LNC Meeting Report, May 14-15, 2005, Addison TX
Posted in LNC Reports by R Lee Wrights on May 28th, 2005
The most remarkable thing about this meeting is that the LNC for once failed to do something astoundingly stupid. They came close a couple times, but overall this meeting saw much more forward thinking in the interests of the membership rather than the reactive and insular thinking which had marked previous meetings this term.
It was wonderful being back in north Texas after my last visit about 30 years ago. Back then Addison hardly existed but now it is vital corporate center. Then again everyplace else across the country has grown a lot too in that time. At least the weather hasn’t changed much, mid-May starting to get hot enough for my liking. The meeting was very well attended by local party members, and it was very pleasant to see old and new friends there.
Table of Contents:
1) Tone
2) Political Activity
3) Executive Director Contract Renewal
4) FEC Filing
5) Financial Activity
6) Database
7) Ballot Access
Dues Proposals
9) Bylaws Committee Appointed
10) Sexual Harassment Policy
11) Political Director
12) Miscellaneous
*
1) Tone
The meeting was frontloaded with reports about real political action by LNC members. Messages were also read into the record early calling for civil discourse and concentrating on growing the party rather than bickering over how much dues should be. This theme was revisited frequently, with the presence of recent Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik; our newest elected Libertarian, LP Texas Chair and Lago Vista City Council member Pat Dixon; and LP Texas Executive Director Wes Benedict who was recently a candidate for Austin City Council and endorsed by the Austin Toll Party, which opposes plans for toll roads in the city. Pat Dixon received standing ovations from the LNC on both days.
Regional Representative Jim Lark (Virginia) read a statement from Regional Representative Dan Karlan (New Jersey) who could not attend. Karlan called for LNC members to lead by example, especially in how they treat each other.
In his statement, Karlan noted, “In February at the Portland LNC meeting, I was asked by the Chair to prepare a policy on harassment and offensive behavior…. But if we NEED a policy to advise Libertarians to treat each other with respect, can we really expect non-libertarians to treat each other - and us - decently? If we can’t lead by a proper example, how can we ever expect to bring society around?…. The level - and even existence - of mean spiritedness, sniping, and offensive and otherwise disrespectful language, and especially the presumption of malice, are inappropriate within the LP and anathema to a party that bases its philosophy on the dignity and worth of the individual. If we are to have any chance, we must become the exemplars of our own philosophy and principles.”
Chair Michael Dixon began his report by reading from a post on the state chairs’ email list from Nathan Allen, Chair of the Michigan LP. Allen gave the perspective of someone who joined the party five years ago. His take is that the status quo is not working and yet many Libertarians remain attached to it. Allen said, “I would propose that we take a hard look at what we are doing and entertain any proposal that would break from the status quo. We are spending so much time deciding if $35 is better than $50 and we still aren’t saying, here’s a plan that will get Libertarians elected to office. We seem to be spending so much effort arguing that electing Libertarians to office isn’t even being discussed.”
Dixon used much of the remaining time of his Chair’s report extolling the virtues of recognizing that success requires resources of all kinds, and of making the party a fun and congenial place to be.
As a seemingly spontaneous gesture, Dixon then added a Vice Chair’s report to the agenda, so that Lee Wrights could report on his presence at the recent National Election Reform Conference in Nashville as the party’s representative. The conference had invited us simply to thank us for the joint effort for recounts in Ohio, New Mexico and other states between Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb. In his introduction of Wrights and Cobb, organizer Bernie Ellis said that this group of election reform activists may not have come together that weekend if not for the work of the Libertarian and Green Parties.
(As a side note which did not appear in my LP News article on the event, I got to spend some time speaking with Cobb, who is a delightful person. He has that particular central Texas accent which I knew I had heard once before. As he spoke I closed my eyes and concentrated on placing it and finally realized where I knew it. He sounds just like Jello Biafra.)
The focus on actually doing politics continued with the beginning of Mark Nelson’s Treasurer’s report, which he began by announcing that he had just been appointed to two city boards in his hometown in Iowa, the Davenport Parks and Recreation Board and the High Performance Government Working Group. Nelson also reported on attending policy meetings of the Heritage Foundation, and on a letter sent after their state convention which raised Iowa’s membership by 5%.
I don’t know if this was intentional on Dixon’s part, but the heavy focus on actually doing politics both nationally and in one’s own community certainly helped elevate the tone and sharpen the focus of the meeting.
There were a few discordant notes however. Dixon said he was distressed that at least one member had distributed confidential reports outside the LNC in the past. He distributed several paper copies of such reports at the beginning of the meeting as a way to limit their distribution, and made reference later to other information he was afraid to share with the LNC. Unfortunately his cautions fell on deaf ears, as this reporter was able to secure multiple copies of all these reports simply by collecting all the paper left in the meeting room after everyone had left on Sunday.
*
2) Political Activity
Joe Seehusen announced that he had formed an Executive Director’s Legislative Action Advisory Council (EDLAAC), with Mike McKay as project champion. This effort raised $43,200 in a five-week period leading up to the meeting in support of our current and future federal legislative lobbying. This money came from only 13 donors, and includes more than one $1,000 a month pledge.
Seehusen also reported that he is working with former Congressman Bob Barr on his new organization Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances http://www.checksbalances.org/ which seeks to repeal the most egregious parts of the Patriot Act. Staff has also continued its work with the Death Tax Repeal Working Group, as evidenced by several of our recent press releases.
Seehusen said he sees a two-year window of opportunity to put together our legislative coalition. For example in the last quarter staff represented the party at the Heritage Foundation’s Resource Bank meeting in Miami and at the Marijuana Policy Project’s 10th Anniversary shindig in DC. While we were in Texas, Sam New was representing us at the Freedom Fest in Las Vegas. Seehusen listed 41 separate contacts within the last quarter he had made with various people and organizations ranging from members of Congress to the Objectivist Center. “We need to show up,” said Seehusen, “magic happens when we do.”
*
3) Executive Director Contract Renewal
On a roll call vote, the LNC chose to renew Executive Director Joe Seehusen’s contract for another two years, with a 90 day mutual severance clause. This passed 11-3-1.
Voting FOR the new contract: Treasurer Mark Nelson, Secretary Bob Sullentrup, Vice Chair Lee Wrights, At Large Representatives Michael Colley, Rick McGinnis, Mark Rutherford and BetteRose Ryan, and Regional Representatives Ed Hoch (Region 1W-Alaska), Jeremy Keil (Region 5W-Wisconsin), Jim Lark (Region 5E-Virginia) and George Squyres (Region 6-Arizona).
Voting AGAINST the new contract: Regional Representatives Michael Gilson De Lemos (Region 4-Florida), Scott Lieberman (Region 2 alt-California) and Aaron Starr (Region 2-California).
Abstaining: Regional Representative Dena Breudigam (Region 3-Ohio). Chair Michael Dixon did not vote. Dan Karlan (Region 1E-New Jersey) and Bill Redpath (At Large) were absent.
The debate and the vote were held in open session. Starr argued that as a personnel matter, this should be discussed in executive session and the vote taken by secret ballot, to which Lark agreed. Dixon pointed out that everything which could be discussed had already been publicly aired, yet Seehusen had not yet had the opportunity to publicly answer the criticisms of his performance. Many of these came out in the questions asked of Seehusen during the debate.
The LNC was in receipt of memos by former employees Jennifer Villarreal and George Getz which made many accusations of incompetent leadership and a hostile work environment in the office. These were referred to often during the questioning by the LNC. While they were originally sent to the LNC only, both quickly were distributed to outside sources which broke their confidentiality.
Dixon stated firmly that the LNC should have already learned the lesson that secrecy breeds mistrust. He stressed the need for the membership to understand and trust this particular decision. He referred to Karlan’s statement that this is a place where the LNC must lead by example.
Nevertheless, Starr moved and Lark seconded that the discussion take place in closed session. This failed on a voice vote. As far as I could tell, only Starr voted for it.
To be honest, I have sympathy for Starr’s position here. I am an Executive Director in my state and every year my Executive Committee meets in something akin to a closed session to discuss my contract, and I find that perfectly appropriate. It would take a most remarkable set of circumstances to allow discussion of personnel matters, especially the very sensitive ones surrounding this decision, in public.
But the membership made sure those of remarkable circumstances. This was a direct result of the outrage expressed by the membership over the secret ballot which increased membership renewals to $50. That the LNC so clearly repudiated another opportunity to conduct secret deliberations and votes is most definitely the result of them hearing your feedback.
Ryan began the debate by reminding the LNC of the disastrous history of a lack of involvement by the board in the conduct of the Executive Director and staff. Nelson noted that since then access to data to measure staff performance has vastly increased, which helps address this problem.
Regional Alternate Emily Salvette (Region 4-Michigan) began the questioning by raising the issue of Juliet Agyare’s health insurance. Getz had charged that Seehusen had schemed to fire Agyare as she went on maternity leave as a way to eliminate her health coverage. Seehusen replied no, that there had been a misunderstanding with Agyare but he cleared it up immediately, and that her health insurance was not threatened by her taking a leave. Indeed, Getz quotes an email from Agyare later in his own memo which confirms that the misunderstanding had been cleared up. Dixon added that there were two issues involved, that our health insurance benefits are insufficient and Agyare’s fear that they would be cut off. He said the benefits can only be cut off if she does not return from her leave.
Lark queried Seehusen about the Villarreal memo, specifically to square the reason she listed for her resignation, which centered mostly around her lack of confidence in Seehusen, with his own remarks at the previous LNC meeting, where he concentrated on her alleged maltreatment by certain state party officers. Seehusen replied that he resignation was unexpected and they had a long conversation about it at the time. In that exit interview, she presented “a long laundry list” of complaints from a variety of sources, including those already referenced and many others. One other item which concerned her was how we regularly carry more in accounts payable than cash on hand. Seehusen noted that this is far more common for nonprofits and that many of her impressions came from a lack of experience. However in that interview, Seehusen said she had many positive things to say about him and the staff. Her negative review of Seehusen only came out in her memo to the LNC three days later.
Ryan asked about Getz’ charge that Seehusen plotted to unjustly fix the blame for Villarreal’s resignation on an LNC member for allegedly sexually harassing her. Seehusen replied that he was not pushing any particular take on her resignation.
Ryan asked about the existence of emails to support Seehusen’s version of events. Dixon replied that he is in possession of them. He feels there is no commitment to share them with the board and is loathe to do so in light of the LNC’s inability to maintain confidentiality.
Wrights reminded Lark that Seehusen was answering direct questions by the LNC at the last meeting, which may have him to concentrate his remarks on one of the many reasons behind her quitting. Lark replied that still the emphasis in Seehusen’s public remarks were only on one thing. Dixon reminded them that other reasons were given in their executive session in Portland.
Colley noted that he was present for Villarreal’s interview and recommended her highly. He said in his experience the appallee holds all the cards. Unsubstantiated rambling accusations have the tendency to put everyone on the defensive, but “getting your hair on fire with the first report is not a good way to handle issues.” He said it is unfortunate that she feels the way she does, but none of her charges were substantiated after investigation. He stated that Seehusen is very good at the outside stuff and they had hoped Villarreal could handle the inside stuff. He opined that her inexperience may have been a significant factor in perceptions.
Colley asked how outsourcing is going and what is next with it. Seehusen replied it is going very well, in large part thanks to new Operations Manager Robert Kraus stepping up. He said that Kraus’ support frees him up to do more of his high level outreach.
Ryan asked about Getz’ charges regarding Dollie Parker. Getz had claimed in his memo that Seehusen had used the transition of Parker from salaried employee to an independent contractor as a ruse to take away her health insurance. Seehusen replied that it was former Chair Geoff Neale who had negotiated Parker’s new contract with her and that she remained with the party for several months after that. At the time she left, she signed an agreement that her health insurance would expire one month later. Dixon read from the contract letter in Parker’s file to confirm Seehusen’s answer.
Lieberman asked if Kraus is stepping up to help run the office, to which Seehusen replied affirmatively. Lieberman followed up by quoting from the LNC’s Policy Manual’s section on the responsibilities of the executive Director, including evaluating headquarters operations, hiring and firing, and establishing personnel policies. Dixon answered that Seehusen is perfectly free to delegate his responsibilities. Seehusen added that he can and will delegate, and that in his view his portfolio is to raise money and have something to raise it about. Wrights noted the difference between being responsible for the work and actually doing it, and affirmed Seehusen’s ability to delegate.
Sullentrup noted Seehusen’s success on the financial end and that none of the charges against him have stuck. He lauded Seehusen for making great progress despite personnel problems not of his making and stories which keep changing. He thanked Seehusen for bringing us out of the dire financial straits we were in when he was hired.
McGinnis pointed out that he had just fired three people from his business and had received “a Villarreal letter” from one of them. He expressed his support for Seehusen to be the boss, setting the direction and tone for staff and clearing out those who do not support his program. His team should be the team of his choice, doing the work he wants done.
Gilson noted the need for an office director so Seehusen could be set loose. He said the LNC should start thinking about raising money to make this happen. Gilson noted that Seehusen has delivered on what he has promised.
Salvette had a follow up question about Parker. She asked if Seehusen had promised her a raise to compensate for her loss of health insurance. Seehusen replied that there were no extra conversations about this outside of her contract negotiations with Neale, and that he had hired her back at 100% over what he eventually paid for her replacement.
Lieberman asked why turnover has been so high over the last six months. Seehusen said he wasn’t sure that was the case. Dixon noted much of the change in the office is replacing directors with clerks. While Dixon said the Villarreal hiring was obvious flawed, we are hiring a different type of employee, fewer of or friends and more from off the street.
Keil asked Seehusen how the LNC could help him. Seehusen replied that he has much respect for Dixon because he understands sales and growth. The main thing he wants is improved communications. He noted that other organizations have greater experience with staff-board interaction and maybe we could avail ourselves of that knowledge. He finds outreach invigorating and commented how getting truly involved in politics changes one’s worldview. Clarification of priorities would always be welcome. He said just asking this question is progress. Seehusen would like to see his job as three equal parts: administration, money and outreach. As he gets out of the office, good things happen.
Squyres referenced his own managerial experience and noted that employees who leave are almost never happy, and that many questions are backward looking finger pointing. He asked where Seehusen sees us in two years. Seehusen replied, “my wildest dreams are why I’m here.” He sees gaping holes emerging in the dominant political parties, giving us great opportunities for outreach to libertarians in all parties and among independents. He is putting together a media team to generate stories in the mainstream media. He wants to use the new website for leverage, noting that Al Gore himself now works for a website (moveon.org). He wants us to have impact on and get credit for federal legislation. He concluded that the administrative stuff is necessary but not sufficient for a political party.
Ryan asked about Getz’ charge that Seehusen wanted to spend $14,000 beyond budget for an ad in a publication of the Washington Times which Getz had recommended against. Seehusen replied that his conversation with the Times led him to an epiphany that success in DC is defined by moving law. While this gave him a new enthusiasm, he eventually decided not to do that particular ad.
Starr asked what impediments keep Seehusen from doing his job. Seehusen replied that we need to minimalize the need for internal marketing, that we can’t fight the world if we are fighting ourselves. We need to refocus on our potential.
Starr followed up by asking Seehusen to place metrics on what he wanted to accomplish in the next six months. Seehusen replied that he wanted to meet the budget. That includes outreach spending and fundraising he needs to do. He’d also like to get credit for some piece of legislation, such as the death tax repeal. He’d like to get out in front of the parade of future pro-liberty legislation. This would help us recruit better candidates once they can see the laws we are affecting.
At this point Dixon moved to extend time on the debate, which failed.
Later in the meeting, the Employment Policy and Compensation Committee gave their report, including a recommendation for Seehusen’s quarterly bonus. Colley has replaced Rutherford as the Chair of that committee. Keil has resigned from it and no replacement has been named yet for him. They are developing new metrics for evaluating the Executive Director’s performance and setting a new bonus structure.
In the transition, Dixon moved that Seehusen be given a bonus of $933 out of a potential $5,000. He suggested $200 for the metric of 3% quarterly membership growth, although that was rounded up from 2.5%, and $733 for a subjective measure of LNC satisfaction. Members and subscribers as of the end of April totaled 22,609, which is 738 short of budgetary projections. Pledge revenue remained relatively unchanged and media contacts were difficult to measure during this period.
Starr offer a substitute motion to delete the $200 for membership growth, as Seehusen had not met that criterion. Wrights seconded. This substitute failed on a voice vote. Starr then moved to divide the question on the two components, which failed for lack of a second. The $933 bonus was approved by a show of hands 9-5.
*
4) FEC Filing
Nelson continues to work on corrections to past FEC reports. That this continues to be a problem is not only vexing, it could lead to serious liability in the form of FEC fines. The LNC met in executive session to discuss these matters and are clearly concerned about the possibility of an audit. Yet to date the FEC has not indicated they are planning any action against us.
By now it is obvious to the casual observer that our past two operations managers, Rod Severson and Jennifer Villarreal, were quite incompetent at performing this vital function. The errors made are so glaring at times that they cannot be excused by complicated software problems or loss of institutional memory.
The LNC has hired professional FEC consultants to help us find permanent solutions, which may include outsourcing the preparation of these monthly reports. Nelson has also been speaking directly with FEC staff and developing a positive working relationship with them. One problem is that our database program Raiser’s Edge does not map to Quicken properly. New software accurately translate our financial data into FEC reports may also be considered.
The one result of the executive session was a motion made by Nelson to investigate the creation or selection of a nonprofit entity which could run LP News, with a recommendation to be presented at the August meeting. This passed unanimously by voice vote. One can presume by the placement of this motion on the agenda that the LNC may believe our current ways of funding LP News are not in compliance with ever shifting federal regulations.
*
5) Financial Activity
In other Treasury matters, Nelson said the clean up of our database is continuing both to produce more accurate financial reports and for the audit our Life Memberships. There are currently 1,876 records for Life Members, although some appear to be duplicates. He stated that 157 of our Life Members only made a one-time gift of $1,000 (which is supposed to be the minimum requirement). There are 259 who have given less than $1,000, with 104 of them showing no record whatsoever of any gifts. Over 45 of them only show a record of a gift of $60 or $62 made in 1997, which appeared as part of the conversion to Unified Membership payments to the state parties (UMP), although the details of how this occurred are unclear. He said 101 of them have not made any donations in the past ten years, and 283 have not in the past five.
Nelson suggested those who have not donated in the last ten years be converted to Honorary Life Member status and no longer be used as part of the calculation for UMP, which would save the national party about $10,000 now and between $12-14,000 next term.
Kraus reported on further cost cutting measures in the office involving the canceling of several redundant services for communications and media services. Development Program Coordinator Jessica Wilson said in her written report that she has been concentrating on cleaning up the sorry state of our database and accounting procedures in the wake of Jennifer Villarreal’s resignation and Raiser’s Edge consultant Chase Moore’s inadvertent double charging of monthly pledgers.
Wilson also spoke a great length about the tremendous success of the intern program which not only provides significant cost savings but also increases our positive relationships with local universities. Part of the success of the program is that interns are given significant work to do, not simply given those boring tasks which nobody else wants. By including vital high profile tasks in the intern’s portfolio, students reap much greater enjoyment as well as practical benefits from their experience, which increases our reputation among future potential interns. Wilson does a very thorough job of documenting her procedures, and I asked her to modify what she has documented about this program so that eh state parties can take advantage of these programs too.
*
6) Database
Kraus has been relentless in negotiating a refund from BlackBaud, the company which makes Raiser’s Edge (RE). After several months, it has become clear that RE cannot deliver everything we expected when we bought it and their customer service has been lacking. BlackBaud still provided technical support during the refund negotiations, and Kraus even got them to extend out term of service for several more months to make up for what we had not received previously.
The result is that out of $107,345.81 billed to date by BlackBaud, they owe us a refund of $25,735.13. One interesting note for those who have followed this closely is that the credits include the entire amount paid to RE consultant Chase Moore.
Still in negotiation is credits for selling us the wrong add on items such as RE:Anywhere. Kraus is still trying to determine if these can be replaced by other RE products or if we will have to seek other software solutions. He is also seeking continued technical support beyond the contract period until the remaining bugs can be worked out.
Farris gave a lengthy report which is now pretty much meaningless since he quit in a huff less than two weeks later. Farris had created an adversarial relationship with several key state database volunteers, an attitude which also infected the office while Farris served as the LNC’s liaison to the states on these issues. At one point he actually resigned his official position but continued to do the work, just so he could avoid dealing with four or five particular people.
Salvette took Farris to task for his demeaning language, such as referring to the LP-Database discussion list as the “LP-DB-Anger-List.” This prompted a heartfelt apology from Kraus for including similar remarks in his printed report.
The LNC seems to have repeated the mistake of not holding Farris to a non-disclosure agreement when they let him have access to the database. While Farris claims to have destroyed all the LP information in his possession, it is still alarming that yet again a high profile person with complete access to our database storms off with no protections in place for the party. It is not yet known how the LNC intends to replace Farris in that role.
The LNC did pass a Data Transfer Service Level Agreement composed by Farris, which describes the limits of information the national party is obligated to give to the states. A proscription that communications about data export formats will go through the state chairs and not the actual people who handle the data in each state was deleted.
Regional Alternate Chuck Moulton (Region 5E-Pennsylvania) had offered input and was generally supportive of the idea, but said he would vote no because this plan required more input from the states. Salvette agreed that buy-in was required for this plan to work.
A roll call was requested on the service level agreement, which went as follows:
YES: Colley, Farris, Keil, Lieberman, McGinnis, Nelson, Rutherford, Ryan, Squyres, Starr and Sullentrup.
NO: Hoch, Moulton, Salvette and Wrights.
The motion passed 11-4.
*
7) Ballot Access
Gilson and George Phillies both submitted preliminary reports for their separate ballot access audits. Gilson had originally been assigned this task, but it was given to Phillies by Dixon after Gilson failed to provide a report at the last meeting. Gilson apparently failed to receive the message and continued with his work. He said his final product would be completed in two weeks.
The thrust of Gilson’s report is to gain a total view on how much the whole party spends on ballot access, not just the LNC’s contribution. By doing so he hopes to adequately compare the costs of signature gathering versus costs for lobbying and litigation to bring down ballot access barriers.
Phillies found that the LNC spent $270,458 in direct and indirect costs on ballot access in 2004. Just over $200,000 of that went to petitioning with the rest going to litigation, fundraising and administrative expenses. He found that prices per signature ranged from one to four dollars each.
Both reports suffer from a severe lack of data. Indeed one of the main reasons this report was commissioned was to determine what was not documented. Many states used haphazard record keeping, and national project coordinator Bill Redpath kept almost no records at all.
Having run several ballot drives myself, including one currently underway, I can easily understand how this happened. Redpath would conduct most of his business over the phone, determining the needs in the various states and then transmitting orders to the national office about who needs a check. That would leave him with almost no paper trail and pass the responsibility for creating it to the national office. This seems to also have been performed inconsistently. For example, Phillies noted that there was one state where he knew for sure that LNC money was spent where he could not identify any matching expenses. While this seat of the pants style is common to most ballot drives, given the high pressure to collect enough signatures by deadline, it is no longer acceptable to the LNC or to its core duty of fiduciary responsibility of our members’ money.
Nelson stated that he still wants a plan to retire the negative balance in the ballot access project fund, which remains by his accounting at $29,062.82. Wilson reported that she and her team had identified a total of $9,700 in pledges for ballot access made to contractor Scott Kohlhaas and was starting to call these folks to shake loose their promised donations, which had resulted in $700 raised so far. Lark asked how much of the negative balance was office overhead, to which Nelson replied that he did not know. Since Redpath could not be at this meeting, more substantial discussion of this lingering matter was yet again deferred to the next meeting.
*
Dues Proposals
Besides the increase of membership renewals to $50 which passed last meeting and the “zero dues” proposal by Squyres which is featured in a separate article, both Lark and Gilson came forward with alternate proposals. Lark’s was simply to set dues at $35, which died for lack of a second. Gilson’s was simply an amalgam of past practices which was presented at the table and did not come to a vote. Since no new action was taken, the previous vote for $50 rate still stands.
In the debate over Squyres’ proposal, Lark suggested that only the convention could enact it, to which Starr agreed. Nelson then moved to amend the motion so that the proposal simply be endorsed and for Squyres to bring back the actual Policy Manual changes and detailed implementation plan for the August meeting.
Starr moved instead to postpone this to August, which Wrights seconded. Several regional reps said they needed more time to solicit the opinions of their members, and that in general more sales were needed to make the plan viable. The postponement failed 10-6 (requiring two thirds to pass).
Roll call was requested for the final vote recommending the zero dues proposal, which went as follows:
YES: Gilson, Hoch, Nelson, Ryan, Rutherford, Squyres and Sullentrup.
NO: Breudigam, Colley, Lark, Lieberman, McGinnis, Starr and Wrights.
Abstaining was Keil. The motion failed 7-7-1.
Starr brought back to the table the increase in UMP payments which had failed as part of the secret ballot to raise dues to $50. He stated that it may not have passed before because time ran out before it was debated in Portland. Lark seconded for purposes of discussion.
Squyres opposed monkeying with UMP as a band-aid on a terminal patient. He stated we need to get away from the welfare model of UMP. Ryan said she likes the idea but would vote against it because she wants to see what will become of the zero dues proposal, which would make UMP obsolete if passed.
Roll call was requested on the UMP increase, which went as follows:
YES: Breudigam, Gilson, Lieberman, Starr and Wrights.
NO: Colley, Hoch, Keil, McGinnis, Nelson, Rutherford, Ryan, and Squyres.
Lark and Sullentrup abstained. The motion failed 5-8-2.
Salvette moved on Sunday to reconsider the Lark proposal, which failed 9-5 (requiring two thirds).
*
9) Bylaws Committee Appointed
A record 22 nominations were received for the ten spots on the Bylaws Committee. Each LNC member had ten votes which they could cast positively or negatively. Negative votes were subtracted from positive ones to achieve the final result. The following nine were elected to the committee on the first ballot:
14 - Geoff Neale (Texas) (14-0)
13 - Bill Hall (Michigan) (13-0)
10 - Chris Farris (Georgia) (10-0)
10 - Dan Karlan (New Jersey) (10-0)
8 - Sean Haugh (North Carolina) (9-1)
8 - Deryl Martin (Tennessee) (8-0)
8 - Rick McGinnis (Texas) (8-0)
7 - Rich Maroney (Iowa) (7-0)
5 - Tim Hagan (Nevada) (5-0)
Fred Collins of Michigan (5-2) and Carl Milsted of North Carolina (3-0) came in tied for the tenth spot with a score of three. Milsted was selected for that spot by a voice vote, and Collins was named first alternate. With the resignation of Chris Farris, Collins is now a full member of the committee. Under our rules, Neale is the interim chair until the committee formally selects one.
Nelson suggested the August agenda include discussion of LNC recommendations for the Bylaws Committee. Salvette added that they should also appoint the Credentials Committee at that meeting.
The remaining votes were cast as follows:
2 - Donny Ferguson (Virginia) (2-0)
2 - Phil Schmidt (Oregon) (2-0)
2 - Tony Wall (Tennessee) (2-0)
2 - Christy Welty (Iowa) (2-0)
1 - Mark Hinkle (California) (2-1)
1 - Nick Sarwak (Maryland) (2-1)
0 - Derrick Gilliland (North Carolina) (0-0)
0 - Bill Redpath (Virginia) (6-6)
-8 - M Carling (California) (2-10)
-9 - Marianne Volpe (Virginia) (1-10)
-11 - Dana Johansen (Virginia) (1-12)
I personally am most grateful to the LNC for electing me to this committee, and humbled by the trust they have placed in me and my fellow committee members. It looks like it will be a good group of folks I’d enjoy hanging out with at the bar, which gives me incentive to not throttle any of them during deliberations. I personally have a great interest in hearing from any of our members who have suggestions for how we can improve our bylaws. Please feel free to write to me at the address below and I will be happy to pass along any practical suggestions to the rest of the committee.
*
10) Sexual Harassment Policy
Dixon submitted a lengthy addition to the Policy Manual which had been developed by legal counsel explicitly prohibiting sexual harassment and offensive behavior, which Nelson seconded. Normally I would want to summarize such a lengthy proposal, but in this case the full text is instructive:
“The Libertarian Party is founded on the key principles of liberty, responsibility, and respect. With that foundation, it is expected that libertarians treat each other with professional respect, thoughtful consideration, and fundamental decency. Violation of this expectation by members of the Party not only risks substantial legal penalties, it also undermines the very legitimacy of the Party and the honor of its members. Violation of this expectation by members of the LNC, whether towards other LNC members or HQ staff, is therefore especially egregious. To prevent such inappropriate behavior, the following standards must be observed:
“a. All collective deprecation, whether alluding to sex, race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, or any other protected category, must be avoided. Every person is a unique individual, and as the Libertarian party is the Party of Individual Liberty, this injunction should doubly apply.
“b. Sexual harassment, like other forms of harassment, is prohibited. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or any other conduct of a sexual nature when: (1) submission to the conduct is made either implicitly or explicitly a condition of employment; (2) submission to or reject of the conduct is used as the basis of an employment decision affecting the harassed employee; or (3) the harassment has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the employee’s work performance or creating an environment that is intimidating, hostile or offensive to the employee.
“c. Any behavior, whether verbal or physical, that clearly offends a reasonable person - libertarian or not - must be avoided. Libertarianism is a philosophy of respect for the individual, and must not be presented as being in harmony with behavior generally regarded as offensive.
“d. Any interaction which might be interpreted as abusing the apparent employer-employee relationship must be avoided. This applies to interactions of LNC members with staff, and is to be extended to interactions with any consultant hired by the LNC.
“You must exercise your own good judgment to avoid any conduct that may have been perceived by others as harassment. The following conduct could constitute harassment:
* unwanted physical contact
* racial or sexual epithets
* derogatory slurs
* off-color jokes
* sexual innuendo
* unwelcome comments about a person’s body
* propositions
* leering
* unwanted prying into a person’s private life
* graphic discussions about sexual matters
* suggestive behavior, sounds, gestures or objects
* threats
* derogatory posters, pictures, cartoons or drawings
“As a rule of thumb, if you think it night be offensive, it probably is.
“Toward ensuring that all LNC members are thoroughly familiar not only with the policy but also the ramifications of it, they must participate in a standard program of exposure to the issues raised by these concerns. The Chair is responsible to select the content of this training program, in consultation with Counsel, and the participation should be arranged at the earliest practicable opportunity after the person becomes an LNC member.
“Any agreement that the LNC enters into with an affiliate must stipulate that the affiliate incorporates the principles set forth in this policy.
“Any violation of this policy should be brought to the attention of the Chair, or the Chairman of the Judicial Committee. In response to every complaint, LNC will take prompt and necessary steps to investigate the matter and will protect the individual’s confidentiality, as much as possible, recognizing the need to thoroughly investigate all complaints. LNC will take corrective and preventative actions where necessary. LNC will not retaliate against any individual who in good faith brings a complaint to the attention of LNC or participates in an investigation regarding a complaint. Any employee who violates this policy is subject to discipline, up to and including discharge.”
Starr and Squyres both wondered if this policy would apply to the whole party. Dixon said besides the reference to affiliates establishing similar policies, there would be separate equivalent provisions put in the employee manual for staff.
Colley urged his fellow board members to take the moral high ground, which explains much of the language of the preamble. He suggested the removal of the laundry list because of its vagueness. Wrights agreed that such lists are not exhaustive. Squyres defended the whole document as coming from counsel and is needed to cover ourselves.
Dixon stated that a sensitivity session will take place at a future LNC meeting and will become a part of LNC new member training.
Sullentrup moved to amend to add disciplinary action up to and including removal for both LNC members and staff. This passed on a voice vote with no objections.
Starr moved to delete the last sentence. He questioned if the language regarding affiliate agreement with this policy was supportable under the Bylaws which grant state parties autonomy. Time expired, a motion to extend failed, and Starr’s motion was defeated on a voice vote.
The main motion as amended carried by a voice vote. Starr and Gilson both wanted their objections noted for the record.
*
11) Political Director
Lieberman and Moulton presented a motion to fill the long vacant position of Political Director before the next convention. Starr and Squyres both said they would want to see a detailed job description before voting to approve. Nelson viewed the motion as micromanagement, saying a better approach would be to give the Executive Director goals and let him determine for himself the staffing required to meet them. When queried for his opinion, Seehusen expressed support for Nelson’s view while noting that such a position fits in with the current political initiatives of the national office. He said he is looking for lower cost alternatives than hiring someone with director status.
A roll call vote was requested on the motion to urge the appointment of a Political Director, which went as follows:
YES: Gilson, Lieberman, Moulton and Wrights.
NO: Colley, Breudigam, Hoch, Keil, McGinnis, Nelson, Rutherford, Ryan, Squyres and Starr.
The motion failed 4-10.
*
12) Miscellaneous
Colley reported on the office move upstairs in the Watergate building to Suite 200, as previously reported. This should be done in mid to late July at a cost of only about $2,700 and two days work time. Colley said that Kraus has prior experience with commercial real estate and has been very helpful in the process. They are currently negotiating with the management company to improve the lighting and wiring in the call center area. The offices and conference room will be painted a tasteful light broadcloth blue with dark smoke blue trim and smoke blue carpeting. Meanwhile the hallways, call center, galley and server room will be appointed in an unobtrusive light grey blue with dark smoke blue trim and grey multi-blue spec carpeting.
