Brett H. Pojunis Writes to LNC to be Included on their Next Meeting’s Agenda

Found on Facebook

Brett Pojunis on Libertarian Party of Nevada’s Page

I am going to keep you updated on everything with the Nevada situation. After the Agenda item email went out and was accepted by our Chariman, the board started making statements that the LNC should NOT get involved.

Unfortunately, I am forced to shake things up. I am waiting on permission to forward some emails from the board members, but in the interim, here is my responce. FYI – I am not going to have a lot of friends on the LNC when we are done with this so I am really going to need your support. Everything we have done will be worthless if we do not have 80 plus people show up in support of us at the LNC meeting.

My email:

Mr. Chair,

May I forward your comment to our membership?

LNC – Let me speak plainly… You, we, will lose the overwhelming majority of our Nevada membership if we do nothing. Is that plain enough for you???

If we want to be taken seriously, we have to lead by example. You should get involved in EVERY issue that effects the majority of members in a state. You want cause, there are many different bylaws violations right now plus the cancellation of the State Convention because they didn’t have the votes, is that Libertarian? What more do you need? Is that how we want people to view our organization?

When an affiliate of the Libertarian Party is not operating in a professional manner, WE MUST DO SOMETHING OR THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION SUFFERS! Additionally, this is not a factional thing where When there are states that have factional problems that are 40% vs. 60% or even 35% vs. 65% maybe we shouldn’t get involved. When you have a Tyrant with 8-10 followers versus a group that has done everything right and is over 80 people strong, then that is a problem.

If you do not get involved I promise you this will not stop in Nevada because we will demonstrate how weak and spineless this board is and it will send the message that states can do whatever they want. It is already happening. Set prescience in Nevada to stop the nonsense Nationally.
Best,

Brett H. Pojunis


And here is conversation about the request:

Brett H. Pojunis writes:

As promised… Here are the updates.

Chairman Geoff Neale email:

LNC Members:

I will place almost anything on the proposed agenda, but this topic I see as very potentially “charged”.

As it stands, I will place “LP Nevada” discussion on the agenda, but I have some significant misgivings.

As setting the agenda is the first item of business, if the LNC rejects “LP Nevada” being on the adopted agenda, it will be gone.

I see what may well ensue from this reality is that we have a group of interested people showing up at the beginning of our meeting to rally for getting this on the agenda (or not), then if it makes it on to the agenda, having a heated discussion (possibly).

I think we should, as a group, discuss beforehand whether or not this will be on the agenda. I welcome advice on how to proceed.

If we are going to reject discussing this item, perhaps things will be more orderly if we can decide whether or not we have jurisdiction to take any action at this point in time. In order to do that, we’re going to need factual summaries of why we can act, and why we should, from one side, and the opposite from the other. Who knows. By July, there may be more than two sides to this issue.

For the record, as of right now I cannot determine that any “cause” exists for the LNC to take action on.

Convince me.

Geoffrey Neale

Second email:

Mr. Pojunis:

From what I understand to this point, you want the LNC to intercede in LP Nevada, primarily because of claims that the current leadership has violated LP Nevada Bylaws.

So answer me one simple question: what message do we send to the LP National Membership if the LNC violates the National Bylaws because LP Nevada leadership violated its Bylaws?

The ends justify the means?

Really?

Geoffrey Neale
Chair
Libertarian National Committee

Vice chairman Lee Wright’s emails in response to mine:

BRETT: LNC – Let me speak plainly… You, we, will lose the overwhelming majority of our Nevada membership if we do nothing. Is that plain enough for you???

LEE:The Chair has asked, and now I will ask also, where in the By-laws does it give us the authority to intervene? What is it you want the LNC to do?

BRETT: If we want to be taken seriously, we have to lead by example. You should get involved in EVERY issue that effects the majority of members in a state. You want cause, there are many different bylaws violations right now plus the cancellation of the State Convention because they didn’t have the votes, is that Libertarian? What more do you need? Is that how we want people to view our organization?

LEE: It’s your organization out there, not ours. That is the way it is supposed to be. The By-laws specify that we do nothing to abridge the autonomy of the affiliates.

BRETT:When an affiliate of the Libertarian Party is not operating in a professional manner, WE MUST DO SOMETHING OR THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION SUFFERS!

LEE:You live there, YOU are the one who is supposed to be doing something about it, I mean, besides making things worse.

