I was six minutes late.
They are discussing Malagon motion 7: In summary: No Officer shall serve as Executive Director. The Board may appoint another LNC member as ED or staff position without pay. Motion passes 16-0-0
Motion 8: The Financial S Committee must approve in writing all expenses. Motion passes.
Motion 9: The Financial Standards Committee will develop a budget and present it to the Executive Committee before it goes to the full LNC. There is a discussion of the schedule of this operation. Yeniscavich says the staff always does the first steps in developing a budget. There were 4 abstentions – Watkins, Bost, Chadderdon, and a fourth.
Ford moved to go to executive session for political strategy requiring confidentiality. Malagon recuses himself because the report was not submitted in writing prior to the meeting. Weir when he arrived did the same. They go into executive session. Discussion outside the session: Adrian Malagon collects Star Wars Lego sets and has a fine collection. Weir says that the censure motion will certainly not pass. He speaks favorably on deeds of LPNH. He thinks that 99.9% of LPNH messaging is the best Libertarian messaging in America.
They return from Executive Session. Censure of LPNH and LPCO moved by Redpath and seconded by Harlos. Malagon asks if this is one motion or two. The answer is one motion. Chadderdon objects to consideration of the motion: Harlos: This is an incidental main motion, and is not subject to objection to consideration. Chair says objection to consideration is allowed. Parliamentarian Brown says motion is not subject to objection to consideration. Jonathan Jacobs says the opposite. Brown reconsiders his position because the censure is against LPNH not against an officer. They advance to a vote on “Shall the motion be considered”, 2/3 negative vote needed to block consideration. Yes – Darr, Harlos, Redpath, Thompson, Nanna – A-abstain. Vote is (I think) 4-10-1. Motion is not considered.
Motion to allow Chair to exclude non-party-members and the LNC to exclude party member or LNC members if they are being disruptive. Amendment from Lam “according to the provisions of the parliamentary authority” is discussed. Amendment passes without objection. Harlos objects to non-member exclusion being purely at the discretion of the chair. There is a request that LNC members need a 2/3 vote to be excluded, but phrasing the statement is very time consuming. Harlos discussed invoking another set of rules of order. Motion passes 15-0.
Malagon moves to limit the public list to business and hide all debate on the private list. Harlos: Bylaws and JC decision limit what may be on the private list. I think that the motion is out of order. Nekhaila: I think that the motion is in order. Harlos appeals the ruling of the Chair. Nekhaila: We are within the scope of the Bylaws. I think that this motion is consistent with the JC opinions. Harlos: We can’t block discussion of motions in the public list. I will sign onto an appeal to the JC of the motion.
We are currently up to 53 attendees.
Malagon says the JC of 5 members is overturning a decision of the 17 LNC members. He wants discussion to stay in the private list. Chadderdon: I did not like the JC ruling but agree with Harlos. The motion is out of order as contradicting the JC ruling. Malagon asks for citation of the JC ruling. Malagon asks for parliamentarians to have an opinion. Harlos objects, says there must be a vote. Body votes to hear Jacobs. Motion to extend time. Passes approximately 10-4. Jacobs says that the rule is not out of order but some things under it may be out of order. Malagon moves all previous questions. Objection. All passes 10-1. Motion is in order…9-6 vote. Is this a standing rule or a special rule of order? Standing rule passes, Special rule fails. Nekhaila has to decide. Jacobs says is it a special rule. Brown says it is a special rule. Nekhaila rules motion fails for lack of a 2/3 vote.
There is a motion to adjourn. Motion passes. We are adjourned.
Just to clear something up:
Per RONR 10:57, a motion to censure, regardless of its object, is a main motion, not an incidental main motion, and therefore Objection to Consideration of the Question is in order. This is backed up by RONR 10:4-2 describing what an incidental main motion is vs. an original main motion.
So the Chair got it procedurally correct.
That is no comment on the nature of the motion, just the process.
Is J. Jacobs a member of the LP and if not why is he commenting on what is going on if I may ask?
And the LP had a nice press release yesterday. https://lp.org/libertarian-party-calls-for-national-state-of-emergency-declaration-as-debt-surpasses-36t/%20%20said%20Nekhaila
Here’s a link to the press release that I managed to screw up above. https://lp.org/libertarian-party-calls-for-national-state-of-emergency-declaration-as-debt-surpasses-36t/
It was nice to see this for a change.
Color me suspicious but in the current environment where everything’s a “State of Emergency” or “Executive Order”, this sort of press release just gives the current administration cover to keep slashing at his perceived enemies, rather than utilizing any sort of constitutional process.
Yes.
Mr. Brown, however, is not, to the best of my knowledge.
Both he and I were called upon by the chair and reached the same conclusion.
I yearly donated to the national Libertarian Party from 1980 or 81 until the Reno Reset year of 2022. The executive committee’s not even considering the censure motion on Colorado and New Hampshire parties confirms my current policy of withholding my support to the national party, monetary and otherwise. The Trumpish antics of purportedly Libertarian parties over the last few years have been personally embarrassing to me because I have been “the Libertarian guy” among my acquaintances.
I agree. I have cancelled my contribution and after 45 years and doing everything from working booths, editing a newsletter, writing and testifying, I am going to hang it up. I have spent too many years to be stupid enough to waste more of my time. This is fairly easy to fix but it ain’t gonna happen. It has been done many times in the past by others but those in charge don’t want to open their eyes, or listen to others.
I still contribute labor and money to my county’s Libertarian Party, which has not turned from classical liberalism to right-wing populism and trolling.
As a member since 1979 (Life member now), I stopped contributing when “LP News” disappeared. It was no longer possible to see even the modest successes achieved by LP state and local parties. The disfunction of the LNC is manifest. I didn’t get solicited once by the Oliver campaign, and can only remember one or two solicitations from the LNC for “Defend the Guard” (hardly an issue on the national voters’ radar, seemed to be local issue in one state, vague promises, and I never believed anything could be achieved by the paltry sums to be raised. (What ever became of this project?)
Even with the benefit of “LP News,” it was apparent the Party’s election efforts had little impact in any permanent “spreading the word.” States would run a slew of candidates for minor positions, a few would win, and you’d never hear of them moving up or making any real impact, or being re-elected. Didn’t Pennsylvania have more than 100 elected over the years? Where are they now? As far as I know, there’s only one Libertarian activist in the whole country who keeps getting re-elected; presumably she’s doing an admirable job so the voters keep re-electing her in a non-partisan race for a local position.
Nolan’s hope that the soapbox of electoral politics would serve the cause of libertarianism well has turned out to be way less than dreamed. On a cost/benefit analysis, it is time to rethink the path forward.
I joined the party in 1974 and have a membership card signed by Ed Crane around here somewhere. I have been a candidate on the LP ticket for federal, state and county office. I have seen many factions take control of the national committee from time to time. I will always be a libertarian but perhaps not a Libertarian. If the Libertarian name has been so sullied as to be useless going forward then lets come up with something else. I believe what David Nolan (and D. Frank Robinson) started is worth saving but I can adapt to change as long as the change is NOT in philosophy. BTW, I don’t believe Liberal cuts the mustard, either. Too much negativity attached to it. Just my $0.02 worth.
I first joined the LP in early 1981 after being energized by the Ed Clark campaign (not many people left who can claim that!). Resigned my National membership upon the Mises takeover. Now I live in a state so backward that the state party couldn’t bring themselves to support Chase Oliver because of his “homosexual values”. Perhaps someday I’ll rejoin when National returns to its senses.
I feel your pain!
I have a different explanation:
https://thirdpartywatch.com/2024/10/21/opinion-the-era-of-parties-is-over/
Addendum to that: during a period such as now when right leaning voters are relatively less dissatisfied with Republican leadership than at other times, or than left leaning voters are with D party leadership or than they are at other times, leftist (including some allegedly centrist) minor parties will do relatively better than right leaning minor parties, and vice versa.
Many libertarians don’t like being classified as a right leaning party, much like e.g. the forward party does not like being classified as a leftist party, but at the same time that’s primarily who they appeal to , to the degree that they appeal to any nontrivial percentage of voters.
Look at the other organizations at, for example, freedom fest, the talk show hosts, guests, and listeners primarily self identified or primarily identified by others as libertarians, politicians of other parties frequently called by others and in some cases themselves as libertarian – overwhelmingly rightist or right leaning.
Many of the reasons libertarians are struggling right now are related to these various factors which are impacting all political parties, all minor parties, and/or all right leaning minor parties currently, and. You’re swimming upstream or spitting in the wind when you try to appeal more to the left. You’re too extreme on too many things to plausibly be a centrist party, as well. And whether you like it or not, most people still see politics as a left/right duality or spectrum.
Yes, faction fights , “macho flash” behavior, and many other such things are impacting your performance too, but other more mundane explanations (besides those in the link and above) include the very fact of sticking with an increasingly outmoded 1970s model of opt in annually renewed dues paying membership to a national committee of questionable at best local relevance as your chief measure of organization strength.
You might do better with a much more local and offline focus, ad hoc committees for various tasks, working on various goals through nonpartisan organizations and coalitions, focusing on individual campaign and cross campaign teams, among many other things, seeking out life members on one hand and monthly opt out card charge contributions on the other, etc, etc .
Of course, you could also blame all of it on your faction fights – you had them going on when I was a dues payer and convention attendee of your party in 1987-9, 2008-9, and from what I’ve read before, in between, and ever since. But focusing entirely on that instead of, for example, surveying your former members as to why they opted to not renew, will only play into worsening that factionalization and attendant decline. At least, that’s what my experience in several different parties and reading on the subject over the course of about 60 years indicates.
There is a much simpler explanation for a lot of the loss:
Fear
In the current political climate of this country, opposition to the leadership, or even perceived opposition to the leadership, can result in loss of employment, or even prosecution for crimes that you possibly did not commit.
People are scared, and with good reason.
Why take the risk of joining or being involved in any way in a political movement? This isn’t the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, or most of the last decade, when political disagreement was still permitted. It would be very hard to start a libertarian party from scratch under this administration, because it just would not be permitted.
Is what I just said factually accurate? Of course not, but it is the perception many people have. We all know that the first amendment still exists. But they chip away at it every day. For many people, even sending a donation to a political party is too big at risk.
Of course, the changes in the libertarian party after Reno are a factor. But they aren’t the only factor. And writing it off to the belief that third parties are obsolete doesn’t cut it in my book.
Fear
Political involvement on the whole is not declining. I stand by my multifaceted analysis in the last round as well as the few interspersed quasi suggestions.
What a mess
The LNC’s refusal to even discuss the censure motion shows that they are racist, cowards, or (most likely) both. Everyone who voted to against discussion should resign. Beyond disgraceful! The LNC is now complicit with LPNH’s racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic posts which besmirch the party’s reputation. Forget Project Archimedes; who wants to join a party whose national board is okay with racism‽
Well said Mr. Geraci,
The LNC had a chance to get the train back on the tracks, so to speak, and let everyone know the LNC is not ok with the racist, homophonic and anti-semitic messaging that has come from LPNH in past years.
The LP has lost ~10,000 sustaining members since 2020, ~1/2 the membership, and LPNH is a a big reason why.
Failure to even debate Mr. Repath’s motion shows cowardice and a lack of understanding to the reality of the situation. Professional people don’t want to be associated with an organization that continues to allow this behavior. People don’t understand its coming from one state affiliate. They see Libertarian and associate this rhetoric and beliefs with all Libertarians.
LNC chose not to be a professional organization last night.
Expect to see membership and revenue continue to decline.
My reply to the points made by Joseph and Mr. Geraci kicked out to top level in the moderation queue and is thus missing that context.
Pietro, I think it has more to do with cronyism and political allegiances than anything else. This is not the first time that wrong doings or bad behavior has gone on without reprimand or punishment in the Libertarian Party due to cronyism and political alliances. I have seen it happen a bunch of times over the last 29 years.
I am not justifying it, I am just pointing out that it happens in the Libertarian Party and it is not new. Sad but true.