[Lnc-business] Fwd: A Word About the Convention

[Sam Goldstein]

---
Sam Goldstein, At Large Member
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell 

-------- Original Message -------- 

 		SUBJECT:
 		A Word About the Convention

 		DATE:
 		2020-05-01 11:22

 		FROM:
 		"beth" <beth at libertarianwomen.com>

 		TO:
 		<sam.goldstein at lp.org>, <ken.moellman at phq.org>,
<alicia.mattson at lp.org>, <Daniel.Hayes at lp.org>, <sam.goldstein at lp.org>,
<danielehayes at icloud.com>, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com>,
<erin.adams at lp.org>, <whitney.bilyeu at lp.org>

 		REPLY-TO:
 		beth at libertarianwomen.com

Dear Convention Oversight Committee Members, 

Postponing, and holding an in-person convention will not disenfranchise
voting delegates, and that should be the overriding goal of the
convention. That some folks are compromised, or caring for other
compromised people is a concern. However, refusing to reschedule and
in-person event because some people may not be able to attend assumes
that there won't be enough voting delegates to sufficiently represent
the body, and I don't believe that is true. 

A rescheduled event will likely have a quorum, and that is what is
needed. When the delegates meet every two years, it is not known who
may, or may not, show up and vote. All registered party members are
never in attendance and depend on the delegates who can go to a
convention to make those decisions for the party. This will still be the
case with a rescheduled meeting and everyone should trust that the
delegates who can show up will do their job as they always have. 

Holding an in-person meetings guarantees that enough properly
credentialed delegates will be in attendance. It is unfortunate that
some folks will not be able to make up that body, but we will have that
body, and that is the goal. 

Holding an online meeting runs the risk of disenfranchising people who
are actually trying to attend for several reasons. The first hurdle is
to guarantee that every delegate has sufficient access to the platform.
Most video conferencing platforms have low time limits on connectivity
unless the user has a paid, or "pro" account. Many of our delegates
probably do not have such accounts, and may not be able to afford that
expense. That would require the party to pay for access for all
delegates to assure they stay connected for the duration. 

Some delegates will have tenuous connections. People who lose their
connection repeatedly and will miss votes and other business. If large
enough blocks of delegates lose their connection, the convention may
lose quorum. I note that during the Louisiana convention there were
delays and I could not always hear what was being voted on. 

How will we keep track of quorum? 

How can we be sure that people are who they say they are when voting
online? There is a reason the national convention credentials its
delegates and does not allow state affiliates to simply send them on
their word. It disenfranchises the votes of a properly credentialed
delegates when someone who is not credentialed casts a vote. How do we
know that a particular state is sending votes from members properly
credentialed for national participation? We have no way to know, and I
have heard an affiliate chair actually say that if someone is sitting
there, that is good enough for them to allow that person to vote on
committee business, despite the fact that person was not even a
committee member. 

Even if you proceed with an online convention, what is the added cost of
credentialing under these circumstances, and is there sufficient time,
access, and labor to do a sufficient job of proper credentialing? 

People without electronic access and some elderly members will
absolutely not be able to attend, and that will be because the LNC
requires that they have access to something they don't have access to.
This is different than them being unable to attend physically because
they may be vulnerable, which is not something the LNC imposes. This may
seem to be a distinction without a difference here, but it isn't. The
LNC imposing electronic attendance requirements on these members will be
the LNC's responsibility. 

It would seem there are many unexpected costs and hurdles to get over to
change how the convention is conducted at this point, and I do not think
there is time to properly consider alternatives and make them work. I
could be wrong, certainly, I am no on this committee, but as an IT
professional, and as someone with a lot experience with electronic
education delivery, and with voting processes, that is my opinion. 

The responsibility the LNC does have is to allow as many people as
possible to come and form a body sufficient get to conduct the business
of the convention. Anything less than a in-person meeting risks being
seen as an illegitimate convention in my opinion. Considering recent
talk of allowing the board to simply change the corporate structure that
is the foundation of the LNC as a way to control the party, I would
think we should disenfranchise no one, and offer all who are willing and
able the opportunity to come to a real convention and vote. 

Beth Vest 
984-400-46783 
beth at libertarianwomen.com