Wes Wagner: Here’s What Happened…

Here is an explanation from Wes Wagner on the events in his state of Oregon. It was written June 3, 2011.

Essentially what happened is summarized as thus:

During our 2010 convention, the party having been tired of our numerous structural issues adopted a plan for reformation of the party with a 2/3rds+ majority — established a committee to draft new governing documents and schedule a special convention in November (after election day so everyone would be done with their important work)

Everything was going smoothly until Richard Burke, a paid employee of Americans For Prosperity and former executive director who was forced out of office due to financial scandal did not like that the new party would be controlled by all 13,000 libertarians in the state of oregon and not a handful of corrupt apparatchiks.

He proceeded to call in Alica Mattson and Mark Hinkle in an ambush on the November convention (with assistance of M Carling) to enforce an esoteric interpretation of quorum on the convention in order to prevent the 2 day long discussion and debate that was going to otherwise occur. (their pro-republican activities require a vacuum of communication, otherwise people get wise to them) (Further ther was a last minute drop of 15+ new voting dues paying mambers who were all associate with Americans for Prosperity to force the issue)

After that convention failed for a lack of a quorum, and the subsequent march regular convention also failed for lack of a quorum the State Committee adopted the proposed new constitution and bylaws because it was the last body that was capable of acting in the state of oregon since the members could not meet due to quorum issues and the judicial committee was defunct. Oregon state law supports the action we took, although we had preferred it not be necessary and attempted reconciliation on numerous occasions only to be told that debate would not even be allowed.

The vote for its adoption was unanimous and we were then left with a party that was owned by all 13,000 voters in Oregon and a governing structure that was able to work again, and one where all the people in the committee are accountable to every libertarian voter in Oregon.

This greatly aggrieves some people who see the party as their personal plaything for advancing their personal version of libertarianism, and they thus decided to take a creative view of robert’s rules of order and the prior governing documents and still hold a convention that had been cancelled, conscript members of the national party to assist them, and try to steal the party by submitting false documents to the Secretary of State.

This action has failed because the Secretary of State is very bureaucratic and follows the law as it is written — not the creative ideas of a few neo-con friendly interlopers.

This issue is that I have been removed from the State Chairs list and the people at the national party think it is a good idea to continue down the path they have started (even though they have already lost) in order to act like what they did was somehow right.

At this point given this and the other numerous stories I have heard, I am going to soon raise the call to start an exploratory committee for the purpose of forming a new national organization. There are many states that have been similarly aggrieved and do not receive any benefit from national since we already have the capacity to either have permanently secured our ballot access or are self-sufficient.

57 thoughts on “Wes Wagner: Here’s What Happened…

  1. Christiana

    Mr. Wagner leaves out a few facts
    1. The 2/3 mandate was voted on by less than 30 people. That is hardly a mandate.
    2. Not all of the 15 new members were associated with Americans for Prosperity. I know for a fact that at least was not associated with AFP.
    3. In March 2011, the convention voted to convene to May 21 but Mr. Wagner had the state committee vote on the “reconstruction” of the libertarian party of Oregon before that date.

  2. Robert Capozzi

    ww: I am going to soon raise the call to start an exploratory committee for the purpose of forming a new national organization.

    me: This reminds me…what’s going on in WY? It appears there is now a WY Country Party and a WY LP. Is the CP gaining over the LP there?

    This fracturing seems to be growing. I’m not pleased by this, knowing that liberty-oriented politics (and all politics) requires numbers, but OTOH these fissures would indicate some discontent with the LP’s current configuration.

    It’s interesting/surprising to me that AFP is (probably unofficially) getting involved in LP politics and organizing.

  3. Robert Capozzi

    While I remain neutral on this OR matter, this Wagner essay leaves me with more questions than clarity. For ex.:

    Ww: …tired of our numerous structural issues adopted a plan for reformation…

    Me: What “structural issues”?

    Ww: Everything was going smoothly until Richard Burke, a paid employee of Americans For Prosperity…

    Me: Relevance?

    Ww: … and former executive director who was forced out of office due to financial scandal …

    Me: If Wagner is going to put this out there, he should elaborate on the specifics. Otherwise, it just hangs there, unexplained.

    Ww: …did not like that the new party would be controlled by all 13,000 libertarians in the state of oregon and not a handful of corrupt apparatchiks.

    Me: On its face, this sounds like QUITE a charge. Has Burke said this? Anything like this? How is Wagner’s plan different from the current OR party’s foundational documents? Have “all” 13,000 Ls in OR endorsed Wagner’s plan? Was there a vote or something? IOW, just because Wagner seems to claim that his plan is more “democratic” doesn’t necessarily make it so, or does it? 😉

    Ww: He proceeded to call in Alica Mattson and Mark Hinkle in an ambush on the November convention (with assistance of M Carling)

    Me: Ambush? Sounds histrionical. “Ambush” is highly pejorative. It MAY be accurate, but we’d need to know how Wagner arrives at that characterization.

    Ww: ….to enforce an esoteric interpretation of quorum on the convention…

    Me: At the moment, Wagner’s position seems esoteric, too. We don’t and can’t know how his plans and proposals are superior, at least not from this essay.

    Ww: (their pro-republican activities require a vacuum of communication, otherwise people get wise to them)

    Me: Whose “pro-Republican activities”? What does that mean? Are they Ron Paul or Gary Johnson supporters? This is an assertion with no substance. He further is suggesting a lack of transparency, yet Wagner himself is offering no transparency of his own that I can see here.

    Ww: (Further ther was a last minute drop of 15+ new voting dues paying mambers who were all associate with Americans for Prosperity to force the issue)

    Me: Drop? What does that mean? Did 15 JOIN the OR LP? This is a bad thing? Wagner seems to contradict himself…OTOH, he seems to claim he’s the grassroots’s advocate, OTO, this implies he wants to, what?, exclude new members?

    Ww: After that convention failed for a lack of a quorum, and the subsequent march regular convention also failed for lack of a quorum the State Committee adopted the proposed new constitution and bylaws because it was the last body that was capable of acting in the state of oregon since the members could not meet due to quorum issues and the judicial committee was defunct. Oregon state law supports the action we took, although we had preferred it not be necessary and attempted reconciliation on numerous occasions only to be told that debate would not even be allowed.

    Me: I have studiously avoiding ever reading Roberts Rules, but how can business (including “debate”) be conducted without a quorum? Certainly things can be DISCUSSED ex parte, but debate and voting requires enough people to be there, yes? In the extreme, Wagner could invite 2 friends over to his crib to vote…is that his point?

    Ww: The vote for its adoption was unanimous and we were then left with a party that was owned by all 13,000 voters in Oregon and a governing structure that was able to work again, and one where all the people in the committee are accountable to every libertarian voter in Oregon.

    Me: This doesn’t make sense to me. What am I missing? No quorum, no vote, yes? And, again, is the OR LP not “owned” by “all 13,000 voters” (I assume he means members) now? Separately, I wonder if Wagner was at the Portland convention in ’06. There, about 3/4s of the delegates voted to strike some of the language in the SoP. I personally would be interested in Wagner’s take on that FAILING vote, which required a 7/8ths threshold. I’d like to hear his “grassroots” perspective on that event, coming as it did in his state.

    Ww: This greatly aggrieves some people who see the party as their personal plaything for advancing their personal version of libertarianism, …

    Me: What does “This” refer to? Who are “some people”? Have they reported that they feel “greatly aggrieved,” or does Wagner read minds? What is “some people’s” “personal version of Lism,” and what is Wagner’s? He leaves a lot to the imagination here.

    Ww: and they thus decided to take a creative view of robert’s rules of order and the prior governing documents and still hold a convention that had been cancelled, conscript members of the national party to assist them, and try to steal the party by submitting false documents to the Secretary of State.

    Me: Remember mens rea. “Conscript”? “Steal”? “False documents”? Really? How so?

    Ww: This action has failed because the Secretary of State is very bureaucratic and follows the law as it is written — not the creative ideas of a few neo-con friendly interlopers.

    Me: I’m sorry, is Wagner saying here that Mark Hinkle is a “neo-con friendly interloper”? Has Hinkle stated such? Or has Wagner inferred such? Or is this a wild and false accusation? I just don’t know.

    Ww: This issue is that I have been removed from the State Chairs list and the people at the national party think it is a good idea to continue down the path they have started (even though they have already lost) in order to act like what they did was somehow right.

    Me: It appears that Wagner is projecting here. It appears he’s ALSO following down a path that HE started to act like what he did was somehow right. And, frankly, he might be. I surely can’t tell from this essay, though. Generally, I admire when people “stick to their guns” when they believe they have truth on their side, just as much as I admire people accepting responsibility for mistakes they have made. It does appear that Wagner is claiming that Hinkle et al are just outright corrupt and they know it. It appears that Wagner does not see their side of things. This is no way to find common ground. If one cannot see and understand the other side’s point, there can be no meeting of the minds.

    Ww: At this point given this and the other numerous stories I have heard, I am going to soon raise the call to start an exploratory committee for the purpose of forming a new national organization. There are many states that have been similarly aggrieved and do not receive any benefit from national since we already have the capacity to either have permanently secured our ballot access or are self-sufficient.

    Me: This sounds like massive ill will to me. It sounds like “I’m going to take my ball and go home,” especially because it is over a procedural matter. Nothing inherently wrong with disaffiliating, founding another liberty party, etc. Doing so over this snafu seems silly to me.

  4. M Carling

    Wes Wagner was removed from the state chairs’ discuss list AFTER his term as chairperson ended on May 21st. Tim Reeves was elected chairperson on May 21st. Wes Wagner has as much claim to be chairperson of the LPO as George Bush has claim to be president of the US. These are elected positions. Someone else won the election. Get over it.

    Nothing in Oregon state law supports Wes Wagner’s claim that he had the power to throw out the bylaws adopted in convention and replace them with purported bylaws he wrote.

    Nothing in Oregon state law supports Wes Wagner’s claim to have the power to throw out the pledge-signing, dues-paying members of the LPO.

    What if the LNC were to claim to have thrown out the national LP bylaws adopted in convention and replace them with a set written by Wes Wagner that took away the rights of LP members to attend national conventions? Wes Wagner’s attempt to usurp power is no more justifiable in a state party than it would be in the national party.

    Fortunately, the officers elected by the LPO state committee on May 21st are not playing along with Wes Wagner’s shenanigans. Sadly, Wes Wagner is reportedly (this part I haven’t been able to verify first-hand) attempting have criminal charges brought against the elected officers for interfering with his schemes.

  5. Doug Craig

    I would like to point out people on the LNC are having different views on this. We are not all lock together in our view on how to handle this.
    My belief is the LNC should stay out of states business within reason. My goal has been to gather as much info with out interfering in Oregons affairs.

  6. Michael H. Wilson

    Doug, as a former Oregonian who was heavily involved in the LPO let me extend a thank you for trying to work through this problem. I hope that you can find a solution so that the efforts can be put into growing the party and getting the word out as to what ideas we have to offer.

    Thanks again.

  7. Richard P. Burke

    Dear all,

    Good day to all of you.

    It would seem that Mr. Wagner has repeatedly alledged that Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is using me as it’s agent in a plot to “take over” the Libertarian Party of Oregon, using me as it’s agent.

    It is true that I presently work for AFP under contract as their Grass Roots Organizer for Oregon. But on June 30th, when our current contracts end, the Oregon State Director and I will be leaving AFP to work on other projects.

    AFP has nothing to do with my private political activity as an individual and has not attempted to direct that activity in any way. AFP is not interested in the Libertarian Party despite the fact that AFP’s founder, David Koch, ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980.

    Given the fact that AFP and AFPF are organized as 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations, they cannot be involved in any party. And even if they were to risk their tax-exempt status by interfering with a political party, they would never risk it on a party as politically irrelevant (sad to say) as the Libertarian Party.

    Mr. Wanger appears to have made similar charges against Mr. Todd Wynn and the Cascade Policy Institute he works for. If I understood correctly what Mr. Wynn told me, Mr. Wagner sent an email to that effect to Mr. Wynn’s superiors at the Cascade Polity Institute. For reasons I won’t go into here, Mr. Wagner wisely backed down.

    In both cases, it would seem that Mr. Wagner’s actions were intended to negatively impact our careers. Fortunately, they did not as our bosses superiors saw Mr. Wagner’s charges for what they were.

    Saul Alinski, who wrote “Rules for Radicals” offered as a tactic that revolutionaries accuse their opponents of things they themselves are guilty of. This is what Mr. Wagner is doing now. Truly, if anyone is guilty of attempting to take over the LPO, it is Mr Wagner who has tried to change out the LPO’s governing documents by state committee action alone.

    No LPO State Committee can change the bylaws. This can only be done at convention. Mr. Wagner knows this. I understand that achieving quorum making that possible is a challenge and that, if quorum were achieved, it would be difficult to build the 2/3 majority needed to approve Mr. Wagner’s bylaw proposals. And while these realities may be inconvenient to Mr. Wagner and his friends, the fact remains.

    Mr. Wagner himself moved that the March 12th LPO convention adjourn to the May 21st meeting, a motion that I opposed but which passed by one vote. It is Mr. Wagner’s misfortune that he chose not to participate, chose to ignore the will of the convention, and took matters into his own hands.

    Richard P. Burke
    LPO Member

  8. M Carling

    Doug Craig wrote @5:
    “I would like to point out people on the LNC are having different views on this. We are not all lock together in our view on how to handle this.”

    Yes, two LNC members have been supporting Wes Wagner’s efforts to usurp power in the LPO. I try not to assume malice where incompetence can explain the facts, so I’m willing to give these two LNC members the benefit of the doubt.

    Perhaps these two LNC members sincerely believe that the LPO State Committee (with about five or so people present) had the power to throw out the bylaws adopted in convention and adopt purported bylaws written by Wes Wagner.

    Perhaps these two LNC members sincerely believe that Wes Wagner had the power to throw the pledge-signing, dues-paying members out of the party.

    Perhaps these two LNC members sincerely believe that Wes Wagner had the power to reappoint himself to another term as chairperson after Wagner’s term expired and Tim Reeves had been elected as the new chairperson.

    Perhaps these two LNC members sincerely believe that Wes Wagner had the power to cancel a meeting of the convention that had been ordered by the convention.

    Perhaps these two LNC members are not the co-conspirators they appear to be. Perhaps they are witless dupes being led along by Wes Wagner. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    I’m not sure which scares me more: 1) that these two LNC members believe that they have the power to throw out the national LP bylaws, adopt new national party bylaws written by Wes Wagner, disenfranchise the current pledge-signing, dues-paying members of the national party, cancel all future national conventions, and appoint themselves to a new term on the LNC after their term expires; or 2) that they know they don’t really have these powers (which of course really belong to the delegates assembled in convention) but are willing to usurp power and claim the right to.

  9. Robert Capozzi

    God, I so hate this sort of thing!

    If Wagner or his supporters want to sway others, it seems they should calmly and substantively address Carling’s points above. If they are false, how are they false, and what is the truth?

    If they have the courage to actually address the points, please leave the name-calling and irrelevant aspersions at the door.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @9,

    I love the way you try to appear to be “even-handed” about these kinds of things.

    Yes, Wagner and only Wagner is guilty of “name-calling and irrelevant aspersions.” That “witless dupes” comment in Carling’s message was magically inserted in there by the Insult Fairy.

  11. Robert Capozzi

    10 tk, ya know, I missed the “witless dupes” characterization. Yes, I would like to see Carling retract and apologize for that aspersion, too. It’s really quite unnecessary and IMO toxic.

    I’m working on being even-handed and fair, and sometimes I disappoint myself. My sincere thank you for bringing my failure on this matter to my attention.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    8 mc: I try not to assume malice where incompetence can explain the facts, so I’m willing to give these two LNC members the benefit of the doubt…

    me: It’s helpful that you don’t assume malice with those you disagree with. Assuming incompetence when other explanations are possible is NOT helpful.

    You make helpful, substantive points in 8, but I would suggest losing characterizations of those who disagree with you as somehow “less than” you. Why attack your “enemies” if you believe you are correct? In my experience, at least, attack only breeds counter-attack.

    Sorry if THIS sounds like an attack…I share my perspective with a spirit of peace and reconciliation, not misunderstanding and division. Truly.

    Why not try to understand someone else’s perspective, offer yours, and let the chips fall where they may?

  13. M Carling

    Robert Capozzi wrote @11:
    “I would like to see Carling retract and apologize for that aspersion, too.”

    Apologize to whom? I didn’t name the two LNC members who have been supporting Wes Wagner’s attempt to usurp power, so there was no aspersion on my part.

    On the other hand, the original post attacked me by name, falsely accusing me of participating in an “ambush” which never occurred.

    If people who commit the most outrageous attacks on the party are free to lie about me and others, free to use inflammatory language in their lies, and then I’m attacked “with a spirit of peace and reconciliation” when I exercise restraint and refrain from naming his co-conspirators, then I think I’m the one who is owed an apology.

  14. LibertarianGirl

    Gimme a break M , Wes is the one who accused you of things and you used the opportunity to address and callout rudely with words like incompetence and witless dupes 2 LNC members that any idiot could figure out who they are.
    your post , while being passive aggressive was rude and you know it. if both sides continue to be rude where will there be progress.?

  15. Robert Capozzi

    13 MC, as you can see from my comment 3, I find much of Wagner’s rhetoric as attacking and not even thinly substantiated. It’s highly inappropriate, IMO, and frankly he weakens whatever case he may have, at least for me. It sounds as if he’s making it personal, rather than substantive.

    Suggesting that unnamed people are “witless dupes” and are either malicious or incompetent is admittedly not a direct attack, but IMO are still toxic communications. It does not enhance your case, either, IMO.

    Name-calling — direct or indirect — does not enhance understanding or advance liberty. Your opinion may differ.

    IMO, people should not be “free” to “lie.” Counter the “lie” as you see it with “truth” as you see it is my strong suggestion.

    I don’t see the point of slinging mud, directly or indirectly. I happen to believe there’s another way of dealing with dysfunction. It’s called “civility.” Perpetuating a war of words with more warring words doesn’t work for me, at least. I’d submit it’s not working for the LP, either.

    But, then, it truly is just my opinion. Carry on with the war if you REALLY think it’s working, by all means….

  16. Robert Capozzi

    13 MC: …I’m attacked “with a spirit of peace and reconciliation” when I exercise restraint and refrain from naming his co-conspirators, then I think I’m the one who is owed an apology.

    me: I am sorry you feel attacked. I did not mean it to be so. As I said, I appreciate the substance of your comment, I happen to think it would have been stronger without the (unnamed) aspersions.

    Disagreeing =/= attack, for me, at least. Offering constructive criticism is also not an attack. I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting Wagner, but I’m sure he has many positive qualities. I have met you and I believe you have MANY positive qualities.

    We all – most assuredly including me – have our blind spots. Friends offer friends feedback to help us work out our blind spots. That was my motive, at least, even if it didn’t come across that way to you.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    M @ 12,

    You write:

    “falsely accusing me of participating in an ‘ambush’ which never occurred.”

    Once someone establishes a pattern of behavior, portraying him as continuing to follow that pattern is a fairly standard tactic.

    You (or, to some extent, perhaps just the clique with which most observers identify you) have a history of

    a) ambushes (e.g. the attempt to have an LNC member removed by secretarial ukase rather than per the bylaws-mandated procedure), and

    b) drumming up parliamentary opinions which support your position but are not supported by the relevant parliamentary authorities (bylaws and RONR), e.g. the aforementioned LNC removal and the national convetion “floor fee.”

    Given that pattern, it would be surprising if your opponent DIDN’T attempt to portray you as reverting to type; and it would be surprising if most casual observers didn’t buy that portrayal.

    Your past record puts the burden of proof on you.

  18. M Carling

    LibertarianGirl wrote @14:
    “2 LNC members that any idiot could figure out who they are.”

    I don’t believe that’s true but, if it is, then I owe an apology to Wagner’s two co-conspirators on the LNC.

    How “idiot” is any better than “witless dupe” is beyond my powers of discrimination. 😉

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote @17:
    “You (or, to some extent, perhaps just the clique with which most observers identify you) have a history”

    Guilt by association.

  19. Robert Capozzi

    17 tk: Given that pattern, it would be surprising if your opponent DIDN’T attempt to portray you as reverting to type; and it would be surprising if most casual observers didn’t buy that portrayal.

    me: Thank you for your candor, Tom. I get the sense that these personal attacks are attempts to manipulate “most casual observers.” If so, I find that offensive and contrary to truth seeking. How about you?

    Are you admitting that Wagner’s personal attacks on Carling are smokescreens designed to avoid discussing the substance of the situation? If so, I find that childish and, really, counterproductive.

    Or am I misinterpreting your words here?

  20. Robert Capozzi

    18 MC: I owe an apology to Wagner’s two co-conspirators on the LNC. How “idiot” is any better than “witless dupe” is beyond my powers of discrimination.

    me: I applaud your apology here, and hope it allows us to discuss this in a more civil manner. I note that the term “Wagner’s co-conspirators” is a bit attacking, too, for it assumes this is a “conspiracy” vs. one or both LNC members simply agreeing with Wagner’s take on things, which, btw, I don’t understand, as I find his essay with almost no substance.

    And, yes, LG’s “idiot” term was unfortunate, agreed, although she’s not suggesting anyone IS an idiot by using it!

    IMO, of course.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 19,

    “Tom. I get the sense that these personal attacks are attempts to manipulate ‘most casual observers.’ If so, I find that offensive and contrary to truth seeking. How about you?”

    In most arguments, a great deal of the language amounts to attempts to “manipulate most casual observers.”

    In most arguments, each side already believes itself in possession of the truth and thus considers no seeking of same necessary. Rather the object is persuasion of others, which may be accomplished by any or all of several means (rigorous logical proof of case, “manipulation” of emotion, relationships, etc.).

    These are near-universal background conditions, so I don’t waste time considering whether or not they are “offensive.”

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    M @ 18,

    You write:

    “Guilt by association.”

    Yes.

    Guilt by association is certainly manipulable, but it’s also a powerful natural reaction.

    If you are associated with a group known for doing certain things with you in full participation, then when you show up somewhere with other members of that group and events transpire which look — at least on the surface and/or as portrayed by others — a lot like the past results of the things you’ve previously done with that same group, you shouldn’t feign surprise when others assume, or at least postulate, that you and that group are doing the same things that you and that group have done before.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    21 tk, yes, I agree, with you and Root, btw! Most politics is about manipulating emotions. IMO, this is no surprise, since humans are emotional beings.

    I certainly attempt to “manipulate” emotions by calling for civility. Civility has nothing to do with “logic” that I can tell.

    What I’m trying to get at, though, is a specific form of manipulation: demonization. This I find to be offensive (counterproductive, really), perhaps because I believe we’re all brothers and sisters, or colleagues, if you prefer. Cutting others down to advance a political agenda doesn’t work for me. It’s child’s play, IMO.

    So, tell us, you believe you’ve detected a “pattern” in Carling’s MO. Does that mean that IYO that any stand Carling takes is incorrect? Do you feel that this OR situation creates an opportunity for you to tear Carling down for what you consider to be his past transgressions? Or, could he be correct on the substance in this OR case?

    Put another way, do the ends justify the means?

  24. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    M Carling’s arrogance and rudeness notwithstanding, I hope Mr. Wagner can address his points in # 8 so that those of us trying to understand what happened can hear his side.

  25. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    tk, btw, when it comes to internal party matters, I too notice patterns of behavior among certain players, GP, for ex.

    I noticed that he would not address my substantive questions about allegations he’s made, after first engaging me. Now, of course, I am nobody, and he has no obligation to address my questions. Still, I’d like to think that the NEXT TIME he makes an accusation, I will do my best to consider his position. I am probably more skeptical of his internal LP views (vs. policy views, where I often agree with him), but he’s obviously a very bright, engaged individual with much to share.

    So, I suggest, is Carling. And you!

  26. Michael H. Wilson

    I would like to know how it is the M Carling knows what is happening on the inside of the LNC, but that information is not available to the public membership? Is there a list that this is being discussed on that I don’t know about? Is there a leaker on the LNC? Can someone, anyone answer this question?

  27. Michael H. Wilson

    For years there has been a group within the LPO that stretched the rules, bent the rules, more than once ignored the rules and twisted the rules to their advantage. During that time no one on the LNC gave a rat’s ass. Suddenly when the shoes is on the other foot, that is not to say that what has recently transpired is wrong, people wake up.

  28. Robert Capozzi

    26 MHW, it seems obvious that there are many “leakers,” that is, LNC members who talk about LNC dynamics with other members.

    Is this a problem?

  29. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I think we all need to understand what happened so that it won’t occur in any more states. May 2012 is right around the corner.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    27 MHW: For years there has been a group within the LPO that stretched the rules, bent the rules, more than once ignored the rules and twisted the rules to their advantage.

    me: I’m sure you sincerely believe that. We can’t assess your accusation unless you give us the substance of your charges. Otherwise, IMO, your post is noise, ADR. If you have longstanding grievances that need to be rectified, how can you expect us to agree without your putting some meat on the bone.

  31. Doug Craig

    M carling , is someone I do not know but I will say this about him. He does not what the hell he is talking about. The two people he is talking about have not taken sides are we have done was seek more info . As soon as one ask for more info you charged with taking a side. I am more worried about if the LNC is interfering with a states business then who is right or wrong in Oregon . The LNC needs to care of our business before we worry about the states . As always I am easy to get in touch with 770-861-5855

  32. Michael H. Wilson

    RC @ 30 I have spelled out those events more than once previously and am not going to sit and write them out here today because all it will do is waste my time. This is not a decision making body.

  33. George Phillies

    Capozzi, I give you more attention than you deserve.

    @26 There are at least two or three LNC lists. There is the LNC-Discuss list which is the business transaction list. There is a secret list run by the LNC Secretary. There is a third secret list with a partially non-overlapping list of readers.

    Several members of the LNC are considerably less than happy with the way the LNC is/is not being run. At least one officer is entirely aware that membership is well below 14,000, and blames part of the drop on the far-right-wing grandstanding of one LNC At-Large member.

    In many months, the sane parts of discussion on the LNC-discuss list are covered in LibertyForAmerica magazine. http://LibertyForAmerica.com This month, the Oregon issue blew up right before our press deadline and generated vast amounts of typespace when we had more important articles to print.

    As, I suspect, the only person to be seeing most of the mail from various sides, it appears to me that the train wreck is incoming again, as it was in 2000, except this time the state organization philosophy does not resemble ‘leave us alone’.

    The national side appears to believe that it should take the Parliamentarian characters seriously. The state side appears to believe that the acts of the Parliamentarian characters are a deliberate plot by the LNC to destroy their state party. Several members of the LNC are at least asking what is going on. It appears to me that correspondence from the state party to the National Chair has not yet been seen by the entire LNC, as a result of which the LNC has not quite worked out how serious the issue is.

  34. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’m pleased to say that California’s convention from April had a very good outcome.

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 23,

    You write:

    “So, tell us, you believe you’ve detected a ‘pattern’ in Carling’s MO. Does that mean that IYO that any stand Carling takes is incorrect?”

    Not at all.

    I’ve admitted numerous times to not being in possession of all the facts regarding the Oregon controversy (nor being interested enough in that controversy per se to gather those facts and develop an informed opinion).

    The only parts I find especially interesting, in fact, are the parts relating to the aforementioned “pattern recognition.”

    “Do you feel that this OR situation creates an opportunity for you to tear Carling down for what you consider to be his past transgressions?”

    I have no particular interest in “tear[ing] Carling down.” To the best of my knowledge, he is neither a member of nor an official in any organization with which I am affiliated, nor are we otherwise in any form of competition with each other.

    “Or, could he be correct on the substance in this OR case?”

    Could he be? Absolutely. I have no opinion on or great interest the substance of the case. I’m more interested in the organizational dynamics involved.

  36. Robert Capozzi

    33 mhw, I said “talk,” not “read emails.” Apparently some, like GP, sees it all.

    Assuming Craig is one of the alleged “co-conspirators,” his comment 31 suggests he’s been misunderstood.

    Further illustration that mind reading is a very rare skill!

  37. Robert Capozzi

    Mhw, well, as a semi-fatalist, I’m not sure anything we do is especially consequential. Attitude is pretty much everything, near as I can tell.

    IPR seems as good a place as any to share a positive attitude.

  38. Outside Observer

    Seems to me that lost in the he-said-he-said of the whole situation is an underlying premise lost to the entire gaggle.

    That premise is simply this:

    Did LPOR benefit by the reorganization to be able to move forward to fulfill its charter, which is to advance public policy in Oregon in a libertarian direction?

    If so, then the M&M gang are in the wrong, and are simply using parliamentary tactics (incorrectly, as usual) to the wrong ends, and are hindering what LPOR is supposed to be doing.

    Herein is where Mr. Craig gets deserved kudos for taking an even-handed approach to the situation by trying to figure out exactly what did happen.

    Herein also is where the M&M gang (M Carling and Mattson) get deserved heat for once again sticking their collective noses into a situation where it was neither asked nor desired, and once again getting things completely wrong, as they tend to do (as Mr. Knapp aptly pointed out).

    Maybe if the LNC Secretary, the former LNC Parliamentarian (and organizer of the convention voting fiasco that was rightly vetoed by the delegates), and their cahoots in and around the LNC such as Mr. Starr and Mr. Root actually would focus on national-level politics and their horrid national membership numbers instead of getting in the way of state affairs such as in LPOR and LPNV, then maybe, just maybe, the LP might be given a little more respect in national political circles. Dr. Ruwart and Mr. Craig can’t do it all, after all.

    But then again, the likelihood of that happening is about the same as the American people getting a real economic stimulus in a mortgage and interest holiday for a year so they can gets debts paid off and caught up…slim to none.

  39. M Carling

    Someone claiming to be an Outside Observer wrote @42:
    “Did LPOR benefit by the reorganization to be able to move forward to fulfill its charter, which is to advance public policy in Oregon in a libertarian direction?”

    That’s analogous to asking if the unconstitutional Patriot Act may have saved just one life. Unconstitutional usurpation of power is unconstitutional usurpation of power — even if it may have positive effects, which seems implausible in both instances.

    Does Wes Wagner’s assertion that he cancelled and had the power to cancel a meeting of the convention ordered by the convention “advance public policy in Oregon in a libertarian direction?”

    Obviously not.

    Does Wes Wagner kicking the pledge-signing, dues-paying members of the LPO out of the party “advance public policy in Oregon in a libertarian direction?”

    Obviously not.

    Does Wes Wagner appointing himself to another term as chairperson of the LPO when Tim Reeves won the election “advance public policy in Oregon in a libertarian direction?”

    Obviously not.

    Does adopting governing documents that disenfranchise the members and effectively give Wes Wagner something close to plenipotentiary power over the LPO for life (or perhaps until someone wants to engage in extremely expensive public infighting which would result in most Oregon RegLibs leaving the party, just as most of the members left as a result of Wes Wagner repeatedly mailing them false allegations of impropriety by former officers) “advance public policy in Oregon in a libertarian direction?”

    Obviously not.

  40. Marc Montoni

    M said:

    “… give Wes Wagner something close to plenipotentiary power over the LPO …”

    Good point – kinda like giving the chairman of the LPNV carte blanche to spend every dime of the state party’s money as he wishes…

  41. Marc Montoni

    M Said:

    … just as most of the members left as a result of Wes Wagner repeatedly mailing them false allegations of impropriety by former officers)…

    Please substantiate this comment.

    1) What members were documented to have left due to Wagner’s letters?

    2) What were the allegations of impropriety?

    3) … and where is the contravening material proving they were false allegations?

    I might add that there is still no proof that the competing faction’s “facts” are any better documented or compelling than Wagner’s.

    If Wagner is to be held to a standard of proof, then those arrayed against him should be held to the same standard.

  42. New Liberty forAmerica issue

    Oregon State Bylaws on spending money

    “Article 9 – Finances
    Sec 1: Voting Requirements for Expenditures

    All approvals of expenditures or new liabilities must be made by roll call vote of the board of directors, and their votes must be entered into the minutes.”

    For expenditures over $500, they require a 2/3 vote.

    Every expenditure in excess of $500, adjusted annually for inflation from the time of adoption, must be approved by a two-thirds vote.”

  43. Wes Wagner

    M @ 8
    Perhaps these two LNC members sincerely believe that the LPO State Committee (with about five or so people present) had the power to throw out the bylaws adopted in convention and adopt purported bylaws written by Wes Wagner.

    Didn’t we have an argument over how the vote was 7-0 with two abstentions… how does that become 5 again?

    Problem with M … he lies so fast everyone gives up on refuting him because it takes too much time.

  44. Michael H. Wilson

    Carling can we get you to butt out and let the people in Oregon solve Oregon’s problems?

    Given the time I spent in Oregon and the work I did for the LPO I have more invested in the party than you do, but I manage to stay out of their party now that I am out of state.

    However I just might have to re up my membership in the LPO if this continues.

  45. Wes Wagner

    MW @48

    Unfortunately under the new bylaws the only requirement for voting membership in the LPO is being a registered libertarian elector in Oregon.

    I would be more than happy to help you shop for a home down here if you are willing to move back to the great State of Oregon.

  46. Michael H. Wilson

    Carling I hope that you remember all the things Richard Burke listed as his faults when he was trying to get elected at the LPO convention in Bend. All the things that did not get done.

    During Burke’s time in office and as the LPO executive director over the years the financial books were not correct, money was misspent, the news letter didn’t get out, the phone was not answered and calls were not returned. I could go on. I have only touched the surface and have not mentioned his working for republican candidates instead of libertarians.

    BTW wasn’t Richard asked to step down as an alternate to the LNC some time ago? What are the details behind that incident? Maybe you or Aaron Starr could fill us in.

    To put it bluntly Burke has questionable work habits and questionable loyalty to the Libertarian Party. Now if you want to employ him in your private affairs go for it. Perhaps you will find him to be a suitable employee.

  47. Wes Wagner

    MW @52

    I am always interested in trying to reconcile with old members that had long since given up on this organization due to the nearly 2 decades of stupidity that has occurred and convince them to come back.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    I’m not sure if Wagner has read this thread or not, but it appears he’s unwilling or unable to address the substance of the matter at hand. Instead, he makes flat, abusive and unsubstantiated claims about colleagues. Perhaps when time permits, he’ll actually state his case. That he has so far chosen to avoid substantive discussion does not reflect well on his cause, for me, at least.

    Is he hiding something?

  49. Wes Wagner

    RC @54

    The LPO just filed its official response with the LNC… I am sure at some point someone will post it as a thread here.

  50. Pingback: Legal Brief Filed by LNC Member for the Judicial Committee regarding the Oregon Ex Com Power Struggle | Independent Political Report

  51. Pingback: Legal Brief Filed by LNC Member for the Judicial Committee regarding the Oregon Ex Com Power Struggle | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *