Steve G.

LP seeking applicants for 2010 Bylaws Committee

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on August 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Libertarian National Committee Now Seeking Applicants for 2010 Bylaws Committee

The National Committee will be selecting the 2010 Bylaws Committee at its September Meeting. Anyone interested in serving should email LNC Secretary Bob Sullentrup by mid-August at rwsully@att.net.

Demonstrable expertise, such as membership in the National Association of Parliamentarians, is desirable but not required. Members should expect to travel at least one face to face meeting prior to the 2010 convention.

  1. One might have proposed that demonstrable experience in organizations primarily dependent on the successful use of volunteer labor would be of considerably more use than membership in a parliamentarian organization. After all, you are writing the bylaws, not the rules of order. Familiarity with the LNC operating manual, a document that seems to be somewhat harder than previously to find on the web, might also be of merit.

    Of course, the qualification “Demonstrable expertise, such as membership in the National Association of Parliamentarians, is desirable ” could readily be interpreted in terms of the list of persons who are part of the LNC old boy club and who are certifiable parliamentarians.

    The length of the public notice–it is a week from now to Mid-August, meaning LP members who do not get their news from the web have been shut out of applying to join–also speaks of a selection process whose outcome is being tweaked in advance.

  2. The travel requirement seems excessive.

    What exactly does the bylaws cmte do?

  3. Works on proposals to change the bylaws.

  4. Paulie: Ok, figured that. I guess I asked a dumb question.

    Any reason for a person to volunteer for it?

  5. Bylaws chicanery has allegedly been a prime method by which an organized reformist group has seized control of the LP.

    Since bylaws are dull and technical, most people do not pay them any mind, particularly libertarians like myself who are naturally repulsed by bureaucracy.

    Thus, those who are of a more Machiavellian bent, and determined to get their way, study and involve themselves in bylaws, with an eye on the prize.

    Allegedly.

  6. The travel requirement seems excessive.

    LOL. One face to face meeting before 2010 seems excessive? Wow.

  7. Jeff

    Yes. In the 21st century when we have teleconferencing, chatrooms, IM, email, interactive websites, online video conferencing, etc, etc – why does a national non-profit need for a minor committee to meet face to face?

    Paulie

    Then it sounds like some radicals should volunteer.

  8. Yes. In the 21st century when we have teleconferencing, chatrooms, IM, email, interactive websites, online video conferencing, etc, etc – why does a national non-profit need for a minor committee to meet face to face?

    Same reason every group meets face to face every once in a while: there is so substitute for it. A teleconference will never have the touch of an in person meeting.

    Having the bylaws committee meet once in person should be a minimum.

  9. A single meeting at least demonstrates that person’s dedication to the job. If not, any schmuck could join and not do anything.

  10. Paulie,

    Help us understand how a 7/8ths requirement is not itself “chicanery”?

  11. Bob,

    “Chicanery” is “the use of tricks to deceive someone.”

    A 7/8ths requirement to amend a document is a 7/8ths requirement to amend a document. No “tricks” involved.

    Carry on.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  12. In the 21st century when we have teleconferencing, chatrooms, IM, email, interactive websites, online video conferencing, etc, etc – why does a national non-profit need for a minor committee to meet face to face?

    To keep the “povertarians” from having a voice.

  13. GE wrote: “To keep the ‘povertarians’ from having a voice”

    Does the LP not pay the necessary expenses incurred in attending these required meetings?

  14. The LP has not normally paid travel expenses for things like this.

  15. Okay, my bad.

    I strike comment #13, made in ignorance.

  16. Knappster,

    Yes, I think you’re right, technically speaking. I might, however, suggest that it was arrogant and misleading to bury a 7/8ths requirement for amendment to the bylaws back in the 70s. Was that gotcha spelled out for new members in an explicit, transparent, upfront way?

    I’d say no. It was buried. I can’t think of such a high hurdle for any other volunteer organization, can you? If so, name one. Vatican I was more easily amended😉

    I would also suggest that the move to strike the (IMO) embarrassing and illiterate “cult of the omnipotent state” (read: blind worshippers of an all-powerful government) was done quite transparently, without chicanery, actually. But, I s’pose reasonable people can disagree about what’s virtuous and what’s chicanery.

  17. “cult of the omnipotent state”

    The actual original language was

    “myth of the omnipotent state”

    and someplace I have a a scanned copy of the original document, with the change written in by hand.

  18. “cult of the omnipotent state”. Robert, I for one love that statement .

    MHW

  19. George,

    What a revelation! I wonder if a case could be made to change “cult” to “myth.” Myth would be way, way better — accurate, and non-embarrassing.

    If someone unilaterally changed the language, I also wonder whether the judiciary committee could simply fix this decades-old artifact of chicanery!!!

  20. For a good example of why certifiable parliamentarians are undesirable on this committee, see the latest issue (June-July, arrived yesterday) of LP News, the issue announcing who carried our national convention, only 2 1/2 months after the fact. Buried in the midst of a massive coverup of any hint that there was controversy or dispute is a full-column tirade berating members for trying to apply rules of order.

  21. George wrote, “For a good example of why certifiable parliamentarians are undesirable….”

    There are a lot of people in the LP who are certifiable.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist. 😉

  22. Actually, George, as chair of the CA Bylaws committee last year, I had a parliamentarian on the committee (M Carling) and a second one (the man Kevin Takenaga hired for the convention itself, but I can’t remember his name!) review things in our last meeting the night before the convention and I found them both to be quite helpful to make sure things were consistent in terms of both wording and procedures.

    Of course, CA is better organized than national, despite what some people think…

  23. A single meeting at least demonstrates that person’s dedication to the job.

    If that’s the main consideration, why not just require a $200 donation to the Party to be seated on the committee? It’ll be a fundraiser and achieve the same result. In fact, it would be a more equitable result, as in any travel scenario some folks will have farther to travel than others.

    The “bylaws committee poll tax”. Interesting idea.

    If not, any schmuck could join and not do anything.

    And a travel requirement is going to stop schmucks from applying exactly how?

    In any case, the LNC is supposed to exercise some judgment in sorting the ‘schmucks’ from the dedicated activists who are willing to spend a lot of time and effort to improve the LP.

  24. WhatsamattahU, Chicanery Capozzi, U no canna readah the by-laws, you pompous luddite illiterate?

    Actually, the 7/8ths is the result of the pragmatists refusing to amend the by-laws per the Dallas Accord, which (pace Nolan)made the SOP unamendable and the platform only retirable, as you well know, liar or fool. You’re just unhappy with Karlan that your phony rules expert and the destruction of supporting LP documents didn’t get away with it, and now you have a convention ruling that settles the matter forever.

    Nice try at spin though. maybe your pal Sullentrup will just rewrite the minutes as LRC people have been doing nationwide. Or karlan and the by-laws committee can get back to their real objective to judge by their proposals, namely shut down successful LP local affiliates.

    The ‘Cult of the Omnipotent State’ or government line was from the 1970 Florida state LP platform authored by Michael Gilson, who was also our first elected Lib in office, and designed both the old and current platforms. He quoted terminology apparently referencing a statement of Madison made by of Macaulay denouncing Southey’s tirade for state power and corporate, church and other government helped monopolies , rerferenced by von Mises and others, and which Ronald Reagan called ‘the key issue of politics.’ It was directly quoted by the Declaration of the Baltic Workers that led to the fall of communism, and regularly by people around the world. Call them all illiterate and embarrassing if you will, cultist.

    BTW, the reason for the push to get rid of the lines is to not only gut the LP rights and anti-coercion focus but so social ultra-conservative nutcases like Capozzi can appropriate it without complaints from the LP into some meaningless less government slogan, witness its use in the book ‘Liberal Fascism’ and the recent program document of the Constitutionalist party (with whom I had an informative chat where they happily named some of their LP moles). Hypocrites.

