On New Hampshire
Hello Libertarians. This is the thirteenth of a series of opinion articles I’ll be privileged to write for you once per month on an “inside baseball” topic for the Libertarian Party. I encourage everyone who has an opinion on whatever we’re talking about this month to comment or send phillies@4liberty.net your longer editorials, which may well be published.
Before we get to the main section of the article, I’d like to make everyone aware of an opportunity that most Libertarians miss. At national conventions there are some people who get to be a part of the teller team – the people who count the votes. I’ve been on the team in the past, and it was probably my favorite convention experience.
If Grand Rapids is going to be your first convention, I think you should probably just be a regular floor delegate. But for anyone who already has at least one convention under their belt, being on the teller team gives you a totally new perspective on how and why things are done the way they are. It’s also kind of fun, you get to make new friends, and you do actually get to make the convention run more quickly and smoothly. There’s also free food a lot of the time, and there are often random VIP perks. Tellers get to vote on all items, just like every other delegate.
It is a position with some responsibility, so please only sign up if you’re going to take the job seriously while you’re at it. People with great attention to detail are encouraged to apply. If you’re interested, please contact Mike Seebeck at 719-464-2120, mike.seebeck@gmail.com, or @MikeSeebeck on Twitter.
On to the main topic.
There seems to be a broad consensus among people active in the Libertarian Party that the New Hampshire affiliate should be disaffiliated. I agree with that consensus. My worry (or at least one of my worries) is that the method of disaffiliating them will be poorly chosen, which will lead to more consternation and hurt feelings than there needs to be.
Right now people are going 5 different directions on how to handle New Hampshire. My guess is that come convention time all 5 will be tried, which will lead to chaos and fatigue. These are the options.
Option A:
Challenge them during the credentials report.
Pros – If it works, we don’t have to have the New Hampshire delegation in the room for the rest of the weekend.
Cons – Fairly illegitimate. I wouldn’t even vote for it. The non-toxic group in New Hampshire has to be coordinated and cooperative for it to work.
Option B:
Add an item to the agenda to disaffiliate them.
Pros – Technically the correct way to do it by the book, if it’s going to happen on the convention floor. It sends the message well if it works.
Cons – If it fails it looks terrible and people who get demoralized leave the convention before elections sometimes. Although it is within the rules, it requires a pretty complete knowledge of Robert’s and our bylaws to understand why. Many points of order. Lots of time spent on both the merits of getting rid of them and on if we’re doing it right.
Option C:
Interrupt some other business to take up disaffiliation.
Pros – Anyone can do it. Somebody’s probably going to try it, so you might as well get it out of the way.
Cons – All of the cons from option B, plus you have to get a suspension of the rules to get there, which requires 2/3rds.
Option D:
Make a big push to elect members to the LNC who will disaffiliate New Hampshire, then have it happen as one of the first items of business at the first LNC meeting.
Pros – Clearly within the rules to do it that way. Takes the least amount of time. Sends the message, although not as well as having it happen on the convention floor.
Cons – Somebody’s probably going to try to do it from the convention floor, and if that fails it looks bad if the national committee does it instead. We don’t know for sure that we can elect enough people who are in favor of disaffiliation.
Option E:
Pass a resolution directing the LNC to disaffiliate New Hampshire.
Pros – Clearly within the rules. It sends the message during the message sending part of the convention.
Cons – It happens at the end. It takes time to do all the debate. We might not get to resolutions during convention business. The new LNC might ignore the resolution. If the resolution fails, that’s awful.
Option F:
Try every one of the options.
Pros – One of these things might work.
Cons – Huge amount of time and energy spent. Beating a dead horse drains goodwill. The convention is about more than just dealing with New Hampshire.
I like option D best, but if history is any guide there will not be enough discipline among the non-Mises factions to choose that approach and stick with it. Probably we’ll end up at option F no matter what, but at least now it’s all laid out in a way that makes it easier for everyone to consider.
Thank you, Tom.
Yes, I NEED TELLERS! The tellers are the backbone of the convention, and processing vote tallies in a 51-way parallel process takes people, or it takes forever!
I train everyone, and the processing isn’t difficult.
You can be a delegate and be a teller, but it’s not required.
The convention cannot disaffiliate without amending the bylaws.
That was what I thought too, at first. Then I did some digging into LP history, looked at the bylaws, read the appropriate sections of RONR, and asked a question on the Robert’s rules forum.
There are 5 conclusions I came to:
1. Disafilliation does not fall under member discipline.
2. The Libertarian National Committee is a subordinate board to the Libertarian National Convention.
3. Article 7, section 1 of the bylaws is not like the 10th amendment, in that it doesn’t grant exclusive rights to Libertarian National Committee that the National Convention must not step on.
4. The bylaws give the Libertarian National Committee the ability to disafilliate a state party, but it does not give them the exclusive ability to disafilliate a state party.
5. Therefore, it would be kosher for the Libertarian National Convention to disafilliate a state during convention business.
However, that doesn’t answer the question of whether it’s a good use of convention time. Everything always takes longer than people expect. This thing could take a whole afternoon, and we have other stuff to do.
You #2 is incorrect. The bylaws give sole authority to the LNC on disaffiliation, subject to appeal to the JC.
The LNC is a subordinate board to the convention.
The convention created the committee (or formalized its creation in 1972 if you want to get technical).
The convention could eliminate the committee.
The convention selects the members of the committee.
The convention decides what the duties of the committee will be.
All of that means that the LNC is a subordinate board to the national convention.
No, #2 is actually correct, because the LNC is established in the Bylaws by vote of the Delegates, who could at any convention move and vote to abolish the LNC.
Also, if the Delegates decide to disaffiliate, they can do so, because they are the superior body. See 56:68-1, and 56:68-4 only applies to the LNC, not the parent body. A disaffiliation motion is a resolution that falls under Convention Rule 6, which supersedes RONR anyway.
Note also that Article 5 Section 6 doesn’t make disaffiliation exclusive to the LNC. If it were exclusive it would explicitly say so (“exclusive power”), and it doesn’t. See again 56:68-4: “There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it.” See also 56:11: “In bylaws, every punctuation mark may have an important effect; and what is omitted may carry as much significance as what is included. … Exceptions or qualifications to statements should be included, as far as possible…”
That lack of exclusivity is also why affiliates can disaffiliate from the national party, as New Mexico did and Washington tried to do this past weekend.
Have fun. Your ability to understand procedure is more profound than I have time or interest to deal with. I wish the convention luck.
*lack of ability to
Fortunately the LNC will have David Whittaker PRP to advise the Chair.
Yes delegating power to the LNC does grant them exclusive right in my opinion, but that is debatable as it does not use the word “exclusive” (see RONR 49:7), but taken in conjunction with the right of an affiliate party to appeal a disaffiliation to the JC if done by the LNC (which they would not have if done by convention), and a vote threshold would be lower if done by convention, I believe my interpretation is correct, but ultimately that would be up to the body (and to the courts potentially). I feel the safest bet is to direct the LNC and extract a promise from each LNC candidate to follow.
I do not believe the the word “exclusive” is needed. Further this course of action would likely open the party to litigation.
That almost happened the last time.
New Mexico says otherwise. So do several affiliate Bylaws.
Disaffiliation is not a one-way street.
Yes, it is needed. See above.
It doesn’t grant them the exclusive right.
If that were the case, then the New Mexico litigation is completely frivolous as that organization never properly disaffiliated from the national party, and the other organization is illegitimate.
Plus, the Delegates can disaffiliate by resolution under Convention Rule 6.
They cannot and the rest of your statement made no sense.
I would suggest that a statement from as many LPUS members who are NH residents in favor of disaffiliation is a useful early step for any of these options. There are certainly convention delegates who are unaware of the toxic nonsense happening here. It would also be useful for a parallel organization to exist and ready to become a new affiliate.
Option B would be the strongest statement. It will require convincing the delegates of the magnitude of the problem; Libertarians tend to vote against things like this by default. Plus, if it fails (as you note), it will make the other approaches seem to be overriding the will of the convention, so it needs to be solid.
Interesting suggestion. You might have just volunteered yourself for a project.
Good analysis of the options. Honestly, I don’t think the LNC has the fortitude required to remove an affiliate. That is much like Nero playing a fiddle while Rome burned. And this time the fiddle strings are already smouldering, so I don’t think they could do it.
The correct term for what you believe is going to happen is called “Nedlering”. A label I came up with at the Ohio convention a dozen years or so ago.