since the LP was formed and we are still tweaking our
Bylaws and Policy Manual.

I'm willing to go with the broad outline expressed in the IALP Charter, on
the presumption that further work will be forthcoming to fill in the
holes.  Any minor apprehension I might have is pretty thoroughly alleviated
by the fact that we can withdraw at any time if we are unhappy with the
direction the IALP is taking.  And even though the LPUS will only be one
member of the IALP, we will be a highly influential member.  After all, if
we ever did withdraw from the IALP it would be an enormous blow to that
organization.

Organizational issues are not unimportant, but I hope the IALP will spend
the large majority of its time working to achieve its goals rather than
debating internal procedures.

Dan Wiener

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Forwarding Geoff's reply to my comments.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Geoffrey Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>
> Date: Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:38 PM
> Subject: RE: IALP charter questions
> To: Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>
>
> Alicia,
>
>
>
> The motion as passed by the Convention in 2014 was:
>
>
>
> Be it resolved that the assembled delegates of the 2014 Libertarian
> National Convention hereby call for the creation of an International
> Association of Libertarian Parties.
>
>
>
> And whereas, our outgoing chair, Geoffrey Neale, has pursued this effort,
> we recommend that he be appointed by the LNC as a representative to begin
> discussions with our counterparts in other countries.
>
>
>
> I don’t see any specificity in this resolution at all as to the LNC
> reviewing anything.
>
>
>
> Dr. Lark is a member of the Facebook group where all communications,
> including announcement of the conference, and the charter, were
> distributed.  All of the countries that have already ratified the charter,
> and those intending to, have access to the group. By the way, Arvin Vohra
> and Nick Sarwark are also on the same group. I have no clue whether or not
> these individuals have notifications turned on or off, or whether any have
> visited the group page, but the information that has been seen by Belgium,
> Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Tunisia, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, etc.
> and did not slip their notice.
>
>
>
> As to all of the rest, you spent way too much time writing.
>
>
>
> There is no organization yet. This is a STARTUP.  We cannot consult with a
> professional (paid) parliamentarian because we don’t exist, don’t have a
> bank account, etc. This first meeting in person is the meeting in David
> Nolan’s living room that started the LP in the first place.  I don’t know
> just how many of these things they worked out that first day, but it was
> nowhere near as large as your list.  If they had to do this first, the LP
> would not exist today.
>
>
>
> The reason we are meeting in person is exactly so that we can work out
> these issues face to face. The reason why the charter is skeletal in nature
> is to define a scope of the organization as a basis, and add the necessary
> muscle – face to face.  If we had to get agreement before the organization
> exists, what does Robert’s say about how to count the votes? Can Robert’s
> apply to a non-entity. How could we weigh votes from parties unlikely to
> join, who are looking for reasons to say no, versus parties that are trying
> to make it work? If the LNC votes not to join, why should anyone else give
> a damn what their concerns are?
>
>
>
> It will cost the LNC and the LP nothing to join, and they can leave if
> sufficient progress is not made in short order, for whatever reason you
> like.  Heck you can join on March 6th, and leave on March 9th. If things
> take a distinctly negative slant, I’ll be holding the door for the LNC and
> the LP. The LNC can also pass along their concerns if they vote to join,
> and their representative will raise their concerns at the meeting.
>
>
>
> However, it has been made clear to me that the creation of the IALP will
> proceed with or without the USLP.  If it is without, it would be a shame.
>
>
>
> Perfection is ALWAYS the enemy of the good.
>
>
>
> However, I will be passing your list, which you admit is just a first
> glance, on to the group.  I think it will serve a very valuable purpose.
>
>
>
> Geoffrey Neale
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Alicia Mattson [mailto:agmattson at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 09, 2015 9:12 PM
> *To:* Geoffrey Neale; lnc-business
> *Subject:* Re: IALP charter questions
>
>
>
> Geoff,
>
> Thank you for providing us with some context for what you are asking us to
> do.  I had hoped to write this sooner, as the ideas were percolating in my
> head all weekend, but I’m just now getting around to putting them in
> writing.
>
> First I want to make some distinctions about what it is we expect to be
> doing with the creation of the IALP.  The delegates at our convention voted
> for a concept, not a particular implementation.  They liked the idea of
> creating an international organization of some sort.  They specifically
> left it to the LNC to work out the details, and some of the key details are
> really important at the start, though others can be worked out later by the
> IALP.  It’s worth investing the necessary time to create a solid structure
> for this organization so that it can actually function as envisioned.  If
> it’s dysfunctional, what’s the point?
>
> As it is, I see some rather large structural problems (as I will describe
> below) with this proposed governing document, and I have serious concerns
> about whether an organization with no more structure than this can actually
> work.  It doesn’t have to be perfect at the start, but it has to meet
> certain structural milestones that I don’t yet see.  If the readers find my
> introductory commentary to be long-winded, I hope the skimmers will at
> least take a look below at the points I make about structural flaws.
>
> Whether or not I’m interested in joining this particular organization will
> depend on whether I support the goals AND believe it can be effective at
> those goals.  Below I’ll also discuss the question of a “manifesto” as you
> described it.
>
> It is true that the LNC is fully capable of, as you described,
> wordsmithing something to death.  That doesn’t mean that we should run to
> the other end of the spectrum and view our role as merely a rubber stamp
> entity that engages in no critical thinking about the subject.  We are
> elected to engage in due diligence.  I do not think that the issues I will
> raise below are nitpicking or trivial or wordsmithing-to-death.  I think
> they’re rather foundational.
>
> It is unfortunate that a time crunch has been created for us such that it
> is nearly impossible for the international participants in this effort to
> take advantage of any constructive feedback LNC members might provide.  The
> LNC did not create this timing problem, so I’m not going to feel bad for
> not having spoken up sooner because I was not asked sooner.  The LNC didn’t
> set the March 6-9 meeting date and encourage people to book their
> international flights well before there was even a draft document to vote
> on.  We just now learned what was developing, and just now saw this
> document for the first time.
>
> It is my understanding based on an inquiry I sent to Dr. Lark (please note
> that the LNC has also appointed him to be one of our International
> Representatives, as you can see at the bottom of page 23 of these minutes:
> https://www.lp.org/files/20140920-21_LNC.pdf) that he didn’t even see
> this document until it was sent to the LNC.  Since you indicated that he is
> in the Facebook group you mentioned, I am inclined to infer that there
> hasn’t been extensive collaboration on the organizational design you
> drafted else he would have seen it sooner.
>
> I have in the past complained pretty vocally when the LNC is unnecessarily
> put into time crunch situations such that there is pressure to skip the due
> diligence phase for the actual details and just vote a particular way to
> keep up a particular public appearance of supporting a vague concept.  If
> we don't approve this document, that doesn't prohibit us from approving a
> different one later with the same goal.
>
> Most of us laughed when Nancy Pelosi said that Congress had to pass
> Obamacare so they could see what was in it.  I expect the LP to operate
> differently than the Democrats and Republicans do.
>
> Our delegates having supported a concept is not equivalent to their having
> supported a particular person’s proposed implementation of the concept.  At
> the time, our delegates didn’t have a sample product available to approve
> or reject.  It’s the difference between liking the sales pitch of an “As
> Seen on TV” commercial and then actually trying to use the product itself.
>
> I saw TV commercials for an under-the-bed shoe organizer that appeared in
> their demonstrations to have the firm structure like a cardboard box with a
> handle on it such that a gentle push with one hand would easily slide the
> whole thing under the bed to store it out of sight.  The pictures on the
> box also implied a sturdy structure.  I bought one.  In reality, it’s just
> a limp fabric bag with no support structure whatsoever.  If I push on the
> front, the back doesn’t slide under the bed.  The back stays where it is,
> and the whole thing collapses upon itself in a heap.  You need about 3
> hands to wad it up under the bed.  It was not actually “as seen on TV”.  It
> was useless and dysfunctional, with no support structure whatsoever.
>
> *Really Important Structural Issues:*
>
> Regardless of whether this document is called a charter, a constitution,
> bylaws, or whatever, it seems this is intended to be a governing document
> that defines the structure and basic function of the organization.  I agree
> that some decisions can be made later without a need for the entire LNC to
> debate the details – things like where the legal entity will be created,
> where the funds will be held, who hosts the website, what reporting
> currency will be used.
>
> But until then, you still need enough structure to facilitate making those
> decisions.
>
> 1)  Whether or not you decide to use RONR as the parliamentary authority,
> you need one.  In my opinion, this is the most important thing missing from
> the proposed structure.  The entire point of adopting a parliamentary
> authority is so that you don’t have to write hundreds of pages of rules
> yourself.  You adopt an industry-standard as the default, and then you only
> have to write rules to fill in a few blanks and make exceptions where you
> want to customize.
>
> If the IALP doesn’t have a parliamentary authority, there are a LOT of
> fundamental things that are missing.
>
>    - What is there to say that members are entitled to receive reasonable
>    notice of a meeting?
>    - Who can call a meeting?
>    - Do you have to meet in person?  Will you conduct business by phone?
>    Will you conduct business with a system like Adobe Connect which the LNC
>    has decided to use for our occasional not-in-person meetings?  Will you
>    instead try to conduct business by email, which is one of the worst
>    possible options for making deliberative decisions, so very bad that RONR
>    warns against it on page 1 of the 11th edition?
>    - Where is the concept and definition of quorum?
>    - What’s to say the chair can’t just get on the phone with one other
>    member without knowledge of the other 50 members, claim it was a legitimate
>    meeting, and they decided x, y, and z?
>    - There’s nothing that says it requires a majority vote to make basic
>    business decisions.
>    - What is a majority vote?  Is it half+1 as some people believe, or is
>    it any miniscule fraction greater than half as RONR says?  Is it a majority
>    of the total number of members, or a majority of those present and voting?
>      Are abstentions included in the denominator?
>    - Do the members have the right to debate a motion before they vote?
>    - Can you set time limits on debate, or must you all sit there until
>    the last person finishes his 3-hour speech?
>    - Can a chair just unilaterally declare that debate has ended and
>    gavel through a motion, or does it take a 2/3 vote to close debate before a
>    vote?
>    - What if the chair decides that a 1/5 vote is enough to pass a
>    motion?
>    - There is nothing that provides the members a means to fight back
>    against a chair who thinks himself to be king.
>    - What if an Antonio Villaraigosa clone is chairing and he declares a
>    motion to have received a majority when it clearly did not? (reference to
>    his widely-publicized actions as chair-pro-tem at the 2012 Democrat
>    national convention)  There is no call for division.  There is no way to
>    demand a count.  There is no point of order.  There is no appeal of the
>    ruling of the chair.  There is nothing but hope that people will be
>    cooperative, reasonable, and honest.  Obama’s campaign theme was hope, but
>    the reality was something different.
>    - When and how can you change a previously-made decision?
>
> I could go on, but I think this point is clear enough.  You shouldn’t try
> to re-invent these things yourselves.  A parliamentary authority like RONR
> defines really important core terms and concepts.  It creates some basic
> rights for the members and methods for them to exercise their rights.  It
> creates some protections for rights of a minority of a substantial size.
> It creates rights for absentees.  It defines the process by which business
> is conducted without just making it up as you go.  I don’t recommend that
> any group attempt to wing it without a parliamentary authority to fall back
> on when disputes arise...because there will be disputes.  It is
> inevitable.  You all get along great now because it’s all friendly and
> conceptual, but at some point you have to get down to business and will
> have differences of opinion.
>
> 2)  This document doesn’t even provide for the existence of officers.  Who
> will lead or call meetings if the rules don’t create a chair office?  Who
> holds and disburses the funds if there is no treasurer office?  Does it
> take a vote of the assembly every time a check needs to be written for
> website hosting?  Who keeps records of what was or wasn’t decided if there
> is no secretary office?  Perhaps the future decisions about where the
> entity will be based will dictate assigning particular extra duties to
> these offices or creating other officer positions, but these basic
> functions are needed regardless.  If RONR is chosen as your parliamentary
> authority, no officer positions can be created except the ones delineated
> in the bylaws, so I suggest writing at least these positions into place at
> the beginning.  You need to cover how and when they are elected, terms of
> office (which need to be carefully worded), etc.  If RONR is chosen as your
> parliamentary authority, it will define a lot of duties of these offices so
> that your charter/bylaws only need minimal language about their duties.
