Steve G.

LP Platform Committee Candidates

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on November 26, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Barber, Chris
Carmany, Michael
Carpenter, Corey
Gordon, Stephen
Green, Stephen
Hauptmann, Joe
Hogarth, Susan
Holtz, Brian
Howell, John
Jacob, John
Mattson, Alicia
Mayer, Adam
Oakson, James
Power, Rob
Roland, Jon
Sink-Burris, Rebecca
Starchild
Stewart, Richard
Stewart, Scott

 

Do LFV readers have any thoughts on the candidates with regard to how well they would function in that capacity?

  1. I don’t want to tar people with an overly broad brush, but the three people I know on the above list are people I wouldn’t want within a hundred miles of the national platform. I hope this isn’t an indication of the caliber of the entire group.

  2. I recognize most of these names but only know anything about a few of them. I think Ms. Hogarth and Mr. Holtz, as respectful and intelligent representatives of different movements within the LP, would both be great choices.

  3. @rah62, if anything unwanted comes out of the platform cmte it can always be voted down in the convention.

    I still think Radicals should have a shadow platform cmte.

  4. Just so everyone knows, I have some personal reservations regarding the former chair of the ’08 committee, and I expect my concerns will will discussed ad nauseam in the near future. I only mention it here because the issue is NOT the merits of one platform style over another, or one “branch” of libertarianism being superior to this or that, but instead a “bending of the rules” that reflects poorly on the Party in general.

    Dan.

  5. Dan,

    As I recall it, Alicia ENFORCED the rules and DIDN’T bend them. Her rulings were backed up by parliamentarians from a wide spectrum of the LP. Poor, rogue precedent was reversed, as it should, by the rules.

    The proof’s in the pudding, as the 06 crater was satisfactorily filled and repaired, as the Convention approved Platcom’s recommendations largely untouched.

    Especially as we are all volunteers, we should be grateful to Alicia for her excellent stewardship in negotiating a new platform that unites most, if not all, Ls. I certainly am grateful.

  6. The relevant rules were unfortunately not bendable: http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/02/either-lp-follows-its-own-rules-or-not.html

    Since Bylaw 11.7.d was amended in Denver, the issue will remain moot — right up until an alternate signs a minority report while the regular committee member is in the bathroom, or in a cab from/to the airport, etc.

  7. Brian Holtz is right. That amendment was not well thought through and illustrates the danger of surprise amendments from the floor. This one was particularly egregious because it was sprung just before the scheduled adjournment with no time for debate.

    The problem that alternates to the convention committees was intended to solve is the problem of quorum. We have had problems at past conventions of not having enough committee members show up. Unfortunately, the existence of committee alternates has opened several cans of parliamentary worms.

    The right solution is to set the quorum requirement appropriately which, based on actual LP history, is about 1/3 for convention committees. If the Platform Committee remains 20 members then 7 would be needed to conduct business. If that’s not enough, then increase the size of the committee to 25 or 30 members and then the quorum requirement would be 9 or 10, respectively.

    Having full members and pseudo-members (alternates) with unequal and ill-defined rights and responsibilities is just asking for trouble. All members of the convention committees should be full members with equal well-defined rights and responsibilities.

    M Carling, Professional Registered Parliamentarian

  8. M Carling wrote:

    That amendment was not well thought through and illustrates the danger of surprise amendments from the floor.

    No, it was very well thought out.

    I proposed this amendment. Before doing so I consulted numerous people on wording and considered all these ramifications.

    Does the amended language have problems? Yes. But the problems after the amendment were far less than the problems before the amendment and the consensus was that the language proposed was simple and clear enough to be passed easily. Improving the Bylaws with such an amendment was better than:

    a) postponing the change to find the best possible language only to not have that language in time to propose it in 2008;

    b) postponing the change to find the best possible language only to have that language be complicated enough that it would be voted down; or

    c) not even attempting a change, staying with a more problematic status quo.

    I wasn’t going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and I stand by that decision.

    What proposing that amendment from the floor really illustrates is the danger of having a Bylaws Committee that ignores the clear will of the membership. When the Bylaws Committee doesn’t do its job correcting obvious problems and ignores repeated requests to do so from Platform Committee members and LP members, delegates will go ahead and correct those problems themselves.

    Perhaps that is why I was elected to the Bylaws Committee and some former Bylaws Committee members were not re-elected this year.

    As a member of the current Bylaws Committee I will certainly consider a proposal replacing Platform Committee alternates with a quorum requirement. I will make sure the Bylaws Committee looks at this idea within the next two weeks.

  9. The problem which Brian pointed out above is, alone, worse than all the combined problems with the previous language — which, by the way, are all retained. The change you authored made a bad situation far worse without making any improvements.

  10. Wow, M has popped up from under his rock to lecture us on proper procedure.

    Let’s be quiet and receive his indisputable wisdom…

  11. Are we to understand that there was no quorum for these committees? And is none now?

    MW

  12. Brian, Robert-

    You guys know my reservations regarding Alicia have nothing to do with what you mention here…

    Maybe we’d just like to talk about her surveys? How’d she get those out? Who wrote them? Who had input on the questions asked? Who authorized it?

    It was allegedly her alone that did it. Is that anyway for a chair of a committee to act? To do things in secret? To use the national party’s resources to do it, and make it look like it was an official action?

    I have asked her a number of times how it happened. She has never given me a straight answer. It is irrelevant to me what her personal agenda might have been, whether or not the questions were biased, what platform she supported, or anything else. It is just shady, in my humble opinion.

    And it didn’t help things in my mind when she started “moderating” (censoring) the platcom’s discussions on our yahoo group…

    Dan.

  13. Radicals?

    Robbie Power thinks the state should force equality on its subjects at gunpoint.

    Hogwart is obviously a huge advocate of censorship.

    Neo-radicals maybe?

    (btw, I sent the very same message in a reply to Hogwart’s “radicals” group and it was censored. Go figure)

  14. Disinter,

    Have you ever considered setting up the Disinter Caucus? There you alone can sit in judgment of EVERYONE else, branding all who don’t toe the Disinter Line as somehow unworthy Ls.

    Oh, wait, that’s what you’re doing now!

    Silly me!

  15. Dan,

    I found Alicia’s answer quite forthright and plausible.

    If I recall, you were posting long Mises Institute screeds on the Platcom list, which I suspect any objective observer would agree were WAY off point. That seemed to be something one would WANT an effective Chair to do…to enhance the flow of communication, and to shield the group from distractions.

    Tough love works that way sometimes.

    I always acknowledged (and I believe Alicia did, too) that you DID have a legitimate concern that MI’s late addition to Platcom was a bit unfair, but we had a LOT of work to do. Stopping and starting over was not an option.

    Your perspective got a fair hearing, I believe, as you caught up with the work in progress. And you had numerous attempts to create a minority report(s). Those proved unsuccessful.

  16. Dan,

    Oh, yes, last I checked, there’s such a thing as Chairman’s perogative, yes?

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: