Minutes and Impressions from Sunday's LNC meeting

PLEASE read it carefully, and note that things are not nearly as bad as have been reported - anything red is note from me to Sully. Notes from me to you are ****. Most of the bold or italics are my attempts to highlight important points. I will apparently be in Newark for several more hours, and can answer eMail - or will be on Facebook.


**** Something Mary talked about at lunch that day (paraphrased) was that coming from a place of love is always the right thing. It leaves the other party without anything to fight against, and it leaves us feeling better. This is definitely true for me. Also note that The Keaton seems to have smoothed out a little in the last 24 hours. I available to The Keaton for talk, telephone hugs, telephone soothing, eMail, etc, and I'd bet that Mary is as well. I am also working on a couple of ideas for building better relationships - if I have to be locked in a room with 16 or 20 people for 3-4 weekends a year, I prefer them to be friendly people, and the atmosphere to be cooperative.



Angela Keaton



After a break, the Chair announced Angela Keaton had blogged on the Internet some information that had been revealed in executive session.

**** Also note that some of this was reported incorrectly,

and had already caused problems for some members. ****




Pat Dixon moved to censure Angela Keaton for having blogged what she had put onto the LastFreeVoice website.




Angela Keaton left the room after having admitted to the transgression.




Michael Jingozian read the passage to the body.




Aaron Starr moved a substitute motion: It is the belief of this body that Angela Keaton should resign for having disclosed material in executive session.



Everyone in the room voted for the substitution. ****I believe this was a voice vote, and that I did not vote. - R****




Angela Keaton returned to the room.




Aaron Starr moved to have her leave the room while the body decided what actions to take.




Angela Keaton was removed from the room but was afforded an opportunity to speak in her defense before departing. Her defense was that executive session was inappropriate for the material being discussed. Moreover, some of the material was an affront to her, and she had no opportunity to meet her accusers.

Mary Ruwart invited Ms. Keaton to try again to address the specific issues the Committee had raised, since she had not appeared to have addressed them.

**** I believe that Mary diffused some of the emotion here by injecting a moment of calm, loving . . . and allowed the discussion to later evolve into the apology compromise.****




Bob Sullentrup called the question, which passed. Moving then to a vote on the LNC recommendation to ask Angela Keaton to resign:




Voting in favor

Mary Ruwart, Jim Lark, Julie Fox, Pat Dixon, Rebecca Sink-Burris, Mark Hinkle, Michael Jingozian, Aaron Starr, Stewart Flood, Dan Karlan, Bob Sullentrup




Rachel Hawkridge abstained and the chair did not vote. **** Note that this is not hostility in any way from Mr. Redpath. Both Gene and I feel that he was truly trying to be fair, and I got a sense of reluctance on his part in the whole matter. Mr. Redpath also DID NOT comment, suggest any motions, demonstrate any pleasure or anything else undesirable. He was FAIR and IMPARTIAL, and the overwhelming feeling and discussion then and later was that The Keaton had left us no choice. This was the second time in 2 days, and the revelations made on Sunday were made after discussion about secrecy about some of these revelations. ****




Absent for the vote were Lee Wrights, Admiral Colley (airport), Angela Keaton




Bob Sullentrup moved the LNC suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in

executive session.




Pat Dixon moved to amend with the phrase 'as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws'.




The amendment was adopted.




Aaron Starr moved to make this matter a mail ballot. There was no second.




Aaron Starr moved to append 'in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again'. **** Once again, no malice or glee detected here. This was a major softening of the original motion, and I appreciate and commend Mr. Starr's strength in being willing to back off the original motion.




At this point, we amended the agenda to remove Jim Lark's goals item from the agenda and move Rachel's to the email list.



When Aaron's amendment passed, the main motion read:



The LNC shall suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws, in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again




At some point the Chair returned to the room after a brief absence and reported Shane Cory had sent a text message noting the Barr campaign did not want Ms. Keaton removed from the LNC.




After some discussion that Mary Ruwart and perhaps others would talk to Angela to get her to understand her breach and how it affected LNC business, the body withdrew the motion, pending Mary's report on her conversation. There was no objection to the withdrawal.

Platform Committee - Apply now!

LNC mtg is over. Report within a week. Just want you all to know that we are now accepting applications for PlatComm. Please send your application letters to RWSully@att.net. CC:me, please.


Good luck! :o)

On 6/9/08, Rachel H. for LPWA Communications wrote:


Colleagues –


The new LP.org website contains this note: (at the bottom of the "Leadership" page) . . .

"* Perhaps the most important task that is expected from a board member of the Libertarian National Committee is to raise funds for the organization through a combination of personal contributions and funds raised through personal solicitations. The amounts here reflect the total contributions received from or raised by the board member during his or her term so far. The amounts shown are as of 06/05/08."

And, while I feel it is important that ALL LP members raise money – I must strenuously object that the LNC's most important task is fundraising.


The LNC is charged with "control and management of all the affairs, properties
and funds of the Party consistent with these Bylaws . . . establish and oversee an organizational structure to implement the purposes of the Party as stated in Article 3 . . . adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its meetings and the carrying out of its duties and responsibilities" per the Bylaws.


In my rarely humble opinion, describing the LNC's paramount duty as fundraising, and elevating this activity to something higher than the body's purpose as defined in the Bylaws, minimizes the nature and duties of the body.


For goodness' sake, it's like saying that that prime directive of the US Government is to raise money . . . OK, that's not a good example. That IS the US Gov't Prime Directive.


But it's not ours. The LNC is a governing body, not a fundraising group. Or do we all believe that we could hire an ad agency and fundraising guru to oversee LP business?


And we do our members a disservice to tell them that as their representatives, our primary duty is to raise money.


Sounds like Principle is second to Cash? Forget what our Bylaws say are duties, we answer only to ca$h.


Second point – the totals shown are no longer valid. These are new terms. Unless someone has raised $$ since Denver, it's not "this term". Also per Bylaws, new term begins at end of Convention.


--

In Liberty,

Rachel Hawkridge
Libertarian Party
Region 7 Representative

REGION 7 REPORT

Submitted to: Libertarian National Committee, Aug. 29, 2008

Submitted by: Rachel W. Hawkridge, Region 7 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

This report will provide information concerning activities of the Libertarian Party state affiliates in Region 7 since the Region formation in May 2008.

I attended the annual Libertarian Party of Oregon’s convention in Salem, OR and the Libertarian Party of Idaho’s convention in Caldwell, ID.

Florida

Florida has fielded an awesome slate of candidates, including four unopposed candidates for local boards. They’ve elected one to New Port Richey Mayor!

And Florida is already preparing for the 2010 elections, as State Chair Karl Dickey has already filed for Palm Beach County Commissioner.

Brevard County Commission, Ilene Davis

Collier County Soil & Water Board

Bruce Reichert - Seat 1 (Unopposed)

J. Adam Mitchell - Seat 4 (Unopposed)

Duval County Soil & Water Board, Jeff Hunt

Hillsborough County Soil and Water Conservation Board

AJ Brent - District 2

Jeff Garbus - Seat 4

Tyson Richmond - District 4

Lee Soil and Water Conservation District

Jack Tanner - Seat 4 (Unopposed) – note: Jack has been running a petitioning drive to stop funding mobile irrigation labs

Orange Soil & Water Conservation District

Randy Whiting - Seat 1

J.J. McCurry - Seat 3

Diane Rozek - Seat 5

Jupiter Inlet Commission, Bradford Schmidt - Dist 5

Palm Beach Soil & Water Conservation

Mike McIntosh - Group 2

Howard Horowitz - Group 4 (Unopposed!)

New Port Richey Mayor, Scott McPherson (WON!)

West Volusia Hospital Authority, Tracy Lunquist (Group A, Seat 1)

2010 Election Cycle - Palm Beach County Commission

Karl Dickey - Seat 4 (filed)

Florida has also asked that the LNC ask Tom Stevens to resign his Judicial Committee seat, since he is on the ballot as the presidential candidate of another party. We feel that it is inappropriate for the candidate of another party to hold elected office within our party.

Hawai’i

Unfortunately, I have not been successful at establishing a good connection with Hawai’i since leaving Denver. I have had brief contacts with them, but Ms Li Schoolland has been in Lithuania, teaching English, and I expect that on her return we will make contact.

Idaho

The Libertarian Party of Idaho held its biennial convention on Saturday, June 21st in Caldwell at the home of State Chair, Rob Oates. There was a potluck BBQ followed by a business meeting and election of officers.

Idaho nominated Marvin Gardner for State Representative District 15 Position B, Kent Marmon for US Senate, and Mikel Hautzinger for State Representative District 17 Position A.

James L. Oyler for State Representative District 17 Position B, and Rex W. Kerr for State Representative District 20 Position A also ran as Libertarians.

Hautzinger, Kerr, Gardner and Oyler have all passed the Primary, and will be on the General Election ballot.

Oregon

Oregon held it’s annual State Convention on June 1^st 2008, at Riverfront Park in Salem, OR. It was a BBQ, held in a lovely park, complete with a Parks Dept. employee who introduced himself “I’m with the government, and I’m here to help.”

LP Oregon nominated three candidates, and had two Presidential Candidates (Jim Libertarian Burns and Mike Jingozian) and two sitting LNC members (Vice Chair Mike Jingozian, and Region 7 Rep. Rachel Hawkridge) in attendance.

Nominated were Marc Delphine, 26th District; Jay Ellefson, 36th District; and Steve Milligan, 5th Congressional District.

Oregon allows multiple nominating conventions, and just last month, nominated Joe Tabor (State Chair) for 1st District US Congress; and Jim Karlock, 45th Dist., Ore. State Rep.

The “Press Release” that has made its way through the blogosphere is a fraud, and was not sent by LP Oregon. No one has been expelled.

The Real Washington™

A supplemental brief was filed in the I-872 case, the challenge of the state’s “Top Two” primary. We await the 9^th Circuit Court’s decision. Richard Shepard, of Northwest Legal Foundation, has done an incredible job with this case. Last year, he argued it before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our Congressional candidate, John Beck, was eliminated in that primary system, and Ruth Bennett remains in the 37^th District Legislative race.

LPWA is working on “LPWA News & Views”, and intend to publish both a print and web version of our new newsletter by mid-October. We’ve not published a newsletter for several years, and expect that this will be both valuable outreach and fundraising tool. Michael H. Wilson of Vancouver has taken the leadership on this project.

Motion to LNC . . .

I will make this motion to LNC at next weekend's meeting . .

Some of our candidates, membership, and affiliates increasingly lean right, to the point that we are losing a significant portion of our (especially) LGBT and alternative base.

From the perspective of some of these important activists, communications from State affiliates and National are increasingly more conservative.

I don’t intend to argue their perceptions, and I do find that some of these instruments of the party are either discriminatory in nature, or offensive to large groups.

In light of this,

I move that the Libertarian National Committee send a letter to remind state affiliates of some of the statements of Principal, and planks of our Platform, namely . . .

“As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.”

And that to stay in integrity, Libertarians must fight to overcome discrimination, otherwise we are not in integrity with our stated values.

Standing by and watching discrimination is to perpetuate discrimination.

Since our Party instruments therefore cannot be discriminatory, the LNC asks that you not publish articles that are offensive to minority groups, and be especially careful about the use of terms that are offensive to minority groups.

The editor of LP News should also be directed to observe the same guidelines, and an article should be published in LP News that expresses the intent and message of this motion.

___________________ End Text of Motion ___________________



The following article appeared on the front page of
California LP website, under the heading . . .

Recent News from the LP

Italics are mine (Rachel)


Who Should Define Marriage?

by Adam B. Summers


It has been nearly two months since California started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and somehow civilization as we know it has not come crashing down. The legal and political fights over the issue are far from over, however.

