Gold America Group - Recent Diaries

Jailbreaking legalization the right choice

timmermans — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:02:50 GMT

Every three years the Library of Congress rules on exemptions from a 1998 law that prohibits people from bypassing technical measures like copy-protection on electronic devices that they own. This year they ruled that Jailbreaking your iPhone was perfectly legal because you own the device.

This does not mean apple will suddenly stop making it hard to jailbreak iPhones. The opposite is true actually, as Apple will continually make it as hard as they can to jailbreak. But trust me when I say various iPhone repair companies are licking their chops at a service they can now perform legally. This is a landmark decision in the history of the iPhone Jailbreak.
I personally could not agree more with this decision. Like downloading music, it's something that everyone does. Like downloading music, it does not hurt anyone but arguably the greedy corporate tycoons.

In the land of 'everyone's doing it you should too' this will undoubtedly be the tipping point of jailbreaking. Lots of people were apprehensive because it was illegal and they thought the feds would track them down and throw them in jail. But now, those people can go about their business freely.

In Defense of Our Massachusetts Affiliate

Forwarder — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 01:33:12 GMT

Forwarder writes: As circulated by George Phillies in a variety of places, George Phillies writes:

Now, I am not greatly bothered by scurrilous attacks on me personally when I am a candidate, but when you attack my state libertarian organization and the fine people who belong to it, I must take exception.

In the midst of our national convention, Texas Libertarian Nancy Neale launched a pointed attack on our Massachusetts state association. In a flyer handed out to all delegates, she wrote:
"but the LPMA seems to no longer exist. On the LPMA.US (the one you end up at fromLP.org) the header has "Libertarian Party" but the "About" page calls themselves the "Libertarian Association of Massachusetts" and is merely "an organization dedicated to personal and economic freedom" and supporting candidates. What happened to the LPMA? They no longer have ballot-qualified status; it would've been difficult, but not impossible, to reclaim it. (Just ask the ballot access guru Richard Winger for details.)"

Readers from Massachusetts may recognize that the above claims are false.

Massachusetts Libertarians have ballot access. If you live in Massachusetts today, and satisfy various petitioning and voter registration requirements, you could appear on the ballot in 2010 with Libertarian shown as your party.

In 2012, Massachusetts Libertarians will still have ballot access. If you live in Massachusetts in 2012, and satisfy various petitioning and voter registration requirements, you will be able to appear on the ballot with Libertarian shown as your party. Nothing we do in 2010 will change your ability to run as a Libertarian in 2012. In Massachusetts, there is no legal way to change our ballot access. You can run as a Libertarian. You can register as a Libertarian. That status was created by a petition filed once, many years ago.

The Massachusetts state affiliate of the national Libertarian party actively encourages Libertarians to run for office, and helps them to do so within the limits of election laws. This year, several members of our State committee are on the November ballot for state legislature. At least five people of broadly libertarian inclination are running for U.S. Congress, not as Democrats or Republicans. Four people are apparently running for Governor's Council-Massachusetts has an 8-member top of our tricameral legislature-as independents on a specific arguably libertarian plank.

We also actively do outreach, local organizing, and all the other things done by successful party affiliates. Indeed, unlike many state affiliates we have a monthly newsletter, a recently-revamped Web page that is still a work in progress, an active program of recovering expiring members, and a program of recruiting among libertarian-leaning activists of other political parties. We also maintain several blog pages and do active Facebook advertising.

Our Massachusetts state affiliate was originally "Libertarian Association of Massachusetts" from when it was first founded, remained so for several decades, and then for a decade was "Libertarian Party of Massachusetts". We have returned to our roots as "Libertarian Association of Massachusetts". We continue to do the same things, within our specific legal framework, that are done by successful libertarian parties in other states.

In Massachusetts, parties can not put candidates on the ballot. Candidates must do so themselves. The State Affiliate has a $500 legal limit on out ability to give to support a non-federal candidate. If you want to support a candidate yourself, you must be a private person or Massachusetts state PAC. It is illegal under federal and state law for federal PACs such as the LNC to give to non-federal candidates in Massachusetts.

In Massachusetts, "Libertarian" can refer to a major party or minor party (our state laws use different terms of art). For all candidates except President of the United States, gaining major party status makes it much harder to collect enough valid signatures to get on the ballot. Yes, the D and R parties prefer it this way, because it makes harder for them to run candidates in each other's primaries. In Massachusetts, "party" is a legal term of art for specific organizations; it may or may not apply to us on any particular date. Using the term Party rather than Association therefore could potentially create legal confusion that we do not want.

The URL LPMA.org is not owned by the state association. It was created many years ago by people who are no longer members let alone activists of our state association. The owner is a New Hampshire resident who refuses to hand over the URL registration. He does point his URL at a URL that the state affiliate owns. He also for some time was using his forwarding page to advocate for a Republican presidential candidate.

Your Massachusetts State Affiliate does occasionally receive contacts from people in other states trying to make our political decisions for us. Their ignorance of facts and laws pertaining to our operations tends to be astonishing. My best advice to you is that when you see someone from outside Massachusetts making claims about our ballot access status, proposing to do things inside Massachusetts, etc., please ignore them; the odds are extremely good that they do not know what they are talking about.

Bovard Sues Barr 2008 Campaign

Forwarder — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:53:47 GMT

Forwarder writes: As covered in Liberty For America magazine. Reprinted by permission. LfA writes:

We've previously covered the Barr campaign - I use the word broadly - and its huge spending on staff, real estate, consultants, limousines, indeed, many things except political advertising. The Barr Campaign ended, leaving behind it close to two hundred thousand in debts. You can wait a while to hope you will receive that which you are owed, but at some point you need to take positive action or kiss the money good day.

Libertarian Writer James Bovard is owed, say the Barr 2008 FEC reports, $47,000 in authoring fees for the book that the Barr campaign published under Barr's name. After waiting, and waiting, Bovard filed suit for the money. From a longer story including the full complaint, read jimbovard.com/blog/2010/05/07/bob-barrs-lessons-in-liberty-1-pay-your-ghostwriter/. Bovard writes on his blog:
Bob Barr has once again made history. His is the only U.S. presidential campaign to ever be sued by its ghostwriter.

In June 2008, after Bob Barr captured the Libertarian Party nomination for presidential candidate, his campaign manager, Russ Verney, requested that I ghostwrite a campaign book. We came to terms, I wrote a book, and the campaign released Bob Barr's Lessons in Liberty.

The deal called for payment in full prior to publication. They paid less than half of what they owed. The Barr 2008 Presidential Committee's official financial statements, filed last month with the Federal Election Commission, states that they owe me a $47,000 "authoring fee." [A copy of the campaign's most recent debt statement is included (on the Bovard web site). You can access the statement (at a link on the Bovard web site); the debt is on Schedule D]

Barr will be the keynote speaker at the Libertarian Party's national convention in St. Louis later this month. If you see Barr there, ask him about his authoring experience - and when his campaign is going to pay its debts...

It is unclear what assets that Barr 2008 campaign might have to pay the debts. Based on the FEC filings, there is a mailing list, some office furniture, and apparently improvements in a leased office.

New LNC Meets

Forwarder — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:37:57 GMT

First, the protagonists. I've divided them using James Oaksun's coalition analysis.

Chair Hinkle - very long-time dominant coalition man; Project Archimedes advocate
Vice Chair Rutherford - dominant coalition; Root man
Secretary Mattson - dominant coalition
At-Large Sink-Burris - dominant coalition
At-Large Redpath - dominant coalition
At-Large Knedler - dominant coalition; Root man
Regional Rep Karlan - dominant coalition
Regional Rep Lark - dominant coalition
Regional Rep Wiener - dominant coalition
Regional Rep Flood - dominant coalition
At-Large Nolan - major Hinkle-for-Chair advocate; tied to Hinkle by his endorsements.
Regional Rep Craig - Georgian. 2008 Barr supporter.

At-Large Wayne Root - his own man. However, the dominant coalition has a long record of pursuing Republicans, and Root thinks we should chase right-wingers, so some lean is present.

Treasurer Oaksun - New Path
Regional Rep Hawkridge - New Path
Regional Rep Visek - not a New Path candidate, but offered motion implementing two New Path ideas

At-Large Ruwart - radical

By my count, the dominant coalition has increased its strength on the LNC. That vote division will not protect Oaksun or Ruwart from suspension, should the question arise. Mr. Starr may not be on the LNC, but several of his friends are. It would also not block the widely-rumored motion to expel me from the party, in the case that my supporters on the committee did not honor my request that they abstain on any such motion, and vote against any effort to avoid a vote.
We now come to the meeting. On the bright side, the meeting was adequate to disprove any claim that serving on the LNC would be a positive benefit if you want to be Chair. Rumors that if you serve on the LNC you will have some idea how to run an LNC meeting are clearly false.

The meeting came to order at the expected hour. The Chair arrived with no agenda. He was saved because there is a default agenda in the policy manual. Indeed, since I was sitting right behind them, I can note that Secretary Alicia Mattson repeatedly put the new Chair back on course. The Chair expressed an opinion on whether the Chair can vote, the position opposite to Roberts, and the parliamentary folks failed to correct his error.

Generally, when there is a change of Administration, a new CEO arrives with at least a modest statement of his issues, plans, intents, and targets for his term. This is called landing at a run. Yes, we have a CEO, our Chair. Those of you who attended the National Convention might have noticed that Mr. Hinkle, prior to his election, had set out a list of things we ought to do, admittedly with no indication of method, time line, or budget. He did not even mention his own list. Launch of LNC activity for the new Committee has been postponed until the next meeting, sometime in July.

The LNC did take public comments. Public comments have historically been ten minutes at the meeting's opening for people other than LNC members to say things. The public comments actually dragged on for the better part of an hour. This meeting was very short, 2.5 hours, so the need for a schedule was intense. Past chairs have used clocks and time controls, even at first meetings, to keep the meeting on schedule. In past meetings, the public comments were actually comments by the public. The public comments here repeatedly devolved into the LNC members talking with each other.

We did have Mr. Snitker, who is running in Florida with a very well-organized campaign, claim that he had a serious chance of winning and should be given all resources possible. Snitker is in a four way race, the Florida governor having bolted his party to run as an independent against his party's presumptive nominee. Historically, the press has mental problems coping with more than one third-party candidate. We have tried Snitker's proposed approach of throwing all our resources at one candidate repeatedly, most recently in Mr. Badnarik's 2006 Congressional campaign. Note also the Murray Sabrin Campaign in New Jersey, at least one campaign in Michigan, and arguably one campaign in Massachusetts. The approach has always failed. Mr. Snitker is doing what he can with his resources. It appears to be a good investment for Floridians; others would do better to keep their money in their home state.

Last year, the LNC adopted a self-modifying policy manual. The National Secretary can make changes, and if the LNC does not object the changes go into effect. To quote the policy manual:

"The Secretary may propose adding or amending annotations in the form of endnotes and introductory language to provide relevant references to authoritative statutes, the Party's Corporate Charter and Bylaws, the
parliamentary authority, and explanations as to how Special Rules of Order differ from the parliamentary authority. The Secretary shall promptly submit such proposals to the LNC, along with any written opinions provided by the Party's parliamentarian. These proposals shall be considered adopted thirty days thereafter or upon the close of the next LNC meeting, whichever is sooner. The LNC may veto such proposals by majority vote prior to adoption."

The LNC seems to have ignored the issue this meeting. The Policy Manual being passed about was the December 2009 policy manual, not any manual that the Secretary was may have prepared and presented more recently.

There is a point at which the LNC or its chair appoints committees as specified in the Bylaws and policy manual, for example the executive committee elected by the LNC. A reasonable Chair would have arrived with a list of those committees, the appointment rules, etc., and some leadership discussion. The Chair did have a list of three nominees for the Executive Committee, who were accepted after the number of candidates for the ExComm got up to ten.

I did hear the chair say specifically that there are no minutes to Executive meetings. Executive Committee or Executive Session? Historically, Executive Committee meetings have been minuted. You can read quotes in my book Funding Liberty. Executive Session? According to the LNC Policy Manual, there are two categories of topics for executive sessions. One set of topics are not minuted. The other set of topics are required to be minuted. If you think Executive Session meetings are without exception not minuted, you should read the LNC Policy Manual.

