Steve G.

Another LNC Conflict of Interest Goes Almost Unnoticed

In Libertarian Party-US on September 10, 2008 at 7:44 am

This article has been removed due to inaccuracy.  – ENM

  1. Brian,

    Starr, Redpath and Karlin are on Bylaws. As Mrs. Hawkridge pointed out (Rach is the Hawkridge on the LNC, Gene is the one on Bylaws.) we should go easy on stacking the Bylaws Co w/ LNC reps.

    Moulton knows exactly what he is doing. Smart boy. Regimes may fall and fail, but Moulton does not.

    ak

  2. Who is on the Judicial Committee and how did they get there?
    Don’t the delegates vote them in?

  3. Don’t confuse Brian with the facts. He’s on a roll.

  4. Angela is correct, the information passed to me by a member of the gallery was incorrect.

    Ms. Hogarth should bite her tongue. She has quite a penchant for shanking her friends, and after her ballot access commentary, isn’t exactly in the position to decry others’ mistakes.

  5. The factual accuracy of this story is on par with Brian Miller’s other stories.

  6. Perhaps LFV should start a thread for suggestions of changes in the Bylaws. I’d certainly welcome all LP member input of how our organization could be improved.

  7. […] 10, 2008 by susanhogarth Per Chuck Moulton’s suggestion, an open thread on suggestions for the LP’s bylaws […]

  8. @Roscoe Art 9 Sec 1 Bylaws: “The Judicial Committee shall be composed of seven Party members elected at each Regular Convention”

    http://www.lp.org/files/pdfs/bylaws-2008.pdf

    @Chuck May I suggest you write up your own summary of the events at the LNC meeting this past weekend? We have substantial statements from Keaton and Hawkridge but are there any others from anyone else that was actually present? I know you have commented extensively but it would help to have your perspective all in one place and easily linkable.

    re/ bylaws and platform. Let me be a nag and say again we should form shadow platform and bylaws cmtes to do exactly what Chuck suggests in #6. Please someone who has some experience take the lead, different people for each shadow cmte. I will back you up with IT/communication resources. (I don’t have the experience to lead either cmte.)

  9. The level of inaccuracy of some of the postings on this site is simply amazing. A simple sixty second review of the facts clearly posted on the party’s website in the minutes of the 2008 convention disprove this author’s statements:

    http://www.lp.org/archives/lnc20080523.pdf

    The ballot results for the judicial committee are on the last few pages and clearly show that no current member of the LNC was either nominated for a position on this committee or elected to one.

    Regardless of what I or others say, it is likely that the biased and inaccurate writings of this site will continue unchecked. Facts do not appear to be important to the editors of LFV.

    Stewart Flood
    LNC Region 4

  10. @Chuck May I suggest you write up your own summary of the events at the LNC meeting this past weekend?

    I won’t be writing up my own summary of the events.

    I did not take any written notes from the meeting. I believe my recollection is good enough to spot inconsistencies with my memory, but not good enough to provide a comprehensive narrative.

    Angela did a very good job of summarizing the minute by minute goings on — with a few very minor errors (relative to the scope of her reporting), which I have already pointed out when they seemed material.

    When the LNC minutes are released I will similarly read those over and reconcile them with my memory of the events. If past practice holds, by the time the LNC is done making corrections and promotes the minutes from draft to approved, I believe they will be very accurate.

    However, as has been pointed out, even if the minutes are entirely accurate, they are not as thorough as a video recording.

    If I had any idea the meeting would be this contentious, I would have arranged to videotape it myself and make that video available online. I will try to make that a goal for the next LNC meeting I attend, which will probably be the Charleston* meeting at the state chairs conference. If someone else is interested in this too, contact me and we can coordinate to share cost and/or expertise.

    * I am 99.9% sure I will not be attending the LNC meeting in San Diego since it will be across the country and probably coincide with final exams crunch. (Why waste money on travel when I have no reason to be there?) The only reason I was at the D.C. meeting this past weekend was I now live in the D.C. metro area a mere 40 minutes away from the location.

  11. Stewart, it’s worse than that. The LPUS Bylaws say “No member of the National Committee may be a member of the Judicial Committee.” The “almost unnoticed” conflict of interest here is so screamingly obvious that prevention of it is baked into the bylaws of both the LPUS, the LPCA, and I suspect all other LPs as well. Anybody paying attention during any JudCom election at any LP convention would tend to know this stuff.

