Document:LNC Minutes 28-29 April 1990

From LPedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


                    Minutes of the Meeting of the
                    Libertarian National Committee
                           28-29 April 1990
                            Austin, Texas
Members Present:
     Chair      [[Dave Walter]]
     Vice-Chair [[Mary Gingell|Mary T. Gingell]]
     Secretary  [[Joe Dehn|Joseph W. Dehn III]]
     At Large   [[Dean Ahmad|I. Dean Ahmad]]
                [[Steven Alexander]]
                [[Toni Black|Toni L. Black]]
                [[William Redpath]]
                [[Norma D Segal|Norma D. Segal]]
     Region 1   [[Karen Allard]]
     Region 2   [[Geoff Neale|Geoffrey J. Neale]]
                [[George O'Brien]]
     Region 3   [[Steve Dasbach|Stephen L. Dasbach]]
     Region 5   [[Clifford F Thies|Clifford F. Thies]]
     Region 6   [[Vicki Kirkland]]
     Region 7   [[Steven I Gibot|Steven I. Givot]]
     Region 8   [[Gary Johnson]]
     Treasurer  [[Stephen R. Fielder]]
     Region 4   [[Ron Crickenberger]]
1. CALL TO  ORDER: The regular  meeting of  the  Libertarian  National
Committee was called  to order by  Chair  Dave  Walter  at  9:16am  on
Saturday, 28 April 1990, at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, Texas.
2. CREDENTIALS: The  Secretary reported that he had received no notice
of changes in  Committee membership or of changes of address since the
last meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES: Dehn moved approval of the minutes of
the December meeting; the motion passed without objection.
4. SETTING OF  THE AGENDA: Givot moved that item 18 (Ballot Access) be
expanded to 30  minutes. Segal moved that item 26 (Internal Education)
be expanded to  10 minutes. Kirkland moved to delete item 33 (NY ACLU)
and to allow  Gary Johnson of  New York time to  speak during item  24
(Regional Reports).  Givot  moved that the  Program  Committee  Report
(item 32) be  made item 23A and expanded to 10 minutes.  Walter polled
the Committee to  determine who had budget requests, and then moved to
add a Budget  discussion for 30  minutes as item 27A.   Thies moved to
allow an additional  10 minutes for  consideration of the  Panama/Lear
letter as item  27B on Sunday.   These changes were  approved  without
5. CHECK OF  PAPERWORK: Walter reviewed  the paperwork that  had  been
distributed up to that point.
6. CHAIR'S REPORT:  Walter presented an  overview  sheet  and  several
graphs relating to  membership and finances  [Attachment J], reporting
an all-time-high membership  and 30% growth  since the convention.  He
said income was  steady and would  be $30,000 above budget if it keeps
up.  He made  mention of various  activities of the LP that were going
well, including the  functioning of the  Executive Committee, work  on
improving  the  efficiency   of  the  office,  the  monthly  LP  News,
significant activities  in  various  states,  and  numerous  inquiries
resulting from his  appearance on the  Larry King radio show  and from
the census project.   In reply to a question from Givot, he and Dunbar
explained that information  about inquiries  is  stored  on  an  Apple
computer, with notation  as to source, and that the names are moved to
the main database when the person becomes a member.
On the negative  side, Walter reported  that there had been  a problem
with telephone fundraising,  that  time  had  been  lost  due  to  the
distraction of the  Panama/Lear letter, that  MeMe King  had  resigned
from the office,  that the membership contest was not successful, that
CNN refused to  run our TV  ads, that we probably  could  have  raised
significantly more money  with the census letter if not for fraudulent
behavior by the  printer, and that  people were being  lost  from  the
pledge program when  they move or change credit cards.  In response to
questions about the  census letter problem,  he said that we would not
be paying the  full printing bill,  and that this  incident  indicated
that we must  allow more lead  time for projects  that  have  a  fixed
7. VICE-CHAIR'S REPORT: Gingell presented a written report [Attachment
A] and offered  to answer questions  about her role as Vice-Chair. She
said that she  gets involved with projects for three reasons: (1) if a
task is specifically  delegated to her as Vice-Chair, (2) if Walter is
not  available,  or  (3)  if  it  relates  to  the  Affiliate  Parties
Committee.  In response to a question from Tonie Nathan, she indicated
that she communicates with Alicia Clark and Bob Waldrop of the Council
of State Chairs, in her capacity as APC Chair.
8. TREASURER'S REPORT: Fielder was not present but submitted a written
report [Attachment  K]  which  included  statements  for  January  and
In response to  a question from  Walter,  Dunbar  explained  that  the
transmittal of financial  reports to the Treasurer had been delayed by
the establishment of  a new budget  system, learning how to set up the
accounts payable system, adjustment of account codes, FEC reports, and
an audit.  In  response to a  question from Thies, Dunbar  stated that
there had been confusion about when the FEC report needed to be turned
in and that it had been turned in late.  In reponse to a question from
Walter, Dunbar indicated  that he did  not think that Fielder's moving
to Florida would  cause a problem.   In response to  a  question  from
Redpath as to  why the statements  showed  income  below  budget  when
Walter had reported  it above budget,  Dunbar  said  that  the  latest
information was not  included.  In response to a question from O'Brien
about why the accounts payable amounts were all zero, Dunbar indicated
that this aspect of the system was not fully working yet.  In response
to a request  from Black that  contributions specifically for outreach
projects be offset  against outreach expenses  so  that  the  expenses
would not exceed  budget, Dunbar said  that can be done  at some cost.
Thies said that  it was unfortunate that we are spending our effort on
trying to figure  out what the  numbers really are rather  than  being
able to focus  on understanding our financial condition, and expressed
disappointment that no  reports had been  submitted by the BAC  or ADC
and that the  FEC report was  not done on time.  Walter indicated that
it might be  possible to stop  filing FEC reports, except for the BAC.
Givot suggested that  it might be  necessary for the BAC to file other
forms separately also  now that it has its own employer ID number.  In
response to a  question from Ahmad  about the  long-standing  debt  to
Liberty Services, Thies  indicated  that  it  had  been  written  off.
Walter proposed that  Thies and Dunbar  go to the FEC  and explain any
remaining debt or  payables in an  attempt to eliminate  the  need  to
continue filing.
9. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE  REPORT: Dehn offered to answer questions about
the minutes of the Executive Committee.
In response to  a question from  O'Brien about whether there  had been
disputes about what the EC should do as opposed to what should be left
to the LNC,  Walter cited a  proposed resolution on  the  invasion  of
Panama as something that the EC did not proceed with because there was
not a consensus.
In response to  a question from Dasbach, Dehn said that the EC minutes
record any action  taken by the  EC acting as  a  committee,  but  not
necessarily actions taken by members in their capacity as officers.
10. HEADQUARTERS REPORT:  Dunbar reported that  MeMe King was leaving,
and said this was a good opportunity for her as well as an opportunity
for us to  get a new  employee. He  read  aloud  a  letter  from  King
thanking the LP  for the opportunity  to work for  us.   He  said  the
efficiency of the office was improving.
He said he was upset by a memo from Givot which compared the office to
a Kremlin bureau, and asked why Givot was interested in taking control
of the BAC  funds; Givot replied that the office was not providing the
information needed for  him to manage the money.  Thies said that this
problem  needed  to  be  resolved  because  it  is  important  to  our
relationship with our  employees; if they  are incompetent  we  should
fire them, otherwise  we should not  be calling  them  Communists  and
questioning their motivation.
