[Lnc-business] Fwd: Motion to Suspend

Fri Sep 16 18:58:23 EDT 2016

I have my frustrations with the campaign, as you well know.  I continue to
be frustrated by the desire within the party - it's not widespread, but
it's there - to yank failure from the jaws of success.  The contrast
between the New Hampshire Union Leader supporting our candidate and a group
within our affiliate coming up with this is stunning to me.

Say what you want about him - when Wayne Allyn Root decided he could not
support our ticket, for, in my opinion, poor reasons - he resigned, not
just from the LNC, but from his party membership.  Others need not follow
his lead, of course, and I don't want them to, but perhaps those who now
oppose our ticket for their own reasons can gain some understanding and
appreciation for the position in which he found himself.

Personally, I have this crazy notion - although it's shared more, it seems,
in this party than in at least one other major party - that it is
reasonable to put up people for jobs who are at least marginally qualified
to actually do the job.  This year, we managed to nominate not only our
most credible and experienced ticket in history, but the most credible and
experienced ticket in the race, and one of only two tickets that is even
marginally qualified.  I am getting extremely tired of the desire I keep
seeing to turn around and bite the ankles of this ticket because they have
the audacity to think for themselves, and to think carefully, about issues,
to recognize the difficulty in applying aspirational ideas to actual policy
and then to engage in the work of figuring out meaningful policy, and their
openness to thinking about suggestions, often expressed as "I'm open to
that."  Do I have my own frustrations?  Absolutely - but not because they
run for office and try to win.

That aside, though, I disagree that this is not a sufficient response.
Technically, yes, there are ways to address this.  We had trouble getting 6
members to agree that we should discuss our budget before amending it.  The
probability that there would be 6 requests for a meeting to discuss this is
nearly 0.  More to the point, though, I disagree that there is some
responsibility for members of this board to make any motion suggested to
them.  (Note:  While in the process of editing this, the Secretary largely
stole my thunder, but I have a slightly different take so I decided to send
this anyway).  We are not automatons for forwarding any idea handed to us;
members of this board are chosen for our judgment, and a large part of this
is making judgments about what motions to make.  Thinking in parliamentary
terms, the reason seconds are needed in most assemblies is to stop the body
from having to spend time on things without two people wanting it brought
forward.  Is it unreasonable to think that this board need only consider
items if one member thinks them worth bringing forward?

Let me be clear - if some members of this board want to do that, that's
their right.  That's part of their own exercise of judgment.  However, it
is far from obligatory.  I also don't think it's beneficial.  The largest
and, in theory at least, most representative body of this party is the
delegates in convention.  The delegates are the highest governing body of
this party.  They adopted bylaws asking us to be a board and exercise
governance, not hand that task off to anyone who calls one of us up or
passes a motion at an affiliate of an affiliate.  More to the point, they
elected, in large part, this board, and the rest was populated in
accordance with their instructions in the bylaws.  If we believe that we
must bring forth every motion presented to us, what we're actually doing is
empowering the vocal few in place of the quiet many.  We are allowing those
who are the loudest to speak over the delegates, who exercised their
control in the governance of the party by selecting an LNC (with the
exception of those seats filled by the LNC and those regional rep positions
not elected at caucuses at convention).  I think most of our members are
actually pleased with our candidates saturating the media, being
disappointed with polling in the double digits, and being lauded as the
most credible and viable third party ticket since, well, when exactly?  In
late August, as a reminder, Ross Perot polled at 8%.  John Anderson polled
in the neighborhood of 5-6%.  I guess since George Wallace?  However, we do
not get emails from members saying "things are going alright."  We don't
get emails from members who are not upset about the ticket.  The comments
we receive are unrepresentative.

Another thing worth clarifying:  I absolutely love getting contacted by
members.  I get emails from members on a regular basis, I engage with them,
and I often, in fact, act on suggestions from members - when I find doing
so worthwhile.  I simply don't feel obligated to pass on everything that
comes to me.  If I think it's a bad idea, I don't do it.  Often, though, I
think suggestions are good ideas, and are things I would not have thought
of.  In fact, I've received messages during meetings and acted on them
within just a couple minutes.  That happened at the meeting we just held in
Las Vegas.

Meanwhile, amidst all this, the micromanagement and the bickering and the
responsiveness, there seems to be less enthusiasm about performing actual
board functions and providing governance and oversight.  If the time we
spend considering motions that not even one member of this body thinks are
worth considering could be spent on something more productive, we might be
a long way towards a more financially responsible and effective party.

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

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> For my opinion, I don't think that is an adequate response to said
> members.  And FWIW I would oppose said motion for reasons I would give in
> actual debate. However members deserve to have their motions heard.  Our
> Policy Manual provides means to ask for a meeting.
>
> If members from my region got a request to me (I proactively anticipated
> this and put conditions in place for me to bring such a serious motion and
> communicated those requirements to some inquiring members), I would bring
> the motion and ask for a meeting.
>
> If you ask for a meeting to hear this Patrick, I will join.  Members
> deserve to have their serious motions heard and should not be stymied
> incurably.
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
> On Friday, September 16, 2016, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For the record, I recently received a similar request from a Michael
>> Smith, whose location is unknown to me.
>>
>> I will share the group's responses with him...
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2016 10:53 AM, "Brian McQuade" <chair at lpseacoast.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Good morning everyone,
>>>
>>> I was informed that my previous emails should go to the entirety of the
>>> LNC and therefore am forwarding that email chain which is below.
>>> Apologies, and thank you for your time.
>>>
>>> Brian McQuade
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your quick response, it is appreciated. Article 13 covers
>>> for this situation if you can get two co-sponsors. So I suppose the
>>> question now is, do two other representatives here have the courage to
>>> stand for principle and help you cosponsor the submitted question via email
>>> per this bylaw?  Or will you all sit idly by and root for our party like
>>> our favorite sports teams such as the Democrats and Republicans do?  I
>>> understand this isn't comfortable for anyone, but I propose we be the
>>> solution, not the problem with politics in this country.
>>>
>>> Thank you all for your time on this matter.
>>>
>>> Brian McQuade
>>>
>>> Quoting Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Brian,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for reaching out to me. I certainly agree with your
>>>> frustration about the messaging coming from the top of our ticket.
>>>>
>>>> However the next LNC meeting isn't until after the Election so I'm
>>>> afraid I
>>>> am not able to accommodate your request as per Article 14.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 14, 2016 11:56 AM, "Brian McQuade" <chair at lpseacoast.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Patrick,
>>>>>
>>>>> On September 13th at the regular business meeting of the LP Seacoast, a
>>>>> motion was made and passed to contact you regarding the presidential
>>>>> ballot
>>>>> of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. The motion asked that you make a motion
>>>>> to
>>>>> the LNC to suspend the nomination of both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as
>>>>> they do not uphold the principles of the Libertarian Party as both have
>>>>> openly made statements in support of the use of force. Both candidates
>>>>> actively avoid using the word libertarian and have demonstrated time
>>>>> and
>>>>> time again an inability to even grasp what it means to be libertarian.
>>>>> Per
>>>>> Article 14, Section 5 of the LP bylaws, a candidate’s nomination may be
>>>>> suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the National
>>>>> Committee
>>>>> at a meeting. We understand that this motion has a low probability of
>>>>> success, but we’re asking you to show that there are some in the
>>>>> Libertarian Party who still hold principle above party. Do you have the
>>>>> principle to stand with those who voice opposition to those without
>>>>> principles? Will you put forth an effort on behalf of principled
>>>>> libertarians or will you willingly step back, swallow your principle
>>>>> and
>>>>> pump the party line? Is this still the "Party of Principle?" Members of
>>>>> your region are speaking out and the ball is in your court. We will
>>>>> patiently await your response.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>> Chair, Libertarian Party of the Seacoast New Hampshire
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Brian McQuade <chair at lpseacoast.org>
>>> To: Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: sam.goldstein at lp.org, patrick.mcknight at lp.org, joshua.katz at lp.org,
>>> daniel.hayes at lp.org, starchild at lp.org, william.redpath at lp.org
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 00:24:12 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: Motion to Suspend
>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your quick response, it is appreciated. Article 13 covers
>>> for this situation if you can get two co-sponsors. So I suppose the
>>> question now is, do two other representatives here have the courage to
>>> stand for principle and help you cosponsor the submitted question via email
>>> per this bylaw?  Or will you all sit idly by and root for our party like
>>> our favorite sports teams such as the Democrats and Republicans do?  I
>>> understand this isn't comfortable for anyone, but I propose we be the
>>> solution, not the problem with politics in this country.
>>>
>>> Thank you all for your time on this matter.
>>>
>>> Brian McQuade
>>>
>>> Quoting Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Brian,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for reaching out to me. I certainly agree with your
>>>> frustration about the messaging coming from the top of our ticket.
>>>>
>>>> However the next LNC meeting isn't until after the Election so I'm
>>>> afraid I
>>>> am not able to accommodate your request as per Article 14.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 14, 2016 11:56 AM, "Brian McQuade" <chair at lpseacoast.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Patrick,
>>>>>
>>>>> On September 13th at the regular business meeting of the LP Seacoast, a
>>>>> motion was made and passed to contact you regarding the presidential
>>>>> ballot
>>>>> of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. The motion asked that you make a motion
>>>>> to
>>>>> the LNC to suspend the nomination of both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as
>>>>> they do not uphold the principles of the Libertarian Party as both have
>>>>> openly made statements in support of the use of force. Both candidates
>>>>> actively avoid using the word libertarian and have demonstrated time
>>>>> and
>>>>> time again an inability to even grasp what it means to be libertarian.
>>>>> Per
>>>>> Article 14, Section 5 of the LP bylaws, a candidate’s nomination may be
>>>>> suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the National
>>>>> Committee
>>>>> at a meeting. We understand that this motion has a low probability of
>>>>> success, but we’re asking you to show that there are some in the
>>>>> Libertarian Party who still hold principle above party. Do you have the
>>>>> principle to stand with those who voice opposition to those without
>>>>> principles? Will you put forth an effort on behalf of principled
>>>>> libertarians or will you willingly step back, swallow your principle
>>>>> and
>>>>> pump the party line? Is this still the "Party of Principle?" Members of
>>>>> your region are speaking out and the ball is in your court. We will
>>>>> patiently await your response.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian McQuade
>>>>> Chair, Libertarian Party of the Seacoast New Hampshire
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160916/a7057ccb/attachment-0002.html>