[Lnc-business] Fwd: IALP charter questions

[Alicia Mattson]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Geoffrey Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:42 AM
Subject: RE: IALP charter questions
To: Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>


Alicia, in my first response to your questions I mentioned that it has been
logistically difficult to get this far. Getting more detailed would have
taken us years. The Charter is the broad strokes agreement that is getting
people to the table.



As to input into the process, I have communicated with Nick, and the FB
group has another officer and a regional rep as members.  If reporting of
progress was wanted, it would have been nice if someone let me know that,
and I would have been happy to write something up. Heck – no one bothered
to tell me that I had a counterpart, including Dr. Lark himself. To the
best of my knowledge, the IALP was not on the agenda of any of this LNC’s
meetings. For the record, I spend zero time reading the LNC minutes.



I am one of four “representatives” working on getting this off of the
ground.  I have been the proponent for some form of charter to start with.
Most have just wanted to sign up to a simple conceptual “let’s make
something happen” kind of statement.



What you reference from Roberts is exactly what I have intended to do since
I was asked to chair the first meeting. This isn’t my first rodeo. However,
what you have quoted kind of presumes that the attendees will vote yes to
use Roberts.  That is not a given to me. If they vote no to using Roberts,
then how can anyone assume they would join if Roberts was in the charter?
Can this organization get started and work without Roberts? Of course it
can.  Would Roberts be helpful? Perhaps, but I work so often with people in
loose groups that I remain unsold on the necessity. I see the need for
Roberts to be more of an indication of bureaucratization. But the issue
will be raised at the very outset of the meeting, right after I ask if
anyone objects to me chairing the meeting, and appointing a replacement if
they do.



And, I will once again state what the Charter is: a starting point. It
appears to me that all of your feedback falls into the “you’ve got to have
this in the Charter”. I agree – it is incomplete. I have stated that over
and over in every venue. It needs to be fleshed out. Most of what you have
on your list is also on mine. You’re missing some things, and some things
will not apply depending upon other decisions. However, raising a simple
question such as how much notice must be given can be resolved in five
minutes face-to-face, rather than months on Facebook.



There will be an equivalent of the Policy Manual, and much of how the IALP
works on an ongoing basis will be there – just like with the LP. Just like
the LNC, motions to change the equivalent will come from the floor, and the
vote will be taken immediately when meeting face to face. The LNC is either
going to have to trust whoever they choose to be their rep, or changes made
at regular meetings will always be met with an abstention, because the LNC
will have to debate on a vote that was already taken. And if you do not
trust your rep, then the IALP will learn that it doesn’t care what the USLP
rep has to say, because they never vote yes, and never vote no.



So I ask all of you on the LNC – how often and diligently do you ask the
members you represent, or the state chairs you represent? Is every vote on
every issue including LNC motions from the floor reviewed by your
electorate? I know the answer is either never, or selectively on things you
think are important.  For the rest, you are in a position of trust. It is
in your mind (or should be), and you act appropriately (I hope).



One opinion I have ingrained in me from 60 years of life is that I do not
trust people who do not trust others. Trust but verify. If you do not put
some trust in the fine libertarians that are creating this organization,
then I am not sure what message that sends, but it is not good. They look
up to the USLP as the parent of all of their parties. They are taking a
first ride without training wheels. Act like a good parent and trust them,
but stand close by. We will be there to make these suggestions, and work
for their inclusion in the documents. We can disinherit them if they get
too bratty.



I will close with a very funny reaction I got from reading your most
outlandish concern – what’s there to stop the IALP from running candidates
in the US? Well, I think that would violate the autonomy clause, but
specifically, since the IALP will be headquartered and banked outside the
US, Federal law forbids donations from foreign entities. To be blunt,
that’s a pretty  twisted concern. However, I will be happy to suggest a few
alterations to make this clearer, but I think most other parties will think
it obvious and absurd.



Geoff



*From:* Alicia Mattson [mailto:agmattson at gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2015 1:47 AM

*To:* Geoffrey Neale; lnc-business
*Subject:* Re: IALP charter questions



Regarding the motion adopted by the convention, you said, "I don’t see any
specificity in this resolution at all as to the LNC reviewing anything."  I
think it's a necessary inference.  The LNC had to take action to appoint
you, and you are representing us, which implies we have some sort of input
into the process.  If you don't need us to review anything, why are you
currently asking us to review and approve the draft IALP charter?

Mr. Sarwark's initial email to us indicated that this document was
"finalized", at least that was his impression.  I got that feeling from you
earlier as well, in that in response to my initial questions you weren't
terribly optimistic about the idea of us asking for changes.  However, in
this message below you indicate that the reason you are meeting in person
is to work out the kinds of details I brought up.  If the purpose of the
March meeting is to make substantive changes, then why is there a need for
us to approve the first draft document?  Why wouldn't you work out the
other core details first and then ask us to approve the final version?

You asked if RONR could apply to a non-entity.  Sure it can.  It can apply
to a single meeting of an unorganized group.  That's why I suggested you
read chapter 17 of the 11th edition, on the subject of mass meetings.  On
p. 543 you'll find that, "A mass meeting, as understood in parliamentary
law, is a meeting of an unorganized group..." and as you read further
you'll find this "mass meeting" can be for either a temporary purpose or it
can be to establish a permanent society.  Your meeting on March 6-9 is in
the nature of a mass meeting.  Then on p. 546 you'll find:

"Mass meetings frequently operate with no formally adopted rules, upon the
assumption that the meeting will proceed according to the common
parliamentary - or that any differences of opinion on procedural questions
can be resolved by citing a recognized parliamentary manual as persuasive
(see pp. 3, 16-17).  Depending on the probable character of the assembly,
however, it may be wise to adopt a standard parliamentary authority, which
can be done by a majority vote on the motion of a member - made, as
prearranged by the sponsors, immediately after the election of the
secretary..."

You can agree to just use RONR for a particular meeting called for the
purpose of creating the organization.  Then when bylaws are adopted you can
decide what to do on a more permanent basis.



-Alicia




On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Geoffrey Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>
wrote:

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






------------------------------
   <http://www.avast.com/>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150210/74db1e0e/attachment-0002.html>