Gay rights supporters tried and failed to keep Proposition 8 from appearing on the November ballot. That proposed change to the state constitution would ban same-sex marriages in the state and effectively overturn the California Supreme Court's May ruling. Opponents of same-sex marriage are fighting their own court battle, charging that changes to the wording of Proposition 8's ballot title and summary made by the attorney general's office might bias voters against the measure.

In its 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled: "[I]n view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to all same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

While the Supreme Court's decision offers homosexuals the same freedoms as heterosexuals to formalize their commitments to their significant other, it should also serve as a reminder that the government has encroached on the most personal aspects of our lives.

In the gay marriage debate both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

Gay marriage opponents are wrong to use the law to enforce their notion of morality on others. Doing so violates the libertarian principle that people should be allowed to live their lives as they please, so long as they do not infringe on the equal right of others to do the same. A homosexual couple's decision to enter into a religious or social agreement certainly does not preclude a heterosexual couple's right to do so.

There seems to be widespread irrational thought about the very word "marriage." Polls consistently show that even in areas where voters are wary of overturning laws to permit same-sex marriage, significantly greater percentages of people favor bestowing the same rights on gay couples as on married straight couples, as long as the relationships are called some other name, like "civil unions." Even President George Bush, who pushed for the failed federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriages in 2006, has suggested that gay couples should be able to enjoy many, if not all, of the benefits of marriage through "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" if individual states sanction such "legal arrangements other than marriage." But if the rights are the same, what difference does semantics make?

By politicizing a private matter—deciding to whom one may pledge one's love, support, and fidelity—opponents of same-sex marriage have created a world of winners and losers where once there were only voluntary promises. Gay marriage opponents are thus wrong to insist that they have the right to decide how marriage should be defined (i.e., whether it should be sanctioned only if it is between a man and a woman, or even whether marriage should be a religious institution or a secular social commitment) not only for themselves but for everyone else as well.

Similarly, same-sex couples should not be able to force their notion of marriage on others, either. Religious leaders or others who would perform marriage ceremonies have every right to refuse to marry couples for moral, philosophical, or any other reasons. Private business owners should be able to decide for themselves whether it is in their interest to offer group health benefits, family leave benefits, special mortgage loans rates, etc., to gay couples as well as straight. Furthermore, businesses should not be compelled by law to offer any particular benefits to any employee—gay or straight.

In addition, gay rights activists are wrong to petition the government for "equal" marital status. This demand merely perpetuates the politicization of what should be a private issue. Gay rights activists would better serve their interests by arguing that the government should not be in the marriage business in the first place.

Marriage, whether entered into by those who consider it a sacred religious covenant or those who see it as a secular social bond and contract, is a profoundly personal decision between those in love. The "sanctity" of marriage must be defined by the individual—or couple—not an interest group and certainly not the state. There simply is no role for the state in marriage.

___________________ End published article ___________________

Since the “religious right” has taken the use of the word “homosexual” (usually pronounced “homo SECT sual) and turned it into a pejorative, and the evolution of language has been to use the words “gay” and “lesbian”, AND that “gay” and/or “lesbian” is what the LGBT community prefers, it is offensive to the LGBT community to use “homosexual” in referring to them.

It is tantamount to using the word “Negro” to refer to black, or African-American people.

The government is in the marriage business. The federal government has, for decades, given benefits (employee and federal tax exemptions) to married couples and to unmarried heterosexual couples; continuing to deny the same benefits to same sex couples constitutes discrimination.

It is my contention that in this case, waiting until the government gets out of the marriage business is not libertarian. Opposing attempts to make make marriage a State’s Right issue, or to stay out of the attempts to make gay marriage unconstitutional are wrong.

___________________ End Rachel’s discussion ___________________

The following comments were received from OutRight ExComm member . . .

1) Language. We repeatedly urge the LP (and LP members) to use the right language when talking to LGBT Americans -- i.e. "gay and lesbian" or "LGBT." Yet every time we've made this point to LP communications under the Cory regime -- including to Mr. Gordon when he was comm director -- we were told to basically piss off. The LP's people insist on referring to LGBT people as "homosexuals," which has about as much communications efficacy as referring to African Americans as "negroid."

Regarding Ms. Mattson's platform shenanigans, the language on LGBT rights was completely stripped out of the original platform, and not a single openly gay Libertarian was invited to participate on the platform committee until the final draft was written.

As a result, the document which popped out Ms. Mattson's committee was wholly inadequate -- in fact, downright embarrassing -- on LGBT issues.

Fortunately, LGBTQ leaders and supporters like Carol McMahon -- and the majority of the convention-goers -- quickly repaired the platform to strengthen it to where it needed to be.

If you're under the mistaken impression that the LGBT Libertarian community did not notice the effort to foist the original embarrassing plank on LGBT rights, you are hugely mistaken. Just compare last year's donor list to this year's.

2) Last year, the Libertarian Party had a unique opportunity to scoop the Democrats and Republicans on marriage equality during Valentine's Day. Outright -- excited to get positive press for the Party -- contacted the Massachusetts, California and National parties to enquire about a press release.

California and Massachusetts, as always, came through.

National? Shane Cory refused to issue a press release, telling us that we needed to get our membership to e-mail him with a large volume of e-mail before he'd issue it.

I cannot think of a single situation where a Libertarian has ever been told that in order to get the LP to issue a press release on a Libertarian issue, that the leading Libertarian lobby has to beg its members to beg OUR OWN PARTY to put out even token support.

In the last days of Cory's tenure, on the LP-aligned (and Viguerie-owned) Third Party Watch web site, a number of Libertarians hopped in to state that the LP platform is opposed to same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption. Rob Power, a major donor in the LP Torch Club AND the Executive Director of the LGBT lobby of the Libertarian Party, asked Cory to pop in and make a two sentence statement repudiating the assertion after it was picked up and spread far and wide across the gay media as "Libertarian Party lurches right."

Mr. Cory's reaction -- in email -- to a Torch Club donor and public Libertarian of Mr. Power's standing -- was to refuse and tell him to "find something else to bitch about." And the story in the LGBT media, based on the party's inaction? That the LP opposes marriage equality and gay adoption and that Outright is "spinning around the issue."

Brilliant! Now we get to compromise our own perceived integrity -- as volunteers -- as well as get insulted for being major donors.

3) Trust.

I'm going to be blunt with you guys. Without Outright and great people like Rob, Angela, Allan and Ruth to kick your asses into gear on basic Libertarian social issues (which are not "left," BTW, but smack-dab in the center of this party since its founding), I don't trust the national office to do the right thing on LGBT issues.

Virtually every intervention I've made on behalf of the Libertarian National office this year has been to explain away a f**-up, lobby internally for the party to adhere to the bloody platform and issue a press release on a major issue of import, or beg candidates and employees of national not to rip on the community through the use of bad language or Republican National Committee policies that are as distant from the LP platform as can be.

_________________ End OutRight Comments _________________

The LPNH flap . . . it's not a conspiracy

There was a recent story on a couple of blogs that contains some information that is factually incorrect. Here is a more accurate description of the story, reposted in its entirety from Ballot Access News, by Richard Winger . . .

Why the New Hampshire Libertarian Party Ought to Sue Over Substitution

August 20th, 2008

The New Hampshire Libertarian Party’s position on whether to participate in a proposed lawsuit on substitution is not clear. I have just arrived home from a vacation and this evening, it is too late for me to telephone any New Hampshire Libertarian Party officials.

New Hampshire ballot access is far worse than most people realize. The Green Party has only succeeded in getting on the New Hampshire ballot statewide once, in 2000. The Natural Law Party failed in both 1996 and 2000 in New Hampshire. The Constitution Party failed in both 2004 and 2008 in New Hampshire. The Libertarian Party failed for president in two states in 2004, New Hampshire and Oklahoma. Also, in 2006, the Libertarian Party had only two statewide petition failures, Alabama and New Hampshire.

