LNC reportedly voting by email whether to follow Judicial Committee decision on Oregon

Following the national Libertarian Party Judicial Committee decision that the group led by Wes Wagner is the legitimate LP affiliate in Oregon, and that LPHQ is to restore effective recognition to that affiliate through web linking and sharing of membership data for their state, the LNC is now allegedly voting whether or not to follow the Judicial Committee decision, according to George Phillies in IPR comments and one confidential source via phone call.

According to these sources,

There is now a motion before the Libertarian National Committee

Votes are due to the LNC Secretary by 10/16/2011, 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Sponsors: Mary Ruwart, Doug Craig, Vicki Kirkland, Norm Olsen

Motion: That the LNC direct our ED to reinstate Wagner et al. as our official LPOregon affiliate as per the JC decision of 8/26/2011 and the JC Clarification of 9/23/2011.

My anonymous source claims that the votes are currently 5-2 to not follow the Judicial Committee decision.

My anonymous source says that members of the LNC have told him or her that there are not enough votes to disaffiliate the Oregon LP, which would be the only other course allowed by the Judicial Committee decision.

For further background see previous reports here and here. The second link has links to even earlier reports.

-Paulie

UPDATE: In the comments of this post, George Phillies is liveblogging the votes as they allegedly come in. Since these votes are not officially public at this time, readers will have to decide for themselves whether they believe that the information as leaked to and presented by Dr. Phillies is accurate.

126 thoughts on “LNC reportedly voting by email whether to follow Judicial Committee decision on Oregon

  1. Chuck Moulton

    Unbelievable!!

    The Judicial Committee is the final arbiter under our bylaws. The LNC’s failure to abide by the Judicial Committee decision shows a cavalier attitude towards the rule of law. This disrespect for our procedures is very troubling. I’d consider it cause for removal of the Chair or any LNC member if I were participating in such a vote.

    In my opinion the Wagner faction ought to be disaffiliated, but short circuiting this procedure and giving the metaphorical middle finger to the JC is an embarrassment to all Libertarians who chastise politicians for failure to follow the Constitution.

    I’ll be highlighting this particular roll call vote when I distribute materials to the delegates in Las Vegas.

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    Just for fun, I’ll ask this question: Should I write to the members of the LNC, including my state’s representative, to express an opinion of how they should vote?

    Of course, if they ignore the Judical Committee’s ruling, does anyone think they’ll listen to what we have to say?

  3. Liveblogging the LNC Vote

    on the Ruwart motion.

    From George Phillies:

    Verily, Mattson hath written:
    We have an electronic mail ballot.
    Sponsors: Mary Ruwart, Doug Craig, Vicki Kirkland, Norm Olsen
    Motion: That the LNC direct our ED to reinstate Wagner et al. as our official LPOregon affiliate as per the JC decision of 8/26/2011 and the JC Clarification of 9/23/2011.
    Alicia Mattson
    LNC Secretary

    I think Mark Rutherford’s and Alicia Mattson’s objections regarding the wording of this motion are well taken, and accordingly I will vote “No”. At the same time I am proposing a much more straightforward motion, and am asking for co-sponsors: Moved, that the LP staff is directed to effectuate the Judicial Committee’s rulings with respect to the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
    Daniel Wiener

    From: “Kevin Knedler”
    Agreed with logic.

    I also vote “no”

    KJK
    From: WAYNE ROOT \Reinstate Wagner as OR affiliate
    Reply-To: lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org
    No.
    Wayne

    From: “Norm Olsen” >
    AYE!!!
    Norm

    From: Vicki Kirkland
    Yes.
    Vicki Kirkland

    > From: Alicia Mattson
    I vote “no”.
    -Alicia

    “Randy Eshelman”
    I vote no.
    Randy

  4. starchild

    And what was supposedly wrong with the wording of the motion proposed by Mary Ruwart, Doug Craig, Vicki Kirkland, and Norm Olsen?

    “That the LNC direct our ED to reinstate Wagner et al. as our official LPOregon affiliate as per the JC decision of 8/26/2011 and the JC Clarification of 9/23/2011”

    How much more straightforward can you get??

    Daniel Wiener’s proposed replacement motion, by contrast, sounds bureaucratic and open to various interpretations:

    “The LP staff is directed to effectuate the Judicial Committee’s rulings with respect to the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”

  5. paulie Post author

    Mind you, I am less sure of how effective it is, given that the California representative has already voted.

    California is part of a region with three reps and three alternates. Additionally, all At Large members and officers are supposed to represent party members from all over the country.

  6. George Phillies

    @5 Let me give you a hint: The nitpickers include Alicia Mattson and Mark Rutherford.

    Unfortunately, for the next issue of the LfA this is competing with news coverage that a prominent Massachusetts libertarian was acted upon by the state equivalent of the FEC for diverting funds to personal use, which is a no-no.

    The decision is not quite new; I just heard about it.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    sc, the ED doesn’t “reinstate” I wouldn’t think, he merely carries out the LNC’s directives. I’m also not sure this…would it be a “reinstatement,” or a “recognition”?

  8. starchild

    Robert @8 – That’s a legitimate point. But I still mistrust the replacement wording. If that’s what the objection was, the existing motion could have been simply reworded to read something like:

    “Moved that the LNC reinstates Wagner et al. as our official LPOregon affiliate per the JC decision of 8/26/2011 and the JC Clarification of 9/23/2011, and directs our Executive Director and staff to take any steps necessary to effect this change.?

  9. Nicholas Sarwark

    “These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed.” – A Few Good Men

    The Executive Committee of the LNC voted to stop recognizing the Wagner group in favor of the Reeves group, including no longer sharing data and no longer linking to the website.

    The Judicial Committee determined that the Executive Committee did not have that authority, but that 3/4 of the LNC would have to take that action, pursuant to the bylaws on disaffiliation.

    The Chair has decided that, regardless of the Judicial Committee decision, he has the power to tell the Executive Director not to share data with the Oregon affiliate nor to link to the Oregon affiliate’s website. He has also decided that this doesn’t need either an Executive Committee or LNC vote.

  10. George Phillies

    The Chair of the Judicial Committee, say my sources, has told off Hinkle, and phrased this as a question of whether or not the LNC is going to obey its own Bylaws.

  11. paulie Post author

    Who is the JudCom chair? I scanned a few of the leadup posts, but did not find who the chair is, only a list of members and which way they voted on this.

  12. Wes Wagner

    I hope that when the dust has settled form all of this, people will see that:

    1) The members of the LNC are going a really long way to try to fight this kicking and screaming just so they can put felons and petty crooks into control of an affiliate.
    2) That it was always about controlling the delegate all along.
    3) They have no sound moral code.

  13. Questions Man

    Why do both sides in this matter insist on escalation? Don’t they have better things to do?

    Will one of them take a step back and prove to be the more mature and reasonable of the two?

    Whether the Oregon LP gets, or does not get, a link and a new data dump in the months between now and May – is this something that is worth the potentially catastrophic consequences of continued escalation?

  14. George Phillies

    @16 If someone comes to me and tells em that it would be mature of me to hand my state party over to a group of scoundrels, so that the process of packing the National Convention can be advanced, I would question their good sense.

    The notion that rolling over and dropping dead is mature and reasonable is absurd.

  15. Questions Man

    The Oregon LP presumably has access to prior membership data, their own lists, and and other sources of traffic to their website besides a link from LP.org, do they not?

    Are they entirely unable to function (“rolling over and dropping dead”) if they don’t get new lists and a web link from LPHQ between now and May?

    Conversely, if they do get these things for the next few months, how much exactly will the LNC/HQ lose, when compared to the time, money, good will and effort spent by continuing to make an ever bigger issue out of this?

  16. George Phillies

    Creating this controversy immediately before asking LP members for money to be thrown away on buying a building in the belly of the beast — your mileage may vary — is also perhaps not the world’s smartest move, but that’s what the LNC and its chair did.

  17. Wes Wagner

    QM @18

    Our only concern is that we are given proper communications like any other affiliate so we know who, when, where and how to get our delegation pre-submitted for the convention.

    I suspect most of these issues will be settle by some serious house cleaning at the next convention when the donors and delegates are educated about what their “representatives” have been doing with their time.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    That this motion was not immediately ruled out of order by the chair is the clearest evidence yet that he needs to be removed.

    Beyond being out of order (as the semantic equivalent of “I move that we obey our bylaws,” which requires no motion but is an ongoing presumption of being an organization), the motion is meaningless:

    The LNC does not have to “vote to reinstate” the Wagner faction as the affiliate. The Wagner faction was reinstated as the affiliate, retroactive to the time of its disaffiliation, by the Judicial Committee’s ruling.

  19. Chuck Moulton

    Tom Knapp wrote (@21):

    That this motion was not immediately ruled out of order by the chair is the clearest evidence yet that he needs to be removed.

    If the ED or the Chair are not following the bylaws, it is completely appropriate for the LNC to move and pass a motion directing them to do so.

  20. paulie Post author

    Chuck Moulton @1

    Unbelievable!!

    The Judicial Committee is the final arbiter under our bylaws. The LNC’s failure to abide by the Judicial Committee decision shows a cavalier attitude towards the rule of law. This disrespect for our procedures is very troubling. I’d consider it cause for removal of the Chair or any LNC member if I were participating in such a vote.

    In my opinion the Wagner faction ought to be disaffiliated, but short circuiting this procedure and giving the metaphorical middle finger to the JC is an embarrassment to all Libertarians who chastise politicians for failure to follow the Constitution.

    I’ll be highlighting this particular roll call vote when I distribute materials to the delegates in Las Vegas.

    I commend Chuck for putting the integrity of the process above his desired outcome. We need more people with that attitude.

  21. paulie Post author

    Jill Pyeatt @2

    Just for fun, I’ll ask this question: Should I write to the members of the LNC, including my state’s representative, to express an opinion of how they should vote?

    It probably would not hurt, although it’s not very likely to help.

  22. George Phillies

    The motion is clearly in order. It is ordering a specific act, in agreement with our bylaws.

    For some reason I expect that the motion will be defeated. It must be my natural pessimism.

  23. paulie Post author

    George Phillies quotes Daniel Wiener as allegedly saying “I think Mark Rutherford’s and Alicia Mattson’s objections regarding the wording of this motion are well taken, and accordingly I will vote “No”. At the same time I am proposing a much more straightforward motion, and am asking for co-sponsors: Moved, that the LP staff is directed to effectuate the Judicial Committee’s rulings with respect to the Libertarian Party of Oregon.”

    Presuming this is an accurate quote, it misses context (Rutherford’s and Mattson’s objections), but at this time I don’t understand the difference between those two motions, given the unambiguous latest ruling from the JC. What am I missing here (other than an invitation to butt out)?

  24. paulie Post author

    Wes Wagner: “The members of the LNC are going a really long way to try to fight this kicking and screaming just so they can put felons and petty crooks into control of an affiliate.”

    Does the feloniousness and petty crookdom you allude to relate to this matter of party control, or….?

  25. Wes Wagner

    p@27

    Did you miss all the threads about Mr. Burke’s past with the LPO treasury, or the felony convictions of the vice chair they are trying to put in?

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck @22,

    Read the motion carefully.

    It directs the the LPO be “reinstated,” when in fact it already has been reinstated — retroactively, by the Judicial Committee.

    The motion is out of order because it is being moved that the LNC do something that has already been done, and that the LNC has neither the authority to do (or, more importantly, not do) nor needs to decide to do.

    Wiener’s substitute would be the correct way to do what you’re suggesting.

  27. paulie Post author

    Did you miss all the threads about Mr. Burke’s past with the LPO treasury, or the felony convictions of the vice chair they are trying to put in?

    I recall reading some stuff like that about Burke. However, unless I am mistaken, Burke is not officially part of the Reeves leadership – you can correct me on that. I realize he is on their side and “the power behind the throne.”

    I don’t recall reading about the felony convictions of their VC. Of course, that does not necessarily mean I haven’t read it before, but I have no recollection of that.

  28. paulie Post author

    Read the motion carefully.

    It directs the the LPO be “reinstated,” when in fact it already has been reinstated — retroactively, by the Judicial Committee.

    The motion is out of order because it is being moved that the LNC do something that has already been done, and that the LNC has neither the authority to do (or, more importantly, not do) nor needs to decide to do.

    Wiener’s substitute would be the correct way to do what you’re suggesting.

    Thanks – that explains the difference between the two motions….at least I hope it does.

  29. George Phillies

    @26 The difference is pointless hairsplitting, thrown up to delay Goddess-Only-Knows-What.

    Having observed that, the absence of a disaffiliation motion could well as you said be interpreted as implying that the vote count fell short.

  30. paulie Post author

    pointless hairsplitting, thrown up to delay

    Hallmark and cornerstone of every LP committee at every level that I ever spent any real time observing.

    Also, most non-LP committees, although on average to a lesser extent outside the LP.

    Having observed that, the absence of a disaffiliation motion could well as you said be interpreted as implying that the vote count fell short.

    That is my best guess at this time.

    Other than the 4 in favor of the current motion, is anyone else known to be against disaffiliation?

    How about on the fence?

  31. Wes Wagner

    p@30

    He is everything behind the throne. None of these people would be acting without his urging and coordination.

    As a matter of habit, Burke only uses pawns… he can’t control higher point value pieces.

  32. Michael H. Wilson

    If I am not mistaken the LPO under Mr. Wagner has picked a candidate to run in the special election for congress and Mr. Wagner has probably signed the paperwork that has to be submitted to the Sec of State in Oregon. Now if the LNC does not recognize Mr. Wagner as the chair will it also not recognize the candidate?

    If the LNC accepts the candidate then they have accepted the convention that nominated him and by default they have accepted Mr. Wagner as chair of the LPO.

    Now y’all please tell me where I am wrong. How is it possible for the LNC to recognize the candidate but not the convention that selected him? We know anything is possible but…

  33. paulie Post author

    If I am not mistaken the LPO under Mr. Wagner has picked a candidate to run in the special election for congress and Mr. Wagner has probably signed the paperwork that has to be submitted to the Sec of State in Oregon. Now if the LNC does not recognize Mr. Wagner as the chair will it also not recognize the candidate?

    If the LNC accepts the candidate then they have accepted the convention that nominated him and by default they have accepted Mr. Wagner as chair of the LPO.

    Now y’all please tell me where I am wrong. How is it possible for the LNC to recognize the candidate but not the convention that selected him? We know anything is possible but…

    Has the LNC accepted or not accepted this candidate?

  34. Wes Wagner

    P @38

    The LNC has no authority in these matters as it is governed by state law. The Secretary of State has already issued a letter stating that they will only accept a candidate for ballot access from the Libertarian Party of Oregon as it is currently legally constituted.

    Now if the LNC decides that they won’t list him on their website just over sour grapes… that would not surprise me.

  35. paulie Post author

    The LNC has no authority in these matters as it is governed by state law.

    I did not claim they do. I was responding to MHW’s point that if they list him they are implicitly saying that you are in fact the state chair.

    That begs the question of whether they have in fact listed him, so I asked. I could have looked it up instead, I know.

  36. paulie Post author

    http://www.lp.org/states/Oregon as of this time:


    Oregon’s Elected Libertarians

    Richard Sager
    Gaston City Council, Position 3, Oregon

    Richard Burke
    Tualatin Valley Water Commission, Position 4, Oregon

    Charles Radley
    Tigard Water Commission, Position 5, Oregon

    Shawna Clanton
    Culver Mayor, Oregon

    Campus Organizations

    University of Oregon

    Eugene, OR

    Contact: Adam Mitchell

    amitchel@uoregon.edu

    (405) 210-6039

    LCC Students for Liberty
    Lane Community College

    Eugene, OR

    Contact: Prof. Jeff Borrowdale

    borrowdalej@lanecc.edu

    (541) 463-5434

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/LCCstudentsforliberty/

    No candidates of any kind listed.

  37. Marc Montoni

    I would have hoped that Libertarians — especially ones elected to the highest offices in the LP — would have some special respect for fair play and rules.

    Don Ernsberger once stood up at a convention (1989?) when we were about to run overtime in our main meeting hall. He briefly explained that we had promised we would be out of the room so the hotel could begin preparing the room for the next event; and that “Libertarians of all people should understand the sanctity of contract”. The room erupted in loud applause, and we hurried out.

    These days I wonder if anyone would applaud.

    I agree with Chuck Moulton. The LNC has said its piece; it is now time to obey their ‘contract’ with the LP bylaws and comply with the Judicial Committee’s ruling. I agree with others who have stated that the Chair should have implemented the JC’s ruling immediately, without having to be asked.

    Right or wrong, he should set an example.

    As things stand now, if the LNC doesn’t force compliance, then they’re behaving no better than the Oregon group they don’t like.

    The LP’s bylaws seem now to be treated as the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution: interpret as you wish; because everything you do is covered by it.

    The JC has spoken, whether you agree with them or not. Mend your mistake and let’s move on. I agree with George (miracles happen) that if you are on a mission to raise money for a building, you don’t need to constantly create tempests that P.O. half of your constituency.

    This row is making us all look like complete amateurs; close it up and get over it.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    I’m confused here. Why is the LNC or Chair not following the JC’s finding here? They must have some rationale/cover story, even if it’s incorrect.

  39. George Phillies

    @44 Let us know if you can find a cover story, even an eccentric one, that appears actually to have come from the LNC or its chair. I am not aware of one.

  40. paulie Post author

    Why is the LNC or Chair not following the JC’s finding here? They must have some rationale/cover story, even if it’s incorrect.

    They believe the JC’s ruling is just too outrageous to follow.

    I think that’s something like what they will say, anyway.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    Hinkle’s initial email to the LNC about the Judicial Committee’s ruling tends toward the fairly simple explanation that:

    1) He doesn’t like the ruling;

    2) He thinks that raising any side quibble, however meritless, will suffice to relieve him of any obligation to heed the ruling; and

    3) He thinks that the majority of the LNC is with him on (1) and (2), or at least that there’s not sufficient sentiment to remove him or reverse him over it.

    There doesn’t seem to be any real outrage or matter of principle involved. It looks pretty much like a straight power play / game of chicken.

  42. Robert Capozzi

    48 tk, if that’s correct, that’s pretty extraordinary. I take the Moulton stance on this…didn’t care for the ruling, but seems way uncool to not abide by the JC UNLESS there’s something beyond simply not “liking” it…

  43. Wes Wagner

    RC @52

    The regular rank and file members of the national LP have everything to lose if the LNC crashes their car… I would suggest they should reign them in before it is too late.

  44. paulie Post author

    Who wins in a game of chicken if neither side blinks?

    Tow truck company, salvage yard, possibly funeral home, and any bloodthirsty observers that might be enjoying the spectacle.

  45. paulie Post author

    all the parties involved have nothing to lose…

    If they have nothing to lose, why do they waste their time on this LP stuff at all? If they spend their time on it, presumably it is worth something to them.

  46. Michael H. Wilson

    re paulie @ 56. Someone might ask why people who do not live in Oregon would be members of that state party and then make a big deal about a quorum at a state convention. What do, or did those particular people have to lose or win?

  47. Robert Capozzi

    56 p, at the moment, the LP only provides some intangible, psychic benefits for virtually all involved. Presumably, those involved do so because they believe it’s the best vehicle to advance liberty. There is no financial gain, and I’d say there’s not even indirect financial gain from the LP, as the LP has been almost completely ineffectual in advancing liberty.

    It’s more like a hobby, near as I can tell.

    Now, some in the LP view it as a kind of legacy-building behavior, in which challenging the cult of the omnipotent state, by educating as many as will listen, that “Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals,” that somehow or other generations from now, lightbulbs will go off.

    I’m thinking of the end of THE PLANET OF THE APES, Charleton Heston’s character would actually say: “We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! God damn you! God damn you all to hell! The Statement of Principles said ALL, not ‘most’!”

  48. Robert Capozzi

    more on 56 p, my neo-Taoist attitude says that even if this lose/lose/lose clusterfuck turns out to create what appears to create a hopelessly dysfunctional situation, somehow or other, it will all work out just as it should. All the angry recriminations and counter-attacks may exacerbate suffering along the way, but that’s all.

    There is no way to peace; peace is the way.

    Conflict and threats just make things unpleasant is all….

  49. Marc Montoni

    The problem here is that by disobeying the bylaws, the majority on the LNC has set up the conditions for yet another round of lawsuit-mania.

    I am not interested in filing a lawsuit, nor would most members be; however, by refusing to accede to the wishes of what our own bylaws say is the final arbiter within the LP, there is bound to be someone out there with time and money to spare filing some court briefs. We’ve had that issue before, where someone turns in the Party for some perceived error.

    Don’t go there, guys. Just do what the JC says, turn the page on the matter, and move on.

    This is making the LNC look as bad as the Oregon LP. How can members of a body that refuses to t follow its own bylaws think it has any credibility to lecture a chapter on how to follow *its* bylaws?

    The irony of this is just flabbergasting.

    You guys aren’t winning anything positive with these sorts of actions.

  50. Richard Winger

    I don’t know Wes Wagner and I know very little about him. But I certainly hope the LP national committee will recognize him as the state chair, because something like this, if mishandled, will ruin our chances of getting our 2012 presidential nominee on the ballot in all 50 states.

    It is deadly for a national party to alienate its state chairs, when those state chairs are recognized by the state and the party has ballot status in that state. Problems like this ruined Harry Browne’s 50-state ballot access in 2000 (Arizona), and ruined Pat Buchanan’s 50-state ballot access the same year (Michigan).

  51. JT

    Richard: “It is deadly for a national party to alienate its state chairs, when those state chairs are recognized by the state and the party has ballot status in that state. Problems like this ruined Harry Browne’s 50-state ballot access in 2000 (Arizona), and ruined Pat Buchanan’s 50-state ballot access the same year (Michigan).”

    I could be wrong about this, and if so I apologize, but I thought that the existing LP in Arizona at the time had decided not to put HB on the ballot before the LNC tried to make a different group the state affiliate. If that’s true, then the LNC’s action (whether someone agrees with it or not) wasn’t the cause of HB not being on the ballot in all 50 states; it was the result.

  52. Richard Winger

    I said it is deadly for a national party to alienate its state chairs, a general statement, and I meant it to be general. It is more than just not disaffiliating. It is about getting along.

  53. JT

    Wait, Richard. I respect you a lot, but you specifically said problems like the national party alienating state chairs (cause) ruined Harry Browne’s chance of getting on 50 state ballots (effect). My recollection, by contrast, is that leaders of the Ariz. affiliate at the time didn’t want HB as the party’s nominee for President, so they decided they wouldn’t put him on the state ballot before the LNC even got involved in the matter. If so, then the reverse of the statement is true: the Ariz. committee ruining HB’s chance of getting on all 50 state ballots precipitated the ensuing conflict between the two sides. If something I said here is wrong, then I apologize.

  54. George Phillies

    @66 No. The actual disaffiliation motion was passed well before the identity of the nominee was known. AZ was then excluded from the 2000 convention. They indicated that if Browne wanted to show up and make his case in Arizona, they would consider putting him on the ballot, and he declined to do so.

  55. Wes Wagner

    JT@68 and RW

    If the LPO delegation participates in the process of selection, we will honor the outcome of that process. That is the core of the law of contracts, a basis of morality, and to do otherwise would be fraud.

    I suspect that there are games afoot to deny us a delegation, since our delegation would be openly hostile to most the existing leadership due to the failed attempt to stack our delegation otherwise.

  56. George Phillies

    Yes: Kirkland, Olsen

    No: Visek, Wolf, Eshelman, Knedler, Wiener, Root, Mattson

    Several more negative votes are required to defeat the motion; a whole pile of positive votes are needed to pass the motion.

  57. Darryl W. Perry

    @Wes Wagner – As Chairman of the Boston Tea Party, I would like to extend an invitation to the Oregon LP to become an affiliate of the BTP.

    The conditions on party affiliates are:
    1. Adopt the platform of the Boston Tea Party. (The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.)
    2. For state party affiliates, to run the BTP’s presidential nominee, chosen in convention every fourth year, on the state affiliate’s ballot line, if any.

  58. Here's a radical idea

    Will Mr Wagner be having a convention, open it up for voting for Oregon officers, and then respect the results? Of course, they can’t have a vote, if quorum is not made. So is Mr. Wagner the chair for life now?

    And how can you dissafilliate? Won’t that cost Oregon LP the ballot access priviledge?

  59. paulie Post author

    Will Mr Wagner be having a convention, open it up for voting for Oregon officers, and then respect the results?

    He says he will have a vote by mail open to all registered Libertarians in his state and respect the result of that election.

    Of course, they can’t have a vote, if quorum is not made. So is Mr. Wagner the chair for life now?

    His new bylaws are designed to get around that problem.

    He said on a past thread that if he wanted to remain chair for life, all he had to do was stick with the old bylaws and continue to not make quorum.

    Regardless of whether he violated his bylaws or not, that is not an excuse for the LNC to violate its own bylaws by ignoring the ruling of the JC.

    And how can you dissafilliate? Won’t that cost Oregon LP the ballot access priviledge?

    You will do that anyway, unless you recognize Wagner et al. as the delegates at the national convention, and unless the state government changes its mind about which group to recognize.

  60. paulie Post author

    Several more negative votes are required to defeat the motion; a whole pile of positive votes are needed to pass the motion.

    “Look at all those people jumping off a cliff! I should do that too!”

  61. paulie Post author

    JT, I understood Richard’s comment to mean that the LNC, by choosing to recognize the group that was not recognized by the state rather than the one that was as its affiliate, caused Browne to not be on the ballot there. Had they recognized the group that did have ballot access instead, that group would have put Browne on. But since the LNC chose to recognize their rivals instead, they did not feel compelled to do so. Of course, you are correct that the group recognized by the state rather than by the LNC could have put Browne on anyway, so in that sense it was they, not the LNC, that caused him to not have full ballot access for every state. Regardless of how you interpret who caused the lack of access for Browne, the same could happen here, unless either

    A) The LNC and Wagner et al reconcile (does not appear likely at this point)
    B) The state changes its decision about which group to recognize (don’t ever count on help from state bureaucrats)
    C) They get on the ball and get ballot access for their preferred group. To do this they would be wise not to put it off to the last minute, as happened with the attempt to get Browne on separately from Smith in Arizona.

  62. Thomas L. Knapp

    paulie @ 79,

    “Of course, you are correct that the group recognized by the state rather than by the LNC could have put Browne on anyway, so in that sense it was they, not the LNC, that caused him to not have full ballot access for every state.”

    They didn’t put George W. Bush or Al Gore on their ballot line either, for the same reason they didn’t put Harry Browne on it (and for the same reason that the other 48 state LPs and DC didn’t put Bush or Gore on their ballot lines).

    That reason is that George W. Bush, Al Gore and Harry Browne (all three in Arizona, the first two elsewhere) were the nominees of other parties.

  63. George Phillies

    “And how can you disaffiliate? Won’t that cost Oregon LP the ballot access privilege?”

    (1) 3/4 vote of the entire LNC.

    (2) Has no direct effect on ballot access.

  64. paulie Post author

    (2) Has no direct effect on ballot access.

    It has an indirect effect on ballot access, but so does the action that the LNC majority is apparently taking now.

  65. paulie Post author

    That reason is that George W. Bush, Al Gore and Harry Browne (all three in Arizona, the first two elsewhere) were the nominees of other parties.

    Bush and Gore were not libertarians, Browne was.

    When I said could have, I did not say should have or should not have.

    I was trying to reconcile what Richard and JT were saying, which were two ways at looking at the same thing from two ends.

    What’s relevant now is that the situation is likely to be repeated, so if the LNC wants to have their candidate on the ballot next year, my advice is that they start well ahead of the deadline – unless they can persuade Wagner et al or OSOS to change their minds, neither of which seems likely.

  66. paulie Post author

    TLK,

    Just to be clear, my interest in commenting on that was not to take sides in the AZ mess from a decade ago.

    I was more interested in pointing out to the LNC that if they are going to go ahead with disaffiliation, or extrajudicial de facto disaffiliation through ignoring the JC, they should then
    1. Not expect Wagner et al to do as they wish
    2. Not expect OSOS to do as they wish
    3. Either start the ballot drive early, or write it off as a loss.

    Last time, the LNC did not follow that advice;

    1. They expected to be able to dictate to the group that had ballot access, even though the LNC did not recognize them.

    2. They may have expected relief from the state, but got none.

    3. They did start a ballot drive, but too late to succeed.

  67. LibertarianGirl

    For people that claim to want to follow rules and like the order and fairness RR’s brings to NOT follow the JC’s recommendation is OUTRAGEOUS.

    Ive been defensive about Hinkle here several times , not this time. If e supports this and a coming deaffiliation he has lost my support( not my respect or friendship) ….

  68. paulie Post author

    Forwarded to IPR, will be posted as a separate article later….hopefully today:


    From: Mark Hinkle

    Dear JC Chairman Bill Hall,

    I’ve read the clarification of the LP JC decision regarding Wagner vs. the LNC.

    I have a question for the entire JC regarding this statement:

    “Until such time as that occurs, the LNC must continue to treat the
    Wagner group of LPO officers similar to other LP state-level affiliate
    officers (for example, by providing monthly data dumps, and
    recognition on the lp.org website as the official LP state affiliate
    in Oregon)”.

    Please show me in the LP Bylaws where the JC has the authority to
    issue such a statement.

    Data Sharing with affiliates, as far as I can determine, is not
    codified in the Bylaws. So, it would seem to be outside the authority
    of the JC to issue such a ruling.

    Likewise, there is no mention of our web site in the LP Bylaws. So,
    again it would seem to be outside the authority of the JC to issue
    such a ruling.

    According to our current Bylaws, Article 9: Judicial Committee, Section 2:

    2. The subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is
    limited to consideration of only
    those matters expressly identified as follows:
    a. suspension of affiliate parties (Article 6, Section 6),
    b. suspension of officers (Article 7, Section 8),
    c. suspension of National Committee members-at-large (Article 8, Section 5),
    d. voiding of National Committee decisions (Article 8, Section 13),
    e. challenges to platform planks (Rule 5, Section 7),
    f. challenges to Resolutions (Rule 6, Section 2), and
    g. suspension of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates
    (Article 14, Section
    5).

    The line “2.a suspension of affiliate parties (Article 6, Section 6)”
    seems to be the only relevant rule here.

    Since there are affiliates that we don’t, currently, send data dumps
    to for reasons other than disaffiliation, i.e. there’s no one to send
    the data to, there is no connection between data dumps and
    disaffiliation.

    And since there is nothing in our Bylaws that require the LNC to link
    our web site to affiliate party web sites, that too seems to be
    outside the jurisdiction of the JC.

    Would you please confer with the entire JC and let me know your
    thoughts on this matter.

    Yours in liberty……………………Mark Hinkle, LNC Chair

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
    minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

    – Samuel Adams

  69. paulie Post author

    Bill Hall’s reply:

    Dear Mr. Hinkle:

    The Judicial Committee is not willing to issue any further
    clarification of its opinion in the Wagner matter, or engage in an
    ongoing argument over the basis for its decision.

    Personally, I feel that our decision could not have been clearer, and
    it is now up to the Libertarian National Committee to decide whether
    it will comply with the Libertarian Party Bylaws, as duly interpreted
    by the Judicial Committee.

    Very truly yours,

    Bill Hall

  70. paulie Post author

    The source of @86-7 is on the Judicial Committee, so I have a very high degree of confidence that both emails are genuine, unaltered, and from the people they purport to be from.

  71. George Phillies

    @84 As I have noted repeatedly, the LP of Oregon views itself as under attack by the LNC.

    When this happened in Arizona in 2000 and earlier, the LP of Arizona piously hoped that if it left national alone the favor would be returned.

    There is no rational reason to suppose that the LP of Oregon, whose leadership gained control of their state party following a prolonged struggle, will be similarly quiescent with respect to the LNC. I suppose they might try one more appeal to the Judicial Committee, but given the Hall letter above, it is not clear what they might get out of it.

  72. JT

    Paulie: “JT, I understood Richard’s comment to mean that the LNC, by choosing to recognize the group that was not recognized by the state rather than the one that was as its affiliate, caused Browne to not be on the ballot there.”

    Yes, I understood him to mean the same.

    Paulie: “Had they recognized the group that did have ballot access instead, that group would have put Browne on. But since the LNC chose to recognize their rivals instead, they did not feel compelled to do so.”

    But that’s exactly the issue. I thought the Ariz. affiliate decided FIRST not to put Browne on the Ariz. ballot before the LNC did a thing. So the affiliate’s decision had already made–no Browne on our ballot. Period. THEN the LNC decided to recognize a different faction that supported putting Browne on the ballot. If that’s true, then the statement above (what we both understood Richard to be saying) is false. If the decision had already been made when the LNC did what it did, the LNC’s action couldn’t be the cause of the Ariz. affiliate’s decision. The cause, to the best of my recollection, was that Ariz. affiliate leaders didn’t want Browne as their candidate for President and were willing to snub the choice of the national convention delegates so he wouldn’t appear.

  73. Robert Capozzi

    86 mh: Since there are affiliates that we don’t, currently, send data dumps to for reasons other than disaffiliation, i.e. there’s no one to send
    the data to, there is no connection between data dumps and disaffiliation.

    me: OK, here’s the rationale, apparently. Some states aren’t active, therefore the LNC doesn’t/can’t do a data dump to all states, therefore data dumps are not required and is not doing so is not necessarily indicative of a constructive disaffiliation. Do I have that right?

    Woo boy, if so. There are data dumps to active affiliates. The JC says the Wagner-led LPO is the affiliate. Constructively, then, it looks like the LNC is still treating the LPO as disaffiliated, apparently because the JC doesn’t have the ability to enforce their finding.

    If I have this close to corrent, this looks like serious bad faith. Big mistake. IMO.

  74. Chuck Moulton

    Bill Hall and the Judicial Committee have conducted themselves very well. My respect for him continues to rise.

    Sadly Mark Hinkle and the LNC seem to have no respect for Bill Hall or the JC.

  75. Wes Wagner

    RC @93
    And now we come full circle as to why an inflamatory extended third finger is actually quite an appropriate response in dealing with these people.

    Can we bury them now and move on to the D’s and R’s or shall we continue to abide these types in the organization and make no progress?

  76. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT @ 92,

    “I thought the Ariz. affiliate decided FIRST not to put Browne on the Ariz. ballot before the LNC did a thing. So the affiliate’s decision had already made–no Browne on our ballot. Period. THEN the LNC decided to recognize a different faction that supported putting Browne on the ballot.”

    You thought incorrectly. The LPAZ split was over state bylaws matters, the LNC’s disaffiliation of LPAZ preceded Browne’s nomination by six months, and the former two events had precisely zero to do with the latter, except to the extent that the middle event, insofar as it denied LPAZ representation at the 2000 national convention, released LPAZ from any obligation to put that convention’s presidential nominee on its ballot line.

  77. Robert Capozzi

    95 ww: And now we come full circle as to why an inflamatory extended third finger is actually quite an appropriate response in dealing with these people.

    me: Not IMO. I find the finger uncivil, even infantile, in virtually all circumstances. The term “these people” generally indicates a prejudiced viewpoint, in my experience.

    I don’t see this recent development as the same as the initial conflict. Depending on a “the JC lacks the ability to enforce this” argument is way over the line, for me.

    If the LNC officially disaffiliates your group, it will be interesting to see if you be the bigger man and cooperate with the effort to have the Secy of State to transfer the assets appropriately.

  78. Bruce Cohen

    Mister Hinkle has a track record of being ‘above the law’.

    There are numerous examples when he was Chair of something or another where he would just ignore issues or people when he wanted.

    Disagree with a bylaw or ruling?
    Hinkle ignores it.

    Hinkle himself was the Chair of the CA JC for a term. I was the ‘Defendant’ in an action he was the Chief Jurist of. Hinkle would ignore my requests and motions during the process. He also ignored my representative during that period.

    He made illegal ruling after ruling, which fortunately, the very bad ones, we forced him to retract.

    Mister Hinkle is the kind of guy who won’t return your call if he doesn’t ‘feel like it’.
    Even if he’s required to by his position.

    There is nothing ‘fair’ or ‘right’ or ‘honest’.
    The choice of the ‘radicals’ for Chair is dishonest and unfair when it comes to his ‘job’.

    Personally, I would vote for an honest Democrat before I would vote for a dishonest Libertarian.

    DISCLAIMER: I have been friends with Richard Burke for years and years. I tend to support his ‘side’ and position most of the time. However, like it or not, when the JC rules, the Chair and the LNC has little or no choice but to follow their instructions. If I lived in Oregon, I would vote against Wes and for Richard.

    But, the ‘vote’ is over and the rulings are in.

    Wes is Chair of the LPOR and let’s treat him like it.

    All the radicals claimed that it was poeple like me who ‘cheated’. But if you look into how, for example, Wayne Root and Aaron Starr and Dan Wiener and AND vote and behave, they would not and have not behaved like this.

    Mister Hinkle has been quacking like a duck for years. It’s all about him and he’s bringing Sal Alinsky lite to the LNC as Chair.

  79. paulie Post author

    I thought the Ariz. affiliate decided FIRST not to put Browne on the Ariz. ballot before the LNC did a thing. So the affiliate’s decision had already made–no Browne on our ballot. Period. THEN the LNC decided to recognize a different faction that supported putting Browne on the ballot.

    Nope, it was the other way around, just as it is now,

    OK, here’s the rationale, apparently. Some states aren’t active, therefore the LNC doesn’t/can’t do a data dump to all states, therefore data dumps are not required and is not doing so is not necessarily indicative of a constructive disaffiliation. Do I have that right?

    I believe we share an understanding of the argument being advanced.

    Woo boy, if so. There are data dumps to active affiliates. The JC says the Wagner-led LPO is the affiliate. Constructively, then, it looks like the LNC is still treating the LPO as disaffiliated, apparently because the JC doesn’t have the ability to enforce their finding.

    If I have this close to corrent, this looks like serious bad faith. Big mistake. IMO.

    I agree.

    Bill Hall and the Judicial Committee have conducted themselves very well. My respect for him continues to rise.

    Sadly Mark Hinkle and the LNC seem to have no respect for Bill Hall or the JC.

    Agreed on that as well.

  80. Wes Wagner

    RC @97

    The assets are not owned by the national party… they are the possessions of the registered voters of the State of Oregon, and the Libertarian Party of Oregon as it is legally constituted.

    If I were to hand them over to anyone other then the elected officials of that body it would be a violation of the public trust and an act of fraud.

    I don’t know why people who appear to have some cult-like worship the LNC Inc. have such a difficult time understanding that we are not a lawful extension of that organization.

  81. Robert Capozzi

    100 ww, your rationale here sounds roughly equivalent to Hinkle’s!

    I agree that the LPO’s assets aren’t the LNC’s.

    While I don’t live in OR, it sure looked to me like you yourself are not an elected official of that body, since your ascension looks to me as having been improperly done.

    And, obviously I don’t worship the LNC. You are using a very obvious straw man here.

  82. paulie Post author

    The choice of the ‘radicals’ for Chair is dishonest and unfair when it comes to his ‘job’.

    Mark was not the choice of the radicals. Most radicals I know opposed him. The people that supported him tend to be those in the middle between the radical camp and the LNC majority faction formerly known as reform, including many long-time LP leaders (former national chairs, etc.)

    The radicals wanted Ernie and/or JJM. Some supported Phillies, even though he is not a radical. Starr said Hinkle would be a good choice, though perhaps not as good as Root.

    Phillies recently shared that he thought at the time that Hinkle was even worse from his perspective than Root, and still believes he was correct.

    But, the ‘vote’ is over and the rulings are in.

    Wes is Chair of the LPOR and let’s treat him like it.

    Bruce is correct.

    All the radicals claimed that it was poeple like me who ‘cheated’. But if you look into how, for example, Wayne Root and Aaron Starr and Dan Wiener and AND vote and behave, they would not and have not behaved like this.

    Unless Phillies’ sources are misrepresenting the LNC votes and discussions, Wiener and Root are on the same side as Hinkle on this. Starr is not on the LNC right now, but I would be surprised if he wouldn’t be as well if he were.

  83. JT

    Knapp: “You thought incorrectly.”

    I’m glad you said something. That’s why I said multiple times that I might be wrong, and if so I apologize. Nobody had said I got the facts wrong until you did.

  84. Wes Wagner

    RC @102

    In Oregon we had in essence a failed government — a situation that was created by the manipulations and gamesmanship of one group.

    The fact that it resolved to their complete detriment is only equitable and something all other groups in this state chose.

    We live quite happily without them now. Ultimately national’s attempt to steal the Oregon’s delegation for their own purposes made such an outcome possible and necessary.

    As man other people have noted, I could have labored under the broken bylaws as chairperson for life… but the reforms actually put executable elections back into place.

    I am sure that had I just remained “chairperson for life” under the old broken rules, our detractors would be accusing us of abusing the rules to our advantage.

    That is just the way of things and I have come to accept it of the types of marginal sociopaths that the offices of “responsibility” in this organization seem to attract.

    We have also learned how to dispose of them and were quite successful in those efforts domestically.

  85. paulie Post author

    Nobody had said I got the facts wrong until you did.

    I did not realize that was what you were saying until your later clarification.

  86. Robert Capozzi

    105 ww: In Oregon we had in essence a failed government — a situation that was created by the manipulations and gamesmanship of one group.

    me: Yes, I agree. It may well be that some of the Reeves folks are “sociopaths,” I’ve not heard of them sending middle fingers out in intra-party communications.

    I have every reason to believe that you thought you were doing the right thing when your group attempted to solve the problem. It appears to me, however, that you stepped into the breach with an axe to grind. That’s IMO unfortunate.

  87. Wes Wagner

    RC @ 107

    I did not step into the breach… we were there the whole time. This whole “issue” was 5+ years in the making.

    The LPO once had a corrupt stasi-like board that were all personal friends of an E.D. who felt that using the party treasury as his personal bank account was a brilliant idea.

    He just typically was able to deliver delegates FBO friends on the LNC in the past, so thus the alliance with the Starr/SCM faction has been long running.

    In spite of all of national’s attempts to put this person back into control of the affiliate, it not only failed, it blew up in their face dramatically because it provided all the casus beli for a complete purge — which they did with their own hands by trying to split the party in half and try to use national’s false authority to steal the party assets.

    In doing so everyone has united against them and they have zero allies left.

    War is over here. — National seems to want to start a new one where the battlefield that will be razed to the ground is their territory this time.

    Unwise… but I will entertain them if they go that route. At least this time it won’t be our own homes we are burning down.

  88. Robert Capozzi

    108 ww: In doing so everyone has united against them and they have zero allies left.

    me: If that’s true, then perhaps there’s a way to fix the larger situation by re-validating the current OR leadership AND fixing your bylaws such that the non-malevolent (assuming there ARE malevolents) members of the LNC can cleanly say, yes, WW is the chair, duly chosen according to their bylaws, properly revised.

  89. Wes Wagner

    RC @ 111

    Why bother? We have elections that matter to run, a primary mail ballot to get out the door, fundraising to do to pay for it all and it would only re-invite the types of stupidity that we fought so hard to get away from.

    Why try to go back to a broken system for the sake of some esoteric arguments over robert’s rules that conflict with state law and only have served to be a detriment to the organization? A system that is nigh impossible to cure at this point since no one has been paying dues for over a year.

    We didn’t sign up for a mission that says, yes, we will worship Robert’s and give the people wearing funny robes the ability to re-interpret it every time to their own personal advantage (sometimes regardless of what it actually says in plain language) to the complete detriment of the original mission, and then watch everything be perverted so some guy can use the party debit card to buy McDonald’s three times a day and try to whore out our ballot access for hopes of a better job someplace else.

    We matured past that. We moved on. I suggest people in the LNC take a similar road to avoid the collapse and rebirth cycle that must happen if you don’t take such a step willfully.

  90. Robert Capozzi

    112 ww: Why bother?

    me: Because some believe that you are not the properly selected Chair. Because there is always a concern that you executed a bloodless coup, and if the LNC allows one coup to be an affiliate, then a precedent is set for future coups.

    ww: We didn’t sign up for a mission that says, yes, we will worship Robert’s and give the people wearing funny robes the ability to re-interpret it every time to their own personal advantage…

    me: You seem stuck on this “worship” concept. My most benign interpretation is that you recognize that no one “worships” Roberts and no one expects YOU to “worship” Roberts, so you may intend to overstate for effect.

    ww: We matured past that.

    me: Excellent! My feedback is that your continued justification for the middle finger missive belies your maturation for me, and probably many.

  91. Wes Wagner

    RC 113

    The LNC and their operative attempted a coup in Oregon and accidentally cut off their own heads.

    It was not bloodless, at least not in the figurative sense… they ended up purging themselves through their attempts to enact their own coup.

    You should take a moment, lean back, take a deep breath and enjoy the poetic justice.

  92. Michael H. Wilson

    RC @ 113 writes; My feedback is that your continued justification for the middle finger missive belies your maturation for me, and probably many.

    Robert you have no idea how much this year after year bullsh*t runs people down. Over the last 15 to 20 years people in Oregon have used and twisted RRO to their own advantage. The book says right in the front that it to help ensure that people’s right to participate is protected. However, in Oregon just the opposite has happened. In my experience the people at the national level have ignored their responsibility to make sure that the rules are applied fairly.

  93. Oregon Libertarian

    How is the below motion presented not disaffiliation vote?

    Motion: That the LNC direct our ED to reinstate Wagner et al. as our official LPOregon affiliate as per the JC decision of 8/26/2011 and the JC Clarification of 9/23/2011.

    It would be as if the House held this vote:
    Shall we reinstate to regard Barack Obama as the current president of the United States?

    A no vote would be impeachment of Obama.

    The motion on the LNC table should be clarified as to what it means. It is an attempt of disaffiliation cloaked in a question.

  94. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT@104,

    De nada. The only reason I had the facts at my disposal is that I was very interested in what was going on at the time the Arizona thing happened.

    I do think it’s fair to say that the LPAZ that ended up with ballot access but not LNC affiliate status was not favorably disposed toward Browne either before or after the disaffiliation.

    But, so far as I know, the issue of whether or not Browne would get their ballot line didn’t come up until the disaffiliation. They weren’t for him in 1996, either, but when he was nominated at a national convention in which they were represented, they put him on the ballot (in fact, he did better in Arizona than in any other state that year).

  95. Robert Capozzi

    114 ww: …take a deep breath and enjoy the poetic justice.

    me: Yes, taking deep breaths is excellent counsel, thanks. But, no, sorry, I take no pleasure from seeing others struggling with confusion. I sense some sort of contempt or sanctimony from your words. If I’m in the neighborhood, then I’d recommend reading up on psychological projection. It strikes me as healthier and more productive that when someone else is confused, the thing to do is the help them understand your perspective. Yet, you persist in using what appear to be distracting straw-man arguments, e.g., Roberts Rules “worship,” admitting that Oregon was in “essence a failed government” but not acknowledging that your moves to rectify that COULD be viewed as a power play as well.

  96. George Phillies

    There seem to be no recent votes being cast on the issue. It does not occur to me that being tagged as ‘too dull-witted to vote’ is better than ‘join the lemmings and the vertical march’, but we shall see what happens.

    Meanwhile there is an ongoing vote on buying a building if enough money can be raised. Does office space in your area cost $200 or $300 a square foot to buy?

  97. Here's a radical idea

    Mr. C is asking tough questions.
    All the comments about national LNC, when more questions should be posed on how WW group took over the LP of Oregon. Was it done correctly or was it a hostile takeover?

  98. Common-Tater

    “All the comments about national LNC, when more questions should be posed on how WW group took over the LP of Oregon. Was it done correctly or was it a hostile takeover?”

    Those questions have been hashed and rehashed on past threads.

    Whether the LNC should ignore the Judicial Committee is a separate question.

    Even some of the people here who believe Wagner and friends acted improperly nevertheless also believe that the LNC is acting equally improperly in flouting the JC.

    In other words two wrongs do not make a right any way you slice it.

  99. Pingback: Exchange between LNC Chair Mark Hinkle and Judicial Committee Chair Bill Hall on Wagner vs. LNC | Independent Political Report

  100. George Phillies

    The people who were officers well before the change in bylaws, except for the chair retiring and being replaced by the vice chair, were all long-time party members and long-time officers at the time of the change in bylaws. The LNC Chair tried to recognize a group of insurgents with limited record of party activism — well, one of them had a significant record as a Republican town committee member* — and the Judicial Committee member did not support the position of the LNC Chair.

    *exact title can be researched; the activism was in a different major party.

  101. Pingback: Updates in conflict over the Libertarian Party of Oregon | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

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