Minutes of Teleconference Call of Libertarian State Leadership Executive Board
The conference call regular meeting of LSLA Executive Board came to order at 5:01 PM
Pacific Time on January 5, 2014.
Attendance:
Chair Brett Bittner Y
Vice Chair Patrick Dixon Y
Secretary Aaron Starr Y
Treasurer Alicia Mattson Y
At-Large Ken Moellman Y
Invited guests in attendance: Richard Burke
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 bank. Quarterly financial statements will
go out next week.
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Pat Dixon moved to add Wes Wagner to the state chairs email list with posting privileges.
Aaron Starr offered a substitute motion, which was unanimously amended to read:
Resolved, that the LSLA Executive Board believes the entire matter concerning the
contested leadership at the Libertarian Party of Oregon is disruptive to the LSLA
and its purposes,
That the LSLA Executive Board has no desire to inject itself into this internal
conflict and respects the decision of the LSLA State Chairs when they credentialed
the Reeves leadership at its most recent annual meeting,
That we offer both sides the option of participating on the LSLA email list, provided
each participant expressly agrees to not drag their dispute onto that forum,
That it encourages both sides to mediate and amicably resolve their differences, and
That it will maintain this position until the legal process in Oregon is exhausted or
the State Chairs credential a different state chair at its next annual meeting.
The substitute motion became the main motion by a vote of 3-2, which was adopted by a
vote of 3-2.
Discussion of 2014 Annual Meeting
The Chair has not had the opportunity to connect with LNC Convention Management
Committee Chair Nancy Neale concerning the availability of space at the 2014 convention
site hotel to host the LSLA.
Set the next LSLA meeting date and time
Without objection, the next meeting was set for 12 January 2014 @ 2000 Eastern Time,
1700 Pacific Time.
Approval of minutes and adjourning of meeting
The minutes were approved without objection at 5:37 pm, whereupon the meeting
adjourned.
Aaron Starr, Secretary
I’m thinking that nothing will most likely happen from the LNC side before the convention. I could be wrong.
Also, I talked to Ken Moellman yesterday, and he said he wanted a definite answer from Geoff on who the LNC considers the affiliate in Oregon to be. Now we have it, so maybe he (and therefore LSLA since he was the deciding vote) will reconsider.
I sent Geoff a private one on one email with a very candid discussion of the options I see him as having available to him with no firm recommendation.
Well, he’s usually prett savvy on all the bylaw and policy manual crap, so he probably knows exactly what he can and can’t do and most likely just doesn’t want to make a solo decision…but just in case yo could write him about it.
Geoff has a certain amount of plenary authority of Staff. If he wanted to he could just direct them to take possession of the State Chairs administrator rights and be done with it. It rests on LNC Inc. hardware.
There is little to no question that Geoff can do it… this is more as to whether he should or will.
I don’t know if Geoff has solo discretion over this. If he does, he’s either not aware of it or not willing to take action without the LNC voting on it as a body. But the LSLA is officially recognized in other ways too, such as committee appointments; as far as I know that is not even up to the LNC and would have to be dealt with in convention, but I could be wrong.
Yes, that was also a coup. The whole thing has been a mess for many years, with many games played over definition of membership, join dates, membership rolls, bylaws, and so on.
Surely the Party CEO can control use of our Party’s computer hardware facilities?
Also, the coup was much earlier, when the other side advanced their entirely specious claim that the LPOR had adopted impossible quorum requirements. Unfortunately, the then-state-chair did not simply reject their claim and let the other side appeal it to the convention.
Stewart, good points…I agree (other than about the JC).
I brought up the issue of the LNC hosting the list several years ago, when the Oregon issue became toxic after the JC ruling. I recommended (or I should say the IT Committee recommended) dumping it and making them run their own list. While I disagree with the outcome of the JC Ruling, as well as them even having the authority to rule based on the reason that was given for their interference, my opinion is what it was then: the coup was successful so we either make the LSLA adhere to it or cut them off. The LNC can’t make them do anything, so cutting all ties is the only choice. Using LNC servers to run the LSLA list makes sense, but only if they are part of the party. They obviously are not, so running their list, giving them committee appointment power, and deferring to them as having power of any kind is wrong.
And I completely agree with the comments about the LSLA business meeting being only in conjunction with the national convention, the membership and board being returned to a composition of state party leaders only, and the return to education and the annual conference being the only “agenda” of the group.
I (and others) stopped attending when the LSLA stopped being the LSLA.
If the LSLA is part of the party, they cannot legally manage the vendors at the national convention. And if they are not, and are therefore “ok” to handle vendors, how can they have appointment power and be part of the LNC’s committee infrastructure.
As I have said before, this is not right. The changes made at the Ohio LNC meeting when I objected during the debate on the motion are just as improper now (from an FEC perspective) as they were then.
Starting?
Those words from Mr Neale are fairly strong. Is it possible Aaron is starting to get under his skin?
Where wold that be found? Is there one?
What does the agreement between the LNC and the LSLA say?
Geoffrey Neale
7:42 PM (3 hours ago)
to statechairs, lnc-discuss, wes.wagner
Doug Craig wrote:
“I would like an official ruling from the LNC or Chairman on who is the official of Oregon. .Thank you”
Doug – thanks for the softball.
It is my position that Wes Wagner is the Chair of the Oregon affiliate of the Libertarian Party.
The Bylaws are very clear that only the LNC can establish or terminate a relationship with a state affiliate, and that there can only be one state level affiliate per state. The Bylaws are also clear that only the Judicial Committee can veto an action or decision of the LNC. However, it is just as clear to me that the delegates in convention can trump the Bylaws.
The Judicial Committee ruled that the “Wagner” group is the official affiliate from Oregon.
However, the Credentials Committee at our last convention decided to recognize the “Reeves” group, and took the matter to the delegates, who upheld their decision. My problem with this decision is that, according to the minutes, the Credentials Committee referred to RONR for what to do when there are “conflicting” groups. In my opinion, there can be no conflicting delegate submissions from two “affiliates” in one state because our Bylaws state there can only be one affiliate per state, and the Judicial Committee ruled that the “Wagner” group was the official affiliate. I think the Credentials Committee did not have any choice but to accept the Wagner delegates, but obviously they saw it differently.
Subsequently, when the delegates upheld the “Reeves” delegates, it might be argued that the delegates were therefore ratifying the position that the “Reeves” group were the official affiliate, but I disagree. The motion that was voted on did not specify this position. In effect, the delegates sat individuals, without taking a position on the affiliate of record, which has created a huge problem, since the Bylaws specify that it is the responsibility of the recognized affiliate to submit the list of delegates. What a mess.
Now on to the next issue: the state chairs list. Let’s be clear – this is an LP list. It’s hosted on lp.org. At some point in the past, administration was turned over to the LSLA. While it might be argued that this list is independent of the LP, it is not – the LP pays for it, and it is on the LP site. I think we have to keep this in mind. As long as the LP hosts this site, it needs to be able to exercise limited control over it. I think that limited control should be that the affiliates recognized on this list are only the affiliates recognized by the LNC, which is the sole explicit authority in the Bylaws that can recognize affiliates. Likewise, under our Bylaws, we can only have one affiliate per state.
Personally, I think the best path would be to direct the LSLA to create and pay for its own list, or adhere to LNC decisions as to which “group” is the affiliate, or turn administration of the members of the list back over to LNC control.
I see no upside for the LNC in allowing this argument to continue on a list paid for by the LNC. Either the argument needs to end, or the list needs to be truly separate.
But these are just my opinions. Ruling on who the LNC recognizes as the official Oregon affiliate is straightforward. Deciding what action, if any, that the LNC takes must be an LNC decision.
Is anyone going to get Neale’s email up here?
Yep. Also 2007 in Florida, 2009 in South Carolina and 2010 in Texas were all well attended. None of them were in conjunction with national conventions but they were all in conjunction with LNC meetings and in the cases of Florida and Texas also with state conventions. That seemed to be a formula that worked. However, they scuttled it and perhaps did something else that I don’t know of which led to declines in attendance.
This is my message to our board:
As many of you know I have been kept off the State Chairs list since May of 2011 … after all this time and their keeping Reeves and Burke on the list, this is their resolution.
I am inclined to put forward on the agenda that we address whether we should accept this offer or reconsider our relationship with the LSLA.
The 2008 LSLA convention in Nevada had around 100 people at it.
Chuck,
I think we’re on the same page regarding the purpose of LSLA — primarily a vehicle for education. The convention stuff is also important though and based on my understanding had to go to someone besides the LNC.
I think that holding a business meeting outside of NatCom is always going to have LOW attendance, and if there’s a concern over the “power” that body’s committee can wield, then such a meeting should not be held in non-NatCom years. I would tend to agree that 15 people shouldn’t be making decisions for 35 others; I would also say the solution is to make sure that meeting happens at NatCon. There’s no way I would have bought a plane ticket and flown to CO just to go to a meeting. (That’s also why you’ll never see me make a run for LNC)
Ken Moellman wrote:
You have it backwards. When LSLA held annual meetings not in conjunction with the national convention that provided training for state chairs and other state activists, it was far more useful to the state chairs and it was drama free. Nowadays it has deviated from its purpose and its executive board wrongly fashions themselves to have far more power than they were ever delegated — it used to be that all they did was plan the annual conference. The national office is in a far better position to administrate the email list than a rouge LSLA executive committee.
I’m glad they had the Colorado conference. It’s too bad it was poorly attended. As for myself, I had planned on going, but a recently broken arm made travel less attractive to me at the time. Sorry my lack of attendance contributed to the problem.
Nicholas Sarwark wrote:
Exactly right.
Paulie wrote:
Yes. LSLA leadership and bylaws need to be substantially changed at the next opportunity given their flagrant disregard for the actual state chairs.
I just can’t take the LSLA seriously. Here is a good example of why. Good state leaders make sound judgements, not continue to live in Never-Neverland where everyone loves the people who have cost the Oregon LP a fortune in legal fees. I will continue to not support them..
I think LSLA officers should be current state exec comm members in their states and that the LSLA needs to recognize the same affiliates as the LNC does, right or wrong, if it’s gong to be affiliated with the LNC in various ways.
I didn’t go to the 2013 LSLA because it was in Colorado and I had no other reason to be there. IMO, the LSLA is primarily a training vehicle when it’s not doing stuff for LP Nat Convention; neither function requires annual meetings to sort out. I think it would be wise to modify LSLA to have bi-annual in-person meetings held in conjunction with the LP National convention, rather than holding annual meetings.
I don’t think he was boycotting it. The event just didn’t draw much participation, for whatever reason.
I’m pleased to see that Kevin Takenaga from CA wasn’t there.
As do I.
No one from Colorado? How did that happen?
If the state chairs don’t make the needed changes at LSLA and if we ge a decent LNC next term, the relationship between the two organizations should really be reexamined.
I agree with every point Nicholas made above.
It’s becoming clear that the Reeves group doesn’t understand that they’ve essentially lost. In the meantime, the Libertarian Party of Oregon is moving forward. I’d l;ike to ask the Reeves group–again–if they really envision that, if they win by some miracle, the members of the Oregon party will accept them with open arms.
I just don’t see that happening. What I see as a result would be that, several hundred dollars and several years later, the members of the LP of Oregon simply vote Wes and his group back in at the next election.,
The State Chairs should make some changes in LSLA leadership and bylaws at their next meeting.
The minutes of the 2013 LSLA meeting are posted here for anyone who wants to examine the precedent cited for why Reeves is still recognized by the LSLA. 15 states were represented, though I know at least some of those names are neither state chairs nor on the governing body of their state’s Libertarian Party.
It has been alleged that Mr. Starr paid for part of the Reeves group’s lawsuit. If that is true, some would question the propriety of him voting on this issue.
Similarly, some would question the propriety of a named plaintiff who sat on the national Credentials Committee (Mr. Carling) casting the deciding vote to recommend that another named plaintiff’s (Mr. Reeves) delegation be sat at the 2012 Libertarian National Convention.
I believe Ken is misinformed regarding whether the suit in Oregon is final. The Reeves group has lost a motion for summary judgment and their case has been dismissed. They can appeal that decision, but the appellate process does not stay the dismissal. In other words, it’s over, but if they win on appeal, it may be restarted.
Ken’s post to lsla list:
The explanation of my vote just went to the statechairs list, and I only ask that my request at the bottom be honored when it inevitably is reposted to IPR (remove email/phone). I fully explain the reasoning for how I voted, and I put in more time than I ever should have on the matter. I hate this issue and in order to avoid perpetuating the matter, I am not going to talk about it any more in a public forum. If a particular state chair has an issue, my contact information is included in the version that just went out over the list. I’m willing to talk about it in a way to clarify understanding of why I voted how I did, but otherwise I’m done with it. There are WAY more important things to do.
I’ve talked to him about it too, so he is aware of different sides of the issue at a minimum.
Well, I’m sure that Moellman got a fair and impartial explanation of the facts from Starr, Mattson, and Burke. Seems legit.
Well, last time it was a 2-2 tie, with Dixon and Bittner on one side and Starr and Mattson on the other – then they added Moellman so he must have sided with Starr.
Sounds like you are fluent.
Translated into English: When the LSLA met in conjunction with the Libertarian Party of Colorado convention last Spring, the +/- 15 state chairs/leadership members in attendance gave Reeves a badge and let him participate in the LSLA business meeting.
The minutes do not indicate who voted which way. Does anyone know?
Putting the matter on the agenda was what was rejected months ago. It was tabled until they filled a vacancy on the board, which was filled so now it got to actually be on the agenda and have the actual motion voted on.
Happy to help.
First of all, the LSLA is not stating anything new, their same motion was rejected months ago, and I am sure it will be rejected again.
Second, the LNC nor the Delegates in convention get to pick any State Leadership. All that the credentials committee did was choose one delegation over another, and the chair Mark Hinkle went along with that farce. There was a motion to over turn the chairs decision that failed, and that was that.
Seriously, the LSLA leadership needs to pull their heads out of their asses, and anyone who supports this group needs to walk away from them.
Oops, that’s what happens when I post something in a hurry. Thanks for the fix and the graphic, Paulie.
(Sales is a word I write frequently, since that’s my business).
Fixed. Jill wrote “sales” instead of “state.”
The spoonerism in the article title is hysterical!
Aaron propsed: “That the LSLA Executive Board has no desire to inject itself into this internal
conflict”
Of course, the fact that they’ve made the decision they did has continued to inject them into the internal dispute. They clearly don’t realize that the Reeves group has lost. The word “hubris” comes to mind..
This organization really needs to change their names if they which to be taken seriously. Perhapos they can call it: AFSLPASAAM ( A Few State Leaders Plus Aaron Starr and Alicia Mattson).