At the request  of Walter, Dunbar reviewed the procedures followed for
providing information to  Givot. He said there had been changes in the
procedures, that a  three-way transfer process  had been instituted to
allow deposit of  credit card receipts on the day received, that Givot
does not respond  to things that  are sent to him until problems build
up and he  complains about them  in a big memo,  and that  he  is  now
sending everything to  Givot by second-day  air with Givot's signature
Redpath said that  all the business functions should be centralized in
the national office, and that the office should send the balance and a
list of transactions  to Givot twice  a week by fax; this would enable
him to manage things without having to deal with minutia.
Givot said that his memo was not intended to attack individuals but to
improve the performance  of the office,  and that the reference to the
Kremlin was not  meant to be a claim that Dunbar was unlibertarian but
simply an observation  on  the  problems  that  arise  in  a  monopoly
situation.  He said the basic problem is that the LNC took the deposit
function and gave  it to the national office, but that the office does
not report to him on a regular basis. He said he had tried to get this
resolved by complaining to the Chair and to the Auditor, and that even
the fact that  financial reports were  not available had not  prompted
action.  He said  that he had  gotten reports  from  the  office  that
contained errors.  He  said that the  basic  functions  seemed  to  be
working better after  his complaints to  the Executive Committee,  but
that his requests  for additional information  were  still  not  being
handled properly, and  said that it was unreasonable to expect someone
to manage an  enterprise if the  people  with  the  information  won't
provide it.
In response to  a question from  Ahmad about whether  the  information
flow was now  satisfactory, he said he didn't know yet, but that there
are volunteers available  in Illinois who  could do the job  and  that
this would take a burden off the national office.
In response to  a question from Ahmad, Givot said that the mistakes he
found had been  fixed, but that there should not be so many errors. In
response to a  comment by Walter  about the large amount of difficulty
that seemed to  be arising in  relation to a small  amount of revenue,
Redpath said that  there was no  reason this revenue should be causing
more problem than  anything else, and  Givot said that there  are also
lots of problems  with the other  revenue.  Redpath suggested that  an
operational audit could help identify what the problem is.
O'Brien raised the question of office staffing needs, and said that we
must find out  if we are  asking for them to do too much.  Walter said
that the computer  upgrades have helped,  and Dunbar said he  was  not
sure if another person was needed.
Dasbach observed that  the move of  the revenue function to the office
to solve the  FEC  reporting  problem  was  now  causing  an  internal
reporting problem. Thies,  noting that no  reports were being received
from the Advertising  Development Committee, said  that SFAC reporting
has been a long-standing problem, and that either the office should do
everything or the  BAC should be  spun off as a completely independent
Gingell moved a resolution of congratulations to MeMe King [Attachment
X].  The motion passed unanimously.
11. 1989 CONVENTION  REPORT: Black moved  to correct the report of the
1989 convention to  show that she  nominated Gerry Walsh for  Judicial
Committee.  There was no objection.
Black moved that the report of the convention should show a resolution
regarding Chinese students,  and that the  report should be so amended
once Black has  reviewed the text  and sent it to  the Secretary.  The
motion passed on a voice vote.
12. RESOLUTION CLEANUP: Dasbach proposed the deletion of the following
resolutions; when there  was any objection,  discussion was  postponed
until the end of the list:
        5       deleted without objection
        29      deleted without objection
        36      objection by Ahmad
        46      objection by Ahmad
        57      objection by Redpath
        69      objection by Ahmad
        70      objection by Ahmad
        124     objection by Dehn
        151     (previously deleted)
        157     objection by Ahmad
        163     objection by Ahmad
        173     objection by Ahmad
        174     objection by Dehn
        177     objection by Dehn
        198     deleted without objection
        222     objection by Ahmad
        223     objection by Thies
        234     objection by Ahmad
        246     deleted without objection
        270     deleted without objection
        270b    deleted without objection
        290     objection by Gingell
        298     objection by Ahmad
        300     objection by Ahmad
        304     objection by Redpath
        318     deleted without objection
        322     deleted without objection
        327     objection by Ahmad
        332     deleted without objection
        340     objection by Dehn
        341     objection by Dehn
[The meeting recessed  for lunch at  12:01pm, and was called  back  to
order at 1:14pm.]
Dasbach moved  to  delete  Resolution  70  (regarding  coalitions  and
alignments).  Ahmad moved  as a substitute  that the text be  replaced
with "Coalitions good,  compromise bad." After  some discussion  about
the length of  the resolution and the possibility of rewriting it, the
substitution failed on  a show of hands, and the main motion to delete
passed on a voice vote.
Dasbach moved  to  amend  Resolution  157  (concerning  who  may  sign
fundraising letters) to  read  "All  fundraising  letters  are  to  be
approved by the  National Chair." After  some discussion about whether
such a rule is really necessary, the motion passed on a voice vote.
Dasbach moved to  delete Resolution 174 (concerning draft resistance),
on the grounds  that the wording  was specifically concerned with  the
situation in 1981. The was no objection.
Dasbach moved to  delete Resolution 300 (concerning liability), on the
grounds that it  was redundant (see  Resolution  239).  There  was  no
Dasbach moved to delete Resolution 304 (concerning "NatCom profiles").
Nathan argued that  the profiles were  valuable as a historical record
and were sometimes useful with the media. Walter said they help people
get to know each other. The motion was withdrawn.
Dasbach moved to delete the second sentence of the second paragraph of
Resolution 259 and to delete Resolution 290 (concerning eligibility of
non LNC members  as committee chairs).  The motion passed on  a  voice
Givot moved to  schedule further discussion  of resolution cleanup  at
the same point in the next meeting.  There was no objection.
13. FINANCE COMMITTEE  REPORT: Alexander submitted  a  written  report
[Attachment B].  He  reported that he had been concentrating on direct
mail, and listed  a number of  groups that  might  be  approached  for
outreach: gun owners,  secular humanists, tax  groups,  motorcyclists,
science fiction and  space enthusiasts.  He  said he  was  considering
trying  a  short   letter  to  the   house  list.   He  reported  that
telemarketing revenue was  going up and  down [Attachment L], and that
the pledge program was going OK but could be made to go smoother.
In response to  a question about  the budget, he said  that we need to
plan to be ahead of budget to make up for slow summer months.
In response to  questions  from  Redpath,  Dasbach,  and  Neale  about
getting  pledgers  to   raise  their  amounts  and  the  crediting  of
contributions  as  membership   dues,  Alexander  said  that  not  all
contributors feel the  same way --  some may expect to be asked again,
others resent it  -- and Dunbar  explained the rules currently  in use
for updating expiration dates.
14.  PANAMA/LEAR  LETTER:   Various  members  expressed   their  views
concerning the fundraising  letter which  condemned  the  invasion  of
Panama and mentioned  [[Phillip Lear]], a  soldier who was killed  in  the
invasion.  [Attachments C and M, also comments in Attachments T and U]
Alexander apologized to  the LNC for the Finance Committee having been
the cause of a fuss and thanked members for their support.
He said that  he initially heard complaints that the letter had misled
people,  fooling  them   into  giving  money,   but  after   carefully
reexamining the letter he did not think this was the case. He said the
letter was trying  to make a point in the context of popular sentiment
in favor of the invasion, attempting to set a mood. He said that while
the statement which implied no human being would be willing to die for
certain things may  have been literally  untrue, it was  a  reasonable
generalization, along the lines of the claim that "nobody doesn't like
Sara Lee".
He said he  considered strange the  complaints that  "greed"  was  the
motivation for using  [[Phillip Lear]]'s name,  because the purpose of the
LP is not to raise money but to try to build a free society.  Lear was
used by the  U.S. government, he was shot by a Panamanian, and used by
Alan Lindsay.  All  we did in  the letter is use  him as an example of
the failure of U.S. foreign policy.
He said that  this was an  example of the kind  of opposition we  will
increasingly face as  the LP becomes  stronger, and that  we  must  be
prepared to handle it.
Walter explained the  origins of the  letter  in  a  discussion  among
Alexander, Perry Willis,  and Don Ernsberger, in which they considered
the idea of  appeals based more  on emotional  content  and  real-life
examples rather than  just abstract ideas.  When the  Panama  invasion
occurred, Willis wrote this letter and Walter approved it.
Walter said that  he had not asked Ernsberger to send a letter to Alan
Lindsay. He said  he had pointed  out the rudeness of  the  letter  to
Ernsberger, but that  the tone was understandable in light of the fact
that Ernsberger and  Lindsay had been  opposing campaign managers  and
had "crossed swords" in the past.
Givot said that  while it is  proper for us to  review decisions  that
have been made,  we should not  be judging the subjective judgement of
the people who  made the decisions.   He personally did not  notice  a
problem when he  read the letter, and did not think any wrong was done
-- it is good that we are using current events to get support.
Segal said that  speculative phrasing such  as "if X were alive today"
or "if this pig could talk" was a common literary device, and simply a
matter of style.
Thies said that  he considered the statement in the letter fraudulent.
He volunteered for the military, and did not think that made him not a
human being.  He  said that  our  response  should  be  based  on  the
principle of strict  liability -- that we didn't mean to cause harm is
no excuse.
Ahmad moved
   that the Secretary (or if he chooses not to, then the senior
   National Committee member willing to) shall, within three days,
   send the following letter to Jeniece LaCross, 3335 Westminster
   Dr. S.E., Port Orchard, WA 98366:
   Dear Ms. LaCross:
   I am sending you this letter on behalf of the National Committee
   of the Libertarian Party. The fundraising letter mentioning
   Phillip Lear, which David Walter wrote and mailed to many of our
   Party members, has caused significant concern within the
   Libertarian Party. We know Mr. Walter, and we are certain that
   there was no malice in his intentions. Nonetheless, we disavow
   the statement that one did not have to know Phillip in order to
   answer the question as to whether he would have willingly paid
   with his life for George Bush's war on drugs. We assure you that
   Libertarians hold the individuality of each and every human
   being in the highest regard. Mr. Walter strayed from that
   principle in his emotional distress over the many deaths caused
   by politicians' folly.
   Mr. Walter's letter aims to express sentiments of sympathy for
   the death of Phillip Lear: Even though we didn't know him, we
   still are saddened by the death of such a brave young man --
   especially in these circumstances. Nonetheless, the fundamental
   doctrine of the libertarian philosophy is that no human being
   should impose his values on others. Similarly, no human being
   should presume that any other holds his particular values.
   Therefore, although Mr. Walter's letter violated no law and was
   an innocent error of judgment, we, the National Committee of the
   Libertarian Party, disavow any presumption that Phillip Lear did
   not believe in the cause for which he fought, and hereby declare
   that it is our Party policy to never publish fundraising letters
   that invoke the _presumed_ values of people we do not know.
   That letter was written for internal Party use, and there could
   not have been any intention to cause pain to you or to Mr.
   Lear's family. Nor would that have been the effect were it not
   for Alan Lindsay's decision to submit the letter to the
   newspapers. Were it not for that, we might have reprimanded Mr.
   Walter for his policy error without any suffering on your part.
   Thus, we also regret Mr. Lindsay's hasty actions.
   We cannot order Mr. Walter to write a letter of apology, for a
   letter so ordered would, by definition, lack sincerity. We hope
   that you will take comfort from our disavowal of this error. We
   also ask you to accept your sympathy for your profound loss.
   Joe Dehn, Secretary
   Libertarian National Committee
Ahmad said he  thought there was  something wrong with the fundraising
letter when he first read it.  He said there was no point in rehashing
how Alan Lindsay should have been dealt with, but that we must address
the concerns about  a real mistake,  or the situation would  only  get
worse.   He  said  the  statement  about  willingness  to  die  was  a
particularization, not a  generalization -- it  represented an invalid
inference, a presumption about someone else's values.  He said we must
affirm the individualism  of values, and  said that there  are  causes
that we would  be willing to  die for.  He pointed  out  that  if  his
motion did not  pass, those in favor could still send such a letter as
"members of the National Committee".
Gingell thanked Ahmad  for preparing the  letter and  for  giving  the
Secretary the option  not to sign  it, but said as  next in  line  she
would not be  willing to sign  it.  She said that the original article
indicated that Lear  didn't want to  die, that this was different from
being unwilling to  risk his life, and that in any case the letter was
about Walter's opinions, not Lear's.
Redpath said that  he thought Walter  had already said enough  in  his
letter to LaCross,  that LaCross did not care about our future policy,
and that we should not be attributing emotional distress to the Chair.
Walter said that  he didn't write  the letter in the  first place, and
was not in emotional distress when he approved it.
Kirkland reported that  her discussion with NY Libertarians revealed a
general feeling that we need to do something.
Givot said that to state opinions as if they were fact is a normal use
of language, common  in our documents, and not fraudulent. In response
to a comment  by Thies that  we have an APRC  to check for  conformity
with principle, Givot  said the APRC  regularly approves such wording,
but Ahmad said that if it had been a document that had come before the
APRC he would not have been in favor of approving it.
Alexander likened this  detailed analysis of  the language to study of
the Bible  or  Shakespeare,  except  that  in  this  case  the  people
responsible are still around and we know their intentions. He said one
can "prove" anything  by isolating a  short piece of text, but that we
know that there was no intention to defame or cause bad feelings.
Dasbach said that  the letter should  not address the  issue  of  Alan
Lindsay.  He said  that although there  was no bad intent, there was a
problem with the  letter  as  far  as  it  made  a  presumption  about
someone's beliefs.
Dunbar said that if we are going to disavow the letter, we should also
have a vote of confidence in the people who prepared it.
Segal questioned the  message that would  be sent by  another  letter,
given that Walter  had not heard  from LaCross since his  letter of 12
Givot said that  the important thing is to learn from this experience,
and that we need to indicate to our members that we know we have to be
more careful, but  that it was  not necessary to pass a resolution and
that another letter would not help anyone.
Alexander  expressed  concern  that  an  apology  would  be  a  no-win
proposition, saying that those who wrote nasty things about us are not
going to write followups, and that it could encourage "blackmail".
Ahmad said that we need to show sensitivity to people's feelings, that
what has been done so far has not addressed LaCross's objections, that
when you're wrong,  you're wrong, and  we should not be  debating  the
Black said that when you step on someone's toe, you say you're sorry.
Dehn said that  the way he  read the letter it  did not  say  anything
wrong, but that  the discussion made  it obvious  that  a  significant
number of readers had read it differently, and this itself showed that
there was a  problem. But he  said that since there  was nothing wrong
with the letter  as it was intended to be read, there was not actually
any straying from principle and it would be inappropriate to apologize
for something that  had not actually  been done.  He also said that it
was not appropriate  for such a  letter to be written in the form of a
disavowal by the  LNC of Walter's  actions, since he  didn't  actually
write the letter and the letter was actually a communication on behalf
of the LP. He said that if we decide that an apology is called for, we
should apologize for  what was actually  done wrong -- bad  wording --
and that we should be taking responsibility for it rather than blaming
O'Brien said that  it was necessary  to resolve two issues separately:
should we apologize,  and if the  proposed letter is the  right one to
Dasbach moved to  substitute for  Ahmad's  motion  that  a  letter  be
drafted expressing Dehn's  sentiments, consideration of  the new draft
to be taken  up as the  last item of business today.  Dasbach's motion
was substituted and passed on voice votes.
15. MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE  REPORT: Allard presented  a  written  report
[Attachment D] and an update [Attachment N].
She reported that  membership packets had started going out, including
a bumper sticker  and coupons.  She said she wants to try some kind of
continuous rewarding of  growing affiliate parties rather than another
Allard moved to  amend Resolution 194, which defines "current member",
by replacing it  with the following  text: "DEFINITION OF PAID MEMBER:
An individual who  has paid at least $15 in the past 12 months and has
signed the Libertarian  oath is considered  a paid member."  She  said
this would correct  confusion about  various  sorts  of  "member".   A
discussion ensued about  increasing the amount  and rebating  part  to
state parties, about  whether the  existing  terminology  of  "current
member" has a  specific meaning in  relation to the bylaws,  and about
the handling of  pledgers and people who have paid dues ahead of time.
Thies moved to table the motion; the motion to table passed.
Allard moved to delete Resolution 298. After a short discussion of how
the dues are  now recorded in  the accounts, the motion  passed  on  a
voice vote.
Allard  moved  to  amend  Resolution  65,  concerning  the  membership
discount   for   state   parties,   by   changing   "subscribers"   to
"subscription" and by  adding "If the  affiliate organization  agrees,
this can be  done through a  local LP  organization."  After  a  short
discussion of the  need to allow  this to be decided  within  a  state
rather than by the national office, the motion passed.
Allard reported on  the progress of  the membership contest. She  said
there were several  ideas for rebates  to states that solicit national
members but do not collect dues. She reported that she had hired Perry
Willis to do  mailings to instant members, 1989 past contributors, and
earlier past contributors.
16. AFFILIATE PARTIES  COMMITTEE  REPORT:  Gingell  submitted  written
reports [Attachments E and O]. She invited other committees to use the
APC newsletter for distributing information and soliciting involvement
from the state  parties.  She said the APC budget was on target except
for Field Coordinator  travel, and asked for $5000 additional in order
to maintain a 50% travel schedule.
There was a short discussion of the telephone tree system. In response
to questions, Gingell  said that it  is hard to create  short messages
that people can pass on, and that people receiving the messages by fax
and e-mail also  get a backup voice call. She said the tree should not
be overused and that she had turned down one request.
Gingell projected that the average "ladder of development" level would
reach 2.9 by 30 June.
Bottemiller reported on  her activities, including  trips to  get  her
program set up, trips to visit state parties, monthly assessments, and
teleconferencing.   She  passed   around  a  sample   of  a   colorful
information folder that  she provides to  state parties.  She said the
membership was excited  that someone is  being sent to visit  them  in
In response to  a question from  Walter, Gingell said that none of the
states  in  level  1  or  2  were  opposed  to  help  from  the  Field
Coordinator, and that  some states in  other levels were  included  if
they expressed interest  and could  be  fit  in.   In  response  to  a
question from Thies,  she said that  the Field  Coordinator  suggested
candidate recruitment and ballot access as things for state parties to
work on.
In response to a question from Tonie Nathan, Bottemiller described the
presentations by [[Lew  Rockwell]] and  [[Murray  Rothbard]]  at  the  Alabama
written report [Attachment  F].  He  reported  on  his  activities  in
constructing a list of potential candidates, and said he was preparing
to send a  taped presentation to  state chairs.  He  said  that  about
$10,000  would  be   needed  to  provide  help  to  state  legislative
candidates.  He reported  that Richard Winger  considers it  important
that we run  candidates for U.S. Senate.  He said he favors moving the
presidential nominating conventions  to the election year, but that we
must make preparations  well in advance  to allow potential bidder  to
make plans and to deal with legal problems.
In  response  to   questions  from  Walter,   Dasbach   reviewed   the
possibilities  for  strong   legislative  campaigns  in  Vermont,  New
Hampshire, Georgia, Idaho,  Washington, Utah,  and  Nevada.   He  said
funds would only be given out if a candidate appeared to have a chance
to win, and  that Russell Means'  campaign in Arizona was not eligible
because he will be running as an independent.
18. BALLOT ACCESS  COMMITTEE REPORT: Givot  submitted a written report
[Attachment G].  He  said that his  remarks about the office  were not
intended to attack  individuals, but to  point out deficiencies in the
way things were being handled.
He said there  had been a  good  return  on  his  initial  fundraising
mailing, but that  this had gone  only to  the  largest  contributors.
Another batch has  been sent, to  people in the  $500-999  range,  but
results are not yet known.
He reported that  no petitioning has  started, that  there  have  been
lobbying setbacks, and  that the North  Carolina legal  situation  has
been  resolved  but   not  yet  officially.   He  said  the  BAC   has
approximately $4000 to  $5000, that all  outstanding obligations  have
been paid with  the exception of  something owed to Kathleen  Richman,
and that Black is handling the pledge reminder letters.
He reviewed the  possibilities for ballot access activities in various
He said that  financial statements have  been provided and need  to be
included in the Treasurer's report.
He objected to  planning work being done by Walter and Ernsberger, and
to a statement  in a pledge  letter soliciting petitioners to  work in
Wyoming. He said  that this sort of activity without consultation from
him would be  disturbing to any  committee  chair,  and  that  it  was
confusing his negotiations with state parties.
He said that  either the BAC should be allowed to do the whole job, or
that  the  Chair   and  Executive  Committee   should  take  over  the
responsibility.  He proposed  that these alternatives be considered in
the form of two motions, as follows:
[first proposal]
   To delete the Resolutions 309, 325, and 342, and to amend
   Resolution 291 by (1) deleting the sentence which includes the
   National Director as a non-voting member; and (2) adding the
   following language:
   LP officers and staff shall assure that the party provides
   reasonable support to SFAC activities. LP officers and staff
   shall not circumvent the authority of any SFAC by planning,
   proposing, or implementing any policy, strategy, or action
   without prior notification to and agreement with the SFAC Chair
   or that Chair's assignee. LP officers or staff shall not
   communicate information in behalf of or with regard to any SFAC
   or its activities without prior review and authorization from
   the SFAC Chair or that Chair's designee. Each SFAC shall
   maintain adequate records of all receipts. Each SFAC shall
   promptly report the detail of such receipts to the National
   Office with sufficient information for the National Office to
   prepare all required regulatory reports. The LP Chair is
   authorized to direct the National Office to assume
   responsibility for acceptance and processing of the receipts of
   any SFAC should the LP Chair determine that the SFAC is not
   complying with these reporting obligations. Should this occur,
   the LP Chair shall assure that the National Office provide the
   SFAC with timely, detailed information on that SFAC's receipts.
[second proposal]
   Resolved: that the Ballot Access Committee be dissolved, that
   all authority and responsibility for overseeing the functions
   previously delegated to the Ballot Access Committee shall be
   vested solely in the Executive Committee, that the Chair shall
   be responsible for execution of the directives of the Executive
   Committee regarding ballot access as well as all standing
   resolutions which direct certain actions by the current Ballot
   Access Committee, and that neither the Chair nor the Executive
   Committee shall delegate such responsibilities to any other
   party except for specifically enumerated tasks which are defined
   in writing at the time of delegation.
Givot moved to  postpone discussion to first thing Sunday morning; the
motion passed on a voice vote.
[The meeting was recessed, and reconvened at 5:43pm.]
Dasbach presented the  new  draft  of  a  letter  to  Jeniece  LaCross
[Attachment Y], and  explained that the  fourth  paragraph,  outlining
actions to be  taken, was optional,  to be included if  we decided  we
want  to  take  those  actions.   There  was  a  short  discussion  of
consistently  using  "we";  this  was  accepted  by  Dasbach  with  no
Dasbach moved to include the fourth paragraph.  In reply to a question
about who would  write the article  for LP News, Dasbach said he would
write it and have it reviewed by the Executive Committee.
Alexander said that  we need to  consider what to do if LaCross is not
satisfied with this  or if Alan  Lindsay does something tomorrow,  and
whether we are  prepared to apologize  every  time  someone  complains
about a fundraising  letter. Nathan said  that as Media  Director  she
should  have  a   chance  to  review  letters,  that  if  there  is  a
demonstration it could  be good publicity.   Various members commented
on whether LaCross  should be allowed  to address the committee if she
has a statement she wants to make.
Several people argued against including the paragraph: Gingell said it
gave the impression  of disagreement among  the LNC, Redpath  said  it
would encourage continuation  of the controversy,  Givot said  it  was
inconsistent to say members were not misled and then offer to give the
money back, and  Redpath said it set a bad precedent and we can decide
to publish a notice in the LP News without saying so in the letter.
Others argued in  favor: Neale said  it should be up to the members to
decide if they  were misled, O'Brien and Dasbach said it was necessary
to publish something  since it was  already an issue, and  Ahmad  said
that without this  it would not  be clear we were  admitting the error
and he would have to write a separate letter.
In response to  an objection by  Givot that we should  not  be  making
claims about how  our members feel, Dehn said that the wording clearly
says we are  stating our belief, and that we know a lot more about our
members than we did about Phillip Lear.
Givot moved to  change "We do not believe" to "We do not know if". The
motion failed on a voice vote.
Inclusion of the fourth paragraph was approved by a voice vote.
Alexander suggested that  it might be  better to send a  letter to the
people who contributed rather than publishing a notice in the LP News.
Dunbar pointed out that the people who objected to the letter probably
did not send a contribution.
The motion to  send the letter  to Jeniece LaCross was  approved by  a
vote of 13  to 2. Walter  asked that the record  show that although he
did not participate in the vote, he was in favor of the motion.
Gingell moved that  the LP News  article be reviewed by  legal counsel
and the Executive Committee. There was no objection.
[The meeting recessed for the day at 6:20pm, and reconvened at 9:09 on
18B. BALLOT ACCESS  COMMITTEE. Part 2: Givot reviewed the alternatives
presented earlier.  In response to a question from Redpath, Givot said
that the  BAC  is  already  handling  all  business  functions  except
processing receipts  and  FEC  reports,  and  that  the  proposal  was
flexible because it gave the LP Chair the option to override the basic
arrangement.  In response  to a question  from Ahmad,  Givot  said  he
would be satisfied if either proposal were approved.
In response to  an objection from Ahmad that deleting Resolutions 309,
325, and 342  would eliminate the requirement for a financial plan and
reports, Givot said  the BAC is  project-oriented and  doesn't  really
have a fixed  plan.  In response  to a question from  Walter about who
would handle  things  while  Givot  is  travelling,  Givot  said  that
petitioning operations would  be handled on  a turnkey basis with  the
states so would not require constant attention.
In response to  a comment  by  Redpath  that  we  must  avoid  another
unauditable mess such  as occurred in  1988, Givot said the 1989 books
were OK.  Thies  said the records  have been better  recently  because
there have been  fewer transactions; problems  with BAC reporting have
persisted for a  long time and  could show up again when the committee
becomes more active.
Givot gave  a  summary  of  1989  activity,  reporting  $94,358.82  in
contributions, including Paul  Jacob's salary paid  by the LP  general
fund for part  of the year.  He listed approximate figures for expense
categories, including  $14,000  in  grants  for  petition  drives  and
$25,000 for salaries and wages.
A discussion followed  on the subject of whether the BAC really should
be an SFAC.  Advantages cited included making it easier to raise funds
for ballot access, simplifying general fund budgeting and cash flow by
separating out ballot  access expenses which  come in "big globs", and
providing a way  for people to  dedicate  funds  to  the  presidential
candidate's ballot access  effort without running into the $1000 limit
on  contributions  to   candidate  committees.   Disadvantages   cited
included making it  more difficult to raise money for general expenses
(because the "glamorous  stuff" is handled  by  SFACs)  and  reporting
O'Brien identified five  areas on which  we need to make clear who has
responsibility:   accounting   and    reporting,   fundraising,   cash
management, expenditure control,  and publicity and  hiring.  He  said
the whole LP  needs to do  a better job of  cash  forecasting.   Givot
responded by explaining how he thought each of the five areas could be
handled well under control of the BAC.
Ahmad said that  the accounting and  recording  function  is  the  one
creating a significant  problem.  Dasbach  suggested  that  we  should
budget a certain  amount to be  raised for  ballot  access,  and  then
provide the BAC  with one twelfth  of  that  amount  each  month;  the
Finance Committee would  be responsible for  arranging this.   Redpath
said that the  situation now is  that ballot access work  just is  not
getting done.
Gingell moved the  first proposal.  Givot argued in favor, saying that
even if the  office did all  the work it would  still be just  as much
work for him.   In reply to  a question from Dehn,  he said that under
this proposal people would be sending their contributions to Illinois.
Walter said that  the second proposal  was absurd, and that this first
proposal would give  Givot a chance  to show that he  could handle  it
Ahmad moved to  amend the proposal  to not delete Resolution  309. The
motion passed on a voice vote.
Ahmad moved to  amend the proposal to not delete Resolution 325; there
was no objection.
Dasbach moved to amend the proposal to also replace all the wording in
Resolution 265 after "created" by "under Resolution 291". There was no
The main motion (first proposal as amended) passed on a voice vote.
19. CONVENTION OVERSIGHT  COMMITTEE REPORT: Neale  submitted a written
report  [Attachment  H]  and  said  that  arrangements  for  the  1991
convention seem satisfactory.
Neale moved to  amend the contract  with LEI, Inc., section 10, second
paragraph, concerning a  convention fundraising event, by changing the
first "shall" to  "may", and by  changing "at least ninety  (90)  days
prior to the  convention" to "on  or before September 1,  1990".   The
motion passed on a voice vote.
Neale moved to  insert, after "open  event room" in section 5.E.4, the
words "with a  capacity of 40 people".  In response to a question from
Walter about rooms  that presidential candidates  may need, Givot said
they would need  to make their  own arrangements.  In  response  to  a
question about equipment,  Neale said that the hotel has a fax machine
but that the  rooms do not  have modem connections.  The motion passed
on a voice vote.
Neale moved to  change, in section  12.A concerning  promotion  in  LP
News, "in the  three issues immediately  preceding the convention"  to
"in any three issues in the year preceding the convention, such issues
to be determined  by LEI, subject  to LP News deadlines". It was noted
that there would  likely be other  mention of the convention in the LP
News in addition. The motion passed on a voice vote.
Neale said that  LEI wanted  to  know  if  LROC  should  be  excluded.
Several members expressed  opinions on this  matter,  citing  problems
that LROC had  caused for the  LP in the past,  uncertainty about  who
really sets LROC  policy, and the  difficulty in predicting  how  they
will behave especially  in the middle  of  a  presidential  nomination
race.  It was suggested that they could be allowed to exhibit with the
understanding  that  they   would  be  kicked   out  if  they  behaved
unreasonably, but that  this could prove  difficult  to  implement  in
Alexander moved to  instruct LEI not to accept LROC as an exhibitor or
known members of  LROC as program  speakers. The motion  failed  on  a
voice vote.
Neale moved that  we set a deadline of 1 October 1990 for bids for the
1993 convention and that we make the decision at the December meeting.
The motion passed on a voice vote.
19A. PANAMA/LEAR LETTER,  Part 2: Gingell  moved that the topic of the
Panama/Lear letter be  taken up at this point and that [[Jeniece LaCross]]
be permitted to speak; there was no objection.
LaCross said she was here seeking justice, not vengeance, and that the
whole LP was  not responsible for  the actions of a few.  She said she
was not begging  or pleading, but  demanding: an apology, an  accurate
description of [[Phillip  Lear]] in the  LP News, an agreement  not to  do
this kind of  fundraising again, and  that the  money  raised  by  the
letter be donated to a cause which would satisfy both Phillip Lear and
the contributors.
She said the  statements  about  Lear  in  the  letter  could  not  be
considered an oversight,  since the vast  majority of Americans and an
even higher proportion  of the military support the drug war, and that
our depiction of Lear was contrary to the attitude of every Ranger she
had ever met.
She said that  her demands had  nothing to do with  a conflict between
[[Alan Lindsay]] and [[Dave Walter]], and that we seemed to be more interested
in that aspect than in doing justice to Lear, who was fighting for our
She said we  should face that  what  we  had  done  was  a  "malicious
She said that  using his name  without permission was contrary  to our
platform, and that  if permission had been asked the answer would have
been no.
She said that the letter totally misrepresented Lear, and that she was
infuriated by the  "Are these things  for which ...? I  think  not..."
section.  She said  that it was  not up to us  to judge him, we had no
idea what he  was willing to  die for, and that  this was an insult to
all citizens of this country who are willing to die for their beliefs.
She said that  Lear had said that he was willing to give his life, and
that God heard him and took him.
She said that we had not had the courage thus far to respond, but that
she hoped we  would do the  right thing.  She said she was speaking on
behalf of Lear's  parents and everyone who knew him, and was demanding
a decision.  She  said we had  had enough time to consider the matter,
that she had  talked to many  of us but until  today had received only
one letter from Dave Walter.
She objected to  the apology letter  given to her today because it did
not meet her  demand about use  of the money and because it was signed
by Dehn rather  than Walter. She  said Walter must apologize, that the
apology was not  sincere, that it  was  only  issued  because  of  the
presence of TV cameras, and that she would not accept it.
Walter noted that he had been in favor of the motion.
Johnson  objected  to   her  statement  that  what  we  had  done  was
At the request of O'Brien, Dehn read the letter that had been given to
LaCross [Attachment Y].
In response to  a suggestion by LaCross that we give the money back to
anyone who does  not respond to a notice in LP News, Redpath said that
silence is acknowledgement.
Ahmad thanked LaCross for coming and making her feelings known.
20.  OUTREACH  COMMITTEE   REPORT:  Black  submitted  written  reports
[Attachments I and  P] and other  material was distributed [Attachment
Q].  She reviewed  the changes that  were being made for a new edition
of Liberty Today,  reported that there are two new position papers and
that some of  the planks of  the Program would be  issued as  position
papers, and said  she was working  on outreach  programs  for  special
interest groups.
In response to  a question from  Walter, she said that  running ads in
gun magazines had been a good thing to try, but that it had not proved
as cost-effective as other things.
Ahmad moved that  the religion page not be removed from Liberty Today.
He said it was valuable for outreach to religious people, and that the
only reason it  was being removed  was  objection  to  comments  about
Israel in his  article.  Walter said that some people felt that a page
on religion was  incongruous in such  a publication.  Segal said there
had been complaints  about lack of  inclusion of other religions, that
the Jewish article  was unsatisfactory to  Jews, and that  eliminating
the page entirely  was probably best.   Redpath  said  that  the  page
should  be  eliminated  because  it  is  causing  complaints  about  a
publication which otherwise  everybody likes.   Thies  suggested  that
space devoted to  religion could be  reduced, and questioned why there
should be mention of a specific religion-related oppression when there
are others in  other parts of  the world.   Black  said  there  was  a
pressing need for  a new printing,  and so it was necessary for now to
either include the  page as is  or remove it entirely.   Dasbach  said
that addressing religion was important but that the existing page is a
problem.  Givot objected  that this decision  should be  made  by  the
Outreach Chair.
[Gingell assumed the chair.]
The motion failed on a voice vote.
21. [[FULLY INFORMED  JURY AMENDMENT]]: Black  moved that we  endorse  the
FIJA project and  donate a one  time use of our mailing list for their
use to raise funds.
She asked  that  [[Larry  Dodge]]  be  allowed  to  speak;  there  was  no
[Allard assumed the chair.]
Dodge said that the jury issue was a fundamental one, and that working
on  issues  allows   working  with  allies  without  compromising  our
principles.  He said  FIJA was raising funds by various means. He said
that there was a special opportunity offered by Gun Owners of America,
which will provide their list of over 30,000 names in states where the
FIJA initiative is  being worked on,  along with a letter  from  their
president Larry Pratt.   To  make  use  of  this  will  require  about
$13,000, and our list would be used to raise that money.
In response to questions, Dodge made clear that he was asking that the
list be provided  for free.  In  response to a  question  from  Thies,
Dunbar said that  the actual cost  to us to provide  our list would be
$70-$100 depending on  format, and that  the normal  rental  would  be
about $700.
[Walter resumed the chair.]
Allard noted that such a mailing would also serve to inform LP members
who might not otherwise hear about the project.
The motion passed on a voice vote.
21A. CONTINUATION OF  OUTREACH REPORT: Segal remarked on a mailing she
had gotten from  another organization, and moved that all requests for
the mailing list be referred to the Executive Committee.  Walter ruled
the motion out  of order and said that anything controversial would be
referred to the Executive Committee anyway.
Alexander moved to  suspend the rules  to have Tonie Nathan  report on
media coverage of  Jeniece LaCross and  Alan  Lindsay;  there  was  no
objection.  Nathan described the reaction of the reporters for the two
organizations that showed  up: NBC and  the Austin American Statesman.
She said that at this point additional publicity could be positive, as
it gives us an opportunity to talk about Panama.
Thies moved that  the LNC supports the overall conduct and performance
of National Chair  Dave Walter, the Executive Committee, and the Chair
and members of the Finance Committee.
[Gingell assumed the chair.]
Ahmad said that it should not be made to look like we are saying there
isn't disagreement with  what was done;  Givot replied that  everybody
makes mistakes and  this is a  statement of overall  confidence.   The
motion passed on a voice vote, with Ahmad abstaining.
[Walter resumed the Chair.]
Black moved to  allow Gary Johnson  of New York to speak; there was no
objection.  Johnson described  some of the  plans  for  his  race  for
governor of New  York, which will  concentrate on  personally  meeting
voters and emphasize the drug issue.
Black moved to recess for 20 minutes; there was no objection.
[Meeting recessed at 12:23pm and reconvened at 12:53pm.]
Black reported on  the census project. She said she had requested this
be  removed  from  the  jurisdiction  of  her  committee  because  Don
Ernsberger had gone  ahead without providing  the material for review,
and that she  thought it was  wrong that a commitment had been made to
use funds for legal defense without approval of the LNC. She said that
Ernsberger was recommending  that  $10,000  be  set  aside  for  legal
defense, the balance  of the revenue  to be used for  the Coalition to
End Drug Violence or other projects.
A discussion followed  about how much  money  was  actually  available
after expenses, and  what would be done with the money if there was no
need to use it for legal defense.
Dasbach moved that  the LNC agrees  to assist in the  legal defense of
the first person  who is fined  for refusing to answer  the census and
who requests it.
Discussion followed  about  the  need  for  a  sunset  provision,  the
possibility that we  might be committing  ourselves to defend  someone
who refused for  some  non-Libertarian  reason,  the  desirability  of
restricting this to  defense of an LP member or someone who returned a
card, and the  question of what  exactly we had committed  to  in  the
Dunbar moved to  substitute that we  allocate the net proceeds  of the
census project as  of 30 April  1990 as a fund  to meet the commitment
made in the  census brochure; if  the funds are not  needed  for  this
purpose by 30  June 1990, the  money will revert to  the general fund.
The substitution was accepted without objection, and the motion passed
on a voice vote.
22. COALITION TO  END DRUG VIOLENCE: Nathan reported on the origins of
the idea as  part of the promotion of Operation Bold Strike.  She said
that projects would  include a Drug Peace Summit and a sample bill for
legalization that could be promoted in Congress.
In response to questions from various people, she said that the intent
was for CEDV  to be a  separate organization, with the  LP one of  the
members.  Black expressed  concern that the  LP address and  LP  funds
were being used.   Givot said that if it is a separate organization we
should take action to designate a representative, that decisions about
what the coalition  would do should  not be made here,  and  that  any
money we spent on convening the coalition should be considered to be a
down payment on our membership.  In response to a suggestion by Walter
that the representative  should be under  the  Outreach  Chair,  Black
pointed out the  there is a  resolution that designates  the  National
Chair as the one to direct involvement in coalitions.
Dasbach moved that  the LNC directs  the Chair to plan  and direct all
investigations and negotiations  pertaining to cooperative  efforts of
the Party with  the CEDV. O'Brien  noted that there had been confusion
when Nathan was in San Francisco about whether she was working for the
LP or the  CEDV, and questioned whether this resolution authorized use
of employees or funds.  The motion passed on a voice vote.
23. AUDIT REPORT:  Thies noted that  he  had  provided  the  Executive
Committee with a  written report well  in advance of the  meeting,  as
required by resolution  [Attachment Z].  In response to questions from
Givot, he said  he would audit  the BAC when BAC  financial statements
are made available to the LNC.  In response to a question from Walter,
he said that it might be appropriate to do an operational audit in the
next cycle, in  place of a  full  financial  audit.   In  response  to
comments about the  late financial statements  and incorrect checks to
the BAC, O'Brien  suggested that these  things should be addressed  by
the Management and Audit Committee rather than by the Auditor.
that the APRC  report  be  taken  up  at  this  point;  there  was  no
objection.  He said  that the APRC  had considered two items since the
last meeting: the  material Black had  discussed earlier,  and  campus
outreach  material  relating  to  the  environment.   In  response  to
questions from Dehn, he said that the APRC did not review documents as
a whole if  they are composed of existing material, since deletions do
not ordinarily violate  the platform, and  that the APRC had  reviewed
the TV ads.
23C. PROGRAM COMMITTEE  REPORT: Givot said that since the Program as a
whole still is  likely to contain  something to offend  everybody,  he
planned to print  it as ten separate brochures.  They would be printed
with LP information on the back, with camera-ready originals available
for candidates who  want to substitute their own information; he has a
printer lined up  to print them; they would be distributed through the
Affiliate Campaigns Committee.  He requested $2000 for this project.
Neale moved  that  the  Program  Committee  prepare  a  plank  on  the
environment, and that  we decide at  the  August  meeting  whether  to
substitute it for  an existing plank.   The motion passed on  a  voice
Dehn said that  we were losing  track of the purpose of the Program as
mandated by the  Convention, and that  we should also make  the  whole
thing available as a single brochure. It was estimated that this would
add $500 to the printing cost.
24. REGIONAL REPORTS. Written reports were submitted by Allard (Region
1) [Attachment R],  Neale (Region  2)  [Attachment  S],  Crickenberger
(Region 4) [Attachment  T], Youngers (Region  6 Alternate) [Attachment
U], and Johnson (Region 8) [Attachment V].
In oral reports,  Allard outlined the "ladder of development" position
of the states  in her region,  and Neale reported on  efforts to allow
the LP of California to nominate by convention, and on an NRA meeting.
Givot (Region 7)  described the state  of his region as  "bleak",  but
reported  that  the   Illinois  tax  accountability   amendment  being
coordinated by Paul Jacob was doing well.
Kirkland (Region 6)  reported on a  regional teleconference, said  she
would try to  attend all state conventions in the region, commented on
the Massachusetts ballot  access initiative, and  said Rhode Island is
still a problem.
Johnson reported on  the failure of a rock concert in Arizona that was
intended to raise  money for ballot access, and on the large number of
candidates running in Texas.
25. MEDIA RELATIONS  COMMITTEE  REPORT:  Nathan  submitted  a  written
report [Attachment W] and showed newspaper clippings.
She criticized the way the TV ad project had been handled, saying that
the copy should  have been been  shown to a major network before money
was spent on production, that the intro ad was too "busy", that it was
necessary to plan  a nice campaign  that doesn't appear to  be talking
about "pie in the sky", and that the project should not have been done
under pressure.  She  suggested  allocating  $10,000  to  $15,000  for
competitive bids.
She asked how  the LNC would  feel if  she  ran  as  a  candidate  for
Congress in Oregon;  there was no  objection, but there were  comments
that she should  not present herself  as a candidate while speaking as
Media Relations Director.
She described new  computer equipment she  was getting and  plans  for
travel to do interviews, and asked for a $5000 budget increase.
25A. LP NEWS REPORT: Walter moved to discuss the LP News at this time;
there was no objection.
He reported that  Randy Langhenry would be taking over as editor as of
the July issue,  but that there  was no need to  change  the  contract
because it is with "Lysander, Inc.".
He said the  LP News could  be expanded to 12  pages for an additional
$500 per month.  Neale and O'Brien  spoke in favor of  this, citing an
increase in material  that was encouraged  by monthly publication  and
the need to  cover both  news  and  other  items.   Bottemiller  noted
comments  from  the   field  that  the   LP  News   contains   nothing
"substantial" or "meaty", and suggested that there be regular columns.
25B. BUDGET: Walter  moved  to  take  up  the  budget;  there  was  no
objection.  He summarized the requests that had been made as follows:
        CEDV                            $5000
        Program                         $2500
        Media Relations                 $5000
        LP News                         $3000
        APC Field Coordinator Travel    $5000
He said that  revenue was projected  at $30,000 over  budget  for  the
Alexander said that although these sound like good expenses, we should
not approve them all without cutting somewhere else because the budget
is already ambitious  and we must  allow  for  seasonal  variation  in
revenue.  Dehn  agreed,  citing  the  uncertainty  that  the  National
Director had expressed  regarding the projections,  and the fact  that
only two months  of data were  available.  Redpath agreed, citing  the
need to raise money for ballot access.
