Bob Barr appointed to LNC What this is about: The process by which Bob Barr was placed on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) as representative of the Southeast (SE) region.

What this is NOT about: Bob Barr's suitability for the position he was appointed to.

Essence of the matter: The chairs of the SE region did not act against rules in the appointment of Bob Barr to the LNC, but they did act inappropriately. They should have let the alternate take the position, asked for nominations, and opened a dialogue with activist members of the Party. They should not have acted (or attempted to act) in secret regarding the appointment, should not have acted in haste, should not have speeded up the process when it came under scrutiny, and should not have enlisted the help of Party members outside the region while ignoring or insulting people within the region who raised concerns. They should not have been in such haste to appoint a newcomer to the Party with a controversial political record in another party without consideration for the concerns of LP activists.

My interest in this matter: I am an LP activist from North Carolina, and a member of the LP of NC's Executive Committee.

Background:

The LNC is the governing body of the Libertarian Party (LP). It is composed of the Party's officers and representatives from geographical regions of the US. These regions are formed at each national convention, where each region selects an LNC representative and an alternate to serve in the representative's absence. In the SE region (at least), the state chairs have the duty of replacing a representative who leaves office between conventions. The SE region is composed of the state LPs of TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, FL, MS.

At the last LP convention in Portland, the SE region representatives selected as our representative Mark Bodenhausen, with Stewart Flood as alternate.

Mark Bodenhausen resigned on the 10th of this month (December) during a conference call
among a quorum of state chairs. There was some private discussion among the chairs about the possibility of Mark's resignation beforehand. When Mark resigned, Stewart Flood, the alternate, expressed his willingness and ability to serve in Mark's stead as needed. Discussion moved to a replacement for Mark. Bob Barr was nominated by Alicia Mattson, chair of the TN LP. No other nominations were offered. It was decided to reconvene the meeting on Sunday the 16th to hold a vote on Mr. Barr's nomination. This would give state chairs time to discuss the situation with their committees. The chairs were urged to keep the process confidential other than sharing with their executive committees.

I am not sure if other executive committees were informed, but whe Phil Jacobson (chair of LPNC) reported this information the LPNC executive committee, there was a fairly significant degree of concern about both the speed and secrecy of the action and the nomination of Bob Barr. Phil shared this concern with his fellow SE region chairs, as well as a sampling of the questions about Mr. Barr. Phil Jacobson received a phone call from Aaron Starr of California lobbying him to vote 'yes' on the Barr nomination.

On the evening of December 11 (Monday), Phil reported to the LPNC executive committee the vote on Mr. Barr was to be moved up to Tuesday the 12th, the next day (over Phil's objections). The primary justification was to get better press coverage sooner. Phil also indicated his intent - to both the other chairs and to the LPNC's executive committee - to vote against the nomination because of the concerns of the LPNC executive committee. At this point (early Tuesday), the chair of TN, Alicia Mattson, wrote the following to Phil:

I am displeased with NC's intent to vote against a Bob Barr nomination. The region as a
whole seems poised to vote in favor of the idea, and the thought of one of our states
playing the contrarian presents a particularly unpleasant image. It would be better for
public image sake for us to present a unified front, for us to show goodwill towards Bob
Barr in exchange for what he can bring and has brought to our party. I would strongly
encourage Phil to reconsider his intent to oppose the nomination in order to present a
better image of our region. For my part, I'll be inclined to change our regional makeup at
the next opportunity, rather than have a contrarian state that doesn't mesh well with the
rest of the region and seems determined to oppose a move that would be so positive for the
LP.

The [phone] meeting Tuesay the 12th convened at 7pm and was over in about an hour, by which point Bob Barr had been elected to the position by a vote of four to one [Phil voting against]. Phil indicated that he also asked his fellow chairs to give the nomination more time for consideration to allay the concerns of state LP activists. This motion was defeated. The state chairs in attendance were Dick Clark (LPAL), Jason Pye (LPGA), Phil Jacobson (LPNC), and Alicia Mattson (LPTN). Also in attendance and presiding was Stewart Flood, the regional alternate rep. Missing were the chairs from Florida (Doug Klippel), Mississippi (Harold Taylor), and South Carolina (Tim Moutrie). Stewart Flood, who is the LPSC's vice chair, acted for SC's chair and voted 'yes' for Barr, as they had discussed the vote earlier. By midnight on the 12/13th, Alicia Mattson had sent a letter to Mr. Barr, inviting him to become our region's representative on the Libertarian National Committee.

When I questioned the speed and secrecy of this process and wrote out a timeline to explain my concerns, I was subjected to comments such as:

Your questions are inapropriate and contain very subtly phrased accusations that are
unjustified. - Stewart Flood

The suggestion of Bob Barr was not even made to me by a member of the Georgia LP. I'm sure that they're probably kicking themselves for not thinking of the idea first, but it was
brought to me by other people. And no, the names of the people who suggested Bob and the
names of everyone who had input on this is none of anyone's business. - Stewart Flood

I find that I must agree with Alicia that your state is not part of our political climate
and should probably be put in another region in 2008. My opinion may change, but it will
take a complete turn-around in the attitude of your party both as a member of this region
and as a state affiliate of the Libertarian National Committee. - Stewart Flood

And my favorite:

If you want to work some more details into the timeline, since Sunday night I've also:

eaten some soup, turkey, an apple, potatotes, ham, broccoli, junk food
drank some Mountain Dew and orange juice (not together)
bought some dog food & Christmas cards
worked on a newsletter
gone to work
etc.

Yesterday I was wearing black pants and a striped shirt. I think my bedtime last night was
around 2:30am CST, pretty early for me, actually. - Alicia Mattson

I have no idea who you and really don't care to know why you seem to be the spokesperson
for people in your state party. I recall now that this isn't the first time you've tried to
tear messages of mine apart to find fault. Start looking at the forest, not the trees.
I believe you are intentionally trying to cause controvery. And I also believe your reply
indicates that you have no idea what is going on. Do I think that you're lying? I think
that you are well versed in the art of twisting things out of context. You'd probably make a
good political speech writer for a non-indicted co-conspirator congress critter, but other
than that your words have no meaning.
I have no further comment on this subject other than to close this discussion by saying that
you should direct all questions to your state party chairman. - Stewart Flood

Phil Jacobson contributed this about the process:

One thing I will comment on is that in some matters, members of the LPNC SE Region Chairs
group have expected me to take the opposite extreme from the "prosecutor" model - to simply accept the ideas of the majority of SE Region chairs and go along with them, ignoring the opinions of LPNC members entirely. At that point, it seems, these out of state chairs
expected me to take on the burden of arguing their case before the LPNC EC and LPNC members, to sell their ideas as if my will was their will.
In other words, they expected me to represent them to LPNC rather than for me to represent
LPNC to them.

Believe it or not, I actually have the power to do that, by the rules we operate under
(seemingly inspired by the philosophies of many government legislators). But I do not feel
it appropriate for me to use such a power, without an emergency to justify it (none being
present in this case). Instead I have tried, to the extent made possible by the system I am
forced to work within, to make sure that the true ruling body of LPNC (between state
conventions, as provided by the LPNC bylaws) - the LPNC EC - is allowed to exercise maximum influence on any vote I cast "for LPNC".

After Stewart Flood declared his unwillingness to communicate with me further, I received a call from Shane Cory, the Executive Director of the LP. He wanted, he said, to know if I had concerns or questions. He also, it seemed, wanted to spend a fair amount of time denigrating the leadership style of the LPNC chair Phil Jacobson. When I asked him about the secrecy surrounding the Barr nomination, he said that 'key people in the LP' were aware of the nomination and invitation. He refused to name any of these people.

After I spoke to Shane Cory, I got this in email from Stewart Flood (on the 14th):

Shane Cory called me this afternoon and told me that you have additional questions that you
would like addressed. He asked me to contact you and reply to any questions that I am able
to answer. He indicated that you need clarification on several issues and may have further
questions that have not yet been asked.

I will certainly try to answer all of your questions. If any of them require answers that I
do not know, I will try to find the person (or persons) that will be able to give you an
accurate answer.

I had - and have these questions for Stewart. So far no answer:

- You indicated that nominating Barr was 'not your idea', but declined to say whose idea it
was. Who nominated him? Was it that person's idea?

- Was Mr. Barr consulted during this process? Did he accept the nomination?

- Were you willing and able to serve as our primary representative until someone else was
found? Were you willing to serve as representative if you had been nominated for that
position?

- Why wasn't more time given for other nominations to come to the chairs from the activists
in their state party organizations?

- Why was only a week given for consideration?

- Why was the week shortened to less than three days *after* concerns about both the
nomination and the process were raised?

- Why was it considered important to select a representative without opening discussion on
the issue among the people who will be represented?

- Shane mentioned in our conversation that 'key people' were consulted about the Barr
nomination. Which people where they? What makes them 'key people'? Were all the 'key people'
members of the SE region?

- If the SE region chairs were told to keep the Barr nomination quiet *within* the SE
region, why was Aaron Starr from California informed about it? Was he a 'key person'? What
gave him this status?

- Is Shane Cory a 'key person'? Is he a member of the SE region? When did he know about this
nomination?

Labels: LP

  ¶ 11:20 PM