[Lnc-business] Requirements for Sustaining Membership in the Libertarian Party

[Sam Goldstein]

For those of you not on Facebook, Daniel Hayes posted a very pertinent 
comment on this issue:

To members of the LNC and others.

There has been a controversy or two relative to giving back/refusing 
funds donated by child predators.

Children MUST be protected and we don't need to be associated with those 
that cross certain lines when we learn about this.

Under the National Libertarian bylaws

6.1
The Chair shall preside at all Conventions and all meetings of the 
National Committee. The Chair
is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to 
direct its business and affairs, including hiring and discharging of 
National Committee volunteers and paid personnel, subject to express 
National Committee policies and directives issued in the exercise of 
𝘁̳𝗵̳𝗲̳ ̳𝗡̳𝗮̳𝘁̳𝗶̳𝗼̳𝗻̳𝗮̳𝗹̳ ̳𝗖̳𝗼̳𝗺̳𝗺̳𝗶̳𝘁̳𝘁̳𝗲̳𝗲̳'𝘀̳ ̳𝗽̳𝗹̳𝗲̳𝗻̳𝗮̳𝗿̳𝘆̳ 
̳𝗰̳𝗼̳𝗻̳𝘁̳𝗿̳𝗼̳𝗹̳ and management of Party affairs, properties and funds.

and

ARTICLE 7: NATIONAL COMMITTEE
1. The National Committee shall have control and management of all the 
affairs, properties and funds of the Party consistent with these Bylaws.

If someone has violated the following, especially before having become a 
member that constitutes fraud:

ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in 
writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or 
social goals.

If someone is in prison convicted on charges of sex trafficking and 
child pornography, I'd say that's a clear violation of the 
Non-aggression principle and the "Pledge" referenced in article 4.1 
above.

Also, plenary means ABSOLUTE.

Article 4.2 says:
2. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞 may offer life memberships, and 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐥𝐥 
prior and future life memberships.

Now the LNC is bound by the bylaws and it is a bit muddier relative to a 
life member as seen above.

I suggest that you guys exercise your plenary control and issue a 
directive to the chair to direct staff to return Mr Royce Corley's 
check. That one is easy and clear.

Nathan Larson(self avowed pedophile) who paid to be a Life member is a 
bit muddier relative to our rules as there is that whole thing about the 
National Committee "MUST" under that portion of membership honor it. 
It's not muddy as to what to do morally. It's not a matter of the amount 
of the money. It's muddy under even the "Plenary" authority as it 
somewhat contradicts itself. 7.2 also references consistency with the 
bylaws relative to management and control.

I will personally pledge $500 towards the return of Larson's Life 
membership. The place for this might be at the beginning of the 2020 
convention during credentialing for a vote of the delegates. There 
shouldn't be a lot of fanfare. Delegates should know this is coming up. 
We shouldn't let this become a slippery slope.

We really don't want the organization spending all day policing 
everything every member/donor has ever done. All that said, CHILDREN 
MUST be protected. When something is pretty clear and it's not some dumb 
situation where a kid turned 18 and then caught a charge or some dumb 
schlep may have been lied to, there's that thing called discretion. THAT 
is why representatives are important..otherwise we could program some 
rules into a computer and/or send some sheets of paper in to make 
decisions for the National Committee.

-Daniel Hayes
LP Donor, Volunteer, Activist


---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell

On 2019-12-22 01:21, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> Mr. Phillips, it appears we mostly agree.
> 
> I ask everyone to turn down the emotional heat a tad - and that is
> something coming from me who is more likely than most to get 
> emotionally
> lathered up, but the dispersions beginning to be cast needs to be 
> nipped in
> the bud.  I apologize to Mr. Smith if he took my statement on posturing
> that way - I do believe he is acting completely in good faith, and 
> retract
> that statement.
> 
> -Caryn Ann
> 
> *  In Liberty,*
> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social 
> faux
> pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.  
> *
> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:20 PM Caryn Ann Harlos 
> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> Thank you Mr. Hagan, I was going to ask you about this.
>> 
>> *In Liberty,*
>> 
>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If 
>> anyone
>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social 
>> faux
>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:16 PM Tim Hagan via Lnc-business <
>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> The third option of not cashing nor returning the check is not legal.
>>> Within ten days of receipt by the treasurer or authorized agent, a
>>> contribution or other receipt must be deposited in the committee's
>>> campaign depository or returned to the source. [Code of Federal
>>> Regulations, Title 11, Section 103.3(a)]  I should have mentioned
>>> earlier that we have this time limit. Federal regulations do permit
>>> depositing a contribution and later sending the person a refund 
>>> check.
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Tim Hagan
>>> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>>> 
>>> On 2019-12-21 19:40, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>>> 
>>> > I am willing to be convinced either way, as I said in the off list
>>> conversation. I myself of am of 2 minds on the subject at hand.  I 
>>> find the
>>> crimes listed to be reprehensible, yet I am also open to reform, 
>>> arguments
>>> against the state, etc.
>>> >
>>> > However, I will not accept blanket inaccurate statements, nor will I
>>> accept statements made in a dictatorial tone, particularly when they 
>>> have
>>> had solid arguments made against.
>>> >
>>> > I also do not believe that anyone was attempting to issue directives to
>>> the ED.  They were merely stating their opinions strongly.
>>> >
>>> > I do agree with the objection of making the name public, while also
>>> agreeing with the desire for the rest of the conversation to be held 
>>> up for
>>> transparency.
>>> >
>>> > I do not, nor ever will, agree that it is a matter not up for
>>> discussion.  I find the argument that there being no rule on it means 
>>> we
>>> cannot do anything nonsensical.
>>> >
>>> > The NAP pledge is part of membership for a reason. To ignore that is to
>>> ignore a large part of our raison d'etre as a party.
>>> >
>>> > To argue that the body can do nothing in a situation which has been
>>> argued is not covered under the bylaws is to then argue that this 
>>> body also
>>> then has little reason to exist other than to engage in mental 
>>> masturbation
>>> circle jerks.
>>> >
>>> > If it is covered under the bylaws then by all means show everyone the
>>> appropriate passages and we can walk away.  If it is not then that is
>>> exactly the purpose of a body such as ours, to deal with such 
>>> situations in
>>> a timely manner.
>>> >
>>> > If indeed the it is the duty of the delegates then a 3rd option is
>>> available to us that no one has discussed.
>>> >
>>> > Do nothing.  Do not cash the check, do not return it.  Bring it to the
>>> delegates in May.  If the position of the body is that it is the 
>>> delegates
>>> decision, then it is that easily addressed.  I would have thought 
>>> that
>>> answer to be obvious.  I personally find it distasteful to pass the 
>>> buck
>>> like that, but it is a compromise I could abide by.
>>> >
>>> > I assure you that members are already planning on doing so in a related
>>> case we are all familiar with.
>>> >
>>> > John Phillips
>>> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>>> > Cell 217-412-5973
>>> >
>>> > On Dec 21, 2019 5:57 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I believe Mr Sarwarkis right on all points.
>>> >
>>> > However the discussion omitting any individual names should be public.
>>> >
>>> > -Caryn Ann
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 7:27 AM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Mr. Sarwark,
>>> >
>>> > I have a lot of respect for you.  However, you are completely
>>> mis-stating the actions of this board, and that I cannot and will not
>>> accept.
>>> >
>>> > No one thought "they had the individual authority".  We were ALL asked
>>> for opinions, and several, including yourself and myself, gave those
>>> OPINIONS on how it should be handled,  NOT directives.
>>> >
>>> > As for the rest;
>>> >
>>> > 1. It is the responsibility of this board to respond to concerns
>>> brought to them by staff and members.
>>> > 2.  As responded privately it absence of a policy/by-law we CAN make a
>>> decision.  That is one of the main purposes of a board.  Should we is 
>>> up
>>> for debate, but we absolutely can.
>>> >
>>> > If you wish to debate the "should" by all means continue, that is well
>>> within your purview, as it is all of ours.
>>> >
>>> > If you are making an official ruling in your capacity as chair, you are
>>> incorrect/mistaken. Not just in your reasoning, but your thought that 
>>> we
>>> will let you dictate in such a manner.  So if this IS a ruling, I 
>>> challenge
>>> the ruling of the chair.
>>> >
>>> > John Phillips
>>> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
>>> > Cell 217-412-5973
>>> >
>>> > On Dec 21, 2019 7:18 AM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <
>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Dear All,
>>> >
>>> > Apparently some members of the LNC think it's appropriate to discuss in
>>> a
>>> > public forum an individual who sent in a contribution to the
>>> Libertarian
>>> > Party with a signed pledge, is not a public figure, and is not able to
>>> > advocate on his own behalf. It is not.
>>> >
>>> > Apparently some members of this committee think that they have the
>>> > individual authority to tell the Executive Director how to handle a
>>> > membership contribution from someone with a criminal conviction in
>>> absence
>>> > of any bylaws or policy manual justification for the action. They do
>>> not.
>>> >
>>> > The requirements for sustaining membership in the Libertarian Party are
>>> > defined by the delegates at convention in the bylaws. The Libertarian
>>> > National Committee has no power to add requirements for sustaining
>>> > membership that are beyond the bylaws, only the delegates at the next
>>> > convention have that power. If they want to add further requirements to
>>> be
>>> > a sustaining member that would disqualify people from joining the
>>> party,
>>> > they may do so by a 2/3 vote of the national convention.
>>> >
>>> > Sending back a legal contribution from a person who has signed the
>>> pledge
>>> > has the effect of creating an additional requirement for sustaining
>>> > membership that could be described as, "the Executive Director approves
>>> of
>>> > the member." There may be good reasons for this requirement, there may
>>> be
>>> > good reasons not to adopt this requirement, but those would need to be
>>> > considered by the convention delegates, it's not a requirement that can
>>> be
>>> > created without authority from the bylaws.
>>> >
>>> > Yours in liberty,
>>> > Nick
>>>  --
>>> 
>>> IN LIBERTY,
>>> 
>>> __
>>> _ PERSONAL NOTE:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's 
>>> Syndrome
>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If 
>>> anyone
>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
>>> faux pas), please contact me privately and let me know. _
>>> 
>>