[Lnc-business] Fwd: My resignation

[Guy McLendon]

. just sharing information.

 

At the recent event in Vegas, former LNC Chair Mark Hinkle also expressed
his interest in being considered for this position.

 

Guy McLendon

LNC At Large Member

Chair Affiliate Support Committee

Libertarian Party National Committee

www.lp.org

Cell 832-372-8131

 

 

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
James Lark
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 6:04 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Fwd: My resignation

 

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> 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/20150603/8184ede6/attachment-0002.html>