Steve Trinward Steve Trinward is "Soul Proprietor" of Trinwords.Com and a contributing editor for Rational Review. SUPPORT OUR
SPONSORS WHY AREN'T YOU A SPONSOR?
|
What is the LNC's
real job? In my last column, I tried to clarify my vision of where the Libertarian Party, and the libertarians contained therein (and/or scattered in the vicinity?), can best use its/their energies to promote Liberty in the land. If we would help bring freedom to America -- in the face of Patriot Acts, Total Information Awareness (an acronym ominously familiar to webheads everywhere) and the impending BushWar -- we have to concentrate on coalition building, issue campaigns and local activism. This time, I want to take a different tack, to talk about how one part of the Libertarian Party has been misused and mislabeled for most of the Party's 30+ years of existence, and to debunk some widely held myths about that body. I refer, of course, to the Libertarian National Committee, of which I recently became a member (Representative for Region Seven: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas). For many years -- throughout my early days as a Massachusetts Libertarian, and even more recent times in Tennessee -- I labored under the misconception that the LNC should be some sort of advocacy and policy group, whose primary job was to represent "the Libertarian position" on domestic and world affairs, and to speak out on behalf of the Party whenever it deemed it appropriate. (I think I got this impression largely from the fact that so many party press releases were sent out with extensive quotes from the National Chair, whom I saw as the mouthpiece/spokesperson for "THE" Libertarian response to the issue.) All this time, I had attended one, maybe two, Committee meetings -- at the end of a National Convention, when in reality the agenda of a new LNC is more about introductions and giving an overview to newcomers on where the Party was at that moment. I thus had little or no idea of what the job actually involved -- truth be told, back then I was probably far more concerned about how many of the individuals on the Committee were of the same party faction to which I belonged (variously known over the years as the RadLibs, Space Cadets, and other monikers). Thoughts of practicality, or actually governing the affairs of the Party, were the farthest thing from my mind back then, 'cause, Dammit! We have a revolution to fight and win! Indeed, when I got a wild hair in the spring of 2000, and decided to throw myself (since I rarely wore a hat!) into the LNC At Large ring, it was with the idea that if I got elected, it would be for my political views -- not my possible skill at helping to manage this growing organization, whose "business" just happened to be politics! I ran arrogantly and confidently -- knowing full well it was a longshot, but wanting to express myself in that forum, regardless. (My presentation thus became the third speech I delivered to the delegates, following on the heels of my NOTA for President and Wilhoit for Vice Chair declarations.) I was not the least bit surprised when I trailed almost the entire field, but I appreciated the support from the roughly 70 people who had voted for me. Fast forward to fall 2001, when almost on a whim, I accompanied then-LNC Alternate Tom Knapp to the meeting in Atlanta, hopping aboard his rental car as he passed through Nashville. We arrived early on Saturday, a couple hours before the meeting started. I was so tired from the trip that I just laid down across some seats at the side of the room, dangled my sandal-clad bare feet over the end of the row, and went to sleep for a bit. (The Hotel Security folks woke me for an interesting conversation; I'm sure I looked completely out of place.) The meeting began, and I was immediately aware that what was going on in the room had very little to do with differences in worldview or ideology, but was far more centered on figuring out how to make the Libertarian Party more effective, and how to keep it running smoothly into the future. Discussion focused on reports from the Treasurer and Chair, the Executive Director and those National Staff members charged with project-oversight. The major theme was balancing budgets, and bringing in new revenue to keep the Party healthy and functioning. Partway through that first day, the issue of "09/11" (and the Bush Administration's response thereto) was brought up, by Executive Director Steve Dasbach. He declared that the Committee must, at some point during the weekend, endorse some sort of resolution about these issues, to give him and the National Staff some guidance as to the "official Libertarian position" on these matters. (Note: It is perhaps significant that Mr. Dasbach had already attempted to get Dr. James Lark, in his role as National Party Chair, to sign off on such a resolution, which had been written by LP News editor Bill Winter… but that Jim had declined to do so.) The matter was discussed for a time, then tabled until Sunday, with LNC Region Four Representative Michael Gilson de Lemos (aided by Mr. Knapp… and unofficially by Yr. Obt. Sert.) charged with writing a resolution everyone could feel comfortable with. Over the succeeding afternoon and evening, Tom and I each put together a draft, to assist MG in crafting such a document. We then handed our work to him, and assumed he would carry it the rest of the way. Come Sunday and MG was nowhere in sight. (Personal and family issues kept him away until the very end of the day's proceedings). Having no resolution to work with, the Committee proceeded with its other work, and was actually about to adjourn… when Mr. Dasbach reminded them they had given him no guidance in responding to press inquiries about these issues. In the absence of anything else, he made copies of the Winter resolution (Yep, the same one Mr. Lark had declined to endorse!), distributed them throughout the room and urged the LNC to approve it. The resolution passed, with only a couple of dissenting votes and an abstention. There was some attempt at stopping this altogether, and some minor adjustments made in the prose, but in essence it went through as it had been written, with all the ambiguities and soft-pedaling contained in the original. Many on the Committee, and others in attendance, left very dissatisfied with the results. At the time, I thought it was better to have this flawed representation of "the LP position," than to have no statement at all. I have since changed my mind: In my not so humble opinion, looking back over the last year and more, the decision to make such a resolution, and to present it as "the voice of the Libertarian Party," was one of the biggest mistakes the LNC has made in recent times! It served only to divide the ranks, it pleased almost nobody, and it left the LP open to all sorts of charges -- some valid, some not -- about its avowed position as "the Party of Peace." But this is not just about what happened over a year ago in Atlanta; there is a much larger issue here, which is where I'm going with this: If you read the LP Bylaws, the purpose of the Libertarian National Committee is NOT to dictate or promote policy, or spout off on political issues. The purpose is, to quote from the document. Here is the relevant portion of the Bylaws Article, which defines the LNC's role. (Note: I have NOT arbitrarily dropped context. The rest of the Article is devoted to who can be a member, how often do they meet, etc. -- none of which is relevant to my point here.) ARTICLE 10: NATIONAL COMMITTEE The National Committee shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties and funds of the Party consistent with these Bylaws. The Libertarian National Committee shall establish and oversee an organizational structure to implement the purposes of the Party as stated in Article 3. The National Committee shall adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its meetings and the carrying out of its duties and responsibilities. The National Committee may delegate its authority in any manner it deems necessary…. Consider: "shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties and funds of the Party…" I don't see anything in there about the "ideas expressed"… Consider: "… shall establish and oversee an organizational structure to implement the purposes of the Party…" Again, no mention of deciding what those purposes are; that's "as stated in Article 3"… of those same Bylaws -- which only a Convention of delegates can amend! Anybody see anything in there about being a Spokesperson for the LP? I sure don't. How about taking public stances on ANY issue? Not according to the Bylaws. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I rather like the definition I've been using lately: "The Libertarian National Committee is the Board of Directors of the not-for-profit corporation called the Libertarian Party, Inc. Its primary duty is to work to ensure that this organization remains in existence and in healthy financial condition, so that it may carry out its stated mission and purpose." The bottom line is this: the Libertarian National Committee is an administrative body, not a legislative one! It cannot make public policy, nor should it -- outside of the narrow confines of governing the actions of the Executive Director and the paid staff (s)he chooses to hire to do the basic work of coordinating Libertarian Party activities, and spearheading special projects designed to promote Liberty in our time. It is there to preserve and strengthen the organization itself, not to dictate its policy direction. Under those circumstances, the Chair is empowered to act as the CEO of the corporation, with the advice and counsel of the Committee. This means only that (s)he (and by some extension, they) can hire and fire people, approve or reject ideas from the Executive Director, and make decisions about expenditures and revenue-streams -- with the express intent and purpose of furthering the goals and intentions of the Libertarian Party, as expressed by its membership at the biennial Stockholders Meetings (Bylaws debate?) during National Conventions. (The fact that we so often back-burner the Bylaws debate at these Conventions, shunting it off to a few hours in a single afternoon, is -- depending on who you ask -- either (a) an affirmation of the work the LNC is already doing, or (b) a sign that delegate apathy over these matters is now coming home to roost.) Bottom line: If the membership of the Libertarian Party wants the Libertarian National Committee to become its official Spokesperson -- and to spend a goodly portion of its quarterly meetings (and e-mail time in between) debating some resolution on War, Privacy, Drugs or whatever other issue has raised its ugly head -- they should say so, specifically and intentionally, at the next National Convention in Atlanta, in May of 2004, by so amending the Bylaws. Only then will the message be clear and not open to interpretation, as it seems to be now. Of course, if the LP membership DOES do that, I can pretty much guarantee a couple of things: those who decide to change this paradigm, if they also decide to pursue an LNC seat, will get a very rude awakening when they realize how much actually needs to get done at those quarterly meetings, just to keep the boat afloat and upright; and not long after that, they will be facing either a major crisis (due to the neglect of business, in favor of 'politics') or the impending collapse of the very organization they have sworn to uphold. The Libertarian National Committee has a job to do, folks -- especially in these times of financial challenges. I suggest they be allowed to do it! |
