[Lnc-business] Fwd: IALP charter questions

[Joshua Katz]

Having caught up on the debate on this, I have a few thoughts.  I can add
nothing to the Secretary's listing of parliamentary concerns, other than to
say that I share these concerns and hesitate to commit the party to an
agreement while these concerns exist.

I want to say that I strongly support both the concept of international
cooperation, and the formation of an alliance in particular.  I supported
the relevant motion at the convention, and I continue to want this to
happen.  I do not think, though, that the delegates passing that motion
absolves this board of the responsibility to look out for the good of the
organization.  The delegates instructed us that they wish to see an
international alliance, not that we must uncritically accept whatever is
placed before us.

I greatly dislike having an incomplete document presented to us, together
with a claim that our not immediately passing it would derail the entire
project.   If this is true, then that is reason to seek LNC support, not to
demand it.  I do not believe that we are doing our best to look after the
interests of our members if we sign onto an unclear, incomplete agreement
that does not adequately make provision for the protection of all parties.
I do not accept (after consideration) the argument that we can just leave
the organization.  Here's why:  I want an international alliance, and I
want one to succeed.  Therefore, I would strongly suggest that rather than
approving this particular charter as written, the LNC consider passing a
resolution stating our intent and desire to join the alliance, and
expressing our intention to sign onto a charter once we have one that is
complete and that we approve of, as we would expect other parties to do as
well.  If there is support for such a motion, I will draft one, although I
cannot introduce it.

We should indeed take seriously the responsibility of the LPUS to lead.  We
should lead by example - that no Libertarian Party should commit its
members to unclear terms, and, more importantly, that for a Libertarian
Party its word is its bond.  I cannot agree with the idea of making an
agreement with an exit plan in mind.  Instead, we should consider our word
a firm commitment - and therefore, withhold it until we know what we are
committing to, and that we wish to commit to it.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Forwarding a message.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Geoffrey Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>
> Date: Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:23 PM
> Subject: RE: IALP charter questions
> To: Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>
>
> Alicia,
>
>
>
> I offer my humble apologies. I have forgotten something very important:
> you are not the LNC - you are one vote on the LNC.
>
>
>
> Dan Weiner appears to be willing to move forward with the proposed
> charter, and I’m sure he wants to see real progress towards many of the
> details.  Another LNC member informed me privately that they found nothing
> objectionable.
>
>
>
> Then I have heard from you.
>
>
>
> So, to boil things down to the absolute facts:
>
>
>
> The LNC can vote to ratify the Charter, or not. (That presumes that a vote
> is either underway, or forthcoming. I have no knowledge of that.)
>
>
>
> The LNC can vote on a list of pre-conditions for ratification.
>
>
>
> If the LNC does ratify, then the LNC can still vote on a list of
> conditions that would define the terms for their continuing to be a member
> of IALP.
>
>
>
> The Chair can direct me to act, but I do not think he has the authority to
> ratify.  He certainly does have the authority to delineate terms to the
> IALP, but the LNC ultimately has the authority to change those terms.
>
>
>
> Regardless, I will diligently and faithfully act as directed by the
> appropriate authority.
>
>
>
> Your opinions are just that. So are mine. I cannot decide on behalf of the
> LNC, and neither can you.
>
>
>
> In closing, Ms. Mattson, I just realized that I have had no inquiries from
> any other LNC member, and I’m afraid you’ve exceeded your allotted
> bandwidth. Goodbye - I have productive things to do.
>
>
>
> Geoffrey Neale
>
>
>
> *From:* Alicia Mattson [mailto:agmattson at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2015 5:12 PM
> *To:* Geoffrey Neale; lnc-business
> *Subject:* Re: IALP charter questions
>
>
>
> Geoff,
>
> This conversation keeps getting stranger and stranger.  I find some of
> your answers inconsistent and confusing.  Other answers seem to change the
> subject so as to imply that I'm saying things I've not said in any way.
>
> Below you said 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."
>
> You earlier said the March meeting date was established back in December,
> but that the charter only became available maybe a couple of weeks ago (and
> Dr. Lark just indicated it was first posted on Feb 1), so apparently people
> were willing to come to the table before there was a charter.  And you said
> that others weren't sure we even needed a charter at this point, so how was
> the charter their incentive?  You say getting more detail in this document
> would be logistically difficult, but since you earlier said that you wrote
> the document yourself, I don't know what is logistically difficult about
> you coordinating with yourself to add a few more details to your proposal.
> You seem to have no logistic difficulty asking a counterpart from the UK to
> get involved in our internal discussions when it suits you.
>
> I initially said "It doesn’t have to be perfect at the start, but it has
> to meet certain structural milestones that I don’t yet see."  Your response
> was "Perfection is ALWAYS the enemy of the good," as though I was
> demanding initial perfection.
>
>
>
> You seemed to be quite annoyed that I provided any feedback at all on the
> content, then you conceded that some of my suggestions are also on your
> wish list and noted that I have "missed" some things that are on your list,
> as though I have now somehow failed to provide enough feedback.  You asked
> me to forward to the LNC feedback from one of your UK counterparts, so
> you're apparently open to their feedback but annoyed at mine.
>
> Initially it seemed to be portrayed that it wasn't really practical
> because of timing and logistics for us to ask for substantive changes at
> this point.  Then you said that you expect a lot of the details (that you
> seemed to be annoyed with when I mentioned) are to be hashed out at this
> face-to-face meeting, as though you now expect lots of amendments will be
> made, so why again is it rude of me to bring them up?  I still don't know
> why we can't wait and sign on to the finished version.  If you feel you
> need a show of support from the LNC going into the March meeting, we could
> simply pass a motion advocating for creation of an organization to pursue
> the specific purposes, and then have us agree to join IALP once the bylaws
> are further along.
>
>
> You asked us to approve the IALP charter.  Then when I noted your
> reluctance to hear our input, you said, "I don’t see any specificity in
> this resolution at all as to the LNC reviewing anything."  I noted that
> you're acknowledging our need to review by asking us to approve something
> for you.  Your latest reply sounds like you think I have suggested that
> every vote cast in the future by our rep to the IALP would have to have LNC
> input or approval, and how ridiculous that would be.  I've never said or
> suggested any such thing.  That's not at all what we're talking about.  I'm
> making suggestions for bylaw-type-document content that defines the
> structure of the organization.  That's all.  I'm not talking about future
> policy manual development about internal administration.  I'm talking about
> designing the structure with things that ought to be in the not-suspendable
> bylaws.  They should not be relegated to lower-level rules which can be
> suspended on a whim.
>
> I raised questions about the extent to which IALP might in theory compete
> against existing political libertarian entites, raising the possibility of
> IALP-endorsed candidates.  It's not an outlandish question.  The IALP could
> endorse candidates without spending money in the U.S. in violation of our
> federal law.  The candidates themselves could raise and spend the money
> within the U.S.  As you already noted, the decision has not yet been made
> as to the country in which the IALP will be legally based.  Your preference
> is that it not be in the U.S., but what if the rest of the IALP decides
> otherwise?  You seem to be assuming particular results that have not yet
> been decided.  Whatever country the IALP is eventually based in could have
> a similar concern.  Your use of dramatic adjectives in your answer does not
> remove the validity of my question.  I don't see this as being addressed by
> the autonomy clause.  Autonomy simply refers to a group's right of
> self-rule.  It would not interfere in LPUS' internal self-rule for the IALP
> to endorse candidates.  Competition is not control.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Geoffrey Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>    <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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150210/db6ec7d9/attachment-0002.html>