On May 21st, Judge Henry Breithaupt of the tax court where the lawsuit was being handled rejected the motions of the plaintiffs (the Reeves faction). IPR covered this development: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/05/oregon-libertarian-party-lawsuit-dismissed/
The following are draft minutes from the Recent LNC teleconference on the subject:
Executive Committee Teleconference
May 28, 2013
The meeting was called to order at 9:03 PM (all times Eastern) to discuss the outcome in the lawsuit
Reeves et al. v. Wagner et al. (regarding which party leads the legitimate Oregon affiliate).
Executive Committee members in attendance: Geoff Neale (chair), Lee Wrights (vice-chair), Tim Hagan
(treasurer), David Blau (secretary), Bill Redpath (at large), Dan Weiner (region 4), Jim Lark (region 5s).
Other LNC members listening: Mark Hinkle (at large), Norm Olsen (region 1), Dianna Visek (region
6), Gary Johnson (region 7). Non-LNC members listening: Carla Howell (LP executive director), Alicia
Mattson (NV).
Mr. Neale asked for input from the EC regarding whether the ruling requires any LNC action. Dr. Lark
asked whether LNC counsel has reviewed this opinion — Mr. Neale indicated that had not occurred. Mr.
Blau explained the procedural posture of the lawsuit, and provided an interpretation of the opinion.
In response to a question by Ms. Visek about what action to take, if any, Mr. Wrights suggested that
we should forward the opinion to our counsel for review and advice. Mr. Neale explained that our
bylaws clearly state that we have a responsibility to protect our trademark insofar as we permit affiliates
to use it, that we can have only one affiliate per state, and that the only action we can take against
affiliates is disaffiliation, although he expressed a desire not to take that action. He wished the record
to reflect that he proposed disaffiliation of Arizona in 1999. Ms. Visek asked what fallout occurred from
that disaffiliation. Mr. Neale opined that the state party recovered adequately, while Dr. Lark noted
that there were several lawsuits and Arizona did not place Harry Browne on the ballot in the following
presidential election.
Mr. Neale will convey the opinion to LNC counsel, and recommended that the EC take no action at this
time. Mr. Neale expressed his belief that no executive session was needed, to general agreement. No
action was taken as a result of the EC meeting.
Mr. Wrights moved to adjourn. Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 9:34 PM.
Wes Wagner, the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, commented on the meeting in a post on the Libertarian Party of Oregon Facebook group yesterday:
It has just come to my attention that the LNC Inc.executive committee held a teleconference meeting to discuss the outcome of the recent lawsuit.
We were not invited to provide any information about it and the meeting was seemingly called with no provocation from our part. This would imply that the impetus for the meeting came from the plaintiffs in this dispute, and this was precisely the same type of treatment we received nearly two years ago which started this entire conflict and led to the national party attempting to disenfranchise the registered libertarian voters in Oregon (unsuccessfully).
“There is at least one route that rapidly shuts down appeals, under Oregon law. Of course, that does not exclude Federal appeals.”
They’ll find a way to keep this going one way or another.
tk19: The LNC apologizes to its state affiliates for the lawless actions of its executive committee, former chair and credentials committee, and for its failure to act to stop and remediate those lawless actions;
me: Could be that this and the others MIGHT satsify Crew WW. OTOH, does the current LNC believe that the former actions were “unlawful”? If they don’t believe that, then such an apology would be insincere at best.
Let’s assume that that’s true. Let’s assume WW thinks the LNC still believes its committees were – on balance – acting sincerely and appropriately. He could easily – and understandably -not accept their apology in that case.
There are times in life when both sides to a disagreement think that – ATC – they are doing the right thing, yes? BeaverGate may be such an example.
Wars can be ended, though, when one side decides to man up and stop fighting. Nothing is gained by fighting that I can see.
@22 There is at least one route that rapidly shuts down appeals, under Oregon law. Of course, that does not exclude Federal appeals.
@19 “…placing a mole…” Actually, several, it would appear. Someone did not send LPO the legitimate password and directions sent to the other 50 represented parties. The final vote was 4-3, including in the 4 no more than 1 underinformed person.
The latter. And there will be various rounds of appeals.
@19 Given that the LNC just appointed the former chair back onto the LNC, your proposal seems less than likely.
@20 Fortunately it appears that Oregon Law may tend fairly soon to shut down matters. Alternatively, there will soon be a somewhat longer list of parties and counterparties.
LPO mess will go on for years. It is nowhere near over.
RC @ 18,
“I do wonder what ‘reparations’ WW thinks’d be appropriate.”
If I had to guess, I’d guess his list would look something like this:
1) The LNC apologizes to its state affiliates for the lawless actions of its executive committee, former chair and credentials committee, and for its failure to act to stop and remediate those lawless actions;
2) The LNC promises to be more diligent in the future to ensure that such things don’t happen again; and
3) By way of restitution for placing a mole on the credentials committee and allowing that committee to lawlessly report a non-affiliated delegation in place of the legitimate delegation at the 2012 national convention, perhaps weight its discretionary appointments to 2014 convention committees with a little extra representation for LPO.
17 tk, yes, it’s quite understandable when childish paranoia becomes a way of being for people to be suspicious, agreed.
The point is: While I’ve not studied BeaverGate closely, I have seen no evidence that the LNC (or its committees), or either LPO faction, is outright malicious motive. No have I seen any of the parties admit that the other side has a point.
Until that happens, my guess is this particular drama addiction will keep playing out until some of the actors get bored with it for some other drama.
I do wonder what “reparations” WW thinks’d be appropriate. Hinkle self immolating? Mattson drawn and quartered? Carling tarred and feathered?
RC @ 16,
“The LNC took certain actions in what it believed was its fiduciary responsibility.”
Only if avoiding taking action is considered “taking action.”
The LNC could have voted to disaffiliate the LPO and recognize a new organization as its affiliate it did not.
Nor did the LNC act to rein in its executive committee when that executive committee attempted to disaffiliate LPO while pretending not to disaffiliate LPO.
Nor did the LNC clearly, cleanly and without gamesmanship accept and implement the Judicial Committee’s ruling on the matter.
Nor did the LNC act to ensure that its credentials committee acted in accordance with the obvious implicit rule that the delegation from the LNC’s actual affiliate, rather than an impostor delegation from a fake affiliate which had clearly been deemed such by the Judicial Committee, be recommended to the national convention for seating.
Nor has the new LNC clearly, unambiguously and without exception repudiated and promised not to repeat the bylaws and affiliate agreement violations of the past LNC’s executive and credentials committees.
So I think it’s entirely understandable for LPO to be suspicious when the new LNC’s executive committee meets, without mentioning it beforehand, to discuss a court ruling affirming the Judicial Committee’s previous internal ruling.
br 10: ertain individuals many be new to their positions of authority, that does not relieve the institution itself of group responsibility.
me: Of course. Agreed. What is the institution “responsible” for?
BeaverGate was a complicated situation that ended in the courts. A judge weighed in. Can we stipulate that the disagreement could STILL be a sincere difference of opinions? All sides had strong points to make, and weak points as well. The LNC took certain actions in what it believed was its fiduciary responsibility. So did Wagner’s LPO. So did Reeves’s.
That would be the beginning of an adult conversation on the matter.
WW said in this thread: “Since the LNC has never attempted to admit publicly what occurred nor attempt reparations … your agency’s ethics shall always be in question.”
This sounds to me like he believes the LPO is entitled to “damages.” It also sounds like he’s saying that the LNC is never to be trusted again, regardless of what it does.
What the damages might be, I dunno. Of course, given his penchant for histrionics, I have to wonder whether this is another example of – at best – overstatement for effect. His was a mind that, for instance, found it appropriate to send a flaming middle finger in a message to the LNC, as I recall. That seemed unstable then to me, and in truth it still does.
Others may find such communications to be appropriate, which I guess validates the old saw: It takes all kinds!
I agree with Steve M: “There is a difference between blame and being cautious.” Acts like sending flaming middle fingers make caution a reasonable posture to take, agreed.
Strong people can admit to that the other side of a conflict have valid points to make. They can also admit to mistakes, especially obvious ones.
I’m not sure I saw ANY strength displayed in BeaverGate. It looked like one big cacophonous playground brawl.
What I found interesting is that Aaron Starr, Alicia Mattson and M Carling took the time to attend the fake LPO’s convention in Bend OR…
Brett Bittner is still the chair of the LSLA and keeps Reeve’s on the LSLA run state-chairs mailing list and refuses to add me.
Brett Bittner also pressured the Georgia Chair to place Mattson on the platform committee even though she does not live there.
Now we have Mattson attending this “meeting” …
In my opinion, there was a plan, the nose count came up short, which is why this meeting was essentially aborted.
I expect Ohio to be very interesting.
It was only “discussed” to say that this is the only way in which the LNC could theoretically intervene. Not that this is something they are contemplating doing.
@12 Actually, I am missing the lines where they discussed whatever you are thinking as “the nuclear option”.
So the LNC EC discusses the nuclear option.
Figures.
Their own egos will not allow them to do the right thing and admit defeat and move forward.
It will be their undoing.
If this is all laid bare at Columbus before the convention body, it’s gonna get bloody and loud in a large hurry.
There is a difference between blame and being cautious.
Wes didn’t blame Neal. Wes did state grievances against the LNC, and talked about past behavior such as meeting on the subject of the Oregon Libertarian Party without telling the LPO about the meetings ahead of time.
A change of leadership perhaps but at least symptoms of past behavior remain.
It seems to me that both the point of the analogy and the case of the LNC is that, although certain individuals many be new to their positions of authority, that does not relieve the institution itself of group responsibility. The new chair has stepped into the shoes of the former chair and has inherited his responsibilities – even though he is not personally responsible or guilty of any transgressions committed by the previous chair, he is obligated to handle them properly and legally from the date he took office. The LNC should still be held accountable for what it has done in the past, even if there were an entirely new slate of officers and voting members (in fact, there are a number of hold-overs).
The analogy is fitting because the structure of the events with a damaged party left without compensation and the responsible institution moving on under new leadership. It is not histrionic but is presented appropriately as a recognizable historical lesson. Any useful, recognizable analogous situation is likely to be larger in scope – that’s why it’s recognizable and useful.
8 BR, thanks for the feedback. I’d say it’s not at all “off topic” nor is my observation intended to be “diversionary.”
If one is going to use an analogy to make one’s point, one would have to consider both the substance and also a sense of proportion. Otherwise, one comes across as histrionic, which is easily dismissed.
But, now that you mention it, if 2 institutions have a grievance against one another, and then one institution’s leadership changes, it’s not at all obvious that the aggrieved institution (LPO, in this case) should not be willing to view the successor leadership of the attacking institution (LNC, in this case) as a clean slate.
Presuming Neale guilty for Hinkle’s “sins” seems kinda silly and childish, don’t you think?
And it strikes me that WW – if he has any sense of proportion – should see that his “side” did some highly unusual things during BeaverGate. I can certainly see and respect that Crew WW think they did the right thing here, but there was lots and lots of grayness in this entire matter.
If he doesn’t, then he doesn’t, which may explain how he arrives at highly histrionic analogies.
@6 The analogy used by Wes Wagner in the letter posted by Paulie @2 is quite appropriate. It is the sequence of events, justification and attempt at exoneration that is apt. The fact that the subject of the analogy is war related is not relevant to the lesson to be learned. The analogy Wes uses is a familiar, real lesson of recent historical significance to everyone making it accessible, comprehensible and apropos. Your objection, RC, may reflect your own personal sensibilities, however it is off topic and its effect is diversionary.
I certainly understand why the parties involved in this issue would be on edge. After all, this has been a divisive (and expensive) issue.
OTOH, if we are to succeed in our mission of protecting freedom for Americans, it will be important to return to some sort of normalcy as soon as possible, and for all of our state affiliates and the National LP to work together as allies again. Hopefully the court decision will allow for that to occur, and we can all put this incident in the past where it belongs.
ww2: While I understand that elections occurred in Las Vegas, that does not exonerate the actions of the LNC Inc. To help put this in perspective, imagine if the previous president Bush engaged in an unprovoked war against a middle Eastern country based on false intelligence and propaganda.
me: Does anyone else see the obvious flaw in this? Like, regardless of one’s opinions might be about BeaverGate, were any actions analogous to a killing war?
Not even remotely in the neighborhood, from where I sit.
http://courts.oregon.gov/Tax/Pages/BioBreithaupt.aspx
Clackamas County has him sit pro-tem on Summary Judgment hearings (which require a large amount of time and reading) — this was heard in the Clackamas County Circuit Court.
I have heard that Breithaupt was once serving on the Oregon State Bar constitutional law committee … but I cannot find references to it.
For those interested in the proceedings, the audio is available:
http://www.tensormatrix.biz/files/LPO-MSJ-Hearing-May-16-2013.mp3
Once again the LNC has proven that it can get absolutely nothing done. They can’t even keep a conference call open for more than half an hour.
Correction: It wasn’t in the tax court — the judge is a tax court judge but he was sitting as a pro tem judge for the fifth district court in this case.
Geoffrey Neale via hq.lp.org
10:03 AM (6 hours ago)
to lpo-state-comm., George, Wes, lnc-discuss
Mr. Wagner:
I agree that there are serious issues to resolve, but my position has been, and will continue to be, that as long as there are court cases going on in government courts, I cannot be a part of any solution. My understanding is that we do not yet have a formal signed ruling from the judge, and I do not know how long that will take.
Until that time, I see no viable alternative to remaining a spectator. The recent meeting of the EC tells me that my position is consistent with their position.
Geoffrey Neale
From: Wes Wagner [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 9:39 AM
To: Geoffrey Neale
Cc: [email protected]; George Phillies; lpo-state-committee
Subject: RE: LPO and LNC Inc Relationship
Mr. Neale
I will forward your message to our board and you are correct that court filings and filings are public records. I send items to Starchild knowing that they will get disseminated … not because he speaks for the board.
There were many meetings and secret meetings not announced to us by the prior administration who actively worked to install a puppet regime in this state and hired the Oregon Republican Party lawyer to solicit biased opinions to influence the LNC, funded his initial research with $5000 of misappropriated funds by then chairperson Hinkle. When Hinkle did not get the results he liked … the LNC voted to have him sign a conflict of interest waiver to release a Republican Party attorney to sue us.
As a result we are a bit sensitive about discussions being had regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon because we regard the LNC Inc as a predatory hostile agency.
Since the LNC has never attempted to admit publicly what occurred nor attempt reparations … your agency’s ethics shall always be in question.
While I understand that elections occurred in Las Vegas, that does not exonerate the actions of the LNC Inc. To help put this in perspective, imagine if the previous president Bush engaged in an unprovoked war against a middle Eastern country based on false intelligence and propaganda. Then the costs of that war and the effects it had on the U.S. eventually beleaguered the citizens of the U.S. to the point where a new administration was elected.
After some time the war was ended… leaving the people of that middle eastern country with all the destruction, death and devastated economy.
Do you think they would be merely satisfied that the U.S. stopped attacking them … so everything is good now?
There are serious issues to still address.
Sincerely,
Wes Wagner
Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon
From Geoff Neale:
Geoffrey Neale via hq.lp.org
9:13 AM (7 hours ago)
to Wes, lnc-discuss
Mr. Wagner:
I’m hoping you will do me the courtesy of posting this response to your Board, as I am sure I do not have posting rights.
There are a few points I’d like to clarify regarding your email.
1). The meeting you refer to was not a meeting of the LNC. We are not empowered to conduct business via a conference call. It was a meeting of the Executive Committee of the LNC, which is charged with making mostly operational decisions in the interim periods between LNC meetings. While the EC does carry a broad range of discretion, most members are reticent to use the authority of the EC in any broad manner.
2). The meeting was not secret – it was totally ordinary, and consistent with the manner in which EC meetings have been held for decades. All members of the LNC were informed about the meeting on a public list that anyone can review in our archives.
3). We did not solicit input from anyone. Period. I did, for the record, receive an email from Mr. Reeves shortly before the meeting, but I did not even open the email until after the meeting. I do not know if any other EC members read this email before our meeting, but the topic was not brought up.
4). The stated reason for the EC meeting was as follows:
The LNC EC will be holding a teleconference on Tuesday, May 28 at 9:00 PM Eastern time (6:00 PM Pacific time) to discuss the legal decision in Reeves et al. v. Wagner et al.
Please be advised that an Executive Session may be required to discuss legal matters that involve the LNC, pursuant to section 1.02(5) of the Policy Manual. If this occurs, non-LNC members will be asked to leave the call.
I advised of the possibility of executive sessions because several members of the LNC feel that even a likelihood of an executive session should be announced prior to the meeting. That notice was made due to a prior meeting covering confidential issues where the members were NOT informed previously, and I responded by announcing the possibility in advance. For the record, the prior executive session had nothing to do with Oregon. Also for the record, I added the executive session notice just in case someone brought up a good reason to enter one, but not because I intended to hold one, or felt that one would be necessary.
My apologies to you and anyone else somehow offended by my actions. For the record, I would like everyone reading this email to note that I found out about the aforementioned decision because you sent me a copy of it. I have reviewed the email, and cannot find any reference to it being confidential, and I believe that court documents such as this are public record. If it was your intent that I not disclose this ruling, or not disseminate it in any way, I wish you had made that caveat a part of your email.
I generally like to seek counsel on matters such as this, and sought such counsel from the EC. The meeting started with me stating my position, which is that I am happy that the judge has basically said that this is an internal issue. I then stated that I did not see anything in that decision that warranted any action by the EC at this time. I wanted to know if any EC member felt differently. If anyone felt differently, they were silent on the issue.
I want all the readers of this email to understand that the meeting was not called for the purpose of taking any kind of action. No motion was prepared, presented or considered. I called the meeting to seek the advice of the EC. Nothing more.
I certainly had the choice to poll individual LNC members independently, and support my inclination in that manner, but I feel it is far more “transparent” to discuss among the board in a larger setting.
I’m also not sure what your rules are regarding allowing non-board members participation in meetings, and I tend to be pretty flexible in that regard, but no person not on our EC has any right to be heard in an EC meeting, regardless of their desire. Likewise with the LNC.
However, as to bogus claims of transparency, it is hard to resist commenting on the fact that your Board meetings where relationships with the LNC were discussed were somehow not disclosed to the LNC, and no opportunity to provide input was given formally to the LNC. The difference, perhaps, is that I feel you have every right to conduct your business in any manner you choose, and I am in no way offended by your “flexible” standards of transparency. In fact, it is often prudent to do so, isn’t it? A board works better when acting deliberately, and since the position of any board should be coherent and cohesive, it is often necessary to move the board to consensus positions through dialog.
Also for the record, I want everyone on the LNC to understand that there were two recipients on the email from Wes Wagner that contained the court ruling: myself and Starchild.
Please remember that Starchild does not speak in any official capacity for the LNC. He does sit on the LNC, and represents one vote out of eighteen, and that carries certain capabilities. However, he does not speak for us, and many of his viewpoints do not reflect the majority position of the LNC. Please be careful to distinguish between official positions of the LNC (or lack thereof) and Starchild’s.
Geoffrey Neale
Chair
Libertarian National Committee