Brian Holtz // Feb 15, 2010 at 11:23 am
Cohen @175 incorrectly reports that I described a bylaws change, when in fact my live blogging said it was a platform change.
Seebeck @226: if merely distributing my in-context sans-commentary quotes is an “attack”, you can “attack” me like that any time you want. Your handout quoted David Nolan describing you as “calm”, “rational”, and “civil”. I hope that as Southern Vice Chair you will commit to live up to that description. You often talk of what “hat” you’re wearing when you say something, but as one of the top three leaders of the LP’s largest affiliate you no longer have the luxury of suggesting that how you behave in public does not reflect on the LPCA if you don’t want it to.
Can you quote what Party rule you think requires that delegates to a convention may not enter the hall if they were not present when executive session commenced? I see nothing in RONR pp. 92-93 requiring this. However, our Bylaws do say: “All delegates in good standing shall be eligible to vote on all matters.”
Executive session secrecy prevents me from saying who defended the barring of delegates from the floor, but I’ll say hypothetically that it would be hypocritical of anyone to oppose registration fees but support locking registered delegates out of the hall.
Brian Holtz // Feb 15, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Michael Seebeck: I ran on my accomplishments and goals and support. That was unanswered by critics completely.
Nobody said you’ve had no accomplishments, but Hinkle and Wiener each clearly have had more. The point of my handout was to ask whether you would be sufficiently civil toward the leaders and candidates of the LPUS. Instead of distancing yourself from any of the quotes sitting in front of each delegate, you said: “I know I’m controversial, but I speak my mind.” Were you saying that we could expect more such quotes from you if you ever serve on LNC?
And I won.
Let’s put that in perspective.
- In the four all-caps headlines of your floor handout, it mentions LNC all four times, and doesn’t mention Southern Vice Chair anywhere.
- As the appointed incumbent Southern Vice Chair, you won that race 27-23 over someone who vocally took the minority position on the MB scandal, about which the delegates heard very little from you.
- As the just-elected Southern Vice Chair, you finished last of three in the LNC race. You lost to someone you had described this way: a person who hasn’t been visible in the Party for two years save the JC debacle of late, and will be in Rome (Italy) rather than the convention. People, ask yourself, what good is a two-year Party no-show for a Regional Rep? Yet …that’s what Dan Weiner is in this case. An AWOL person, who doesn’t even respect his constituency enough to show up, and has continually been absent from Party activity is simply neither qualified not informed enough to represent California on the LNC with the ongoing issues facing the state and national Party. Out of touch? You bet, unless he’s merely a puppet for someone else we all know.
- You lost the LNC Alternate race 49-26 to someone who had no floor handout, who cited no accomplishments beyond his attendance record, and who explicitly campaigned on his record of civility.
You do a lot for the LP/LPCA, but you could get even more done if you tried to be more civil. I hope you take this criticism as constructive and fact-based, and I welcome corrections if any of my evidence is faulty.
We don’t need sideline QBs anymore. We need everyone on the field, playing a productive role.
Take a look at http://libertarianmajority.net/bh-lp-activism and http://www.calfreedom.net and then tell us whether you meant to suggest that I am a “sideline QB” or am not “on the field playing a productive role”. Go ahead, speak your mind.
The obvious way for an assembly to handle executive session is to have the door-keeper advise entering delegates that we are in executive session and must agree to keep secret anything that happens in it. It’s simply shameful that registered delegates were kept locked out for up to 90 minutes while the convention dealt with the most contentious issue of the convention, and indeed, of the entire year. I won’t confirm your possible secrecy violation in alleging that the assembly voted on the lockout during the session, but I will say that in any such situation, I would raise a point of order against such a lockout, and would ensure a motion was made to overturn any ruling of the Chair in support of a lockout.
Chuck @244, any second LNC seat for the LPCA would surely be given by ExCom to the second-highest vote getter, Mark Hinkle. Mike would only join the LNC in the unlikely coincidence that 1) LPCA’s 13% allocation becomes part of a 20% super-region that somehow grants us two LNC seats, and 2) Hinkle wins Chair and so vacates his seat, and 3) the ExCom ignores the delegates’ 49-26 preference for Dr. Lieberman over Mr. Seebeck.
Mike @245, see LPUS Bylaw 8.2.c. The delegate allocation was frozen as of 2009-10-31, and no amount of new CA-based sustaining LPUS members joining before St. Louis would change it.