  12. Please someone who has some experience take the lead, different people for each shadow cmte.

    George, this isn’t a bad idea, but the reason it’s not likely to get much attention from the top activists right now is that the best, most dedicated, and most seasoned activists are trying to spend more time on active campaigns at the moment than on this sort of inside-the-Party work. It’s equally important, but the timing is not right, I think.

    Any offers of leadership you’re likely to get *before* November, will, I’d think, be from people who are not really engaged in getting the message out. There could be exceptions – either supermen or those who choose to ‘sit out’ an election cycle – but my feeling is that any real focused discussion of bylaws, platform, etc. will have to wait until after the election.

    If a structure is set up at that time to work within, I think you’ll see the more committed activists jumping in – after taking a post-election breather.

    I believe Less Antman is working to develop just such a structure for the platform. You might contact him and work together for a similar project re: bylaws.

  13. @Susan So you suggest no organizing activity until November?

  14. Brian,

    I certainly agree that it is serious. We both know that the bylaws are quite clear that no member of the LNC may be a member the judicial committee.

    I follow some of the content on LFV because region 4 members sometimes reference it and other sites when they contact me with questions.

    I am dismayed by the frequency of inaccurate articles and the level of bigotry against anyone who is on the LNC. We are not the enemy, but we are frequently treated with more hostility than the real enemy receives.

    Bill Redpath is not evil. He is not stupid. He is not a pawn of the enemy secretly working to destroy liberty. Neither he or the two other LNC members mentioned (one of who’s name isn’t even spelled correctly) deserve this type of attack.

    Stewart Flood
    LNC Region 4

  15. George,

    I was hoping to avoid being pinned down🙂 I don’t suggest _no_ activity, I just caution that anything that happens now should best be seen as laying groundwork.

    I just personally suspect that if I’m finding myself with substantial time or inclination to think about this stuff right now, I’m not using my time or energy as an activist in the best way.

    But that may be because I’m fortunate enough to be in a state with candidates I can enthusiastically support. Or it may be that I’m purely panicked by the Fair schedule I set us up for.

    Perhaps a good strategy would be to identify the desired members for these ‘shadow committees’ (and the criteria for membership), issue invites, and lay the groundwork, but to hold off on serious deliberation until after the election.

    Do you envision these committees as by-invitation, or open-invitation? If the former, what are the criteria and who makes the decisions?

  16. @Susan I only brought it up again bc it was relevant to the thread. I’m not desperate for the idea to get immediate traction. And I don’t want to draw attention from current races.

    Laying groundwork – definitely. I have time, some skills and some motivation atm so let’s get some groundwork laid. It seems like there are 2 primary areas that need attention:

    – better tools for candidates for 2010 and 2012. websites, fundraising, online skills, collaboration/support group stuff for better activism. What else? During an election seems like a good time to get ideas for this as surely people are experiencing any problems right now and would be better able to identify them.

    – a more open, effective, true-to-principles and bottom-up kind of LP.

    re/ the shadow committees it might be good to identify persons with experience and interest who have been on the real cmtes before but aren’t this year, and whose views are in line with transparency and radical principles, and ask them to form cmtes perhaps balancing experience with fresh ideas.

    As you know I’m new here so I don’t have much more to say on the process. I’ll shut up about this for now I guess.

  17. Please actually check facts for yourself, rather than depending upon what you are told by someone else. Even I knew this was incorrect, and I wasn’t at the convention. The information is available on the LP site, so that should have been checked before posting.

    I am removing the article, and putting only a statement that it has been removed in its place. To leave it up when it is both incorrect and inflammatory would be grossly irresponsible. (I would delete the article altogether, but I cannot do that in this particular case because to do so would censor those who have made comments.)

    I offer my apologies, both personal and on behalf of LFV, to the LNC and the Judicial Committee. I assure you, I did not see this before it was posted.

  18. Stewart,

    Redpath may not be evil or stupid, but he certainly doesn’t know how to operate a meeting or plan for one. Had he done that the national convention would not have run so far behind and been so noisy, and this past weekend’s fiasco would have been resolved without ES in an arbitration fashion, as he certainly can do. There’s a reason that he didn’t get a mjaority on the first ballot in Denver, and that general inability to lead is a major part of it.

  19. My thanks to the editor for removing the article. This is a positive sign and a good step toward credible reporting.

    I also commend you for not removing the comments since I would not then have been able to thank you for your action.