Starr brought forward his test mailing proposal which was detailed in a previous article http://www.libertyforall.net/2005/april17/Lies.html. Gilson seconded. Wrights asked for the opinion of legal counsel on whether this passes muster under federal campaign finance law before he would vote. McGinnis moved postponement to the August meeting pending legal review, which passed on a voice vote. Starr also had a proposal for providing states with incentives for membership recruitment, which failed on a voice vote.
Michael Badnarik was given 15 minutes on the agenda and after a few words about the importance of college outreach promptly ceded his time to Raymond Bryant. Bryant is forming a “national youth contact initiative” designed to create and support Libertarian activists on campus. He sees a need for a communication network for LP college organizers and a special mission focus for college youth which he hopes to provide. He handed out a report describing how five member teams would travel to a campus once per week for a three-day seminar, at an estimated cost of $250,000. Lark apprized Bryant of the campus organizing efforts already underway and they continued their conversation after the meeting. You can check out Bryant’s vision at http://www.libertymove.org/.
Sullentrup proposed that the approval of the minutes take place automatically through an online process of review. This passed by a show of hands 8-7. Later in the meeting and possibly for the last time, Wrights once again cast the only vote against approving the minutes.
Sullentrup reported that the final Presidential vote totals used in determining delegate allocation were distributed to the states. They have until May 31st to report any corrections. The final version of this is due at the end of July.
Shane Cory gave a presentation on the redesigned website, as described in my last meeting report, which launched on April 23rd. He reported that responses for both the poll and the blog were very high and very positive. Our Alexa rating has jumped over 10,000 places since then, reaching the highs of November 2004. (As of this writing Alexa lists us at 22,507, with a gain of 9,472 spots from three months ago.)
Keil submitted a report on the status of the Branding project. After meeting with three finalists, Keil and Seehusen chose the Frost Miller Group as a contractor. Keil reports that it is, “one of the top 25 branding and marketing firms in the DC area and has done a large amount of work with the many membership associations in DC.” The first phase of their work, to discover the LP brand, should commence in early June at a cost of $17,500. That is less than the cash on hand for the project so no additional fundraising is needed yet.
Gilson submitted a report on the status of the Program. The report can be viewed at http://www.libertarianprogram.uni.cc/. Gilson envisions the Program as far more than a set of transitional public policy recommendations as dictated by the party bylaws, but as a complete resource toolkit for candidates and activists. He stated that the Program should be complete in time for the next convention. Several LNC members expressed a lack of patience with the lack of progress, as there has not been a new one created since 1994. A few commented that while it may be very nice, Gilson’s toolkit is everything but a Program. It will be interesting to see if anything gets done in this area before next July.
Dixon said he hesitates to keep Strategic Planning review (SPT) on the agenda for the August meeting as he does not see broad support for it on the LNC. Nelson suggested they focus on about three items achievable in the next term. Starr agreed with this as well as the need for solid metrics. A consensus was reached to move forward according to this plan. Dixon is still seeking nominations of libertarians from outside the party and elected Libertarians for the SPT review.
Matters that received scant attention and were deferred to the August meeting due to either the project coordinators not being present or reports or actions not submitted in a timely manner include approval of the governing documents of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee, the appointment of a new external auditor for 2004, and the restructuring of the Policy Manual. Dixon and Lark are working on the Convention and still looking to assign its various responsibilities. Dixon said they were working with the Oregon LP, especially on outreach events.
The Texas LP is hosting a regional conference in Austin September 16-18. Nancy Neale is organizing the event, which will include candidate training by the Leadership Institute. The LNC agreed to help promote it.
There are many changes in regional representation either already taking place or possibly happening in the near future. Starr reported that Regional Alternate Mark Hinkle (Region 2-California) has resigned and is being replaced by Mark Whitney. Regional Representative M Carling (Region 2-California) has established a residence in New York and accepted a position on the NYLP Executive Committee, but there was no word on whether he will retain his seat on the California LP’s Executive Committee or his seat as a Regional Representative from California. With the resignation of Farris, Region 4 will have to appoint someone to replace him. And Breudigam announced she is moving to Texas, which depending on the timing of her move may cause her to step down as the Region 3 rep.
The next meeting is scheduled for August 13-14 at the Airport Marriott in Kansas City. The meeting scheduled for November 12-13 was planned for Denver but may be moved to Baltimore. A straw poll of LNC members showed a preference for Baltimore, and a site will be chosen soon.
*
This report is funded by your generous donations. I can only continue to provide them if you contribute. All donors to my meeting report fund receive my LNC reports and articles as they are submitted for publication. Please contact me at seanhaugh@mindspring.com or 919-286-0152 to find out how you can help. Also feel free to call or write if you have any follow up questions on this report.
LNC Meeting Report Addendum: Resolutions Against the Dues Increase
by Sean Haugh
The following is an addendum to the LNC Meeting Report which catalogs three more resolutions passed denouncing the dues increase and the secret ballot which brought it into being.
These documents are presented in the order they were passed by:
1) the Libertarian Party of Multnomah County, Oregon, home of Portland and the site of the next national convention,
2) the Georgia LP, and
3) the North Carolina LP.
They join the state parties of Tennessee and New Mexico which have had their similar resolutions published in previous issues of Liberty For All.
*
1) Resolution passed at the Libertarian Party of Multnomah County Annual Convention on April 10, 2005:
The Libertarian Party of Multnomah County ask that the Libertarian Party National Committee reconsider its recent action to increase the dues. While we recognize the need for the LP to raise funds, we strongly feel that the secret ballot to increase the dues showed a lack of courage on the part of the LNC as well as a lack of faith in the membership’s willingness to understand the issue. If John Hancock and his friends could find the courage to sign the Declaration of Independence, can’t the members of the Libertarian Party National Committee find the courage to conduct our business in the open?
Additionally we have to express our concern about the dues increase itself. We are not going to disagree over the need to raise funds. In fact we want to encourage the LP to find a way to increase our treasury tenfold. However, this dues increase will make it more difficult to recruit new members especially those from the lower income groups in our society. We should be standing side by side with those from the lower income groups in our battle, for it is often the barriers erected by government in the areas of housing, transportation, healthcare and occupational licensing that keep people down.
At no time in the history of the battles for liberty are we aware of a dues being a prerequisite for joining the fray. Neither those who laid down their lives at Lexington and Concord, nor those who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto, nor those who mustered the courage to cross the bridge at Selma forty years ago were ever required to pay dues in order to do so.
To achieve libertarian goals, our means must be consistent with our ends. Among many alternatives to increasing dues, we strongly urge sustained and concerted efforts to persuade former members (who vastly outnumber current members) to rejoin the party. Besides driving some current members away, doubled dues will hinder re-recruitment efforts — which even moderately successful could quickly multiply party membership and revenues.
Should the Libertarian National Committee decide the dues increase is necessary we suggest that it be market tested for a period of a year in a state such as California to determine how successful it may be?
*
2) Be it hereby resolved by the Libertarian Party of Georgia (LPGA), acting at the Executive Committee meeting this 2nd day of May, 2005:
(1) We emphatically oppose the decision taken by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) at its February, 2005 meeting, to increase annual basic membership dues in the national Libertarian Party from $25 to $50.
(2) We explicitly condemn the “secret ballot” process by which the LNC made the decision to increase dues. LNC decisions that affect the Party membership at large should be made openly, with the vote of each LNC member recorded for the information of his or her constituents.
(3) We demand that the LNC reconsider the decision to increase membership dues at, or prior to, its next scheduled meeting on May 14-15, 2005. We demand that any increase in dues is accompanied by an increase in UMP payments so that the current ratio of 48% is maintained at all times. We recommend that dues be set at $35 per year with UMP at $1.40 per month.
(4) In case the decision to increase national basic dues to $50, without any increase in UMP, is not revised prior to taking effect for the 2006 membership year we state our intention to consider withdrawing from participation in the Unified Membership Program.
(5) The Chair of the Libertarian Party of Georgia is directed to relay this resolution to the LNC, the various county chairs of the LPGA, and the LPGA on-line forums, and to publish it in the next issue of the GLO (state newsletter). The Chair is further directed to request the Southeast Regional Representative to the LNC to bring forward a motion to the LNC to rescind the motion passed at the February, 2005 meeting that authorized the increase in national basic dues and if that motion fails to bring forward a motion to set the dues at $35 per year with a UMP payment of $1.40 per month.
*
3) A RESOLUTION of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, in convention assembled:
Be it resolved, that the Libertarian Party of North Carolina strongly disapproves of the secret ballot conducted by the Libertarian National Committee Feb. 26-27, 2005, to approve an excessive membership dues increase.
The dues increase is, by itself, unnecessary and exorbitant, but the manner in which the Libertarian National Committee members sought to escape personal responsibility for their votes reveals a lack of regard for our Party’s core values.
This is the most recent in a series of actions which compel us to the conclusion that many members of the Libertarian National Committee have not only lost touch with the Libertarian Party membership, but have in fact become hostile to the wishes and concerns of the party membership.
In November 2004, the Libertarian National Committee refused to publicly hear a complaint from a member, removing the item from a previously published agenda. In our previous petition, we called upon the Libertarian National Committee to live up to the commitment to listen to its members. We refrained from suggesting a specific policy or procedure in the expectation that the Libertarian National Committee would live up to its moral obligations and exercise its good judgment in responding to our concern. We are deeply troubled that this has not happened.
We repeat this call for the Libertarian National Committee to live up to the leadership role they were elected to by the members of the party, and to establish a specific policy or procedure for those members to obtain an open, fair and impartial hearing of their concerns from the Libertarian National Committee.
We further call on the Libertarian National Committee reconsider the dues increase and vote on the issue again in an open ballot.
Finally, we call on the Libertarian National Committee refrain from future secret ballots on matters of policy.
In the event that these actions are not addressed and our demands are not met, it will only be further evidence that the Libertarian National Committee has become so out of touch with the membership that they will have forfeited the moral authority to lead the party and have become, instead, an obstacle to the goal of changing public policy by electing Libertarians to office.
If the Libertarian National Committee fails to act, we urge other state Libertarian Parties to join the Libertarian Party of North Carolina in considering these actions in order to reclaim the Libertarian Party for the membership:
* Change their bylaws to eliminate provisions encouraging or requiring payment of national dues;
* Establish and actively promote state-only memberships, or a combined state-national membership;
* Encourage members to attend the 2006 Libertarian National Convention in Portland, Oregon, to ensure new Libertarian National Committee members are elected who understand their role is to answer to the membership, not argue with them or hide from them;
* Encourage and promote ongoing practices that value activism as well as financial contributions;
* Demand that the national party undertake good faith efforts to maximize other forms of fundraising and increase membership before looking to balance the books by increasing dues.
We sincerely hope the Libertarian National Committee will heed our call to action to restore the faith and confidence of the rank-and-file Libertarian Party membership in their leadership.
Done in Convention, this 1st day of May 2005, Hickory, N.C.
Does the Second Ammendment Secure an Individual Right? | ParrishCo. said,
April 25, 2008 @ 9:30 am
[...] [...]
Liberty For All » Blog Archive » Sexual Harassment at National? said,
December 10, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
[...] would like to close by reprinting the new policy from my last LNC Meeting Report. While some may find the legalese or the kowtowing to political correctness objectionable, [...]