    Which if there had been any honesty at all, the committee and you would have publicized instead of trying to bury still. (Read Karlan’s recent letter in the LPNEWS).

    Go embarrass yourself with the GOP where you belong.
    __________________________________

    RE: Robert Capozzi # 17

    Yes, I think you’re right, technically speaking. I might, however, suggest that it was arrogant and misleading to bury a 7/8ths requirement for amendment to the bylaws back in the 70s. Was that gotcha spelled out for new members in an explicit, transparent, upfront way?

    I’d say no. It was buried. I can’t think of such a high hurdle for any other volunteer organization, can you? If so, name one. Vatican I was more easily amended

    I would also suggest that the move to strike the (IMO) embarrassing and illiterate “cult of the omnipotent state” (read: blind worshippers of an all-powerful government) was done quite transparently, without chicanery, actually. But, I s’pose reasonable people can disagree about what’s virtuous and what’s chicanery

  25. 14 ElfNinosMom

    GE wrote: “To keep the ‘povertarians’ from having a voice”

    Does the LP not pay the necessary expenses incurred in attending these required meetings?

    * * * *

    Like the nice guy who said to me the other day “that’s what they pay you the big bucks for”

    Platform, bylaws, AND LNC are volunteer positions, and we all pay our own expenses. Travel, lodging, etc. Sometimes you all buy us a “light continental breakfast” or coffee and cookies – but I’m a low carber.

    Sept’s bill = $1000 for Hugs and I. Also Dec., March & fall

  26. I’m not a povertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but I also don’t allow anyone to take financial advantage of me, and I do not believe that the LP should be taking financial advantage of its volunteers. No volunteer should ever be expected to pay their own expenses when it includes items such as airfare, hotel, etc.

    If the LP can’t even afford to pay for *required* travel, tweaking the bylaws is the very least of its worries.

  27. A teleconference will never have the touch of an in person meeting.

    That is a lot of nonsense. Since when is “touch” required for an intellectual endeavor like this?

    Given that, if selected, I will of course travel as needed, but it strikes me as unnecessary. If selected, I will be sure to report back after the F2F meeting about whether my opinion changes or not.

    While telecommunications take some of the intangible niceties out of human interactions, they also tend to cut out a lot of the bullshit, hot air, procrastination and other wastage of time, resulting in greater efficiency and a better end result.

  28. ken: WhatsamattahU, Chicanery Capozzi, U no canna readah the by-laws, you pompous luddite illiterate?

    me: this SOUNDS like an ethnic slur. Is that your intent, Ken?

    Ken: …maybe your pal Sullentrup …

    me: I’ve never met nor communicated with Mr. Sullentrup.

    Ken: …social ultra-conservative nutcases like Capozzi …

    Me: Do you know me, Ken? You are the first to ever refer to me with such a label, so I’m curious how you arrived at such a pronouncement. I happen to be pro-choice, so labeling me in this manner seems off the mark. I was in junior high in 1970, so I can’t say “know” anything about proceedings back then. I’ll stand by my view that 7/8ths is an arrogant requirement.

  29. The LP has not normally paid travel expenses for things like this.

    I missed the “NOT” there.

    So I stand corrected on my correction.

    The in-face meeting IS to keep the povertarians in their proper place — struggling to pay the $25 yearly dues which, in the aggregate, help the Beltway Libertines pretend to be bigshots in D.C., even though they’re looked upon as poseurs by the real parasites they aspire to be like.

  30. Hi, GE. I agree that there is a lot of bourgeois bullshit from the political dilettantes at LPHQ and the LNC. Sometimes it’s amusing, and sometimes it’s infuriating. Most the of the time, though, it’s just plain embarrassing.

    That being said, assuming that your premise is correct and that the travel expense requirement is made to “keep povertarians in their proper place”, why are povertarians still financially supporting the LP?

    As long as povertarians continue to pay the LP for the “privilege” of being left out, the LP has no motive to do anything differently. There is absolutely no reason why povertarians can’t contribute to the libertarian community in other ways, and stop paying money to the LP altogether.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: