In what is reportedly its first decision since 1977, the Libertarian Party Judicial Committee has ruled 4-3 on the matter of R. Lee Wrights, concluding:
After reviewing all of the facts in light of the LP Bylaws, we conclude that Mr. Wrights was improperly suspended from his position on the LNC. We reverse that suspension, effective as of the date of the original communication from Mr. Sullentrup to Mr. Wrights regarding his removal.
The Majority opinion was written by Nick Sarwark and joined by Ruth E. Bennett, Joe Cobb and Travis Nicks. Dissenting opinions were filed by Allan Hacker, Dr. Tom Stevens, and LP founder David Nolan.
Could =/= smart.
Again, why do so?
Why would someone who does not believe we should run any candidates for anything donate to get signatures for candidates? Duh. In fact, you just broke duh meter.
I object! If it pleases the court, I resemble that remark and ask that it be stricken from the record. Your warships will hold the plain Tiff held out of order and in contempt and removed by the bailiff to the holding area for delousing and a full cavity search.
Paulie: “When/where did Nolan say this? I have a hard time believing he said that, as I just personally called him weeks ago a few and got a donation to put LP candidates on the WV ballot.”
What does a fundraising call have to do with whether or not Nolan said this in a completely separate conversation, with someone else(unless, of course, he denied saying it in the fundraising call)?
“And regardless of who did or did not say it, why would an organization concentrated on debating, which runs no candidates, call itself a political party?
If the issues being debated at political issues, it can still technically be called a “political party” – it just wouldn’t be conventionally structured.
ms, thanks for the feedback. I must say I find it odd that you accuse ME of whining, as you seem to be on a limb by yourself on this one.
ooh , its back on , i love the Seebeck -Capozzi feuds!
No, Bobby, it’s just that you’re sounding more and more like a whining brat who can’t see the obvious when placed on his highchair tray and spoonfed him after the bib is put on.
If the plain wording is not what it means, then all language is not what it means either. I summarily reject that idea, as does most of the populace not named you.
am I the only one who wants it be over , over , OVER
Honestly, I’m not that into it anymore either,
I think Gene Trosper summarized my view in 85.
LOL now thats a little funny…
ms, thanks for the feedback. I do wonder how you conclude what you do…do you think the JudCom is a conspiracy, too?
Are there not “radical” Ls on JudCom? I don’t hear them clamoring for your interpretation of “consider.”
Have you considered that it’s POSSIBLE — just POSSIBLE — that interpretations other than yours are reasonable and sound?
Or do you believe that the Seebeck Plumbline on this issue (and perhaps all things) is blessed with Metaphysical and Absolute Certitude? And that those who don’t toe your line should leave and — Heaven forfend — not challenge your sweepingly grandiose pronouncements?
Is that anyway to conduct a political PARTY?
@80
My point is that the arguments of the Sullentrup-Redpath clique require that there be ‘objective facts’ that exist independent from the minds and society that identify them as factual. This allowed the LNC chair to shut down debate on his false claim that his position on the Wrights LNC membership was not open to discussion.
That’s because you can’t read, Bob.
That and you seem to lack clarity in much of anything, as your volumes of wasted electrons here indicate. If anything you simply like to argue and do little beyond that.
Frankly, Bob, you’re tiring. Do us all a big favor and do something else. It can only benefit the movement and us all if you do.
In the meantime, liberty slips away just a little bit more.
ms, thanks for brightening my day. You accuse OTHERS of spinning the word “consider,” yet your posts surely look like spinning to me!
I like your sense of humor!
for fucks sake , when will this story die ,
am I the only one who wants it be over , over , OVER
Bob, if the plain meaning of the words aren’t taken properly into account, then one might as well be a parliamentarian, Congressman, Supreme Court Justice, used car salesman, or some other spin doctor, but as a libertarian I choose common sense and plain meaning over vocabulary and grammar waterboarding. That’s why, as I have repeatedly said, I choose the words I use deliberately in order to properly convey that common sense and plain meaning, and why people need to read what I write carefully.
I have explained that rationale that you claim I didn’t explain several times, most recently above at #35. Why you didn’t read before posting @81 and making yourself look stupid is YOUR problem.
The problem that still remains, and I’ll explain it to you AGAIN in small words so maybe you’ll finally get it, Bob, is that the proper process was not followed. It destroys our own tenuous credibility as a Party if on one hand we have a committee rule that the Party rules weren’t followed on one hand but then promptly ignores those same rules on another hand. I’m terribly sorry that inconsistency is lost on you.
Yes, Lee won his case, because he was in the right and because we argued it well, but to deny the delegates their proper day in the process is wrong, and THAT is the point.
Or do you prefer that the delegates be silenced except for the convention???
ms, you repeat the ?shall consider the question? to mean what YOU interpret it to mean, but with no rationale.
It appears to me that JudComm considered it, but felt it unnecessary to opine on the point that in your opinion is the salient one.
Repeating unsubstantiated assertions is unpersuasive…certainly to me, and, I suspect, for you as well.
As a practical matter, the appeal process has run its course. What is the value of your persistance on this matter?
@79 “The claim that Wrights’ membership had expired was treated as an ‘objective fact’, when it was nothing of the sort.”
It seems what was not an objective fact was how the membership term was calculated. If 14 months had elapsed, would there still be a question? Based on this ruling apparently there would be, and the committee would have to make a determination. So it appears Dr. Phillies is correct, there are no objective facts.
As I say, the issue has been settled for now. There were well-reasoned opinions both in the majority and in the dissent. Clarification of the bylaws would not be a bad idea.
If you don’t like certain members of the LNC and want to replace them, that’s fine. I don’t think using this issue to further factional strife would serve anyone well.
The Bylaws on duration of a membership are publicly accessible. One of the reasons that a competent Chair would have allowed the question of Mr. Wrights membership on the LNC to be debated is that such a debate would have permitted discussion and determination of the factual question of his membership. The Chair instead refused to permit debate on the question, on the grounds that Wrights was not a member.
In fact, Wrights was quite clearly a member under the Bylaws as written, a point that was emphatically made by Mary Ruwart to the Judicial Committee during its hearings.
A significant issue here, as presented to the Judicial Committee during its hearing, was that the opponents of Wrights have the exotic belief that there is such a thing as an ‘objective fact’ that is beyond examination, a superstitious position contrary to normal understandings of reality. The claim that Wrights’ membership had expired was treated as an ‘objective fact’, when it was nothing of the sort.
As the Chair had decided to close the mind of the Committee to the question of whether or not the assertion that Wrights’ membership had expired was even true, the next reasonable point to unveil the issue was during the hearing, and that is what was done.
The most noteworthy feature of the appeal, of course, was that the National Chair and National Secretary who had made the rulings failed to participate in the Judicial Procedure that was inquiring as to their validity.
The second feature of the appeal was the prior appeal of the decision of the chair, namely the Chair’s decision that people who differed with the Chair’s interpretation of the Bylaws should not be allowed to make the case. The LNC members who voted with the Chair have unmistakeably shown their unfitness to serve on the LNC, and should be sent on their way at the next National Convention, if not sooner.
I believe Tom Knapp’s points were correct.
Nicholas @74,
Whether it was prudent or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that “shall consider the question” means the question shall be considered, without and choice as to whether or not to do so. That’s where the JudComm made a mistake, and when called on it, compounded it by refusing to correct it.
In fact, the reason the delegates petition was even done in the first place was in case Lee’s own appeal was denied.
And yes, I read all of it.
Mik,
Aside from the fact that it was Dr. Phillies who noticed the bylaws language in question and thus, in my view, got to decide when, to whom, and how to publicly disclose his opinion of its meaning (an opinion I concur with) …
… I didn’t really see how the information was relevant to the hearing proper. The information was not included in any of the appeals, and the Judicial Committee was not being asked to rule on the meaning of that particular clause.
The Judicial Committee seems to construe its own jurisdiction very narrowly, and I support them in that construction. Calculation of the dues deadline was an interesting side issue which might have been relevant prior to the filing and acceptance of the appeals, but which was not relevant to the particular questions the Judicial Committee was being asked to answer.
@71 “could someone please explain what pre-notice of the ‘bombshell’ would have risked?
the truth is the truth no matter when you reveal it.”
For one thing, how to calculate the time would be an interpretation of the bylaws. It is a little fuzzy in the wording, maybe intentionally so.
It was something else that I found troubling. I recall that Mr. Knapp had advocated for more openness and transparency on the LNC. If my recollection on that point is faulty, I apologize. I thought more openness and transparency on the LNC would be a very good idea, and we could certainly use more of that in government.
When it seemed Mr. Knapp was party to hiding information to sandbag those at a hearing, I found this most troubling, particularly from someone who was seeking the LP Presidential nomination. I would have been appalled at a Libertarian candidate who openly advocated one position but then acted in the exact opposite. We have enough of that with D and R candidates.
I’m glad we were able to determine that was not the case.
Also, I encourage people to read the whole of the decision and the dissents, rather than just the conclusion.
If I recall correctly, the decision not to have a separate hearing on the delegate petition was made after the decision to have a hearing on the Wrights petition.
It did not seem prudent to me to have two hearings addressing the appeal of the same issue. I can’t speak for the reasoning of other members, but that was mine.
LG, had it been revealed in advance they would have been able to prepare for it.
It wasn’t, so they weren’t, and it showed.
“Combat tactics, Mr. Ryan…”
LG…me_ Sully is VERY smart .
If he was the one that dreamed this debacle up then he has done a disservice to both Mr. Redpath and his intelligence.
could someone please explain what pre-notice of the ‘bombshell’ would have risked?
the truth is the truth no matter when you reveal it .
LG,
Actually, I just looked up the thread. It was Dr. Phillies who announced that there would be a “bombshell,” and it was also Dr. Phillies who announced the nature of that “bombshell.” I merely dropped a hint in between.
Do I feel bad about not running around yelling “hey — his dues never expired?”
No, I do not.
I thought about mentioning it, but I figured that since Dr. Phillies had noticed it, he should decide when and with whom he cared to share it.
I owed the conspirators no notice of what weapons might be used to defend the party against their attempted coup.
V_Trust me, guys like Sullentrup are not smart enough to dream up schemes like this one
me_ Sully is VERY smart .
@64 “It’s obvious bullshit to anyone paying attention, but the parliamentarians are going to make you play their game to the end even if they know they are going lose.”
Got rebar? lol
Believe you me, vol, we’re all wondering the same thing, and who they’ll be going after next.
That’s why I drive them crazy–they can’t do a damn thing about me!
cant talk right now , and i def wouldnt want it posted:)
getting ready for a candidate training class with Chuck Muth . we got 10 Libs going , its going to be very helpful I believe. He endorsed Joe Silvestri last election and I think it was a major reason he was 1 of 2 that won us ballot access.
Chuck Muth is a nice guy and a valuable ally
my bad
I thought that the bombshell was that Mr. Redpath did not have the cajones to even be a part of the hearing. On second thought, maybe that was part of Ms. Mattson’s punishment for giving him bad advice….she had a hand in starting it so he let her finish it. Trust me, guys like Sullentrup are not smart enough to dream up schemes like this one. It was pretty obvious to me that at the JC hearing, AM presented a case that wasn’t even worthy of considering, much less all of the bullshit that these guys have put Lee through. To me this is just like Dan Karlan’s procedural move to get around the 2/3’s provision…..It’s obvious bullshit to anyone paying attention, but the parliamentarians are going to make you play their game to the end even if they know they are going lose. It will be interesting to see what their next scheme is….again, trust me ,it’s in the works as we speak (I mean write).
Uh, LG, that wasn’t me about the bombshell. That was TK. 🙂
Speaking of teasing…you never did tell me the news you were going to call me back about.
You can email it to me if you don’t want to post it.
MS__ “My recollection is that the matter of calculating sustaining membership timeframes was brought to my attention a day or two before the Judicial Committee met to consider the appeal, and that I mentioned it in comments on this very blog between the time it came to my attention and the time the appeal was heard.”
MR__My recollection is you alluded that there was some bombshell that was going to go off at the hearing, but you did not elaborate. Apparently it was the calculation of time, as Mr. Phillies later explained. Regardless, the matter is settled for now.
me __ thats my recollection too . you did not mention it here , you teased us with what would be revealed as a bombshell , you did not elaborate
Dr. Tom Stevens @48:
Thank you for that. Decisions always work better with explanations. People may not always agree, but at least everyone knows the score.
Such “logic” is hair-splitting to the absurd. By that logic, any unilateral decision made by an LNC officer which is then given political cover by the Chair (which is exactly what happened here) is outside any realm of correction. That’s ultimately destructive to any organization, and why the processes we do have exist.
Again, the logic is flawed for the reasons cited above. A decision made by a member of the LNC unilaterally in place of the full LNC was signed off on as an LNC decision by the Chair, and that ruling was not overturned by the LNC, so that process makes the actions of the Secretary an LNC decision per that ruling of the Chair. Therefore the JudComm petition was in fact valid and pertaining to a decision of the LNC, as determined by the Chair. You need to read through the timeline that I submitted to the JudComm to understand this (see http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/timeline-of-duesgate.html), because it is all there, and an understanding of how the process works is essential to follow it. I fear that you did neither in this case.
Whether the relief sought was moot or not (and at the time it wasn’t, as I explained in the statement that the JudComm needed to reverse that decline) is completely irrelevant to the requirement that the petition be heard. That confuses the question and the remedy, and gets the cart before the horse. I would point out that while the JudComm was required to hear the petition, they were not required to adopt the requested relief, even though in this case the requested relief was the proper relief. I’m gratified that the JudComm eventually did adopt that relief, but the lack of following proper codified procedure to get there is disturbing, especially from the one committee above all others that is supposed to interpret and follow the Bylaws.
Wrights’ re-appointment is now, by the JudComm decision, officially reversed, because the decision stated that the initial removal was reversed. The LNC cannot reappoint a member to a seat that was never vacated. That reappointment followed the initial improper removal. Since the removal was reversed, the seat was never vacant, and the reappointment could not occur.
@55 “My recollection is that the matter of calculating sustaining membership timeframes was brought to my attention a day or two before the Judicial Committee met to consider the appeal, and that I mentioned it in comments on this very blog between the time it came to my attention and the time the appeal was heard.”
My recollection is you alluded that there was some bombshell that was going to go off at the hearing, but you did not elaborate. Apparently it was the calculation of time, as Mr. Phillies later explained. Regardless, the matter is settled for now.
Mr. Hacker,
You’re welcome.
Mr. Knapp,
Thank you for your responses.
-0-
Dr. Tom Stevens @49,
You write:
The bylaws contain a provision that a National Committee member must be a Sustaining Member and may not be the candidate of another political party. The bylaws have no such provision for members of the Judicial Committee.
Fair enough.
We have few members as it is. We shouldn’t be pushing people overboard because of their involvement in other parties.
I agree! I’m glad you do too.
Mik,
You write:
“The most disturbing feature of this whole episode was that rather than bringing up to the chair and secretary the point about the measurement of time for sustaining membership calculation, it was kept quiet and used to try to sandbag perceived opponents.”
My recollection is that the matter of calculating sustaining membership timeframes was brought to my attention a day or two before the Judicial Committee met to consider the appeal, and that I mentioned it in comments on this very blog between the time it came to my attention and the time the appeal was heard.
My recollection is also that the “perceived opponents” not only knew of the matter, and not only referenced it in their opening statements, but in fact had sought an advisory opinion on it from the Judicial Committee some time prior to the removal of Mr. Wrights, long before Mr. Wrights’s supporters allegedly “kept it quiet.”
Mr. Hacker,
You write:
“You were a party at interest in the purported delegate’s appeal, as well as its principal author; what evidence did you submit to the Judicial Committee which substantiated that there were independently verified actual signatures of delegates in adequate number to support such an appeal?”
I’m not sure precisely what you mean by the question, but:
– The petition listed the names of its signers, and the state delegations with which they were credentialed at the most recent convention.
– Verification of whether or not those signers were in fact credentialed delegates at the most recent convention was a matter of checking their names against credentialed delegate lists provided by LPHQ.
I did that verification, and affirmed that I had done it. That affirmation is not, in itself, “evidence” — I could have been lying — but since the content of the petition was public, anyone else was free to conduct their own check and prove that I was lying if they believed that to be the case.
– Verification of whether or not the listed signers actually intended to sign the petition was a matter of contacting them and asking. I did so to the best of my ability, and deleted signatures which I could not verify the intentionality of to a high degree of confidence. Once again, my affirmation that I did this was not “evidence” — I could have been lying — but anyone who so suspected was free to conduct their own contact operation to validate or void the signatures in the same manner.
The bottom line is that the Judicial Committee did not indicate any doubt whatsoever as to the validity of the signatures or as to whether or not the numerical threshold had been met. Had they done so, I’d have made my best attempt to satisfy any burden of proof imposed.
If the Judicial Committee had rejected the petition on the basis that not enough delegates had signed it or that there were fraudulent signatures on it, they’d have been within their powers, in my opinion, to have made that determination, whether I agreed that they had ascertained the real truth of the matter or not.
Had the Judicial Committee rejected the petition because they claimed that it did not appeal an action of the national committee (per, for example, Dr. Stevens’s opinion) and seek relief in the form of reversal of that action, they’d have been within their powers, in my opinion, although I would not have agreed with their judgment.
@22 “Technically, per the LP’s bylaws, anyone who has signed the member certification pledge, and not renounced it, is a party member.
However, many credentials, qualifications, apportionments, etc. are based on sustaining, i.e. dues-paying, membership and whether or not that sustaining membership is current.”
Correct. I should have been more specific. Mr. Knapp’s original comment stated the “goal should be to find ways to retain members for as long as possible, not to find ways to make them into non-members as promptly as possible.”
I think Mr. Nolan hit the nail on the head with his dissenting opinion. The most disturbing feature of this whole episode was that rather than bringing up to the chair and secretary the point about the measurement of time for sustaining membership calculation, it was kept quiet and used to try to sandbag perceived opponents.
If the chair ruled against the calculation of time, then that should have been the issue before the judicial committee. There is no doubt the bylaws could be clarified on the matter. We should realize our opponents are the ones eroding our liberty, not the ones making interpretations of unclear bylaws.
Mr. Knapp,
You were a party at interest in the purported delegate’s appeal, as well as its principal author; what evidence did you submit to the Judicial Committee which substantiated that there were independently verified actual signatures of delegates in adequate number to support such an appeal?
-0-
were all moving in the same direction:)
I think the problem lies not so much in belonging / working with other Parties , but in the selective admonishment of such by certain Party members .
On the difference in treatment between Keaton and Stevens commented upon in this thread, I state:
The bylaws contain a provision that a National Committee member must be a Sustaining Member and may not be the candidate of another political party. The bylaws have no such provision for members of the Judicial Committee.
I have been told that the Bylaws Committee will propose an amendment containing a “general conflict of interest clause” that may be used against many LP members who choose to become active in other parties as well as the LP.
I oppose such provisions. In New York State, the LP has no “conflict of interest” rule. The State Representative from the Manhattan LP is currently running for City Council as a Democrat and he was the Manhattan Coordinator for Bob Barr. After the primary, he will be back with us as active as ever.
We have few members as it is. We shouldn’t be pushing people overboard because of their involvement in other parties.
That is my view and I know it appears self-serving to hold that position but that is how I feel and have always felt on this issue.
Mr. Seebeck,
I am sorry you have not gotten a satisfactory response from Chairman Bennett with respect to the rejection of your request that the Judicial Committee reconsider its decision to reject the Delegates’ Petition submitted to it.
I voted against the Judicial Committee having “subject matter jurisdiction” over the Delegates’ Petition and against accepting the Delegates’ Petition because there was no “decision of the National Committee” that had taken place at the time of the submission of the Petition. The Secretary declaring a seat vacant is not “a decision of the National Committee”. Appointing a replacement to fill the allegedly vacant seat was a “decision” but that action wasn’t appealed.
My logic on the “subject matter jursidiction” issue can be read at:
http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2009/05/jurisdictional-issue-on-delegates.html
One final comment. The remaining members of the Judicial Committee voted to accept “subject matter jurisdiction” but then voted to reject the Delegate’s Petition because the relief sought was moot.
I strongly disagree with that conclusion. The matter is not moot simply because Wrights was re-appointed to his old seat. Had the Delegates’ Petition referenced a “decision of the National Committee”, I would have voted to accept the appeal.
In Liberty,
Dr. Tom Stevens
Judicial Committee Member
The full text of the majority and minority opinions of the Judicial Committee in non-pdf format and without commentary is located at:
http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2009/06/lp-judicial-committee-opinions.html
Mr. Hacker,
You write:
“Of course. But since you stepped in to advocate, I’m asking you now.”
Fair enough.
“Is the Judicial Committee required to explain itself in any particular instance?”
I guess that depends on what you mean by “explain itself.”
I’d say it’s implicit in the existence of the committee that when a matter is referred to the committee the committee must:
– Rule on the matter and explain the logic underlying its ruling; or
– Explain why it’s not ruling on the matter.
In the case of the delegate petition, the committee did the latter … but its explanation was unsatisfactory insofar as it gave a reason which the bylaws do not seem to allow it to use.
“If the Judicial Committee does not explain itself on a particular point, does that mean anything in and of itself?”
No, it doesn’t mean anything in and of itself, but it does have consequences.
If the Judicial Committee rejected an appeal petition without explaining why, for example, it would leave future prospective appellants without information that would be useful in helping them know whether or not the appeal they’re crafting is valid and likely to be accepted.
If the Judicial Committee ruled one way or another on the substance of an appeal without explaining why, neither the appellants nor the national committee would have relevant information for the future. If the appellants lost, they’d have no way of knowing why so as to prevent them from pursuing similarly defective appeals in the future. If the national committee was overturned without being told why, it would have no guidance on how to act in the future without once again being overturned.
So, while non-explanatory rulings by the Judicial Committee may not mean any particular thing, that doesn’t mean they’re a good idea.
“Could the Judicial Committee issue a decision and a separate comment in the same statement?”
I see no reason why not, although in fact only the substance of the decision would be binding on the national committee.
“If the Judicial Committee receives a submission that a majority of its members believe is either defective or inactionable, either of which for any number of reasons, is the Committee nonetheless required to proceed as though it were a valid petition?”
No. The Judicial Committee does, in fact, have to determine that the petition is valid and actionable. If it isn’t both, then the committee not only doesn’t have to, but shouldn’t, accept it.
However, the stumbling block here is your phrasing “any number of reasons.” There aren’t “any number of reasons” why — for example — a delegate petition would be defective or ineligible.
It would be defective or ineligible if it turned out that it did not in fact have the endorsement of 10% or more of credentialed delegates to the previous regular convention.
It would be defective or ineligible if it did not allege that an action of the national committee violated the bylaws and seek to have that action overturned.
If the committee finds that it IS in fact endorsed by the required number of delegates, and that it DOES in fact allege an action of the national committee in violation of the bylaws which the appellants seek reversal of, then the Judicial Committee is out of reasons to reject it and is bound by the “SHALL” phrasing of the bylaws provision to consider the questions in it.
Tom@44;
Of course. But since you stepped in to advocate, I’m asking you now.
Is the Judicial Committee required to explain itself in any particular instance?
If the Judicial Committee does not explain itself on a particular point, does that mean anything in and of itself?
Could the Judicial Committee issue a decision and a separate comment in the same statement?
If the Judicial Committee receives a submission that a majority of its members believe is either defective or inactionable, either of which for any number of reasons, is the Committee nonetheless required to proceed as though it were a valid petition?
-0-
Mr. Hacker,
My answer to the question is no, I did not “distract [my]self from listing the key elements of a petition and inadvertently neglect to complete the list[.]”
So far as I can tell, the required elements of a delegate petition per the bylaws are that it:
1) Be endorsed by 10% or more of the credentialed delegates at the previous regular convention;
2) Allege that an act of the national committee violates the bylaws; and
3) Request relief in the form of reversal of said action from the Judicial Committee.
One element implicit in the very idea, but not in any way specified in the bylaws themselves, is that the petition must somehow be transmitted to the Judicial Committee in such a way that it can be verified that the burden of those three elements have been met.
The delegate petition was endorsed by 10%+ of the delegates to the last national convention. It took care to verify the authenticity of those endorsements myself, and to collect/display as much information as possible to allow for external verification by the Judicial Committee itself or by any other interested party.
The delegate petition did indeed allege a bylaws violation in an action of the national committee.
The delegate petition did indeed request relief in the form of reversal of that action.
On the matter of transmission of the petition to the Judicial Committee, the only guidelines I could find were at least a decade old and not facially applicable insofar as the Judicial Committee is required, after each election, to establish its own work rules and publish them. I could find no publication of the current committee’s work rules. So, I communicated directly with the chair of the Judicial Committee and followed the instructions she gave me on the matter of submission protocol.
