Starchild Motion for LNC: Truth in advertising on building fund (letter to donors)

From an email sent out by Libertarian National Committee (LNC) at-large representative Starchild, June 22nd:

As I noted in a June 19 message to the Libertarian National Committee’s LNC-discuss list,

> • We promised donors to the project [to purchase a new LP national headquarters building] that their money would be spent to buy a *building*, which would be named the “David F. Nolan Memorial Building” — not just office space in a building. I’ve seen nothing in this proposal to indicate that we would even have naming rights to the building as a whole…  we need to act with integrity and fulfill the promises we make to people when we ask them to give us their money. People are already calling this a “bait-and-switch”, and they have a valid point. If we go forward with this, it will undermine the confidence of donors and supporters in the party.

Having seen no messages disagreeing with that assessment, I hope all of you will join me in supporting the following motion:

MOTION:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whereas it is important that the Libertarian Party act with integrity and fulfill any promises made in fundraising appeals to donors concerning how their donations will be spent, and

Whereas donors have a right to expect this of the Libertarian Party when making donations to the party, and

Whereas LP secretary David Blau as head of the building fund has acknowledged the “mistake” of having been “a bit lax informing the donors that we were investigating an office condo, rather than a full building”, and

Whereas fundraising appeals for the project to purchase a new LP headquarters building repeatedly referred to purchasing a building, rather than only purchasing space in a building, examples of which language can be seen in the fundraising letter published at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/04/libertarian-party-put-your-name-on-the-david-nolan-memorial-building/;

Therefore if the Libertarian Party purchases the office space at 1101 King Street #160, in Alexandria, Virginia, which the Executive Committee voted to authorize the Building Committee to enter into negotiations concerning, or any other office space not comprising an entire building, the committee in charge of the building fund shall send all donors to this fund, by email or printed letter, a written explanation and apology for using the funds to buy a part of a building, rather than an entire building as was repeatedly described in fundraising letters seeking donations for the project. This letter shall ask each donor to send an email to LP secretary and building fund point man David Blau (secretary@lp.org), stating the donor’s preference that his or her donation be (a) spent on office space in a building purchased under the authorization of the LNC in lieu of actually buying a building, (b) refunded, in which case a full refund shall be issued to that donor as soon as reasonably possible, or (c) put toward another Libertarian Party budget item of the donor’s choice, which should be specified in the donor’s email to the secretary; and inform them that if they have any further questions or concerns about the project to purchase a new office or how their donation is being handled they are welcome to contact one of their LNC representatives (listed at http://www.lp.org/lnc-leadership).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am seeking co-sponsors for this motion, and urge all my fellow representatives and alternates on the Libertarian National Committee to reply to this email as co-sponsors. Let us not dishonor David Nolan’s memory by giving even the appearance of raising under false pretenses money to be used toward purchasing a space to be dedicated to him.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

P.S. – If anyone not on the Libertarian National Committee receiving this message has thoughts on this matter that you would like me to share with the LNC, please let me know. I hope you will encourage them to support this motion.

LNC at-large representative and former national chair Mark Hinkle responded to Starchild’s motion:

This is stupid!

And counter productive.

Hundreds of donors gave hundreds of thousands of dollars when there was absolutely no description of any building whatsoever.

The important points are to substantially reduce our office expenses and to honor David Nolan.

Everything else is secondary.

It’s this type of crap that discourages people who make things happen from working hard and long in volunteer roles.

If the LP is to be successful, this nonsense has to be discredited and we need to put a stop to it…..now!

Geez………………….Mark Hinkle,
LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair

84 thoughts on “Starchild Motion for LNC: Truth in advertising on building fund (letter to donors)

  1. Steve Scheetz

    Well, I read about this before, and while it makes sense that property values in the area insist that a full building would cost much more than the fund raising team was asking for, it is also true that the fundraising team were not 100% forthcoming.

    My suggestion is a simple one.

    Send a letter to each donor and post it, publicly. This letter should state that the “office building” is actually going to be a bit of “office condo” space, and ask if everyone is cool with this.

    My guess is that most who donated will be cool with it, HOWEVER, this has, at the very least, the appearance of FRAUD…

    Rather than beating on Starchild for making the motion, this Libertarian would suggest eliminating any appearance of wrong doing, by the party.

    Also, a formal apology should be made to Starchild for the negative public statements about his person. He did not create this scenario, the fundraising team did….. Instead of shooting the messenger, the party should recognize that this is indeed a problem and fix it.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  2. Oranje Mike

    The building vs condo argument is legitimate. It may not me much of a concern to many but donations were asked for and received as part of a “building” fund.

  3. Jill Pyeatt

    Mark Hinkle appears to have forgotten (again) that he and Starchild are of equal rank on the LNC. He may be a “retired” ex-chair (many people might think he was fired ), but he isn’t chairman any more.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Hinkle:

    “The important points are to substantially reduce our office expenses and to honor David Nolan.

    “Everything else is secondary.”

    Refreshing honesty from Hinkle. Usually he doesn’t come right out and admit that being honest with the members doesn’t make the short list of priorities.

  5. Jeremy C. Young

    I’d modify this resolution slightly: instead of requiring a positive contact from the donors, I would simply give them an opportunity to request their money be refunded. And I don’t think the LNC needs to “apologize” for pursuing office space IF they also give donors a chance to request their money back, only if they don’t do that.

    Otherwise, it’s a good idea.

  6. NewFederalist

    This entire saga is why I did not pledge or contribute to the “building fund”. I wanted to see just what would happen before I committed. I suspect I am not alone.

  7. Seebeck

    After all this time, Hinkle thought I was serious when I suggested buying a building…

    Well, I wasn’t–not even close. Shows you how easily the (fired) Chair is manipulated, and amazing how easy it is to get the LNC to tilt at windmills.

    It’s time to tell this story, because this comedy of fools has gone on long enough.

    See, when the whole driving out of Hawkridge off the LNC was going on (In relation to the Convention Committee garbage), Hinkle called me to complain about my criticism of them for their actions, basically called Rachel a liar (even though she had the phone records to back herself up) and then for some reason took my completely tongue-in-cheek suggestion to buy a place seriously–all in the same conversation. Why he took the time to call and bitch at me for backing up a friend who had the truth on her side, then turn around and think that was serious was beyond me. Yet that’s exactly what happened, and here we are.

    Is the Watergate a waste of money? You bet. Are there cheaper options available? Certainly. Should the LNC and LP, Inc. have a physical asset on its books that can be seized when the FEC litigates against it when (and if) the LP ever gets serious in DC? No. It never was a good idea.

    Then The Nolan died and it went from a bad idea into the Twilight Zone. And here we are.

    Time to end the charade, LNC. You’ve been duped by a completely UN-serious suggestion, your (fired) Chair was played for a fool (again and again and again) in pursuit of his own legacy, and you all followed along without any idea what happened.

    Well, now you know…the rest of the story.

    (Or at least my part of it.)

  8. paulie

    Dave Blau is already offering to let people request their money back. He has agreed that this option should be offered in a future appeal. I don’t believe some of the parts of the proposal will happen, such as offering a list of alternative projects or waiting for people to all contact the party again (many will probably not respond and will express no preference one way or the other, something this proposal doesn’t take into account as far as I can tell).

  9. Jeremy C. Young

    I’d go a bit further than Blau, though, and contact all donors to the building project preemptively. I’d tell them what’s happened (Blau should feel free to sell the office space idea to the donors) and offer them the option of getting their money back (but encourage them to leave it where it is). To me, that’s conscientious and avoids the fraud charge. I think Starchild’s motion goes a bit too far, and what’s now being done doesn’t go far enough.

  10. Reed E

    Stupid shit like this is why I will not be renewing my membership. Same reason I stopped volunteering.

  11. Scott Lieberman

    This was an LNC mail ballot during November 2011:

    “The Chair and staff are directed to negotiate and execute a 3-year lease for office space at one of
    the following locations, which are approved in the following descending order of preference:

    1. 1840 N. Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA
    2. 1700 Diagonal Rd, Alexandria, VA
    3. 2001 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA

    [I don’t have the exact numbers handy, but all of the above rentals were something like $2000 to $3000 per month cheaper than the Watergate.
    Plus – the sites above that are in Arlington County are much closer to the US Capitol Building than the Alexandria property that is currently under consideration for purchase.
    Regardless of your opinion about LPHQ having to be in the DC area, if you **do** locate in the DC area it makes sense to be as close as possible to US Capitol Building – SL]

    An effort should be made to include a provision in the lease allowing the Libertarian Party to extend it at the end of three years at our option. In the event that none of these locations is still available for lease, the Chair and staff are
    authorized to negotiate and execute a 3-year lease at another location of their choosing, so long as the annual expense, including

    rent,$9 per square foot for operating/tax/maintenance, if not a full-service lease, and

    outside storage space, does not exceed $110,000.

    Proviso:

    This motion takes effect only in the event that there is a failure to meet any one of the conditions in the mail ballot motion started on 10/03/11 regarding purchasing 1428 Duke Street in Alexandria, VA.

    Co-Sponsors:

    Alicia Mattson, Dan Wiener, Rebecca Sink-Burris, Randy Eshelman

    Started: 10/28/11 Ended: 11/12/11

    Voting “aye”: Eshelman, Karlan, Mattson, Olsen, Root, Rutherford, Sink-Burris, Visek, Wiener, Wolf

    Voting “nay”: Craig, Flood, Hinkle, Kirkland, Knedler, Lark, Redpath, Ruwart

    The motion was adopted by a vote of 10-8.”

    *************************************************************************************

    Since the LNC voted to not purchase the building above on Duke Street in Alexandria, you would think that LPHQ should have moved to one of the above rental offices sometime in early 2012.

    However, LPHQ staff told us that they would rather remain in the Watergate if the LNC was planning on purchasing a building anytime in the next few years, because the expense of moving would not be worth it if we only stayed in the new, leased office for a year or two.

    Note – I am not placing all or even most of the blame on LPHQ staff. The LNC could still have voted to move to one of the above
    addresses and we would have started saving our member’s precious dollars **immediately.**

    But, the LNC did not want to violate staff’s desire to not have to move twice in 3 years, so we decided to stay in the Watergate on the possibility that the LNC might still decide to purchase a building. I am sure that having to return to our members over $100,000 in contributions that were restricted for the Building Fund also had something to do with this decision.

    And that is why LP member’s contributions are still going towards paying a 5 figure monthly rent payment for the Watergate instead of a 4 figure monthly rent payment for a building in Arlington County.

    If I have made a mistake in any of my claims above, I welcome someone to correct me.

    I had to think twice about posting this comment, because it isn’t a good idea for Board members to publicly criticize decisions by their Board. But – since saving money is one of the biggest sales points used by the David F. Nolan Building Fund, I want to make sure our members know that the 2010-2012 LNC did vote to move out of the Watergate into cheaper rental space.

  12. Scott Lieberman

    “And that is why LP member’s contributions are still going towards paying a 5 figure monthly rent payment for the Watergate instead of a 4 figure monthly rent payment for a building in Arlington County. – SL”

    ******************************

    Sorry – I should have said “for an office in Arlington County.” !!!!

  13. George Phillies

    @11,12 Scott?

    There was a moment at which the LNC rejected buying that other building. After that, and before the LNC changed its mind on building rental and pass its new motion, did the staff carry out the directive of the LNC to investigate renting one of these alternative sites?

    To the best of your recollection, when did people first mention buying an office-condo rather than a building?

    And have a good Summer.

  14. Mark Axinn

    I contributed twice to the building fund.

    I am pleased that the LNC is planning to purchase an office condo instead of an entire building.

    I will not be asking for my money back even though I was under the impression the LNC was going to buy a building and not an office condo when I made my contributions.

    My only request, which probably won’t be granted, is that David Nolan’s name be removed from the entire project. I disagree with my friend Mark Hinkle on that one matter: I could care less about honoring Nolan, and prefer that my money not be used for such purpose. I am interested in building the Libertarian Party and infrastructure like an office is part of that.

  15. Stewart Flood

    The Duke Street property was a condo. The LNC’s search committee (of which I was a member last term) looked at buildings, including both stand-alone and condo, as well as rentals. It was even discussed during our LNC meetings.

    We also looked at several locations where we would have owned the building and rented out part (due to valuable first floor retail frontage).

    I’m not sure what was told to people when funds were solicited, but condos were being considered the whole time. I never liked the idea of naming a building after anyone, and I do recall discussing the question of “how do you name a condo” with a few other LNC members. I wasn’t involved in the solicitation side, so it wasn’t of any importance to me.

    The Duke Street property we voted on was part of a complex with access between “buildings” on each floor. I was raised in Philly, where a building that has access to another building through a door is NOT called a building! We called them row homes.

    As far as the move goes, at the point in time when I left the LNC the primary reason staff had given to recommend not moving right away was that as the lease at the Watergate was ending we were two months away from the 2012 national convention. Moving the office (a two month or more project) just before a nominating convention was simply not practical.

    Right after the convention, the 2012-2014 LNC took up the issue of a building again. I’m not privy to the sequence of events since the convention or what staff may have said to the new LNC, but the primary reason I (personally) heard from staff was the inability to handle a convention and a move at the same time.

    And I’m not sure how anyone could think that the idea of a building came up because someone suggested it to Mark Hinkle. I recall talking to him about it the first time I met him at an LNC meeting, long before he decided to run for chair.

    I served on the LNC from 2006 to 2012 and I remember discussions at several meetings, including the very first one I attended in Portland. Chuck Moulton, our 2006-2008 vice chairman, was a strong supporter of the idea. After he left the LNC, discussion of the topic went into the background — but it never completely disappeared. It “woke up” again during the spring of 2010, before the selection of a new chair at the convention

    I believe buying a building was even one of the issues Mark Hinkle ran on, soI don’t believe it was a case of a sitting chair trying to create some sort of “legacy” for himself as has been suggested.

  16. Stewart Flood

    Oh…and I never completely liked the idea of naming the building after Mr Nolan. No slight intended, but it did not seem right to me.

    It could have worked at the Duke Street location since each “condo” had a separate outside entrance and a distinct street number, but it can’t work for a suite in an office building.

  17. Daddyfatsax

    I support Starchild on this, as usual…our “rulers” in the LP are going to do what they want and not pay attention to the “rules”…politics is politics and elections have consequences. Please stand strong against this bait and switch Starchild, you represent all of us who don’t bow to the leaders who only wish to push through their agenda regardless of how any individual gets affected. Our party can’t even handle spoiled children running amok in Nevada…what the hell does the leadership need with a building? Let them put their feet up at home if they aren’t going to do anything anyways.

  18. Stewart Flood

    Which spoiled children? The ones who are currently in charge, or the one that wants to take over?

    The ByLaws don’t give much wiggle-room on this one: they technically (by Nevada LP ByLaws) have until the end of the year to hold their convention.

    Ethics? Yeah…they should have held the convention when it was originally scheduled. Ethics (again)? Yeah…a certain LNC member abused his office by sending campaign email using national’s email list.
    Ethics (even more)? Yeah…well…eliminating the county affiliates? Someone should have seen the rest of this coming.

    This will be Oregon all over again before it finishes. Ignore your ByLaws, then change them (just guessing right now, but it worked for Oregon so why wouldn’t Nevada’s coup work the same way?)

    Nevada…Oregon…Just say NO!

  19. Chuck Moulton

    Stewart Flood wrote (@15):

    I served on the LNC from 2006 to 2012 and I remember discussions at several meetings, including the very first one I attended in Portland. Chuck Moulton, our 2006-2008 vice chairman, was a strong supporter of the idea. After he left the LNC, discussion of the topic went into the background — but it never completely disappeared. It “woke up” again during the spring of 2010, before the selection of a new chair at the convention

    See 4th roll call vote on this chart.

    http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2008/documents/voting/lnc_roll_call_2008.pdf

    August 2006 LNC meeting minutes (page 12)
    http://www.lp.org/archives/lnc20060819.pdf

    Building Project

    Chuck Moulton had broached the idea of the LNC purchasing a building rather than renting space.

    Chuck moved we form a building project committee consisting of Geoff Neale, Richard Burke and Admiral Colley to investigate the possibility and desirability of buying or erecting an owned building.

    Dan Karlan moved to table the issue. That motion was ruled out of order owing to there being no other order of business of higher priority to supplant the motion.

    The motion failed 1-14

    Voting in favor was Chuck Moulton.

    Opposed were: Bob Sullentrup, Geoff Neale, Pat Dixon, Aaron Starr, Wes Benedict, Angela Keaton, Jeremy Keil, Dan Karlan, Mark Bodenhausen, Dr. Jim Lark, Admiral Colley, Hardy Machia, Tony Ryan, Emily Salvette.

    M Carling abstained.

    I proposed the idea in 2006 and was the only one who voted in favor. Neale was against it. Colley was against it. Lark was against it.

    Later I discussed the idea with Hinkle extensively before he ran for chair.

    One of the reasons some LNC members gave for supporting Blau over me for LNC secretary was that Blau was more committed to the building project than I was. That’s pretty ridiculous. I’ve been in favor of a buying a building far longer and more consistently than Blau, Neale, Hinkle, and many others pitching it now.

  20. Chuck Moulton

    Also from that August 2006 meeting:

    State Executive Directors Project

    Chuck Moulton discussed an item floated on the discussion list, a project to encourage states to acquire and support executive directors. Chuck noted the consensus essentially was this was a bad idea, though brainstorming at this meeting might reverse that.

    M Carling moved the LNC move on to the next topic. Without objection the measure passed.

    Hopefully after the LNC finally buys rather than renting someone will go back through the minutes and implement a bunch of my other great ideas from 7 years ago.

    For example, I proposed that the LNC fund traveling field directors who each would serve as a temporary state executive director in a state until he fundraised enough recurring monthly donations to support a permanent executive director, then move on to another state and repeat the process.

    Much like buying a building I don’t really care if I don’t get any credit as long as it gets done.

  21. Scott Lieberman

    Mr. Moulton:

    Purchasing a building, an office condo, or a trailer is not automatically going to help the Libertarian Party become a Real Political Party ™.

    I think your idea of purchasing a building or an office condo would be fine after the Libertarian Party has achieved enough political success such that we can make a 100% down payment, or at least a 50% down payment.

    The current LNC leadership is using sealing wax and string to piece together a minimal down payment on an office condo, but has been advertising it as a **building** that will be named after David Nolan.

    The 2010-12 LNC tried to ensure that general LP fundraising would not suffer while money was being raised for the Building Fund. I have to wonder if that condition is being honored by the current Building Fund Committee.

    the following was sent to lnc-business, which is posted on http://www.LP.org

    “Timothy Hagan

    Mon Jun 3 00:50:15 EDT 2013

    The April End-of-Month Financial Reports are attached.

    The increase in revenues is from successful fundraising for the Building Project Fund. The Building Fund increased from $120,482 in March to $176,194 at the end of April. However, general fundraising has dropped
    each month this year. The sum of membership dues, donations, recurring gifts, and board solicitations is $75,273 below the year-to-date budget.

    The total for these for January through April is $311,076, while $386,350 was budgeted.

