One of two alternates recently elected to represent Region 1 on the Libertarian National Committee in the event their regional representative is unable to vote was not seated, according to party correspondence over the weekend.
Earlier this month, the Libertarian National Committee announced that Austin Martin of Hawaii and James Wiley of Colorado had been elected by Region 1 state affiliate leaders to serve as alternates to the national body. Martin is chair of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, and Wiley is the executive director of the Libertarian Party of Colorado. They were elected to serve as the first and second alternates, respectively.
However, in an update posted Saturday to the Libertarian National Committee’s public business list, it was clarified that only Martin would be seated as the first alternate and that inquiries should be directed to the committee for further details.
A member of the Libertarian National Committee confirmed to Independent Political Report on Monday that Wiley was not seated because he was not a sustaining member at the time of the election. According to the party’s most recent Region Formation Manual, regional representatives and their alternates must be sustaining members of the national party to be eligible.
“Pursuant to Bylaw Article 7.4 above, Regional Representative and Alternates must be Sustaining Members of the national Party,” the manual reads. “It is the responsibility of each region to verify the eligibility of persons prior to their election.”
While Wiley was ineligible for the role at the time of the vote, IPR was told he still has the option to become a sustaining member and be re-elected if Region 1 chooses to do so. Region 1 includes Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Arizona, Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin.
Dr. Phillies got that right. We don’t cancel election results in America. No matter how much we dislike the election winner.
Anonymous Observer missed the point that this situation to Wrights is more egregious. The LP Bylaws provide exclusively to the right of the region to select its representative or alternative while the right to recognize an LNC at-large member is with the LNC itself. This isn’t about Mr. Wiley’s due process but that of the region which has rights established in the Bylaws.
From a parliamentary law perspective, which solution is the least harmful to the LP Bylaws: 1) not seating Mr. Wiley as advanced by the LNC or 2) recognizing Mr. Wiley after he paid his $25 to update his sustaining membership status? The latter option is clearly the better outcome in terms of RONR.
Remember, the election was held weeks ago and only the Thursday before the quarterly LNC meeting (as people were arriving in Michigan) was he informed he would not be seated. Mr. Wiley was said to have immediately paid his $25 on Thursday but was refused to be recognized at the LNC meeting. This all seems a petty surprise from LNC secretary abusing her power to pursue a personal vendetta.
I’m not a bylaws expert and don’t want to become one, and don’t know Wiley from Adam’s housecat much less care whether or not he’s on lnc, but I read the preceding three comments three times each, and I don’t see how Nolan’s duty missed the point. Instead, based on this reading alone, it was the Anonymous Observer who missed Nolan’s Duty’s (I thought well expressed – I have no idea or preference whether well taken) point.
As for whether the US Senate is a precedent, I gather they operate under entirely different bylaws?
There is a historical precedent, involving The United States Senate. A person was elected as a Senator who was not yet 35. The election was properly conducted. The person had to wait a few weeks for his 35th birthday and then took office. Similarly here there is a correctable deficiency, meaning the electee needs fork over the $25.
Nolan’s Duty misses the point.
Wiley was never eligible in the first place because he was not a sustaining member at all. He didn’t meet the requirements out of the gate. It doesn’t matter who you are, if you don’t meet the requirements, you’re ineligible to be elected to the position.
Wrights, in contrast, was a member who lapsed and wasn’t told at the time that it was lapsing, then Sullentrop unilaterally claimed him off the LNC, even though Haugh paid Wrights’ dues.
Wrights, Ruwart, and Seebeck argued before the JC (against Mattson for the LNC) that due process was not followed and a lapse in membership is not cause for removal, either. They won; Mattson lost.
Seebeck chronicled it all here: https://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/timeline-of-duesgate.html?m=1
As Nekhalia said over the weekend, it’s procedural, not political.
Your interpretation about the manual is incorrect. The LNC has no authority to determine the representation of regions which is only provided to the regions themselves to decide.
LP Bylaw Article 7.8 reads, “A National Committee Regional Representative or Alternate may be removed and replaced only by the act of the affiliate parties that constitute the subject region.”
Just as important, the LP Bylaws do not say that failure of an LNC member to be a sustaining member means that are ineligible to be elected or have automatically vacated the seat.
Interestingly enough, the only way for a vacancy to be created for at large seats on the LNC (not a regional representative or alternate) is death, resignation, absenteeism or removal by 2/3rds vote of the LNC as a disciplinary remedy.
There is no mechanism present in these Bylaws to authorize the LNC to block an election of an LNC member by delegates, a majority of LNC members or Region caucus despite LP Bylaw Article 7.4 reading “A National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party, and shall not be the candidate of any party except the Party or an affiliate.”
Nick Sarwark chairing the Judicial Committee in 2009 wrote the majority Wrights Opinion stating (Note: The Bylaws have been updated since changing the citation location):
“While there is dispute about whether this language specifically requires continuing sustaining membership
and the effect of a lapse in that membership, there is no dispute about whether the Bylaw
contains specific enforcement language. It does not.
It is clear from other sections of the Bylaws that when the delegates intend to make a provision mandatory, they are capable of enacting clear language to that effect. (See, e.g., the third paragraph of LP Bylaws 8.5 (requiring a member who misses two consecutive meetings to be removed)). It is also clear that the delegates are capable of writing language prohibiting action, such as LP Bylaws 8.7, which reads in part, “A National Committee Regional Representative may be removed and replaced only by the act of the affiliate parties which constitute the subject region.”‘
In other words, this authorization was made up and demand for a new election is only designed to frustrate Region 1 which has been in a long feud with the LNC Secretary (the subject of lawsuits, JC appeals and more).