Some time back, the LNC apparently passed a rule that all substantive votes must be roll call votes, as should all procedural votes for which any one LNC member requests a roll call. I am trying to find the exact reference. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Sarwark was kind enough to remind the LNC of its own rules on this point. Apparently the long years of sitting on the LNC had not brought this issue to our new Chair's attention. There were almost no roll calls. If you want to know how your regional representative voted, you are out of luck, because almost no roll calls were taken.

There came a discussion of dates for LNC meetings. Suggestions that the LNC should end its custom of pandering to the far right died quickly. The next LNC meeting will be at the Freedomfest, a far right Las Vegas event, and not, e.g., at PorcFest, a real libertarian event in New Hampshire.

There was a discussion of the timing of the Fall LNC meeting. October? Several LNC members are also running for high Federal office, and view their Federal campaigns as more important than their National Committee duties. Eventually the National Treasurer, James Oaksun, indicated that the budget meeting had to be later in the year than October, because we needed more financial data than would be available in October. The core issue here is that the National Officer elections were Sunday, the LNC meeting was Monday afternoon, and the new LNC chair had seemingly not contacted his own Treasurer in the intervening day to discuss when the budget meeting might effectively occur.

Several in the meeting said that it might be worthwhile to look at the election results, which will be available and analyzed two weeks into November. People who have been on the LNC might have noticed that we have usually done the budget meeting in December. The budget meeting ended up in early November.

Incidentally, Starr was knocked off the LNC by an overwhelming vote and the raucous applause of the delegates. At the LNC meeting he parked in the gallery as close as possible to the committee and spent much of the meeting with his hand up hoping to be recognized.

Comments from the floor showed another aspect of weak chairing. The Policy manual provides "4) Open Meetings LNC meetings are open to Party members, except while in Executive Session. However, participation is not permitted except by majority vote of the committee." The Chair sat there while other LNC members seemed to have individually recognized nonmembers to address the LNC. To his credit, Mr. Seebeck asked if he had permission.

New Regional Representative Dianna Visek proposed establishing an Outreach committee, a collection of people to spread the Libertarian message to a vast range of people with different interests, issues, native languages. The notion was a committee of LNC members and others who could use their own life experiences to construct messages that speak to Americans of different backgrounds. The immediate response of the prior National Chair, William Redpath, was that we should not form an LNC committee, we should hire another staff member in the Watergate. Just think, instead of using volunteers who can, for example, give us messaging in Vietnamese, Portuguese, French, Hmong, or Spanish as spoken in Puerto Rico, languages we could use here in Massachusetts, and leave behind money for broadcasting the message, we could hire someone else to work in the belly of the beast. And if you were wondering how Mr. Redpath's thought processes on using our volunteer base worked, you now have an indication.

We now come to the imminent California ballot access disaster. A year and a half ago, it was known that the California TopTwo primary was likely to destroy our California Ballot access. We'll have the description of why no action was taken then by Libertarians as a separate report. It speaks to someone you might want to reconsider as your advisor on ballot access.

In any event, the absentee ballots went out by mail early in the month, and the election is June 8. A fair part of the electorate has already voted. The LNC, last week, voted $10,000 for radio ads. Mr. Flood assures me that $10,000 was the most he thought he could get at the last LNC meeting of the term. At the first meeting of the new term, he asked for another $15,000, hoping the new committee would be more supportive. Did the LNC act? No. It referred the spending decision to its Executive Committee. Wayne Root made an excellent speech - his first of any length -- urging the LNC to make the decision itself, and spend the money. The LNC instead passed the buck. There was a motion to refer to committee, the Executive Committee, which made a decision Tuesday evening. On the bright side, the vote on the ExComm was reportedly 6-1 positive, Mattson opposed.

*

troycaster15 — Wed, 19 May 2010 17:07:26 GMT

spammer banned

dansim12 — Mon, 03 May 2010 06:38:56 GMT

spammer banned

Diary Deleted

AuGeo — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:25:18 GMT

Nothing Wrong With Giving Back

BrvYnky — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:25:33 GMT

Now is not the time for government entities to be spending large amounts of taxpayer money on capital improvement projects.

The only exceptions should be if the projects are absolutely vital in providing necessary public services, or if the projects are needed to ensure the well-being of the service providers themselves.

We find neither exception to be in play in two local capital improvement projects costing millions in taxpayer dollars.

The McHenry County Board this week approved the borrowing of $4 million in economic stimulus bonds to add 22,000 square feet to the mental health board's Crystal Lake headquarters.

Many of the social service agencies funded by the mental health board have opposed the expansion publicly, arguing that it is not necessary, particularly now, when the agencies themselves have had to cut back on staffing and services because of the state's ongoing fiscal crisis.

The mental health board has argued that the space is needed because, in short, it currently rents 10,000 additional square feet in McHenry, and that it will never be cheaper to expand.

Neither argument passes our test.

There is no "vital" need for this project now or in the near future. The taxpayer money that will be used to pay this debt off over the years would be better spent on services, or returned to taxpayers themselves, many of whom are struggling to stay in their homes, or to feed their families.

At the McHenry County Conservation District's visitor center at Glacial Park in Ringwood, a $6.75 million renovation project is well under way using mostly taxpayer money that has been set aside in reserve funds over about 10 years.

Among the renovations at the Lost Valley Visitor Center: Construction of an additional wing; the addition of a dome to allow for more natural light; the former dining hall is being converted into conference rooms and meeting space; and pool space will become an outdoor deck for astronomers and nighttime bird watchers.

New green technology also is being added to make the center more environmentally friendly.

The renovation sounds great, and in better times we perhaps would have praised them. But these are not better times.

Just because a public entity is sitting on more than $6 million doesn't mean it should spend it. Particularly not now, when many in the area are still suffering from the Great Recession.

We look toward the day when governmental bodies decide to give back reserves in the form of tax cuts.

Illinois' Crazy Spending

BrvYnky — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:23:50 GMT

Governor Quinn has spent since January approx $2.7 million A DAY on NEW programs. Not obligations we already had, or bills or roads etc... but NEW programs. All the time crying we don't have any money and can't meet our obligations. His office is so arrogant they send out press releases constantly announcing the new expenditures. You would think that someone like the newspapers in Illinois would start putting pressure on his office to stop the drain but no they don't.

