[Lnc-business] Various items for your consideration

[James Lark]

Dear colleagues:

     I hope all is well with you, and that you and your loved ones 
enjoyed a wonderful Independence Day celebration earlier this week. I am 
writing to mention various items for your consideration.  I hope you 
find my comments helpful.

1)  Thanks to those of you who responded to the messages I sent last 
week for the purpose of initiating discussions regarding LNC goals and a 
process for developing and approving new and revised literature.  I 
greatly appreciate the kind comments offered in response to my messages; 
I am always delighted when colleagues find value in my efforts.

2)  In a separate e-mail, I shall vote "nay" on the motion concerning 
the allocation of funds to the Libertarian Party of Colorado.  There are 
several reasons for this, including the point that it appears the 
Libertarian Party of Colorado should be able to proceed with the project 
regardless of whether the LNC provides funds.

     Incidentally, I believe that once the Affiliate Support Committee 
is populated, decisions of this type concerning allocation of LNC 
resources should typically be handled by the ASC.

3)  The untimely passing of Dr. Feldman and the associated discussion 
about selecting a replacement has made it necessary to comment upon an 
action of the LNC taken during our meeting on May 30.  Specifically, 
since that meeting I have moved toward the position that the LNC should 
not have selected at-large members in the manner chosen.

     After additional consideration, I believe the most appropriate 
interpretation of Rule 8, paragraph 2, subparagraph c (Convention 
Special Rules of Order of the Libertarian Party) implies that a 
candidate for at-large representative who fails to receive a majority 
should not be elected by the LNC to serve in that position.  As a 
consequence, I believe the LNC should now seek applicants for the open 
at-large position, and that we should not elect anyone who sought an 
at-large position in Orlando and failed to receive a majority.

     In the interest of full disclosure, please note that I voted in 
favor of the motion during the meeting to elect Dr. Feldman, Mr. Hayes, 
and Starchild; after reflection I now believe the better course of 
action would have been to vote against the motion.  Allow me to 
emphasize that my comments about this matter should not be construed as 
reflecting upon the character, competence, or performance of those 
gentlemen.  In addition, my position regarding the process the LNC 
should use to select Dr. Feldman's replacement should not be construed 
as reflecting upon the character, competence, or qualifications of those 
who sought an at-large position in Orlando and failed to receive a majority.

     Perhaps when the LNC selects the members of the 2018 Bylaws and 
Rules Committee, the Committee members should be asked to develop bylaws 
language that would provide clear guidance concerning election of 
at-large members should a situation of this type occur again.

4)  If Mr. Sarwark has not already done so, I suggest that he ask the 
Johnson-Weld campaign to provide someone to deliver a status report and 
answer questions during the meeting.  (The report can be delivered 
in-person or by telephone.)  I suggest that the report be scheduled for 
a period of 30 minutes at a time certain (preferably during the morning).

5)  Regarding Mr. Sarwark's inquiry about a change of dates for the 
December meeting, I should be available for a meeting on Dec. 10-11.  
Indeed, as of this moment, I have a weak preference for holding the 
meeting on Dec. 10-11 rather than Dec. 3-4.

      As always, thanks for your work for liberty.  I look forward to 
seeing you in Las Vegas.

     Take care,
     Jim

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

     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee