[Lnc-business] Fwd: My resignation

Fri May 22 22:56:18 EDT 2015

First, I'd like to thank Mr. Neale for his work to establish this
organization, and for being scrupulous to avoid even the appearance of a
conflict of interest.  I do not believe there would be a conflict, any more
than there's a conflict in a member of an organization being its chair, but
I respect Mr. Neale's belief.  I also believe, as I think Mr. Neale
suggested, that most of the time, the person who builds should not be the
person to maintain.  I've built and then attempted to manage, and found it
tarnished not only my legacy, but the respect for the institution I build.
I've been far happier with the outcomes the times I built something, made
sure it was in good hands, and walked away.  Unfortunately, I never built
anything I could sell for a billion dollars and become a shark on Shark
Tank, but oh well.

I must, respectfully, disagree with the Chair's claim about the current
situation.  The Policy Manual (2.09.3) establishes a position of
International Representative, which I take as something akin to a goodwill
ambassador, but does not reference the IALP.  It does say that the role of
these IRs is to maintain good relations with our international
counterparts, but that is not the same thing as appointment as our
representative to a particular organization.

In fact, this point seems indisputable.  We are allowed one representative
to the IALP, yet can appoint as many IRs as we wish, so clearly appointment
as an IR cannot carry with it representation in the IALP.  Indeed, email
ballot 2014-6, which added that section to the Policy Manual, also
appointed Mr. Neale as an IR, but email ballot 2015-2, which approved the
(draft) charter, appointed Mr. Neale as our representative to the IALP.
This seems to have been consistent with a suggestion from the convention
body.  Clearly, when we did so, we believed that these were separate.  But
we might think that, once the mechanism, so to speak, is in place, the IRs
are sorts of alternates/vice-representatives/something of that sort.
First, I find no language to support that, in any motion or policy.
Second, it is illogical - suppose we had 10 IRs, which we certainly can,
and the representative to the IALP resigned.  Which of those 10 is now our
representative?  If we treated them as alternates, it would be first-ranked
alternate, but we don't rank our IRs.  You can say it would be the most
senior, or something to that effect, but it seems to me at that point
you're just sort of playing in an imaginary space (granted, that's part of
what I do for a living, but still.)

The Charter, which, as I've mentioned, is also functioning as bylaws and
rules of order (highly incomplete, of course, since the usual way to have
rules of order is to adopt a manual, not throw a few things into your
charter) does not allow for alternates, so our other IRs cannot, it seems,
replace our representative for one meeting, unless we, in anticipation of
an absence, change our representative, then change it back.

Anyway, before I continue, I wish to emphasize that Dr. Lark is an
excellent choice for our representative to the IALP, and that, as long as
he is willing to serve, I'd urge someone with the power to do so to move to
appoint him as such.  I am raising this issue not because of any opinion
contrary to the claimed outcome, but because of the process.  I believe
standing on formality and rules is important, even if we believe we know
the outcome, even if doing so is annoying or irritating, even if it feels
like we're wasting time: if we will not do so, why should anyone believe
that LP candidates will, once elected, govern according to the rule of law,
not the rule of men?  How can we believe that our elected officials should
do what is in keeping with our principles, not just expediency, if we
ourselves, the governing body of this party, do not uphold the most basic
of all principles - that of free association, and the ability of groups of
people to work together voluntarily while binding themselves to agreed-upon
rules?  You cannot have free association without the ability to bind
yourself to rules, because without that ability, you are forced to enter
into agreements without predictable outcomes.  Impassioned rhetoric aside,
the point is, I highly respect Dr. Lark and his work for freedom around the
globe.

In any event, no one disputed that, prior to Mr. Neale's resignation, Mr.
Neale was our representative - our only representative.  Mr. Neale's
resignation did not change the nature of how we appoint people to things,
nor did it change what an IR is.  I also cannot make sense of the claim
that Dr. Lark is now our only representative to the IALP, when according to
the charter (which we agreed to without reading - I hope that the LP will
not endorse Downsize DC's Read the Bills proposal) we only have one
representative.  Well, I can make sense of it - if Dr. Lark were our
representative, he'd be the only one.

To clarify what those with the endurance to make it this far may wonder - I
do not think that, in all ways, we should govern this party as we would
govern politically.  There is a difference in governing a voluntary
organization and a nation, or a town for that matter.  Yet there are
similarities also: for one thing, if we want people to believe that freedom
works in governing a nation, and works better than any alternative, it
would make sense for us to govern our own organization in such a way, both
for instrumental reasons if we actually believe that freedom works, and for
PR reasons.  However, there can be problems - for instance, a spontaneous
order may require a certain size to come about, so that a small
organization cannot be run in a libertarian manner, or even a medium-sized
one.  There are also strategic differences - gridlock is often good in
government because of all the powerful interests pushing it in a less free
direction, whereas gridlock is generally bad in board governance.  So don't
take my comparisons too literally or generally - they are intended only to
refer to the specific topics mentioned.

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

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

> All,
>
> I meant to forward this message at the same time as the report on the
> initial founding of the IALP, but didn't hit send this morning.  With this
> resignation, Dr. Lark is currently our only representative to the IALP.
>
> -Nick
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Geoffrey Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>
> Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:09 AM
> Subject: My resignation
> To: chair at lp.org
>
>
> Dear Nick,
>
>
>
> I am formally tendering my resignation from my position of International
> Representative for the LNC, effective upon the selection of a replacement.
>
>
>
> I feel that I have fulfilled the intent of the motion passed by the
> delegates of the 2014 National Convention.  The IALP has been created.
>
>
>
> Since I have been selected as the first Chair of the IALP, I wish to
> devote my energies solely to this effort.  Additionally, I wish to avoid
> any appearance or implication of any conflict of interest, real or
> perceived.
>
>
>
> Geoffrey Neale, Chairman
>
> gneale at ialp.com <gneale at IALP.com>
>
> 512-554-1523 (US)
>
> [image: IALPlogo]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150522/ee519bcc/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 7324 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150522/ee519bcc/attachment-0002.obj>