Document:LNC Minutes 28-29 April 1990
|THIS DOCUMENT IN OTHER FORMATS
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]] Absent: 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 objection. 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 deadline. 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 February. 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 required. 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 committee. 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 objection. 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 vote. 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. Sincerely, 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 April. 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 consequences. 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 Walter. 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 send. 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 contest. 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 person. 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 convention. 17. AFFILIATE CAMPAIGNS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: Dasbach submitted a 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 states. 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.] 18A. PANAMA/LEAR LETTER, part 1A 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 objection. 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 Sunday.] 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 problems. 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 right. 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 objection. 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 practice. 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 country. She said we should face that what we had done was a "malicious deceit". 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 "malicious". 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 objection. [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 flyer. 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. 23A. PROGRAM COMMITTEE REPORT (see item 23C) 23B. ADVERTISING/PUBLICATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT: Ahmad moved 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 vote. 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 year. 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 Cuts: $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) 28. MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT: Redpath reported that MeMe 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 plan: $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. 30. ADVERTISING/PUBLICATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE (see item 23B) 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 Committee. 32. PROGRAM COMMITTEE REPORT (see item 23C) 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 California: 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 void. 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 tyranny. 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. 35. CONCLUDING BUSINESS 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 Nathan. 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 Secretary Attachments: [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 ?