Westboro Baptist Church

BrvYnky — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:16:41 GMT

Putting aside how distasteful, out of line, rude and socially unacceptable Westboro Baptist Church is, Mr. Snyder is wrong. WBC has the right, as any other organization in the US, to protest. He says it's like yelling fire in a theater. Mr. Snyder, how is it like that? Other than a sound bite describe to me the similarities. There aren't any. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mr. Snyder the negative ramifications are huge for every group in America that wants to protest, rally or assemble publicly. Freedom and Liberty minded people throughout America need to watch this carefully.

Politics of E-Waste still disturbing

timmermans — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:27:19 GMT

In case did not know, ewaste is the electronic junk that is piling up in our local dumps. Most of it though is shipped overseas to less stringent standards and higher profits. It is a 'export your harm' approach and the Basel Action Network (BAN) is doing what they can to stop it.

A long awaited policy reform from the Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) did not go the way BAN wanted it to. They say it does little to nothing to stop the exporting of electronics. As a result, the countries with the least amount of capabilities to properly hand our escraps our handling our escraps.

BAN executive director Jim Puckett had this to say,

"Dumping toxic, problematic wastes on developing countries is an easy way to make money, and the US scrap industry seems hell-bent on perpetuating that practice even when it has been globally outlawed. Not only does this irresponsible practice succeed in exporting poisons to those least able to deal with it, but it means the loss of green US jobs as well."

That is the most frustrating thing, too. Quality jobs in the United State are being lost so large companies can export recycling to nations that can't process it safely.

The Basel Convention treaty forbids any member country from importing wastes from a non-Party like the United States. Therefore, ISRI's policy of ignoring the Basel Convention succeeds in creating illegal trafficking in waste worldwide.

BAN warns people not to be fooled by companies who claim to recycle ewaste but are members of ISRI. If a company wants to recycle your ewaste, do you homework first.

Furthermore, ISRI is controlling a certain segment of the media, thus making many believe they believe in doing what is right. Very frustrating.

What you can do

Many electronic repair shops are popping up all over, with iphone repair leading the way it seems. This is a great thing as people look to reduce ewaste and save money during hard economic times.

It is up to us as consumers to buy less and use our products longer. See if you can install upgrades on your computer to use it an additional two years. When you buy a television, plan on owning it for a very long time. If you get rid of it, sell it to somebody or dispose of your items the right way. Ewaste is incredibly toxic so respect your things and handle with care!

Massachusetts Party Platform

Forwarder — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:12:39 GMT

Forwarder writes: Here we have a stae party that adopted a platform.

The Libertarian Association of Massachusetts stands for Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity.

PEACE
Libertarians support non-intervention in the affairs of foreign nations. Our foreign wars should end; our armed forces should be brought home from around the world. The Cold War is over; the vast military machine that the Cold War justified is no longer needed.

FREEDOM
Libertarians stand for protecting your Federal and State Constitutional Rights, all of them without any exception or omission. There is no National Security exemption to the Bill of Rights. Politicians who ignore our Constitutional Liberties are the chief threat to our country.

OPPORTUNITY
America should be a land of opportunity for every citizen. Massive expansions of the Federal Budget and Debt are strangling those opportunities. We need massive cuts in government spending or our grandchildren will be crushed by their grandparents' wastrel extravagance.
END REGRESSIVE TAXATION
The sales tax should over several years be repealed. Let's hear the giant sucking sound of the good people of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine coming to Massachusetts to our high-quality, no-tax shops, creating jobs and income for the Commonwealth.

FEES SHOULD NOT BE HIDDEN GENERAL TAXES
Cut in half all license fees.

END TURNPIKE TOLLS
The cost of maintaining the turnpike is a small fraction of the tolls levied on it. Turnpike tolls primarily pay for the cost of collecting the tolls. End tolls, move money back to people.

The Libertarian Association of Massachusetts calls for the repeal of the Massachusetts compulsory health insurance law.

The Libertarian Association of Massachusetts endorses new and future pro-freedom initiatives being brought to the voters and urges Libertarians across Massachusetts to support their passage.

The Libertarian Association of Massachusetts condemns the Bush Administration's war of aggression against Iraq and calls for its immediate end, and calls for the immediate withdrawal of the Massachusetts National Guard to Massachusetts.

In accord with existing Federal Law, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts should move vigorously to replace its National Guard with a State Defense Force whose service is limited to the boundaries of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot long endure a huge underclass of people whose civil liberties and civil rights have been lost to the war on drugs. There should be a general pardon of all persons who were convicted of violating state laws defining nonviolent drug crimes.

Laws requiring the use of personal protective equipment intended primarily to protect the user, such as Motorcycle Helmets and Automobile Seatbelts, should be repealed, because protecting people from their own actions is not a fundamental purpose of government.

Mindful of the rights clearly provided for in the Bill of Rights, the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts calls for the repeal of all Massachusetts permit laws and other restrictions on the right of law-abiding adults to keep and bear firearms and other weapons.

Root for President in 2012?

Forwarder — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 13:52:49 GMT

Forwarder reports: In an article with the header "A Tale of Two Waynes?", Tom Knapp http://knappster.blogspot.com links to a video link

http://www.youtube.com/v/LGWkV...

featuring a video interview with Wayne Root by the Brunson Brothers Media Group. The exact date of the interview is not given, but references to the Greek financial crisis make it recent.

In the interview, Root indicates that he will be running for our party's Presidential nomination in 2012.

State Chairs Take Heed

Forwarder — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:37:05 GMT

LNC Regional Organization

The LNC has started circulating a form allowing state parties to organize into regions.

If your region has agreed as to which states are in the region, and who your regional representative will be, be sure that information is written on your form. If you want your delegates to vote at the National Convention on who your regional representative can be, be absolutely certain the "Regional Representative" space is marked "to be elected by vote of all delegates at the National Convention" or whatever you and your fellow state chairs have agreed to. Don't leave the space blank.

Be sure that no accidental misunderstanding mars our National Convention or the selection of the next Libertarian National Committee.

Scott Williamson: The Cost of Doing Business

Forwarder — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:56:46 GMT

Forwarder forwards from Scott Williamson and the February 2010 issue of Liberty for America magazine an article on siting of our national office.

When I moved my family from Michigan to Nashville three years ago one of the decisions we had to make was where we were going to live. We could have chosen to live in the heart of the action and moved to a loft in down town Nashville. We chose to spend half as much and move to a neighborhood. Sure, when we go to see a ball game or attend a play we have to fight traffic and drive downtown. In the long run, by living away from downtown we free up thousands of dollars a year to spend on other things.

If you run a business or run a household you know that we make economic decisions daily. Often the issue is not how much you spend; it is how you are spending it. By spending money on one thing you now have less to spend on other things. This is a lesson Libertarians have been trying to teach government for years.

In order for the Libertarian Party to have moral authority to teach this lesson it is imperative that we make sure as a party we are wisely spending our own money. Federal Election Commission December report shows the LNC pay's $10,928.89 a month for office space. To put this into some perspective, a sustaining member pays $25.00 annually for their membership; it takes over 437 sustaining members a month to pay the rent on our Washington, D.C office. If you are a sustaining member, it took you and 5,245 others to pay the rent on our national office in 2009.
Just like that loft in Nashville, the Watergate office puts us right in the heart of the action. But, could this money have been spent more wisely? If the Ron Paul campaign taught us anything, it has taught us that donors care more about your web address then they do your office address. The Milken Institute publishes a "cost of doing business" index every year. Recent findings by the institute showed the average cost of office rentals in all fifty states and ranked the state of Virginia in the exact middle. The average monthly office rent in the State of Virginia is $1.72 a square foot. The monthly cost of our Washington, D.C. office is $4.00 per square foot. If you were to move the D.C. office into Virginia (which is within driving distance to Washington D.C.) the party could conceivable free up close to $80,000 annually to spend on other things.

The FEC December report also shows the LNC spent a total of $0 on candidates in 2009. Several states grant automatic ballot access for the party if a candidate for a state wide office obtains a certain percentage of the vote. We can lose an election and win a campaign. When our state candidates gain a certain percentage, the national party is often rewarded with ballot access for our presidential candidate. What if the party spends less on an office and more on our candidates, on ballot access and outreach? It is within the realm of believability that by financially supporting state wide candidates we could end up spending less on ballot access in some states. By having to spending less on ballot access in some states we could spend more on candidate's campaigns and ballot access in other states. You can imagine how this ripple effect could turn out.

I am not advocating moving the national office into Virginia. In the electronic age we live in, the national office could conceivable be located anywhere. South Dakota ranked the cheapest place to have an office at a monthly rate of $1.15 a square foot. I am advocating a serious look into the expensive cost of running an office out of Washington, D.C. I am advocating that we as a party look at how we spend our money. Most importantly I am advocating we spend more on the real work of a political party, outreach and campaigns, and less on having an office in Washington D.C.

Rhys Blavier: Collecting Libertarian Votes

Forwarder — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:40:31 GMT

Challenge:
Getting actual voters (Libertarian, Republican, Democratic and Independent) to actually cast their ballots for Libertarian Candidates

Solutions:
Instead of telling ourselves why voters SHOULD vote for our candidates, we need to honestly and objectively ask ourselves why voters DON'T vote for us; We MUST keep in mind that NO voters owes any party or candidate their vote. It is up to the Parties and candidates to earn those votes.

Evaluate our candidates on how they present themselves to the public to determine why, from the very beginning of each campaign, voters perceive our candidates as fringe people who the voters would not WANT to represent them;

We need to create either offices or staff positions at all levels of 'Election Coordinators'. They would be responsible for active outreach to our candidates and potential candidates, not merely to advise the candidates but also to be an active clearing house for all necessary legal advise for running campaigns, for being a central recipient who all necessary local and state documents and forms (including ethics compliance forms and other requirements beyond the simple act of turning in filing documents). Their job will be to PRO-ACTIVELY ensure that our candidates have every document they need, to make sure that all documents are properly filed with the appropriate agencies, to make sure that general Libertarian Party materials are sent to the candidates, to develop relationships with service providers (such as printers) who will reduce the cost of their services for coordinated services for candidates throughout a county, district, or state; etc. Election coordinators should also be able to act as a "booking agent" who will actively find engagements for our candidates to speak at and for event coordinators to contact to arrange for candidates to speak at their events. Election coordinators would also help candidates to set up and conduct fundraising events, as well as ensure that any such event conforms with their state's laws and election codes.

We MUST examine our messages to the voters and the public. The far-right, "I hate even the very idea of government" anarchists and objectivists can strike those voters who are not ALREADY in agreement with the"down will all governments" philosophies as nihilist with no actual plan for how to even develop a plan for gradually moving us in that direction. The vast majority of Americans do not WANT, and are not comfortable with the IDEA of a complete absence of government. It scares them. If we ever want MAINSTREAM voters to hear us and give us any chances to show what we could do in office, we must be willing and able to be a Party with a wide spectrum of right to left political ideologies AND able to present even the extreme ends of our Party in ways that will not cause mainstream voters to simply write all LP candidates off as members of a lunatic fringe.

In the races with no opposition from one of the two major Parties, our leadership needs to work with the leadership of the other Parties to get their support as an alternative when they have no candidates in a particular race. In races with no LP candidates, we should help support candidates who are friendly with our goals and objectives.

We MUST make redistricting a major part of the message of ALL of our candidates in 2010. Until and unless the states develop politically neutral, non-partisan districts, neither us nor any other third-party movement will have a chance to become significant participants in our governments.

Rhys Blavier is a libertarian author writing from Tomayor, Texas. Rhys Blavier extends his profound thanks to Angela Keaton (AntiWar.Com) and Lee Wrights (LibertyForAll.net), and encourages others to support their long-time and dedicated work and their effort to support the cause of liberty and freedom and the advancement of the libertarian philosophy. This article is Copyright 2010 by Rhys Blavier and reproduced by permission.

Diary Deleted

AuGeo — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:01:32 GMT

Spam Deleted

Hawkridge Endorses Phillies for National Chair

Forwarder — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:01:34 GMT

Forwarder writes: Rachel Hawkridge is a Regional Representative and Washington State Chair. She writes

We desperately need a National Chair who focuses on supporting activism, recruiting candidates, and raising money. We desperately need a National Chair who focuses on administration, not someone who will continue factional conflicts.

We desperately need a National Chair who welcomes all into the party - Radicals, Reformers, Minarchists, Anarchists, Centrists, Pagans, Christians, sex workers in fabulous costumes and professional business people in three-piece suits -- but who insists that it is libertarians who will guide our party's direction.

I am endorsing and supporting the one man who will focus on these goals - and who is committed to supporting candidates. Candidate support should be our primary mission. No longer will our budget allot zero for candidate support.

My candidate sees the value and necessity of educational outreach, not to mention collaboration with outside groups when we agree on issues.

That's why I endorse and support Dr. George Phillies for National Chair. Please join me.

Forming Regions in the National Party

Forwarder — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:08:18 GMT

...A Short Guide for New State Chairs

Our Libertarian National Committee is composed of four National Officers and five At-Large members, chosen by all delegates at the National Convention, and eight or nine Regional Representatives, chosen by groups of states.

A Region is entitled to have a Regional Representative if at least 10% of the party's members live in the region, two Representatives, if 20% of the members live in the region, and so forth. California, by itself, can be a region, because >10% of our members live in California, but other states must group together to form a region. The actual number of Regional Representatives is determined by how states agree to form Regions, but historically there have been eight or nine Regional Representatives.

Region formation is entirely voluntary by the states agreeing to form the Region. There are no Bylaws assigning states to regions. You get to form Regions every two years, during the three months before the National Convention, though you can negotiate the details in advance. You make your agreement, the State parties all sign the agreement, and you have a Region. If you choose not to join a region, or if your State Party does not get around to joining a Region in time, you can be an independent State.

If you do not agree to do something else, at some point during the National Convention the delegates from the states in the region get together and elect their Regional Representative and the Regional Alternate. These meetings have sometimes been held in front of the elevators; informing delegates about them has sometimes been a bit haphazard. You don't have to do it that way.

You can plan out in advance which states are or are not in your region. You are under no obligation to stay in your current region. In forming a "double region", you may find that the natural division of states (say, the current region 5 North and South) divides so that one end has >10% of the members, the other end has <10% of the members, but you can still agree that the delegates from the two halves of the region each separately choose a Regional Representative.

Everything else can be done by mutual agreement of the states involved, so long as the details are specified in the formation agreement, such as agreements as to how many votes each state gets in choosing a Representative or Alternate, where the Representative and Alternate must come from, how the Representative and Alternate may be replaced, etc.

It is always sensible to look at the Region you might be joining and ask whether the Region makes sense, and whether the credible choices of Regional Representative are acceptable. For example, if your Regional Representative has never contacted your state or filed a report in the LNC Minutes about what is happening in your Region, you might want to consider what you want to do.

Mary Ruwart: Minority Report of the DCC

Forwarder — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:30:39 GMT

Forwarder writes: The DCC is the Donor Confidentiality Committee, formed by the LNC at its last meeting to deal with issues related to pubic representations as to Lee Wrights' membership status by the LNC, in the form of its Treasurer. Mary Ruwart has written a minority report dealing with that Committee's findings, including a detailed description of the peculiar path the Committee followed in generating its report. Because the Minority report is a bit complex, we open with a summary taken from Liberty for America magazine

Minority Report of the
Donor Confidentiality Committee

We now turn to Mary Ruwart's minority report to the Libertarian National Committee from the LNC ad hoc Donor Confidentiality Committee. The report is a bit long, so a short summary is in order.

Readers will recall that last Spring an effort was made to remove Lee Wrights from the National Committee, based on claims that he was not or had ceased to be a sustaining member of the National Party. During the affaire, claims about Mr. Wrights membership status, in the form of a memo from Aaron Starr, appeared on IndependentPoliticalReport.com. According to Ruwart's report, the memo made a number of claims about Wrights that have not been substantiated and that were damaging to Lee Wrights.

At the Summer LNC Meeting, the LNC formed a Donor Confidentiality Committee to make recommendations to the LNC for protecting the good names of its donors. Chairman Redpath appointed to the committee Mary Ruwart, and then Mark Hinkle, Stuart Flood, M Carling,...and Aaron Starr, whose memorandum was the proximate justification for forming the committee.

The conduct of the committee, as described in the Minority Report, may be characterized as 'interesting'. Apparently Messrs. Carling and Starr wrote a 'final report', vetted by Mr. Flood, which they shared with Mr. Hinkle, but not with the fifth Committee member, Dr. Ruwart. There was allegedly a conference call to approve the report. According to Ruwart, Starr demanded that Hinkle exclude Ruwart from the conference call, Ruwart writing:

"When I told Mr. Hinkle that I was available for the meeting, he told me that I could not participate because Mr. Starr had specifically asked that I be excluded until the document was "finalized." When I pointed out that he, as Committee Chair, could overrule Mr. Starr's request, Mr. Hinkle said he was unwilling to do so because he felt beholden to Mr. Starr for preparing the report. Although Mr. Hinkle did not appreciate being excluded from earlier meetings, he was quite willing to continue to exclude me."

And now, below the fold, the actual report:
Minority Report of the
Donor Confidentiality Committee

We now turn to Mary Ruwart's minority report to the Libertarian National Committee from the LNC ad hoc Donor Confidentiality Committee. The report is a bit long, so a short summary is in order. Readers will recall that last Spring an effort was made to remove Lee Wrights from the National Committee, based on claims that he was not or had ceased to be a sustaining member of the National Party. During the affaire, claims about Mr. Wrights membership status, in the form of a memo from Aaron Starr, appeared on IndependentPoliticalReport.com. According to Ruwart's report, the memo made a number of claims about Wrights that have not been substantiated and that were damaging to Lee Wrights.

"When I told Mr. Hinkle that I was available for the meeting, he told me that I could not participate because Mr. Starr had specifically asked that I be excluded until the document was "finalized." When I pointed out that he, as Committee Chair, could overrule Mr. Starr's request, Mr. Hinkle said he was
unwilling to do so because he felt beholden to Mr. Starr for preparing the report. Although Mr. Hinkle did not appreciate being excluded from earlier meetings, he was quite willing to continue to exclude me."

We go downhill from here, and the details are on page 8, finally reaching Dan Karlan's demand that Ruwart suppress large parts of her own report. And now, the actual report:

Minority Report of the
Donor Confidentiality Committee
By Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D.

The Donor Confidentiality Committee was formed to propose policy to protect the confidentiality of donor information and to prevent further instances of the negligence which resulted in Mr. Wrights' donor information being posted on public blogs. This Committee has not fulfilled its mission primarily because of the conflicts of interest that continue to drive it. As a result, the LNC has opened itself up to the possibility of legal liability should future incidents occur.

Why Donor Confidentiality Is Crucial

In July 2009, I proposed a motion to protect donor confidentiality at the LNC meeting in St. Louis (i.e., "except as required by law, all donor records will be treated as private and confidential"). The motion was inspired by Mr. Starr's failure to label his memo of April 21, 2009 to the LNC concerning Mr. Wrights' donor information as "confidential." In the absence of such labeling, material posted to the LNC-Discuss list was routinely finding its way to public blogs. Indeed, Mr. Starr's memo appeared on Independent Political Review (IPR) less than 18 minutes after it was sent to the LNC. It is possible that this nine page memo, with its small type, was read by an LNC member, sent to someone at IPR who read it, wrote the 3-4 paragraph introduction to the posting, and uploaded it. However, with the tight time window, it is more likely that someone already had Mr. Starr's memo and was ready to upload it as soon as it was sent to the LNC.

In the industry I work in, failure to label proprietary information as "confidential" and to take adequate security measures to protect it, is a firing offense. While Mr. Starr routinely labels even his draft budgets as "confidential," he neglected to do so for Mr. Wrights' private donor information. Mr. Starr's memo makes a number of claims that have not been substantiated, including the assertion that Mr. Wrights dues' payment for 2008, made through Sean Haugh, was an "illegal contribution." Mr. Starr also claims that HQ records indicate that Mr. Wrights' dues lapsed in February 2004 and that he did not renew his membership until January 2005. Mr. Wrights has repeatedly stated that his February 2004 dues were paid by his wife, who was credited with a membership by mistake. He has also asserted that HQ was directed to correct his records prior to his election as Vice Chair in 2004. Mr. Dixon, who served as Chair during the time that Mr. Wrights was Vice Chair, recently wrote Chairman Redpath confirming that Mr. Wrights' records were indeed in disarray during the time he served. In a telephone conversation with me, Mr. Redpath said that he found Mr. Dixon's information vague and unconvincing. He pointed out that if Mr. Wrights had indeed paid dues in January 2004, UMP records should testify to that fact. Encouraged by his suggestion, and with Mr. Wrights' permission, I investigated further.

Excerpts from UMP records from November and December of 2004 list Mr. Wrights with an expiration date of 2/24/2005. These reports would contain this information only if, at the time of their generation, Mr. Wrights' last dues payment was listed in his records as 2/24/2004.

A December 2004 listing of national LP members broken down by state includes Mr. Wrights as well. Although this record does not list expiration dates, the inclusion of Mr. Wrights indicates that he was indeed a member in good standing when the list was generated.

Thus, the preponderance of the evidence (Mr. Dixon's statement, UMP records from 2004, lists of national members by state from 2004) support Mr. Wrights' contention that his 2004 dues had been paid and that he was indeed properly elected as LNC Vice Chair in that year. Evidently, his records at one time registered a dues payment on 2/24/2004, a notation which appears to have been removed at some later date either by accident or by design.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wrights' record snafu is not unusual. After reviewing this material with me, Mr. Benedict stated, "I have lots of emails back from 2004 about lots of people having problems with their memberships when the conversion to the new Raiser's Edge database occurred. Even before then, I have lots of email about problems keeping membership records straight. I will keep working to improve our database and record keeping."

Now, dear colleagues, you can appreciate that we have a major public relations issue on our hands. Although Mr. Starr meticulously labels many things sent to the LNC as "confidential," he neglected to take this standard precaution with his memo containing private donor information with which he was entrusted as Treasurer of this body. Clearly, we need a policy that mandates at least this minimal protection for contributions by our donors. We demand it of our mailing houses and other vendors
when we give them donor information so that they can execute their duties. Surely we should hold our Treasurer and ourselves to the same standard.

If you have doubts about the importance of such a policy, consider the consequences of Mr. Starr's negligence to both Mr. Wrights and to the Party. Let us first consider Mr. Wrights. If he stands for reelection to the LNC in 2010, he will have to counter false and derogatory statements made by Mr. Starr in his blogged memo. To appreciate their impact fully, imagine as you read them that they are said about your election to the LNC and about your membership status, lifetime or otherwise:

Page 7: "Neither Mr. Wrights, nor anyone else on his behalf, paid his dues during the twelve months leading up to the 2004 convention, when it was believed that he was elected to the position of national Vice Chair for the 2004-2006 term."

"While we all had believed that R. Lee Wrights had been elected to the board as the Vice Chair in May 2004, he was not elected Vice Chair because he was clearly not eligible due to his last gift date being February 24, 2003."

"I do not know whether R. Lee Wrights knew that he was not eligible at the time of the 2004 convention, but he clearly was not."

Page 8: "Because R. Lee Wrights was not a dues paying member at the time he ran for the Vice Chair position in May 2004, he was not elected Vice Chair and we did not have a legitimately qualified Vice Chair during that term."

"R. Lee Wrights served as an at-large representative during the 2002-2004 LNC term; he failed to maintain eligibility to serve during the term, due to a lapse in his status as a current dues-paying member as of February 24, 2004."

"R. Lee Wrights served as Vice Chair during the 2004-2006 term; he was ineligible to be elected to the position, and waited until nearly eight months into the term before taking action to become eligible." Please note that there is no equivocation in these statements; they are made as if they were facts. Mr. Starr did not check with Mr. Wrights for verification prior to making these remarks. Had he done so, he would have saved himself and the Libertarian Party a great deal of embarrassment. Mr. Wrights has told me that every attorney he has checked with assures him that Mr. Starr's words would likely allow him to prevail in a libel suit. Mr. Starr, who has criticized other members of this Board for using words that might create liability, has actually put this Board and the Party at risk. If we do not put policies in place to keep such things from happening again, we are setting ourselves and the Party up for future liability suits.

As our Treasurer, Mr. Starr's failure to protect confidential donor information adequately and failure to verify it prior to making such strong, derogatory statements reflects badly on the Party itself. If this is how our Treasurer treats fellow Board members, what can the average donor expect from us? How can they be sure that our Treasurer or someone else with access to their records won't use their contribution history to lambaste them rather than laud them?

How can we expect donors to send us money if we take no steps to protect their privacy? How can they expect us to keep accurate records if we can't do so for At-Large representatives? If a Board member can't get his records straightened out and is targeted with libel as a result, how can the average rank-and- file donor expect to be treated?

Our fiduciary responsibility to the Party requires that we take action to insure that private donor information will, in the future, be treated in a manner befitting its confidential status. It should be shared only with authorized personnel willing to take precautions to keep it confidential, except perhaps for publicly honoring---not dishonoring---donors.

Why the Donor Confidentiality Committee Is Ineffective

When I presented my motion at our July meeting in St. Louis in an attempt to insure that private donor information would, in the future, be treated as confidential, Ms. Matteson suggested that a 5-person committee be formed, presumably to study the issue and craft a better solution than the one I had proposed. After the meeting, Chairman Redpath assigned Mr. Hinkle, Mr. Flood, Mr. Carling, Mr. Starr and myself to the Committee.

In my e-mail of August 7, 2009 to LNC-Discuss, I pointed out that Mr. Starr had a clear conflict of interest and should not be sitting on the Committee (hereafter referred to as the DCC). I asked the Chair to remove Mr. Carling as well. Mr. Carling is not a voting member of the LNC and is a close, long-term
associate of Mr. Starr's who might have difficulty being objective in this matter.

Mr. Redpath responded that he had placed Mr. Starr on the DCC because he was the Treasurer; Mr. Carling was appointed because he was Chair of the Audit Committee. Mr. Redpath thus felt justified in letting these appointments stand, and neither Mr. Carling nor Mr. Starr offered to step down. The
conflict of interest represented by these appointments has, in my opinion, driven the agenda of this Committee from its inception.

For example, on August 7, Mr. Starr issued a memo to the DCC to direct its activities. Since Mr. Starr was acting as if he had been appointed chair, I asked Mr. Redpath if he had made the appointment. He said he had not and appointed Mr. Hinkle as Chair on August 13.

I heard nothing further about this committee until Mr. Hinkle called me on Sunday, November 29, a little after 2pm CST. Mr. Hinkle informed me that a committee report, crafted by Mr. Starr and Mr. Carling, and vetted by Mr. Flood, had been sent to him the night before. Mr. Hinkle told me he felt "excluded,"
since all this had taken place without his knowledge or participation.

I told Mr. Hinkle that I felt even more excluded, since no one on the DCC, including its chair, had bothered to send me the document. Since Mr. Hinkle did not immediately offer to forward it to me, I asked that he do so; to his credit, he immediately complied.

Mr. Hinkle went on to say that the document expanded member access to all details of Board Member donations, which would have retroactively whitewashed Mr. Starr's failure to treat Mr. Wrights' donor information as confidential. Mr. Hinkle told me that this was a deal breaker for him and that he intended to have it reversed in the conference call of the DCC which was at 3pm CST, approximately 20 minutes away.

When I told Mr. Hinkle that I was available for the meeting, he told me that I could not participate because Mr. Starr had specifically asked that I be excluded until the document was "finalized." When I pointed out that he, as Committee Chair, could overrule Mr. Starr's request, Mr. Hinkle said he was unwilling to do so because he felt beholden to Mr. Starr for preparing the report. Although Mr. Hinkle did not appreciate being excluded from earlier meetings, he was quite willing to continue to exclude me.

Around 4pm CST, Mr. Hinkle called again to tell me that the Mr. Starr had agreed to reverse the expanded member access to Board Member donation details. He said that the DCC wanted to meet with me in 10 minutes and get my approval so that it could be sent to HQ to be inserted in the binders for the upcoming meeting (the deadline for such submission was Monday morning, November 30). Since I had not yet been given the revised document, I told Mr. Hinkle that I would need time to review it.

Mr. Hinkle immediately sent me the revisions. As I perused the document, I realized that it needed more work and that time was necessary to consider its ramifications. Mr. Hinkle notified the DCC at 6:48 pm CST by e-mail that I would need approximately 24 hours to review and revise it. At 6:53 pm CST, Mr. Carling sent an e-mail to the committee, indicating that he was willing to send the document to HQ without my input if two other members supported this idea. I responded that I would submit a minority report if my input continued to be excluded. The other members of the committee elected to hear my comments.

The DCC met by phone to consider my revisions Monday night, November 30 at approximately 10pm CST. As I attempted to walk the DCC through my proposed changes, Mr. Starr continuously interrupted with patronizing diatribes. Our Treasurer, who has regularly championed "decorum" this term, was a poor example that night. Indeed, Mr. Hinkle complimented me the next day on my professionalism in this meeting, as he had expected me to "explode" in response to the repeated rudeness exhibited by Mr. Starr during the two hour meeting.

Mr. Starr's reaction was understandable, since I was trying to implement policy that would indirectly imply that his handling of private donor data was negligent. Mr. Starr had no way to appropriately manage his conflicts of interests on the DCC and appeared to be trying to manipulate the committee's outcome, by, among other things, limiting my input. By trying to send the DCC's report to the LNC without giving me time for a response, Mr. Carling may have been supporting his close friend in this endeavor.

My chief complaint about the document prepared by other DCC members was that it only specified who had access to donor information without addressing how it should be handled. Thus, it completely ignored the basis of my original motion.

As a remedy, Mr. Flood suggested that his Confidential Disclosure Agreement (CDA) might be amended to address my concerns. He and I agreed to work on this document the next day. Although the CDA now instructs contractors in the handling of confidential donor data, we did not have the time to appropriately adapt it for the LNC; thus, it does nothing to prevent a repeat performance by our Treasurer. My original concerns regarding how the LNC and HQ handle private donor information have still not been addressed. Consequently---and perhaps more importantly---the liability concerns also remain.

The Reason for My Minority Report

Although I was prepared to make this report at the last LNC meeting, it appeared unnecessary since it became quickly evident that the LNC would not accept the DCC's proposed Policy Manual changes. Since Dan Karlan moved to postpone matters until Austin, I assumed the DCC would have time to reconvene and present something to the LNC which would address the concerns outlined above. However, after time was up on this matter, Mr. Starr claimed that the business of the committee was finished, in spite of my objections to the contrary. He continues to do so over my objections on LNC-Discuss.

Since it now appears that the DCC will not be addressing the concerns which led to its formation, I feel compelled to submit this minority report in order to advise the LNC of:

1. The serious nature of the still-existing problem;

2. The need for action beyond what the DCC has proposed;

3. The conflicts of interest which would make further deliberations of the DCC unproductive.

In the near future, I will be proposing motions to deal with these problems since the DCC has not done so.