[Lnc-business] Fwd: My resignation

[James Lark]

Dear colleagues:

     I hope all is well with you.  Thanks to Mr. Katz for his messages 
and his very kind comments concerning my work to build the international 
libertarian movement.

     As I believe Mr. Katz' points regarding the appointment of an LNC 
representative to the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties are 
well taken, allow me to request that a motion be made for an e-mail 
ballot to designate me as that representative.  I shall be delighted to 
serve as the representative if so designated; I anticipate that I shall 
be able to fulfill the duties of the position.

     As an aside, I consider it likely I shall make at least three trips 
to Europe this fall to address European Students For Liberty 
conferences.  (I have already been invited to deliver the keynote 
address at the upcoming ESFL conference in Sofia, Bulgaria.)  I shall 
endeavor to meet with representatives of libertarian parties on each 
trip I undertake.

     Thanks for your work for liberty, and for considering my request in 
this matter.  I look forward to seeing you at the next LNC meeting.

     Take care,
     Jim

     James W. Lark, III
     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
     University of Virginia

     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
     International Representative, Libertarian National Committee
-----

On 5/22/2015 10:56 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>
<SNIP>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150523/7473c63f/attachment-0002.html>