Steve G.

LNC Bylaws Committee Appointments

In Libertarian on September 7, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Via Angela Keaton – thanks to Paulie, Morey, and Chuck for clearing up some of the names for me.

Rob Latham

Dan Karlan

Chuck Moulton

Heather Scott

Bill Redpath

Nick Sarwark

Rob Oates

Aaron Starr

Ruth Bennett

Gene Hawkridge

Frank Manske (alternate)

  1. Rob Latham
    Rob Oates
    Rachel or Gene Hawkridge?

  2. Manske is most likely Frank, from northern Cal.

  3. Why are two of the officers on the committee? With all the people in the party they can’t find others to do some work? Don’t Redpath and Starr have enought to do as it is?
    Growl!

    MHW

  4. The bylaws are a vital element of the party’s organization and functioning. Change the bylaws and change the structure. If you want a structure to engage in corrupt politics, exclusionary politics, deceit, shenanigans, then change the bylaws to make it easier to manipulate the process. Doing so may even bring otherwise decent people into the manipulative process, forcing them to go along with things they would otherwise find unreasonable.

    In the formal structure of hierarchy, the bylaws are a tool. The tool can be distorted and shaped to dire purposes. It remains a tool, and remains subject to change, so it can be turned to good uses. But, if you want to work evil, first get control of the group’s structure. If you want to hide evil, get authority to destroy records. And if you want to do evil, do Aaron Starr.

  5. What?!?

    No M Carling?

    What was the point of the email suggesting that the committee applicant be a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians, if there’s not one on the committee?
    😉

  6. In CA this past year we had 2 parliamentarians at the Bylaws Committee meeting just before the convention. One was M, who was on the committee, and the other was the hired parliamentarian for the convention, Kim Goldsworth (I think that was his name, pretty close, anyway). We did fine.

    But I agree–no officers on Bylaws. LNC members OK.

  7. It’s Gene Hawkridge and Frank Manske.

    Frank Manske is the alternate.

    M Carling fell one vote short of making it on as an alternate: there were 16 voting members and he got 8 votes (a majority was needed through approval voting).

    Dan Karlan and I are both Registered Parliamentarians. Perhaps others are as well.

    Dan Karlan was named interim chair of the Bylaws Committee.

  8. The ByLaws member is Gene . . . Rachel is LNC, and believes that LNC should not sit on ByLaws or Platform.

    Note to ByLaws members – you can find people with LNC experience, or other committee/board, or parliamentarians. Spread the love.

    I’d love to see the ByLaws changed to reflect this.

  9. Hey casual observer…roberts rules were only used heavily in the platform committee sessions in Las Vegas last year. M conducted the bylaw committee session in a loose fashion in which all members spoke at will and RR was never even quoted once the entire span of time in which I sat in and listened. When they wanted to take a break…they just said hey lets take a break, everyone agreed, and they did it.

  10. We didn’t go bananas on RR in CA for Bylaws either when I chaired it. We were small enough that we round-robined it and we did fine.

  11. I think the above committee confirms what I was afraid of – that it would be to stacked w/ “bad guys” to produce anything worthy, and instead is more likely to continue the LP’s downward descent…

    Dan Karlan – one reason the LPMA is not a member of any region, our delegation was explicitly ordered not to join a region w/ him as rep.

    I recognize five names off the top of my head…
    Chuck Moulton – One of the past LNC members that voted to misappropriate LP resources to campaign for a Republican.
    Bill Redpath – Look at this weekends LNC meeting, need I say more?
    Aaron Starr – Ditto, with multipliers…

    Looks like 4/10 are solidly aligned w/ the dark side.

    On the good side – Ruth Bennett. I’m not sure about the others…

    As to Roberts Rules – They are useful, but IMHO they shouldn’t be all that necessary in a small group. If they are being heavily enforced in a small group, I’d say that group is in serious trouble… A loose attention and basic politeness should be adequate if the group is small enough to fit around a dining table… If it isn’t that is a strong sign that the issue is divisive enough that it isn’t going to be possible to reach a concensus voluntarily….

    What I dread is a situation like we had in Denver where there seemed to be a determined effort by many parties to use RR for the sole purpose of PREVENTING anything from getting accomplished.

    ART

  12. I am also a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians, so that makes at least 4 of us to complicate things and make them as confusing as possible!

    I appreciate the suggestions already appearing about possible revisions to the Bylaws and Rules. Please keep them coming!

    Ruth

  13. Rachel I am going to disagree with you just a small bit. I can see a role for someone who has previously been involved even if they happen to be on another committee.
    We do need some limits. Too many people seem to rotate from committee to committee.

    We do have a need for someone who can bring up points that have been made in the past. Sort of the institutional memory. No need to hash over previous issues again and again. I’m sure I’m not making sense here, but it is early in the morning. Yawn!

    MHW

  14. Arthur…I would like to take a moment to defend Mr. Moulton if I may. I assume that you are referring to the Ron Paul Resolution and some of the motions around that issue. There was more than one person that I consider radically oriented that voted for that. There was immense pressure for “Somebody” to do “Something” in order to try and capture some of the RP momentum for the LP. While I agree that using LP resources to support candidates on other tickets is wrong and George is correct….I also understand that sometimes we have to take chances as a party and I fault nobody for that. Putting that single issue aside, it is my opinion that Mr. Moulton will be an asset to the radical side of the party in the upcoming bylaw debates…not a liability. Chuck always seems like a “call em’ how he sees em” person to me. I can respect and work with that.

  15. Looks like another attempt by Karlan to disenfranchise local affiliates that do well and call for changing the SOP.

  16. <>

    I agreed with you, UNTIL I realized that this isn’t about holding Bylaws meetings – it’s about how LP meeting should/must run, and how the Bylaws should fit in with RR (RONR) . . . but I suspect that the FOUR Parli peeps on there will gently shepherd the newbie Parli types.

    And for Moulton – he’s stand-up, honest, principled; and an asset to any organization. Try not to judge people by one past action . . . sometimes, it’s what appears to be the best action. Other times, it may be a mistake. But one action does not a record make.

    Have a gentle day, y’all . . . :o)

  17. mhw @ 13 –

    Recently talked to someone about my preference for no overlap. They suggested 1 (is it call ex-officio?) member of LNC to Bylaws, who would be liaison, would answer questions to both sides, report, etc., but not be voting member, or might be tie-breaker only, on Bylaws.

    And I thought *that* was BRILLIANT! I’ve seen it other places, but didn’t think of it myself.

    ALso – there are bunches of former members of LNC, Bylaws, or PlatCom who could provide the help you suggest.

    Anyway, I’m pretty pleased – Gene, Ruth, Rob Oates (ID chair, last year’s Bylaws), Moulton are all *stand-up, highly principled* people, and people I admire. Don’t know a lot of the others, but . . . it’ll work out. Don’t forget, they are constrained by delegates, too.

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: