[Lnc-business] Fwd: IALP Conference Report
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Thu May 21 23:02:23 EDT 2015
Since I have an easier time with ancient history (or at least history of
mathematics) than recent history, I would like to review and make sure I
have everything straight. If I recall correctly, LNC approval was sought
for an as-yet incomplete charter. We were told that rapid action was
necessary, and we couldn't wait to actually see what the charter looked
like, because plane tickets had already been purchased and would be wasted
if the LNC did not approve the charter. But Norway's party did not approve
the charter, and the Norwegian representative attended anyway, indicating
that, in fact, the plane tickets would not have been wasted. This would,
presumably, have meant that our representative would not have a vote
(according to RONR and common parliamentary law, our representative would
not be in the 'invited category' as discussed in the rules for formation of
a new organization - but who knows if this would have applied, since this
organization continues to reject being bound by a parliamentary authority
at all and is not bound, so far as I know, by any laws requiring adherence
to common parliamentary law.) However, it seems that having a vote wasn't
particularly important since, first, little business was conducted, and
second, what decisions were made appear to have been made by unanimous
consent. Granted, we couldn't have known that ahead of time. In any
event, we approved of the charter without seeing it.
I would note in passing that the Senate last week rejected giving the
President fast-track trade approval authority after well-known Native
American activist Elizabeth Warren complained bitterly that the Senate
wasn't permitted to see the final version of the treaty - a final version
which didn't exist yet, and so was, in this way, comparable to the charter
which also didn't exist when we agreed to it. Had this authorization been
granted, the TPP agreement would have been negotiated and then brought to
the Senate in its final form and presented for a vote without amendment.
That is to say, even the White House didn't ask the Senate to let the
President agree to a treaty with no further involvement from them, yet this
is exactly what the LNC gave to a representative chosen by us, not by any
sort of election comparable to that of the President.
Now we find that some rules of order have been adopted. In particular,
amending the charter takes a 2/3 vote of the entire Assembly, but does not
require previous notice. Changing rules requires a simple majority without
previous notice. The charter seems to take the place of both charter and
bylaws, so amending it amounts to changing the terms of affiliation, yet
doesn't require unanimous consent. Thus, these rules are less protective
of minorities and absentees than RONR and common parliamentary law and,
because of the nature of the organization, also less protective of
affiliate organizations such as us. I ask again - what good is it to have
a statement in the charter that members can leave freely if the charter can
be amended without notice? Suppose it is amended to strike that and insert
that, in order to leave, an affiliate has to pay some amount of money.
Either this is enforceable, or not. If it isn't, then the current wording
is pointless. If it is, then there is nothing stopping this organization
from imposing much higher dues and passing said amendment at the same
meeting. This, of course, is why organizations adopt rules of order
instead of trying to write what they need as they need it. (One would
think, at least, that the UK representative would appreciate this, since
parliamentary procedure grew out of British common law.) Resistance to
having some sort of rules for affiliation that are protective of members
and affiliates is not, in my opinion, a helpful thing. (If desired, I can
edit this into a formal argument for the inclusion of a parliamentary
authority.)
Meanwhile, the LNC is asked to consider binding authority for the
representative to this organization. There's no proposed language, so I'm
not sure exactly what is proposed, but I presume it would include such
things as spending money. It would also seem, unless qualified by specific
language, to give the representative power to, say, commit to sending the
ED to Ireland, or to holding our convention in India. I don't consider it
likely that any of this would be agreed to, but I don't think any
individual should have such power, no matter how sure we are that it won't
be used. An unqualified binding authority is more than the Chair possesses.
On a final note, I have struggled to understand the relationship between
the International Representative we created in our Policy Manual, and our
representation in this organization. Prior to today, we had two
International Representatives in the sense of our Policy Manual, Dr. Lark
and Mr. Neale, and one representative to this organization, since its
charter only allows for one representative. The Policy Manual provision
for International Representative doesn't reference this organization. Is
there a connection between being appointed an International Representative
and being involved with this organization? Following Mr. Neale's
resignation, is Dr. Lark now our representative? If so, I'm quite pleased,
as I've long admired Dr. Lark's international work and leadership in many
international organizations. If not, I suggest we appoint him, so long as
he is willing, as soon as possible.
Joshua Katz
Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> Geoff Neale's report from the founding International Alliance of
> Libertarian Parties conference. My apologies for not forwarding it to
> the list earlier.
>
> -Nick
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Geoffrey Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>
> Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:02 AM
> Subject: IALP Conference Report
> To: chair at lp.org
>
>
> My apologies for the delay in getting this to you.
>
>
>
> The March 6, 2015 founding of the International Alliance of
> Libertarian Parties was a great success.
>
>
>
> In attendance were representatives from the libertarian parties of
> Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, the United
> Kingdom, France, the United States, and the Czech Republic.
> Participating via Skype were South Africa and Russia.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, the Czech Republic had not approved of the charter
> prior to the meeting, so they acted as observers in official voting,
> but were free to otherwise participate.
>
>
>
> I had been provisional chair through the official founding, and was
> approved by the body to chair the meeting, which I did.
>
>
>
> The meeting allotted time was only about six hours, including lunch,
> so the priority was placed on making decisions. We consciously decided
> to avoid wordsmithing on site, so that we could find our points of
> agreement, and craft actual motions later. However, certain charter
> changes were made which were most necessary.
>
>
>
> The decisions we came to include:
>
>
>
> · Official domicile for registration and banking purposes will
> be in Switzerland, which required us to change the charter to specify
> this, and to include a dissolution distribution of assets, which is
> required in Switzerland.
>
> · The official language will be English (not American).
>
> · Changes to the charter will require a 2/3 approval of all
> current members.
>
> · Changes to the rules will require a majority of all current
> members.
>
> · Business of the assembly may be conducted in person or via
> email ballots. Attendance by members at an in person meeting may
> include electronic attendance.
>
> · Email ballots will be up to 30 days in length, or until the
> outcome of interim ballots has definitively determined the outcome.
>
> · In person meetings of the assembly will require a 90 day
> notice via email.
>
> · The provisional name of the International Alliance of
> Libertarian Parties has been made official.
>
> · The charter now provides for an Executive Committee of from
> three to seven, which must include Chair, Treasurer and Secretary.
>
> · Members of the Executive Committee are not required to be
> official representatives, but must be affiliated with the member
> parties.
>
> · There is no limit on how many Executive Committee members
> may be from a single member party.
>
> · The term of office of the Executive Committee is two years.
>
> · Any decision of the Executive Committee will require a
> majority vote of the number of positions on the Executive committee.
>
> · Vacancies in the Executive Committee can be filled
> temporarily by the Executive Committee. Permanent election will be
> conducted by email ballot.
>
> · The Executive Committee was formed with five positions
> filled, which are:
>
> o Chairman – Geoffrey Neale (US)
>
> o Secretary – Hilary Hackleman (UK)
>
> o Treasurer – Jean Francois Nimsgern (France)
>
> o Vice-Chair – Guy Montrose (UK)
>
> o Vice-Chair – Daniel Martinez (Spain)
>
>
>
> I brought up the topic of rules of procedure, but I’m afraid almost
> all of the representatives said their party did not use any formalized
> rules, and they were skeptical. What I suggested was that I invite the
> submission of an argument in favor of adopting an external
> parliamentary document for the members to consider, and they are all
> amenable to consider the subject at a later date.
>
>
>
> I should note that when I asked the representatives whether or not
> they had binding authority to act on behalf of their parties, all said
> that they had such authority. I think the LPUS should formally
> consider what authority it wishes to grant to its representative. For
> the record, just about every decision was made without objection. My
> voting for or against any of the decisions would have been
> inconsequential.
>
>
>
> That’s about all I have to report on the meeting.
>
>
>
> Since this meeting, we have voted and approved the inclusion of the
> Czech party, and are currently voting on Norway. We expect votes to
> start relatively soon on another party in Switzerland, and also a
> party from the Ivory Coast. We had a representative at the European
> SFL event in Berlin, and the response to the IALP was positive.
>
>
>
> Geoffrey Neale
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150521/a9a7b9f4/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list