    Stewart Flood
    LNC Region 4

  20. Michael,

    As far as the planning for the convention goes, most of it was — due to BICR — outside of the party’s control. While I certainly commend Bette Rose for what I believe was overall a very fine convention, the noise level in the room was something that was not predictable in advance. Yes, it was noisy.

    I believe that the convention was behind schedule in a large part because of the unprecidented six ballots for our presidential nomination. No one could have possibly known nearly a year in advance, when decisions regarding the number of sessions were made, that we would have so many candidates.

    I personally believe that our chairman did a great job of keeping the convention as close to schedule as he did. We could have easily been in an even worse situation.

    As far as this past weekend’s meeting goes, the time delays caused by having to deal with the two incidents were quite regrettable and quite unfortunate. The fact that we had to address these issues is obviously controversial and certainly not something that we wanted to be faced with.

    I do not fault Mr Redpath in any way for any of his actions as chair at the DC meeting. I believe that he handled these difficult situations as well as any of us on the committee would have had we been sitting in his seat.

    Stewart Flood
    LNC Region 4

  21. You are welcome, Mr. Flood. Feel free to contact me anytime you have a question or correction on the site.

    enm.lastfreevoice@gmail.com

  22. There was a big conflict of interest brought up at the meeting – maybe that’s why there is some confusion.

    Tom Stevens, JudComm member is the Presidential candidate of another party; *and* he belongs to still another party (or at least he did when he was elected to JudComm – that may have changed).

    One parliamentarian type at DC meeting says that the statement Stevens signed for Presidential ballot qualification in FL (the party loyalty statement – http://election.dos.state.fl.us/forms/pdf/DSDE27.pdf) says “I am not a registered member of any other political party”, and that this is a de facto resignation from LP, and makes him ineligible for JudComm.

    Like to know who the reporting gallery member was to Brian Miller. Pretty huge error, and defamatory? Gene’s name was clearly announced (yes, we *do* have the same last name, and it’s no secret that we share the same bed, but we thoroughly different people), AND I made the statement that LNC members shouldn’t be on ByLaws.

    We need to spread the love. :o) Everybody should have this much fun.

  23. The implication that this article was “defamatory” is absurd in the extreme.

    A very minor error in a single committee name was made — and promptly corrected in boldface in the article in question less than an hour after it was posted — before LFV made the decision to censor the entire story.

    The original point was that there’s a significant conflict of interest due to LNC members being on a committee that determines their process and the appropriateness of decisions they made.

    That assertion was apparently too controversial for baby-politicians like Moulton and Flood, judging from their ranting. And unfortunately, pseudo-radicals like Ms. Hogarth have also decided to “support the institution.” Not a surprise.

    As for “harming the credibility” of a pseudonymous editor named “ElfNinosMom,” through “inflammatory comments” (when the editor in question regularly publishes conspiracy theory articles, inaccurate claims by Hogarth, etc.) is just plain rich.

    It’s a shame my original article was so quickly censored. Had I known it would be, I would have archived and posted it elsewhere. It’s obvious that points of view that are “too controversial” are to be edited and censored without warning on the site — especially ironic that the management of the site fired the only African American contributor for doing the exact same thing.

  24. Brian,

    I’d like to make

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/

    into a group blog. You and Chris are welcome to write there if you’d like. And anyone else who has been removed.

    That’s not to say your article was or was not correct.

  25. It’s kinda hard to say either way because they deleted the article so quickly.

    A number of people alerted me to the situation as reported in the comments, shortly after I left the LFV staff (I’m still incorrectly reported as a contributor despite numerous requests to be removed), and I figured I’d come in and report my side of the story.

    It is a pretty clever hatchet job — delete the content in question, invent laughable claims of “defamation,” and then let the condemnations fly. A bit like secret evidence in a Gitmo trial — except that in this case, the people seeking “power” through these tactics are laughable.

    What else would you expect, though, from a guy who lost his incumbent seat on the LNC to a Green Party member; and a gal who is the leader of a “caucus” that so alienated its external support that she couldn’t land a seat on the LNC despite being the leader of that caucus?

    It’s tragicomic (as I believe The New Republic referred to the convention in question). None of these people deserve the support of Ms. Keaton, nor the other support that people such as myself have provided them over the years — with no return.

  26. OK, well my offer remains open. It’s open to those taking the other side from you on these matters as well.

  27. BTW I removed you from the “about” page. Is that what you were talking about?

  28. Don’t all jump on the offer at once!

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: