*The LSLA has picked LP of Kentucky chair Ken Moellman to fill a vacancy on its board as At Large member. The other LSLA officers are chair Brett Bittner, Vice Chair Pat Dixon, Secretary Aaron Starr, and Treasurer Alicia Mattson. Besides Moellman, Dixon is the only other state LP chair among the board members. As of the last time I checked, Bittner is executive director of the LP of Georgia, while Starr and Mattson hold no current leadership roles in their state LPs. The vacancy occurred when Jason Melehani dropped all his LP titles due to career developments.
*Pat Dixon had planned to introduce a motion to allow LP of Oregon Chair Wes Wagner to be added to the list on an equal basis with Tim Reeves, the chair of the other group claiming to be the LP of Oregon which is not recognized as such by the national Libertarian Party or the State of Oregon (no known website or social media page; appeals working their way through the courts). Up until this time, Reeves has represented Oregon on the LSLA along with Richard Burke; an offer to allow Wagner to participate as long as he acknowledged Reeves as his state chair and refrained from criticizing Reeves, Burke et al on the state chairs email list was rejected by Wagner last year.
*When Wagner learned of this latest proposal, he rejected it as well; in IPR comments he said that his terms are
the following would need to occur before Oregon would participate in the LSLA again:
1) we are assured that our credentials are certain if we were to attend an event
2) the people involved in the past misdeeds are out of the organization
3) The LSLA admits what was done publicly
As a result, Dixon did not make his motion; Reeves and Burke remain as the Oregon representatives on the State Chairs list.
For more details see Minutes of tonight’s LSLA teleconference call.
*Reactions from other state chairs thus far:
Michael Wilson of WV (not the same Michael Wilson who has posted many comments at IPR in the past):
For those of us who are out of the loop on the legal resolution for the dispute in Oregon, can someone please fill us in on the status. I personally find this to have been a huge distraction over the past year or so, and would like to know where it stands. I further feel that if there has not been a final order issued, there should be no formally recognized representative from Oregon (or both should be recognized and allowed input), but I support the former over the latter.
And:
I am failing to see what the LSLA is actually accomplishing. I love the list and communication with the other chairs across the nation, but I see little coming from the LSLA as an executive body. Please correct me if I am wrong here, and provide me with some accomplishments.
Doug Craig of Georgia:
Unless we can get the actual chair of Oregon on this list and the not real one off..I will be asking the Georgia Excomm to leave the LSLA….Doug Craig
Update Ken Moellman:
Michael,
As the greenest member of LSLA, a “veteran” state chair, and your neighbor to the west, I’m not an authority on the subject. I do know that LSLA appoints members to the Affiliate Support Committee (though I have seen no explicit actions from that committee), and is involved with portions of the bi-annual LP National Convention. There may be additional functions of which I’m currently unaware, as well.
LSLA was reformed a few years ago to try to broaden what LSLA could/would do for the affiliates. However, as with any organization, the output is only as good as what others are willing to put in. LSLA has struggled to meet the quorum requirements of its bylaws, and when a vacancy comes up on the LSLA board it’s usually a struggle to get someone to fill it. That must not remain the status quo, if LSLA will provide more value beyond this mailing list. We need more affiliates to be more actively engaged with LSLA, even if it’s just knowledge-sharing. I know we’re all busy, and we’re all volunteers. But it’s our party, and it’s what we make of it.
I am hoping for an LSLA that provides training for our advocates and master copies of outreach materials, to have our activists be more effective in what they do, simply by changing some of the language without changing our substance. I found that some of this material is already available on the LSLA website, at http://lsla.org/resources .. (FYI – I had a weird DNS lookup problem from Google and a few other DNS servers, but DNS worked from OpenDNS).
I’m guessing that every affiliate has similar problems:
(1) State committees and/or sub-affiliates who don’t know how to use Robert’s Rules of Order (M Carling is crying somewhere)
(2) Activists who don’t know how to effectively communicate with “normal” people.
(3) Candidates who never paid enough attention to a political campaign before to know what they’re doing.
(4) A serious lack of campaign managers, treasurers, etc.
(5) What are the people in other states doing better than we’re doing here? (Knowledge-share with other affiliates)
(6) No repository of institutional knowledge outside of those who “lived it”
I’d really like for every state affiliate to really become actively involved in sharing information, training, etc., on that LSLA resources page. However, being very green, I have no idea how to submit this material to the website. Hopefully someone will enlighten us. Meanwhile, here is the new, rebuilt (still in progress) Wiki for LPKY: http://share.lpky.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome
I’d like to make sure that all new State Chairs know about this material. I’ve been on-board for 5 of the last 7 years, and somehow I missed this completely. It was probably my fault, but we should be more explicit about this material for the newbies (and the oldies like me, who just didn’t know).
Stay tuned for further developments.
Kevin – Thank you for that perspective. Since LSLA does not do a whole lot I would think state chairs would not be too burdened by the small amount of extra duties; it’s basically an annual conference and an email list, and planning the conference is by far the biggest actual work load. All a board made up of chairs would have to do is decide on someone to work on the details of that planing; it would not necessarily have to be done by board members or chairs if no state chairs with the time to do it can be found.
Another approach you may consider is to expand the definition of membership to include not just chairs but other members of state exec comms. Johnston was a member of your state exec comm when he was elected LSLA chair (IIRC). Aaron and Alicia, however, hold no position on their state exec comms right now, although they have both been state chairs in the past. For that matter I have been on my state exec comm before, but the one time I quasi-applied for an LSLA board position I believe it was Aaron who told me they are only looking for current state exec comm members. I did not think of it at the time but he was not one himself when he told me that. If it wasn’t him that said that to me I apologize. Since that time they filled another vacancy of the board with Alicia, who has also as far as I know not been on her state exec comm since she moved from Tennessee to Nevada a few years ago.
As far as Oregon goes, you should kick Reeves and Burke off the list. While Wagner should be offered a chance to get on the LSLA list with no strings attached and without Burke/Reeves given equal access, he will not take that offer since he wants to attach conditions himself which I don’t believe there is any chance the LSLA will agree to this term – IE boot Aaron and Alicia off the board (possibly he includes Brett in this demand as well, and maybe others?) and publicly apologize to him. But you should kick Reeves and Burke off anyway, and stop recognizing organizations purporting to be state LPs which are not recognized as such by the national LP. So there would not be anyone from Oregon..that would be fine, many states don’t actively participate at all. The LNC should stop giving the LSLA official recognition if the LSLA recognizes affiliates other than those recognized by the LNC….period, end of story.
First of all I have no dog in this hunt. All I will say is watch what you wish for, if you require members of the LSLA board to be state chairs. I was in the front row of the LSLA elections in Las Vegas. I didn’t see state chairs lining up around the hall to run for LSLA office. State chairs have a lot on their plates trying to run a state organization, and joining the LSLA might work if they have a team of people back home in the state organization doing a lot of the heavy lifting. In Las Vegas, Michael Johnston was elected LSLA Chair and he was not a state chair–he was a member of the LPO Ohio Executive Committee leadership. And that election was done by state chairs. It’s easy to challenge the rules and complain, but how many state chairs will want to be in the LSLA and how many will have the time to be effective?
Thanks, Mark. I really think the validity of the LSLA is at stake here.
Here’s a fun fact. Do you know that auto correct on my Iphone will not let me type your last name? I had to come here to post my comment. LOL
Yet again, I have requested that the LSLA Board recognize Wes Wagner as Oregon Chair, not because I support his position (or the other one), but because he currently is the Oregon Chair and it is not the prerogative of the LSLA to make any determinations on this subject.
I don’t care who is right in the lawsuit and I don’t agree with many of Wes’s positions or tactics, but my opinion of him doesn’t matter: I am not a member of the Oregon LP and therefore I don’t get to decide who is the Oregon rep. to the LSLA. Oregon decides for itself.
I am so sick of this issue.
I notice the lack of accusations of specific acts aside form the general confusion surrounding the evens leading up to the November 2010 through March 2011 conventions.
Could that possibly be because what happened was actually an act of self defense against outside aggressors and conspirators led by Mr Burke and Aaron Starr ?
Jill
Don’t forget the complete absence of scandal now that all the scum has isolated themselves into a tiny bubble.
I also think that time is also starting to work in Wagner’s favor . Two and a half years have gone by, and the LP of Oregon appears to be thriving.
I agree.
I forwarded it to Mark Axinn and Doug Craig for that purpose, since I’m trying to mostly lurk there.
Personally I think we should stay away from any point other than: If LSLA wants to remain recognized by LNC, given the right to appoint people to LNC committees etc., it should be bound by who the LNC recognizes as affiliates. In this case the LNC and SOS agree, so the practical answer is your side in either case..
Thanks for your side of the story, Fred. I hope someone sends this to all the people on LSLA’s mailing list.
Fred,
Thanks for the write-up.
Only if they want to be completely independent of the LNC with no rights to place people on committees etc. Otherwise they should be governed by what the LNC decides, period. Luckily, in this case, the LNC and SOS agree.
In the hopes that either some of the State Chairs might be reading this thread, or that this might be passed on to the state chairs–I would like to respond to Mr. Burke’s letter.
Mr. Burke made it sound as if there were long and standing governing documents that had been agreed upon by the members and were overturned by Wes Wagner and his friends. He states, ” LPO governing documents that were established over 40 years by LPO members”
If this were true, he may have a point about the legitimacy of the actions that were taken on March 31st.
Unfortunately that isn’t an accurate statement. The governing documents that were in place (and every governing document from the previous decade) were made under circumstances that had serious and legitimate claims against the process. Members had been excluded, notice had not been given correctly, processes had not been followed correctly.
There were no governing documents that we could determine were created without some wrong doing. Much more concerning, they were likely made against Oregon Election Law. (I’m not referring to the statutes that only apply to “major parties”)
Mr. Burke also makes it sound as if his lawsuit will some how change Oregon’s Secretary of State policy. The SOS will accept the officer list and governing documents from the current chair regardless of the outcome of Mr. Burke’s lawsuit. This should not be construed with the state telling us who are leaders are. I may not like the state election laws–but suing my political party won’t change them.
Lets say that it is determined that the new bylaws and constitution are invalid, would that mean that the “Reeve’s faction” is the legitimate party leadership?
If, the new rules did not go into affect then the old leaders would still have been the officers and representatives during the meeting that the “Reeve’s faction” held. All of the state committee members who had been part of the state committee before the rules change would still be on the state committee.
The “Reeve’s faction’s” claim to legitimacy is predicated on the notion that a meeting they held (after a convention that didn’t happen) gives them authority. They fail to mention that they made no attempt to notify all the party members, or even all of the state committee members that they were going to hold a state committee meeting. The convention had been cancelled, the website and meet-up group page both listed the convention as cancelled and there was no notice that there would be any state committee meeting after the cancelled convention.
The “Reeve’s faction” assembled a small group of people, which excluded most of the people who were active in the party and most of the state committee members, and decided to elect themselves officers. They subsequently held state committee meetings but failed to invite all of people who were state committee members (under the bylaws they are claiming to uphold). During there state committee meetings they voted to disaffiliate several counties, even though they hadn’t even invited the representatives from those counties to participate in the meetings.
If the new LPO rules are declared illegitimate, the “Reeve’s faction” would still not be the legitimate representatives from Oregon because they didn’t follow legitimate steps to elect their officers.
It is up to the LSLA who they let be they allow to be their members. I am not a member of the LSLA and I don’t claim to have any right to let you decide who you want to be in your group. But it might be important to recognize that LPO is not subject to the rulings of the LSLA or to the national Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party of Oregon preceded the national LP and has the legal right to use the name and according to Oregon state election law–is subject to the LPO members (which state law defines as electors registered with the party) not any national organization.
If you do some research into Oregon’s third parties you will find that both the Green party and the Constitution party in Oregon have had fall outs with their national organizations. In both cases the State parties have kept their ballot access, their name,, and their registered voters. The national organization lost influence over the state organization. I would highly prefer if the local, state, and national Libertarian organizations worked together.
I strongly suggest that if you are concerned about ballot access in Oregon that you make your criteria for the State chair that represents Oregon to be the one that the SOS recognizes as the state chair. This would not be taking a side in the legitimacy of one group of leaders over another–it would merely be a recognition that whoever has ballot access is the group that is relevant.
If you are an LSLA member and you have questions, you may reach me at
[email protected]
Thank you
Fred Jabin
Also addressed earlier in the thread . .
“RONR (11th ed.) p. 447, ll. 16-19
In most societies it is usual to elect the officers from among the members; but in all except secret societies, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, it is possible for an organization to choose its officers from outside its membership.”
The practice is unusual but not prohibited.
That “unless” may be something state chairs should think about between now and their meeting next year.
And, Aaron Starr is a leader in what state? It isn’t California, although he lives here. Yeah, something sure stinks.
See earlier in the thread and/or in the main post; Aaron Starr, as Secretary of LSLA had determined that LSLA recognizes the Burke/Reeves faction as representing Oregon. As far as I know Aaron made this decision by himself wihout a vote having been held. He stated a reason for it which IMO does not hold up on examination, which was his claim that, as the highest authority in the party, the national convention delegates sides with Burke/Reeves (see earlier in the thread for replies to this).
State Chairs may select a second (and perhaps additional) people to add to the LSLA list from their states. Thus, if we go with Starr’s premise that Reeves is chair, Reeves has the power to put Burke on the list, which he did. In reality, Burke posts to the list often whereas Reeves has hardly ever posted there. And even when he did it may have been written by Burke.
I guess I am sort of confused…
How does someone who is NOT a State Chair or Vice-Chair, not even a Faux State Chair or Vice-Chair, and not an LSLA officer get to post to a list and membership that is only for LSLA officers and State Chairs?
Something here really smells sort of bad….
First the state chairs should raise this question with the LSLA. Then if they don’t get this resolved they should elect better LSLA officers and bylaws at the next LSLA meeting. If that fails to happen, and if we get a decent LNC next term, the LNC should sever its relationship with the LSLA.
And now we get to the crux of it… Starr, Burke and their ilk want to be able to use the national party to choose winners and losers, to put friends in power, and punish enemies.
They tried it with the LNC, and ultimately got the boot and took the rust belt faction down with them in the blast radius.
They are now trying to take down the LSLA, because if if can’t be used to pick winners and losers, it is of no use to them.
That is the problem with this one militant faction in the party that represents a danger to us all.
So yes… the real question is SHOULD the LSLA be able to independently determine who are and are no the chairs of the affiliates of the LP? Everyone knows the answer is no… but will the LNC have the courage to yank their charter?
Yeah, it is not anything new. I think I boiled it down to the essential question.
I stopped reading Burke’s e-diarrhea after the first couple of sentences sounding like a pleading child….
A Pity Party could be an alternative political party that, for a change, achieves all of its objectives.
Well then, the LNC is bound by what the Judicial committee ruled, which means the LSLA should be bound by it too, especially if it remains as a body recognized by and given certain powers to by the LNC.
Which means Burke and Reeves should not be on the LSLA list even if Wagner declines an uconditional invitation to participate as the sole recognized State Chair of Oregon.
That is precisely the foundation on which I won the judicial committee hearing. The other side wanted to debate the facts of a very difficult to understand situation that the Jud Comm could never possibly figure out the truth, I just argued that the LNC had no authority to create a constructive disaffiliation.
This argument has been lost before already by them. They will lose it again.
After 2.5 years the people of Oregon have worked this situation out for themselves. Had the LNC never interfered in the first place to try to install a puppet government, Burke and Reeves might still have a place in the party.
Instead they are persona non grata due to all their transgressions and the state is doing extremely well without them. They have rallied no new support since the issue began and people who used to defend them have stopped.
Perhaps they should hold a meeting someplace in the U.S. and have a pity party with Stevens and Silvestri.
I also think they should return Aaron Starr’s money to him. As much as I think Aaron deserves much of what is coming to him, I am pretty certain Burke misrepresented what happened and the strength of their case. If not fraud, clearly detrimental reliance.
In the end you had a group of people who were plotting to commit more political abuses against the Libertarians of Oregon. They got caught, outmaneuvered, and purged in an act of self defense. Their co-conspirators suffered too and that process is not yet complete.
We don’t and more importantly, we don’t want to do so.
Just ask any of the other 49 state chairs.
Yes, Paulie, you’re right. The question really should be if they have the right to make such a determination.
If Mr. Burke visits us here, I’d like to ask the question again that I asked of either him or Dave Terry to answer on the Oregon Appeal Thread:
“Sorry, those words mean nothing. The LP of Oregon had record candidates last year, and are otherwise proceeding along very well., from what an outsider like me can tell. What is this rot of which you speak from Wes Wagner? It’s been a couple years, now, so speak up! Enumerate those terrible thing he’s doing in your state! And then tell me why you’re so sure Tim Reeve would have done so much of a better job.”
The real question for LSLA is not to debate the merits of the case but to debate whether it should have the authority to debate such a question separately from the LNC and come to it own conclusions. If the answer is that it does, that should have implications for how the LNC treats the LSLA.
The changes to the bylaws were made without objection .. and no one objected until after the Burke cabal and their LNC sponsored coup failed. After that they suddenly had concerns about what was done when their veil of secrecy was no longer needed and their surreptitious plot failed.
We did what we did in the bright light of day, and over 96% of Oregon Libertarians supported it.
Reeves and co want to install a government the people don’t want for their own purposes, and the purposes of their Republican Party lawyer, and backer Aaron Starr.
This whole situation is a large part of why they got kicked out of Las Vegas and why the LSLA is now suffering.
They need to leave the LP and let the rest of us live in peace with each other.
I love how the part where Dave Terry assaults Mark Ventanon is almost edited out. It still proves he’s a hothead.
I still don’t believe Burke. He can explain it all he wants, but I don’t believe he’s doing this to uphold the Libertarian principles in Oregon. After 2 1/2 years, it appears to me the people of Oregon are proceeding with the current leadership, and it’s unlibertarian to continue to force other leadership on them. IMHO.
The bylaws of LSLA should be clarified at their next meeting to determine whether LSLA can make such an independent determination or whether it must defer to the LNC on this. If it gets to decide independently who it recognizes as state affiliate, the LNC should reconsider any ways in which it gives the LSLA official recognition.
Richard Burke
7:10 PM (13 minutes ago)
to LP-State
Dear LSLA List Email Recipients,
INTRODUCTION. I apologize for the length of this email, and the need for it, but I hope you will take the time to read it. I spent a lot of time writing it and think it is important. I tried to write it well. It will offer you an interesting take on what is going on in Oregon and, hopefully, show you that the LPO as led by Tim Reeves is the legitimate LPO and should be recognized by the LSLA and all organs of the LP. Even if you support Wagner, I hope this will give you something to think about. I will begin by asking you these questions. These are key:
1. What would you think if you woke up one morning and found that your state committee, at a state committee meeting and NOT a properly noticed convention, adopted a completely new set of governing documents in violation of your party bylaws and that those responsible elected themselves to new terms of office based on those documents? Consequences of these new bylaws would be that some members, including lifetime members, would be kicked out. Thousandes of others, who never signed the non-aggression pledge, would be brought in without their knowledge. The organization that existed before, was gone. Would you accept this as legitimate?
2. What would you think if that same group of purported officers attempted to cancel a session of your state party’s convention which had been called by an earlier session of the convention which had failed to make quorum – even when your bylaws say that your State Committee is subordinate to an assembled convention? Would you accept it as valid?
3. Given our signed pledge not to advocate the initiation of force to achieve political goals, how would you feel if this group of purported officers attempted to legitimize their actions and attempt to trump the rights of members and your governing documents by using a state law that applied only to major political parties and not minor parties like the LP? Would you accept it as valid?
All of the above happened in Oregon and was perpetrated by the group led by Wes Wagner. I don’t say this prejudicially against Mr. Wagner, for these facts are not in dispute. The Wagner side simply says that what they did was justified because, as I understand it, of alleged conspiracies with the Republican Party and, perhaps, others, in an alleged attempt to disenfranchise LP voters. If you don’t believe me or simply don’t want to take my word for it, you can see it for yourself on video by pointing your browser to the following link. Wes Wagner is presiding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89YMq-omW7o
This email will not attempt to ascribe motives to what has happened. That is irrelevant in determining if rules were followed or not, which I hope will be important to you. I am also willing to concede that, however misguided, Mr. Wagner and his friends believe they are doing what is right. I will therefore not attempt to paint anyone as “good” or evil”. And, unlike Wagner in his email of Nov. 25, I will not issue any ultimatum or preconditions to our continued participation in LSLA, which we believe has great potential to advance the libertarian movement by assisting in ways outlined by Ken Moellman in his email of Nov. 24.
As best I can, I will focus on what both parties have agreed are the facts of the case. But consider the three questions I ask above. If your answer to any of them is “NO”, you should consider siding with the Reeves LPO. If your answer to all of them is “YES”, you should consider siding with Wagner. Standing by principles sometimes make one unpopular and, is certainly, sometimes inconvenient. As Libertarians, we all experience this. But we claim to be the party of principle. In my mind, this is where the rubber meets the road.
MY CREDENTIALS. Who am I that you should take my opinion seriously at all? To be sure, in considering this issue, credibility is important, so I offer this to to show you I am a serious Libertarian activist intent making the LP more politically relevant statewide and nationally.
I have been a registered Libertarian and LPO member since 1990. I have won six contested elections to local non-partisan office since then, and am the current elected president of the Tualatin Valley Water District, Oregon’s second largest water provider, serving over 200,000. I have one of the largest constituencies of any elected Libertarian in the US.
I was the LP’s nominee for Oregon governor in 1990, and came in third of seven. I worked in the Oregon legislature in 2001 and was responsible for shepherding two bills into law; one made it easier to retain minor party status and one made it easier to obtain major party status.I have served on the LNC, the LSLA, and was state chair in 1993-94 I have been on the Oregon State Committee many times over the years.
I believe political activity is important but, in the end, it is political accomplishment that will change the status quo and the standard we should set for the LP nationwide. Those of us affiliated with what we believe to be the legitimate LPO hold to this standard. In any case, that is my background.
THE BACKGROUND IN OREGON. For some years, there have been factional struggles in Oregon as there have been struggles elsewhere. It is a national phenomenon, as many of you know. The factional struggles have been ugly, and nobody’s hands are clean. In this, I include myself. After all, when in the middle of intra-party controversies over almost 24 years, you’re gonna make some mistakes. And I have made my share. But I can tell you that this is what has happened in Oregon.
1. MARCH 12, 2011 CONVENTION. On March 12, 2011, LPO members assembled at it’s annual business convention in Portland. Among other things, officers were to be elected, Judicial Committee members were to be elected, and bylaw proposals were to be considered.
It was ruled by then Chair Jeff Weston, who is allied with Wagner, that there was no quorum. By one vote, a motion passed to “Adjourn to a Meeting” sponsored by then Vice Chair Wes Wagner. The motion had the effect of recessing the convention until May 21, 2011, when it was argued that a united effort might achieve the required quorum to do business. This motion is legal even when a quorum does not exist under Robert’s Rules of Order.
2. WAGNER BECOMES CHAIR. At the end of this session of the convention, Chair Jeff Weston resigned his position, elevating Wes Wagner to the position of Chair. Had the convention adjourned sine die, according to Weston and our bylaws, all officer positions would become vacant. But by adjourning to a meeting, the terms of office of Wagner, the Secretary, and the Treasurer were extended until the May 21st session of the LPO Annual Convention.
3. WAGNER’S GROUP EXECUTES A COUP (no kidding). The LPO State Committee held a regular meeting, not a noticed convention session, on March 31 prior to the scheduled convention session of May 21. At this convention, Wagner and his associated purportedly adopted new bylaws, elected themselves to new positions under those bylaws, and canceled the convention-mandated session scheduled for May 21.
Wagner and his supporters attempted to legitimize these action by claiming that ORS 248.072 trumps party bylaws and members. The statute says, “The state central committee is the highest party authority in the state and may adopt rules or resolutions for any matter of party government which is not controlled by the laws of this state.”
Unfortunately, for Wagner, the statute applies only to major parties, and only those who agree to be governed by statute. See ORS 248.007, sections 3-7 for documentation of this point. In any case, Wagner and his friends attempted to co-opt the force of the state to achieve a political goal, namely, to legitimize a takeover of the LPO with their proposed governance structure, usurping LPO governing documents that were established over 40 years by LPO members.
None of this is in dispute. Watch the video again if you are unsure, it happens right before your eyes.
4. THE MAY 21st SESSION OF THE LPO CONVENTION. Delegates who did not recognize the Wager Goup’s authority to cancel the convention session mandated by the March 12th session met. After it failed to meet quorum it adjourned sine die and the State Committee met. At this time, the terms of office of all officers ended. It was at this time that vacancies were filled by the LPO State Committee and the Reeves officers were elected.
LNC JUDGEMENTS. Despite what Mr. Wagner and his friends might tell you, NOBODY has ruled that the Wagner governing documents or officers are legitimate according to the LPO governing documents at the time, except the LNC. The LNC Executive Committee had voted to recognize the Reeves LPO as legitimate, and when this was appealed to the full LNC, the Reeves group was recognized as the legitimate LPO by a vote of 12-5. After this vote, Wagner and his supporters sent the image of a flaming middle finger to the members of the LNC and appealed their decision to the national Judicial Committee.
The National Judicial Committee did not rule on the merits of the case. Instead, they ruled that they should defer to the Oregon Secretary of State to decide who the legitimate party leaders are and what the legitimate governing documents are. This astounded many people along all factional lines, as it effectively said that the LP would defer to the state in determining who our leaders are. The national Judicial Committee provided no conclusive solution. So what did Oregon’s Secretary of State Say?
OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE JUDGMENT. The Oregon Secretary of State, citing a US Supreme Court Ruling prohibiting election officials from interfering in the internal politics if political parties, would take no action and make no ruling. They would accept the Wagner governing documents for the time being because he was the “Chair of Record” but would make no “ruling” on who was right. They said they would only make a change requested by Wagner, the Chair of Record, or mandated by the courts. This is the reason why we went to the courts. Since then, because of the undecided nature of the situation, they have allowed the Reeves LPO to operate as such in parallel with the Wagner group.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS. Despite how Mr. Wagner might characterize his recent win in court, the judge made no decision on the merits of the case. Instead, he ruled only that the courts have no jurisdiction over the matter. This is now being appealed.
If the judge is right, given the position of the Secretary of State, then it means that any Chair of Record can give the Oregon Secretary of State any governing documents or officer lists he or she likes. If this is true, then there are no membership rights anywhere except those supported by the “Chair of Record” whoever he or she might be. These “rights”, of course, could be altered at will by whomever the next “Chair of Record” is. In any party divided by faction, the problems with this are obvious.
How could one build anything on such a foundation?
It is this ruling which is now being appealed by the Reeves LPO, believing that state party bylaws matter and that the membership has rights that cannot be swept away in a manner that violates party bylaws.
2012 National Credentials and Convention Ruling. This whole issue was presented to the 2012 national convention in Las Vegas. Ostensibly, this is the highest authority in the party, even above the national Judicial Committee.
Both the Wagner and Reeves LPO organizations sent delegations to the national convention. The national convention credentials committee voted 4-3 to seat the Reeves delegation after considering the matter. When this was challenged on the floor before all delegates assembled, they too agreed to seat the Reeves delegates. In an attempt to extend an olive branch, the Reeves delegation agreed to include Wagner delegates to backfill the delegation. Others refused this olive branch and were seated with the Georgia delegation.
WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH? The only thread, the very thin thread, that holds the Wagner group’s claim to legitimacy together, is that the STATE recognizes Wes Wagner as the last “Chair of Record” as of March 31, 2011. Recall they do not say that Wagner’s group is legitimate. In any case, since when does the LP allow the state to say who our leaders are? It is the Judicial Committee who has failed us here, who decided to make their ruling on what the Oregon Secretary of State might rule (and they refuse to rule) instead of whether or not the purported changes were made in accordance with LPO Bylaws.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO LSLA. As is the case with state LP organizations, and the LNC itself, the LSLA needs to decide who it will recognize as the legitimate leadership of the LPO. If the LSLA recognizes the Wagner group, it is legitimizing the actions described above. If the LSLA recognizes the Reeves group, it is recognizing the importance of abiding by state bylaws and the rights of members as defined in conventions of members.
I am willing to discuss this with whomever has questions. My number is 503-970-1876. Thank you.
—
Richard P. Burke
503-970-1876
Just go ahead and say them, it’ll be fine 🙂
Whitezilla…to the tune of Godzilla
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYa7-J8sfts
Oh no, I keep thinking of things not to say–
You know the word “known” has a biblical translation and connotation.
Hmmm—the true Wes exposes himself–I mean, please don’t expose yourself–the true Wes becomes known to the world–
Paulie-
They don’t have to give in to that demand. It behooves them to let Wagner make the choice to participate.
If he choose to, they have to put up with him–if he chooses not to, he will lose.
WW,
You sound like some hyper-agressive cross of Wayne Root and Michael Cloud there…LOL
Fred
Shut UP!!!! You are giving away my trade secrets.
I was going to patent this system after I took over the LSLA and then offer it as a training class to all the state affiliates for the LOW LOW price of $3999 per speaking engagement. After that I was going to make personal friends with the executive director and charge extraordinary fees for my 1337 letter writing skills in fund raising after I proved just how influential and valuable I am after my whirlwind tour of narcissism fueled self-promotion!
It wouldn’t even matter what crazy numbers I put on my invoices or where they come from, because people would just pay me BECA– USE I AM WES WAGNER!!!
And if an equally disreputable political rival were to bring up nasty things like facts, I would just discredit him by pointing out his motives. I mean we can’t both be evil right? That would never happen in politics.
But no…. you had to go and ruin it all. And I would have gotten away with it to if it were for you and your meddling friends!
You forgot the third demand, to remove the officers who were involved in having Reeves and Burke on the LSLA list instead of Wagner.
Wes Wagner is a particularly easy person to make irrelevant–if the LSLA really wants to stop debating the issue.
They really have to do two things
1. Recognize that the chair of the LPO is whoever is recognized by the SOS of Oregon. It doesn’t really matter which side (if any) of this controversy is correct. The side that has ballot access is the only relevant side. Without ballot access—the group doesn’t need to be a political party and can’t put candidates on the ballot.
2. Apologize for not recognizing Wagner-and invite him (or his representative) to be the sole representative from Oregon.
If the LSLA did this, Wagner would refuse to participate and people would grow tired of his complaining about the lack of ethics while he refuses to be involved.
They won’t do this, they will continue to try to use manipulation, and heavy handed tactics to try to ensure that the side they have chosen will keep its power.
They will continue to give increasing merit to Wagner, by utilizing tactics against him that will eventually discredit themselves.
Wagner’s strategy is simple–
Place those in authority in a position in which they either do what is ethical and risk losing power. Or do what is unethical and keep their power.
The problem with the strategy, is that if those in authority choose ethics-thèy probàbly will also keep their power.
Wagner’s strategy only works against the power hungry and corrupt.
Ah. Well, in that case we’ll see if anyone else has anything to say 🙂
That is me saying nothing.
…
?
…
I think it’s pretty obvious. Anyone else disagree?
I agree with what Paulie said.
If Wes wanted to just get on the list and have Reeves and Burke removed right now he might be able to get that. But by also demanding resignations/removals of officers and an apology, I think he is sacrificing the possibility of getting on the list now and pushing it to a point of trying to oust Starr, Mattson et al at the next meeting.
I really doubt that Starr, Mattson or any other LSLA officers will resign or be forced out over this right now. However, it is possible that there may be a “regime change” at LSLA at their next meeting, since it will coincide with a national convention so more chairs are likely to already be there anyway. Relatively few showed up to their last meeting in Denver this year.
Jill
My history with this organization is that almost nobody in power has the ethics to do the “right thing” … they all want to half ass it and expect that somehow people will look at how politically savvy we are and elect us because we are just as crooked and “professional” as the democrats and republicans.
At each step of my history in libertarian politics I have demanded that people do the right thing, got ignored, and then they are surprised when the world burns down around them. They ask the next level of authority higher than them for help… that level of authority repeats their mistake, rinse and repeat.
Well we are getting really close to the top now. I haven’t lost a war yet (though having strategically lost some battles — often on purpose) … and despite that sheer self-preservation alone would dictate acquiescing to my demands, the arrogance of narcissists cannot ever possibly be underestimated.
In short… I think we will get to clean house on the entire thing before it is all over.
Does anyone want to wager on whether the LSLA will pay any heed to Wes’s demands? No disrespect intended, Wes–just trying to make a little money–
…And forwarded.
Paulie
Sent.
I did not get a copy of that on email. If you send it to me on email I will forward it to the list.
I have sent the following to an email thread, requesting that someone forward it to the State Chairs list:
“I would ask that someone forward this message to the State Chairs list.
This issue has expanded far beyond a matter of just who is on the mailing list. My initial removal from this list was performed by M Carling (a well known ally of Aaron Starr) and was done prior to the LNC taking any action on the matter. The point of the deletion was a “first strike” in what is now the extreme infamous attempt by Aaron Starr and his associates to use the power of the national apparatus to attempt to install a puppet government in a State affiliate. Even worse, Mr Starr recommended and coerced Mr. Hinkle into misappropriating about $5000 in funds out of the LNC treasury to hire the Oregon Republican Party’s attorney to continue to facilitate this attempted coup. That lawyer gave a one-sided opinion to the LNC which surprisingly was to put in a republican sympathetic puppet government. When Hinkle eventually thought better of continuing the matter, Starr pressed Hinkle into signing a release so that ORP attorney could continue the fight.
A good starting point for people who actually care to know the truth of what occurred might be the motion for summary judgment that was ultimately granted for only one of the many severable and sufficient reasons: http://www.scribd.com/doc/126498248/Motions-for-Summary-Judgment-P0320318-pdf
You should pay particular attention to the section on in pari delicto.
Additional background may be found on http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com by searching for Libertarian Party of Oregon.
This organization was and is still co-opted to be used as a cudgel in the personal political power struggles of Mr Starr and his affiliates and continues to this day. As much as it might seem expedient to whitewash this problem by now demanding a correction to a symptom of the problem, the root of the problem needs to be solved.
As such, I have posted my conditions upon which Oregon will even participate in the LSLA and made certain they were published on IPR.
They are as follows:
1) we are assured that our credentials are certain if we were to attend an event
2) the people involved in the past misdeeds are out of the organization
3) The LSLA admits what was done publicly
Anything less is proof to any of integrity that we, as alleged libertarians, are no better than the republicans and democrats we seek to displace and are not worthy of any support. If we cannot clean our own house we have no right to lecture others.
Sincerely,
Wes Wagner
Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon”
I was able to get an opinion:
“RONR (11th ed.) p. 447, ll. 16-19
In most societies it is usual to elect the officers from among the members; but in all except secret societies, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, it is possible for an organization to choose its officers from outside its membership.”
The practice is unusual but not prohibited.
If being a member of the organization is a basic requirement under Robert’s or Parliamentary Law (I highly suspect it is – but am not speaking from authority), the issue would be that there were people who were elected by illegal ballots in Las Vegas and through appointments that were out of order.
Such actions are typically regarded as a continuing breach and may be objected to at any time since they still do not meet the qualifications for office.
Any Roberts Rules experts on hand to confirm or deny this?
Also, with regards to non-members serving in leadership capacities on a board of a member based organization… extremely unorthodox and since the bylaws do not explicitly allow it, I suspect that membership might be a basic requirement imposed by Robert’s in the absence of any over-ruling authority.
I am sure the parliamentoonians on the LSLA will have a lovely explanation as to why their perverted behavior is perfectly reasonable.
What the convention delegate was more narrow than that. They voted to accept the recommended list of delegates form the Credentials Committee. They made no adjudication on legitimacy whatsoever. Check the video and the minutes.
There was also the vote not to seat you and some others with other states’ delegations.
Also his stated reason does not explain why the LSLA removed me before the LNC had its first Ex-comm vote
Because as the decider, he decided?
Also his stated reason does not explain why the LSLA removed me before the LNC had its first Ex-comm vote (since overturned by the judicial committee).
Let’s not fool ourselves… the LSLA is a corrupt and coopted organization. As such it is a parasite and eats our time and causes troubles. The rational choices are to reform it or kill it.
Paulie
What the convention delegate was more narrow than that. They voted to accept the recommended list of delegates form the Credentials Committee. They made no adjudication on legitimacy whatsoever. Check the video and the minutes.
Is there a rule/bylaw that voting members of the LSLA board have to also be voting members of the LSLA? That seems like it would be a reasonable rule but I am not aware of such at present.
As far as who the state chairs are, I guess as LSLA Secretary Aaron Starr has taken it upon himself to make that determination, regardless of what the national LP or the State of Oregon (Secretary of State or courts) have to say about the matter. His stated reason for doing so is that the national convention delegates recognized the “Reeves faction” over the “Wagner faction” and convention delegates are a higher authority than the LNC or JudCom. However, convention delegates did not actually vote on who is the chair of the state affiliate, only on who chaired the state delegation to the convention.
Let me amend that slightly: How can they possibly server as VOTING MEMBERS on the board if they are not members?
Right. So this means that neither Mr Starr or Ms Mattson are voting members of the organization. How can they possibly serve on the board if they are not members?
http://lsla.org/about-the-libertarian-state-leadership-alliance/bylaws
Article 3: Membership
Voting Members shall consist of the State Chairs of affiliate State Libertarian Parties. If a State Chair is unable to attend, the Vice-Chair of the corresponding State Party, or any other person selected by the State Chair of the corresponding State Party, may participate in his absence.
The Executive Board may authorize additional nonvoting classes of membership.
Ken,
You may want to also share these on the LSLA resource page (sublinks from)
http://libertarianmajority.net/tools
http://www.lp.org/campaign-resources
http://lpin.org/resources/
http://www.lpillinois.org/about/leader_resources.php
http://lpva.com/HTML/archives.php
http://web.archive.org/web/20020508160632/archive.lp.org/lit/s99/
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/politics/activism/index.html
Hello!
I look forward to serving on LSLA as the At-Large. My immediate goals are simple: Help the LSLA with their part of the 2014 Libertarian National Convention (I live about 2 hours from Columbus), and to help get training materials in the hands of as many LP activists/leaders as possible.
If you have any materials that you would like to have in the hands of other dedicated LP activists elsewhere in the country (and wouldn’t mind them swapping the branding/paid-for stuff), please let me know. Our lack of sharing best practices and other institutional knowledge is one of our greatest and most-easily-resolved issues.
To contact me directly, please initiate contact through the contact page on the LPKY website, http://www.LPKY.org/contact … I’d just put my email address here, but I really hate spam.
Thank you,
Ken Moellman
Minutes of the call for anyone who can’t open a PDF file. I won’t bother fixing the spacing tho:
Minutes of Teleconference Call of Libertarian State
Leadership Executive Board
The conference call regular meeting of LSLA Executi
ve Board came to order at 5:05 PM
Pacific Time on November 24, 2013.
Attendance:
Chair Brett Bittner Y
Vice Chair Patrick Dixon Y
Secretary Aaron Starr Y
Treasurer Alicia Mattson Y
At-Large Vacant
Invited guests in attendance: Richard Burke, Ken Mo
ellman, Vicki Kirkland, Leigh
LaChine, Tim Burchett, Mike Rollins
Treasurer’s Report
The Treasurer has seen almost no financial activity
since the LSLA event, except for some
interest income. We have just over $8,000 in the b
ank.
Filling of the vacancy
Patrick Dixon moved to appoint Ken Moellman to fill
the at large vacancy. The motion
carried unanimously.
Discussion of 2014 Annual Meeting
Aaron Starr was asked last meeting to make tentativ
e inquiries from people in Ohio about
getting someone to handle the sales of booths, cont
ingent upon an agreement with the
Convention Management Committee. Aaron Starr forwa
rded a resume from an applicant
seeking the position of salesman. Ms. Mattson spok
e with Brett Pojunis, who might have a
couple of individuals available for the position.
The Chair has not had the opportunity to connect wi
th LNC Convention Management
Committee Chair Nancy Neale concerning the availabi
lity of space at the 2014 convention
site hotel to host the LSLA. The annual meeting wi
ll be a focus of Chairman Bittner
shortly after the holidays.
Affiliate Support Committee
The LSLA has previously appointed three members to
the LNC’s Affiliate Support
Committee. Ms. Mattson wondered if she might be ab
le to contact those individuals as to
their status, since they have an impact on the LNC’
s budget. There was no objection to her
doing so.
Set the next LSLA meeting date and time
Without objection, the next meeting was set for 15
December 2013 @ 2000 Eastern Time,
1700 Pacific Time.
Approval of minutes and adjourning of meeting
The minutes were approved without objection at 5:46
pm, whereupon the meeting
adjourned.
Aaron Starr, Secretary
Michael Wilson can get the answer to his question by coming to this site. I fear the LSLA may be less than accurate in answering his question about the current status of the leadership of the LP of Oregon.