BRETT: Additionally, this is not a factional thing where When there are states that have factional problems that are 40% vs. 60% or even 35% vs. 65% maybe we shouldn’t get involved. When you have a Tyrant with 8-10 followers versus a group that has done everything right and is over 80 people strong, then that is a problem.

LEE: No argument. What are YOU going to do about it?

BRETT: If you do not get involved I promise you this will not stop in Nevada because we will demonstrate how weak and spineless this board is and it will send the message that states can do whatever they want. It is already happening. Set prescience in Nevada to stop the nonsense Nationally.

LEE: You have a great deal of nerve to try to guilt your colleagues into giving you what you want. I figured you were bigger than that.

My response:

Mr. Vice Chair,

Thank goodness this is not the board of Subway. If that was the case we would have Subway shops across the country selling sushi, Indian Food and pasta!

Well there is always dis-affiliation. If Joe Silvestri can disaffiliate every County in Nevada, we (the LNC) should be able to disaffiliate LPNevada.

Explain to me how I am making things worse? I put together a slate, I drafted the attached document with our game plan to grow Nevada, I traveled across the state campaigning (see attached document), every time LPNevada changed the rules we complied (3 times and costs us more money each time), I put a team together to contact every registered Libertarian in Nevada WITHOUT informing them of the elections but to get them setup as a voting member and delegate, the entire slate made themselves available, we held meet the candidate nights, we are meeting with potential candidates for 2014, we have been active in the community, we participate at events, we invite EVERYONE to our events, we sent out email WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THE ELECTIONS but getting people signed up as delegate, we DID NOT have a rump convention even against the body because we wanted to do the right thing. We held a meeting the same day of our canceled convention because people had already made travel arrangements and we put a game plan together to build the Libertarian Party in Nevada. During this meeting we drafted a letter to the LNC (attached to this email) together and adopted it as a group and it FELL ON DEATH EARS.

The current Executive Committee, on the other hand, do not follow bylaws, do not hold meetings, do not publish minutes, do not return phone calls and cancel conventions when they have lost.

So Mr. Vice chair, please enlighten me on what I am doing to make things worse? What could I have done better?

Here are some ideas:
Show up at the Executive Committee meetings. Wait, they don’t have Executive Committee meetings that are public and they do not provide notice of meetings, nor do they post minutes on the webstei as per their bylaws.
Get the County Chairs involved. Wait, we don’t have County chairs because they were disaffiliated.
Call the Executive Committee members. We have all tried that, they do NOT get back to us
Let people know on the LPNevada website forums and their Facebook page. Ohh, that is censored and most of us have been banned from both.
Lastly, go to the LNC asking for a Fair Convention or disaffiliate Nevada. That too has fallen on death ears.
So again, how am I am I making things worse, what can I do? Sue them and spend all of our time over the next few years in a lawsuit and NOT running candidates and NOT building the party? This is the time for the LNC to get involved and say ENOUGH.

I anxiously await your response!

Brett H. Pojunis

There are many comments on this thread. You may read them here.

The reader can find background on this situation here and here .

10 thoughts on “Brett H. Pojunis Writes to LNC to be Included on their Next Meeting’s Agenda

  1. Shane

    Both parties have a point. Lee is being practical and Brett is rightly frustrated.

    The recognition of an affiliate and the access they get to national support is really the issue that causes conflict.

    If you look at the RNC, they keep it simple. They don’t recognize affiliates. They recognize convention delegates and nominated candidates.

    As a result states operate independently from the RNC. They also get little support. Donor data dumps? Nope.

    In the end, they recognize national members from a state — not an affiliate. For instance if a conflict arises about what candidate to support pre-nomination/primary, every national member from that state must write in to override that rule. The state party has no real authority over national and vice versa.

    If a conflict sprouts up in a state, national cannot disaffiliate because they were never affiliated. I assume the courts decide.

    I say disaffiliate all state parties and then national can pick and choose who they want to work with in a competitive and performance measured manner. That solves the problem but may create a dozen more.

  2. Michael H. Wilson

    I disagree Shane. The LNC should take a positive step here and provide some incentive for doing the right thing.

  3. Shane

    It’s a tough call. The Bylaws calls to recognize states but provides nothing more than one hard rule on candidates and an ambiguous clause on conduct. Other than that, it’s not a national problem unless the LNC opens the can of worms on “inconsistent action.”

    I think we need to take a sober look at our party’s governance and realize that we are putting more faith in self-imposed laws than we are in people.

    We put so much focus in trying to control factions when we should embrace them and rely on the intelligence of our members and state leaders to sort out their own problems.

    The problem with that is we’re already in a situation in which we recognize one faction over another.

    It should not matter who leads a state party. That’s not their business. It should only matter which candidates the majority of national members in that state designate as their nominee through primary or convention.

    If a conflict arises that effects the running of the state party, let the courts decide if the state Bylaws don’t provide remedy.

  4. Wes Wagner

    This is unfortunately one of those threads in which I must weigh in.

    The LNC should do nothing.

    They made a huge mistake in Oregon and have still not come to terms with making it right.

    In this case the tables are reversed, but I must make the same appeal. I made this appeal in 2006, and multiple times since then and when the LNC finally intervened it was to hire a Republican Party lawyer to back a Republican sympathizer junta and some very disturbed people.

    In this case, they should still do nothing and stay their hand, like they failed to do in Oregon.

    Sincerely,
    Wes Wagner

  5. Nicholas Sarwark

    The LNC can disaffiliate a state affiliate for cause. The national bylaws do not allow for any other intervention by the LNC in the affairs of a state affiliate.

  6. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I think it’s too early to disuss disaffiliation. Silvestri may not be playing fairly, but he still has half the year to plan a convention. If he really violates bylaws and it gets to be 2014 without a convention and election of new officers, perhaps it should be discussed then. Leaving Nevada alone for now seems wise to me.

  7. David Colborne

    I’m not exactly a “neutral observer” here, so consider the source.

    Here’s the thing – Jill’s right, at least to a point. The current Executive Committee does have approximately four months to call a convention date for 2013 (our bylaws require 60 days between the announcement and the actual convention). Since our 2014 convention must occur before March in order to satisfy Nevada SoS filing deadlines, the 2013 convention “practically” can’t occur any later than, say, Christmas or thereabouts – not unless the current Executive Committee wants to plan, implement and announce the 2014 convention as well. Consequently, the Nevada ExComm must announce a convention date no later than mid-October.

    Meanwhile, according to national LP bylaws (Article 6), a disaffiliation can take up to 100 days, or a bit over three months. If the LNC votes to disaffiliate in the July meeting, the disaffiliation process might not complete until well into October, by which point we’ll know for sure whether or not the LPNV Executive Committee is going to announce a 2013 convention or not.

    Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but the LNC meets every, what, three months? This means that the next time disaffiliation could be brought up would be in October, which means disaffiliation after that point could occur as late as late January. By this point, we’d then be talking about holding a 2014 “re-affiliation” convention, along with a candidates convention, along with dealing with whatever ballot access ramifications are incurred from this in the same event. That would get… hairy.

    Consequently, July is ideally the best time to get this ball rolling – it applies enough credible pressure where the threat of successful disaffiliation proceedings should not only force the LPNV ExComm to hold a 2013 convention in a timely fashion, it’ll also allow the LNC to ultimately stay out of it, pending a completed convention.

  8. David Colborne

    @5: “Do nothing” is certainly an option, and one which the LNC appears to be rallying around at the moment. Unfortunately, @3 has a point – the LP absolutely loves to elect punctilious rules lawyers into its leadership positions, then bind them with the most restrictive rules we can collectively muster. The result is we have rules that allow little and elected officers that are more than happy to do even less. I suppose there are worse instincts to have, though I’m more of a “checks and balances” kind of guy. Slavish devotion to “state’s rights” has the nasty habit of tacitly supporting systems like Jim Crow at the expense of the rights of the individuals. Our current system, in which individual LP members only hold whatever rights and privileges state LP affiliates deem fit to confer upon them, effectively ensures that something like this will happen on a regular basis.

    Of course, as @5 witnessed, the court system is also rather reluctant to get involved with this sort of thing (to @5’s benefit – congratulations, by the way), especially when there are ways to handle such things “internally”, whether any of the agents capable of handling a situation like this (e.g. the LNC through its power of disaffiliation) is willing to exercise that power or not.

  9. Sam Kress

    DC @ 8

    The next in-person LNC meeting after the Vegas meeting in July will probably be in November or December and most likely in the DC area, with a focus on the following year’s budget.

    However, as far as I know there is no reason that a disaffiliation could only be considered at a a physical meeting; it could be done at any time by mail ballot.

    I suggest you email your arguments to the LNC or have Brett or someone forward them if you would like them to be considered.

Leave a Reply

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