Richard Burke emailed me the above image to accompany the below email
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Richard Burke Paulie, I’m not sure how to handle this appropriately, but I thought a follow-up story to IPR’s coverage of my re-election bid, and the challenge mounted against me by Lars Hedbor and his supporters, might be in order. It was a bizarre race, and possibly historic, as it may have been the first time ever that a registered Libertarian was trying to unseat an incumbent registered Libertarian from any elected position. It was also bizarre from the perspective of those who wish to elect more Libertarians to public office as Hedbor could have run against a Democrat on my board who wound up running unopposed. As of 12:03 this morning, here are the results with 100% of precincts reporting (a few challenge and odd-ball ballots remain to be counted). Tualatin Valley Water Commissioner – Pos 4 If one can excuse a small gloat, and I think I’m entitled given the tone of the campaign run against me, this represents a significant derrier displacement. But perhaps more than the election results, Mr. Hedbor’s challenge actually worked out quite well for me in other ways. I got excellent press coverage from the Portland Tribune, the Oregonian, the Beaverton Valley Times, the Tigard Times, and Tigard Now, plus a really great live interview about the race on KEX, one of Portland’s leading stations. Were it not for Hedbor’s candidacy, none of this would have happened. The $10,000 campaign mounted against me (I spent virtually nothing) significantly raised my stature in the region as a Libertarian elected official, as it was the only interesting race in the region and the only one which got significant press coverage. I did my best to take the high road by focusing on my record, talking about the future, and shrugging off the hatchet mailings and robo-calls. In contrast, the $10,000 campaign against me, because of it’s tone, made my political opponents in the Libertarian Party seem petty (even Hedbor said so in a Portland Tribune article), viscous and weird. In a low turnout election, those who vote are more frequently those who follow local news, are more fully informed, are more turned-off by negative campaigns (especially those that are over the top), and are less vulnerable to manipulation than low-information voters. Mr. Hedbor’s, Mr. Wagner’s, Mr. Markley’s, and Mr. Weston’s campaign did nobody in the Libertarian Party a service from a party growth perspective – it only served to highlight dysfunction within Oregon’s Libertarian Party – that is the kind of publicity that not even Mr. Wagner’s group needs. Aside from that, ironically enough, I suppose I should thank Mr. Hedbor, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Markley, and Mr. Weston for raising my public stature and allowing me to use their campaign, and by extension their time and money, as a vehicle to obtain my eighth contested local election victory for three public offices. The Coyote’s ACME rocket blew up (again). Here are last night’s news stories about the race: http://portlandtribune.com/bvt/15-news/261004-132691-burke-easily-retains-water-district-seat http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2015/05/burke_leading_hedbor_in_race_f.html — Richard P. Burke Unfortunately, I was not able to get enough time online to post this news right away, although I did forward it to the rest of the IPR team with notice that they were welcome to post it first if they got to it before me. However, none of them had done it so I received another reminder from Scott Lieberman, and then… On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Richard Burke Paulie, IPR saw fit to cover Lars Hedbor’s vicious $10,000 campaign to unseat me from public office. Why doesn’t it see fit to publish what I sent to you regarding the result of that campaign??? I cannot help but speculate that if I had been defeated, something would have been posted before the ink was dry on the results. Richard P. Burke My reply:
Richard, It’s on my list of articles to post, and I also sent it to all IPR writers with clear notice that they are welcome to beat me to it. I promise there is no discrimination against you here, each writer chooses what to post individually and when; there are no editorial board meetings other than occasional email list discussions about borderline articles that we aren’t sure fit within IPR’s subject matter or not. Yours clearly does, and it will be posted. I would have already done it by now, but it turned out that the motel I moved to does not have internet working [in] the rooms, contrary to their reassurances before I paid them for a week. They also lied to me about having HBO; it turns out they have Showtime, but that’s not the same thing, and neither here nor there. More importantly, what it means is that my internet usage is limited to coffee shops and restaurants in between trying to petition, spending hours a day on city buses getting around, and various other errands that I have to run while getting around by city bus during the limited hours that it operates. You may have noticed, or not, that I personally have not posted any articles and few if any comments in the last couple of days. And when I do get on the internet, I have hundreds if not thousands of emails to sort thru, among other things. I still haven’t finished thanking all the people that wished me happy birthday on facebook two days ago. Today, I will need to make sure I get to my hotel, an hour by bus from where I am now, plus however long it takes me to walk to the bus stop and wait for the bus (it runs once an hour), before it stops running, which I believe is about four hours from now. Thanks again to you and Scott for the multiple reminders, and congratulation on your re-election. Your article will be posted. I will try to do it today. If I run out of time online before I get to posting stuff to IPR, I’ll post it tomorrow. Or maybe I’ll be lucky and the internet will actually work when I get back to the motel, in which case I will post a bunch of stuff tonight. And once again other IPR writers are more than welcome to beat me to it. Like me, they are all volunteers at IPR, and have other paying jobs and volunteer activities unrelated to IPR. I think I am probably the only one of them without reliable access to the internet where I “live” (or at least sleep), but I could be wrong. Congratulations again, and sorry for the unplanned delay.. Your article will be posted, and it would have been even without reminders from yourself and Scott Lieberman. I probably could have posted it in the time it took me to explain this, but I am also trying to explain the process and why many articles don’t get posted as soon as I would like, for future reference. There was some further exchange (Richard explained that he was bemused, not angry; Joe Buchman said he is also busy with real life; etc). I’m only including those two followups because there have been other cases where people wonder why articles they send us don’t get posted, or don’t get posted immediately. In any case, I was able to get a refund for the week minus the nighly rate for two nights, and move to another motel next door that does have internet working in the guest rooms, so I’m back, and more articles and comments from me will follow.
Vote for 1
Lars D H Hedbor . . . . . . . . 5,940 40.80
Richard P Burke . . . . . . . . 8,538 58.64
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 81 .56
Paulie: “I’m not well versed on the details, but I have seen several comments here indicating that the controversy predates Burke’s involvement and goes back to the 1980s.”
.
.
Well, no, not really.
.
One can say any controversy predates someone else’s controversial activities and therefore are tied, which makes little sense unless it’s over the same issues and actually tied to each other.
.
In this case, there probably were personalities in the LPO in the 80s who turned off some people. But the current controversy is based solely on Burke’s ego. It started with Burke, and still goes on some 20+ years later.
.
Burke was not continuing anyone else’s efforts to run the party a certain way.
.
Bob T.
Terry: “So Tiernan, you’ve spent a lot of time defending Lars’ actions”
.
How have I been “defending” him, and how have I been spending “a lot of time” doing so? By posting one message saying that he
would have been the first libertarian on that water board?
.
Fact is I’ve said nothing until now, and very little. In fact, rather than “defend” Lars I’ll opine that it was probably stupid to run against Burke. What do you say now, jerk?
.
Bob T
OR is it possible that Lars is so disgusted and embarrassed at the despicable flyer sent out by Wagner on his (Lars’) behalf that he is abstaining from participating in this farcical discussion???
So Tiernan, you’ve spent a lot of time defending Lars’ actions; are you thinking, perhaps he is not bright enough to defend himself?.
Maybe she wanted to be like Lisbeth Salander?
Burke: “Our issue is that the party needs to be run and organized according to governing documents”
.
.
Another hoot!
.
Did YOU and your friends run things according to government documents in 1996 when you and your bogus “Credentials Committee” effectively stripped about 30 members of their voting rights at convention by pulling out of your ass a completely bogus and fictional “interpretation” of when memberships expire, after you and your fiends realized that all of those members (set to vote against you) still had another week in their memberships and you had mistakenly assumed otherwise
.
BT
I’m not well versed on the details, but I have seen several comments here indicating that the controversy predates Burke’s involvement and goes back to the 1980s.
Burke: “If you think this is about egos, personalities, and the like, you’re missing the larger picture”
.
.
Stop right there, Burke. The roots of all of this, even the current controversy you still think is unsettled, all going back to the early 1990s, are due SOLELY TO YOUR MASSIVE EGO AND SOCIOPATHIC PERSONALITY. PERIOD!
.
B. Tiernan
Burke: “I did my best to take the high road”
.
What a hoot. You do have a way with words. I don’t know why anyone thinks you’re a good writer. You make it sound, and indeed you clearly imply, that you “tried” to stay on the high road, and didn’t always succeed. In fact, it’s true that in order to stay on the high road, particularly by doing nothing, you have to try really, really hard. I’ve never seen you on the high road, anyway.
.
That passage is as poorly thought out as your classic, “We’ve already shown that we can run candidates; Now let’s show that we cannot”.
.
B. Tiernan
Burke-off: “It was a bizarre race, and possibly historic”
.
.
Oh, quit pretending that anything you’re involved with is “historic”.
.
.
“as it may have been the first time ever that a registered Libertarian was
trying to unseat an incumbent registered Libertarian from any elected position.”
.
.
Maybe he wanted to be the first real libertarian on that board. Oh, and when are
you going to move on? Why are you so comfortable with a puny water board? Is
that the best you can do? Will the Peter Principle kick in for anything higher?
Actually, the Peter Principle for you kicked in when you were on the LPO state committee.
.
.
“It was also bizarre from the perspective of those who wish to elect more
Libertarians to public office as Hedbor could have run against a Democrat
on my board who wound up running unopposed.”
.
.
Maybe he doesn’t want to serve on any committee that has you as a member.
And if you think you’re so gifted, try running to win as a Libertarian
in a partisan race.
.
B. Tiernan
Hidden in her bag?
Why did Hawkridge have a camera? Ummh, it’s a state convention. It’s worthy of video coverage. For real cameras, see Mr. Vetanen, who has better gear than most TV stations.
Flood writes “… you should all get together in one big convention and duke it out by voting…”
For starters, they do not agree at all who their members are. Nor do they agree at all whether votes should be done by traveling someplace or voting by mail.
My state does have a convention every year, for the past decade in approximately the geographic center of the state, at a time when bad weather is unlikely though not utterly impossible. (mostly too late for a hurricane, mostly too early for a blizzard.) However, we do not have a quorum requirement, thus avoiding this issue..
Also the LNC did create the problems at the national level by getting involved in the petty fuck-fcuk games, bootstrapping the ORP lawyer and teeing him up, and continuing to mess with our delegations.
Backing the losing side that is also aligned with the Republican Party is something the LNC will not get away from until it apologizes, reverses itself and pays reparations.
Stewart
Oregon fielded the largest block of candidates for office of any state per-capita and was one of the top states nominally.
Why would we go have a pissing match about it when we are one of the most successful states in the country?
Conventions are not the best method of determining consensus… especially in a large state. What conventions determine typically is who can play political fuck you games better when tossed into a room filled with half new people.
There are major reasons why we re-organized the way we did, why it is working and why others would be well advised to emulate it.
There are also reasons why we have major opposition to this and why the players who have invested the most in opposing us are both authoritarian control freaks and also appear to have GOP backing.
You mean there was a coup attempt that followed your coup? You even admitted that your’s was a coup.
None of you have clean hands in this. The LNC did not create Oregon’s problems.
At this point, you should all get together in one big convention and duke it out by voting out whoever can’t bring the most votes. Then the winners can vote in their pet ByLaws-of-the-month.
Of course between both sides you probably don’t have enough of a combined total of supporters to make quorum.
The LNC also gets blamed for hiring the Oregon Republican Party;s general counsel (and son of the then vice-chair and now is the vice-chair) to get an opinion on the matter, then signed a conflict of interest waiver so he could represent Burke et al in suing us after bootstrapping him on the case.
Stewart
The LNC gets blamed because instead of censuring them for appearing under the color of authority, the LNC backed them in the coup attempt.
Someone mentioned the LNC being concerned and sending Mattson and Hinkle. that is not accurate. There was no discussion of anyone going that I was aware of. We heard about their attendance AFTER the convention.
I believe Mr Hinkle — as national chair and living only a few states away — was already planning to attend, so the question is why Mattson, who lived no where near Oregon, attended. I do recall concerns being raised by their regional representative about their ByLaws and lack of quorum, but that was in reference to the November special convention and was months earlier.
And don’t forget that one other LNC member (Hawkridge) was present as well. Her part in helping to start this war is often overlooked. Everyone also seems to overlook the fact that Hinkle was not at the now infamous dinner meeting and was unaware (as he told me the next day) of what they discussed. So if there was a conspiracy of some form, it did not involve the actual LNC. Why did Hawkridge “conveniently” have a camera hidden in a bag and recording? She admitted to this later. Which conspiracy was she part of, and why?
The “blame the LNC” attitude is wrong. We were dragged into this after the fact.
“Hilarious! Are you saying that Hitler was one of the GOOD GUYS?”
Of course not. Please note that I said American history when referring to FDR. 🙂
Jill>” Filing a lawsuit and asking the very state governance that we all loathe to supercede what had happened just because you lost was disgusting.
It seems to me that you have one eye open and the other closed. WHY is it disgusting FOR US, to appeal to the “state court” for justice” when the other faction utilized the “State Secretary’s”
arbitrary decision.to refer to them as the de facto LPO.
Why was the Wagner faction considered the;bone fide State Committee simply because the Sec’y of State listed them as the prima facie State Committee?
Written is:
“All I’ve got to say is WOW! With all of that going for you, you should have no problem winning when you bring your grievances before the National LP’s judicial committee.
What a minute, the National LP’s judicial committee ruled against you when your group brought your grievances before them.
And when you got your friends to bring your grievances to the Libertarian National Committee they ruled that Mr. Wagner’s group was the legitimate Libertarian Party in Oregon. ”
The National judicial Committee doesn’t work that way. The Judicial Committee ruling was on an LNC action. The ruling was totally ambiguous as to whether the Wagner Faction was recognized *because* it was recognized by the Oregon SoS, or whether ‘recognized by the Oregon SoS’ was the descriptor being used to identify the Wagner faction without naming Westin or whoever.
Dave said: “Clearly, as you say, if you opened your mind and even CONSIDERED the possibility that the rules that were violated before they were arbitrarily changed was malfeasance at it’s worse; you WOULD “have to accept that the Reeves group was/is blameless”
You’re not getting it. I started reporting on the Oregon mess without a real feeling of what was going on. The only thing I remember was being disturbed that outsiders (Mattson, Hinkle, etc) were getting involved with the business of a state that wasn’t theirs. I posted maybe 30 articles to IPR. I know just as well as any outsider what happened there. And I gradually picked a side–and it wasn’t yours. You’re being obtuse if you think your people were completely on the up-and-up. Both sides were at fault, and both sides were right. However, one group had clearly won, and it wasn’t yours. Filing a lawsuit and asking the very state governance that we all loathe to supercede what had happened just because you lost was disgusting.
You clearly aren’t seeing things as others do, Dave. I remember reading a letter from the Secretary of State that I considered to be clear as could be that she would recognize the Wagner group, and was stunned that your group didn’t even see it as a setback. You’re truly being delusional.
However, I agree with you when you say “Wishing does not make it so!”.
Stewart Flood> “Why would anyone bring FDR into this? The most evil and destructive purveyor of socialism and statism in American history?
L.O.L.
Hilarious! Are you saying that Hitler was one of the GOOD GUYS?
Jill Pyeatt: “As far as the issue being a cult of personalities, I won’t argue that point. I cannot accept that all this time and money is really about some rules that were changed. If I did, I’d have to accept that the Reeves group was blameless, which, of course, isn’t true at all.
Confession time, Jill?????? Yes you ARE being pedantic and doctrinaire. Clearly, as you say,
if you opened your mind and even CONSIDERED the possibility that the rules that were violated before they were arbitrarily changed was malfeasance at it’s worse; you WOULD “have to accept that the Reeves group was/is blameless
The original players have all changed, and, whether you accept it or not, your group lost
Rave on, Jill. Wishing does not make it so!.
.To think this is anywhere near the issues of FDR or Hitler is truly pathetic.
I ONLY mentioned their names because they were the “heads of state” for two conflicting groups
Would it be LESS “pathetic” if I mentioned Woodrow Wilson and Kaiser Wilhelm????????????
Nope
The national party has to be able to prove they can do the principled thing in the face of being insulted to be worthy of public trust and the right to exist … otherwise the people who run the national party (including the delegates) are incapable of solving the problems they seek public office claiming they are willing and able to solve.
Sarwark has been one of the best at passing these tests of character.
I suspect he will either be unwilling to serve again or possibly voted out by his inferiors.
I hope I am wrong because eventually the LNC might possibly redeem itself and be capable of being more than a parasite on the movement… but I will continue to force resolution of the question.
Mr. Wagner
I hope you realize that the only reason Mr. Burke has been able to drag this on so long is because of your own abusive behavior.
It is possible to stand up to a bully, without becoming a bully.
The entire LNC is not your enemy, and by treating them like the enemy you have driven some of them to Mr. Burke’s side and others to wash their hands of the whole affair when they could have been won over to your side with a firm stance and a little respect.
So can you stop with the flaming fingers and the abusive language, please?
Yup LD everyone who was not part of their coup scheme and who spent any significant time evaluating reality has decided to not back them.. stop backing them.. claim they don’t have authority to entertain them or in the case of the court even if they had the authority … they wouldn’t hear their case.
Mr. Burke
All I’ve got to say is WOW! With all of that going for you, you should have no problem winning when you bring your grievances before the National LP’s judicial committee.
What a minute, the National LP’s judicial committee ruled against you when your group brought your grievances before them.
And when you got your friends to bring your grievances to the Libertarian National Committee they ruled that Mr. Wagner’s group was the legitimate Libertarian Party in Oregon.
And when you sued in Oregon State court, you still lost.
This shows me that while you talk a good game, you have no proof that what you say is correct. While Mr. Wagner’s group seems to be able to back up what they say.
Do you honestly believe that if you repeat the same lies enough times that they will become true?
It was already established in depositions that Burke’s rump meeting had only one individual at it that possibly had valid credentials (maybe) and that the balance were definitely illegitimate. He claims because no one was there to object it counts.. which is ludicrous under so many different forms of law and Roberts.
Anything that happened after that moment is null.
LibertyDave,
Man, you really need to review the chronology if you are going to comment knowledgeably about this.
REGARDING QUESTION 1:
The November 2010 convention was a special convention properly called by the Weston-Wagner led State Committee. It was called to consider the adoption of new bylaws. All agreed it was properly noticed. Special conventions could only include specific items of business for which special conventions are called. This was not the same as the Annual Business Convention that our bylaws required us to hold each year during March where routine party business is conducted.
Previous to the November 2010 special convention, there were disputes about who would be able to vote. Then the LPO Chair, Jeff Weston (Wagner was Vice Chair) delayed the processing of a group of memberships submitted in October because he was afraid that many of them would not vote to enact the new bylaws (they said so in their emails on the topic). They had earlier tried to disenfranchise all of our lifetime members but were reversed by the state Judicial Committee.
In any case, between the membership processing controversy and the lifetime member controversy, the national party was concerned enough to send their national chair and secretary to monitor the event and assure the LNC that nobody was inappropriately excluded and that the convention was fair. If the LNC did not think the proceedings were fair, they might not have recognized any product, such as new governing documents, coming out of the convention.
The quorum problem was discovered during a meeting held the night before the special convention (I was not present at this meeting) when Wes Wagner, Jeff Weston, the LNC Chair, and the LNC Secretary went over issues likely to come up the next day. Specifically, it was discovered that no quorum clause was included in a bylaw amendment supported by Wes Wagner at a late December 2007 special convention. That amendment, which passed, changed LPO convention from events where elected delegates voted to an assembly of members where all members voted. According to RRO, quorum of an Assembly of Members consists of 50%+1 of all members if there is no superseding quorum clause.
LPO Chair Jeff Weston agreed with this interpretation and ruled accordingly when a quorum call was called for at the convention the next day. Mr. Wagner’s poorly written 2007 amendment was the genesis of this whole thing. Had he included a quorum clause in his 2007 amendment, none of this would have happened. Attendance at the Dec. 29th 2007 convention was extraordinarily light, not surprising given it was the holiday season.
After the November 2010 Special Convention, the Weston-Wagner led State Committee then called the March 12, 2011 convention. It was necessary because, although a special convention was held in November of 2010, our bylaws required that a regular annual business convention be held during March for the purpose of conducting routine party business. Nobody has disputed this.
At that convention the quorum requirement was slightly lower because some had not renewed their dues, but we still didn’t make it. For this reason, Mr. Wagner moved that the convention adjourn to a meeting on May 21, 2011 – effectively calling a recess – ostensibly to get both sides to work together for the purpose of mustering a quorum at that time. Mr. Wagner’s motion passed by one vote, then the convention session ended, but not the convention itself.
At this point Jeff Weston resigned, and Wes Wagner legitimately ascended to the position of Chair.
Subsequently, we know what Mr. Wagner and his followers attempted to do at the March 31, 2011 State Committee meeting: 1) Impose new governing documents outside of a properly noticed convention, 2) Appoint officers to begin new two-year terms outside of convention despite the fact there were no vacancies and, 3) Cancel a convention session ordered by a convention session even though State Committee is subordinate to a convention.
WITH REGARD TO QUESTION 2
At the State Committee meeting held at the end of the May 21st session ordered by the March 12th session, the participating county representatives were county representatives or alternates prior to the March 31 split. Some were absent at the March 31 meeting while others were absent at the May 21st post-convention meeting. But all were previously acknowledged to be county representatives prior to March 31st by both sides. This group, duly assembled, sufficient to constitute a quorum of the State Committee, elected a chair pro-tem and secretary pro-tem to start the meeting and then officer vacancies were filled, vacancies created when the 2011 convention adjourned sine die on May 21.
WITH REGARD TO QUESTION 3
With respect to your final question, you are overlooking that there are substantial differences between LPO business conventions and candidate nominating conventions. Registered Libertarians are not necessarily LPO members (even without dues they would still have to affirm the non-aggression pledge to be members). And not all LPO members are necessarily registered Libertarian voters. It has been this way within the LPO long before either Wagner or I appeared on the scene.
In the case of candidate nominating conventions, quorum is 50%+1 of those who show up – Not 50%+1 of LPO members as is the case with business or special conventions.
As previously discussed, we were finally able to fix the quorum problem in 2013, we were able to reach quorum. To do it we had to convince a lot of LPO members to resign their memberships in writing, but in addition to unfortunate deaths, UMP transfers to other states, and other factors previously mentioned, we were able to do it with one or two to spare. The membership list was part of the credentials report adopted unanimously at the 2013 convention. With quorum reached, we were able to fix the quorum problem (and many others) through bylaw amendments. We were able to populate the state Judicial Committee again and continue operating as required by governing documents approved by LPO members at properly noticed conventions.
IRONY
Ostensibly, Mr. Wagner and his supporters felt justified in doing what they did on 3/31/11 because of the quorum problem – such was their big justification. Their new governing documents were supposed to fix all of that. It is ironic, then, that their recent bi-annual convention failed to reach quorum.
Richard P. Burke
Mr. Burke
Are you saying that you, M. Carling, Alicia Mattson, and Mark Hinkle didn’t object to the November 2010 convention doing business because of a lack of quorum? If Oregon could do its business in November 2010 why was it necessary to have another convention 4 months later in March of 2011?
Also when you stated; “As required by our bylaws, the State Committee met immediately after the convention, consisting now only of county representatives.” Were these the same county representatives that were at the state committee meeting where they canceled the May 2011 state convention, changed the bylaws, and appointed Mr. Wagner chair. Or are you going to claim these county representatives terms in office also expired so you could appoint new county representatives so you could have a state committee meeting?
You say you changed the quorum requirement in 2013. So how could your group select candidates for the 2012 election when you couldn’t hold a convention because your group wouldn’t be able to meet the old quorum requirement?
You still sound like the pot calling the kettle black.
Jill,
The original players have not changed. Tim Reeves is still an LPO officer. I am too. Greg Burnett is too. The only new player among us is Ian Epstein, the new LPO Chair. On the other side, Lars Hedbor has been involved in this mess since 2006. And Mark Vetanen. Wes is still a board member for his group if I am not mistaken. Others are likewise involved in one capacity or another.
Mr. Wagner,
Wagner decrees and therefore it is true, right? 😉 Prior to the 2013 convention we deleted dead members (folks who actually died), those whose annual dues had elapsed, those whose UMP lifetime memberships transferred to another state before UMP ended (a surprising number of them), those who “constructively resigned” by serving on Wagner’s board which contended that their organization replaced the one organized according to governing documents approved by members in convention, those who we did not have complete names or contact information for whose existence we could not verify, and those lifetime or annual members who could not attend convention and resigned their memberships voluntarily to help us meet quorum.
All was part of a Credentials Committee report that was accepted unanimously at the 2013 convention at Eagle Crest Resort.
Mr. Wagner asserts that this membership list was pared down illegally, but his assertion does not make it so. Some of his friends should have shown up at the 2013 convention (they were noticed) and raised an objection if there were any problems.
Liberty Dave,
My friend, you need a history refresher. The answer to your question is no.
The May 21st session of the 2011 Annual Business Convention was an adjourned meeting of the March 12th session which took place subsequent to a motion made by Mr. Wagner. On March 31, between the two sessions, Mr. Wagner’s group purportedly canceled the May 21st session. Problem is that the State Committee is subordinate to the convention according to our bylaws so the State Committee did not have authority to cancel the session.
At the May 21st session there were no officers because Mr. Wagner and his fellow officers did not show up. So in accordance with RRO, we appointed a chair pro-tem and a secretary pro-tem who called the convention to order. We did not have quorum, so the convention adjourned sine die. This ended the terms of office of all officers, an interpretation agreed to even by former LPO Chair Jeff Weston.
As required by our bylaws, the State Committee met immediately after the convention, consisting now only of county representatives. We had quorum (though Mr. Wagner disputes this), and without officers appointed a chair pro-tem and a secretary pro-tem. We then went on to fill vacancies. All of this was fully in accordance with our governing documents. Mr. Wagner’s group on 3/31/11, in contrast, went beyond merely filling vacancies and effectively elected officers to new two-year terms.
Concerning the 2013 change in bylaws, we obtained quorum as described in my response to Mr. Wagner as laid out above. Mr. Wagner and his friends don’t like the process used and dispute it’s application, but that is to be expected. His assertion that we did anything “illegal” is just that, an assertion.
Proper notice as described in our governing documents has been provided to LPO membership with respect to every Annual Convention our group has ever convened.
The so-called ratification mail-in election conducted by Wagner’s crew subsequent to his attempted coup was, in fact, illegal. Not because I say so but because our governing documents are very clear about there needing to be a properly noticed convention to amend governing documents. The so-called ratification election also enfranchised people who did not subscribe to the non-aggression pledge, a requirement for LPO membership. We did not participate in this election for these reasons.
In any case, we have made every effort to function in accordance with the legitimate LPO governing documents, namely those which were adopted by LPO members in properly noticed convention.
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
Burke will come back and claim they amended their bylaws in an alleged properly noticed convention … but they illegally deleted members from their memebership roster until it was small enough to meet quorum and match the number of people who showed up.
We documented this during discovery.
Mr. Burke
You keep repeating this about Mr. Wagners group.
2. Is it acceptable to completely replace a party’s governing documents, and appoint a new officer slate, outside of a properly noticed convention as required by existing member-approved governing documents, especially without notice to the membership?
Didn’t your group do this exact same thing when you appointed your selves to the new state committee, then appoint a new officer slate, outside of a properly noticed convention as required by existing member approved governing document, especially without notice to the memberships.
Also didn’t your group then replace the rules on quorum in the governing documents just like Mr. Wagners group,so your group could do business at your conventions with less than 1/3 the members that were at the November 2010 Oregon convention that you and M. Carling from the National LP claimed couldn’t do business because of a lack of quorum and started this whole mess.
The only difference I can see between your group and Mr. Wagners group is that Mr. Wagner did it first then got approval from all registered libertarians in Oregon via mail in ballot. The only people that approved your changes were the same small group that appoint themselves the officers.
Why would anyone bring FDR into this? The most evil and destructive purveyor of socialism and statism in American history?
Dave Terry: You’re actually bringing Godwin’s Law into this discussion of Oregon????
As far as the issue being a cult of personalities, I won’t argue that point. I cannot accept that all this time and money is really about some rules that were changed. If I did, I’d have to accept that the Reeves group was blameless, which, of course, isn’t true at all. The original players have all changed, and, whether you accept it or not, your group lost. Any logical person who has followed this scenario over these past four years would recognize that.
To think this is anywhere near the issues of FDR or Hitler is truly pathetic.
I have given my opinion of Oregon’s situation a number of times in the past. I choose not to add to that discussion anymore. I was clearly responding to the reference by Andy to the other 49 states having internal problems.
He is certainly correct that other state affiliates have issues, some of which have played out as IPR soap operas. Nevada, Pennsylvania, California and others have been fodder over recent years to keep the wolves entertained and our enemies satisfied that we are no threat to their dual-headed dictatorship.
South Carolina is certainly not the only state party where the members and executive committee currently work toward a common goal instead of holding a circular political knife fight.
Jill Pyeatt >May 26, 2015 at 3:31 pm
“Burke said: “delegates overwhelmingly took our side”. Sez you. That doesn’t change the fact that this battle essentially over with. Wagner isn’t chair anymore, nor is Reeves. What is your purpose for pursuing this?
Jill your remark implies that this has been nothing more than a “cult of personality”. What would
you suggest would happen in both FDR and Hitler had died in 1943. Would everyone just lay down their weapons and land their planes and scuttle their PT boats and go home?
1. Is it acceptable to co-opt the force of the state to achieve a political goal?
Like filing a lawsuit if you don’t get your way?
Stewart,
I’m aware. But South Carolina has not had to contend with the three things listed in my last post. If you think this is about egos, personalities, and the like, you’re missing the larger picture. Please re-read.
Richard
“You think the other 49 states don’t have personality and ideological and even fiduciary arguments in their parties.”
We seem to get along very well with each other in South Carolina. Haven’t had a fight in a decade.
All,
If Mr. Wagner and his friends participated in our conventions and took over, we’d respect those outcomes even if their participation resulted in the eventual adoption of Mr. Wagner’s bylaws. After all, prior to 3/21/11 when Mr. Wagner and his friends purportedly replaced the LPO bylaws, our side respected other victories of the Wagner side when they took place – and this included occasional bylaw amendments. Wagner’s people usually respected our victories when we had them, but not always. But no matter.
Our issue is that the party needs to be run and organized according to governing documents approved by members in properly noticed conventions going back to the early 1970s, when neither Wagner or I were around. In the big picture, we don’t care who the party chair is – the organization of a party, including such things as membership rights, officer responsibilities, membership standards, and other important things, are defined by a party’s governing documents.
Our beef is and always has been that we won’t acknowledge as valid the governing documents written by Mr. Wagner and his friends which were purportedly adopted at the 3/31/11 monthly state committee meeting (where the membership was not noticed), not a properly noticed convention, in absolute and acknowledged violation of our bylaws and constitution.
Mr. Wagner and his friends attempted to use a state law which applies exclusively to major parties as a way to legitimize their actions (which says a party’s State Committee is it’s highest authority), and then relied on an unwritten policy of the Secretary of State to stay in charge which said that they would accept any officer lists and governing documents provided to them by the current “Chair of Record.” Co-opting the force of the state to achieve a political goal is not very libertarian.
So those too lazy or disinclined to look deeper into Oregon miss the point. They see it as a personal struggle, a personality conflict, a factional struggle. To be sure, perhaps, the Oregon matter features all of these things. But at the center are important matters all Libertarians say they care about when they sign the pledge line (but do they REALLY?):
1. Is it acceptable to co-opt the force of the state to achieve a political goal?
2. Is it acceptable to completely replace a party’s governing documents, and appoint a new officer slate, outside of a properly noticed convention as required by existing member-approved governing documents, especially without notice to the membership?
3. Is it acceptable for a state committee to cancel a convention-ordered session of a convention when bylaws clearly state that the state committee is subordinate to the will of a convention?
Whether you like Burke, Wagner, both, or neither, the above three questions speak to the heart of everything it means to be a Libertarian and everything that the non-aggression pledge we sign stands for. If the answer to the above three questions are all “YES”, then what is to stop the same thing from happening in YOUR state? Or within the LNC? Would that be acceptable to you?
Richard P. Burke, Secretary
Libertarian Party of Oregon
AndyCraig
For someone who seems to understand that Burke is reading things into stuff that is not there… you make the same error.
The reason no one wanted to discuss the national issue is that no binding resolution could have been made that day. If you think the issues with national are not well shared I invite you to join our facebook group and read the archives.
You will arrive at a completely different opinion of the general support for telling national to go die in a fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SMWJ9yj9cY
Even your own state convention delegates were so disinterested in the question of disaffiliation that they declined to take it up. It seems pretty clear that it’s a small inner circle who cares about that based on their own personal grievances, not the ten thousand plus Libertarians living in Oregon who feel some sense of outrage demanding national LP be punished. I doubt if even most of them could explain the dispute.
This has long passed the point of self-parody. Most national delegates were just disgusted with being asked to settle a credentials fight when 3/4 of the assigned seats are empty and normal practice is for just about anybody who shows up to get to be a delegate. If Oregon got slighted and its precious procedural rights infringed, that’s what Oregon gets for bringing its state drama to the national convention floor and wasting everybody else’s time with it. You think the other 49 states don’t have personality and ideological and even fiduciary arguments in their parties? Feuding factions and sometimes even legal disputes? If the national convention was tasked with sorting all that out, it would run for three months and never address any other business.
If you ask a stupid question, like demanding the hundreds of uninformed and disinterested national delegates sort out the LPO dispute using their precious and expensive limited time during a national convention, don’t be surprised when you get a stupid answer. At some point people have to just get over it, even if the wrong decision was made.
One thing I have to give the LP warring factions in Oregon…they both keep it real!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIrtSDVbz0s
At this point the officers of the party are all people who had no hand in the original kerfuffle … the problem is that the actions of national against this state’s sovereignty hardened them against the national party along the way.
They were/are very reasonable people … and that is precisely the problem for national.
Paulie’s well-informed guess- that most delegates were just voting to be inclusive and weren’t informed of the details and didn’t care to become informed about it- is what literally every single person I’ve talked to who was there has said. The only exceptions are those directly involved in this perpetual pissing match, which is another common phrase I’ve heard used by delegates to describe it.
At this point if there’s any consensus at all in the party- and 99% of Libertarians still have no idea what’s going on in OR- it’s a pox on both your houses for dragging this out so long and at such cost for such marginal, petty reasons, and for constantly seeking to embroil the national party in it.
If I lived in OR, honestly at this point I’d say nuke them both and start from scratch with all-new officers recruited from outside either camp. Might be drastic but it could hardly be worse at this point. With the money saved, rent a cage match setup and give the members at large of LPO their money’s worth.
Settling the suit has potential ramifications for the LPO .. and packing a convention that way is poor form, but we would do it just to compel the original alleged dues paying members of the LPO to keep their promise they made in 2010.
They’re two different things. I am not certain I’m right, nor am I operating without first hand evidence, so it’s not an assumption.
Again, I was there and my sense is that most of them didn’t. As with 2014, the key point in your favor in most people’s minds, as far as I could see, was that you would include the other side’s delegates in your delegation, and that they wouldn’t include yours.
I admit that some of them had various degrees of knowledge, but my sense is that most of them didn’t, and that most delegates rarely read such handouts which as you know are among many different handouts they get while they are also partying (or hung over), socializing, doing/trying to follow business, etc, etc – all at the same time. And the percent of repeat delegates is, if I am not mistaken, a minority. Even lower when you consider some of the repeats are coming back after missing several. And even of repeat delegates I spoke to, most had very little knowledge about the Oregon issues and didn’t care much either.
When you put it like that, absent additional information, I don’t either. I’m sure Wagner could come up with similar-length soundbites that would put most people on his side, too.
I still think that in both 2012 and 2014 most of the delegates that voted simply believed they were voting to be inclusive, and that’s as deeply as they thought about it. However, I am not assuming that is necessarily the case. Nor am I guessing blindly.
Then why are you still adding to the ever growing pile of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars? People keep talking about how much money Aaron Starr is spending, and they have a valid point but you are spending several times as much. You can say it is in self-defense, but you just admitted there’s a cheaper way to get to your goals. Don’t you have better uses for your time, money and energy?
If what you say is true, you should go ahead and settle the lawsuit, pack the convention, and implement your bylaws through their process. Then neither side can claim that the bylaws aren’t being followed. And you can put your money towards something more productive than defending against the lawsuit. Unless you really believe that’s the best use for those hundreds of thousands of FRNs?
In theory if Burke prevailed in his case, we would just hire paid actors and homeless people to show up at a convention, vote in the current bylaws. It would be cheaper than litigation and even less pointless.
Paulie,
Guess, assumption, whatever you want to call it, we could argue endlessly about the intent of delegates at the 2012 and 2014 convention. As for me, the record seems to support our side. In 2012, delegates actually chose between two separate delegations, when the handouts provided by both sides were supplemented by a fairly detailed floor debate that exists in the recordings but was not reflected in the convention minutes. Delegates knew what they were voting on.
At the 2014 convention, the meaning of the vote was fuzzier given that, rather than choose between two delegations, convention delegates voted to supplement the Oregon delegation over the objections of Mr. Wagner and Mr. Weston. Still, there were a fair number of repeat delegates who were again regaled with updated informational fliers from both sides. To say that delegates had no idea what they were voting on beyond including people is a bit disingenuous.
I’m sure you are quite right when you say that most people don’t know who I am, who Mr. Wagner is, or who any of the other individual actors are. To the extent we are known among delegates, none of us are likely to win any popularity contests.
But based on the 2012 floor debate and the handouts provided over two conventions, most delegates do not seem to believe that it is proper that a state affiliate’s bylaws can be legitimately amended or replaced outside of a properly noticed convention as required by that affiliate’s bylaws (explicitly discussed in 2012). I am also pretty sure that most of the delegates think it is wrong to co-opt the force of government as Mr. Wagner has tried to do (through the Sec. of State’s unwritten “Current Chair of Record” policy) to achieve a political goal as evidenced by the pledge national party members sign when they join.
Jill,
It doesn’t matter who is “in charge,” be it Reeves, Wagner, or anyone else. Not the point. As I have pointed out from the start, our goal is to restore LPO governance to that which is defined by LPO members at properly noticed conventions. And, although you say that it is “over” because the judge made a ruling, litigation is still active. Earlier in the process, we won a series of rulings – but you didn’t say it was over then. Why? It wasn’t, of course, just as it is not over now. If we win our appeal, will you then declare it over if Mr. Wagner and his friends continue to fight?
Richard P. Burke
Sure, some peole read them. I would guess a pretty small percentage, though.
I was there for the 2012 debate. I don’t think most people really got much of an understanding – again from that debate if I was new and hadn’t been following these discussions (like most people there) I would just connclude the issue was about being inclusive and seating people who wanted to be seated.
I also wouldn’t draw conclusions from chair vote totals. There were lots of candidates, and I didn’t vote for Wagner for chair either. That doesn’t mean I take your side in the Oregon disputes.
Again, I don’t know for sure, but my best guess (not assumption) is that a large majority of convention delegates don’t know or care who you or Wes Wagner or Lars Hedbor or Reeves or Epstein et al are, and either don’t know about the Oregon dispute at all, don’t care, or think something roughly along the lines of “I wish they would all just grow up and get over it already.”
Again, that’s not an assumption, I could be wrong. Just my best guess based on talking to a lot of delegates of all different kinds from many different states. Most of them, at every convention I have been to, not very up to speed or concerned about intra-LP turf fights, especially from states other than their own.
Burke said: “delegates overwhelmingly took our side”. Sez you. That doesn’t change the fact that this battle essentially over with. Wagner isn’t chair anymore, nor is Reeves. What is your purpose for pursuing this?
Paulie,
A lot of assumptions there. Handouts over two years from both sides? Somebody read them.
I suspect few delegates went into the weeds concerning Oregon, but I think a lot of them know the broad outlines. In 2012 there was a more detailed floor debate about it than there was in in 2014, and delegates overwhelmingly took our side. Might be why Mr. Wagner got something like 9 votes when he ran for LNC Chair that year.
Richard P. Burke
I know that both Oregon warring factions circulate handouts to all the delegate tables, but I doubt that most delegates read them. I would guess most of them have no idea who Burke and Wagner are or anything about the LPO conflicts. My best guess is that most are just voting to be inclusive and seat everyone.
Burke: “It does highlight the hypocrisy of a group of Oregon Libertarian claiming to want more elected Libertarians but choosing to spend $10,000 to unseat me …”
Not really, because the Wagner faction probably doesn’t regard the Burke faction as true libertarians. And visa versa.
Opposing factions within the same political movement often regard each other as tools of the ruling establishment. So there’s no hypocrisy in fighting the opposing faction’s candidate.
I try, with varying degrees of success. I don’t believe that any such thing as perfect objectivity exists, much less that mainstream media manifest it, but I do try to be reasonably even-handed and give people the benefit of the doubt and plenty of chances, to the best of my ability.
Chuck,
Thank you.
Rich
I think it is indicative of my standing within the confines of IPR which is not the same as one’s standing within the larger Libertarian community. Perhaps that widest expression of that comes from what happens at national Libertarian Party Conventions.
Congrats on your re-election!
Burke was referring to the low comment density related to the actual news vs the article announcing Hedbor running … and so was I.
It’s indicative of this being a volunteer-run website where all of us have other obligations, and nothing more than that. The news was duly posted and commented on.
IPR has never exactly been a breaking-news type outfit. We get to things when we can. Personally, when somebody else has already posted about something I usually leave it to them to post any follow-ups, unless I’m personally requested otherwise.
It is indicative of your standing in the Libertarian community.
Mark,
Thank you for Mark for you congratulations. I hope all is going well up in New York and for the New York LP.
Others… my re-election is not meant to prove anything with respect to the conflict that exists in Oregon. Despite what some may want to think, the litigation is still very active. But…
It does highlight the hypocrisy of a group of Oregon Libertarian claiming to want more elected Libertarians but choosing to spend $10,000 to unseat me instead of running against a very liberal Democrat who was running unopposed.
It also highlights some hypocrisy among those who run or read IPR who thought that Hedbor’s challenge against me was newsworthy (hundreds of posts on that one) while the outcome of the race was not. It was my eighth win since 1993 in a contested local race for re-election to my third public office. I recognize I have may have more than my share of faults but how many Libertarians have pulled that off?
On another note, I have had some good email exchanges with Paulie. He didn’t post the entire thread, but I found him to be responsive and reasonable. Thanks, Paulie.
Richard P Burke
That was back on the 20th, but thanks!
Others may find this stuff interesting, I tired of it long ago.
That makes two of us!
Richard Burke–Congratulations on your victory. It’s always good when Libertarians are elected to political office and I wish you much success fighting the big government statists.
Paulie–Happy Birthday!!
I don’t know what Burke or Dr. Lieberman think this small electoral victory is supposed to show.
That Burke’s faction is the legitimate LPO faction? Well, no. The courts have said otherwise.
That this small victory cancels out all the court and convention victories of the Wagner faction? Well, no. It doesn’t.
What does Dr. Lieberman think the takeaway is supposed to be?
Scott Lieberman wrote: “Does Ms.Pyeatt hope that Mr. Hedbor runs again in 2 years, or does Ms. Pyeatt hope that Mr. Hedbor will wait four years to run again so that he can specifically beat Mr. Burke?
Actually, Mr. Burke already answered that question by noting that Hedbor HAD the option of running for one of the OTHER seats on the board, but CHOSE to run against Burke.
Well said, Jed. I agree with everything you said. I’ve posted a few things in the past year in the interest of continuity. but there’s much more I haven’t posted. I kind of consider things were settled in May of 2013, and despite the hopeful musings of the Reeves group that it isn’t over, I’ll worry about more current issues.
Besides, Jed and Andy Craig do such a good job of posting articles, along with Paulie when he can, that I’m able to concentrate on other things going on in my life. It’s a WIN-WIN, as I see it.
He was also a national convention delegate at the most recent convention, even if you don’t consider that credentialing to have been legitimate.
A far as I know, Burke is a registered Oregon Libertarian, so by the membership definition of the Wagner/Hedbor group he is a Libertarian.
“Oregon Libertarians over-estimating how interested the rest of the country is in their drama?
No.”
IPR keeps giving them coverage, so it’s our own damn fault. There is a reason I don’t touch anything related to the Oregon Libertarians. Mr. Burke was throwing a bitch fit about this article not getting posted. While I can’t speak for the other writers, I will speak for myself: stop acting like children, and I’ll be glad to report on the Libertarian Party of Oregon. As it stands, I consider anything regarding Richard Burke, Wes Wagner, or any of the others less newsworthy than Nazi ramblings & Communist Party pro-Democrat propaganda. Everything Oregon Libertarian related that I find in my inbox goes straight to trash. Others may find this stuff interesting, I tired of it long ago.
I will say, since a judge already declared the Wagner faction to be the legitimate party, I fail to see how this was a Libertarian vs. Libertarian race. At best it was a Libertarian vs. “Libertarian” race.
“Scott asked: “Does Ms.Pyeatt hope that Mr. Hedbor runs again in 2 years, or does Ms. Pyeatt hope that Mr. Hedbor will wait four years to run again so that he can specifically beat Mr. Burke?”
I really don’t care, Scott. I have the terrible condition of my own state party to worry about.
“Jill Pyeatt
May 24, 2015 at 1:17 pm
Yeah, Burke won, but Lars got a decent percent, enough to indicate he could win next time.”
Does Ms.Pyeatt hope that Mr. Hedbor runs again in 2 years, or does Ms. Pyeatt hope that Mr. Hedbor will wait four years to run again so that he can specifically beat Mr. Burke?
I wasn’t going to comment, because I didn’t have anything nice to say. I will, though: Yeah, Burke won, but Lars got a decent percent, enough to indicate he could win next time.
I know, sounds pretty far fetched, right?
Oregon Libertarians over-estimating how interested the rest of the country is in their drama?
No.
Burke and Lieberman’s emails to me said they were eagerly awaiting the comments on this one. So far it’s been a dud. We’ll see whether that changes.
RB: “Mr. Hedbor’s, Mr. Wagner’s, Mr. Markley’s, and Mr. Weston’s campaign did nobody in the Libertarian Party a service from a party growth perspective – it only served to highlight dysfunction within Oregon’s Libertarian Party.”
The phrase “Rule or Ruin” comes to mind.