Below are remarks of Libertarian National Committee at-large rep Alicia Mattson, as prepared for delivery in last week’s Judicial Committee teleconference about Lee Wrights’ removal from, and reappointement to, the LNC.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Let me echo thanks to the members of the Judicial Committee for their
willingness to serve on this committee.
I have a request to make of you. It is the nature of human beings to make an
emotional decision first, and then later review the facts. It’s much harder to
distance yourself from that natural reaction and let the facts of the matter
lead you to the conclusion. I’m asking you to set aside any personal
prejudices you have for or against any particular participants in this matter.
I’m asking you to rise above some natural human tendencies and only
consider the facts that are relevant here.
If all of us agreed about what to do all the time, we wouldn’t need any
organizational rules. The purpose of our organization having bylaws and
adopting Robert’s Rules of Order is to guide us when we DON’T all agree.
Our convention delegates create our bylaws to define how they want the
organization to operate. Our bylaws were created long before this problem
arose, and 2/3rds of the voting delegates agreed that LNC eligibility
requirements were important and necessary. Our bylaws exist to prevent a
small group – unrepresentative of the delegates – from “winging it” when
these problems arise.
Personality conflicts are irrelevant to this hearing. The number of
anonymous people claiming to leave the LP over this subject is irrelevant.
Disputes about FEC rules are irrelevant to this hearing. We are a party that
advocates personal responsibility, and LNC members have personal
responsibilities to maintain their own membership status, whether or not
they get courtesy renewal prompts from the party. Along the way, there
have even been easily disproved allegations of database tampering as part of
a conspiracy theory. None of these are relevant to the question before us.
This hearing is about nothing except whether the LNC and the Judicial
Committee will respect the will of the convention delegates who adopted our
bylaws.
Next, I’d like to take a few moments to address some of the procedural
concerns that many of us have about this Judicial Committee hearing.
The Judicial Committee has accepted a portion of an appeal from R. Lee
Wrights involving the question “Does a lapse in dues require a ‘for cause’
removal described in Article 8, section 5?”
In an email exchange with an LNC member on this very topic, one member
of the Judicial Committee said that it is inappropriate for the Judicial
Committee to deal with hypothetical questions. But the question at hand,
“Does a lapse in dues require a ‘for cause’ removal described in Article 8,
Section 5?” is precisely a hypothetical question. Though we all know the
background, the question makes no reference to a specific act that the LNC
supposedly took in violation of the Bylaws.
We continue to assert that the LNC did not suspend the appellant under
Article 8.5. His personal negligence resulted in his failing to meet the
bylaws eligibility requirements of Article 5.6 to serve on the LNC. He
became ineligible to hold the office. He was not suspended. The Judicial
Committee does not have jurisdiction over this situation under Article 8.5.
We continue to assert that the subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial
Committee is limited by the LP Bylaws Article 9.2 which reads, “The
subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is limited to
consideration of only those matters expressly identified as follows:” In that
listing that follows, the only way this Committee could hear a case regarding
matters of eligibility for LNC membership listed in Article 5.6 and repeated
again in Article 8.4 would be by a Denver delegate petition as specified in
Article 8.11, not by request of a single appellant.
Even if this were a question of Article 8.5 over which the Judicial
Committee had jurisdiction with this appeal, per the provisions of that
Article 8.5, the Judicial Committee would only be permitted to do one of
two things with it, “either affirm the National Committee’s suspension of the
member-at-large or order reinstatement of the member-at-large within 30
days of the hearing.”
The Judicial Committee cannot affirm a suspension that never happened.
And the appellant has been reappointed by the LNC to fill the vacancy
created by his own lapse of sustaining membership, so neither can the
Judicial Committee order reinstatement of someone who is already serving
on the LNC. So it is not clear what the Judicial Committee expects they can
do in this hearing.
This is not a court of common law. As such, the presentation of any legal
doctrine (including the doctrine of stare decisis which would suggest that
future Judicial Committee rulings could be bound by a precedent from this
hearing) – does not apply here. Such legal doctrines are outside the
boundaries of how this Judicial Committee may operate. The Judicial
Committee is specifically limited to deciding on specific and past, not
hypothetical future, actions of the LNC. The Judicial Committee is to
exercise its duties in accordance only with our bylaws, and the parliamentary
authority adopted in our bylaws…not expand its powers with external legal
doctrines.
Now leaving all that aside, you are here, you are having this hearing, so let’s
deal with the merits of the case.
There are two questions that are important here:
• Must a member of the LNC maintain eligibility requirements
specified in Bylaw Article 5.6 in order to continue service on the
LNC?
• May the LNC through any act (or failure to act) ignore the eligibility
requirements specified in Bylaw Article 5.6?
LP Bylaws Article 5 defines levels of membership in this party. At the end
of that article, Section 6 reads as follows: “Only sustaining members shall
be counted for delegate apportionment and National Committee
representation. Only sustaining members shall be eligible to hold National
Party office or be a candidate for President or Vice-President.”
Regarding the first question (must an LNC member maintain eligibility to
continue to serve), the language of Bylaw Article 5.6 unambiguously states
that one must be a sustaining member to be “eligible to hold” the office.
The delegates could have limited the language to say you only had to be a
sustaining member to be elected, but evidently they believed that the
requirement to be a sustaining member should be ongoing throughout the
term of office.
Prior to tonight, no one, including the appellant, contested whether his
sustaining membership lapsed. He has made public comments
acknowledging his failure to meet the sustaining membership requirement.
The answer to the first question is self-evident. An LNC member must
maintain their eligibility in order to continue to hold the office. The
appellant failed to do that, so he could not hold the office.
Regarding the second question, (May the LNC through any act -or failure to
act- ignore the eligibility requirements specified in Bylaw Article 5.6?) some
individuals assert that the LNC is required to conduct a vote to enforce the
bylaws. And that somehow, if we just didn’t bother to vote, the LNC would
be free to ignore any requirement imposed by the delegates in convention.
No vote of the LNC, even if unanimous, can suspend the Bylaws. The
inability to override the bylaws is discussed throughout RONR.
“Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended
– no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how
inconvenient the rule in question may be – unless the particular rule
specifically provides for its own suspension ….” – RONR (10th ed.),
p. 254, lines 28-32.
Let me ask you this. Would the LNC have the right to pass or even consider
a motion that read, “John Doe is a member of the LNC even though he does
not meet the eligibility requirements under our bylaws?”
Of course not. The LNC had no option to keep the appellant in his office
once he became ineligible. To even allow a vote on that motion would be
considered improper.
“Motions that conflict with the corporate charter, constitution or
bylaws of a society, or with procedural rules prescribed by national,
state or local laws, are out of order, and if any motion of this kind is
adopted, it is null and void.” – RONR (10th ed.), p. 322, lines 15-18.
Consider also the following problem: If an LNC member’s failure to meet
eligibility requirements could only be enforced with a “for cause”
suspension per article 7.8 for officers or 8.5 for at-large members, you must
conclude that the delegates did not intend for the eligibility requirements in
Article 5.6 to be enforceable against regional reps because the LNC has no
power to remove a regional rep, even for cause. With this logic, a region
could knowingly ignore the eligibility requirements, appoint Nancy Pelosi to
the LNC while she is running for re-election as a Democrat and while she
refuses to join the LP, and this argument would say the LNC must seat her
as a member. Only the region can remove a regional rep, and regions don’t
get to ignore the bylaws any more than the LNC does. Our convention
delegates did not create an absurd situation where the LNC would have to
seat an ineligible member just because the region refused to respect the
bylaws. Eligibility requirements in Articles 5.6 and 8.4 must be enforceable
for ALL LNC members, whether or not the LNC has the additional power to
remove them for cause.
The phrase “for cause” used in Article 8.5 is described in Robert’s Rules on
page 642 as being “misconduct or neglect of duty in office”. Eligibility
requirements must be met to even hold the office. Only while you’re
holding the office could you possibly engage in misconduct or neglect of
duty in office. If our secretary intentionally published blatantly false
minutes, that would be misconduct in office subject to a “for cause”
suspension. If our treasurer failed to produce an annual financial report, that
would be neglect of duty in office, also subject to a “for cause” suspension.
The appellant’s failure to maintain eligibility requirements to hold office
was not misconduct or neglect of duty in office, so it’s not a “cause”
requiring a suspension vote.
Eligibility and misconduct are very different concepts. If our bylaws also
required that an LNC member must be less than 60 years old to be eligible to
hold office, reaching one’s 60th birthday while in office would not be an act
of misconduct. The 60-year old would simply become ineligible, and his
seat would become vacant. The LNC would not vote on whether there was
“cause” to suspend that person subject to a Judicial Committee appeal.
I’ll spend the rest of my time talking about due process. It has been alleged
that the appellant has not had the benefit of “due process” here, and we have
some obligation to make Article 8.5 apply to subjects outside of 8.5 or else
there has been no due process.
The definition of “due process” is simply the concept that government must
respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law.
The “law” in this situation is our party’s bylaws, so the question of “due
process” is what process is “due” to him according to our bylaws. “Due
process” does not in and of itself grant any specific process not created in
the bylaws, but merely asks if the bylaws were followed. Whatever is in the
bylaws, that’s the process that is “due”.
If our bylaws create no appeal process to a particular situation (such as an
immediate vacancy when an LNC member misses two consecutive
meetings), he only gets the process that is “due” to him in the bylaws. An
LNC member who vacated their seat in such a way could not validly argue
they were being deprived of any “due process”.
Robert’s Rules of Order does have some automatic processes in place for an
organization to deal with disputes about the rules. That process was used in
this situation. Here’s how it worked. When the appellant’s ineligibility was
noted and his position was declared vacant, four members of the LNC used
parliamentary process to question the situation. They moved (I’m
paraphrasing) that because the LNC had not suspended the appellant, he was
still an At-Large Representative. The chair saw the motion to be in conflict
with eligibility requirements in our party’s bylaws, and he had a duty to rule
that motion out of order. The chair’s ruling was appealed. For 15 days the
LNC members had a chance to consider our rules, discuss the matter, and
then vote. The overwhelming majority of the LNC saw that the appellant
was out of compliance with the eligibility requirements of the bylaws, and
they voted to uphold the ruling of the chair.
In a brief submitted to this committee arguing for the appellant, the author
contends that only if the LNC had voted to overturn the ruling of the chair
would the appellant have received the process he was “due”. “Due process”
is not “due outcome”. It just asks if the process prescribed by the bylaws
was correctly followed, and it was. There is no other process in our bylaws
to deal with LNC eligibility issues.
CONCLUSION
It would take much longer than the time allotted here today to address
everything I would like to address. But I think I have covered the core
issues and facts.
Our role here is simply to study a question of bylaws and ask if they were
followed.
The appellant’s sustaining membership was lapsed. He has publicly
acknowledged that he was lapsed. The only question left to consider is what
our bylaws say about the matter.
The Judicial Committee is hearing a hypothetical question for which they
can prescribe no remedy. But the answer to the question, “Does a lapse in
dues require a ‘for cause’ removal described in Article 8, section 5?” – the
answer is “no”.
Bylaws Article 5.6 clearly gives us no choice. The appellant became
ineligible to hold the office, and his seat was vacated. The LNC does not
have the option of ignoring the eligibility requirements of the Bylaws Article
5.6. For our secretary and chair to have ignored the ineligibility would have
been a neglect of their duty in office. This situation has already been
remedied with the only legal option available to us, re-appointing the
appellant to fill the vacant seat once he re-established his eligibility.
Our bylaws only allow “for cause” suspensions for issues of misconduct, not
for questions of eligibility. Besides the process already conducted by the
LNC of sustaining the ruling of the chair on the question, there is no other
process in our bylaws to deal with LNC eligibility issues. The appellant
received the process “due” to him according to our bylaws.
In the email from the Judicial Committee announcing the format for this
hearing, the author concluded with, “I look forward to a principled
conclusion to this matter.” The Judicial Committee’s role is not to reach a
particular conclusion, but to follow a principled process. Your duty and our
duty is to follow the process even if the logical conclusion does not meet our
personal desires about what we would like the rules to be. I hope you will
have open minds, consider the facts and arguments, and follow a principled
process to reach your conclusion.
I ask that you affirm what we already know to be true:
That the appellant became ineligible to hold his seat in accordance with
Article 5.6 and that the LNC followed the only legal process available to it
to reappoint him to the vacancy.
Thank you for your service. I am available to answer any other questions
you may have.
Alicia Mattson
I just find that this whole thing revolves around a membership-club model (one that we attempted to abolish, in favor of a political-party one, while I was on the LNC), whereby “dues” and “member services” supplant (in both importance, priority and revenue-source!) the more logical forms of donations, pledges and contributions (of not only money, but of time and talent).
I’m so glad I have found better ways of spending my time and working for liberty …
Even if there was a group effort to not inform a member of the LNC of an impending expiration of eligible status, I don’t see how that absolves the LNC member of the responsibility to maintain eligibility to serve.
An absence of a reminder of a responsibility does not alter the responsibility. The interactions or lack of actions on the part of certain LNC members had absolutely no bearing on the status of any other committee member.
The actions may have been childish, they may have been rude, they may have been less than professional or they may have been returning similar behavior, but they are not the cause of the lapse of eligible status of anyone.
Whether there was any collusion to not inform or not may be a matter of curiosity and intrigue, however it has no bearing on the immediate issue of eligibility to serve.
The only reasons I see for pursuing that particular matter would be to try a “for cause” removal of LNC members involved for unprofessional actions or to fan the flames of factional rivalry. Neither appears to me to be a productive use of time.
Bob Capozzi wrote (#13):
Michael Seebeck wrote (#17):
George Phillies wrote (#18):
I will substantiate Bob Capozzi’s claim. In my opinion this is a key piece of the puzzle showing a careful plan.
On April 12, 2009 Aaron Starr sent an email to the Bylaws Committee presenting a hypothetical question regarding Bylaw 3.5. He asked how members of the Bylaws Committee — especially those also on the Judicial Committee — would interpret 3.5. The Bylaws Committee contains two Judicial Committee members: Nick Sarwark and Ruth Bennett.
Several Bylaws Committee and Judicial Committee members subsequently weighed in, interpreting Bylaw 3.5 much like birthdays would operate. (It was pointed out that a “365 days” wording wouldn’t work for leap year.) I agree with that interpretation.
Note this was 2 days before April 14th, when the LNC Secretary emailed the LNC and Lee Wrights. It was 4 days after April 8th, when Wrights’ membership expired. You can see where this fits into the timeline put together by Michael Seebeck.
http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/timeline-of-duesgate.html
In my opinion the reason Bylaw 3.5 wasn’t discussed after this controversy came to light was that it had already been dealt with beforehand masked as a hypothetical question. One can only speculate whether notice would have been postponed until May 1, 2009 if the consensus interpretation of 3.5 had gone the other way.
I have no plans to post the email itself. Aaron Starr can feel free to do so if he desires and/or feels it vindicates him.
Geoffrey, a very nice attempt to substitute one set of rules for another. You haven’t read the rules for the LNC, nor for the party members, so you are simply trying to substitute this lame, statist driver license thing for the rules in question.
In fact, many organisations say that membership expires in a particular month, when that month ends, not on a particular day. What’s more, the adversarial relationship between the evil vicious pig who wants to hurt people for driving without state sanction is not the sort of relationship that Bill Redpath as chair of the party is supposed to have with his fellow libertarians on the LNC.
Redpath admits that he allowed personal animosity to destroy party harmony. Doing so was a personal choice on his part and a bad one.
You trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear by artful substitution tricks is not working out. And was a lame, foolish effort to begin with.
I am very sad to learn that you are teaching your grandchild to be a slave of the state.
I rather find this discussion quite silly really. Just out of pure curiosity (or fun for that matter) I asked my little granddaughter the following:
iq) When is your day of birth?
ia) 1999, 15 December
iiq) What happens 12 months from that date?
iia) Another birthday!
iiiq) Grandpop’s driver permit is good through 12 months from the first of June. What happens if the constable stops Grandpop 12 months plus a day from that date (2010, 2 June)?
iiia) Grandpop would be penalized for driving without a permit!
iiiq) What happens when Grandpop tells the nice constable that his drivers permit actually is good for 12 months meaning that he does not really expire until the end of June?
iiia) Grandpop is arrested for insulting the nice constables intelligence!
Therefor, one small child of 8 years plus 6 months appears to be just a little smarter than the professor and all the rest of you who believe, mysteriously, that 12 months can actually somehow equal 12 months and up to 30 days (which is almost 13 months)! I urge all of you to join the other Libertarian Party’s around the globe in making our world a better place with more liberties and halt this foolishness now!
Cheers and good day,
Geoffrey
“Apparently, there is MUCH documentation in numerous emails with the Bylaws Committee members that says many do NOT interpret that particular clause to mean “end of month.”
This is no “apology,” just a fact.”
Is there actually any documentation of this claim? Or is it like my second book?
Robert, unless those emails are produced, it’s no fact, just a rumor without substantiation.
We can also say there was MUCH documentation in numerous emails with the Bylaws Committee members that says many do NOT interpret the world to be an oblate spheroid either.
But that doesn’t make it a fact.
So, this filth Mattson is who replaced Keaton, right? Trying to keep the players straight.
Eric Sundwall is exactly correct. This soap opera shit is for the birds.
ET, is your personal attack on “style” really necessary? Are you Sting or Madonna?
gb, I’d like to hear more. My sense is some states are quite organized, others very little, some not at all. Since the federal government seems to be the largest infringers of liberty, intuitively a national LP seems to make sense to me. Still, we HAVE had 30 years of dysfunction, so alternative configurations have appeal. I’ve suggested a St. Louis Accord, one that acknowledges, among other things, that L-ism is not restricted to NAP enthusiasts.
Apparently, there is MUCH documentation in numerous emails with the Bylaws Committee members that says many do NOT interpret that particular clause to mean “end of month.”
This is no “apology,” just a fact. Whether those opinions are the final word on the matter, I cannot say and have no opinion myself. Such proceduralism bores me.
I think Dave Nolan called his “First National Conference of Libertarian Political Activists” in 1972 to get something going. Since something is going at the state and local level for the Libertarian Party, perhaps now would be a good time to abolish the LNC and get to work make the Libertarian Party a force in the various states.
It certainly would result in less time being wasted, and less name calling & other BS that drives active libertarians away from the Libertarian Party.
I have to wonder how many of the people involved in creating this mess have real jobs where they have to work with a large number of people everyday, or are they just cube rats processing numbers to keep the wheels turning, however inefficiently?
Denver,
I interpret the sentence to mean that if Wrights paid in April 2008, his dues are current through to the end of April 2009. The exact sequence on that sentence, which is not the one that I heard spoken, is that Wrights and friends spoke first, and Mary Ruwart came forward at that time with the point that Wrights dues never lapsed. As will be obvious in my opinion when the tape is released,it is clear from reading that the original sentence was on the lines that no one had ever contested that Wrights’ dues had expired, the sentence being amended on the fly.
It is true that I found the observation and fed it to Lee and friends, but I only found it within a few days before the event. I had assumed that both sides had checked.
Certainly the Gang of ten who voted to sustain the chair’s claim, that the motion that Wrights was on the LNC was out of order, were responsible for checking if the alleged facts asserted by the Chair were true. They clearly failed to do so.
You are absolutely correct that there is a great deal of unfinished business called “justice” for Angela Keaton and Lee Wrights.
You can stimulate uninvolved delegates for 2010 to notice what is happening by making your contributions to state parties or to other libertarian organizations, rather than to the LNC.
George, are you referring to your surprise revelation that Mr. Wrights’ membership did not lapse (i.e., if Wrights’ membership was renewed in April 8, 2008, it did not lapse until May 2009 — Bylaw 5.3: “prior twelve months”)?
The prior twelve months to May 2009:
1. May 2008
2. June 2008
3. July 2008
4. August 2008
5. September 2008
6. October 2008
7. November 2008
8. December 2008
9. January 2009
10. February 2009
11. March 2009
12. April 2009
(Like Nixon’s “Secret Plan” to end the Vietnam War, I wonder why didn’t you come forward with this claim sooner?)
Even if both the LNC and Mr. Wrights thought that his dues had lapsed, or that black is white, that does not necessarily make it so.
It’s interesting that after LNC Chairman Redpath issued a not-very-public apology, the rebuked Deformer cabal is asking us all to “move on” from L’Affaire Wrights and get on with the LNC’s business … which apparently according to the latest LP News means promoting Republican-lite LP candidates and activists, LNC Communication Director Donny Ferguson’s “major party” candidate political consulting business, and parliamentary procedure idolatry.
For those LP members maligned and marginalized by the Deformer cabal, there’s still some unfinished business called “justice.”
I would like to echo Eric’s comments.
I don’t know if this sort of thing goes on in the major parties but suspect it does. The difference is that they are large enough to soak up some people’s time with it and have a sufficient remainder to continue the “real work” of elections.
ET, more like do that and read it in a quiet monotone.
And all of this was thoroughly debunked at the hearing as well. What she doesn’t tell here is how Nicks, Nolan, and Bennett ran her through the wringer on the utter absurdity of the position.
If people think the Bylaws are self-executing, then I want Bylaw 6 Section 3 to run for President.
To get the full effect of Mattson’s style, suck on a piece of candy while reading aloud.
>> and the claim here is that: if you are an At-Large and your dues bills or money become lost in the mail, and if staff cannot read its own web pages to find your email address and send your electronic renewal notice to the right place, your membership as an At-Large has gone away permanently, without any hearing to determine if you had actually ended your membership.<<
It seems clear that’s exactly what the Bylaws say, attempts to discern the intent of those who wrote the Bylaws after the fact notwithstanding.
The solution is not to be “fair” now on this particular case, but to propose an amendment to the Bylaws for the opportunity for exactly such a hearing.
Did you really intend not to pay your dues? If not, are you prepared to pay them immediately (or within X days)? being the only relevant questions prior to, depending on the answers, initiating the process for electing a replacement.
What’s amazing is the amount of energy, time and hand wringing over a lousy twenty five bucks. An efficient, well regarded operation would not have such problems or occurrences.
Instead, we toil and fight about nothingness. All the bylaw mavens and process freaks chase away otherwise happy members who don’t split hairs about what is otherwise a futile pursuit anyway. Instead of a happy band of volunteer protesters, a quasi professional veil hangs absurdly over a silly and obscene belly dancer.
This is a very well written statement. I agree with large portions of it.
I’ve already discussed my opinion on the substance of the matter elsewhere.
I’d like to address procedure a bit though. I agree the Judicial Committee’s task is to follow a principled process, not determine a particular outcome. I also agree the Judicial Committee is not bound by stare decisis, though they are certainly free to take prior decisions under advisement in reaching their conclusions if they want. (The LNC would be well advised to abide by prior Judicial Committee decisions with the expectation that new cases will have similar outcomes.) Finally, I agree it is generally inappropriate for the Judicial Committee to address a hypothetical question for which it
can prescribe no remedy.
However, in this case I believe it may have been appropriate to do exactly that. My reasoning is the same that was used in Roe v. Wade: the subject under consideration was capable of repetition, yet evading review. In Roe v. Wade that occurred because pregnancy takes 9 months whereas the court takes a much longer time to rule. By the time any abortion case made it through the court system, it would necessarily be mooted because the baby would already be born.
Here the LNC leadership could theoretically rule a LNC member ineligible, act for a month with that person barred from participating, and reappoint that person to moot the case, preventing the Judicial Committee from issuing an opinion. Such a process could occur over and over again (well, over and over again with different people/times), allowing a person to be temporarily removed with no possible review. Therefore, in my opinion it would be appropriate for the Judicial Committee to consider whether this act is likely to be capable of repetition, yet evading review in deciding whether the question is justiciable. There are reasonable arguments “yes” and “no” on that point.
When will the Judicial Committee decision be published?
We have a huge process to elect At-Large members, which spends between convention expenses and member travel expenses something like a million dollars, and the claim here is that: if you are an At-Large and your dues bills or money become lost in the mail, and if staff cannot read its own web pages to find your email address and send your electronic renewal notice to the right place, your membership as an At-Large has gone away permanently, without any hearing to determine if you had actually ended your membership.
Was that the intent of the membership in writing the Bylaw?
Of course not.
The Chair, and the people who voted to sustain the chair’s ruling on this question, have shown their total unfitness to lead our party, and should promptly resign from the National Committee.
Some of you should be wondering about the mystery sentence “Prior to tonight, no one, including the appellant, contested whether his
sustaining membership lapsed.” It does not match the rest of the text very well. In particular, it does not match the conclusion summary. It also to the best of my recollection does not match what was read to the committee, in a key way showing that it was not part of the original text. When the recording of the hearing becomes available, you will be able to judge this for yourself and conclude whether the above is the actual text of the prepared remarks.