After a short discussion, it was agreed to allow $1000 for the LP News
to be able to print two 12 page issues before the election.
Nathan said that  the CEDV money  would be used for  a glossy brochure
and for organizing  the Drug  Peace  Summit.  After  a  discussion  of
whether  we  should   be  spending  money  before  we  know  if  other
organizations are interested,  and of the  uncertainty about how  this
project would be  structured, Givot proposed  that the  budget  change
include authorization for  the Executive Committee  to spend not  more
than $5000 on this project.
Black noted that most of the money spent on printing the Program would
come back as literature sales.
In response to  a question from  Walter,  Nathan  said  that  she  had
already bought the  additional computer equipment.   Gingell  said  we
should not be  buying a computer  for Nathan, and suggested  that  the
money be allocated  as an increase  in her fee.  After inquiring about
the cost of  the equipment and the amount of time it would be used for
LP business, Givot suggested that we increase Nathan's fee by $200 per
month.  Walter suggested a $1000 allocation for her travel.
Gingell suggested that  her request could  be reduced and  that  $3000
could be moved from Affiliate Parties Special Projects.
Walter presented a  summary  of  the  recommendations,  together  with
additional items to  make the budget balance, for formal consideration
as follows:
        New or increased expenses:
        $5000   CEDV (no more than this amount)
        $2500   Program
        $2600   Media Relations
        $1000   LP News
        $4000   Field Coordinator
        $3000   from APC Special Projects
        $2000   from health insurance
        Increase revenue:
        $2000   literature sales
        $4860   direct mail
        $3240   telemarketing
The proposed changes were approved on a voice vote.
[Gingell assumed the chair.]
26.  INTERNAL  EDUCATION  COMMITTEE  REPORT:  Segal  reported  on  her
answers-to-tough-questions contest column  in the LP News. She said 42
people responded to  her first question, that there had been objection
to the length  of her next  column but that it needed to be that long,
that this project  hasn't cost us  anything since other  organizations
are donating the  books used as prizes, and that maybe at the end of a
year all the good answers could be collected together to make a book.
[Walter resumed the chair.]
She said that the Speakers Bureau is dead and that no states responded
to the request for convention brochures to be used to create a list of
good speakers.
In response to a question from Black about educating new members about
issues, she suggested  using the issue  papers, and Walter noted  that
Laissez Faire Books regularly mails to our list.
27. LP NEWS REPORT (see item 25A)
27A. BUDGET (see item 25B)
27B. PANAMA/LEAR LETTER, Part 2 (see item 19A)
King left but  that a replacement  had been hired and  that there  are
volunteers, that he  had finally been  able to make  arrangements  for
health insurance, and  that he would  be  working  with  Thies  on  an
operational audit.
He said there were three options for dealing with the issue of a bonus
plan: eliminate the  plan and raise  salaries  instead,  let  the  LNC
determine the bonuses  qualitatively at the  December  meeting,  or  a
quantitative plan like  last year.  He  said that he did  not get good
feedback from the  employees  about  what  quantitative  factors  were
appropriate, and noted  that the office  does not operate in  a vacuum
and so the  quantitative measures may not actually reflect performance
of the office.  Alexander said that a good bonus plan should align the
objectives of  the  employees  with  those  of  the  organization,  be
predictable, and give the appearance of objectivity.  Dunbar said that
if we do nothing he would assume there will be no bonuses.
Redpath outlined possible numbers if we want to go with a quantitative
        $1 for each new membership
        $1 for each 1990 renewal
        $5 for each fulfilled monthly pledger over $5/mo. as
            of 31 Dec 1990, minus 461
        $5% of gross cash revenue over the budget adopted in San Diego
O'Brien said that  we shouldn't decide this now -- a discussion should
be started. A  proposal could be  approved  by  mail  ballot.  Gingell
suggested that Redpath and O'Brien work together on this.
29. ADVERTISING DEVELOPMENT  COMMITTEE:  Dehn  reported  that  Nolan's
report was supposed  to have been sent to the hotel but had not turned
up.  (Report eventually  was recovered [Attachment  AA].) He said that
detailed analysis of  the response to the ads still needed to be done,
and that based  on poor results  in Colorado he thought  no more money
should be spent until such an analysis had been done.
31. LEGAL ACTION COMMITTEE REPORT: Walter reported that David Bergland
has been acting  as our legal  advisor, and had been  called in on the
Panama letter question  and was drafting  guidelines for  the  Finance
33. NY ACLU DRUG ISSUES COMMITTEE (deleted from agenda)
34. RESOLUTION ON  LITHUANIA: Walter moved  the following  resolution,
based on one  adopted  by  the  Operations  Committee  of  the  LP  of
   WHEREAS, the Republic of Lithuania was forcibly incorporated
   into the Soviet Union in 1940, an illegal action admitted by the
   Soviet government.
   WHEREAS, the Lithuanian people, in a free election, selected
   leaders who declared this illegal incorporation to be null and
   WHEREAS, the Soviet government has refused to recognize the
   independence of Lithuania and has illegally sent troops to seize
   Lithuanian men to serve in the Soviet army.
   WHEREAS, the Bush Administration has acted cowardly and has also
   refused to recognize the independence of Lithuania, thereby
   accepting its enslavement.
   WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party's platform calls for the right of
   political secession and that Libertarians support the
   aspirations of the Lithuanian people to be free of Communist
   BE IT RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee
   recognizes the independence of the Republic of Lithuania and of
   its people from the Soviet Union.
   BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee
   calls on President Bush to recognize the reality of Lithuanian
   independence and to give the United States' moral support to the
   Lithuanian people in their struggle for freedom.
The motion passed on a voice vote.
Redpath said that  he thought Jeniece  LaCross would not go  away, and
asked if there  was more we  should do to try  to wrap this matter up.
Various members replied  that there was  no way  to  know  what  would
satisfy her, that  we had done  enough and that this  was turning into
blackmail, and that  further inquiries should  be  referred  to  Tonie
Allard moved to  thank the host  city; the motion was  approved by the
sound of applause.
Allard moved to adjourn; the motion passed on a voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:22pm.
Note: After the  meeting, Jeniece LaCross delivered a written response
to the letter of apology [Attachment BB].
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph W. Dehn III
[attachments distributed with the agenda packet]
A. Vice-Chair's Report
B. Finance Committee Report
C. Panama/Lear Letter Background Material
D. Membership Committee Report
E. Affiliate Parties Committee Report
F. Affiliate Campaigns Subcommittee Report
G. Ballot Access Committee Report
H. Convention Oversight Committee Report
I. Outreach Committee Report
[attachments distributed at the meeting]
J. Chair's Overview
K. Treasurer's Report
L. Telemarketing Report
M. Additional Panama/Lear Background Material
N. Membership Committee Report Update
O. Additional Affiliate Parties Committee Material
P. Outreach Committee Report Update
Q. Additional Outreach Material
R. Region 1 Report
S. Region 2 Report
T. Region 4 Report
U. Region 6 Report
V. Region 8 Report
W. Media Relations Director's Report
[attachments not previously distributed]
X. Resolution Congratulating MeMe King
Y. Letter to Jeniece LaCross
Z. Auditor's Report
AA. Advertising Development Committee Report
BB. Reply from Jeniece LaCross