Wes Wagner posted on the LP state chairs list:
Everyone,
We has a well attended convention but we came up a bit short of our quorum requirement. As a result most all business has been referred to mail ballot.
The newly elected members of our board met immediately after the convention and we have a new chairperson and vice chairperson. (their email addresses are cc-ed here so you can change the list membership).
Our board is responsible for electing officers from amongst themselves.
Lars Hedbor was elected chair vs Kyle Markley in a vote of 5 to 3
Kyle Marley was elected vice chair vs Jeff Weston in a vote of 7 to 1Kyle and Lars have been members of our board and involved in our party for a significant period of time and should represent a smooth transition.
While I remain on the board, my personal efforts will be mostly focused on recruiting candidates. I have a personal goal of our party having more candidates for the 2016 election than the Oregon Republican Party. So far I have a team of 4 that has signed up to help with that goal located in different geographies in Oregon.
—
Wes Wagner
This is the LPO that is recognized by the Oregon Secretary of State, current Oregon court decisions, LPHQ and the LP national judicial committee as of the last time it ruled on the issue. It was widely reported prior to the planned convention that this group would sever its affiliation with the national LP at the convention, but since the convention did not have a quorum, the issue would now presumably go to mail ballot or wait for next year’s convention. The mail ballot(s) will go to all of Oregon’s 18,000 or so registered Libertarian voters; the board (executive committee) of this LPO can elect its own leadership even when the convention falls short of a quorum, and that’s what they did in this case.
The other group claiming to be the Libertarian Party of Oregon, which was previously referred to as the Reeves faction (after its former chair Tim Reeves), also recently held a convention and elected new leadership.
Ah… so close to LP national conventio time. Thanks!
And that the universe(s) don’t implode or explode.
Fungus among us,
Next primary election season, around May 2016. Let us hope the galactic tribunal sorts everything out before then.
Richard,
ORS 248.005 has not been repealed. ORS 248.011 says that certain officials may not enforce it, but leaves open that other officials or private parties may enforce it. It is incorrect to say that “248.005 is unenforceable”. It is still law.
11(5)(e) says it applies “during the Convention”. Are you saying that the credentials committee report is NOT adopted DURING the Convention? The minutes say the convention was called to order at 10:24am, and that the credentials report was amended and adopted afterwards. Unless someone brought a time machine, they did it wrong. And yes, if they’ve done this before, they’ve done it wrong before, too.
What you’re saying is normal doesn’t make sense. If 11(5)(e) “d[oes]n’t apply anyway” before adoption of the report, then neither does its limitation that delegates may only be added. So a majority of attendees could exclude a minority from being seated as delegates: just strike them from the credentials committee report! Whole state affiliate delegations, poof, gone, if you’ve got the majority to do it. Those affiliates would be totally denied their representation. Is this the absurd result you want? Do you really think the bylaws permit that? Or should we read 11(5)(e) plainly and let “during the convention” mean what it says?
When will the mail ballots happen?
Kyle,
REGARDING THE WAGNER GROUP’S PURGE OF LIFETIME MEMBERS
You are under-informed with respect to the lifetime membership issue.
It is true that state law requires that those participating in state monitored elections for public office be registered to vote in the state of Oregon.
But there is no state law preventing anyone from being members of and participating in the LNC’s affiliate organization in Oregon.
You are laboring under the premise that LPO members and the collection of registered Libertarian voters are the same grouping of people. They’re not, even though Mr. Wagner through his sham bylaws attempt to make them so.
Since the inception of the LPO in the 1970’s, well before the arrival of the “Evil Richard Burke” in 1990, it has been possible for a person to register as a Libertarian voter without joining the LPO and possible for a person to join the LPO without becoming a registered Libertarian voter.
LPO membership (that is, members of the LNC’s affiliate organization in Oregon) has included non-residents, non-citizens, minors, or anyone else who pays dues and subscribes to the non-aggression pledge. Such people have been regularly brought into the LPO by both factions. The same is true in most other state LP organizations as provided for by their respective bylaws. In some states where it is impossible to register by party, affiliate membership is all that exists – and the state doesn’t control any of it..
Hence, 248.002(4) was never broken because out of state lifetime members could not participate in candidate nominating conventions.
And if you check 248.011, you will see that 248.005 is unenforceable. This was the result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying that election officials cannot interfere with internal party governance.
For these reasons, the LPO’s embrace of lifetime members, even those who lived or moved out of state, did not violate Oregon law.
Nevertheless, Wagner’s group attempted to purge ALL lifetime members (not just those who had moved from Oregon) prior to the November 2010 special election – but the Oregon Judicial Committee reversed that. They then attempted to purge all lifetime members who were not registered Oregon Libertarian voters when they purportedly imposed new bylaws on 3/31/15. They did not even try to grandfather them in somehow.
So if you’re looking for people who have undertaken membership purges, look to your allies, not me.
REGARDING THE NATIONAL CONVENTION
You misunderstand my argument. I am not saying that the 2014 convention’s decision to seat Oregon delegates outside of the Wagner process was a vote to identify the proper affiliate (although the delegation vote at the 2012 national convention effectively was). I am saying that, because it was unclear who the Oregon affiliate was (see my 5/6/15 post from 5:19pm), there was no way to violate Article XI(5)(e) of the national party bylaws.
Apart from that, your side is misinterpreting 11(5)(e). Don’t believe me? Check the minutes of every other national convention since the bylaw was put into force.
All that 11(5)(e) says is that, during the convention, new people may be added to a delegation by a 7/8 vote. This has ALWAYS been interpreted to mean that a 7/8 vote would be required AFTER the initial credential report has been approved (amended or not). This is makes sense because no set delegations exist to which the convention may add delegates until a Credentials Report is adopted.
If you refer to the national 2014 convention minutes (and the minutes of most every other national convention), the delegates in question were added BEFORE the credentials report was approved, not AFTER. Hence, 11(5)(e) didn’t apply anyway.
That set in years ago.
Good question. I guess it would be the Epstein Group now?
Perhaps the heat death or implosion of the universe, but somehow I think they will survive even that.
From my April Fools post https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/04/oregon-lp-battle-it-aint-over-until-its-over/
In a late breaking and completely unexpected move, a tribunal which claims to be the highest court in a parallel universe has intervened, claiming that it actually has jurisdiction over Oregon…..Since there is absolutely zero precedent for this sort of thing with anyone claiming to challenge the universally accepted decisions of our Galactic Tribunal, we don?t yet know how this will be resolved, much less when. We tried to get some kind of time frame from the representative and Supreme Justice of the parallel universe court, but he said their universe doesn?t really have anything exactly like what we call ?time? in our universe, so the question is very hard to answer.
You have me stumped on that one.
Does anyone else have “Oregon Fatigue”?
I have three questions, though: Now that Reeves is no longer chair, do we still call the fake group the “Reeves” group”?
Also, what will it take for them to ever admit defeat? The lawsuit was thrown out two years ago this month. Shouldn’t the appeal have occurred by now?
Who is paying for their Republican lawyer, Tyler Smith? I don’t see Starr’s name on the Secretary of State’s site for the past few months.
The intention of the delegates in convention definitely was not to identify the proper affiliate. The vote was basically an espression of “if people want to be seated as delegates, let’s allow them to do so.”
Richard,
If I am understanding correctly, your issue about our bylaws w.r.t. former lifetime members is that some of them lost their membership because they aren’t registered to vote as Libertarians in Oregon. The old bylaws permitting that situation did not conform with state law (ORS 248.002(4), ORS 248.005). Ours do. We must conform with state law.
I see that you dodged my question about the convention. Too bad. Because the convention voted to modify the delegation — the action was not about identifying the proper affiliate. If you have no argument that the action taken by the convention was authorized, I stand firm that it was not.
Mercury Rising,
Dismissing me as a “delusional con man” is nice for a hit piece, but it is not a substitute for argumentation. If anything, name calling and the use of profanity, where Mr. Wagner frequently goes when confronted, is typically a refuge for people who have inferior arguments or no arguments at all.
I’m not just saying things – I’m documenting them too. I am quoting from official documents like the national Judicial Committee’s 9/23/11 ruling, relating things as documented in the 3/31/11 minutes of the LPO State Committee meeting, quoting or paraphrasing things Mr. Markley and others have actually written, and referred to official actions of the LNC.
You are naturally free to agree or disagree with my arguments or challenge my documentation, but presenting an argument and attempting to document it does not constitute delusional behavioir.
Richard P. Burke
Kyle, I don’t know why you’re continuing to argue with this delusional con man.
As George Bernard Shaw once observed, “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
Briefs in the appeal have recently been filed. The appeal is still active.
Richard P. Burke
Someone asked previously what the status of the lawsuit is. Can we have an update from someone?
Kyle,
Mr. Wagner and his friends allege a lot of things in their legal filings and elsewhere. It doesn’t mean that they’re true, even if they represent their sincerely held opinions about what is true. I suppose the same could be said of claims made by our side, which is why we have an LNC, national Judicial Committee, courts, and so on.
But I can tell you that there was never a membership purge from our side. Who was allegedly purged? In contrast, Mr. Wagner’s side has repeatedly attempted to purge members, particularly those who purchased lifetime members in good faith during years past, who do not meet the requirements laid out in your bylaws for membership. They attempted to unilaterally purge all lifetime members prior to a Nov. 2010 special convention (the Oregon Judicial Committee overturned that), and many who had bought lifetime members are no longer regarded as members according to your illegally adopted bylaws.
Regarding the 2014 convention issue, you say, “Imagine for a moment that this wasn’t about Oregon and there was no controversy over who the affiliate was. Does the convention have the power to modify an affiliate’s delegation?” You then point to 11(5)(e) of the national bylaws.
Of course, the problem with this is that there WAS and still is controversy over whom the affiliate is, such is the crux of the matter, and cannot be swept under the rug. Given the supplemental ruling of the national Judicial Committee of 9/23/11 as discussed previously, the Sec. of State’s refusal to say who the LNC’s Oregon “affiliate” or it’s “affiliate representatives” are, and preceding LNC rulings in our favor, the question of which group constitutes Oregon’s LNC affiliate is ambiguous at best. Such being the case, 11(5)(e) would be inapplicable because it can only work when it is clear who the affiliate is, and a Credentials Committee report doesn’t even attempt to answer that particular question for Oregon or any other state.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Paulie–
Thanks. I had missed that.