New Hampshire’s legislature has been very hostile to minor party and independent candidate ballot access. Many bills to improve the law have been introduced during the past ten years, but none of them passed in either House. The Secretary of State is hostile, and the legislature will not approve any election law change that he opposes.

The best way to persuade a state legislature to improve ballot access laws is to win a lawsuit against one of the ballot access laws. The New Hampshire policy forbidding substitution can probably be defeated in court, if the New Hampshire Libertarian Party will help that effort. New Hampshire is one of only two states which has never had any ballot access law declared unconstitutional. A winning lawsuit on substitution could be the key to winning additional ballot access reform in New Hampshire. The substitution lawsuit is an opportunity that should not be wasted.

http://tinyurl.com/LPNH-BAN is link to the newsletter and forum. Thanks to Richard Winger for permission to repost. If you haven't seen Ballot Access News - please do so. It's a great source.

More from Rachel . . .

I was not left out of any decisions. Some of it was decided before I came to the LNC. There was also some lack of communication, but there was no conspiracy, nor did anyone leave me out of any decision. I hope that this settles the matter in your minds.

As you may know - the September LNC meeting fast approaches. At that meeting, one thing we will do is to put together the Bylaws Committee for next convention. If you would like to apply for one of those positions, please eMail your qualifications to RWSully@att.net, and so me - LPWA.com1@gmail.com. The appointment requires at least one face-to-face meeting, so be prepared to travel. Experience as a parliamentarian is also desired, though not required. Having held elective office might also be a plus, as would previous experience on committees, especially LP bylaws, judicial or platform. Please send your application as soon as possible, and good luck! :o)

It appears that all the states in out region have ballot access, so GREAT JOB to all! And any other issues that you have concerns about, or want to take to the LNC, please contact me, eMail preferred, so that I can see, study, research before we talk, or before the meeting.

Time is running out to hold a Barr meet and greet, or full blown fundraiser. The campaign would appreciate any help that you can give. Colorado held this month that they planned and executed in about 48 hours. Even with the short notice, they had a great event, and had probably 80 people attend (estimate), and raised $10,000. It was drinks, hors d'eouvres in the State Chair's house (and yard!) They collected $5 cash from attendees for food and drinks, and Bob Barr spoke for a few minutes. Donation envelopes were passed around, and Travis (host) gave big donors a bottle of "Barr Bear" - his special hefeweizen. Great job, LP of Colorado, and Arapahoe County.

If any of you want to do something similar, I will do what I can to help. While you may know that I am not totally supportive of the Barr candidacy, I will help *you*, and I want Barr to succeed for the LP.

News from the Region!

The news in a moment -





Florida -



LP Florida's treasurer needs your help to reduce spending! If you live in Florida, print and sign this - Petition to End Mobile Irrigation Labs. Thank you, Jack!





Oregon -



LP Oregon just held a fundraising event with Bob Barr! Reports are that it was a very successful event, and that much of the credit for organizing goes to Joe Cornwell! Thanks, folks! For all you do.





Washington -



Is in the midst of a ballot access drive. Due to our onerous election law, we have to advertise a "Nominating Convention", then show up at the advertised place and time, and collect signatures. We need a minimum of 1,250 signatures by July 25 to get the Libertarian Party on the ballot.





In Idaho, there's an incredible older gentleman named Ralph Smeed. Among other things, he maintains a reader board just outside of Boise. Read what he has to say on it here . . . and if that's not all, he maintains an excellent website for Making Statism Unpopular.



Rich Shephard, Freedom Fighter, attorney, and one of Washington State's Activists of the Year, turned us on to this awesome website, with all kinds of freedom literature in several formats . . . check it out! There's also a forum for discussion.





Are you an activist who has devoted your Time, Treasure and/or Sacred Honor to the cause? If you've put money, effort or a campaign or service in a position where you influence public policy or government, then comment here, or eMail LPWA.com1@gmail.com. Or nominate yourfriends, colleagues, or fellow activists. I need name, address, phone number or eMail address, and what you've done. This is the prototype for a project.