Michael Lopez raised several issues:
I’m hearing the following:
• Kauffman is voting for NH in the region
• The region voted to exclude GSLP
• LPVT was ejected from the voting and discussions
How much of that is true?
If GSLP and LPVT are not permitted to participate in the region, can they withdraw from the region (or argue that they’ve been kicked out, same thing?)
If VT and NH are not in the region, does the region fail to meet its membership requirements and get dissolved?
If some other random region decided to let a Democrat satellite party participate in lieu of the Libertarian Party affiliate, how loud would the people letting a Republican satellite party participate cry foul?
——
Archie Flower (LPVT Vice-Chair) answered. Speaking in my capacity as vice-Chair of LP Vermont:
Our chair recently left the region 6 signal chat, started by Alfa Shaw, because Jeremy Kauffman (and his vc) were still in the chat. She did not intend to pull Vermont from the region, so Vermont is still part of region 6.
Not long after our chair left, Alfa Shaw summarily removed me from the group due to alleged “privacy concerns”, without ever having a conversation of any length with me. He has since been speaking with our chair, who expressed that I should not have been removed, and asked that I be added back. It is my understanding that Alfa had the other chairs vote on this, and that the vote was to keep me out. This means, in effect, that the other chairs get to disenfranchise Vermont.
For the record, I have never shared screenshots from that chat, and I’m loathe to do so from any private group; I could count the number of times I’ve done so on one hand.
——
The question arose as to whether or not LPNH was allowed to continue to participate on Region 6 State Chair Meetings. Carol Vest answered:
. When the LNC says we withdraw the affiliation we extended to the entity in NH, then that entity can’t legally continue to vote on decisions that bear on the relationship between the LNC and its other still-affiliated entities. By its nature, a region rep only exists to accommodate that very relationship. So no, Alpha Shaw cannot continue allowing them to do so.
It’s an acessory contract issue. The contracts between the regions are accessory and only exist because of the overriding relationship to the parent organization, so they can send reps to the LNC body. When the main contract fails, all accessory contracts fail as well.
Someone needs to tell this to Alfa Shaw if he is indeed doing that and is the NH region rep. He should probably talk to a lawyer who isn’t with the MC.
——
Justin O’DOnnell wrote: Our region rep is an obstructionist ass hat hell bent on propping up destructive elements sympathetic to the worst remaining vestiges of McArdle’s apparatus of destruction.
He’s entrenched solidly in his position because the chairs in every region 6 state except Vermont, fully support his continued collusion with disaffiliated elements working against the interests of the party, yes all of them, including PA. And the proof of all of that is out thanks to the VT chair blowing the whistle and releasing the screenshots.
Hell, even the Maine chair’s condemnation of LPNH on Twitter loses all of its sauce when the screenshots show that hours earlier he was getting permission from Kauffman to do it to save face publicly.
——
James Parent
As a chair in the region, I can tell you with certainty the following: LPNH(Kauffman) has not voted since disaffiliation. The region agreement is between the existing state affiliates and GSLP is not part of that region. It is my understanding that according to bylaws, affiliates cannot be added until the next national convention.
The LPVT chair removed herself from the chat, because she was called out for publicly sharing(and intentionally misinterpreting) private conversations, she(LPVT) still has full voting rights in the region. To suggest or insinuate otherwise is just plain lying and gaslighting.
The chat is a communication tool set up by chairs to allow us to work together in the region. Until her sharing private conversations, I welcomed and enjoyed her contributions to discussions as it usually gave an alternative viewpoint while still being libertarian. Publicly sharing these communications is a breach of trust and I do not believe Mr Flower to be capable of maintaining the trust.
This was further reiterated by his comment in this thread about confirming his previous sharing of private conversation. If he was involved, I, and I suspect others, would simply find another way of communicating with the other chairs in this region.
Perhaps regions can be replaced with a system of reps from each state with weighed votes. Each state would have one rep, but with a number of votes equal to the ratio of that state’s national LP membership to the national membership of the state with the least members.
Personally think that’s too complicated and we don’t handle complexity well. This crapshow of regional BS has proven what I’ve been saying for ten years. It’s a horrid system that doesn’t work but gives people warm fuzzies.
I apologize for the glaring number of punctuation and other errors in my previous post. I tend to speak into the text block these days, rather than type on iPad.
I go back and correct everything that the artificial “intelligence” puts in, But then the system frequently undoes all my corrections between the time I hit submit, and when it sends it to the website a fraction of a second later.
Unfortunately, no matter what you do you cannot turn it off unless you go back to physically typing everything.
My loathing for AI is immeasurable. I feel you.
It is the voice translation. It like to change words. Very low-level AI.
Loathe is an understatement.
Looking in from the outside, I would agree that at the present time the libertarian party’s system of creating regions appears to be broken. But I take issue with several of your points.
Regions are created and contain state affiliates. One state affiliate was removed and replaced with a different organization, managing the position as affiliate for the national party. I believe they have a case that they are automatically placed back in that region until the next region formation at convention.
And I think that any attitude that is not welcoming to a new group that is attempting to take over in a difficult situation is wrong.
I have seen discussions here in elsewhere of getting rid of regions and just having at large membership and officers on the national committee. I spent six years on the national committee. My experience then and in the subsequent eight years, I was still a member of your party, was it with very little exception, once selected to office an at large member could take any position they wanted and no one would really challenge them on it. They were of course, a few good and responsible at large representatives, but it was most definitely not the majority.
So you and others propose getting rid of a system that is broken, but that can likely be fixed and restored to what it was several decades ago, and replace it with one that not only is far more potentially corrupt, but significantly disenfranchises the smaller state affiliates.
Your bigger problem appears to be the presence of remaining members of the caucus of the damned. And you don’t think their best bet to retain power is to fracture the vote for at large members, then vote as a block — something they are accustomed to doing — to regain control?
You personally fell for the shiny balloon they waved in front of you. Are you sure you aren’t still falling for yet another shiny balloon?
The problem is quite clearly the regional rep. As well as state leadership in the region. It looks like the caucus of the damned still enjoys a significant level of control and power.
===Looking in from the outside, I would agree that at the present time the libertarian party’s system of creating regions appears to be broken. ===
I have thought this since I myself was a regional representative. It is beyond broken and has some horrid legal issues which are becoming obvious.
===Regions are created and contain state affiliates. One state affiliate was removed and replaced with a different organization, managing the position as affiliate for the national party. I believe they have a case that they are automatically placed back in that region until the next region formation at convention.==
I can see the case. It is not outrageous, but legally it is wrong. There is no continuity to bind to an agreement nor to force others (the other states) into it.
===And I think that any attitude that is not welcoming to a new group that is attempting to take over in a difficult situation is wrong.===
Basic contracts are not about attitudes.
==I have seen discussions here in elsewhere of getting rid of regions and just having at large membership and officers on the national committee. I spent six years on the national committee. My experience then and in the subsequent eight years, I was still a member of your party, was it with very little exception, once selected to office an at large member could take any position they wanted and no one would really challenge them on it. They were of course, a few good and responsible at large representatives, but it was most definitely not the majority.==
Legally the duty is to the LNC Inc. At-Larges with cumulative voting I believe is the answer.
==So you and others propose getting rid of a system that is broken, but that can likely be fixed and restored to what it was several decades ago, and replace it with one that not only is far more potentially corrupt, but significantly disenfranchises the smaller state affiliates.==
Has same legal issues.
==Your bigger problem appears to be the presence of remaining members of the caucus of the damned. And you don’t think their best bet to retain power is to fracture the vote for at large members, then vote as a block — something they are accustomed to doing — to regain control?==
As. long as they exist they will find a way.
===You personally fell for the shiny balloon they waved in front of you. Are you sure you aren’t still falling for yet another shiny balloon?===
Far more complex than that, but I have had this position since 2016.
==The problem is quite clearly the regional rep. As well as state leadership in the region. It looks like the caucus of the damned still enjoys a significant level of control and power.==
They certainly do.
The Bylaws for regions do not cover the case of a state affiliate being disaffiliated. Perhaps there needs to be agreement about what happens before any Bylaws amendments are drafted.
Looking at what Region 6 signed, perhaps a stronger argument can be made that they should be included. I can see both arguments. I can see no way for it to be tested though as the JC has no authority here.
Most people will not like my opinion here (and this term is showing in spades region are a train wreck and need to be eliminated):
Kauffman should not be in that chat unless they are allowing all general membership in. He is not a chair and shame on those affiliates and the reps for allowing.
GSLP was never a party to that agreement and cannot be voted in.
Disaffiliation does not cause the region to fold just as dropping membership does not. It is set as if delegation allocations.
Kudos to the VT chair. Pox on everyone else,
Ms. Harlos, as I am sure that you are aware, non members may be permitted attend and speak in debate (RONR 25:9 n7).
If this chat group is somehow an official group of the region, member chairs may not be excluded. The group could however form a “committee of the most” that may not include some members.