If you’re hinting at a matter of submission protocol underlying the committee’s rejection of the petition, I find that unconvincing. The evidence that the petition was, in fact, effectively transmitted to the committee is the fact that the committee evaluated and rejected the petition, which it could not have done if it had not received that petition.
Nor did the committee’s rejection reference any failure to meet any burden of form, substance or submission. Rather, the reason given for rejection was that the petition was moot on the third point (relief). The bylaws require that the committee address the second point (truth or falsehood of the allegation), and offer no exception on grounds of relief being moot.
Personally, I consider the matter ITSELF moot to a point, since the committee did accept and rule on a similar petition (the petition from Mr. Wrights). That’s why I didn’t kick up a ruckus at the time of the rejection. I’m only discussing it now because someone else brought it up.
Tom@42;
I’m not making definitive statements, I’m just asking questions about those statements as made by others, much in the Socratic tradition as exposited in the Meno. Is there something about the question that you find difficult, or that moves you to wish not to answer it?
Mr. Hacker,
If you have something to say, by all means say it instead of asking me to say it for you.
Mr. Carling’s approach to interpreting our Bylaws reminds me that, at the last National Convention, our state delegation was instructed by our state committee not to agree to joining a region that could have Mr. Carling as our regional representative. I did not make the motion in question.
Allen Hacker @19,
I’m assuming that the LNC members who sought to oust Angela Keaton from the LNC for allegedly belonging to another party would hold consistent views toward the far more egregious actions in that regard of a member of the JudComm, Dr. Tom Stevens.
Tom@38;
Did you, in inerjecting commentary on your 3rd item, distract yourself from listing the key elements of a petition and inadvertently neglect to complete the list?
-0-
Mr. Hacker,
You write:
“What is the process for a delegates’ appeal?”
No process is described in the bylaws; that’s a defect, and one which concerned me as I was attempting to put together the delegate appeal.
I do believe that I met the explicit burden of enlisting the voluntary support of 10%+ of delegates to the previous Regular Convention in a verifiable way. In the absence of a clearly described process, I had to trust that that attention to verifiability would constitute conformity with any implicit “process” requirement.
“What are a delegates’ appeal’s key elements?”
The key elements of a delegate appeal are that it:
– Represent the intentions of 10% or more of credentialed delegates at the previous Regular Convention;
– That it assert that an act of the LNC violated the bylaws;
– That it request relief in the form of a reversal of the aforementioned action.
The difficulty here is that the bylaws do not allow the JC to reject a petition because the relief requested is already in place. The bylaws require the JC to consider the question of whether the mentioned action of the LNC did, in fact, violate the bylaws.
Mr. Carling,
You write:
“Our bylaws require the JC to consider a petition. They do not require the JC to take any specific action in response to a petition.”
As a matter of fact, they do. They require the JC to consider the question of whether or not an action of the LNC, as referenced in the petition, violates the bylaws.
“The JC’s announcement clearly shows that they considered the petition and then voted to decline to take any further action.”
Correct. The bylaws do not allow them that option. The bylaws require them to consider the question; the bylaws do not allow them to decline to consider the question, e.g. on grounds that it is moot because the relief requested is already in place.
“Our bylaws require nothing more.”
Wrong. Read them.
Mike@35;
What are the answers to my questions in #34?
And, if it helps clarify those questions, what is a petition and what are its key elements?
-0-
Allan @20:
Upon declining to hear the delegates petition, I sent a notice to the JudComm, which you all received, indicating that decision was in error because of the requirement that they are required to hear it. Chair Bennett then informed me that the JudComm would consider my statement, then she told me that the JudComm declined to reconsider the petition. I asked why, twice now, and have never been given the courtesy of a response let alone a reason. Because the JudComm acted to not hear a delegate petition as they are required to do by the Bylaws, they violated the Bylaws.
M @31:
Sorry, that’s not true. Reread the Bylaws:
“Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws.” (emphasis added)
The question to be considered is whether or not a decision of the LNC contravenes the Bylaws, which means they are required to have the hearing on the question. The Bylaws indicate that the nature of the petition requires the JudComm to hear the question, without discretion to reject it. That does NOT, as you incorrectly claim, give them the ability to reject the petition, which is what they did. That ability is not in the Bylaws. You conflate the process of dealing with the question as accepting or rejecting it (not able to do so) with considering the question itself (required to do so), and that is where you are wrong.
Jim @29, my apologies for the error and thanks for the correction.
Tom@23;
““Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention….”
What is the process for a delegates’ appeal?
What are a delegates’ appeal’s key elements?
-0-
We already have a free membership category.
John, thanks for the reference.
I don’t think it is representing David Nolan’s point accurately to say that he is against running candidates.
He is against making “electing people to office” the sole or primary mission. That means we also do other things besides running candidates, and that some (many, most) candidate are running not for the purpose of winning – which is extremely unlikely – but to educate, build the party, etc. That’s a far cry from saying we should not run candidates at all; at which point it would not make sense to organize as a political party – and there are many other types of organizations in our movement that are not political parties.
At the same time, there are also many political parties which are not ideologically libertarian, which is the likely direction of the LP if winning elections is the only goal (it’s a lot easier
to win elections if your ideas are a lot like those who already win elections, after all). That is what Nolan was addressing in those comments.
It should not even have to be said: the Libertarian Party should be both libertarian and a political party. If you disagree, you should put your time and energy into some different pursuit.
Mr. Knapp,
Our bylaws require the JC to consider a petition. They do not require the JC to take any specific action in response to a petition. The JC’s announcement clearly shows that they considered the petition and then voted to decline to take any further action. Our bylaws require nothing more.
By the way, we sent out frequent messages to the members of the Boston Tea Party Facebook group and posted repeatedly on the wall and in discussions there that to be an official member of the party one had to join at our national site, bostontea.us. This point was made repeatedly, but evil vicious thugs like Stewie Flood and Anus Starr don’t care about the facts. They want to hurt other people.
@11 No, she was never an admin of the Boston Tea Party’s Facebook group. She was one of dozens listed as an “officer” and her officer position on the Facebook group was “antiwar.com activist.” Lew Rockwell and several others were given similar marks of distinction. I know, because I did it.
Officer of a Facebook group has no meaning in the bylaws of the Boston Tea Party.
The main point of the T-shirt was that the Libertarian Party is opposed to individual self-expression. Freedom of expression is wrong and evil, according to officers of the LP and members of its national committee.
Which is among the many reasons your political party sux.
@8 In this example you give, John, the death of the secretary cum chair cum treasurer would seem to enforce the judiciary committee’s position. His conviction for felony silliness might, as well.
@4 Wait, the LP is racist?
@24 contd.
see:
http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/12/lnc-tightens-belt-defuses-keaton-bomb.html
@24 contd.
see:
http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=15
My answer to paulie is struck in “awaiting moderation limbo” so I’m re-posting it in sections.
Paulie wrote;
“Can you point to a more specific reference? [Nolan’s disaffection with running candidates]”
Nolan has been saying the same thing for years. He said it again in San Diego when he was pushing for the adoption of his “mission statement”. The fact that you haven’t heard it is not proof of anything. If a tree falls in the woods and paulie doesn’t hear it or doesn’t recognize the sound, did the tree really fall?
For what it is worth see:
http://www.rationalreview.com/content/20701
Mr. Hacker,
No comment on whether the matter is “inexplicable.”
However, in response to your query:
“What is the basis for [Michael Seebeck’s] accusation that anything was ignored, thus there being a violation?”
Per Article 8, section 11 of the bylaws, emphasis mine: “Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent RegularConvention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee SHALL consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws.”
Here’s the Judicial Committee’s statement on the delegate petition:
“By a vote of six (Bennett, Cobb, Hacker, Nicks, Nolan, Sarwark) to one (Stevens) the Judicial Committee recognizes that we have jurisdiction in the matter of the Delegates’ Petition of April 30, 2009. We are, however, by a vote of five (Bennett, Cobb, Hacker, Nolan, Stevens) to two (Sarwark, Nicks) declining to accept the petition. The relief requested in the Petition is reinstatement of R. Lee Wrights and as Mr. Wrights has been appointed to the National Committee, the appeal is moot.”
Scroll back up to that “SHALL” in the bylaws provision.
The Judicial Committee is REQUIRED to consider the questions raised in a delegate appeal. There is no “decline to accept” provision.
Mik,
Mr. Hacker is correct, but his note may seem a bit cryptic.
Technically, per the LP’s bylaws, anyone who has signed the member certification pledge, and not renounced it, is a party member.
However, many credentials, qualifications, apportionments, etc. are based on sustaining, i.e. dues-paying, membership and whether or not that sustaining membership is current.
–Mik@15;
“why not simply have people join and remain a member until the membership is renounced?”
How is it not like that now?
Are you a member of the national LP?
-0-
–Michael@10;
“a petition was filed but the Judicial Committee inexplicably ignored the Bylaws that indicate they must hear it and instead declined to hear it, with no reason given for such a violation.”
How does not explaining make it inexplicable?
What is the basis for your accusation that anything was ignored, thus there being a violation?
-0-
—Jeremy@5;
What are you assuming?
—mdh@17 writes, “That seems rather clearly to be in conflict with the LNC bylaws regarding judicial committee eligibility.”
To which bylaws and eligibility requirement(s) do you refer?
-0-
Furthermore, Stevens was the presidential candidate of the Objectivist Party during his time on the LP judicial committee. That seems rather clearly to be in conflict with the LNC bylaws regarding judicial committee eligibility. No one in the national party seems to care, though.
@5 – This is a good question and one which I’ve raised as well.
@7 “Mik,
Maybe so, but I’m not sure why you see that as significant or unusual. It’s not like it’s not done elsewhere.”
It was simply an observation. If the goal is to retain members for as long as possible, why not simply have people join and remain a member until the membership is renounced? Eliminate the membership based on money given.
Thant would further reduce the data management problem and render moot the interpretation of the bylaws.
Paulie wrote;
“Can you point to a more specific reference? [Nolan’s disaffection with running candidates]”
Nolan has been saying the same thing for years. He said it again in San Diego when he was pushing for the adoption of his “mission statement”. The fact that you haven’t heard it is not proof of anything. If a tree falls in the woods and paulie doesn’t hear it or doesn’t recognize the sound, did the tree really fall?
For what it is worth see:
http://www.rationalreview.com/content/20701
http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=15
http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/12/lnc-tightens-belt-defuses-keaton-bomb.html
Michael, I know that. But Stevens clearly was a member of the Objectivist Party AND the BTP during his tenure. So…
I watched a webcast of San Diego. We also have play by play posted at IPR. Can you point to a more specific reference? Any article published before or since?
“When/where did Nolan say this?”
December 2008 LNC meeting/San Diego
“why would an organization concentrated on debating, … call itself a political party?”
Good point. I don’t know.
Jeremy @5,
Your question is valid, but Keaton never was a member of the BTP by her own statements. She was placed as a Facebook admin of their site without her knowledge and her modeling a BTP tank top was done as a favor
John @8:
That is utterly incorrect.
First of all, a lack of attendance per the Bylaws means the member resigns themselves, not that Secretary does anything at all. Go read the Bylaws.
Second of all, with LNC meetings now being independently recorded and webcasted, there will never be any doubt as to who is there and who isn’t.
Third of all, there is always the delegates petition option to the Judicial Committee to overturn such an action should it occur. In fact, in this case such a petition was filed but the Judicial Committee inexplicably ignored the Bylaws that indicate they must hear it and instead declined to hear it, with no reason given for such a violation. The requested solution from that petition has been met, making the petition partially moot, but the violation is a problem, and the Bylaws do not allow for a recourse on it either–one of many problems with the Bylaws that the Bylaws Committee needs to address but hasn’t.
Fourth, since you were not listening in the actual hearing last month, you really have no idea what was presented by whom and why.
I agree with Nolan that the LP should give up running candidates and concentrate on debating.
When/where did Nolan say this? I have a hard time believing he said that, as I just personally called him weeks ago a few and got a donation to put LP candidates on the WV ballot.
And regardless of who did or did not say it, why would an organization concentrated on debating, which runs no candidates, call itself a political party?
The Judiciary committee opinion went too far with dicta and hypothetical situations. By saying that the Secretary can unilaterally suspend a board member for missing two meetings without a vote of the entire board, they have given the Secretary power to suspend the entire board by simply stating that they all have missed two meetings. He could then appoint himself Chair and fire the staff and then appoint himself Treasurer and take over control of the bank account. Subsequent review by the Judicial committee would be moot because they have no mechanism to enforce their decision.
I agree with Nolan that the LP should give up running candidates and concentrate on debating. The LP can not even effectively organize itself, let alone restructuring government.
Mik,
Maybe so, but I’m not sure why you see that as significant or unusual. It’s not like it’s not done elsewhere.
If I buy a car, pay the taxes on it and get license plates for it in July, the state of Missouri doesn’t care whether I got those plates on July 1st or July 20th — they’re good through the following July, and expire only if they’re not renewed by the end of that month.
In the case of the LP, I can think of three good reasons why memberships should be calculated in the same way:
– Because the bylaws say so;
– Because LPHQ has a record of poor data management (or, if you prefer, a record of getting stuck with unreliable data management systems), something less likely to be a problem if less granularity is required, i.e. month rather than month and day; and
– Because the goal should be to find ways to retain members for as long as possible, not to find ways to make them into non-members as promptly as possible.
@4 If this is correct, then the majority has interpreted the bylaws to read that some memberships may last longer than others, depending on which day of the month someone’s donation was recorded.
Given the LNC’s objection to members joining other political parties (cf. Angela Keaton), why is Dr. Tom Stevens, who founded a political party while serving on the JudComm, still on that panel?
The reason why there was a for cause issue here is to determine whether MR. Wrights’ membership had expired, or whether Sullentrup and Redpath did not know what they were talking about.
AT the hearing, which was recorded, the Wrights defense team made clear that under the bylaws as written, Wrights was still a member, namely there had been a contribution made for him in one of the past twelve months.
Meanwhile, the LNC is busy circulating the racist Republican lying points about Justice-nominee Sotomayor.
In other LP national news, I sent this in to IPR on Friday but haven’t seen news of it yet on here:
Dave Brady for LNC Secretary 2010:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=117486430551
Dave’s a good man, and I strongly believe he could take the party in a better direction than the likes of Sullentrup and company.
For anyone unable to read .pdf,
David Nolan’s dissent:
A Minority Opinion in the Matter of R. Lee Wrights
While Article 8, Section 4 of the Bylaws was interpreted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner in the case of Mr. Wrights, eligibility for membership on the LNC is not a “for cause” question, and thus does not require a vote for removal as specified in Article 8, Section 5. I strongly urge the 2010 Bylaws Committee to clarify the intent and terms of Article 8, Section 4 to prevent future misunderstandings and misinterpretation.
David F. Nolan
Nolan dissents?