    Tim Hagan, LNC Treasurer”

  22. Daddyfatsax

    Wow, really Mr Flood? You basically call two LNC members (Brett and Tim) from Nevada, as well as myself, David Colborne and Lou “Spoiled children”? I have to ask, in your immeasurably mature opinion, what have “we” done to warrant being called spoiled children? Is it our demands for our state party act in a responsible manner? Do spoiled children organize a majority of the state party members to sign a document in a civil and organized manner to implore the LNC to condemn the state excom members for cancelling elections, hiding from members, and protect a pedophile who acts on behalf of the party at children’s charities? Please enlighten me, as all I know about you is you have a hardon for Brett Pojunis by referencing an email that was sent to EVERYONE to enlighten them about a convention that was not advertised. If this wasn’t done, I would be pissed…my regional rep actually helped the members in this state when the damn excom is either on vacation, in hiding, or woefully incompetent. You wanna bitch about an email…complain about the rigoddamnediculous apology the Chair sent that legitimized the corruption the excom used in cancelling the convention. But don’t you dare attempt to smear the names or reputations of the people in this state who are trying to give it a modicum of viability and credibility after this administration has used the party for their own petty childish antics and games. If you think the slate of us running in Nevada is a bad idea, by all means get on your bicycle and peddle your ass to Vegas and lets have a debate on the issues affecting this party…I think you would find the current excom “not able to attend”, the group that is trying to fix this party in Nevada “more than willing to attend”, and your own ass in water too deep to paddle your BS through. Good day, and keep on keepin’ on.

  23. Stewart Flood

    @22,

    You failed to accurately read what I wrote. My reference to those in control now was plural, however my reference was in the singular in relation to the spoiled child who wants to be chair.

    I neither implied or stated anything negative about any others involved in attempting to recover your state party.

    As far as Mr Pojunis is concerned, the facts are out there. I have vigorously defended the interests of the party against this con-artist and will continue to. He is great at printing up big plans. In fact, all he does is talk about his big plans and their binders (see previous articles on IPR). He is also very good at getting people to give him lots of money (and I mean lots!) without even the vapor in vaporware.

    Don’t get me wrong on this part: I believe Pojunis and the rest of those who oppose the current state leadership are correct. But I believe he is in it for reasons that differ from their’s.

    I sincerely hope that you are able to effect an honest convention and an about face from the direction Nevada has been going internally. I just hope you don’t simply replace chairman tweedle-dee with chairman tweedle-dumb. Be careful.

  24. Scott Lieberman

    Dr. Phillies @ 13 : I hope this comment answers your questions.

    My source for the information below was present at the referenced LNC Sessions, and my source has a much better memory than I do.
    When the current LNC Chair gave the original presentation about a building fund in November 2010, Bill Redpath asked if Mr. Neale envisioned it as an office condo, and Mr. Neale indicated that a condo was one of the possibilities, though it would be up to the LNC to decide exactly what sort of building, or portion of a building, that the LNC wanted for LPHQ.

    When LNC Secretary Alicia Mattson and LNC Representative Stewart Flood went to DC looking for alternative options in September 2011, they considered office condo options. I think the 2010-2012 LNC understood that an office condo was a possibility. Whether or not the possibility of purchasing an office condo rather than a building was made clear to the **current** LNC is another question.

    The Immediate-Past-Chair keeps saying one of the main reasons to buy a building/office condo is to honor David Nolan. However – the building fund was created **before** David Nolan died (barely, as he died the next day). And part of the pitch to the LNC to get them to create the fund was that we could SELL the naming rights to help raise additional funds. Later on, the Immediate Past-Chair started using the phrase “David F. Nolan Memorial Building Fund” in fundraising appeals, even over the objections of the 2010-12 LNC which had not voted to give either the Building Fund or the actual Building a name other than LPHQ. As stated above, the LNC was led to believe that we would **sell** the naming rights.

    During 2011, the Immediate-Past-Chair had been telling the LNC that our rent at the Watergate was going to drastically increase, and so we had to get out. The numbers the Immediate-Past-Chair used to scare us varied widely, but at times he and staff claimed the rent at the Watergate would double. We didn’t find out until November 2011 (well into the process) that the rent-increase-at-the-Watergate scenario was **only** if we overstayed our existing contract without negotiating a new one.

    But we did have an option of extending our contract at the Watergate at essentially the same rent. The Chair and/or LPHQ staff hid that from us for a while (1), continuing to say our rent would double if we didn’t move. Once that contract-extension option became known, it was much more feasible to stay put rather than incur moving costs for a short-term move while we kept raising funds for a near-future building purchase.

    The reason that Mattson and Flood were asked to travel to DC in September 2011 (a trip that would have been unnecessary had we known we could stay at the Watergate) was that staff claimed that it was nearly impossible to get a rental lease for fewer than 5 years. But Mattson and Flood brought back several short-term lease options that were fine for our needs; were cheaper than the Watergate; and were for a term of just 2 or 3 years. You can see several of those options in the motion that I posted above.

    1. Unfortunately, we don’t have beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt proof of how long this was hidden from the LNC. It was probably somewhere between a few weeks and a few months. I believe that the default for Staff would have been to tell the LNC about this option as soon as they found out about it.

  25. Scott Lieberman

    re comment 24 – “The Chair and/or LPHQ staff hid that from us for a while (1), continuing to say our rent would double if we didn’t move.”

    Sorry. Even when I use a full screen editor like WordPad, it is still difficult to catch every single mistake in long comments. I meant to write “The Immediate-Past-Chair.”

  26. Stewart Flood

    The only thing that I might disagree with Dr Lieberman on in his statement is whether there was an attempt to hide information. I say might, because he is correct that the timing of when this information was known is unclear. The Watergate was being sold, and the reports in the paper and from other sources indicated for a time that the new owners wanted tenants to leave and would accomplish this by hiking rent. This later turned out to not be true, but at what point staff was aware is unknown to me.

    Regardless of this question, I appreciate Dr Lieberman verifying what I previously wrote about briefly regarding our search and our results. Yes, we found several rental options significantly less expensive. We also looked at, and, in my opinion found, a few interesting properties for purchase. Unfortunately, getting a good overall value (cost/sqft) requires a significantly higher investment than the LP is capable of making.

  27. Stewart Flood

    I should have said better value instead of good. Finding a good value in DC is not likely.

  28. Michael H. Wilson

    When the word staff is used above what exactly is meant? Did all of the employees stand up and give questionable information, or was it one or perhaps two or three employees?

  29. Stewart Flood

    The term staff is normally used by current and past LNC members as a generic reference.

    In my case, I recall discussing the Watergate rumors with three or four current and past members of staff who had been following what was going on. Names are unimportant, since there were a lot of rumors, including one (from the papers) that a foreign government was purchasing it.

    The fact that the new owners were not trying to re-purpose the facility was reported to the chair and to the LNC. Dr Lieberman questions how long the information was known before the LNC was informed. I do not believe it could have been long, and my recollection (from two years ago) is that the identity of the new owners was revealed in the papers during the week we were in DC. The decision to travel to DC was made several weeks earlier.

    My memory may not be complete on this, but I do not believe it likely that staff or the chair would have known that at the time the decision was made.

    I made it very clear at the time we volunteered to go to DC that I would be making the trip at my own expense. I do not believe that the chair, the ED, or the Operations Director would have let me do that (about $1K to travel, stay, and eat in DC for six days) if they had already known about the lease renewal option with the new owners.

    I do not see a scandal or conspiracy here, but since we are talking about “The Watergate” there has to be at least a possibility that Dr Lieberman is correct.

  30. paulie

    Our party can’t even handle spoiled children running amok in Nevada…

    We need to know what we can do under current LP national bylaws. As a first step, how about a stand alone document only and just documenting in what ways LPNV exec comm has already violated their own bylaws?

    what the hell does the leadership need with a building?

    Saves money as compared to rent, donors are ponying up, gets us out from part of our monthly payments immediately and the rest in a few years.

    Let them put their feet up at home

    Not an option; we will have an office. The current one costs 5 figures a month and we are not doing anything to ever get out from under those payments.

    if they aren’t going to do anything anyways.

    I don’t agree with the characterization that if we haven’t interfered with LPNV, regardless of whether we could do so under national bylaws or not, that means we are not doing anything at all. Work gets done at the national office all the time. Check the staff reports to the LNC, I think they are in meeting minutes and/or files at LNCDiscussPublic.

  31. paulie

    The ByLaws don’t give much wiggle-room on this one: they technically (by Nevada LP ByLaws) have until the end of the year to hold their convention.

    That is correct. However, I’ve seen allegations of other bylaws violations by LPNV exec comm. I don’t have at my immediate disposal which ones exactly, I think it was buried in a document with a bunch of other things. Hence my suggestion for a new standalone document with that and that only.

    a certain LNC member abused his office by sending campaign email using national’s email list.

    It didn’t say he was running for anything. Is it really that improper for a region rep to include his photo and contact info along with informing members of the event, given that the state exec comm failed to provide such general notice other than on the website? Would it have been inappropriate for the current state chair, had he provided such notice, to include his photo and contact info, given that he is running in a contested race for re-election?

    I’ll grant that it was borderline campaigning. I’m not sure it really crossed the line, and I certainly don’t think it justified postponing the convention, especially after Geoff apologized for sending it out.

  32. paulie

    I proposed the idea in 2006 and was the only one who voted in favor. Neale was against it. Colley was against it. Lark was against it.

    Were they arguing against it altogether or just some particulars? Geoff now claims he has been pushing the building idea for 10 years or more.

    One of the reasons some LNC members gave for supporting Blau over me for LNC secretary was that Blau was more committed to the building project than I was. That’s pretty ridiculous. I’ve been in favor of a buying a building far longer and more consistently than Blau, Neale, Hinkle, and many others pitching it now.

    I can’t remember if we brought up that point at the time. If we didn’t, we should have.

  33. paulie

    go back through the minutes and implement a bunch of my other great ideas from 7 years ago.

    If you do it and send me the ideas I will make sure the current LNC receives them. I can copy you on any replies you get from them.

  34. paulie

    Whether or not the possibility of purchasing an office condo rather than a building was made clear to the **current** LNC is another question.

    Yes, I remember hearing that possibility mentioned. However, I don’t remember when and where, and I won’t go back through all the archives to find it.

  35. Stewart Flood

    I agree that the convention should not have been cancelled, regardless of whether the actions of an LNC member were of a nature that could be considered abuse of office, or were merely unethical.

    I’m not up to date on what other ByLaws violations may or may not have taken place in Nevada. I would guess that the one that would be most likely might rise to the level of action from the LNC would be failure to reorganize and hold a convention.

    Would the LNC take action in that event? The burnt fingers from Oregon might tend to make people shy of trying to do the right thing a second time in as many years. The first attempt failed, so what would the chances be that a second state’s dilemma would end up the same way?

  36. paulie

    I agree that the convention should not have been cancelled, regardless of whether the actions of an LNC member were of a nature that could be considered abuse of office, or were merely unethical.

    I don’t believe this was abuse of office.

    And I don’t think we should have affiliates that openly, flagrantly and indisputably violate their own bylaws. ‘

    Beyond that I can’t say.

  37. Stewart Flood

    Our national chairman sent an apology, so someone thought it was wrong. But enough on that. The bigger issue is, of course, the states who openly ignore their own ByLaws.

    Oregon started it (or at least started this current “round”), and they seem to be getting away with it. Now Nevada has joined them. Who’s next?

  38. paulie

    I’m not so convinced that is analogous. Oregon’s bylaws, at least as they were being interpreted, made it virtually impossible to get quorum at a convention. As far as I know, no one has said that the Nevada bylaws that have been allegedly violated are in themselves a problem. I don’t recall exactly what those were either, but I think some of it had to do with creating all sorts of restrictions on who can be a state convention delegate that are not in the bylaws, not publishing meeting minutes and/or financial reports, and so on.

    As for the chair’s attempt at diplomacy, which is what I think the apology was, it appears to have backfired. There’s some indication that he is perhaps engaged in private behind the scenes diplomacy; if so, I hope that works out better.

  39. George Phillies

    @ above The actual issue with the LNC message to Nevadans appears to have been that the LNC member sent the text, and the editing for retransmission failed to do what it should have done, namely remove the reference to one of the state officer candidates, which was extraneous to the message.

  40. paulie

    It had a large photo of Brett and his contact info if people wanted to learn more about the convention. It did not say that he is a candidate for state chair. As the region rep it can be argued that there is nothing wrong with him letting people know they can contact him for more info about the convention, any more than it would be wrong for the state chair to do the same, given that he is in a contested race. On the other hand as a candidate for chair it can also be legitimately argued that a large photo of him and his contact info should not have been a prominent part of the announcement, hence the apology. It was a borderline case, but certainly nothing that justified the response by the state exec comm.

  41. Stewart Flood

    The case in Oregon involved the open and blatant disregard and replacement of the ByLaws by the outgoing executive committee.

    The case in Nevada involves the open and blatant disregard (although not replaced) of the ByLaws by the outgoing executive committee.

    I say outgoing, since both conventions would have had elections of new officers and therefore the committee as populated was “outgoing”.

    The only difference is that Nevada hasn’t replaced their ByLaws — yet. At the point in time when they realize that actually holding a proper convention by the end of the year will result in their replacement…well…if this were Vegas and I were putting money on it: 3:2 that they do what Oregon did.

  42. Stewart Flood

    Regarding the email message, the “ethical” way to send a message would have been to have staff send out all the information needed to register and attend in the message. No link to a candidate (which he already was at the time) was needed.

    No mention of the LNC representative should have been made at all. That would have been the ethical thing to do.

    When we (the old Region 4) contacted members and ran radio ads in Mississippi to get a convention organized in 2007 to try to start rebuilding the party we didn’t put anyone’s name on it. Our rep and alternate (Bob Barr and I) were both present, but we did not find it necessary to have our names or faces plastered all over email sent by staff.

  43. paulie

    Stewart,

    I’m not sure, but what may have happened was that Brett took an announcement that he had already been sending to people whose emails he had from various other sources (not LNC) to inform them of the convention, and neglected to strip out his own blurb, which staff did not also catch. It may have been an unintentional oversight on his part, or it may have been intentional; I don’t know. I certainly don’t think the LPHQ staff was intentionally trying to interfere in the state election, so I’m very confident that it was unintentional on their part, at least.

  44. paulie

    I say outgoing, since both conventions would have had elections of new officers and therefore the committee as populated was “outgoing”.

    Oregon was unable to hold a convention, then or later, due to ruling that their bylaws at the time meant half plus one of the party members had to be physically present to have quorum, as opposed to registered delegates. Those of you who have been at multiple state LP conventions can gauge how realistic a requirement that was.

  45. Daddyfatsax

    The “ethical” thing to do, Stewart, is/was to have the excom who organized and called the convention also advertise/email/call or mail out notices to members so that our regional rep DIDN’T HAVE to do it on his own. You are so quick to point a finger at Brett, because you have a personal issue with him, but you neglect to address the actual problem…the current excom knew it would be voted out by a landslide, and it wanted to keep the convention as small as possible. That is why they put the ridiculous fees on attending, didn’t advertise when and where it would be held and made other stupid “rules” to exclude anyone who wanted to attend and wasn’t an insider member of Joe Silvestri’s little table. But go ahead, blame Brett for trying to make this as widely known as possible…it couldn’t possibly be our desire to rid this state of the stench it has accumulated with the likes of Root, Silvestri and the whole disaffiliating crew that has this party at less than 30 active paying members in the state? hahahaha, but no, your logic that this is Brett Machiavelli trying to turn a buck…yeah, that makes perfect sense. Swiss F’ing watch.

  46. Steve M

    In case no one else has noticed. The Oregon issue is history. Its been decided. The courts rules that the old Oregon central committee acted within the Oregon laws to overcome a problem of not being able to have a quorum. The Oregon central committee modified the bylaws, resolving the quorum issue and then again as allowed under Oregon submitted the changes to the registered libertarian voters in Oregon.

    Its history… time to move on. If enough libertarians in Oregon want a change in leadership they have a mechanism for doing so… if not then that is their business… not outsiders.

    I didn’t care for the drama but I certainly respect the end result in creating a state party where all registered members get a say in who the leadership is.

  47. Stewart Flood

    @43,

    I never said staff did anything wrong. They were given a message to send out and they probably scanned it briefly and made the assumption that a sitting LNC member would not give them something that needed close scrutiny.

    @45,

    You are forgetting the fact that I started by saying the current “leaders” of the Nevada LP were wrong. I have never said or written anything supporting what they did. I do not believe they acted in good faith as the stewards of their state party when they cancelled the convention. The same goes for their meetings that reportedly have no published minutes, the disbanding of county affiliates a few years ago, and the intentional mistreatment of those who attempted to register for this year’s convention, as well as recent past conventions. I’m sure there are other acts that deserve mention, but these are the only ones I’m currently aware of or that can recall at this time. They are not an honorable bunch.

    Pojunis’ action gave them an excuse to cancel their convention. His action, while unethical in the opinion of some (including our national chair), did not warrant cancellation of the convention. I never said it did, but I will hold to my opinion that it gave them cover to pull what many would consider to be a coup.

    They hold power by the thin thread of the ByLaws giving them until the end of the year. If they haven’t given proper notice by whatever date would be the latest allowed to notify of a convention date still in this year (I’d guess end of October) then they should be dealt with.

    How do you deal with them? That’s up to the disenfranchised members of the Nevada LP and the LNC to decide.

  48. Stewart Flood

    No Steve, the court did not rule that they were within the law. They ruled that the case brought forward against them did not have merit. Two very different results, but both with the same outcome: the coup was successful.

    Note that they did not “fix” the quorum. They simply eliminated the convention and their opposition who might show up to vote them out.

  49. Daddyfatsax

    I contend @47, that Brett’s actions were in accordance with his role in the LP. The only cover given to the current LPN excom WAS the letter the Chair wrote…in fact, I believe the letter from the Chair is the reason the LNC should act, because IT is the reason we are here. The LNC decided that it should issue a letter about this, but then when the letter is used to validate the cancellation of the convention and the grabbing of the marbles and leaving by the excom, the LNC HAS EFFECTED the LPNevada. Now all we want is for them to condemn the excom and disaffiliate the LPN. They can’t have it both ways, if they got involved by apologizing for nothing done wrong, they should get involved now when something IS WRONG. But instead, they hide and wring their hands…even though they have already mucked it up here. It is June…do you know where your excom chair is? We don’t.

  50. Stewart Flood

    @49, we could continue to debate whether his actions were proper, but I doubt either of our opinions would change.

    You do, however, raise an interesting point. If you make the case that the apology email from the national chair influenced the state executive committee’s actions — regardless of whether the LNC rep’s had influence — then you MIGHT have some standing to discuss this with them.

    Disaffiliation is a very serious act. It is the destruction and reconstruction of everything about the state affiliate, including its standing as a party under state law. It may be easier in Nevada, but I can tell you (for a fact) that if the LNC ever disaffiliated our state party, state election law would prevent a Libertarian Party from ever being formed again! (One reason we’re VERY careful to follow state election law)

    Would the votes exist on the LNC to do this? I haven’t been active much at the “national level” since the 2012 convention, but my gut feeling is that this would fail by at least a three or four vote margin.

    But you cannot do this until the end of the year, which means you can’t do it — at least not this term. Why? You’d be within the 6 month window of the convention that prohibits disaffiliation (6.6).

    So they win. The earliest you could do anything would be following the 2014 convention in Ohio, and then you’d have to start all over convincing the new group (usually about 30-40% turnover) to support your case. That would take until the fall meeting, so you’d be looking at early 2015 to complete the appeal that they’d obviously make to the JC.

    So…18-20 months at a minimum.

  51. Jeremy C. Young

    I would add to Stewart’s comments @50 that the Constitution Party has never really recovered from its decision to disaffiliate a bunch of state parties in 2006. Most of those parties, and their attendant ballot status, have never beem regained.

  52. Guy

    “But you cannot do this until the end of the year”

    Certainly they could in November or December, or if LNC members come to believe other alleged bylaws violations took place and were serious enough. earlier than that.

  53. Steve M

    @48

    https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.231/qkc.c33.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Oregon-Lawsuit-Ruling.pdf

    Go re-read paragraph 4 on page 2… the paragraph that starts with “The Oregon Legislature”….

    Now if you or the Reeves group wants to re-litigate this by attacking the actions of the Wagner faction just be aware that Oregon Law for non-profits explicitly allows the board to make changes to the bylaws in emergency situations such as those caused by the inability to have a quorum. The Oregon law further allows non-profits to hold convention elections by mail.

    In other words what you call a coup sure looks like what the Oregon legislature intended when these types of problems arise.

  54. Stewart Flood

    If you look at the actions of both groups, in the order they occurred starting from the beginning of the conflict, you will see that Wagner flagrantly violated their ByLaws, then ignored state law (which for some reason the court ignored) by failing to report he was not legally the chair). The other side may have also acted improperly at several points in the conflict, however the scheduled convention should not have been “cancelled” as Wagner states it was. Canceling their convention is exactly what Nevada just did, but many who oppose Nevada’s leadership defend Wagner’s similar action!

    You cannot just throw a coat of fresh paint on Wagner and say he did the right thing because a judge who ignored some of the facts ruled incorrectly. Their state law has serious logic errors, starting with the requirement that an outgoing chair report who his replacement is.

    But Wagner won, giving groups like those in Nevada incentive.

    I want to remind you that there are numerous posts from me on this topic in the past in which I stated that I do not believe either group in Oregon is right. Both sides should have stepped down. I have neither any intention or any standing to litigate anything in this case, nor do I really care if anyone does.

    I am more concerned about states who’s leaders are of similar or worse repute. Pennsylvania just saved itself. Arkansas went through a similar problem three years ago and recovered (very well in fact!). South Carolina faced down a dictator in 2006. He actually destroyed years of records and set us back a decade.

    Oregon and Nevada are not isolated incidents.

  55. wes wagner

    Sf @54

    you may want to read all the legal filings… after all these years you still have the facts wrong and are buying the Mattson Starr version of the events … which does not line up with objective reality.

  56. paulie

    however the scheduled convention should not have been “cancelled” as Wagner states it was. Canceling their convention is exactly what Nevada just did, but many who oppose Nevada’s leadership defend Wagner’s similar action!

    I don’t think they are all that similar.

    If Wagner had not cancelled his convention, the overwhelming likelihood is that it would have once again failed to achieve quorum under the prevailing interpretation of the bylaws. And the same would have happened over and over again, so if he wanted to stay in office perpetually, all he had to do was follow the then existing bylaws.

    In contrast, Silvestri cancelled a convention that would have had quorum, and by all indications would have sent him packing, using a thin pretext.

    I’m not aware, or don’t remember, Wagner being accused of violating the prior bylaws until he replaced them (by Wagner here I mean his whole group). Silvestri stands accused of multiple bylaws violations even if he does proceed to reschedule the convention this year.

  57. paulie

    Thanks for the updates Jill.

    BTW, we just cracked 300 articles this month, which is the first time we did that since November 2010 and the first time we have done it without me posting most of them since 2008.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 56,

    “I’m not aware, or don’t remember, Wagner being accused of violating the prior bylaws until he replaced them (by Wagner here I mean his whole group).”

    Wagner faction was accused of violating the prior bylaws in at least two respects preceding replacement of the bylaws :

    1) Declaring the convention canceled;

    2) Not acknowledging the validity of / acceding to the results of the state committee meeting following said convention.

  59. Steve M

    @54 if you were to read the Oregon State laws concerning governance of Non-Profit organizations then you would understand that the existing board of a non-profit, in the event of a quorum problem has the authority to modify the by-laws, the by-laws of non-profits may allow use mail ballots in place of statewide conventions.

    But, since you believe that the Wagner faction violated the Oregon State law perhaps you would care to explain how and show references to the Oregon Laws that were violated?

  60. Waldemar Testarossa Fiumente

    “by failing to report he was not legally the chair”

    Except that the meeting that allegedly made him no longer the chair also did not have a quorum.

  61. Thomas L. Knapp

    Steve M,

    Nice try at obfuscation, but Wagner was accused of violating the LPO’s bylaws, not “Oregon state laws concerning governance of non-profit organizations.”

  62. Waldemar Testarossa Fiumente

    TLK, see Flood above:

    “If you look at the actions of both groups, in the order they occurred starting from the beginning of the conflict, you will see that Wagner flagrantly violated their ByLaws, then ignored state law (which for some reason the court ignored) by failing to report he was not legally the chair). “

  63. Stewart Flood

    @62,

    By their ByLaws, Wagner was no longer the chairman. The Oregon Bylaws state that the chairman’s term ended when the convention adjourned. We can debate whether or not the subsequent meeting that elected a new chair was proper, but whether it was or was not, Wagner was no longer the state party chairman.

    Period.

    End of story.

    His term of office and that of the other officers had ended.

    So the issue then becomes whether or not Reeves was correctly elected chairman. I personally have no idea, since I wasn’t in the room. But I do know that according to the Oregon LP’s ByLaws Wagner was no longer chairman.

    To repeat in detail:

    A) All parties agree that the convention had moved to recess until a new date. Wagner and his executive committee did not then have the authority under their ByLaws to cancel the convention already in process (having recessed) or to change the date the convention was to resume on (a motion to recess to a subsequent date having been valid in the absence of a quorum).

    B) The convention resumed on that date, but could not obtain quorum. Even though this date was after the action by Wagner to “cancel it”, he had no authority to cancel a convention in process so the resumed convention was legitimate under the ByLaws. The convention adjourned that day instead of recessing, having taken no action and having elected no new officers. (A motion to adjourn being valid…)

    C) The clause in the ByLaws that moved the election of new officers to the executive committee meeting was then in effect.

    At this point Wagner was no longer the chairman.

    D) The executive committee met, electing Reeves chairman.

    Was there a quorum?

    Were people present and voting who were not members of the executive committee?

    Were all proper steps taken at that meeting to insure that the election was valid?

    I have no frick’n idea of the answer to any of these questions. I wasn’t there.

    But we don’t need to prove D. We have proof that A, B, and C took place. Reeves may or may not be the legitimate chair, but Wagner certainly is not.

    A new convention could have then been scheduled, except — and here’s the good part — Wagner had already completed his coup, replacing the ByLaws (illegal under the ByLaws since changes are permitted only by the convention), failed to report that he was no longer the legitimate chairman (ignoring state law), and then waved his middle finger at the world to proclaim his kingdom. Waving his middle finger is certainly “legal”, but it serves to show us exactly what he was up to. He knew he was stealing authority. He knew he was violating the ByLaws — and he’s even admitted he knew this and that he changed them outside of the convention. He admitted this in writing several times, as well as a phone conference call I was present on where I heard him admit that he changed them outside of convention.

    He (and his associate) then claimed that they would rely on the state to decide. Libertarians saying they want the state to decide? Are we sure these guys are libertarians? I heard them say this. So did about a dozen others.

    So he KNOWS he’s not the chairman! His only response has been to flip the bird at everyone.

    These guys are a hoot. A real hoot. And now we’ve got Nevada…

  64. Steve Rhodes

    And the point of rehashing all this about the Oregon LP is…?

    I agree with Steve M that the matter has been decided. It’s time to go forward.

  65. Stewart Flood

    I was asked in @61 to explain, so I did. @62 repeated the same Wager line of :

    “Except that the meeting that allegedly made him no longer the chair also did not have a quorum.”

    Of course the truth is that the ByLaws had already removed him from office since his term had ended.

    But what the heck…you’re right…time to move on. The political purge is over, the victims are dead.

    Let’s not bother to look at who did it, just let them stay in power. Another one? Yeah…time to move on. The matter has been decided, the guys who cheated and got away with it get the rewards of controlling their little kingdoms.

    My guess is that some of you will be writing these same comments about Nevada a year or two from now. Who’s next?

    But I agree. This topic is a waste of time, just as the original topic of this thread is a waste of time. No one is going to send a letter. No one is going to do anything but talk about what people should or should not have said when they were asking for money.

  66. Steve M

    @65 your problem is that Oregon State Law trumps the Party Bylaws. So if no legal convention changed the party leadership then Oregon looks to the old leadership to solve the problem.

    Oregon grants that leadership the right to modify the bylaws in an emergency.

    One emergency specifically stated by the Oregon law is a quorum issue.

    I think if you took your argument before a judge you would lose.

  67. George Phillies

    The original problem was that the people that one LNC member — without criticism from most of his compatriots — recruited several other LNC members — the exact number is in dispute — to go to Oregon and advocate the absurd claim that Oregon had without noticing amended its quorum rules to make it impossible to hold a state convention.

    If that claim had been rejected by the chair, on the grounds that it was absurd, the Oregon issue would never have happened.

  68. paulie

    This topic is a waste of time, just as the original topic of this thread is a waste of time. No one is going to send a letter. No one is going to do anything but talk about what people should or should not have said when they were asking for money.

    David Blau wrote, in part:

    I’ve already said we misspoke in our fundraising letters, and we should definitely clarify the situation. I have no desire to mislead anyone about what their money is being used for.

  69. Wes Wagner

    SF @65

    Your interpretation of our bylaws that seems to be a direct reed of the Mattson Burke interpretation is plain wrong. Under the previous bylaws the current officers would retain their offices until their successors were elected (at a convention wit quorum) … essentially making them dictators for life.

    The state committee only had the power to appoint to vacancies… which did not exist at the alleged convention that didn’t really happen that Reeves and co attended.

    As I said, you really should read the court filings … but then again enough people know your are a dumbass so you are not really changing any opinions.

  70. Steve M

    ok Wes…. a few things I am curious about are… did your team sit down with a lawyer and work out a strategy before the March 12th 2011 convention? or before the May 21st 2011 date when the convention was to resume because of lack of quorum in March?

    Then for the March 12th 2011 was the quorum requirement 1/4 of 1% of the registered Oregon Libertarian voters? So if there were about 13,000 registered Oregon Libertarian Voters the quorum would have been 32.5 and not 67 as one source reported? or were there more like 26,000 registered libertarian voters? Where did that 67 quorum number come from?

  71. Wes Wagner

    Steve M @72

    I won’t comment on legal strategy 🙂

    WRT the March 12 2011 convention, that was held while the 2009 revision of the bylaws were still in effect. 67 was half of “dues-paying” members … Those bylaws were changed on March 31st, 2011 to the current revision. No amendments to the 2011 bylaws were requested for our 2013 mail ballot.

  72. Wes Wagner

    I will note that some people were allowed for a period of time (up through the 2012 las vegas national convention) to tell lies about our party rules and what actually happened here in Oregon for the purpose of drawing them out and exposing their alliances and thus maximizing the damage the national party junta would do politically to the people behind it. … you can refer to the court records for more of what really happened.

  73. Kleptocracy And You

    @10 Reed L,
    you must remember “politics is LOCAL” your responce and action is what these Agent Provacuteurs’ goals are from the beginning. They seek to DESTROY from within. They have been doing a great job of it for over 40 years now.

    Build the Party LOCALLY and don’t pay too close of attention to anyone outside your immediate area. Except to help you know the BAD from the good. You can ENJOY your LP experience and accomplish far more locally than you ever will on the national stage. So think LOCAL and never, NEVER quit, but keep fighting for LIBERTY until you die.

    The KLEPTOCRACY most definitely has high level personnel in ALL third Parties to corrupt and confuse whenever needed. If you disagree you are a very naive soul friend.

    Weed OUT the FRAUDULENT immediately if you can, but as soon as possible if you can’t!

    Closeout Clearance Save $11.50 – Libertarian Theology of Freedom : http://shop.americanfreepress.net/store/p/251-Libertarian-Theology-of-Freedom.html

  74. paulie

    I’m not allowed to say, but why would you think that would have to do with animosity between HQ employees?

  75. George Phillies

    @82 I had assumed the cage might include LNC members as well as staff members. I mean, if there were no animosity between the LNC and the staff, such as all the animosity seen on the LCN-Discuss list, why would there be a change in the National Director position?

  76. paulie

    A cage in some office in DC that few of us ever visit, much less at the same time, wouldn’t really help with problems among LNC members.

Leave a Reply

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