>
> 3)  There probably needs to be a lot of discussion about the items in
> Article 1 of this draft charter.  What activities do you anticipate
> engaging in?  I see item 1.c in the purposes as being very different from
> 1.a and 1.b.  That is, of course, why it is a separate item, but my point
> is that 1.a and 1.b are for a different institutional creature than 1.c is.
>
> Article 1.c creates a need for some sort of manifesto/platform that
> defines that delineates boundaries of what is or isn’t a libertarian
> political perspective.  If this organization is going to have a platform, I
> might want to know what it is before I agree to join it.  If there is a
> platform, that means the IALP will have to routinely spend time debating
> and amending the platform as opposed to engaging in items 1.a and 1.b.  I
> envision the member parties in each country as being the entities that
> should engage in the platform debates, and an international organization as
> doing 1.a and 1.b instead.
>
> If IALP is going to have a manifesto/platform, promote the libertarian
> brand (however that is defined), then when I look at Article 2 and see that
> it will not compete with organizations with non-political objectives, the
> natural question is whether it will compete with organizations WITH
> political objectives like the LPUS?   If its purpose is 1.a and 1.b, that’s
> not an issue, but with 1.c and Article 2, I need to understand what it
> expects to be doing.  Will there eventually be IALP candidates on the
> ballots competing with LPUS candidates?  Purpose 1.c could lead to that.
>
> *Lower-level issues:*
>
> Once you decide that you need a parliamentary authority, then there ought
> to be discussion with other potential members about which one to use.  Have
> you asked them what they use in their LP organizations?  If everybody is
> already using the same thing, then this is an easy decision.  This is a
> discussion you need to have before you create the organization.
>
> I personally would advocate for RONR, as it is more thorough and more
> frequently updated than many other manuals.  There is a good reason that it
> is the parliamentary authority of choice for something like 85% of
> English-speaking organizations.  It’s the institutional knowledge result of
> 200+ years of the United States’s experiment in self-government.  It is
> also widely used outside of the United States as well, but I don’t have
> handy statistics about that.
>
> I’m not sure who gave you the impression that RONR does not adequately
> address virtual meetings.  The 11th edition added more coverage of that
> topic, but it’s not that you need a manual to prescribe a particular set of
> rules.  The key thing is that RONR defines the conditions and circumstances
> that are required for the deliberative process to happen, and the problem
> has been waiting for technology to progress enough to create those
> conditions for all participants to be able to simultaneously hear and react
> to information.  At this point, the choice of technology for online
> meetings is more important than the question of which parliamentary manual
> to use.  If the technology gives you an appropriate platform, then you can
> just use your regular meeting rules for the most part.
>
> Speaking of English, another lower-level detail for an international
> organization will be to agree about whether meetings will be conducted in
> English or in some other language.  Members who speak another language need
> to have a right to bring an interpreter with them, if needed.
>
> Also on a lower-level (what you might call wordsmithing) a parliamentarian
> working with you on a project would advise you to be very particular about
> the language you use to describe votes, so as to make it consistent with
> your parliamentary authority and make sure it actually means what you think
> it means.  Without RONR behind you, phrases like “a 2/3 vote of the entire
> Assembly” could arguably mean several very different things.
>
> Other recommended wordsmithing would be to pay close attention to the dues
> and how they relate to membership status.  Are the dues a condition of
> membership, or are they just expected after you’re a member?  What if your
> payment arrives on January 2nd?  Is there a grace period?  Do you lapse
> immediately on January 1st?  By not tying the dues requirement into the
> membership article, it leaves more room for disagreement.
>
> Article 3.3 says that membership shall not be granted to affiliates or
> subsidiaries of a member, but in Article 3.4 there is no limit on the
> number of members from any country.  Is it the intention that only the
> highest-level entity of an affiliate system can join, or if a national
> party doesn’t join, then can its state/county/district/province/shire
> affiliates join on their own?  If the parent organization joins later,
> you’d have to kick out the affiliates who had joined earlier and only
> recognize the parent organization.  Just make sure that these details are
> what you intend.
>
> The policy manual language you proposed and the LNC adopted (with some
> later amendments) includes the possibility and now the reality of multiple
> International Representatives.  The LNC has, in fact, assigned this
> position to two people – you and Dr. Lark.  Only one will get to vote in
> the IALP, and the LNC will need to designate which person does that.  If
> other organizations also have multiple “ambassadors” of sorts, should there
> be any role for them to play?  Should they be alternates who can
> participate and vote if the designated voter isn’t present?
>
> *Summary:*
>
> This is by no means the fine-tooth-comb treatment I would give to a paying
> client.  This is first-read, first-things-I-noticed, material.  This
> organization really ought to consult with a professional parliamentarian as
> more details are filled in because there can easily be unintended
> consequences, and wordsmithing can be critical in certain places.  Whether
> or not the IALP decides to use RONR specifically, it would be a good idea
> for you and your colleagues to read its suggestions (chapter 17) for
> conduct of a “mass meeting” to create a new organization as well as
> reviewing its model bylaws (chapter 18) for what core subjects need to be
> covered.
>
> I don’t understand why you seem to be discouraging the LNC from giving
> feedback (instead hoping for the rubber stamp treatment) by suggesting that
> requests for changes would mean we aren’t cooperative because we’re
> arrogant Americans.  I disagree that we’ll taint our reputation in the
> world if we ask for changes that have perfectly good reasons behind them.
> Opinions from the LPUS may not be any more important than are the opinions
> of people from other IALP members, but neither are they less important such
> that it would be rude of us to say anything, and we must just accept one
> person’s first draft without comment.
>
> I think this document needs more work before it can provide functional
> governance options to the IALP.  Because I want the organization to
> succeed, I recommend that we take whatever time is needed to plan more
> thoroughly before pulling the proverbial trigger.  Maybe that can be done
> in time for the March 6-9 meeting, but if not, I will again note that we
> did not create the timing problem.
>
> The document doesn’t have to be perfect at the start, but I don't think it
> has yet developed enough of the critical milestones to be a functional
> starting point.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Geoffrey Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Alicia and the entire LNC.
>
>
>
> I will try to address your questions as completely as possible, and
> hopefully the following narrative will suffice. It is to the best of my
> recollection and my limited notes, so may not be totally complete, or
> absolutely accurate, but it is IMO functionally accurate.
>
>
>
> In November of 2013, I spoke to a group of members of the Partido de la
> Libertad Individual (P-Lib - Spain) in Madrid. Unbeknownst to me
> beforehand, representatives of the libertarian parties of Italy, Germany
> and the UK traveled to Madrid to attend  this event. We met for about an
> hour before my speech, and the topic of creating an international group was
> discussed. Support was strong, but no formal action was taken at that time.
> It was at that meeting that I met Guy Montrose, Chair of the UKLP, for the
> first time.
>
>
>
> I had many conversations with Guy between then, starting with a marathon
> all-nighter in Madrid after the formal dinner, and up to the 2014
> Convention.  I would have to say that he really is the most prominent
> driving force behind this effort.  I made it clear to him that I had little
> time to invest towards anything formal while serving as Chair.
>
>
>
> Then my calendar became somewhat clearer. Also, the delegates passed the
> resolution calling for me to be appointed to the position of international
> representative, and for such an organization to be created.  Since that
> time, I have been actively working with others to attempt to live up to the
> directive from the delegates.
>
>
>
> Guy created a private Facebook group to float the idea of the IALP around
> July 1st of 2014, and he started inviting members. Most are
> representatives of various libertarian parties, although some members are
> not “official”, such as James Lark, Nick Sarwark and Mark Hinkle.
>
>
>
> Within one week we received support for the concept from parties in
> Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the
> Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, Spain and the UK. Since then we have
> obtained support from  Albania, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Poland,
> Switzerland (two different parties), and Tunisia.  More are in the works.
>
>
>
> During the next several months, a small group of individuals started
> discussing the actual creation. The four original members of that group
> were myself, Guy Montrose, Juan Pina (President  of P-Lib), and Roxana
> Pecula, Juan’s wife. Roxana serves in a high capacity in P-Lib, and is from
> Romania, where she was very active in libertarianism. One thing that was
> made abundantly clear to me was that the USLP needed to be a party to the
> organization from the start.  I’m not sure I shared that opinion, but I was
> outvoted. I have always seen the USLP involvement to be highly beneficial,
> but not essential.
>
>
>
> Guy has wanted to do whatever is necessary to get this organization going,
> and Juan wanted to create the organization back in August. Juan had the “if
> you build it, they will come” attitude.  He was prepared to take on all of
> the legal and administrative responsibilities.  I objected until we had the
> support of the USLP, and I felt it would not be forthcoming without more
> details.
>
>
>
> I had several communications with Nick Sarwark, and he made it abundantly
> clear to me that he felt the LNC would not support membership without more
> details, especially a mission statement.
>
>
>
> In the intervening months, we added more people to what Guy calls the IALP
> Forward Planning group. We first added Toine Manders, Chair of the
> Netherlands LP. Then we included Hilary Hackleman, a Californian LP member
> who is married to a Brit, and now lives close to Guy, to serve as secretary
> and support. We also added Mark Hinkle, to help in contacting more
> international parties, since he has been instrumental in establishing these
> contacts since he became Chair.
>
>
>
> Guy pushed for establishing a date for our first formal meeting – the
> founding meeting. His suggestion was to hold it concurrent with an annual
> event in the UK called Freedom Festival.  That is what we have decided to
> do. That decision was made in December. Guy has already lined up media. He
> is working  with the Freedom Festival organizers, and several events have
> already been planned and promoted.  There will be a formal “signing”, but
> it’s really for show. In order to sign, the member party must have ratified
> the charter beforehand. I think we can assume that this event will occur
> with or without the USLP as a founding member, and changing the date or
> venue is not feasible.
>
>
>
> Since this required organizational and event planning, Nancy Neale was
> added to the group to assist with the conference logistics.
>
>
>
> I was asked to take the lead on creating a Charter, because I have always
> been the biggest proponent of doing so. Since the earliest draft, we have
> included more international representatives in a review capacity, and the
> version you have seen includes the feedback from others, but the support
> has been almost unanimous.
>
>
>
> The one glaring omission from the Charter is a manifesto, which I prefer
> to call a statement of principles.  Some just want to have the entire USLP
> platform adopted in its entirety, but that support is very weak, and I
> personally oppose that idea. I think such a document must be a
> collaborative effort that supports the organization as a whole, and I feel
> trying to craft one via emails and Facebook from the beginning just means
> the beginning phase may never end. I hope to work out the scope and
> requirements of that statement of principle in Bournemouth. Several people
> are working on proposals. Once crafted, the entire Assembly can vote for
> its inclusion.
>
>
>
> I want everyone on the LNC to understand that this formative phase has
> been logistically challenging.  We have a large enough time difference (the
> group encompasses ten time zones), the fact that most of the working group
> is employed, that fixing times to have Skype meetings is tough.  It usually
> falls to weekends, and still provides very small windows of opportunity.
> On top of that, we have election cycles and other responsibilities that
> conflict. If we added many more people to the mix, the challenges would be
> overwhelming. Thankfully all of the members of the Forwarad Planning group
> speak and write excellent English, or I’d be lost.
>
>
>
> The Founding Charter is designed (by me) to be skeletal in nature, and
> primarily serves to define the boundaries of the members and the
> organization.
>
>
>
> One example of this is that I have not specified any of the causes for
> expulsion. It would obviously include violating the “manifesto”, which does
> not yet exist. I feel the causes can be delineated later.
>
>
>
> Another is that I have not mentioned RONR anywhere, for two reasons: I do
> not know whether that would be acceptable to a majority of the members. I
> know it is used across the globe, but I also know it is not universal.
> This is a decision that Members need to decide. Secondly, I have been led
> to believe that RONR has not adequately addressed virtual meetings, and
> this organization cannot work if we have to meet in person.
>
>
>
> I believe that many of the decisions to be made need to be either made by
> the Assembly of Members, or delegated to others by them.  There are many
> decisions to be made, such as:
>
>
>
> Where will the legal entity be created? This will drive the necessary
> officers that must be elected, since different legal jurisdictions require
> different officer compositions.
>
>
>
> Where will the finances be held? There is no reason why this has to be the
> same as the legal entity.
>
>
>
> Where will the website be hosted? Again, this could be anywhere.
>
>
>
> What will be the official reporting currency for financials and such?
>
>
>
> I do not have enough understanding of all of the factors involved in these
> decisions, but some of the considerations need to be disclosure laws,
> whether or not the legal entity can receive political donations from
> non-residents, whether or not funds can be disbursed to external political
> organizations, etc.
>
>
>
> I have only one strong position on the above questions: I prefer that the
> US not be where we do the “official” stuff, because our political reporting
> laws and restrictions are too onerous compared to many other countries. I
> think the risk to the organization and the USLP is much lower if all
> financial and organizational activities occur somewhere else. I don’t want
> the FEC breathing down our back.
>
>
>
> As the US representative to the group, I tried to represent what I felt
> the LNC would support, and now I will find out if I was correct. Most of
> the feedback from LP rank and file on creating and being a part of the IALP
> has been overwhelmingly positive.  I gave a speech about the IALP last
> night, and several people asked what they could do to help. All of the
> negatives have been about the risk of creating an LP version of the UN that
> will tell the USLP what to do, or drain the bank accounts. This Charter
> represents the interest of the LP, and the autonomy of all Members.  The
> only real risk is that the IALP does something embarrassing, and the USLP
> can repudiate the action, and quit.
>
>
>
> The risk/reward calculation leans heavily towards reward. The
> costs/benefits ratio is overwhelmingly towards benefits. My opinion.
>
>
>
> My experiences since 1989 on the LNC have taught me that the LNC can
> wordsmith things to death, and it’s not pretty, or efficient. I have no
> doubts that some members will want to see more, or worded differently,
> etc.  The thing is that I am proposing that the USLP become a member of an
> organization that will have no authority over the USLP, that will be trying
> to build cooperation and good will between the ever-growing number of
> libertarian political parties. There are people already working across
> borders without your knowledge or permission in a totally libertarian
> manner. There can be more when we have a formal organization to foster and
> promote these kinds of activities. We already have dozens of people lining
> up to help, and we can’t even take a donation yet. The IALP has got to get
> official.
>
>
>
> The only obligation is the annual dues, which will be about $140 per year
> starting in 2016, and which I predict will never have to be paid by the
> LNC, since we intend to sell sponsorships for each country from donors.  If
> those are not forthcoming, I intend to pay the US dues myself for the
> foreseeable future.
>
>
>
> If there is language in the Charter that is a show-stopper, I can try to
> see if an amended version can be passed by everyone, but is the entire LNC
> going to be able to give me agreed upon amendments soon enough? The mail
> ballot has not been floated, and then we need to wait fifteen days, and I
> would then still have to get support from those who will have ratified this
> Charter. I do not see that being feasible by 3/6/2015, but if that is what
> is required, I will give it my best effort.
>
>
>
> If there are suggestions on improvements, I can certainly get them in
> front of the IALP once it’s formed. Since we cannot be meeting in person
> very often, we will be using alternative methods, which will allow for the
> Charter to be amended as often as necessary, but the threshold for changing
> is very high – 2/3 of the Assembly. Changes will have to be widely
> supported, and therefore should be obviously necessary or beneficial.
>
>
>
> I have viewed my role as one of ambassador, and I have been crafting a
> treaty on behalf of the USLP.  I have sought counsel on several occasions
> from our Chair. Now that we have sufficient agreement between the
> negotiators, I am presenting it to my Congress for its approval.
>
>
>
> This Founding Charter was only distributed about two weeks ago, and we
> have official ratification only from Spain.  However, we have confirmation
> of acceptability and/or reservations from the UK, Netherlands, Belgium,
> France, Switzerland, Poland, Switzerland, Italy, the Czech Republic, Canada
> and I’m sure more I am not aware of, because I’m not in possession of that
> information. We are also contacting  the parties directly. I include a
> partial communication from Luca Fusari, who is a principle in
> InterLibertarians as an example of support and endorsement we have received:
>
>
>
> Geoff, the second version of the IALP's draft is very good.
>
> Movimento Libertario (Italy) and Liberisti Ticinesi (Switzerland), also as
> Interlibertarians co-founders, will send a delegation to Bournemouth for
> sign the IALP Charter and participate to the foundation of the IALP.
>
> It's very probable my presence in representation of Movimento
> Libertario-Interlibertarians.
>
>
>
> There are two things I would like to disclose:
>
>
>
> First, the IALP Forward Planning group asked me to serve as its
> provisional chair, until we have a formal meeting and a real organization.
> I will also be chairing the first meeting.
>
>
>
> Second, I will be at that founding meeting regardless.  All of the travel,
> lodging, food, etc. is out of my pocket, and I will not be seeking
> reimbursement from any party.
>
>
>
> To close, I want to get a little personal, so if I offend you, it was not
> my intent. I have been the strongest proponent for having a founding
> charter.  Most parties are content to create the organization and work the
> details out as we go along. I would be perfectly willing to do so also, but
> I strongly feel that the LNC members would not endorse or support  that.
> Perhaps I’m wrong.  Perhaps you would have passed a resolution to join
> without conditions, so long as you could quit.  My experience and the
> advice of Nick Sarwark tells me otherwise.
>
>
>
> I am trying as hard as I can to NOT be the 800lb gorilla in the room.  In
> fact, both Mark Hinkle and myself have been told that no one thinks we are
> acting like 800lb gorillas, so stop tiptoeing around.  If there are
> preconditions unique to the USLP to ratifying, that  are not concerns to
> anyone else, we Americans are going to be acting more like 800lb gorillas.
> I really want to avoid that perception.
>
>
>
> My personal hope is that we can show libertarians in other countries that
> American arrogance and dominance around the world is the reflection of the
> wrong Americans in power, and not a characteristic of the American people.
> We have to find ways to cooperate, not reasons to isolate ourselves.
> Optimism is not required.  Skepticism is fine. Cynicism is
> counter-productive. There is an exit plan, and a zero monetary cost period
> to see what the IALP can do.  You have little to risk by voting yes to join
> the IALP with its Founding Charter as it stands.
>
>
>
> Geoffrey Neale
>
>
>
> *From:* Alicia Mattson [mailto:agmattson at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2015 4:33 AM
> *To:* lnc-business; Geoffrey Neale
> *Subject:* IALP charter questions
>
>
>
> Geoff, (cc: LNC)
>
> Before we start a vote on this question, could we get some sort of
> background report about the group that put together this IALP charter?
>
> What other LP groups are involved in this effort?
>
> What groups are expected to be founding members of the IALP?
>
>
>
> Was this charter the product of a committee with representatives from
> various potential member-groups?  If not, how did it come to be?
>
>
>
> Have any other groups already approved of it in its current state?  If we
> want to request changes, will other groups have to go back and decide
> whether to accept our changes because they have already voted?  Nick's
> email phrased it as if this is the "finalized" document, though we're just
> seeing it for the first time.  Is that an accurate understanding, or is
> this a first draft being circulated for feedback?
>
> The meeting that is scheduled for March 5th, is that for further
> discussion and development, or is that the date it is proposed to have all
> the groups on-board with governing documents ready to go and create the
> organization?
>
> -Alicia
>
> P.S.  I'll forward your answers to the LNC list.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>    <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>


-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150209/9d6dd857/attachment-0002.html>