A member of the Judicial Committee writes to me complaining of "misinformation" from me about JudCom at http://libertarianintelligence.com/2009/05/california-libertarians-appoint.html. Here is my response:
The part about Tom Campbell was of course a joke. The part about JudCom follows straightforwardly from http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/statement-from-the-lp-judicial-committee-regarding-wrights/
If 8.4 is not automatic in the same way as 8.5.3 is, then 8.4 is effectively just an optional guideline in the case of regional reps, and the whim of a region to ignore 8.4 is apparently unreviewable by anybody. Such whims are certainly not reviewable by the JudCom, per its jurisdiction defined at 9.2. And the LNC clearly has no 8.5.1 for-cause power to remove regional reps for an 8.4 violation. So if what I wrote is "misinformation", please quote the Bylaws provision that can make a region adhere to 8.4 if it doesn't want to. You can't, because no such provision exists. Of course, the spectre of a region ignoring 8.4 is just as unlikely as the bogeyman of a rogue Secretary de-credentialing at-large reps under false pretenses. At least the latter case can be trivially corrected by the JudCom, but all the people who are shouting about the latter bogeyman lose their tongues when asked about the former spectre, which doesn't even have a route to remediation.
Sorry, but you guys have construed the Bylaws in such a way as to make 8.4 absurd in the context of regional reps. The JudCom apparently overlooked the second fundamental principle of interpretation (RRONR p.570): “When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning.”
Friday, May 8, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
I Resign From Knapp's Shadow Cabinet
Posted today at http://shadowcabinet.us/:
I resign from the shadow cabinet organized by Tom Knapp.
When I agreed to the appointment, I didn't notice that the "Jim" being appointed as shadow NASA Administrator was the same person who has written that I am "scum", "authoritarian", "mad with power", that I "like to see women and children massacred", and that I am a "bloodthirsty coward". Not surprisingly, he admits he is "obnoxious and disliked, I know it’s true. So what?"
Mr. Davidson may have no qualms serving alongside someone he describes in this manner, but my standards are different. This takes the whole "Team of Rivals" concept a little farther than I'm willing to go.
Observers of this shadow cabinet project are invited to test its commitment to transparency by counting how many minutes before this posting gets censored under some rationale or other. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Knapp is willing to live his Boston Tea Party values about airing dirty laundry -- or if his standards about transparency are different in a context where he wields ultimate authority. Mr. Knapp is running for President of the United States, so his actions here could plausibly be taken as a preview of those he would take in the Oval Office.
I resign from the shadow cabinet organized by Tom Knapp.
When I agreed to the appointment, I didn't notice that the "Jim" being appointed as shadow NASA Administrator was the same person who has written that I am "scum", "authoritarian", "mad with power", that I "like to see women and children massacred", and that I am a "bloodthirsty coward". Not surprisingly, he admits he is "obnoxious and disliked, I know it’s true. So what?"
Mr. Davidson may have no qualms serving alongside someone he describes in this manner, but my standards are different. This takes the whole "Team of Rivals" concept a little farther than I'm willing to go.
Observers of this shadow cabinet project are invited to test its commitment to transparency by counting how many minutes before this posting gets censored under some rationale or other. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Knapp is willing to live his Boston Tea Party values about airing dirty laundry -- or if his standards about transparency are different in a context where he wields ultimate authority. Mr. Knapp is running for President of the United States, so his actions here could plausibly be taken as a preview of those he would take in the Oval Office.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Joke: California Libertarians Appoint Republican To National Committee
In what some will inevitably call a confirmation of reports that the Libertarian Party of California is under the influence of Republicans, the LPCA Executive Committee today voted by email to replace its representative to the Libertarian National Committee with former Republican congressman Tom Campbell.
Campbell has been fading in the latest Field Poll of his race for the 2010 Republican nomination to the California governorship, where he faces Silicon Valley multimillionaires Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. His move to the LNC was in some ways an echo of when former Georgia congressman Bob Barr joined the LNC in 2006, two years before seeking and winning the LP nomination for President. Campbell last year resigned as Dean of Berkeley's Business School, and during his gubernatorial campaign he has taken a visiting appointment at Chapman Law School.
Campbell trained as an economist at the University of Chicago under the Nobel-Prize-winning libertarian Milton Friedman. While in Congress, Campbell was a strong supporter of gay rights and abortion rights, and in 1999 led a lawsuit against President Clinton for fighting an undeclared war in Kosovo. However, despite his ideological credentials as a small-L libertarian, Campbell will reportedly not be formally joining the LP as a dues-payer. He apparently is not yet giving up on his long-shot bid for the CAGOP gubernatorial nomination, and a recent opinion from the LP Judicial Committee cleared the way for a Republican like Campbell to attempt a fusion strategy, keeping a foot in each of the LP and GOP. Campbell might be hoping that if by chance he wins the nomination, the LPCA would not run a candidate against him and cost him a crucial percentage point or two.
The LP Judicial Committee issued an advisory last week that the LP Bylaw about LNC qualifications is merely a guideline, and that enforcement of this guideline must be effected by a discretionary vote of whatever body has authority to replace an LNC representative. Opponents of Republican influence on the LP will perhaps attempt to claim standing to challenge Campbell's qualifications, but the Judicial Committee seemed unlikely to reverse its advice that the appointing body has discretion about how the qualifications are enforced.
Campbell has been fading in the latest Field Poll of his race for the 2010 Republican nomination to the California governorship, where he faces Silicon Valley multimillionaires Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. His move to the LNC was in some ways an echo of when former Georgia congressman Bob Barr joined the LNC in 2006, two years before seeking and winning the LP nomination for President. Campbell last year resigned as Dean of Berkeley's Business School, and during his gubernatorial campaign he has taken a visiting appointment at Chapman Law School.
Campbell trained as an economist at the University of Chicago under the Nobel-Prize-winning libertarian Milton Friedman. While in Congress, Campbell was a strong supporter of gay rights and abortion rights, and in 1999 led a lawsuit against President Clinton for fighting an undeclared war in Kosovo. However, despite his ideological credentials as a small-L libertarian, Campbell will reportedly not be formally joining the LP as a dues-payer. He apparently is not yet giving up on his long-shot bid for the CAGOP gubernatorial nomination, and a recent opinion from the LP Judicial Committee cleared the way for a Republican like Campbell to attempt a fusion strategy, keeping a foot in each of the LP and GOP. Campbell might be hoping that if by chance he wins the nomination, the LPCA would not run a candidate against him and cost him a crucial percentage point or two.
The LP Judicial Committee issued an advisory last week that the LP Bylaw about LNC qualifications is merely a guideline, and that enforcement of this guideline must be effected by a discretionary vote of whatever body has authority to replace an LNC representative. Opponents of Republican influence on the LP will perhaps attempt to claim standing to challenge Campbell's qualifications, but the Judicial Committee seemed unlikely to reverse its advice that the appointing body has discretion about how the qualifications are enforced.
Shame-o-meter, measure thyself
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/libertarian-national-committee-votes-that-lee-wright-is-still-a-committee-member
I'm glad to hear that the LNC has made sure that Wrights does not end up off the LNC merely because of a snail-mail problem combined with a misunderstanding about whether he thinks the LP deserves donations. However, I remain amused by continuing claims that 1) the applicable rules here have zero ambiguity and 2) facts pertinent to the operation of the Bylaws aren't really facts until a 2/3 vote of the LNC creates them.
As far as I can tell, Wrights never disputed that his sustaining membership lapsed. So does it require a 2/3 vote of the LNC to recognize that a resignation letter wasn't forged? Approval of minutes requires only a majority, which is less than the 2/3 threshold for removal-for-cause. If an LNC majority approves minutes that blatantly lie about a consecutive absence, is the Judicial Committee not allowed to correct the situation? And if they are, then how is that any different from correcting a false decredentialing by the Chair or Secretary?
Why would anyone be involved with the LP if he thinks that the LP isn't institutionally capable of detecting and correcting things like forged resignation letters or false accusations of lapses in membership?
I repeat yet again: the three requirements (attendance, dues, not running for office under another party) apply to all LNC members, whereas the suspension-for-cause process does not apply to regional reps. Are we to believe that if a regional rep shirks his dues or runs for office as a Republican, nothing can happen until the region’s affiliates notice? And if a region decides to ignore 8.4, is there really no way that even the unanimous objection of the rest of the LP (including the Judicial Committee) can be invoked to enforce 8.4?
(For the arithmetic impaired, there are six questions above. Spare us blather about "shame-o-meters" if you can't muster substantive answers to all six.)
I'm glad to hear that the LNC has made sure that Wrights does not end up off the LNC merely because of a snail-mail problem combined with a misunderstanding about whether he thinks the LP deserves donations. However, I remain amused by continuing claims that 1) the applicable rules here have zero ambiguity and 2) facts pertinent to the operation of the Bylaws aren't really facts until a 2/3 vote of the LNC creates them.
As far as I can tell, Wrights never disputed that his sustaining membership lapsed. So does it require a 2/3 vote of the LNC to recognize that a resignation letter wasn't forged? Approval of minutes requires only a majority, which is less than the 2/3 threshold for removal-for-cause. If an LNC majority approves minutes that blatantly lie about a consecutive absence, is the Judicial Committee not allowed to correct the situation? And if they are, then how is that any different from correcting a false decredentialing by the Chair or Secretary?
Why would anyone be involved with the LP if he thinks that the LP isn't institutionally capable of detecting and correcting things like forged resignation letters or false accusations of lapses in membership?
I repeat yet again: the three requirements (attendance, dues, not running for office under another party) apply to all LNC members, whereas the suspension-for-cause process does not apply to regional reps. Are we to believe that if a regional rep shirks his dues or runs for office as a Republican, nothing can happen until the region’s affiliates notice? And if a region decides to ignore 8.4, is there really no way that even the unanimous objection of the rest of the LP (including the Judicial Committee) can be invoked to enforce 8.4?
(For the arithmetic impaired, there are six questions above. Spare us blather about "shame-o-meters" if you can't muster substantive answers to all six.)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
LPSF Chair: Unelected "Republicans" Control LPCA
The Libertarian Party's rules are a voluntary contract, and voluntary contracts are sacred to Libertarians. Thus it is fair game for LP San Francisco Chair Rob Power to point out that the LPCA Bylaws are unsuspendable where they say:
At any rate, Robert's is very clear that a point of order must be timely, and so cannot be raised a week later as an appeal to the Judicial Committee. There is no claim here that it's an ongoing Bylaws violation for any of the current officers to hold office. The only thing close to a timely objection was the complaint, for the second Vice-Chair election, that we cannot suspend the requirement that only southern delegates may vote for the Southern Vice-Chair. However, that requirement is a convention rule, not a Bylaw, and so may be suspended by 2/3 vote. And it was.
Below is the recent traffic from LPSF-discuss between Rob Power and At-Large ExCom rep T.J. Campbell. Note which side slings mud, and which side marshals facts.
From Rob Power
Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:45 pm
There's a name for those "other libertarians outside SF" who say "SF
libertarians have a reputation for being a dogmatic, difficult-to-deal with
group."
They're called Republicans. Unfortunately, they've gained control of the LP
California state party leadership and several county parties.
If you think that insulting SF Libertarians is going to do anything other than
strengthen our resolve to act as a bulwark against the further Republicanization
of the LP, then you're very mistaken.
I've spoken with the chairs of other large cities' LP organizations, who face
similar criticisms, and we all agree that we really know we're doing something
right when not-so-recently-former Republicans criticize us as "dogmatic" and
"difficult-to-deal with" in our defense of ALL Liberty, both economic and
personal (while Republicans are only interested in economic liberty, which is
why they sound good at anti-tax "Tea Parties" but become more clearly
un-Libertarian as soon as any other topic comes up).
Fortunately, from Ed Clark to David Nolan to Less Antman, we "dogmatic"
Libertarians have the backing of those who were running the Party when we had
our greatest electoral successes two decades ago. Since the Republicans who
have risen to power in the LP have now gotten absolutely everything they asked
for (a gutted platform, a Republican Congressman as our Presidential nominee,
the removal or impending removal of anyone who isn't a social conservative from
from our National and State party committees), and yet still have not improved
electoral or fundraising success, their "strategy" is a clear failure. It's
just a matter of time before either:
1) the membership of the LP realizes this strategy is a failure, and votes in
new leadership at the state and national level, or
2) the LP simply vanishes as totally irrelevant -- the Reform Party had a
bigger budget than the LP ever had and went from front page news to oblivion in
less than a decade, because they were ideologically hollow.
I'm hoping and working for #1, but I have to admit, after attending the LP
California convention in Visalia this past weekend, that I'm thinking the smart
money is on #2.
>From T.J. Campbell
Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:56 am
>From Rob Power
Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:25 pm
You know, I take that back. I'm not going to take this to the LNC. After all,
why would they de-certify a state party leadership that shares their own
ideology? The LNC only kicks out those people whose ideologies are inconvenient
(Keaton, Wrights, and -- mark my words -- Ruwart and Hawkridge eventually).
BTW, I'm sorry to hear that Terry got onto the ExCom. He's too good a guy for
that. I wish I had known he was running, and I'd have given him the talk that
Mark Johnson gave me when I told him I was planning on running for ExCom --
"DON'T DO IT!" Of course, I ignored Mark's wise advice, and I regretted it
almost immediately. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that Terry will be the lone vote
by himself on the ExCom, as I was on so many ExCom votes last year.
>From Rob Power
Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:38 pm
Attending that convention was a total waste of
time and money.
As you may recall, Francoise is very protective of her Sundays, so she made a
big sacrifice to show up in Visalia (and she drove me there as well). When it
was clear that the officer elections were not going to be held according to the
bylaws, I saw no reason to make her hang around for the nonsense, and since she
was my ride home, we both left.
Anyway, there are other avenues for advancing Liberty in California that don't
involve the LPC, so I'm not going to beat my head against a wall trying to make
the LPC under its current un-elected leadership do the right things.
Nothing happened last weekend that can't be fixed by 2011, in plenty of time for
the next Presidential election-year convention.
All voting for Party officers or for endorsements of candidates for public office, when more than one candidate has been nominated, shall be by secret ballot. In all voting for Party officers or for endorsements of candidates for public office, the voting shall include the option of “None of the Above.”However, the Bylaws clearly allow for voting other than by secret ballot when only one candidate has been nominated. (Convention rules call for electing officers by "ballot", but convention rules are suspendable and indeed this rule was suspended by my motion to re-elect our unopposed Chair by acclamation.) The acclamation votes we held called for ayes and nays, and indeed a smattering of nays were heard for two of the four officers elected by "acclamation". Thus arguably the only mistake here is that it wasn't made clear to the delegates that a vote against acclamation was a vote for NOTA. Since NOTA-voters do not have their secrecy guaranteed by the Bylaws, there's no room to claim that NOTA might have won in the absence of procedural irregularity.
At any rate, Robert's is very clear that a point of order must be timely, and so cannot be raised a week later as an appeal to the Judicial Committee. There is no claim here that it's an ongoing Bylaws violation for any of the current officers to hold office. The only thing close to a timely objection was the complaint, for the second Vice-Chair election, that we cannot suspend the requirement that only southern delegates may vote for the Southern Vice-Chair. However, that requirement is a convention rule, not a Bylaw, and so may be suspended by 2/3 vote. And it was.
Below is the recent traffic from LPSF-discuss between Rob Power and At-Large ExCom rep T.J. Campbell. Note which side slings mud, and which side marshals facts.
From Rob Power
Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:45 pm
There's a name for those "other libertarians outside SF" who say "SF
libertarians have a reputation for being a dogmatic, difficult-to-deal with
group."
They're called Republicans. Unfortunately, they've gained control of the LP
California state party leadership and several county parties.
If you think that insulting SF Libertarians is going to do anything other than
strengthen our resolve to act as a bulwark against the further Republicanization
of the LP, then you're very mistaken.
I've spoken with the chairs of other large cities' LP organizations, who face
similar criticisms, and we all agree that we really know we're doing something
right when not-so-recently-former Republicans criticize us as "dogmatic" and
"difficult-to-deal with" in our defense of ALL Liberty, both economic and
personal (while Republicans are only interested in economic liberty, which is
why they sound good at anti-tax "Tea Parties" but become more clearly
un-Libertarian as soon as any other topic comes up).
Fortunately, from Ed Clark to David Nolan to Less Antman, we "dogmatic"
Libertarians have the backing of those who were running the Party when we had
our greatest electoral successes two decades ago. Since the Republicans who
have risen to power in the LP have now gotten absolutely everything they asked
for (a gutted platform, a Republican Congressman as our Presidential nominee,
the removal or impending removal of anyone who isn't a social conservative from
from our National and State party committees), and yet still have not improved
electoral or fundraising success, their "strategy" is a clear failure. It's
just a matter of time before either:
1) the membership of the LP realizes this strategy is a failure, and votes in
new leadership at the state and national level, or
2) the LP simply vanishes as totally irrelevant -- the Reform Party had a
bigger budget than the LP ever had and went from front page news to oblivion in
less than a decade, because they were ideologically hollow.
I'm hoping and working for #1, but I have to admit, after attending the LP
California convention in Visalia this past weekend, that I'm thinking the smart
money is on #2.
>From T.J. Campbell
Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:56 am
Rob,
Please tell me who the Republicans are that are in the LP state party. I'll list them here so you can more easily tell me who they are. And also let me know which counties are Republicans too so I can find Libertarians to take them back!
Is it:
Chair Kevin Takenaga? Bill Bray award winner, not sure how long in LP but is not a Republican, at least not in his politics that I know of
N. Vice Chair Rich Newell? He has been a Libertarian candidate, supporter and activist since the 1980s or even 1970s, I saw his old brochure that Ted Brown dug up
Is it S. Vice Chair Zander Collier? I don't know much about him, maybe he is .... but he is doing a great job prospecting for libertarians on facebook and turning them onto the LP and not the GOP and helping Norm Westwell and others run for city council positions or take other stepping stone position on local boards and such
Secretary Gale Morgan... he has been a LP member for years, is it THAT that makes him Republican or the fact that he helped get the Sacramento LP to endorse Kevin Johnson DEMOCRAT for mayor of Sacramento....
Is it Treasurer Brian Darby? He is chair of my county, Santa Clara's LP, he helped organize a group to oppose the 49er stadium in Santa Clara .... does that make him Republican?
Okay, it's the at large and alternates isnt it?
Terry Floyd.. don't know much about him, except his great convention he helped put together for the LP in 2007 and his staunch support of ending floor fees and his work walking in the Gay Pride Parade in SF
Jill Stone and Alan Pyaett (sp) both ran as LP candidates last year, but I don't know much about them, what do you know?
Mark Selzer? Has been in the LP for some time I hear
Mike Seebeck? He is doing great work in legislation annalysis, and he did work for the LP in Colorado before coming here.... is CO LP a bunch of Republicans too?
Or how bout....
Matthew "Boomer" Shannon
Eric Bresson
Matt Barnes....
all 3 are from San Bernardino and bring many new people to convention and bring many new members into the lp monthly, are they the GOPers in disguise?
maybe it's Jesse Thomas, your former fellow Excommer who voted WITH YOU against endorsing DPI back in March at the ExComm meeting
Is it the alternates Tricia Marcos, my fiance', strange... she registered to vote in 2008 for the first time, and is registered Libertarian and voted for all Libertarians in 2008...
or Savva Vassiliev? He is running for dist 27 state assembly seat in 2010 as a Libertarian ... but he is young, pro-life and a supporter of Ron Paul... jury is out... I just met him
no wait... IT'S ME!!!!
You got me.... I was raised by a libertarian leaning GOPer father (and a democrat mother) who didnt know he was a libertarian... until my brother told us about Harry Browne and the LP in 1996 after seeing Harry speak at this college in Cleveland ... I had a "Dole/Kemp" sticker on my car that year but voted for Harry Browne and have voted for the LP choice for president and every other office running an LP (except one office in Michigan and Lt. Governor in 2006 in Cali). Certainly I am not the only LPer who doesnt vote straight LP in the election
In 1999 I helped form 2 LP county affiliates and was vice chair of one until 2001... now here is where you got me....
I was a Republican Precinct delegate from 2002-2004 in Michigan.... I supported an anti-patriot act GOP guy for state senate but we lost to a neo-con who currently serves (Wayne Kuipers), I went to their state GOP convention in 2002 and was so sickened by it and their religiosity politics I didnt do a thing for the GOP the rest of my term.... I knew I was a Libertarian... and re-joined the party in 2006 upon my moving to California, (along with registering as a Libertarian....where I have vice-chaired my county since 2006, helped John Inks get elected to my 74,000 person town's city council, same size town as Bellflower who "back when we had our best electoral success ever" elected Libertarian and 2006 LP Governor candidate Art Olivier and now am in my 2nd year serving the state Libertarian Party on the Executive Committee.
I am pro right to bear arms and anti tax, but do support the "fair tax" which I see as a way to help convince everyone of smaller government when they see how much money the Feds actually take, which is hidden now by having the withholding tax and refund system... not because I am in favor of taxation, but that probably makes me a Republican doesn't it?
I am so GOP that I was told by district 22's GOP candidate for state assembly in 2008 that he will not support me if I run as an LP for that seat, only if I changed to GOP, I told him I won't be running as GOP... so NOT getting GOP support against the Democrat sure makes me a staunch Republican if I must say so myself
I am pro choice and in favor of gay marriage, was a supporter of the no on 8 campaign, and only support DPI as a way to punish the married straights who are too selfish in not letting gays have marriage by voting for Prop 8
I am pro legalizing all drugs, prostitution, gambling, ending smoking bans, but against affirmative action and government subsidies for farmers and businesses... all of this makes me a Republican doesn't it?
So please Rob, in all your supreme knowledge, please tell me who at the LPC is a Republican, I need to know, it is my fiduciary duty to keep only Libertarians on the LPC board, and I loved how you and Francoise left the convention early which had the end result of halving your county representation in the process (which had been a whopping FOUR convention goers).... if SF is so eager to "take the party back" why is your representation so low at the events we elect the leadership at? Where was Less Antman for 20 years until 2008, where is Ed Clark, Gail Lightfoot, David Bergland and the other long time Cali Lpers? I would sure like to have them show up as we are having lots of new faces, it would be great to have 100 old schoolers show up in addition to the 70 to 100 people we had show up, it would nearly double our numbers at convention and strengthen our ranks in the fight for freedom, I sure wish Richard Rider, Bergland, Lightfoot and others would make an effort to work with me, they never met me (except Richard via email). I certainly have not made an effort to keep them from joining the ranks of the "nubies" to the LP of California.
I think people like you need to take a long look in the mirror when they make claims of divisiveness and claims that we are worse than you at growing the party.... just how well are you growing the party with 4 reps to convention and a handfull at your meetings every month.... you have tried to keep me off your list... that does a lot for outreach to your neighboring counties... perhaps we wouldnt be so "Republican" if you guys in SF came down from your ivory tower once in awhile and helped us at our events the way many of us help you with yours, and more if you asked for it (thanks to Starchild for his help in past JSA's in Santa Clara).
Peace bro,
-TJ Campbell
Libertarian
Vice Chair Santa Clara LIBERTARIAN Party
At Large rep to the LIBERTARIAN Party of California
>From Rob Power
Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:55 pm
Actually, TJ, those people you mentioned are not really the elected leadership
of the LPC.
The Chair violated the bylaws by calling for a vote by acclamation for the
officers. Bylaw 18:
In all voting for Party officers or for endorsements
of candidates for public office, the voting shall include the option of "None of
the Above."
The requirement for NOTA is in the bylaws, not in the convention rules, so the
motion to suspend the rules to allow for voting without NOTA was out of order,
even if 2/3 of the delegates were in favor. I objected twice, and twice was
overruled.
Since it was clear that the Chair was not going to follow the Bylaws, and that
the delegates were going to let him get away with it, the remainder of the
convention was simply a farce (as I'm sure the next two years under these
unelected officers will be).
That's why Francoise and I got up and left after Takenaga was re-"elected" by a
procedure not allowed by the bylaws. The convention was no longer being held in
accordance with the bylaws, so our continued presence would have been futile.
I'm planning on making a formal complaint to the LNC about the fact that the
current LPC officers were not properly elected and will ask that the Judicial
Committee take action to remedy this situation.
>From Rob Power
Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:55 pm
Actually, TJ, those people you mentioned are not really the elected leadership
of the LPC.
The Chair violated the bylaws by calling for a vote by acclamation for the
officers. Bylaw 18:
In all voting for Party officers or for endorsements
of candidates for public office, the voting shall include the option of "None of
the Above."
The requirement for NOTA is in the bylaws, not in the convention rules, so the
motion to suspend the rules to allow for voting without NOTA was out of order,
even if 2/3 of the delegates were in favor. I objected twice, and twice was
overruled.
Since it was clear that the Chair was not going to follow the Bylaws, and that
the delegates were going to let him get away with it, the remainder of the
convention was simply a farce (as I'm sure the next two years under these
unelected officers will be).
That's why Francoise and I got up and left after Takenaga was re-"elected" by a
procedure not allowed by the bylaws. The convention was no longer being held in
accordance with the bylaws, so our continued presence would have been futile.
I'm planning on making a formal complaint to the LNC about the fact that the
current LPC officers were not properly elected and will ask that the Judicial
Committee take action to remedy this situation.
>From Rob Power
Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:25 pm
You know, I take that back. I'm not going to take this to the LNC. After all,
why would they de-certify a state party leadership that shares their own
ideology? The LNC only kicks out those people whose ideologies are inconvenient
(Keaton, Wrights, and -- mark my words -- Ruwart and Hawkridge eventually).
BTW, I'm sorry to hear that Terry got onto the ExCom. He's too good a guy for
that. I wish I had known he was running, and I'd have given him the talk that
Mark Johnson gave me when I told him I was planning on running for ExCom --
"DON'T DO IT!" Of course, I ignored Mark's wise advice, and I regretted it
almost immediately. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that Terry will be the lone vote
by himself on the ExCom, as I was on so many ExCom votes last year.
>From Rob Power
Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:38 pm
Attending that convention was a total waste of
time and money.
As you may recall, Francoise is very protective of her Sundays, so she made a
big sacrifice to show up in Visalia (and she drove me there as well). When it
was clear that the officer elections were not going to be held according to the
bylaws, I saw no reason to make her hang around for the nonsense, and since she
was my ride home, we both left.
Anyway, there are other avenues for advancing Liberty in California that don't
involve the LPC, so I'm not going to beat my head against a wall trying to make
the LPC under its current un-elected leadership do the right things.
Nothing happened last weekend that can't be fixed by 2011, in plenty of time for
the next Presidential election-year convention.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
LPCA Convention Day 2
77 delegates convened on Sunday morning. Chair Kevin Takenaga, Northern Vice-Chair Rich Newell, and Southern Vice-Chair Zander Collier were re-elected by acclamation. Gale Morgan and Brian Darby were nominated for Treasurer, and Darby won 31-30. Morgan was afterwards nominated for Secretary and was elected by acclamation.
Santa Clara University Economics Professor Fred Foldvary spoke about how the current economic crisis is not a market failure. He traced the crisis to government manipulation of the money supply and the mortgage industry, and to a boom-and-bust real estate cycle fed by government subsidies of land ownership and speculation. He said public services that inflate land values should be limited by financing them only with the extra value they create in the free market for land. He specifically recommended a Green Tax Shift, in which all taxation of income, production, sales, and gifts is replaced with levies on pollution, resource depletion, and land value. Dr. Adrian Moore of the Reason Foundation gave a talk about Reason TV and a another about the growth of government in California. He played
John Inks spoke on "Governing as a Libertarian", about his ascent to the Mountain View City Council in November 2008. He described the record of civic activism that prepared him to win office: Parks and Recreation Commissioner, Planning Commissioner, volunteering in various civic groups, campaign treasurer for two city council candidates. For his campaign he visited 9000 households, meeting 2500 voters. Volunteers like T.J. Campbell and Tricia Marcos covered 2000 more households. Inks raised and spent $13K, and sent 17,000 direct-mail pieces to voters. He was endorsed by former Republican and Democrat mayors and the Sierra Club, but not by any of the three newspapers that interviewed him. In office he has earned headlines like "Hotel Deal Worries Council Dissenter" for questioning a $30M hotel subsidy. He urged Libertarians to get involved with local activism and local politics, where they have the most leverage.
Norm Westwell shared his reflections on his two terms so far on the Ocean View School District Board. His activism was sparked (literally) when his kids asked why they can't enjoy fireworks on the beach like Norm did when he was young. He said that running for multiple elections has helped build his name recognition. His campaigns have let him accumulate a "war chest" of campaign signs that he "harvests" from other candidates (with their permission) after election day and then re-paints with his name and no office or year. This allows him to increase his name recognition with each election cycle. He has won the support of his local teachers' union because he tells them he supports their right to organize as much as he supports free markets -- and because he voted to raise what he says were his district's relatively low teacher salaries. He calls the term "Libertarian" an "anchor around my neck", and he finds people are more accepting of the LP if they have to inquire about his party affiliation. His next campaign will target a seat on his city council.
The convention endorsed Chris Agrella for the 32nd congressional district, Susan Marie Weber for Palm Desert City Council, and Norm Westwell for Huntington Beach City Council.
None of the six eligible Executive Committee members ran for re-election: Rob Power (resigned), Brian Holtz (too busy with elected office and PlatCom), Cam McConnell (moving to Tennessee), Ted Brown (taking a break after many years on ExCom), Lawrence Samuels (ditto?), and Michael McMahon. The nominees and votes were:
The top five vote-getters won two-year terms, and Pyeatt won the 1-year term. Tricia Marcos and Savva Vassiliev were nominated to be the two ExCom alternates, and a vote of 30-26 decided that Marcos would be First Alternate.
Bob Weber proposed a lengthy resolution calling for pardon of medical marijuana prosecution victim Charlie Lynch and impeachment of Bush administration officials responsible for torture. The vote of 22-17 in favor failed to achieve the requisite 2/3 majority and 30-vote majority of the registered delegates.
Santa Clara University Economics Professor Fred Foldvary spoke about how the current economic crisis is not a market failure. He traced the crisis to government manipulation of the money supply and the mortgage industry, and to a boom-and-bust real estate cycle fed by government subsidies of land ownership and speculation. He said public services that inflate land values should be limited by financing them only with the extra value they create in the free market for land. He specifically recommended a Green Tax Shift, in which all taxation of income, production, sales, and gifts is replaced with levies on pollution, resource depletion, and land value. Dr. Adrian Moore of the Reason Foundation gave a talk about Reason TV and a another about the growth of government in California. He played
John Inks spoke on "Governing as a Libertarian", about his ascent to the Mountain View City Council in November 2008. He described the record of civic activism that prepared him to win office: Parks and Recreation Commissioner, Planning Commissioner, volunteering in various civic groups, campaign treasurer for two city council candidates. For his campaign he visited 9000 households, meeting 2500 voters. Volunteers like T.J. Campbell and Tricia Marcos covered 2000 more households. Inks raised and spent $13K, and sent 17,000 direct-mail pieces to voters. He was endorsed by former Republican and Democrat mayors and the Sierra Club, but not by any of the three newspapers that interviewed him. In office he has earned headlines like "Hotel Deal Worries Council Dissenter" for questioning a $30M hotel subsidy. He urged Libertarians to get involved with local activism and local politics, where they have the most leverage.
Norm Westwell shared his reflections on his two terms so far on the Ocean View School District Board. His activism was sparked (literally) when his kids asked why they can't enjoy fireworks on the beach like Norm did when he was young. He said that running for multiple elections has helped build his name recognition. His campaigns have let him accumulate a "war chest" of campaign signs that he "harvests" from other candidates (with their permission) after election day and then re-paints with his name and no office or year. This allows him to increase his name recognition with each election cycle. He has won the support of his local teachers' union because he tells them he supports their right to organize as much as he supports free markets -- and because he voted to raise what he says were his district's relatively low teacher salaries. He calls the term "Libertarian" an "anchor around my neck", and he finds people are more accepting of the LP if they have to inquire about his party affiliation. His next campaign will target a seat on his city council.
The convention endorsed Chris Agrella for the 32nd congressional district, Susan Marie Weber for Palm Desert City Council, and Norm Westwell for Huntington Beach City Council.
None of the six eligible Executive Committee members ran for re-election: Rob Power (resigned), Brian Holtz (too busy with elected office and PlatCom), Cam McConnell (moving to Tennessee), Ted Brown (taking a break after many years on ExCom), Lawrence Samuels (ditto?), and Michael McMahon. The nominees and votes were:
| 52 | Matthew Shannon | "the LP is too small for infighting" |
| 49 | Mike Seebeck | wants to build on what the ExCom has been doing |
| 48 | Jill Stone | wants to "keep our party on track because the national committee certainly isn't" |
| 43 | Terry Floyd | 2007 convention organizer served as an alternate before, "knows what's involved" |
| 40 | Mark Selzer | will "do what I can to help out" |
| 38 | Allan Pyeatt | grew up in Ron Paul's district and vote for him ever since he was old enough |
| 37 | Mark Hinkle | warned that he would have to resign from the Judicial Committee if the delegates wanted him on ExCom |
The top five vote-getters won two-year terms, and Pyeatt won the 1-year term. Tricia Marcos and Savva Vassiliev were nominated to be the two ExCom alternates, and a vote of 30-26 decided that Marcos would be First Alternate.
Bob Weber proposed a lengthy resolution calling for pardon of medical marijuana prosecution victim Charlie Lynch and impeachment of Bush administration officials responsible for torture. The vote of 22-17 in favor failed to achieve the requisite 2/3 majority and 30-vote majority of the registered delegates.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
LPCA Convention Day 1
Saturday's breakfast talk was by Chris Agrella, running for Congress in the May 19 special election in district 32. His theme was resistance to the incumbent political structure. He pointed out that the original American revolutionaries could resist the government with arms on a relatively level playing field, but that now we must resist with election campaigns.
Chair Kevin Takenaga reported on the activities of the previous year: the candidate rally on the Sacramento capitol steps, an event for columnist Steven Greenhut re-registering as Libertarian, and half a dozen other fundraisers and house parties (featuring e.g. Wayne Root and Ed Clark). He celebrated all our elected Libertarians, including John Inks's election to the Mountain View city council and Tom Tryon's 7th term as a county supervisor. Takenaga described all the moving parts of the LPCA operation that recently got Chris Agrella onto Fox-LA TV after going through LPCA "candidate finishing school".
Northern Vice Chair Rich Newell reported that a couple of NorCal counties have new young Chairs, Sandy Keating and Kate Moore. Newell said there have now been ten issues of the eFlyer electronic newsletter, and that the distribution list is up to 10,000. Southern Vice Chair Zander Collier reported on convention location scouting and his initiative to find LP prospects by mining demographic data.
Treasurer Don Cowles reported that 2008's deficit was cut to $5000 from $27K in 2007, by reducing expenses from $105K to $88K. The 2008 convention was self-financing (at $15K), so the remaining major 2008 expenses were staff compensation ($32K), office overhead ($10K), and newsletter costs ($17K). (The newsletter costs break down to $6K for printing, $5K for postage, and $6K for editing and layout.) Secretary Beau Cain reported that our membership is roughly the same as two years ago (about 1200) and that we have 86K registered Libertarians. Cain now enjoys automated generation of county rosters and will be extracting a list of all standing resolutions from archived Executive Committee minutes.
Keynote speaker Ed Coleman is an Indianapolis city councilman who recently switched to the LP, making him the elected Libertarian with the most constituents in the country. He recounted the inappropriate pressures that local Republican party officials put on him. He said that his unwillingness to sell favors hasn't necessarily hurt his fundraising, and has even brought him promises of future campaign contributions. Coleman said he sees the purpose of government as just to protect people from aggression and to ensure access to water, electricity, and streets. He said he wanted the government out of his church, his bedroom, and his wallet.
74 delegates have been credentialed so far at the convention. They rejected a Bylaws Committee proposal to restrict convention delegates to those who were LPCA members for the previous 90 days; the current Bylaws give credit for any 90-day period in the past. The committee's other proposal, to make ExCom email votes be roll-call votes, was approved.
Rob Power, Chair of the Outright Libertarians and LP San Francisco, proposed a resolution to undo the ExCom's endorsement of the Domestic Partnership Initiative. DPI would repeal the Prop 8 ban on gay marriage, and replace the word 'marriage' with 'domestic partnership' throughout California law. The resolution attacked DPI as "particularly misleading in Libertarian terms", calling it a "social engineering scheme that undermines progress on equal rights". The resolution failed 18-25, and the convention overwhelmingly approved a subsequent resolution reaffirming the LPCA's position that Prop 8 should be repealed.
The Platform Committee proposed adding to the Arts and Society plank 24 new lines, written largely by Starchild, contrasting art and "bureaucracy". The delegates rejected the change, keeping the current 9-line plank (which says quite profoundly "Taxation of an artist to support another artist is a form of censorship."). The delegates approved deletion of the clause "where governments exist" in the Judicial plank about trial by jury.
Treasurer Cowles and Secretary Cain announced that they would not be running for re-election, as Cowles is moving to Nevada to escape California's taxes, and Cain will be focusing on his paid staff duties in LPCA HQ. The officer elections were postponed to Sunday, as delegates wanted to find out more about who might be running for party office. ExCom members who won't be running for re-election include Ted Brown (retiring after decades of service), Cam McConnell (moving to Tennessee), and Brian Holtz (too busy with family, career, elected office, and PlatCom). Rob Power resigned his seat last month, and one other ExCom member is rumored not to be running for re-election, but on the convention floor there were no buttons or literature for any seekers of party office.
Chair Kevin Takenaga reported on the activities of the previous year: the candidate rally on the Sacramento capitol steps, an event for columnist Steven Greenhut re-registering as Libertarian, and half a dozen other fundraisers and house parties (featuring e.g. Wayne Root and Ed Clark). He celebrated all our elected Libertarians, including John Inks's election to the Mountain View city council and Tom Tryon's 7th term as a county supervisor. Takenaga described all the moving parts of the LPCA operation that recently got Chris Agrella onto Fox-LA TV after going through LPCA "candidate finishing school".
Northern Vice Chair Rich Newell reported that a couple of NorCal counties have new young Chairs, Sandy Keating and Kate Moore. Newell said there have now been ten issues of the eFlyer electronic newsletter, and that the distribution list is up to 10,000. Southern Vice Chair Zander Collier reported on convention location scouting and his initiative to find LP prospects by mining demographic data.
Treasurer Don Cowles reported that 2008's deficit was cut to $5000 from $27K in 2007, by reducing expenses from $105K to $88K. The 2008 convention was self-financing (at $15K), so the remaining major 2008 expenses were staff compensation ($32K), office overhead ($10K), and newsletter costs ($17K). (The newsletter costs break down to $6K for printing, $5K for postage, and $6K for editing and layout.) Secretary Beau Cain reported that our membership is roughly the same as two years ago (about 1200) and that we have 86K registered Libertarians. Cain now enjoys automated generation of county rosters and will be extracting a list of all standing resolutions from archived Executive Committee minutes.
Keynote speaker Ed Coleman is an Indianapolis city councilman who recently switched to the LP, making him the elected Libertarian with the most constituents in the country. He recounted the inappropriate pressures that local Republican party officials put on him. He said that his unwillingness to sell favors hasn't necessarily hurt his fundraising, and has even brought him promises of future campaign contributions. Coleman said he sees the purpose of government as just to protect people from aggression and to ensure access to water, electricity, and streets. He said he wanted the government out of his church, his bedroom, and his wallet.
74 delegates have been credentialed so far at the convention. They rejected a Bylaws Committee proposal to restrict convention delegates to those who were LPCA members for the previous 90 days; the current Bylaws give credit for any 90-day period in the past. The committee's other proposal, to make ExCom email votes be roll-call votes, was approved.
Rob Power, Chair of the Outright Libertarians and LP San Francisco, proposed a resolution to undo the ExCom's endorsement of the Domestic Partnership Initiative. DPI would repeal the Prop 8 ban on gay marriage, and replace the word 'marriage' with 'domestic partnership' throughout California law. The resolution attacked DPI as "particularly misleading in Libertarian terms", calling it a "social engineering scheme that undermines progress on equal rights". The resolution failed 18-25, and the convention overwhelmingly approved a subsequent resolution reaffirming the LPCA's position that Prop 8 should be repealed.
The Platform Committee proposed adding to the Arts and Society plank 24 new lines, written largely by Starchild, contrasting art and "bureaucracy". The delegates rejected the change, keeping the current 9-line plank (which says quite profoundly "Taxation of an artist to support another artist is a form of censorship."). The delegates approved deletion of the clause "where governments exist" in the Judicial plank about trial by jury.
Treasurer Cowles and Secretary Cain announced that they would not be running for re-election, as Cowles is moving to Nevada to escape California's taxes, and Cain will be focusing on his paid staff duties in LPCA HQ. The officer elections were postponed to Sunday, as delegates wanted to find out more about who might be running for party office. ExCom members who won't be running for re-election include Ted Brown (retiring after decades of service), Cam McConnell (moving to Tennessee), and Brian Holtz (too busy with family, career, elected office, and PlatCom). Rob Power resigned his seat last month, and one other ExCom member is rumored not to be running for re-election, but on the convention floor there were no buttons or literature for any seekers of party office.
Wayne Root Running For LP Chair
2008 Libertarian Vice-Presidential Candidate Wayne Root announced tonight at the LP of California annual convention that he will be running for Chair of the LP at its 2010 national convention in St. Louis.
Root still plans to run for the 2012 LP Presidential nomination. In his energetic speech to an LPCA fundraising banquet tonight, he also said that he has changed his mind and now supports the Fair Tax. Root said that the Fair Tax should be a replacement for all other taxes on income, production, business, payroll, capital gains, and inheritance. He contrasted in vivid detail the differences in taxation and business climate between California and his own state of Nevada.
Root also said he could solve the problems in America's financial and housing markets by offering instant residence [I'm not sure if he said citizenship] to any immigrant willing to invest $250,000 in an American home or business. Root will discuss these ideas in more detail in his nearly-400-page forthcoming book, The Conscience Of A Libertarian.
Root still plans to run for the 2012 LP Presidential nomination. In his energetic speech to an LPCA fundraising banquet tonight, he also said that he has changed his mind and now supports the Fair Tax. Root said that the Fair Tax should be a replacement for all other taxes on income, production, business, payroll, capital gains, and inheritance. He contrasted in vivid detail the differences in taxation and business climate between California and his own state of Nevada.
Root also said he could solve the problems in America's financial and housing markets by offering instant residence [I'm not sure if he said citizenship] to any immigrant willing to invest $250,000 in an American home or business. Root will discuss these ideas in more detail in his nearly-400-page forthcoming book, The Conscience Of A Libertarian.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Transparent Straw Men In California Freedom
Tom Sipos was very careful in January to invest LPCA newsletter space in a picture of multi-decade LP activist/leader Aaron Starr with a Hitler mustache, but CF readers saw absolutely nothing there about the eight most serious charges against Sipos's hero Angela Keaton (to each of which I give a paragraph at http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2008/12/apology-angela-should-offer.html). Now Sipos claims he was practicing "glasnost" and "transparency" in his "reporting" about e.g. an LNC meeting he didn't even attend (though held only a couple hours from where he lives). My own blog posting about the San Diego meeting (http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/12/lnc-tightens-belt-defuses-keaton-bomb.html) was much more balanced and accurate than Sipos's editorial, and I wasn't even using LPCA paper/postage or drawing an LPCA paycheck.
Nobody has told Sipos he "shouldn’t discuss America’s foreign interventions". During Bruce Cohen's two-year tenure, CF ran five pieces featuring opposition to intervention, and zero pieces in defense of libervention in general or the Iraq invasion in particular. Sipos in his first three issues ran six anti-intervention pieces, and the two opposing pieces he ran were accompanied by two instant Sipos rebuttals -- thus totaling 8 antiwar pieces in those 3 issues. His pace has continued unabated since then, and he has proudly said that this internally controversial subject will continue to be his editorial focus.
Nobody has Told Sipos he should "only print material that 'all libertarians agree on'" or that "party leaders may not be questioned". It's even sillier to pretend that advice against emphasizing party schisms is somehow a ban on covering normal party business like conventions. These are all straw men crafted by somebody who never has to worry about the same-page instant-rebuttal that in CF he reserves for himself -- sometimes taking even more space than what he is answering. (Don't be surprised that if this message appears in CF it is accompanied by yet another same-page Sipos rebuttal of some sort. That's the sort of "last word" I said he reserves for himself, and he cannot name anyone else who has ever enjoyed such same-issue rebutting privileges.)
Sipos selectively takes one sentence out of context from one of an entire series of LPHQ communications, and pronounces Donny Ferguson a "Demopublican". Donny Ferguson is in fact a dedicated and talented young political operative who could be even more personally successful if he weren't so principled and selective in his employment. Read the entire paragraph that Sipos butchers in order to smear Donny:
"Here’s the beautiful thing about having political power. It’s a zero-sum game. If you’re in office, even if you don’t have the votes to repeal anything, the high-tax Democrat or the deficit-spending Republican aren’t there to vote for more government. There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election."
Thus while Donny is in fact saying that the most principled thing is to stop Demopublican growers of government, Sipos wants you to think that Donny himself is no better than a Demopublican.
Mr. Sipos, let us not assassinate this lad further. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
Nobody has told Sipos he "shouldn’t discuss America’s foreign interventions". During Bruce Cohen's two-year tenure, CF ran five pieces featuring opposition to intervention, and zero pieces in defense of libervention in general or the Iraq invasion in particular. Sipos in his first three issues ran six anti-intervention pieces, and the two opposing pieces he ran were accompanied by two instant Sipos rebuttals -- thus totaling 8 antiwar pieces in those 3 issues. His pace has continued unabated since then, and he has proudly said that this internally controversial subject will continue to be his editorial focus.
Nobody has Told Sipos he should "only print material that 'all libertarians agree on'" or that "party leaders may not be questioned". It's even sillier to pretend that advice against emphasizing party schisms is somehow a ban on covering normal party business like conventions. These are all straw men crafted by somebody who never has to worry about the same-page instant-rebuttal that in CF he reserves for himself -- sometimes taking even more space than what he is answering. (Don't be surprised that if this message appears in CF it is accompanied by yet another same-page Sipos rebuttal of some sort. That's the sort of "last word" I said he reserves for himself, and he cannot name anyone else who has ever enjoyed such same-issue rebutting privileges.)
Sipos selectively takes one sentence out of context from one of an entire series of LPHQ communications, and pronounces Donny Ferguson a "Demopublican". Donny Ferguson is in fact a dedicated and talented young political operative who could be even more personally successful if he weren't so principled and selective in his employment. Read the entire paragraph that Sipos butchers in order to smear Donny:
"Here’s the beautiful thing about having political power. It’s a zero-sum game. If you’re in office, even if you don’t have the votes to repeal anything, the high-tax Democrat or the deficit-spending Republican aren’t there to vote for more government. There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election."
Thus while Donny is in fact saying that the most principled thing is to stop Demopublican growers of government, Sipos wants you to think that Donny himself is no better than a Demopublican.
Mr. Sipos, let us not assassinate this lad further. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
