Once upon a time, there was a Free State Project, which planned to convince 20,000 freedom-minded people to move to one state and work to reverse the trend of power-grabbing-government expansion. While I thought this was a nice idea, I did not sign up because the FSP participation guidelines required "porcupines" to vote in the targeted state. I held philosophical objections to voting.
Later, the FSP changed the guidelines from mandatory voting to a more general "political action" requirement. I could do that, so I signed up.
Back then, there was a catch to signing up: Once the FSP gained 20,000 members, everyone had to move to the targeted state within 5 years. But lest the members be kept in relocation-limbo indefinitely -- what if it took 30-40 years to reach 20,000 members? -- a deadline for recruiting was set: September 2006. If 20,000 was not achieved by then, everyone was off the hook, released from their contractual "statement of intent." That seemed fair.
Back then, the FSP was a volunteer operation. That changed too; suddenly, without consulting the membership (not required, but it would have been nice), the board of directors decided to pay a "CEO" about 3 times my own annual salary. It lost a few members then.
And comes another guidelines change: The board and director, now getting money, unilaterally decided the 2006 recruiting deadline was merely "informal;" the deadline would not count if they were "close" to getting 20,000 people. "Close" was not defined. So long as it might look as if the FSP could reach 20,000, the board could continue to draw checks.
I decided that the FSP had begun unstoppable self-destruction, but stuck to my own original statement of intent; a promise is a promise. To me at least.
After the FSP officially chose New Hampshire as the state to be "freed," I packed up and moved there. I was among the first to do so, and there are still only about 384 of us.
And now I learn that the board decided to "...strike the informal 2006 goal for obtaining 20,000 signatures..."" altogether. But they will generously "allow people who thought this goal was a deadline to opt out at the end of 2006." Perpetual money, and they need not even claim to be "close" to achieving any goals.
In fact, that "goal" was most certainly a deadline until they began screwing with it in a quest for perpetual employment. (Why not just run for Congress and pass incumbent protection acts, board members?) That original deadline served multiple purposes: It gave the FSP a measurable benchmark for recruiting. It set a timetable so people could plan their lives. It encouraged compliance by people who might want to weasel out later. And if the FSP failed, it let the organization die quietly, so we could try something else.
This is no longer the FSP I supported and joined. Consider me opted out now.
Broken Promises
Sunni says:
Wow. Wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not, in the least. I am disappointed, all the same, and for several reasons.
Will you stay in NH, Bear, or will you consider coming out west?
Jorge says:
Like Sunni, can't say I'm surprised, especially given my recent experience with the Movimiento Libertario. But I am also disappointed. The FSP seems to have institutionalized itself. It now exists to quite independent of its original goals. It is another example that shows we cannot use institutions to achieve liberty. We have to find another way.
Gavin says:
I don't think the CEO or directors of the FSP are receiving any salary. They may be receiving some compensation for travel expenses. Unless they are publishing deliberately fraudulent financial statements on their website. You are free to criticize their change of plan and leave the FSP. It would be nice if you could either withdraw or substantiate your claim regarding salaries.
Sunni says:
Not being a porcupine, I haven't kept up with events and changes there, but I do know that the leadership was looking for someone to become CEO as a paid position as far back as a couple of years ago. I don't know if that's come about; I simply know that there was a plan to salary certain jobs.
Bear says:
Gavin, in 2004 a couple of board members told me they drew some expenses. Regarding a president's salary, you can read the minutes of the February 22, 2004 minutes for yourself; it was tied in with the discussion of 501(c)3 status. Note MLS'comments about salary in section 2.F.
Paul says:
Yes a lot of folks seem to be bummed out by the 'failer' of the free state project to either meet its goals or stick to its original plan but there's a lesson to be learned here.I'm a big advocate of not using your opponents strategy but using your own instead.To me this means using a decentralized network of individuals and small groups and not trying to be some kind of big bureaucratic corporation or 501c nonprofit.
A more diverse/varied approach makes more sense considering how opinionated and independently minded most libertarians are.
PintofStout says:
I know the discussion of a paid CEO has been deliberated for a long, long time. In some ways it may have been a good idea, but not in view of the change in guidelines. There has also been discussion of paying a professional marketing firm - no word on that, yet.
I'll have to check out the minutes Bear referenced to comment on "salaries" and expenditures.
Gavin says:
Bear,
Thanks for the reply. Nevertheless I think your original post was misleading. There is not currently a paid CEO, even if it was under consideration. Furthermore the word 'employment' is not usually understood to consist of mere 'expenses'.
Neil Alexander says:
Nobody in leadership is paid a dime. Some expenses are reimbursed, but several of the officers don't even submit expense vouchers.
The FSP looked into 501c3 status. To get that status, too much compromise and too many objectives would have to be modified - so it was dropped.
As it stands now, there is somewhere around $30k total money in the FSP. Not a whole lot, and certainly not enough for any fulltime or even part time CEO's salary. Nobody's getting rich off the FSP.
VP Swearingen, board members Adam Rick, and my wife Jean Alexander have all put in hundreds and hundreds of unpaid hours. My wife has never submitted an expense report that I know of.
The whole basis of your sorely misinformed post - that the FSP leadership is composed of people seeking and getting paychecks- is completely discredited.
Yes, there is a modification to the goals of the FSP. The idea of the FSP is too good to discard. Is it somehow immoral to refocus on the goal - liberty in our lifetime?
The FSP is not allowed to make mistakes? Like any organization, finetuning and modification is necessary to make progress.
These modifications do not constitute an elimination of the end goal. They are merely acknowledgement of reality. The FSP is trying to do something truly difficult: herd cats. If they opened too many cans of tuna - or too few - that is because they are not omnicient.
Scott Bieser says:
I have disagreements with FSP but Neil Alexander's post fits with my understanding of what's going on with FSP. There is no job-seeking -- not yet anyway -- and FSP is scrambling to deal with their failure to recruit at the rate they'd hoped.
To me, the fatal flow of FSP is it chose New Hampshire. Somehow, I just knew they would choose New Hampshire which is why I never signed on. (I didn't know about the "opt out" provision, but even so, I think it's stupid to let 5,000 strangers vote on where I'm going to live.)
The alternative, the Wyoming/Montana migration movement, has its problems, but it is decentralized, and has what I think is a healthier attitude -- "I think _this_ is where libertarians should gather and I'm going to go there myself now and lead by example."
And even if not enough libertarians show up to make a difference, I'm still better off here than where I was before.
jomama says:
Look on the bright side.
It's getting harder and harder to put a herd together.