Richard,
Regarding the membership purge, I learned about it by reading the lawsuit. I don’t have searchable copies of the documents, though, so I can’t easily find the specifics for you – sorry. My memory is fuzzy here (it’s been a long time since I read the documents) but I think it was part of some argument that your group didn’t have quorum for elections so you aren’t party leadership so you don’t have standing to file suit in the name of the LPO. (I’m sure all the lawyers will wince at that description…)
You seem to think that LNC or JudCom decisions about who the affiliate is have some bearing on my argument about the national bylaws violation. They don’t. At the convention, the members amended the credentials committee report for the purpose of modifying the delegation of an affiliate. Imagine for a moment that this wasn’t about Oregon and there was no controversy over who the affiliate was. Does the convention have the power to modify an affiliate’s delegation? Find that authority. Hint: It’s exclusively in section 11(5)(e), it requires a seven-eights vote, and it can only be invoked by the affiliate itself (not by the convention body). Read our resolution again for the reasoning.
Columbo,
I read “The regular primary election shall serve to ratify bylaws previously referred, and nominate candidates for partisan office, or decide any other matters referred for ratification” as a general power of referral, or that last clause about any other matters would have no effect (a general principle of legal interpretation is that all words must be given effect if possible). Bylaws changed adopted at a <1% convention -must- be referred, of course, but the board -may- refer anything it wants to. I'll concede that this could and should be more clear. But I didn't write the bylaws, I only offered some amendments. 🙂
Additionally, Wes's point about Oregon law is not a flippant one — the lawsuit includes arguments about how and why Oregon political party bylaws may be validly changed under the law even apart from the procedures within the bylaws themselves. But IANAL and cannot possibly summarize it. The arguments are in the lawsuit, but again I don't have searchable copies of the documents so I can't easily find the specifics for you – sorry. And in truth, you would have a lot more fun playing with your cat than reading the lawsuit.
Mr. Wagner,
I’m sure that Oregon law is fascinating and all, but I’m in the middle of reading an Agatha Christie book right now. It’s a little slow-going because I like to read in a particular spot, and the cat likes that spot. When I start to read the cat starts doing things to get me to move. I’m not very inclined to just go read Oregon law start to finish because it will just take so long with the cat wars and all. If you want to give me a particular portion to read, I could do that. Otherwise it just sounds like a “don’t ask questions, just trust me, we can do whatever I say” argument.
I always find it interesting how people react when challenged on the facts. Some people offer back facts to support their position. Some people say engage in analysis to sort out seemingly conflicting facts. Then there’s your reaction, which is to get angry that someone has the nerve to seek the facts and start spewing obscenities and sharing some rather disturbing details of fantasies that are apparently in your head.
There’s a video linked near the top of this page. Aren’t you the one waving in the air like a sword what I presume to be a copy of Robert’s Rules and saying “Technically by The Gold Book we can expel him immediately!!!” Is the slamming of the book on the table part of whatever sacred order ritual you have, or is that just your personal flair?
You want the readers to use guilt by association for the things this gentleman, Mr. Saub, has been accused of. Do you think others should blame your associates for the rude way you treat people who ask you simple questions?
Mr. Wagner,
I’m sorry, but recruiting people into a political party and organizing them for a convention in accordance with voluntarily adopted rules does not constitute an attempt to “steal” a party. It is called doing ground level grassroots politics and both factions have engaged in such activities over many years.
In any case, what sounds more like an attempt to “steal” a party?
1. Doing grassroots politics by recruiting and organizing people for a convention in accordance with our voluntarily adopted rules or,
2. Purportedly enacting new bylaws outside of a convention without notice, imposing a list of officers and, attempting to cancel a convention session mandated by an earlier session when our convention is a superior authority?
You, Mr. Markley, and others have repeatedly admitted that your actions of 3/31/11 were in violation of the bylaws in force at that time, so who is attempting to “steal” the party here? And if such an attempt justifies a diagnosis of “sociopath”, who should that diagnosis be applied to?
Remember what people say… when you point a finger, three fingers are pointing back at you. You should know this, for you are accomplished in using your fingers to convey messages. 😉
Also, you have forgotten that I did not recruit Eric Saub into the LPO (or Tim Reeves for that matter)? They were both recruited by Marc Delphine, who simply passed their dues and membership forms on to me for the purpose of giving them to Jeff Weston in October 2010.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Wes,
“Every libertarian who returns a primary ballot receives a ballot by mail to elect party leadership the following year.”
How do newly registered Libertarians get to participate? or existing Liberterians who didn’t return a primary ballot? Do they have to wait until after the next primary where pressumably all registered Libertarians will receive a ballot?
How about publishing the ballot and links to the current bylaws etc.
Thanks,
Steve M.
Yes, kind of. Scroll up to Kyle Markley May 6, 2015 at 4:53 pm.
>So there’s no item about disaffiliating from the national LP going to mail ballot?
Has this question been answered?
Took a risk? You needed a stooge who thought it would be perfectly normal to try to steal a political party.
Generally people who say association does not matter and compartmentalize in the manner Burke does are sociopaths.
All,
Mr. Wagner is now reduced to assailing his opponents with four-letter words. He is also reduced to trying to undermine the reputations of those of us who worked with Mr. Eric Saub, who was recently arrested and charged with very serious crimes.
Mr. Wagner forgets (or perhaps does not know) that one of my opponents within the LPO years ago, Mr. Jim Bell, did prison time for advocating a marketplace where people would be paid for assassinating federal and other public officials who were thought to have violated their oathes of office. “Assassination Politics,” the concept was called. Bell was also convicted of using false Social Security numbers.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell
We could have used Mr. Bell’s associations with other LPO members to undermine their reputations, but we didn’t because Mr. Bell’s LPO associates didn’t support Bell’s criminal actions any more than we support the alleged criminal actions of Mr. Saub.
But this is just how Mr. Wagner does things when folks challenge him. He’s a bully and nothing makes him seem crazier then when he smacks people and they don’t slink away.
By way of background, Mr. Eric Saub had been an effective and well-thought of activist in many Clackamas county circles for several years apart from and prior to his stint in the LPO. Folks knew of his past but thought he had straightened himself out. All of us took a risk by investing some faith in his seeming to have turned over a new leaf. He was very open and forthright about his past and consistantly followed through on his commitments.
If Mr. Saub is convicted, and it must be said that he has not yet been convicted, he will have profoundly disappointed many within and beyond the LPO including myself. If he is guilty, I would submit that such would not be cause for celebration. In any case, his LPO membership has lapsed and he no longer lives in Oregon.
Richard P Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Columbo
Read Oregon Law.
Like all of Starrs sacred order of Robert’s (was your copy bound in human skin or were you not part of the innner circle?) .. you fail to realize that bylaws do not exist in a vacuum.
I am sorry that fhe people of Oregon being happy and successful offends you so much.. but go fuck yourself.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/04/oregon_felon_arrested_in_conne.html
Another example of the fine quality of Burke’s allIes.
Ah, Libertarians quibbling over bylaws–an irony that never ceases to amaze me.
This is one of the reasons I get closer to being an anarchist every day.
Mr. Markley, you said “However, in Art. 8, Sec. 1(A), last paragraph, you can see that the board has the general power to refer things to mail ballot.”
I read that part of your rules, and I don’t see a general power to refer things to mail ballot. That section is only about the primary elections, and it says primary elections will be by mail ballot. The only thing the board can do from that section is decide they’re too poor to do a mail ballot and opt to nominate by convention instead, and set various procedures related to the primary election.
The only place I see your rules talking about how to change the rules is in Article 13, which I earlier discussed. It can be done by a large convention or by a small convention followed by a mail ballot.
We haven’t heard much on the Oregon lawsuit lately. Hasn’t it been over with for quite some time?
Kyle,
Well, I’m glad that you can acknowledge that they bylaws you are operating under were purportedly adopted in violation of pre-existing LPO bylaws passed by LPO members in properly noticed conventions. This shows how much our voluntarily adopted rules mean to you, a point expanded on – even in relation to your own bylaws – by Columbo in previous posts.
By the way, I don’t know what you are talking about with respect to any “membership purge.” But you are not holding a very principled position if your position is something like, “All hands are dirty, so our hands can be dirty too.” I thought your people were claiming that they would set a higher standard. Apparently you will adjust your behavior to whatever you perceive the lowest common denominator to be.
Your board’s resolution regarding what happened with respect to the Oregon delegation at the 2014 national convention, and your related objection (overwhelmingly rejected on the convention floor), were both based on the premise that your faction is the recognized LNC affiliate. That isn’t at all the case. I refer you again to the significant paragraph of the National Judicial Committee’s clarifying ruling of September 23, 2011.
“The Judicial Committee ruked that the LNC must by default recognize the affiliate representatives that are currently recognized by the affiliate’s Secretary of State, and that it would take an exercise of LNC’s 6.6 disaffiliation power to do otherwise.”
The Secretary of State currently recognizes your group as the group which can nominate candidates in Oregon, but has never recognized it as an LNC “affiliate” nor has it recognized “affiliate representatives” to the LNC. These are separate questions and the terms “affiliate” and “affiliate representatives” are used specifically in the clarifying ruling. Proof? Years ago, the LNC recognized one group in Arizona as it’s affiliate while Arizona’s Secretary of State recognized another.
Therefore, until such time as the Secretary of State rules on who the LNC’s “affiliate” is in Oregon and/or who those “affiliate representatives” are, the National Judicial Clarifying ruling of September 2013 points to nothing. That being the case, LNC rulings prevail, and they have all supported us.
You didn’t deal with this at all.
The clarifying ruling of September 23, 2011 was a horribly written ruling fraught with contradictions. It also said that Secretaries of State can recognize parties in their respective states (duh) and that the LNC can recognize affiliates, and says that it takes a 3/4 vote to change who the LNC recognizes (duh). This actually supports our position that the question of who the Sec. of State recognizes to nominate candidates, and who the LNC recognizes as it’s affiliates, are separate questions.
The ruling goes on to say that the Wagner faction should be recognized because the LNC did not vote by a 3/4 majority to disaffiliate, but this would also apply to the LPO governing documents on file with the LNC Secretary prior to 3/31/11 – especially since the Wagner group admitted that they violated those bylaws when attempting to adopt new ones.
Even if you throw out this argument, the Judicial Committee’s directive to recognize the Wagner side is contracted by it’s directive that the LNC should recognize those “affiliates” and “affiliate representatives” recognized by the Sec. of State – and they have explicitly refused to adjudicate such questions.
With all of this in mind, given still-in force LNC rulings, it is not at all clear that bylaws were violated at the 2014 convention. It depends on what paragraphs of what documents one chooses to support, which is, in this context, the utter definition of ambiguity.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Columbo,
Because the convention did not achieve quorum, no amendments were passed there, and therefore the board is not required by Art. 13 Sec. 1(B) to refer anything to mail ballot.
However, in Art. 8, Sec. 1(A), last paragraph, you can see that the board has the general power to refer things to mail ballot. So it will be entirely at the discretion of the board, as informed by the convention straw poll, what items to refer to mail ballot. We haven’t had a regular board meeting since the convention, yet, so no decisions have been made. That’s why there are no specifics for you. And because the primary is next year, the board might be in little hurry to finalize this stuff – sorry.
At the convention, discussion of the proposed bylaws amendments ran longer than scheduled. We asked if people still wanted to talk about disaffiliation, but it was getting late, and they didn’t want to. I predict the board will refer disaffiliation to the ballot even though we didn’t straw poll it.
FYI, I was not involved in credentialing at the convention, but during the opening presentations attendance looked to be in the mid 20s. The business meeting did not start until the afternoon, and I don’t know how many extra people arrived by that time, but Wes’s “over 30 people” estimate is reasonable. Given that quorum was about 45, it was clear that we didn’t have it, and it’s possible that no one bothered to take an official delegate head count.
Oh, and just one more question.
First of all, thank you Mr. Markley for giving a little more information about the mail ballots, but still nobody has been all that clear on what happened to the disaffiliation question. I do wonder why that is.
There’s just a little thing still bothering me about the statement that “There were originally about 10 items, but we took straw polls on them and the ones that weren’t well-received are unlikely to go to mail ballot.”
See, you’re very careful about your words. You didn’t say that the ones that weren’t well-received are not going to go to mail ballot. You said they’re “unlikely.” That means they could go to mail ballot even though they weren’t well received by the no-quorum convention.
See, I went to your website and looked at your rules to see how things can go to mail ballot. It’s very interesting. Your convention can only amend the rules if more than 1% of the registered libertarians attend. You can’t even get 0.25% so 1% ain’t never gonna happen.
Then there’s this other part in your rules that says “Amendments passed during a convention attended by less than 1% of all voting members must be referred to a mail ballot.”
Didn’t Mr. Wagner say that you didn’t meet quorum? Your convention couldn’t have passed any amendments at all because you didn’t have quorum there. Right? How could those things go to mail ballot since a convention didn’t pass them first?
Then what about the items that weren’t well-received? They certainly shouldn’t go to mail ballot if the convention didn’t like them. You suggested those things might become mail ballots anyway.
I just can’t make any sense of that. What about you?
Well, this is all very interesting. I noticed that Mr. Wagner has posted again since I asked for more precise attendance figures, but he didn’t take the extra 30 seconds to answer my question. I guess that’s a no, that the convention would not have met quorum even at the 13,000 registered libertarians level.
I’m sure you guys are very busy with your state, and all your candidates, and the lawsuit and all, so I don’t know if you have time to keep up with what is happening anywhere else. Many states have seen large growth in the number of registered libertarians. It’s a general trend, not something unique to the state of Oregon.
Now where did I put my pen? It’s a very a special pen that Mrs. Columbo gave me, and I would hate to lose it. I had it this morning because I wrote myself a note to remember to get some trash bags on the way home. Oh, there it is in my hand. Look at that. Right there the whole time.
So there’s no item about disaffiliating from the national LP going to mail ballot?
Richard,
1) Sure, the intended process was not followed, but I’ll leave the legality of that to the court. I do know that the members overwhelmingly prefer these bylaws. I am one such member. Of course you’re aware that your side isn’t squeaky clean when it comes to following the process, either — for example, the purge of your membership rolls was extremely ugly. All hands are dirty, and there’s plenty of blame to go around. But I do want to run for office, and to help others run for office, so it’s clear where I need to be.
3) Of course national bylaws were violated! Have you read our censure resolution (August 5, 2014 minutes)? Regardless of who the affiliate is or should have been, or who the proper delegates were, the national bylaws are clear that the list of delegates is chosen by the affiliate. The 2014 action of convention attendees amending the Credentials Committee report was not permitted by the bylaws. The only permitted way to modify a delegation during the convention goes through (not around) the affiliate, and requires a seven-eights vote, and that didn’t happen. Read our resolution for details.
Columbo,
There were originally about 10 items, but we took straw polls on them and the ones that weren’t well-received are unlikely to go to mail ballot. We don’t have the minutes from the secretary yet, and one item was sent back to committee for wordsmithing, so we can’t give the exact list today. Most of the items were minor, though.
“but many would see this as a strong argument” aka the about 6 marginal individuals with their own psychological disorders that Burke can control at any one given time.
Just two more questions:
You mentioned “Several other items that will be going to mail ballot” and listed 3 more, but it wasn’t clear from what you wrote whether that is ALL of the items going to mail ballot or not. Is that all the mail ballot items?
After the chatter about how your convention was going to disaffiliate, it does make people curious. What’s the deal with that?
Even at 13,000, quorum would have been 33 people. Were there 33 people (eligible as delegates, not speakers of course) at your convention?
When you say there were “about 30” my guess is that probably means upper twenties, otherwise you probably would have put the “just over 30” spin on it.
Kyle,
I appreciate your position. From your perspective, I can see how it makes sense. But I reply with the following:
1. It is true that this dispute pre-dates your involvement with the LPO. But as you are aware that the bylaws you are supporting were adopted in violation of those approved by members in properly noticed conventions (even Wagner admits it), and since you knowingly choose to participate in and support it anyway, I see you as supporting the co-option of state force to achieve a political goal in violation of LP principles.
2. There is abundant correspondence from the Sec. of State regarding their policy of accepting whatever the “Chair of Record” gives them by way of governing documents and officer lists. And nowhere is this policy in writing except insofar as they say what they will accept. This method is the Sec. of State’s attempt to avoid interfering with the internal governance of political parties, which it is barred from doing according to US Supreme Court rulings.
3. It is not at all clear that what the 2014 convention did violated national bylaws. Here’s why, and people have been missing this for a long time:
People on your side of the fence try to say that the Sec. of State says that the Wagner side is the legitimate LNC affiliate because: 1) The national Judicial Committee punted the decision to the Secretary of State and, 2) The Wagner side is currently recognized to nominate candidates by the Sec. of State.
The premise here is that since the Sec. of State currently recognizes the Wagner group for the purpose of nominating candidates in Oregon by virtue of their “Chair of Record Policy”, the Sec. of State has also decided that Wagner’s group is the legitimate LNC affiliate in Oregon.
But since It is possible for the LNC to recognize one group in a state as their affiliate while the state recognizes another group for the purpose of nominating candidates, these are separate questions. You yourself have claimed that the LNC and it’s state affiliates have weak if any linkages. If a state affiliate of the LNC disaffiliated and retained ballot status, the LNC could still recognize another group as it’s affiliate even if it had a different name. So let’s look at the National Judicial Committee’s clarifying ruling of September 23, 2011:
“The Judicial Committee ruled that the LNC must by default recognize the affiliate representatives that are currently recognized by the affiliate’s Secretary of State, and that it would take an exercise of LNC’s 6.6 disaffiliation power to do otherwise.”
The assumption here is that the Secretary would recognize an LNC “affiliate” and “affiliate representatives”. Problem is, they didn’t. And won’t.
By virtue of their “Chair of Record” policy, the Sec. of State currently recognizes the Wagner group for the purpose of nominating candidates. But the Sec. of State has never taken a position on who the LNC’s Oregon “affiliate” is or who our “affiliate representatives” are. They have repeatedly and explicitly refused to adjudicate such questions.
So the National Judicial Committee decision as clarified on September 23, 2011 points to nothing, at least insofar as questions of LNC affiliation are concerned. So the ball comes back to the LNC which has voted six times that the Reeves group is the legitimate LNC affiliate. National chairs have used their executive authority to point websites and such to your group, but they had no LNC directive to do so and are arguably operating in violation of LNC policies which have never been rescinded. National chairs have no authority to make such decisions without support of the LNC.
I’m sure you disagree with all of this, but many would see this as a strong argument. At the very least, it shows how the question of who the LNC’s Oregon affiliate is remains unclear. It is therefore unclear as to whether or not the 2014 convention violated anything by seating the Reeves delegates. The LNC and the 2012 and 2014 conventions have always taken our side when voting on who the legitimate Oregon affiliate and delegations are. And it wasn’t for lack of information – both sides (in 2012 and 2014) distributed written material on the issue to delegates at these conventions, and the national delegates simply did not take Mr. Wagner’s side.
Richard P. Burke
Also as previously stated, when things are going well and you are well represented from the comfort of your own home, the impetus to show up in massive numbers at a convention is very low. We also did not have a particularly aggressive convention committee trying to get turnout because there was little of importance to stump for.
I know alot of people like to think of the LP as a private club instead of a political party, so gathering like Elks or Masons and having farcical rituals is what you measure success by, but we measure it by candidates and votes received.
Math issues: Membership was just below 13000 in 2011 not 16000
Several other items that will be going to mail ballot:
1) Fixing a loophole that could be used to unfairly rig an election when sending ballots to less than the entire membership.
2) Making fusion nominations more difficult
3) Some changes that increase readability and clarity
Oh, I have just one more question.
Mr. Wagner said, “One item we are referring to mail ballot is a reduction in quorum from .25% to .15%.”
What other items will be referred to a mail ballot besides the quorum problem?
I like math. It’s a little puzzle to solve, like a murder case. I’m not so good at doing math in my head, but a few years my wife got me this neat calculator. It has this little solar panel thing here in the top so I don’t even have to worry about changing batteries or nothing. It just always works…as long as I don’t leave it in a dark drawer for too long. Isn’t that neat?
I noticed that Mr. Wagner said something interesting. He said, “When we first set quorum it was reasonable. When the party membership grew so fast it started to become a little harder.”
He suggests that when there were only 16,000 registered libertarians, they could have reasonably met quorum, but the problem is that there are now 18,000.
If quorum is 0.25% of the total number of registered libertarians, then according to my neat little calculator here, if there were still only 16,000 registered libertarians, 40 people would have to have been present to meet quorum.
Mr. Wagner said they had about 30 at the convention, which would not have met quorum even without any increase in the number of registered libertarians. 30 people would only be enough if the number of registered libertarians dropped to 12,000.
Any growth in the number of registered libertarians is not the reason they didn’t meet quorum. Isn’t that interesting? I think that’s interesting.
Richard,
1) The bylaws feud predates my involvement with the LPO. It isn’t my fight, and it’s in court, so there’s little reason to debate it again and again here.
2) I doubt the SoS has any such “unwritten policy” as you allege. You claim that the SoS grants the chair blanket authority to rewrite the bylaws, but I think it’s an exaggeration. They do track the identities of the directors via the Statement of Organization. Perhaps if you had gotten a majority of the directors to shout “shenanigans” back in 2011, you might have had a different outcome.
3) The LNC has exactly zero authority over the LPO. They are independent organizations that happen to have a relationship, but that relationship does not grant any authority over the LPO to the LNC.
4) The national bylaws were clearly violated at the 2014 convention that added your people to our delegation.
5) This has all appearance of them trying to stay out of the fight as much as possible while the courts deal with it. I understand why they did that.
Mr. Markley,
“Currently” recognized by the Secretary of state. “Currently” is the operative word.
But that aside, there is a more important point. When you and others point out that your bylaws are currently recognized by the Secretary of State, you always leave out that:
1. The bylaws you are working under were purportedly adopted outside of a properly noticed convention in violation of LPO bylaws which both factions operated by until 3/31/11 and,
2. The only reason the Secretary of State recognized your bylaws is because of an unwritten policy saying that they will accept any governing documents provided to them by the “Chair of Record.” Any future chair could write and submit completely different bylaws, and they would be accepted too regardless of any other factors. Not a good foundation to base a party’s future on.
3. The LNC has voted 6 times in our favor, and the national Judicial Committee failed to take a side, only deferring to the Sec. of State, which refuses to adjudicate the dispute.
4. Two national conventions have voted to recognize our delegate configurations, not yours.
5. That while the Sec. of State currently recognizes your group for the purpose of nominating candidates, her recognition of the dispute has caused her to allow us to operate as a Misc. PAC called, “Libertarian Party of Oregon” while the dispute transpires.
In essence, your group violated LPO bylaws in force prior to 3/31/15, and holds legitimacy only by virtue of the Sec. of State’s unwritten policy which effectively gives the Chair of Record total power to define and re-define an organization at will. Very un-libertarian, and such is the foundation upon which your organization is based.
Everything else that has been done to lend legitimacy to these actions, including the illegitimate “ratification” election we did not participate in, constitutes an attempt to sweep this uncomfortable fact under the rug.
Richard P. Burke
Thanks, Paulie. I doubt if I can get to it during the day, but perhaps I can tonight, if no one else does first.
I do but it did not fwd to the email list because to much attachment megabytes. I’ll fwd it to you/
I think Lieberman forgot to include the “hit piece”. Does anyone have it?
From the IPR email list:
“More information on the Hedbor vs. Burke race:
http://portlandtribune.com/bvt/15-news/258502-129402-libertarians-lars-dh-hedbor-and-richard-p-burke-square-off-in-tualatin-valley-water-district-board-race
Scott Lieberman”
“If anyone has time to post this, you might wish to link to this article:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/10/libertarian-candidate-in-oregon-receives-letter-from-richard-burke-recommending-he-vote-for-republican-competitor/
Jill Pyeatt”
Richard,
Under the current bylaws recognized by the Secretary of State, the LPO cannot provide material support to any candidate, because the board isn’t empowered to do that. With that constraint, all it can do is run as many candidates as possible, and that is proper. Help for those candidates to run more active and funded campaigns must come from sources other than the LPO itself. I’ve started a PAC to do exactly that for the next (2016) cycle.
I am fairly certain that if Lars wins he will invest the time necessary to gain an objective viewpoint on the TVWD operations and make objective decisions.
I doubt I could endorse Lars for any position on our board since he has not deigned to regularly attend ANY board meetings, or budget committee meetings as I did months before my first election to the board in 1999. There are no more such meetings until May 28. If Lars wins, he should probably go.
Does this mean Lars has your endorsement because he is running an active campaign ? 😉
Kyle,
Apples and oranges. Our group was not recognized by the Secretary of State to nominate candidates and, at the time, and this was a significant handicap your group did not have to contend with. It was also dubious as to whether or not we could raise money at the time, which is an additional handicap that you did not have to contend with.
I’m not saying that fusion candidates are wrong. So if you’re suggesting that I did, you miss the point. Both sides nominated fusion candidates, as you point out. I raise the issue only to show the irony of YOUR group accusing OUR group of being Republican plants. Before your group was formed, the LP had occasional fusion candidates but they NEVER ran such a high number of registered Republicans. Had we done that in the old days, many of your current allies would have screamed bloody murder and we would have been accused of letting the GOP take over. You guys do it, so it’s okay. Hmmm.
Sure, you had a lot of people throw their name on the ballot, but many of them – apart from the cross nominated major party nominees – did not run active funded campaigns. You and your wife are exceptions, and I think you ran the two best campaigns – even though your nomination did not take place according to the governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions.
I have always thought that the credibility of the Libertarian Party depended more on quality candidates running active and funded campaigns. Just throwing names on the ballot so we can tout numbers, I believe, does not help us in the long run and perpetuates our reputation as perennial losers and crackpots, however unfair that reputation might be.
Richard P. Burke
Mr. Burke,
Mr. Wagner’s ballot consisted of 49 total nominees, 33 who ran exclusively as Libertarians, plus 10 candidates running as both Libertarian and Republican, plus 4 candidates running as Independent, Libertarian, and Republican, plus 2 candidates running as Democrat, Libertarian, and Republican. So that’s just 16 Republicans (not “over 20”) if you include even the ones who were also Democrats.
Your faction’s (rejected) ballot consisted of 6 total nominees, 4 of whom were also nominated by the Republican party.
If you think Republican fusion nominations are bad, you should scold your own faction first. They nominated two-thirds Republicans. The Wagner group nominated less than one-third Republicans.
You should also give credit where credit is due: How many states had more Libertarian nominees than Oregon did? And how many, when adjusted for population?
Mr. Wagner’s ballot included over 20 Republicans, as I recall.
Ah, I see. Must have skimmed over that, my bad.
Good news then I suppose, at least on that front. Either they put it to the mail ballot, where it’s a lot less likely to pass, or it’s delayed by a year, by which point people will be a lot more invested in the Presidential race, including presumably some OR Libertarians who will be desirous of being delegates to Orlando.
I covered that in the article. Yes, it was, but since they did not get quorum it goes to mail ballot of registered voters or to next year’s convention.
Wasn’t this supposed to be the convention that was to vote on disaffiliation with national LP? Or is that not happening now?
The party is functioning well, posting record numbers of partisan candidates every election cycle, will do it again in 2016.
As I said… without drama the impetus to attend a convention is low. People don’t show up with pitchforks and torches when all is going well.
LPVA had 30ish people at our State Central Committee business meeting last weekend. Just sayin’
All,
Doesn’t anybody think it is ironic that the Wagner organization could not meet quorum? The LPO’s inability to meet quorum, prior to Wagner’s attempted 3/31/11 coup, was the stated justification for holding the coup in the first place. For those who forgot about the coup, it was caught on video and can be reviewed by pointing your browser here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89YMq-omW7o
And not to rain on anybody’s parade, but there has been virtually no growth in Libertarian Party registration in relation to the growing size of Oregon’s electorate. While it is great to see the number of registered Libertarians rising, honest reporting requires that the increased size of Oregon’s electorate be reported too. As of March 2015, the latest numbers available, Libertarians make up 0.822% of the Oregon electorate. Check out this website:
http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/electionsstatistics.aspx
You will see that the percentage of Libertarian voters in the electorate has mostly fluctuated between 0.75% and 0.085% over at least the past 14 years. So what growth? At best, we’re holding the status quo. Even if there were growth, the LPO run according to governing documents adopted in properly noticed conventions (our group) could claim to be responsible every bit as much as Wagner’s group. We’ve been at least as politically active as Wagner’s group has been outside the LPO. See http://www.lporegon.net.
I’m sorry, but thirty people is an abject failure with respect to attendance when an LPO convention is held in the Portland metropolitan area, and not when dues are not required to participate. We did almost as well at the convention we held in Pendleton on March 21 (three hours east of Portland) for dues-paying members, most of which had to secure hotel rooms. And our group isn’t even recognized by the Sec. of State yet (though I hasten to add that our delegations have been seated in two consecutive national conventions and the LNC voted to support us six times).
Under the legitimate LPO, prior to Mr. Wagner’s coup, the LPO convention held in Nov. 2010 sported about 50 dues-paying delegates, plus additional more attendees who were not eligible to vote. At the March 12, 2011 convention, also held in the Portland area, there were at about thirty dues paying members in attendance (I counted 29 in the video, but people were moving in and out). All dues paying members.
With 7,993 registered Libertarians in the Portland metro area alone, none of which were required to pay dues to participate in Mr. Wagner’s event, this is a truly horrible performance no matter how Mr. Wagner tries to spin it. At the very least, it is not a vindication of what Mr. Wagner and his supporters did on 3/31/11. Were we not promised that with Wagner’s new governing documents combined with the elimination of dues that we would see greater participation at LPO conventions?
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
When we first set quorum it was reasonable. When the party membership grew so fast it started to become a little harder. Quorum is a protection against people holding conventions in remote places and play fuck the party over games.
One item we are referring to mail ballot is a reduction in quorum from .25% to .15%
Oregon is a physically large state and the party functions well. Without drama the impetus to attend is low.
We had more candidates in 2014 for office than many states have members let alone convention attendees.
What is the quorum requirement? Is that set by state law? Because I don’t see why any state LP should have an internal rule that level of turnout is too low for a properly-noticed-and-convened state convention to conduct business. For an off-year state party convention, 30-50 would hardly be outside the norm for most states, particularly for the many states that choose to go the minimal route in off-years and save up for the election-year convention.
Marc
We had over 30 people there Not counting speakers.
I do not appreciate the presumptive deprecation.
But neither group can draw more than ten people to its conventions.
Also the board was elected by mail ballot prior to the convention. Every libertarian who returns a primary ballot receives a ballot by mail to elect party leadership the following year.
We keep growing. More members .. more candidates .. larger vote totals!
It grew since I last checked the numbers 🙂
Thanks, I updated it.
There are currently about 18,000 (not 16,000) registered Libertarians in Oregon.