LSLA Members Discuss Allowing Wes Wagner To Their Mailing List

The Libertarian State Leadership Alliance is an organization whose stated mission is: “The mission of the LSLA is to support local state affiliates of the Libertarian Party”.

It has been discussed here on IPR a few times that Wes Wagner, who is currently the chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon as recognized by the Secretary of State in Oregon, and the Judical Committee of the Libertarian National Committee, has not been included in their mailings. However, Tim Reeves, who is the chairman of the group suing in court to be recognized as the correct leadership of the Oregon Libertarian Party, is regularly included in the mailings. Following is some correspondence about this which may be of interest to the Independent Political Report readers who have been following the almost two-year dispute regarding the state’s leadership.

From: Tim Reeves
Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:19 AM
To: statechairs

Fellow State Chairs,

First, let me apologize for the length of this email. I have been very busy with work and I did not have the time to write something shorter.

For the most part I have remained relatively quiet on this email list. I tend to focus my attention to local matters rather than the national scene.

As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing conflict between two groups, each claiming to be the rightful leadership of our state party, the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Each group sent a slate of delegates to Las Vegas in May and the highest body of our organization, the delegates assembled at National Convention, chose to recognize our slate of officers and seat our delegates. I am grateful for their decision and I ask that others honor it.

Allow me to publicly express thanks to those of you who have sent me private messages of support, especially after you received some recent emails from Wes Wagner, our party’s former state chairman and leader of the group not seated.

Many of you are already aware that the conflict escalated to a lawsuit to preserve the rights of our members to choose their leadership and uphold our party’s bylaws. It wasn’t an easy decision for us. Before he became state chair, Mr. Wagner sued our party on multiple occasions and managed to chase a lot of good people away. We didn’t like it then and we don’t much like it now.

Oregon’s Secretary of State has a policy of only recognizing a new state chair when the old state chair informs her of the change. In our case, former chairman Wes Wagner claims to still hold the position and has submitted to the SOS a replacement set of bylaws – one that was never adopted by our membership. As you might imagine, the leadership here in our state are all very disappointed that one of our own would resort to something like this.

We realized that we had a choice: we could do nothing and allow bullying behavior to prevail or we could defend ourselves. For the first time, we chose the latter.

I won’t bore you with all the details, and there are limits to what I should state while we navigate the legal system, but I can tell you that while the defendants’ attorneys have done a masterful job of delaying the day we’ll finally be in court, we know that time and Oregon law are clearly on our side and we will ultimately prevail.

I asked the LSLA Secretary whether he has ever been approached by Mr. Wagner about the chairmanship and who the LSLA recognizes as the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s chair. He replied that since his election as Secretary he has never received an email or phone call from Mr. Wagner for any reason, nor has he ever reached out to him. The person currently subscribed to the email list as Oregon’s state chair, myself, is the same person subscribed when he became Secretary. He also volunteered that he has not seen any reason for the LSLA to overturn the decision of the delegates at the National Convention.

I then asked him for his policy for putting people on the state chairs list. He told me that state chairs and a few other dignitaries (e.g. the National Chairman) are subscribed without moderation. Upon the request of a state chair, others from their respective state may be subscribed with moderation. I asked him whether under his policy if Wes Wagner could be subscribed by someone else. He told me that as long as I am the chair of my state, only I would get to decide who else can be subscribed from my state.

As a general rule, I believe it’s worthwhile to keep former state chairs involved in party communications, providing they want to be constructive. In spite of the egregious behavior we have experienced from our former comrade, I want to believe that no one is beyond redemption. When this lawsuit reaches its final conclusion, it is my hope that Mr. Wagner can make amends and return to being a worthy activist.

In that spirit, in my capacity as state chair, I hereby authorize the LSLA Secretary to add Wes Wagner as an additional moderated subscriber from my state, provided Mr. Wagner requests it and so long as he does not use this list as a means to undermine the Libertarian Party of Oregon recognized by the delegates at National Convention.

Furthermore, if Mr. Wagner makes any further attempt to undermine the LSLA as he has done recently, I will construe that as his desire to no longer be subscribed to the LSLA email list. I ask that anyone who becomes aware of such an act to please promptly notify both me and the LSLA Secretary.

Of course, this in no way represents a concession to his position, or an admission that he should be allowed to violate bylaws as he did, just an interest in seeing that the LPO continues its fight for liberty with as many people working together as possible.

Thank you.

In Liberty,

Tim Reeves
State Chair LPO

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Brett Bittner wrote:

Mr. Wagner,

I have been contacted by Tim Reeves with a request to add you to the LSLA “State Chairs” list as a designee for the state of Oregon.

Today, I write to inquire whether you would like to be added to the list as such.

I certainly appreciate his gesture of goodwill, and I hope you view it as such as well…

Please let me know how you’d like me to proceed in this regard.

Live Free,

Brett C. Bittner
brett.bittner@lpgeorgia.com

Executive Director
Libertarian Party of Georgia

Chairman
Libertarian State Leadership Alliance

 

Mr. Wagner next sent this response:

 

The correspendence continues:

From: Brett Bittner
Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:42 AM
To: State Chairs Group

All,

First, I wish to apologize to anyone who is offended by the attached image. I include it only to serve as the reply to my outreach to include the “Wagner faction” in the LSLA list, pending the outcome of the court action in Oregon.

Yesterday, I reached out to Wes Wagner (per the addition request of Time Reeves and the action determined by our discussion item on Sunday’s conference call) to offer his addition to the LSLA/”State Chairs” List. I’ve included my original e-mail, as well as his response. I know that several of the state chairs offered their opinion on his inclusion on the list, and I hope that you find my efforts for inclusion to be adequate.

As a side note, when I served as the delegation chair in Las Vegas for Georgia, many of the “Wagner faction” of LPO (including Mr. Wagner himself) who were “homeless,” after the body determined that the “Reeves faction” of LPO should be seated to represent Oregon, found homes as members of the Georgia delegation and participated as full delegates to the convention.

While I am not surprised, it certainly was not the response for which I hoped.

Live Free,

Brett C. Bittner
brett.bittner@lpgeorgia.com

Executive Director
Libertarian Party of Georgia

Chairman
Libertarian State Leadership Alliance

As can be expected, several members of the LSLA voiced an opinion. I have been sent these three so far:

Subject: RE: [Statechairs] LP Oregon and the State Chairs Email List
From: “Aaron Starr”
Date: Thu, December 6, 2012 10:15 pm

Hello Tim,

You are a class act and a gentleman! Considering what you have been through, you are amazingly charitable toward someone who has not been at all considerate toward you.

And your email may also have saved us from having to deal with this sensitive issue as a board.

You may want to forward your email to Wes Wagner. I will inform you and the board if and when I receive a request from Wes Wagner to add him as a moderated subscriber.

Thank you.

Aaron Starr, Secretary

Libertarian State Leadership Alliance

From another state chairman:

From: mark axinn
Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:52 AM
To: Brett Bittner, LP-State Chairs

Hi Brett–

While no formal vote of the state chairs was taken, I believe the general consensus is this:

1. Put one representative from the Reeves faction and one from the Wagner faction on the list with read-only privileges. Such action requires no action whatsoever from either Reeves or Wagner and is not to be conditioned by either of them. I believe that Aaron can accomplish this in about thirty seconds.

2. At no time do the other state chairs or the LSLA ever, ever, ever have to get involved in the Oregon dispute and other than being told the final result thereof, hopefully we will never, ever, ever have to hear about it again. Accordingly, after this email, hopefully I will never, ever, ever have to think about a dispute which is not my problem.

Thanks for all you’re doing–

Mark Axinn
New York
markaxinn@hotmail.com

Here is one from an alternate member of the Libertarian National Committee:

From:
Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM
To: brett.bittner@lpgeorgia.com, statechairs@hq.lp.org

Brett,

This is the same classy response the LNC got from Mr. Wagner last year. I appreciate your efforts in reaching out to him and the fact that GA made his delegates welcome in its’ delegation at the last national convention. As a continued courtesy to his faction we might want to extend invitations to both sides to any future LSLA conferences as long as they promise to behave themselves. Or we can try trial by combat if they both show up!

I hope this is the last the LSLA hears of this matter until the courts in OR decide which faction is the proper one to govern LP activities in that state. It is none of the business of the LNC or the LSLA until that time or until it is time to seat delegates at the Columbus National Convention in 2014.

Sam

224 thoughts on “LSLA Members Discuss Allowing Wes Wagner To Their Mailing List

  1. Marc Montoni

    I’m with Mark Axinn on this one.

    Aaron, take off that sticky partisan-hack hat you wear, and act like a statesman for once. Axinn’s solution is the only solution.

  2. Thomas L. Knapp

    @1,

    No, it is not the only solution.

    Any solution has to start with the LSLA deciding whether or not it recognizes the LNC as the arbiter of what constitutes a state LP.

    If it does, then the Libertarian Party of Oregon (Wes Wagner, chair) is, being the LNC’s Oregon affiliate, also Oregon’s member party of LSLA.

    There is no “dispute” as to which organization is the LNC’s Oregon affiliate. That “dispute” was sent to, and settled by, the LNC’s Judicial Committee. Nobody has to like it. That’s how it is whether anyone likes it or not.

    If LSLA doesn’t recognize the LNC as the arbiter of what constitutes a state LP for LSLA membership purposes, then it should write and promulgate rules for whatever standards it DOES adhere to, instead of leaving every state LP in the situation of not knowing whether it might be replaced by whatever random group pops up next week claiming to be the “real” LP of [state].

  3. Be Rational

    Agreed with @1.

    Mark Axinn has made a reasonable, neutral, statesman-like suggestion as to the way to proceed.

    Tim Reeves letter was completely biased, snide and self-congratulatory – the pretense at fairness and openness fails – the obtuse attempt to be slyly clever is totally transparent.

    Wes Wagner’s reply was appropriately equivalent in tone and succinct.

  4. Ron Boozell

    Tim Reeves.

    I don’t know you, but I am well acquainted with David Terry and Richard Burke and the former so-called Mainstream Liberty Caucus.

    I was active in the LPO for a decade,
    and they are two of the reasons why I finally left four years ago.

    These two, and others, brought bullying behavior to the LPO. They alienated and chased away dozens and dozens of good libertarians. They nurtured Candidates that look more like fascist Republicans than anything else. Tom Cox is a perfect example.

    You either are corrupt as the others, Tim, or you are a naive pawn. Either way, I don’t care. You want to play politics, and when you win, you people prance around so everyone can smell your shit.
    When you lose, you throw a tantrum.

    You and your MLC clan are the worst examples of libertarians, and liberty, and you have infested the group with fraud, dirty tricks, deception, outright lies, and of course the resulting divisiveness.

    Terry actually threatened me with physical violence during an active Convention, in front of a pretty-shocked room. He refused to recant, so I retrieved men in uniforms and guns. Oh it was funny to see the look on his face as I am sure his pecker shrunk a few sizes. I shall forever cherish that moment.

    He and his MLC actually fought with us for an hour at the beginning of the Convention refusing video. We understand why. Video is not kind to Mr. Burke and crew.

    Burke has been caught lying and stealing so many times it becomes redundant to remind people.

    On the other hand, I have known Wagner, and many on the present LPO Board, for years and found them honorable, and of true libertarian intent.

    These are the manipulators that you represent, not good libertarians who seek to give the voter of Oregon an alternative to the RP and DP Candidates.

    The bottom line is, we all know that the choosing of your faction was purely political. You should receive NO support from -any- libertarian until you prove your case.

    MARC, and MARK, no way.
    You don’t know these people like I know these people. Burke actually sold me a lifetime membership in the LPO, and then claimed that he didn’t. Then he tried to sell me a bridge.

    NO WAY.

    It hurts the libertarian cause to recognize you people. I don’t even like doing it in a post.

  5. Wes Wagner

    TK @2

    The LSLA Bylaws read:

    Article 3: Membership

    Voting Members shall consist of the State Chairs ofaffiliate State Libertarian Parties. If a State Chair is unable to attend, the Vice-Chair of the corresponding State Party, or any other person selected by the State Chair of the corresponding State Party, may participate in his absence.

    The Executive Board may authorize additional nonvoting classes of membership.

  6. Dave Terry

    Brett Bittner wrote: “While I am not surprised, it certainly was not the response for which I hoped.

    LOL! For those of us who know Wagner, that was
    exactly what we expected. His true megalomaniac
    persona is exposed again!

  7. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Dave Terry, clearly a lot of the dispute is regarding personalities, but, for those of us who don’t know the people involved, can you please get past that and help us to understand what the Tim Reeves group has done to contribute to the Oregon Libertarian Party? If/when they are put into office, what can we expect that’s different than what’s going on now?

  8. Oranje Mike

    I still think Reeves and Wagner should both step aside and let the OLP put things back together without their influence. Two men are clearly thinking more about themselves than the cause of liberty.

  9. Wes Wagner

    OM @10

    Your suggestion of the OLP (sic) needing to be put back together does not match reality on the ground. We just had a record setting year.

  10. Smart Alex

    Is Aaron Starr involved with the state leadership of California? I see he is secretary of the LSLA .

  11. Oranje Mike

    #11, put back together in terms of the state party electing new officials without Mr. Reeves or yourself taking part. No offense but if I was in Oregon I would probably walk away from state LP activities.

  12. paulie

    If LSLA doesn’t recognize the LNC as the arbiter of what constitutes a state LP for LSLA membership purposes, then it should write and promulgate rules for whatever standards it DOES adhere to, instead of leaving every state LP in the situation of not knowing whether it might be replaced by whatever random group pops up next week claiming to be the “real” LP of [state].

    Starr’s stated position is that when there is a dispute the group seated at the national convention is the state party because national delegates > LNC.

    You can agree or disagree with his logic, and you can certainly say he is not unbiased, but it is not an internally inconsistent position as far as I can tell.

  13. Mark Vetanen

    OM @13,

    Oregon will be having its board elections in sometime February. Voters who voted in the primary ballot, and who are still Libertarian, will have the opportunity to vote for board members. The elected board members themselves vote who is to be chair, Secretary and so on.

    There is no guarantee that Mr. Wagner will be Chair or even on the board. That is up to the voters if he is even on the board, and the board itself as to who the chair will be.

    Any of the qualified voters (voted in our primary and still are a Libertarian) can run for the board.

    I hope that answers your questions. The Bylaws are posted on the Oregon Party Website
    http://www.lporegon.org/

  14. paulie

    I still think Reeves and Wagner should both step aside and let the OLP put things back together without their influence.

    It’s a lot more than just them (Reeves doesn’t even lead his faction – by most accounts Burke does, even though he holds no current position it is Burke, not Reeves, who regularly posts on the LSLA email list; Wagner has other people on his side as well). Other people who are not in either faction have been approached, but are not interested in leadership.

    Both sides are choosing their leadership in the spring – the Burke/Reeves side will hold a convention at a resort and the Wagner side will put out a mail ballot to Oregon registered Libertarians. Since they have very different standards on who is eligible to participate, even if the names of the leaders are different afterwards, the fight will continue while the court case lasts – which may well be years, including appeals.

    What LSLA does in the meantime is a separate issue. LNC does not make that determination.

  15. Dave Terry

    Well, if it isn’t Bozo Boozell,

    The great irony here is that I”M the one who is described as a hot head when Boozell is an actual
    loose canon on board

    At the 2007 LPO convention Boozell brough his two children with him as dues paying delegates.
    Since the LP has never set minimum age limits for members, a challenge was moot.

    During the entire session Boozell coached his children on how to vote. During a recess he could be easily heard by the entire membership
    telling them how to vote.

    I was acting Secretary at that convention and from the podium, I admonished Boozell and asked him politely to STOP coaching his children.

    Boozell immediately charged the Dias and challenged me to step outside. Polite discussion
    was definitely not his intention.

    Although I was not opposed to his invitation, I
    considered the best interest of the LPO over my own personal consideration.

    Until today that was the last I have heard from,
    not so funny, Boozell, the Clown.

  16. paulie

    Is there a rule against giving other delegates advice on votes?

    I’ve given, sought, received, and been sought out for such advice at conventions I have been to.

    If a body allows children to be delegates I don’t think you should reasonably expect that they will not ask for or receive advice on how to vote. The same is true of many adults.

  17. Wes Wagner

    OM @13

    Well we have been growing especially well since most the malignant personalities have sequestered themselves.

  18. Mark Vetanen

    Paulie @17

    Do you know if the LSLA is an extension of the LNC using its corporate filings to exist as an entity or if they are their own entity with their own corporate filings. I am just wanting to figure out how the LSLA and the LNC fit together…I know that the LSLA uses the LP.org resources so there is some connection.

  19. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt (9)

    Thank you Jill, for the very sincere and cordial response.

    Quite frankly, my crystal ball is on the fritz, so I can only respond to what we HOPE to be able to accomplish, WHEN the court rules in favor of the Reeves State Committee.

    Based on past behavior, I fully expect Wagner to appeal and delay and every other legal tactic that he can to prevent us from functioning.

    I, of course, speak only for me, at this juncture,
    but the first thing we will do is have an open meeting with all of those on both sides (or on NEITHER SIDE) to communicate their ideas on how the LPO can be a more effective “political” organization. (we’ve had enough ideological posturing, which (in my opinion) is the source of all the trouble. This does not ignore the fact
    that the LP is primarily, at its root, an ideology.

    Hopefully, with the help of our platform and (the correct) bylaws we will prioritize the issues
    that are ABSOLUTELY essential to identifying
    Libertarians and our candidates as reasonable
    AND dedicated proponents of individual rights and worthy of the support of the mainstream of American voters.

    It is TIME for the LP to move on to the next phase and discontinue our eternal schismatic
    addiction to ideological purity.

    I sincerely hope this helps. If you have any specific question, please post them here.

    Dave Terry

  20. Joe Tabor

    As a 17-year Libertarian Activist who has ran for partisan Libertarian positions 6 times, and has received over 3% of the vote in the November 2008 general election (for U.S. Congress, Ore. Dist. 1), I have serious problems with the Burke/Carling/Reeves/Saub faction, and one of the biggest problems is their attempt to replace the LPO Vice Chairperson (Me) with Mr. 38 Months for “Theft after Theft” convicted criminal Eric Saub. Please read this: http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20070720/NEWS0107/707200448/

    Of all of the people the Burke/Carling/Reeves/Saub crowd could have chosen to replace me, this is who they pick. The sorry state of Mr. Burke and Mr. Carling is that this is the only man that they were capable of finding out of 2 million voting Oregonians — pretty much showing that Burke and Carling seem to be amateur political hacks. Very amateur.

    I am not really fond of Wes Wagner’s flaming middle finger, but gee, any organization that wishes to help or tolerate the Burke/Carling/Reeves/Saub faction deserves what Wes is offering.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 15,

    “Starr’s stated position is that when there is a dispute the group seated at the national convention is the state party because national delegates > LNC.”

    There is no case, ever, where “the group seated at the national convention is the state party.”

    The group seated at the national convention is a delegation recognized as empowered to do business ON BEHALF OF a state party. That the convention recognizes one delegation versus another says nothing at all about which organization back home that delegation is representing.

    Starr is correct that the delegates > the LNC, and could, if they so desired, overturn the LNC’s determination, via its Judicial Committee, as to which organization is its Oregon affiliate. The fact that the delegates DIDN’T choose to do so is an indication that they didn’t desire to do so.

  22. Wes Wagner

    TK @24

    Is technically correct… which is the best kind of correct.

    https://vimeo.com/55499939

    The delegates did not vote at all on who the leadership of the party was, they voted on a slate of delegates.

    The the current LNC leaders had any moral fiber they would have not allowed the credentials committee to exceed their authority in the first place … but then they might still be leaders in the LNC.

    For every silver lining there is a cloud ;)

  23. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    If I was an English teacher and wanted to teach my pupils what the word “condescending” meant, I’d show them the letter from Tim Reeves. It’s truly a masterpiece, and, frankly, hilarious.

  24. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Dave, you answered the second part of my question, but not the first: What kind of things has Tim Reeves and his group accomplished in the state LP up until now?

  25. Truth Hurts Republicans TOO

    “It is TIME for the LP to move on to the next phase and discontinue our eternal schismatic addiction to ideological purity”

    Sounds like another REJECTED R trying to run L affairs to me. I thought the ’12 convention was a move away from the LINOs. Common sense tells you when you offer the public R lite they will choose RP everytime ! The LP would do much better if the LINOs would donate their money, but stay home and keep their mouths SHUT when it comes to Party activity. The R lite approach is a proven LOSER and needs to be jettisonned from the BattleSTAR !

    What’s *just* has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn *belongs* to you – and why? – Walter Williams

    Some news items you may have missed that may interest you. Taken from –
    *Freedom News Daily*

    Presented by the International Society for Individual Liberty
    http://www.isil.org/fnd (to subscribe free)

    Produced by the staff of Rational Review News Digest
    http://rationalreview.news-digests.com

    Thomas Sowell – Obama Going Forward: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7dpTtn5AQo&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

    FRONTMAN: OBAMA’S DARKEST SECRETS REVEALED: http://shop.americanfreepress.net/store/p/208-FRONTMAN-OBAMA-S-DARKEST-SECRETS-REVEALED.html

  26. Dave Terry

    Ron Bozo Boozell (4) wrote:

    >”Terry actually threatened me with physical >violence during an active Convention, in front of a pretty-shocked room. He refused to recant, > so I retrieved men in uniforms and guns. ”

    LOL! I must be a lot braver than even I thought.
    Since you are 20 years younger than me and at
    least 40 pounds heavier, I find your, latest lie a bit weird, BUT……..

    >”Oh it was funny to see the look on his face as I > am sure his pecker shrunk a few sizes.

    …..but NOT as weird as your preoccupation with
    my private parts. I’m not worried though I have plenty to spare. Is that what upsets you?
    I shall forever cherish that moment.

  27. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt (29)

    Jill: I will presume that you are not deliberately being disingenuous, but simply don’t understand the difficulty of accomplishing much on behalf
    of the state LP. without the recognition of the S. O. S., and without control of the website, AND the ability to nominate candidates.

    We are not even allowed to raise money on the behalf of the party. The ONLY money we can raise is to pay our legal legal expenses.

    We do retain communication with many of the diseffected Libertarians who are not extreme leftists or anarchists.

    Since Wagners group has all of the accoutrements of “officiality” (but that’s all),
    perhaps that question would be best directed at them!

  28. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt // Dec 28, 2012 (28)

    If I was an English teacher and wanted to teach my pupils what the word “condescending” meant, I’d show them the letter from Tim Reeves. It’s truly a masterpiece, and, frankly, hilarious.

    Jill, I must reluctantly revise my opinion of your sincerity or objectivity in these matters.

    I simply can’t believe anyone who was remotely impartial would characterize Tim Reeve’s letter
    as “condescending”

    From my perspective, his letter was as cordial and diplomatic as the situation would permit.

    I honestly don’t believe that you’re able to acknowledge good character or diplomacy when
    you see it.

    It must the company you normally keep!

  29. David Colborne

    At the risk of being snarky and nihilistic, I hope the Oregon judicial system rules that both factions are in active violation of their bylaws, strips ballot access away, and clears the way for the LNC to disaffiliate and reaffiliate the LPO. Then we might actually see an LPO that’s less interested in passive-aggressive condescention and Photoshopped middle fingers.

    Failing that, I’m more inclined to agree with the Wagner faction’s ideology and how they’re opening up the party, which is not the same thing as agreeing that they’re going to win this thing. As Wes put it a few posts ago, being technically correct is the “best kind of correct”, and I think the Reeves camp, for all its faults (and they’re numerous), will probably prevail in the courts on that. As Knapp likes to point out, the Oregon SoS is responsible for choosing who the LPO is, which benefits Wagner’s group only as long as the SoS isn’t legally bound to change its decision.

  30. Be Rational

    @32 What utter BS.

    A cordial, diplomatic, statesman-like letter would have read as follows:

    Fred C. Bittner, Secretary
    LSLA

    Dear Fred,

    It has come to my attention that Wes Wagner, the current chair of the LPO as recognized by the LNC and the State of Oregon, is not currently included on the list of State Chairs for the LSLA.

    In the interest of the continuing operation and growth of the LPO and the LP nationwide, and in the interest of the registered Libertarian voters and all LPO members and donors in the State of Oregon, please recognize Mr. Wes Wagner as State Chair of the current recognized LPO.

    In regard to the current leadership dispute in the OR LP, any necessary change in LPO leadership recognized by the LSLA should await the decisions of the court, the OR Secretary of State and the Libertarian voters and members in Oregon.

    Sincerely,

    … (Someone less arrogant, egotistical and condescending than Tim Reeves or whoever actually wrote the letter) …

  31. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Dave, as far as my opinion of the letter (supposedly) written by Tim Reeves, I stand by what I said. It is hilarious in its veiled attempt to be fair. In this case, he definitely has simplytoo many words, which says to me that he “protesteth too much” . A short and to the point: ” It’s okay with me if Wes Wagner is allowed on the LSLA email list” might have seemed sincere, but this phoney-baloney letter from someone who’s been invisible on-line so far and only writes a letter when it’s been pointed out that Richard Burke has been the only one corresponding with the LSLA (and here on IPR), it comes across as insincere. Perhaps you’ll notice that a few other people seem to feel the same way about the opening letter in this article (particularly commenters at # 3 and # 4.)

  32. Wes Wagner

    DC @33

    I think you be quite surprised what a house of cards all of the Reeves/Burke claims are. Fortunately depositions and discovery turn up nasty little things like evidence and facts – and we are about halfway through that process and it does not look good for them in my opinion.

  33. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    As far as whether I’m biased or not, I’m sure everyone here that reads the articles about the Oregon LP knows I’ve formed an opinion. Of the 50 articles written here in the past 20 months or so about the dispute, I’ve posted at least half of them. I probably know as much about it as any other outsider. I believe that the Reeves group has lost, and should stop this waste of time and money. I say this for a few reasons: 1. The judicial committee of the LNC deemed that, for now, the Wagner group is the official group; 2, In the email vote in the fall, I understand that the voters approved the by-law changes from the Wagner group at the rate of over 90 percent; 3. There was a record amount of Libertarian candidates on the November ballot, which indicates to me the current leadership is accomplishing positivie things; and 4. I understand that several of the officers on the Reeves group didn’t even have an up-to-date membership in the Oregon LP at the time the dispute really took off. Yes, I know the credentials committee seated the Reeves group at the national convention , but I don’t think that trumps the other reasons, and I don’t think M Carling should have been allowed to vote on that.

    So, there you go, Dave. I do try to be polite and courteous to people here, and I’m sorry if you mistook that as me being unbiased. I am not.

  34. Sludge Puppy

    That letter reads like something that Richard Burke writes.

    Sludge Puppy is the nom de scat of a concerned person who only uses it to bring attention to the gibberish that passes for sincerity on some lists by wannabetarians.

  35. Wes Wagner

    JP @37

    In the request for admissions that was given to the plaintiffs, we requested that they admit that they had not paid dues in the 12 months prior to their commencement of the lawsuit.

    They admitted that they had not.

    Therefore if the 2009 bylaws were operative as they claim, they could not be members of the LPO, and thus could not have held the offices they claim to hold since membership is a requirement of said offices.

    Notwithstanding that, there is at least a dozen other serious problems.

  36. Fred Jabin

    To David Colborn @ 33
    Its rather difficult to respond without being snarky so I understand if you do- and I truly sympathize with your distaste for the way both factions are acting.
    But I think your suggestion of the LNC clearing the way to replace both groups misses an important point.
    The LNC does not own the ballot access. The registered Libertarian voters of Oregon own that ballot access. It is certainly convenient for the group to be affiliated with the LNC–but it isn’t imperative. This is a matter of Oregon election law. The lawsuit will only determine which group has the right to represent the Oregon voters not the LNC. The LNC can decide who they want to be affiliated with.

    If you want to further evidence of how this might look, you can research the Constitution party and their divide with the national party. There are several other examples, but this also has Oregon at its heart.

    To many outside or our beautiful state, this may be seen as a sign that we are not able to follow the lead of a national organization. But to those of us who are decedents of those with the pioneering spirit that lead them to go west, we recognize it at as the same independence that we seek as libertarians. We understand that the top down control of a national party is very similar to the top down control of a government.

    I want the bickering, name calling, trickery, and flaming fingers to end–but I would prefer to have the spirited disagreement than to have an appointed group with the values of Californians decide how my state runs its politics.

    Oregon’s libertarians will decide who represents them. It will be easier for us to do, if those from outside our state aren’t trying to sway who gets that honor.

  37. Dave Terry

    Thomas L. Knapp (24)

    ” That the convention recognizes one delegation versus another says nothing at all about which organization back home that delegation is representing”

    What then was their decision based on? Were those delegates selected by the Reeves group better looking, taller or slimmer? Yeah, that must be the reason they chose us.

    Did we have the right attire? Maybe it was the color of our uniforms. OH Yeah, we weren’t wearing uniforms.

    How DID the delegates decide which group of delegates to seat? Did they throw dice? Draw straws? Flip coins?

    Were their votes totally arbitrary?

    May I suggest that they made an informed decision to support the delegation sent by the Reeve’s group, just as you made an informed decision to advance this spurious argument.

  38. George Phillies

    Indeed, the delegates did vote on the LNC actions, namely they had clear knowledge of the people on the last LNC and its committees and candidates for the new LNC who had participated in disrupting the Oregon state convention, a few years ago.

    Readers will note that those people were not elected to the LNC in 2012.

  39. wes wagner

    The average voter, even libertarian delegates, in the face of lack of knowledge, will defer to authority.

    If the leadership had informed them that there were two plaintiffs on the committee and that the committee’s decision to rule on a contested delegation exceeded their authority under robert’s… the vote may or may not have turned out differently…

    But had they done that I think the nota campaign would have failed. That act gave many lobbyists days to point out the institutional corruption of the leadership.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dave @41,

    “What then was their decision based on? Were those delegates selected by the Reeves group better looking, taller or slimmer? Yeah, that must be the reason they chose us.”

    The convention delegates did not state a reason for seating the delegation they seated.

    That is precisely why we can’t infer a completely different set of actions — e.g. overruling the LNC/Judicial Committee on the question of which organization is the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon — from that decision.

    If I had to GUESS as to why the delegates chose to seat the delegation they did, I’d guess that the reason was that the credentials committee recommended they do so.

    My recollection is that the credentials committee did not phrase that recommendation as “we propose to overthrow the LNC/Judicial Committee’s recognition of its Oregon affiliate, and request the delegates’ support in doing so.”

  41. paulie

    Do you know if the LSLA is an extension of the LNC using its corporate filings to exist as an entity or if they are their own entity with their own corporate filings. I am just wanting to figure out how the LSLA and the LNC fit together…I know that the LSLA uses the LP.org resources so there is some connection.

    As far as I know LSLA is separate. They don’t use much in the way of LP.org resources other than to host their email list, and they had an agenda item for their meeting to get off LP.org for the email list. There are any number of cheap and free places to host email lists, so I don’t see that as a use of LNC resources that’s even worth talking about.

  42. paulie

    There is no case, ever, where “the group seated at the national convention is the state party.”

    Sorry for the bad phrasing.

    Represents the leadership of the state party…is that better?

    The group seated at the national convention is a delegation recognized as empowered to do business ON BEHALF OF a state party. That the convention recognizes one delegation versus another says nothing at all about which organization back home that delegation is representing.

    Starr is correct that the delegates > the LNC, and could, if they so desired, overturn the LNC’s determination, via its Judicial Committee, as to which organization is its Oregon affiliate. The fact that the delegates DIDN’T choose to do so is an indication that they didn’t desire to do so.

    How else could the delegates have done that other than making a choice on which of the competing slates of delegates to seat?

  43. Wes Wagner

    paulie @47

    Robert’s gives the body plenary authority to decide on delegate contests, and their reasons do not have to be just or even justified as far as I can tell from my reading of the rules. “Because we said so” seems to be enough.

    The actual question decided on the floor was whether to replace one set of delegates with another set of delegates. That was the only question decided because that was the question put before the body.

    In theory the body could, under the rules, replace a state delegation with a group of delegates from Pakistan provided they had all paid dues to the national party and were LP members (since they clearly would not meet the requirements of being members of that state party).

    Organizations that do these types of things in order to win political battles, tend not to live much longer afterwards.

  44. paulie

    difficulty of accomplishing much on behalf
    of the state LP. without the recognition of the S. O. S., and without control of the website, AND the ability to nominate candidates.

    You can put up a website. It’s not that hard. It wouldn’t have a link from LP.org, but you could point to it in these discussions and in any recruitment efforts you make.

    You could nominate candidates. They won’t go on the ballot, but it would demonstrate what you would be doing if you were the state recognized leadership of the state party.

    We are not even allowed to raise money on the behalf of the party.

    I thought that was the whole point of incorporating the “Libertarian Party of Oregon” so you can legally raise money under that name without being the state recognized party?

    We do retain communication with many of the diseffected Libertarians who are not extreme leftists or anarchists.

    Are these communications public? Because publicly I have found no “signs of life” such as websites, facebook and yahoo groups, twitter accounts, lists of would be candidates, or indeed any other indication of a functional state party that is lacking only state recognition to move forward.

    Since Wagners group has all of the accoutrements of “officiality” (but that’s all),
    perhaps that question would be best directed at them!

    They have several dozen candidates, 20 or so of which were on the ballot. They have sent out snail mailing(s) to 10-15,000 people at a time and received contributions of that same range in FRNs. They have a website and other communication channels. Aside from their extremely bitter relations with your group, and the spillover effects of that conflict on national lists, they seem to be pretty functional when compared to many or most state LPs.

  45. paulie

    I simply can’t believe anyone who was remotely impartial would characterize Tim Reeve’s letter
    as “condescending”

    If Wagner was the one on the LSLA list, and wrote a letter to you inviting you to be on that list but only as long as you don’t criticize him, I’m sure you would consider that condescending.

  46. Wes Wagner

    paulie @49

    I would suggest that on a per-capita basis (money raised vs state population and candidates posted on the ballot vs state population) Oregon would be ranked as one of the largest and most successful affiliates.

    We are a “small state” … only 7 EVs.

    This is in spite of being under what we would regard as hostile attack by the apparatus of the national organization and some of its more deviant personalities.

  47. paulie

    If I had to GUESS as to why the delegates chose to seat the delegation they did, I’d guess that the reason was that the credentials committee recommended they do so.

    I thought that the credential committee vote was tied? I’ll have to go back and look.

    My recollection is that the credentials committee did not phrase that recommendation as “we propose to overthrow the LNC/Judicial Committee’s recognition of its Oregon affiliate, and request the delegates’ support in doing so.”

    I’ll have to go back and check what the reasoning was.

    In any case, to the best of my understanding, Aaron has used the fact that the national delegates expressed a preferences for the Burke/Reeves faction when choosing between two sets of delegates as his reason (or excuse, depending on how you look at it) why he has made the same determination as to which faction represents Oregon on the LSLA list.

  48. paulie

    Indeed, the delegates did vote on the LNC actions, namely they had clear knowledge of the people on the last LNC and its committees and candidates for the new LNC who had participated in disrupting the Oregon state convention, a few years ago.

    Readers will note that those people were not elected to the LNC in 2012.

    There were a lot of different issues and personalities involved. It seems to me to be a stretch to conclude that the result of all those races hinged on Oregon.

    Not that this may not be the case, maybe it did.

    But it does seem to be a stretch.

    The NOTA vote was very close, so you could point at any number of different factors as the determining one (and be right to some extent with many of them).

    The other votes were close or not to varying degrees. It’s hard to say to what extent they had to do with Oregon as a direct reason, rather than just one of several symptoms of what many delegates saw as problems in existing national leadership.

  49. paulie

    The LNC can decide who they want to be affiliated with.

    Unless something changes, the LNC Judicial committee has ruled that the LNC defers to the Secretary of State, and the SOS has said they will defer to the court proceedings, so the LNC’s affiliate also hinges on the court proceedings.

    LSLA on the other hand said they will take their cue from national convention delegates, who may have taken their cue from the credentials committee, which was appointed by the majority of last term’s LNC, many of whom were defeated for reelection by those same delegates.

  50. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 47,

    “How else could the delegates have [overturned the LNC's decision, as forced by the Judicial Committee, regarding which organization to recognize as the Oregon affiliate of the LNC] other than making a choice on which of the competing slates of delegates to seat?”

    There’s no “other than” about it — if you don’t do A, you didn’t do A, and B is not A.

    If the delegates had wanted to overturn the LNC’s decision, as forced by the Judicial Committee, regarding which organization to recognize as the Oregon affiliate of the LNC, then a delegate would have made a motion to overturn the LNC’s decision, as forced by the Judicial Committee, regarding which organization to recognize as the Oregon affiliate of the LNC, that motion would have been seconded, that motion would have been debated, and then that motion would have been passed.

    Acceptance of the credentials committee’s recommendation as to what delegates to seat was no more an action to verturn the LNC’s decision, as forced by the Judicial Committee, regarding which organization to recognize as the Oregon affiliate of the LNC than it was an action to put a man on the moon, to order pizza, or to declare solidarity with the Alliance of Roller-Skating Zoophiles.

  51. paulie

    As far as whether I’m biased or not, I’m sure everyone here that reads the articles about the Oregon LP knows I’ve formed an opinion. Of the 50 articles written here in the past 20 months or so about the dispute, I’ve posted at least half of them. I probably know as much about it as any other outsider. I believe that the Reeves group has lost, and should stop this waste of time and money. I say this for a few reasons: 1. The judicial committee of the LNC deemed that, for now, the Wagner group is the official group; 2, In the email vote in the fall, I understand that the voters approved the by-law changes from the Wagner group at the rate of over 90 percent; 3. There was a record amount of Libertarian candidates on the November ballot, which indicates to me the current leadership is accomplishing positivie things; and 4. I understand that several of the officers on the Reeves group didn’t even have an up-to-date membership in the Oregon LP at the time the dispute really took off. Yes, I know the credentials committee seated the Reeves group at the national convention , but I don’t think that trumps the other reasons, and I don’t think M Carling should have been allowed to vote on that.

    So, there you go, Dave. I do try to be polite and courteous to people here, and I’m sorry if you mistook that as me being unbiased. I am not.

    I don’t think there is any such thing as unbiased, but I have also posted many of the stories about this and have read all the comments on each and every one of them, so I know a fair bit about it. I strive to be fair, as I hope most reading realize, and as many have told me they do recognize.

    The letter from Reeves, which may well have been written by Burke, is indeed condescending.

    As a mental exercise, try switching the roles and names and imagine Wes Wagner, or someone from his group, sending that letter to Reeves or Burke. I don’t think any of the people allied with them would argue that such a letter would be condescending.

  52. paulie

    >”Oh it was funny to see the look on his face as I > am sure his pecker shrunk a few sizes.

    …..but NOT as weird as your preoccupation with
    my private parts. I’m not worried though I have plenty to spare.

    There are few certainties in life.

    One of the few happens to be that when the Oregon Libertarian food fight is discussed, sooner or later it will literally turn into a penis contest, thus making the normally implicit context explicit.

  53. paulie

    OK, I looked up the convention minutes:

    Credentials Committee Chair Emily Salvette presented the credentials report.

    Ms. Salvette reported that they had received two competing delegation lists from Oregon, one from the group
    chaired by Tim Reeves and one from the group chaired by Wes Wagner.

    She referenced the duties of the Credentials Committee in such a situation as given in RONR p. 614 lines 26-34
    which state, “Cases of contested seats in a delegation will seldom arise except in political conventions. In the
    rare event of a contest between two delegates or groups of delegates and serious doubt as to which is entitled
    to be seated, the committee should omit both from the list and report the fact of the contest to the convention as
    explained below. If, on the other hand, after hearing the facts, the committee thinks the contest is not justified, it
    should enter on the list only the names of the delegates whose claim it finds to be legitimate.”

    She reported that after examining the situation, the Credentials Committee voted to seat the Reeves group.
    Following the Credentials Committee decision, the Reeves group offered to seat members from the Wagner
    group, and two members of the Wagner group have taken advantage of that offer to be seated in the Oregon
    delegation.

    The list of voting delegates approved by the Credentials Committee included 299 delegates and 5 alternates
    with 304 people eligible to vote. On behalf of the Credentials Committee, Ms. Salvette moved to accept the list
    approved by the Credentials Committee as the roll of delegates for this convention.

    Nick Sarwark (CO) objected to the report due to the decision to seat the Reeves group. Mr. Sarwark moved to
    amend the Credentials Committee roll of delegates to seat the Wagner delegation from Oregon and not seat the
    Reeves delegation from Oregon. Following debate, the convention proceeded to a vote on the Sarwark
    amendment. After a voice vote was inconclusive, Chairman Mark Hinkle took a standing vote, and the Sarwark
    amendment clearly failed.

    Jeff Weston (one of the contested Oregon delegates in the Wagner group) raised a point of order that those
    who are involved in a question of contested delegate seats aren’t permitted to vote on motions regarding whether or not to seat themselves (see RONR, 11th ed., p. 616, lines 26-28), and he alleged that some had done so. Chairman Hinkle took the standing vote on the Sarwark amendment again, instructing those involved in the question to not vote. The Sarwark amendment again clearly failed.

  54. Alan Pyeatt

    Fred Jabin @ 41: If you’re going to paint all Californians with the same brush (“an appointed group with the values of Californians,” as if we all shared the same values), then you might acknowledge that California led the nation in tax reform (Prop 30), and was one of the first states to legalize medical marijuana.

    BTW, I am a transplanted Texan.

  55. Alan Pyeatt

    Also, since a lot of mid-Americans don’t think of California as part of the U.S. anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually set the precedent for secession, too.

  56. David Colborne

    Regarding the point touched on by #41, as Paulie pointed out in #54 the LNC is deferring to the Oregon SoS (per the last Judicial Committee ruling on the subject), which, in turn, is deferring to the courts on this one. If the courts rule that both factions are in violation of the LPO bylaws (possible, given the quorum requirements purportedly written into them), I suppose, at least from my exceedingly non-lawyerly perspective, that might be grounds to revoke ballot access from the LPO. This, in turn, would remove the deferment to the SoS baked into the last Judicial Committee ruling since the SoS would declare that the LPO effectively no longer exists, which would allow the LNC to disaffiliate the LPO, start an affiliation convention, and give both groups a chance to get into the same room, hash out some proper bylaws, and put this mess behind them.

    Hey, I work in IT – “turn it off and turn it back on again” works surprisingly often.

    In all seriousness, though, I’ll give Wagner’s crew credit – they’ve been working their tails off up there building the LPO, getting candidates on the ballot, and putting a proper state level party apparatus together. I honestly didn’t think they had it in them a couple of years ago, but I’m impressed by the work they’re doing and I’m happy I was wrong. I’m also disappointed in the amount of effort Reeves/Burke have put into their efforts in Oregon (beyond the lawsuit, they appear to boil down to “not much”).

    As for the LSLA letter, I would’ve pushed for a letter from the LPO Executive Committee (or whatever the governing body is called up there) that would have said something along the lines of…

    To the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance:

    Though we acknowledge the spirit of the gesture Tim Reeves put forward to grant the State Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Wes Wagner, sponsored access to your mailing list, it is the judgment of the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Oregon that it is not Tim Reeves’ access to grant. Since Tim Reeves is not the properly elected Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, we believe it is inappropriate for Mr. Reeves to represent himself as such, much less grant or deny access to resources properly afforded to the duly elected Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Wes Wagner.

    Unfortunately, since the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance has not, of its own volition, removed Tim Reeves from the mailing list and added the duly elected Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Wes Wagner, to the mailing list with the same rights and privileges afforded the fellow state chairs in your organization, we must conclude that the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance does not recognize the will of the membership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, as exercised by its decision to elect Wes Wagner as Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Therefore, we, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, hereby judge that it would be inappropriate for the Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Wes Wagner, to accept an invitation to your organization until such time that the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance reverses its previous decision to recognize Tim Reeves and instead chooses to recognize the duly elected Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Wes Wagner, as such.

    Furthermore, due to the pending lawsuit between the Libertarian Party of Oregon and Tim Reeves, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Oregon further judges that, were the duly elected Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Wes Wagner, to accept Tim Reeves’ invitation, such acceptance would imply consent to the claims put forward by Tim Reeves in clear and direct violation of the will of the membership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Since this consent could materially harm the Libertarian Party of Oregon and undermine our lawsuit against Tim Reeves, we further judge that, should the Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, Wes Wagner, accept Reeves’ invitation, we shall be forced to determine that Wes Wagner is acting against the interests of the Libertarian Party of Oregon and proceed with any and all avenues for redress available within the bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, including but by no means limited to proceeding with the expulsion of Wes Wagner from his office as Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and we look forward to the LSLA reversing course and acknowledging the will of the membership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon at its earliest possible convenience.

    Sincerely,

    (All members of the Executive Committee)

    Then again, I’m wordy like that.

  57. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    “I want the bickering, name calling, trickery, and flaming fingers to end–but I would prefer to have the spirited disagreement than to have an appointed group with the values of Californians decide how my state runs its politics.”

    Hey! A few of us here in California have good libertarian AND Libertarian values.

  58. Mark Vetanen

    There are a lot of problem with Ms. Salvette Credentials Committee that need to be examined.

    First of all, the tests of RONR p. 614 lines 26-34 must be examined.

    Ms. Salvett claims that the committee received two sets of delegates list, one from the recognized State affiliate and with State ballot access, and one from a rouge group who has no recognition from the organization, and no findings of fact from any court or authority. The test of “serious doubt” clearly is not meet. Yet Ms. Salvett went ahead and exceeded her authority and held a trial, passed judgement and rendered an execution.

    She had full knowledge that the LNC board, from where her committee status was granted, had already decided upon this issue and declared that the Wagner group is the State Affiliate.

    Her act of defiance clearly put her and her committee way outside of the governance of the LNC, and she turned her committee in to a ‘Starr Chamber’ to execute a political agenda.

    For those of us there, what the Credentials Committee did was purely political that has no bases on fact or authority.

    The proper course of action should have been that the Chair should have not accepted her report, disbanded the Credentials Committee and reformed with those who will follow the instructions set forth to them. Clearly the Chair, Mark Hinkle and the LNC board, knew of her intentions well before the convention, but simply choose to abandon all fiduciary responsibilities. I am sure that plus a lot of of other fiduciary duties that where also abandoned lead to those officers not being reelected.

    Though it is unfortunate that those who assisted in the prior abandon of fiduciary responsibilities are still on the LNC board and continue to abandon their duties and responsibilities.

    Let me state a warning: When organizations become unjust and fiduciary responsibilities are abandoned for the pursuit to build a political dynasty, it is then clear sign of the beginning of the end.

  59. Dave Terry

    Thomas Knapp (45) “The convention delegates did not state a reason for seating the delegation they seated”

    I see, therefore there IS NO REASON?

    Or are you suggesting that the delegates present were the most uninformed group of delegates to
    have ever voted to seat a delegation.

    Your argument is both disengenuous and inane.

  60. Mark Vetanen

    David Colborne @61

    The LNC, INC has no authority in Oregon (or in any State), with the Oregon SoS, or with the courts. The LNC is also not involved in the current legal filings either nor is asking for any judicial relief.

  61. Paulie

    There were arguments back and forth about the issue, so we can’t know for sure that the credential committee’s report was the overriding reason, although it may have been. As for the credentials committee itself, I think there were maybe 8 or 9 members, 2 of whom were parties to the Oregon lawsuit on the Burke/Reeves side.

    I agree with Wagner when he says that “I would suggest that on a per-capita basis (money raised vs state population and candidates posted on the ballot vs state population) Oregon would be ranked as one of the largest and most successful affiliates.

    Johnson’s results were also better in Oregon than in most states. Burke was the campaign’s state director and was supposed to get a statement for Johnson in the voter pamphlet, which is very important in Oregon, but he never did. Wagner ended up doing that.

  62. Paulie

    I don’t think it would be advantageous to have to requalify Oregon for the ballot.

    That’s a huge job that we simply don’t need, and in no way solves the problem of contentious individuals on various sides who want to lead the state party and other people who don’t want to do that for the reason that they would have to deal with them.

    The inherent problem will have to be solved, and the only way that is likely to happen is through the courts.

    As for LSLA it would be better if they were on the same page as LNC and SOS for the sake of consistency and lack of confusion.

    Barring that, I believe Mark Axinn’s solution would be reasonable, or at least an improvement over what is happening now.

  63. Chuck Moulton

    Mark Vetanen wrote (@64):

    There are a lot of problem with Ms. Salvette Credentials Committee that need to be examined.

    Salvette voted to seat the Wagner delegation.

  64. Mark Vetanen

    Chuck Moulton @69

    Ms. Salvett was the committee chair and should have simply told the Plaintiffs on her committee who wanted to use the Credentials Committee as a political jab at the LNC and the LNC Judcom that no vote will take place because the issue was already decided upon by higher authoritative bodies. Yet, she let a trial, sentencing and execution occur under her chairmanship.

    If she wishes to petition the LNC Judcom to over turn what happened or the Board to declare her committee acted beyond its authority, then perhaps some atonement of the injustice committed would occur.

    I mostly blame Mark Hinkle who knew this was happening, who knew that the plaintiffs where scheming and who stood by and did nothing.

  65. David Colborne

    @68: I hear you. I doubt the Oregon courts will want to push that envelope, either – judges are people too, and most of them just want to go home and have a nice dinner with the family. It wouldn’t surprise me much if it was decided that, well, Wagner’s group is acting as the LPO and has been since this all started, while the other group hasn’t even bothered to put a web site up, so let’s just keep the status quo and call it a day. It would certainly beat digging into Robert’s Rules and the dysfunctional bylaws the LPO was operating under.

    Who knows.

    That said, @66, if there is no “recognized” LPO per the SoS (i.e. were ballot access revoked), the LNC could exercise its right to disaffiliate the LPO and reaffiliate it per the LNC’s bylaws. Of course, since there’s a corporation calling itself the “Libertarian Party of Oregon” now, you might still be right, only in the other direction – were Wagner’s group successful at rebuilding an “LNC recognized” LPO, Corporate LPO could declare that, since LNC LPO is a separate, new entity from the original, dissolved LPO that previous had ballot access, Corporate LPO is the rightful holder of all LPO trademarks and that they, therefore, are the only entity in Oregon now allowed to call themselves the “Libertarian Party of Oregon”. Of course, if they pulled that, “New LPO” could just call itself the “Oregon Libertarian Party” or some similar derivation and secure ballot access under that banner instead.

    Ugh… this is making my head hurt.

  66. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I think it’s possible the judge will read that the proposed officers for the Reeves group hadn’t paid dues, and therefore weren’t eligible to be officers, and throw the suit out based on that. Who knows?

  67. George Phillies

    Rather than blaming Emily Salvette, who voted to seat the Wagner delegation, perhaps people should be blaming the former LNC, which voted to put M Carling — a party to the dispute — on the credentials committee, and then voted to condemn the outcome of the judicial committee finding.

    By the way, the Judicial Committee said that the faction recognized the SoS was our affiliate and NOT that the Wagner group is our affiliate BECAUSE it is recognized by the SoS.

  68. wes wagner

    DC@61

    Your letter would be an excellent letter and the type of letter we would send to anyone who earned the respect it shows.

  69. Mark Vetanen

    GP@74
    Yes, I stated that many on the LNC have abandon all fiduciary responsibilities. Breach Fiduciary Duties does have consequences

    “A director’s fiduciary duties generally fall into two categories: duty of care and duty of loyalty. The duty of care requires a director to perform his duties with reasonable diligence. The duty of loyalty requires a director to act in good faith and in the best interests of the corporation. A director who fails to satisfy any of his fiduciary duties has committed a breach and can be subject to legal and civil penalties.”

  70. Alan Pyeatt

    Dave Terry @ 18: “At the 2007 LPO convention Boozell brough his two children with him as dues paying delegates.
    Since the LP has never set minimum age limits for members, a challenge was moot.

    “During the entire session Boozell coached his children on how to vote. During a recess he could be easily heard by the entire membership
    telling them how to vote.

    “I was acting Secretary at that convention and from the podium, I admonished Boozell and asked him politely to STOP coaching his children.”

    In some organizations with low or no age limits, this is considered acceptable practice. In my parents’ church, if you are baptized, you are allowed to vote on issues that are submitted to the congregation. The minimum age for baptism is 7 years old. It really wouldn’t make sense if the children didn’t ask their parents for advice on how to vote, and nobody seemed to mind when I attended church there.

    I’m not saying that’s the best way to run an organization, but it’s not unprecedented, either. And even if an organization has a minimum voting age, it still wouldn’t make sense to prevent delegates from being “coached” by anybody they choose.

  71. Alan Pyeatt

    TLK @ 45: “If I had to GUESS as to why the delegates chose to seat the delegation they did, I’d guess that the reason was that the credentials committee recommended they do so.”

    I respectfully disagree. IMHO the most important factor was that the vote on the credentials report was taken on a Thursday morning, before many of the delegates had arrived at the convention. It seems to me that the nature of the delegates changed as more people arrived, and the group became more middle class.

    That doesn’t change the validity of the vote, of course. But I think there might have been a different outcome if all the delegates had arrived when the vote was taken. Then again, I’m probably biased, because I wasn’t one of the “higher quality” delegates that a former LINO referred to. :(

  72. Fred Jabin

    Alan @ 59
    I apologize if I offended any particular Californians. I know a great many that I respect. Its not individuals that I object. It is a pervasive culture that is integrating my state to which I am referring.
    I suspect only other Oregonians will truly appreciate the comment, but the influx on those who want to build strip malls and chain stores that dominate the SoCal landscape, and don’t seem to respect the local businesses, farmers, and culture of Oregon are doing a great deal to kill the personality of our communities.
    It is in this sentiment that I am rejecting those from outside my state that want to determine what happens in my state.

  73. Wes Wagner

    FJ @79

    Unfortunately the only thing that will stop that is if people just don’t shop at them and there are some horrible high profile bankruptcies…

    It seems enough people are willing to shop at them though.

  74. David Colborne

    @73: I’m basing my opinion on purely technical grounds. IMHO, the Reeves group’s “solution” to the quorum issue at least acknowledges that, according to Robert’s, you can’t amend bylaws outside of a convention unless you have provisions in your bylaws providing for such. From what I remember, LPO’s bylaws had no such provision. Yet, Wagner’s group amended bylaws and elected new officers. For that reason, I think that, were the court case processed last year, Reeves’ group would have prevailed.

    That said, I have to acknowledge that some time has passed, that Wagner’s group has done a much better job “being the LPO” than the Reeves group, not just in terms of activities that only the Wagner LPO can do, like submitting candidates, but also in terms of fundraising, holding meetings, submitting mailers, and so on. The Reeves group’s failure to pay dues isn’t surprising – obviously they wouldn’t pay dues to the Wagner LPO because they don’t recognize that as the “official” LPO. So, that leaves paying dues to themselves, which may be impossible or illegal depending on how Oregon campaign finance law is written (in Nevada, they’d probably have to register as a PAC to accept dues for political purposes “outside” of party business).

  75. David Colborne

    @79: As a Nevadan, I can appreciate some of the dangers of “Californication”. That said, we Libertarians should be in favor of free trade – strip malls and national chains enjoy economies of scale that local stores can’t enjoy, making them more efficient and enabling them to provide the same goods at lower prices to their customers. Of course, online retailers are even more efficient in most circumstances because they have lower retail costs and don’t have to pay workers to stand around the cash registers during non-peak hours; this allows many online retailers to sell the same goods at lower prices than most national chains. This, of course, is great news if your state has two Amazon distribution centers in it, like Nevada. It’s less good if you’re a California big box retailer trying to stay in business.

    Having said that, Californians do have an uncanny knack at “exporting” some of their failed political and economic policies with them, which tend to ignore what’s worked locally in the past. It’s that very same dynamic, in fact, that has left me uneasy about the Free State Project through the years – though I certainly don’t wish to deny people the right to travel and relocate as they wish for whatever reason, I think it’s bad manners to impose policies on a population by importing a majority on top of them.

  76. Marc Montoni

    George Phillies said:

    Rather than blaming Emily Salvette, who voted to seat the Wagner delegation, perhaps people should be blaming the former LNC, which voted to put M Carling — a party to the dispute — on the credentials committee, and then voted to condemn the outcome of the judicial committee finding.

    I agree with this, sort of. But blame really belongs on the head of Carling himself.

    As I said back in May.

    Carling has been deeply involved in the fiasco in Oregon; indeed, it may be true that his presence in the conflict may well be the catalyst that brought everything to a boil.

    The fact that he refuses to publicly acknowledge that what he did as a Credentials Committee member was outrageous especially for someone who claims to be a PRP, speaks volumes about his character — as well as the character of his faction-mates. His actions make his alleged training as a PRP into a bad joke.

  77. Marc Montoni

    Fred Jabin said:

    …but the influx on those who want to build strip malls and chain stores that dominate the SoCal landscape, and don’t seem to respect the local businesses, farmers, and culture of Oregon are doing a great deal to kill the personality of our communities.

    Actually it is the government’s restrictive zoning and land-use controls that are stripping your communities of their personality.

    Every idiot politician — from the despots of Mesopotamia at the dawn of the Neolithic, to the attention-whore Hippodamus (4th century BC), to your local modern-day busybody town council member — wants his community to match the visual sterility of Aspen, CO.

    They don’t want to see a poor man’s house next to a rich man’s. They don’t want to see a chicken house next to a school (regardless of how much chicken the kids in that school eat). They don’t want to see a dirty book store next to a hardware store. They don’t want a gun shop at all; they don’t want a car repair shop next to the office building; they don’t want a bar next to a flophouse next to a boutique for fancy clothes for soccer moms.

    Blame your own government for sterilizing the personality out of your town — the developers are just building what the law allows them to build.

    It is in this sentiment that I am rejecting those from outside my state that want to determine what happens in my state.

    I’m sure the Mongolian AmerInds would have loved to have said the same thing to the Europeans a few hundred years ago.

    People have a right to do anything they wish on their own honestly-acquired property without any interference whatsoever. Unless you own the property in question, you have no right to control it.

  78. Marc Montoni

    David Colborne said:

    Having said that, Californians do have an uncanny knack at “exporting” some of their failed political and economic policies with them, which tend to ignore what’s worked locally in the past…. I think it’s bad manners to impose policies on a population by importing a majority on top of them.

    I have the same misgivings about the FSP as you do. However…

    Californians are hardly alone in that regard.

    One could argue that the current mafia-state government we have is just one of the many deleterious exports of the communist bloc that made Chicago the political, economic and civil pesthole it is today.

    The entire (and misnamed) “Progressive Era” was an import that came to the United States with immigrants, many of whom had supported the same criminal policies in their home countries that ultimately ended up enslaving them. Intentionally or not, those immigrants took control of a nation and imposed an alien tapeworm on it that will ultimately bring disaster. Should all immigrants have been turned away to prevent their mass delusions from being made into policy?

    Forced unionism is another Continuing Criminal Enterprise that was exported to all areas of the country.

    So, while I share your concerns about the FSP, I have to admit, maybe they’re just traveling down a well-worn path that actually works. I guess we’ll find out.

  79. paulie

    Your letter would be an excellent letter and the type of letter we would send to anyone who earned the respect it shows.

    From Harry Browne’s New Years Resolutions, recently sent out again by LPHQ:

    I resolve to be civil to my opponents, and treat them with respect. However anyone chooses to treat me, it’s important that I be a better person than my enemies.

  80. paulie

    Free State Project isn’t exactly importing a majority. A lot more people move to NH from Mass all the time, and many of them have somewhat different politics from Free Staters. Ironically, a state legislator in NH who recently made news by condemning free staters is herself from Rhode Island.

  81. paulie

    IMHO the most important factor was that the vote on the credentials report was taken on a Thursday morning, before many of the delegates had arrived at the convention. It seems to me that the nature of the delegates changed as more people arrived, and the group became more middle class.

    That doesn’t change the validity of the vote, of course. But I think there might have been a different outcome if all the delegates had arrived when the vote was taken.

    Maybe. However, a later vote to seat Wagner and some others in other states’ delegations also failed, which indicates that later arriving delegates also sided with the Burke/Reeves side. At least the ones who were present for 9 AM votes.

  82. paulie

    Ms. Salvett was the committee chair and should have simply told the Plaintiffs on her committee who wanted to use the Credentials Committee as a political jab at the LNC and the LNC Judcom that no vote will take place because the issue was already decided upon by higher authoritative bodies. Yet, she let a trial, sentencing and execution occur under her chairmanship.

    As far as I have been told the credentials committee does not have to defer to LNC (although I think it should). Might be a bylaw problem if true.

    Also, if this is true, Emily Salvette lacked the authority to prevent the credentials committee from considering the issue.

  83. Wes Wagner

    P @86

    How well did that work? We have a corrupt nation, a corrupt LP, and almost every institution is perverted in some manner.

    I, in part, blame it on false civility. Never give power to anyone who does not deserve it. When the emperor has no clothes, mock him — don’t kiss the ring.

  84. paulie

    How well did that work?

    To the inadequate extent that it has been tried, it works better than the opposite approach.

    When the emperor has no clothes, mock him — don’t kiss the ring.

    I’m not suggesting kissing anyone’s ring. I think civility, especially to each other within the LP, and at least to a greater extent than now in our dealings with those outside the LP, would do us a world of good.

    That doesn’t mean we can’t criticize anyone, including ourselves.

  85. paulie

    Escalation of incivility/vicious cycle:

    I’ve gone down that path before, and seen many others go down that path. It took me, and them, to bad places.

    As for “traitors” … as far as I know, my factional opponents in the LP are well-meaning and doing what they sincerely believe is in the best interests of the LP, liberty, and the world as a whole. Maybe some are not, but I have no proof of that.

  86. paulie

    By the way, the Judicial Committee said that the faction recognized the SoS was our affiliate and NOT that the Wagner group is our affiliate BECAUSE it is recognized by the SoS.

    I thought it did say that the reason why was because of SOS determination. I’ll have to go back and look.

  87. paulie

    The Reeves group’s failure to pay dues isn’t surprising – obviously they wouldn’t pay dues to the Wagner LPO because they don’t recognize that as the “official” LPO.

    As I understand it, the reference is to some of them not paying dues prior to the split.

  88. paulie

    By the way, interesting word choice.

    From wikipedia:

    A victor gives no quarter when the victor shows no clemency or mercy and refuses to spare the life in return for the surrender at discretion (unconditional surrender) of a vanquished opponent.[1]

    Under the laws of war “… it is especially forbidden … to declare that no quarter will be given”. This was established under Article 23 of the IV Convention – The Laws and Customs of War on Land of the Hague Conventions of 1907.[2]

    Since a judgment on the law relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trials in October 1946, the 1907 Hague conventions, including the explicit prohibition to declare that no quarter will be given, are considered to be part of the customary laws of war and are binding on all parties in an international armed conflict.[3]

  89. paulie

    I’ve gone further down the road of incivility and escalating conflict than most people would imagine being possible. It lead to a lot of bad things for me and those around me. I’ve decided to try a different path; I still have a lot of work to do.

  90. Mark Vetanen

    Paulie @ 88

    Maybe. However, a later vote to seat Wagner and some others in other states’ delegations also failed, which indicates that later arriving delegates also sided with the Burke/Reeves side. At least the ones who were present for 9 AM votes.

    Actually, it was Mr. Burke who insisted on Sunday morning that a ‘One-by-One’ vote for each person to be added as a delegate and that each one get 2/3rds of the room vote to be added. Mark Hinkle asked Mr. Burke several times if he wished to do this, and Mr. Burke affirmed this was his will. It was my own observation that Mark Hinkle was not happy with what Mr. Burke was dong on but proceeded never the less, and one by one the 2/3’rs of the vote was not meet…mostly due to disinterested folks who where just put off by Mr. Burkes stunt and a lot of hung-over people from a night of hard drinking and gambling just sat there doing nothing not realizing what was going on.

    In contract, the Saturday morning session the vote to seat additional delegates was done as a single motion for the entire slate of new delegates to be added, and nobody seemed to be looking for a 2/3’rd vote….I actually only think half the delegates in the room actually voted on the motion and the chair, Mark Hinkle was not really looking to see if it was 2/3’rs or not….it was just assumed it was passed and on to business.

  91. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    DC @ 81: As far as paying dues, I understand that none of the Reeves group officers had paid dues PRIOR to the March/May 2011 takeover, which means when they voted themselves in they were not members. I believe Jeff Weston was chair during that prior term.

    In California, people who aren’t dues-paying members can’t be delgates and can’t vote. I imagine that’s also true in Oregon.

    Someone can certainly correct me if I’m wrong.

  92. paulie

    I understand that none of the Reeves group officers had paid dues PRIOR to the March/May 2011 takeover, which means when they voted themselves in they were not members.

    That’s an exaggeration. Some of them had not been members for a sufficiently long enough period of time under the old bylaws (at least that’s how I remember it).

    It’s not true that none of them had ever been members.

  93. Mark Vetanen

    JP @ 102
    Under the 2009 Oregon Party bylaws membership is annual an must be affirmed every year by paying dues and filling out a membership form. Members who where not current on dues where prohibited to vote in any party business or hold an officer seat on the board, or be seated as an officer if their dues laps while in office. Furthermore, Officers of the party under the 2009 bylaws MUST be registered Libertarian voters. Any swing voting or registering for another party while in office would immediately terminate such persons officership on the board.

  94. paulie

    Actually, it was Mr. Burke who insisted on Sunday morning that a ‘One-by-One’ vote for each person to be added as a delegate and that each one get 2/3rds of the room vote to be added. Mark Hinkle asked Mr. Burke several times if he wished to do this, and Mr. Burke affirmed this was his will. It was my own observation that Mark Hinkle was not happy with what Mr. Burke was dong on but proceeded never the less, and one by one the 2/3?rs of the vote was not meet…mostly due to disinterested folks who where just put off by Mr. Burkes stunt and a lot of hung-over people from a night of hard drinking and gambling just sat there doing nothing not realizing what was going on.

    In contract, the Saturday morning session the vote to seat additional delegates was done as a single motion for the entire slate of new delegates to be added, and nobody seemed to be looking for a 2/3?rd vote….I actually only think half the delegates in the room actually voted on the motion and the chair, Mark Hinkle was not really looking to see if it was 2/3?rs or not….it was just assumed it was passed and on to business.

    I don’t see anything about 2/3 in the convention minutes. As contentious as everyone was being, if there was any doubt as to whether the motions passed or not I think there would have been a challenge…especially since the Chair race was still undecided at that point and everyone was looking for every vote they could get.

    Here’s what it says:

    Ms. Salvette presented an updated Credentials Committee report which included 590 delegates and 3
    alternates with 592 people eligible to vote. On behalf of the Credentials Committee Ms. Salvette moved to
    amend the roll of voting delegates to include these numbers. The motion was adopted.

    On behalf of the Credentials Committee Ms. Salvette moved that the convention approve the addition of 5 new
    delegates whose names had not been submitted prior to the convention: John Kendall (CA), Donna Clawson
    (NM), Katie Prusack (NM), Wes Wagner (GA), and Jeff Weston (GA).

    Richard Burke (OR) moved to divide the question and handle each proposed new delegate separately. The
    motion to divide failed with a voice vote. A motion to vote up-or-down on all 5 simultaneously failed with a voice
    vote, so the convention proceeded to vote on each separately.

    The motion to approve John Kendall (CA) as a new delegate failed with a voice vote.
    The motion to approve Wes Wagner (GA) as a new delegate failed with a voice vote.
    The motion to approve Jeff Weston (GA) as a new delegate failed with a voice vote.
    The motion to approve Donna Clawson (NM) as a new delegate failed with a voice vote.
    The motion to approve Katie Prusack (NM) as a new delegate failed with a voice vote.

  95. George Phillies

    “The motion to divide failed with a voice vote.”

    I do not remember the details of the events with the needed precision. If the motion to divide failed, why was the motion divided? Something seems to be missing relative to the prior day’s events.

  96. Mark Vetanen

    GP, I clearly remember Mark Hinkle saying it would take a 2/3’rds vote of the delegates to seat new delegates.

  97. paulie

    . If the motion to divide failed, why was the motion divided?

    “The motion to divide failed with a voice vote. A motion to vote up-or-down on all 5 simultaneously failed with a voice
    vote, so the convention proceeded to vote on each separately.”

    Does seem a bit odd that the second motion was even needed.

    I don’t feel like going back and checking IPR archives right now. Maybe later, maybe not, or maybe someone else can do it.

    If there was a 2/3 requirement why was that not mentioned?

    If there was any ambiguity as to whether the motions failed or passed why was there no challenge or standing count?

    The whole thing seems pretty strange all around.

    Doesn’t quite rise to the level of the “perpetual election” ruling being sustained, but it comes close.

    It also makes no sense that the other three delegates who had nothing to do with Oregon got rejected, or that the motion to vote on all five with one vote failed but then the motion to seat each and every one failed.

    Bizarre!

  98. Mark Vetanen

    In just quickly looking at Roberts Rules, it appears that its a simple majority vote to accept a report, and Two-thirds Vote to amend a report.

    Anyone want to affirm this?

  99. Wes Wagner

    p @108

    Everyone got rejected I think mostly because of the NOTA vote going on and Rutherford losing by 1 vote. At that point alot of people didn’t want to add votes to the pool.

    I asked for credentials expecting to be turned down… I wanted to prove a point.

  100. Mark Vetanen

    Michael H. Wilson
    The LNC did hire a videographer to video the entire event, so perhaps you can appeal to them to put it up. I however did not video any of Sundays events.

  101. LibertarianGirl

    rumors can dictate impressions and had i not had the opportunity to be seated with several Oregonians with the Great Libertarian State of GA where growth is achieved thru non-paranoid and uncontrolled inclusion…..i may have had opinions based on hearsay or developed thru whats said here and likely may have lumped them altogether …. i sat with them and witnessed them being rejected , it was a sad day for libertarians…..these were longstanding activists and they deserved a spot…..when we start using rules and procedure to limit competiton we have become no better than that which we oppose….

  102. Starchild

    What Michael said @111 — all party business should be videotaped and put online! LNC meetings, conventions, committee meetings (such as the Credentials Committee meeting discussed in this thread), all of it. Having an easily accessed record of exactly what happened during these sessions would save a lot of dispute, confusion, and error later.

    If anyone has suggested wording for a motion on this topic, bearing in mind all the usual political sensitivities on the LNC to staff workload, expense, etc., and preferably referencing the LNC Policy Manual ( https://www.lp.org/files/PolicyManualupdated12NOV2012.pdf ), I’d be interested in introducing one.

    David @61 – Second Jill’s kudos on the letter. I would’ve preferred to see that response from Wes too.

    Smart Alex @12, Paulie @14 – It is rather ironic that Aaron Starr appears to wield so much power as LSLA secretary and controller of its list, when he is not himself a state chair or even an elected state party leader.

    From Tim Reeves’ letter:

    “I then asked [Aaron Starr] for his policy[emphasis added] for putting people on the state chairs list. He told me that state chairs and a few other dignitaries (e.g. the National Chairman) are subscribed without moderation. Upon the request of a state chair, others from their respective state may be subscribed with moderation. I asked him whether under his policy if Wes Wagner could be subscribed by someone else. He told me that as long as I am the chair of my state, only I would get to decide who else can be subscribed from my state.

    Note “his policy”, not “the LSLA’s policy”. Does the LSLA even have a written policy on who has access to its email list, or is it more like whatever the LSLA chair says it is (as subject to Aaron interpretation)?

    -Starchild
    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

  103. paulie

    In just quickly looking at Roberts Rules, it appears that its a simple majority vote to accept a report, and Two-thirds Vote to amend a report.

    I don’t have a copy of Roberts Rules. However, that would answer at least some of my questions about that section of the minutes, but not all of them.

    Everyone got rejected I think mostly because of the NOTA vote going on and Rutherford losing by 1 vote. At that point alot of people didn’t want to add votes to the pool.

    That would make sense if there was a 2/3 threshold, neither side wanted to give the other any additional votes. And if the 2/3 threshold is part of bylaws, Roberts or standing rules, that explains why it would not have been mentioned in that part of the minutes.

  104. paulie

    The LNC did hire a videographer to video the entire event, so perhaps you can appeal to them to put it up.

    Does that include credentials committee meeting? In either case, I don’t know if that video was even preserved – right now it just says the video is created to help the Secretary prepare minutes. And the majority of the LNC seems to be opposed to making it public, although we will try.

  105. paulie

    What Michael said @111 — all party business should be videotaped and put online! LNC meetings, conventions, committee meetings (such as the Credentials Committee meeting discussed in this thread), all of it. Having an easily accessed record of exactly what happened during these sessions would save a lot of dispute, confusion, and error later.

    If anyone has suggested wording for a motion on this topic, bearing in mind all the usual political sensitivities on the LNC to staff workload, expense, etc., and preferably referencing the LNC Policy Manual ( https://www.lp.org/files/PolicyManualupdated12NOV2012.pdf ), I’d be interested in introducing one.

    I fully agree. I don’t have suggested wording but I’ll put this out on several lists and hopefully we will find someone to help with the wording.

  106. paulie

    It is rather ironic that Aaron Starr appears to wield so much power as LSLA secretary and controller of its list, when he is not himself a state chair or even an elected state party leader.

    Yes, and when I applied for LSLA leadership I was told they were only interested in people who are currently in state party leadership. I should have remembered that Mr. Starr is not.

    Does the LSLA even have a written policy on who has access to its email list, or is it more like whatever the LSLA chair says it is (as subject to Aaron interpretation)?

    I think it’s more like whoever Aaron decides to add to the list, which is largely or maybe even entirely at the request of state chairs. As far as policy I don’t see it at http://lsla.org/about-the-libertarian-state-leadership-alliance/bylaws

    We could ask Aaron and Brett what the policy is. I believe I saw something on the email list about it being on the agenda for a teleconference. Not sure if that meeting happened yet.

  107. Wes Wagner

    p @120

    I have serious concerns about the bylaws of the organization. The membership is defined as State chairs as defined by the LP (which would be me… but I digress) … it would appear that we have had a number of officers who are not actual members of the organization. As an aside the Venn diagram between who are serving in roles in that organization who are not members of state leadership and people generally considered to be troublemakers would look like this: O

  108. paulie

    . The membership is defined as State chairs as defined by the LP

    All it says is

    Voting Members shall consist of the State Chairs of affiliate State Libertarian Parties.

    You could interpret that as affiliates recognized by the LNC, or you could interpret that as state parties affiliated with LSLA, which would mean they would have discretion to make their own decisions about who they recognize as the leadership in cases where there is a conflict.

    Since there is no mechanism for affiliation with LSLA, I think your interpretation makes more sense, and you should therefore appeal the decision on that basis. If your appeal is rejected, you might have a case to present to LNC/JudCom that LSLA should not be affiliated with LNC in any way. However, it seems that they are already moving in that direction anyway.

    it would appear that we have had a number of officers who are not actual members of the organization

    The section on officers does not say they have to be members. It probably should.

    As an aside the Venn diagram between who are serving in roles in that organization who are not members of state leadership and people generally considered to be troublemakers would look like this: O

    Chair Brett Bittner of LSLA is executive director, not chair, in Georgia

    http://www.lpgeorgia.com/about/executive-committee/

    I’ve not heard him called a troublemaker. Have you heard otherwise?

    Vice Chair Pat Dixon is the Chair of Texas.

    Treasurer Shawn Levasseur is Treasurer, not Chair, in Maine:

    http://lpme.org/leadership/

    This is the first time I have heard him called a troublemaker.

    Aaron Starr, Secretary of LSLA, currently holds no position on the California ExCom

    http://ca.lp.org/executive-committee

    He is as we all know quite controversial, and many people do consider him to be a troublemaker.

    The new At Large member is not yet listed at http://lsla.org/about-the-libertarian-state-leadership-alliance/officers

    He is Jason Melehani, member at large in NC
    http://lpnc.org/our-organization/executive-committee/

    Thus Pat Dixon is the only state chair on that board.

    However, Aaron Starr is the only one I have ever heard to be considered a troublemaker.

    You believe all of them are?

  109. Wes Wagner

    p @122

    I don’t generally regard Dixon as a troublemaker. I was unaware of Jason Melehani and have no opinion.

  110. paulie

    Dixon would not be covered under your definition, since he is an actual state chair.

    Starr, I will stipulate many people consider a troublemaker.

    I’ll grant that Melehani is not listed, so there is no reason you would have known the At Large position had been filled.

    That leaves Bittner and Levasseur. I haven’t heard them generally to be considered troublemakers. Have you?

  111. Fred Jabin

    It seemed to me that a good portion of the people who voted to go with the credentials committee recommendation just wanted to move on to business that they seemed pertinent and didn’t want to be part of a dispute that they felt was between two parties that were both in the wrong.

    Most of the people I spoke with were unaware that there were two members of the Reeves faction on the committee.

  112. Fred Jabin

    CALIFORNICATION:

    My comments were not so much about the political ramifications that come from California. It was about a lack of understanding about the issues and life of Oregon that people who move here from California exhibit.

    There are actually people who think they are getting something special when they see “California strawberries” advertised at the grocery store. If you were from Oregon you would understand that the only times you buy California strawberries is before the Oregon strawberries are available.

    Part of Oregon’s culture is about our local communities. If we want to spread Libertarian ideas in Oregon–we must understand Oregon culture. Understanding Libertarian principles but not being able to communicate them to Oregonians is of little value to us. Frequently people from outside our area try to speak on issues with out the understanding of what motivates people in our area. This can potentially do more harm than good.

  113. Michael H. Wilson

    Mark @ 112 I thought that just some parts of the convention were taped. I did not know the entire event was. If so it should be available to the public.

  114. paulie

    All LNC meetings and conventions are taped to assist the Secretary to prepare minutes. As far as I know the tapes are not kept after that (in fact they may be the same tapes being reused repeatedly) and certainly not being made available. I’d like to try to change that, but the majority of the LNC has been resistant to all our attempts to make things more open to the general public, so I predict we will lose.

  115. Wes Wagner

    P @128

    Make the motion anyway. There are reasons to bring forth issues that should be “shall pass” only to have them defeated.

    Exposing the character of the organization as being hypocritical and corrupt and thus causing it to collapse under its own weight is just another form of transparency.

  116. Michael H. Wilson

    If it is voted down we can put the LNC on notice that the same thing will be coming up at the next national convention and will continue to be brought up until it is approved.

    Isn’t that what the Sunshine caucus is all about?

  117. Wes Wagner

    MHW @131

    This issue goes way past the Sunshine caucus… voting this down puts you squarely against the entirety of the libertarian caucus.

    You are essentially declaring war on fundamental principles of libertarianism — those dealing with tenets of égalité.

  118. George Phillies

    At least there are minutes of the National Convention.

    Minutes of the LNC seem to be lacking. For example, there is the allegation that Mark Hinkle was elected to the LNC. However, the voting process adopted by the LNC appears to require that there be a report on how each LNC member voted, lacking which the election process was not validly executed. If the election process was not properly executed, then there arises the assertion that the LNC is not properly constituted, and its acts — such as perhaps approving a building loan — were invalid. Because Hinkle participated extensively in the debates, saying ‘we won’t count his vote’ is not a valid process. If the LNC actually borrowed the money under these conditions, there would then arise the possibility of member suits against the board.

  119. Wes Wagner

    GP @133

    The question then… is this more “incompetence” on the part of Hinkle’s pet, or a deliberate attempt to obscure the names of the guilty?

  120. paulie

    Isn’t that what the Sunshine caucus is all about?

    Yes, that’s a big part of our goals.

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsunshine/

    @133-4 the roll call of votes was announced as it happened, has been published in IPR and Phillies’ own newsletter and website, and was included in he draft minutes.

    http://www.goldusagroup.com/diary/193/hinkle-back-on-lnc


    Hinkle Back on LNC
    by: AUGeorge
    Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 18:53:23 PM MST
    The Libertarian National Committee has placed Mark Hinkle back on the LNC, barely six months after our National Convention delegates ejected Mark Hinkle from the LNC. Bruce Majors at the last LNC meeting reported that the first ballot was Hinkle 7, David Blau of Massachusetts 6, and others 1 or 2 with one abstention. Geoff Neale then called for a runoff with Redpath seconding Neale’s motion. On the second ballot, Hinkle won with 10 votes, while Blau had 7.
    Prior to Hinkle’s election the LNC voted on making their votes a matter of record, namely from the LNC draft Minutes: Starchild moved that all voters sign their ballots for filling the At-Large vacancy. Mr. Cloud seconded the motion: On a roll call vote there were 9 votes for and 6 against so the motion passed. Voting aye: Neale,Wrights, Hagan, Bennett, Cloud, Starchild, Kirkland, Lark and Frankel. Voting nay: Wiener, Tomasso, Redpath, Olsen, Mack and Visek.

    The first round ballot went:
    Abstain-Neale
    Hinkle-Bennett, Cloud, Redpath, Vohra, Kirkland, Lark and Frankel. (Frankel voted at the instruction of a majority of his state chairs).
    Blau-Wiener, Pojunis, Mack, Olsen, Visek and Tomasso.
    Johnson of Texas-Wrights, Hagan
    Frankel-Starchild.

    The second round ballot went:
    Hinkle-Neale, Hagan, Bennett, Cloud, Starchild, Redpath, Vohra, Kirkland, Lark and Frankel. (Frankel voted at the instruction of a majority of his state chairs).
    Blau-Wrights, Wiener, Pojunis, Mack, Olsen, Visek and Tomasso.
    Hinkel won 10-7.

    As I indicated elsewhere, since I was a candidate, my intention was to not vote in this election.

    However, John Jay Myers asked me to represent our region at the meeting because he was burned out from the election and needed to rebuild his business. He said his main concern was that I should cast the vote that the state chairs instructed him to cast in the vacancy appointment, and asked if I would have any problem with doing that. So all I really did was save him a trip that he didn’t feel up to making right then.

  121. paulie

    However, the voting process adopted by the LNC appears to require that there be a report on how each LNC member voted, lacking which the election process was not validly executed.

    I took that to mean announced at the meeting. You believe it to mean only when the minutes of the meeting become final?

    The question then… is this more “incompetence” on the part of Hinkle’s pet, or a deliberate attempt to obscure the names of the guilty?

    There’s no attempt to obscure anyone’s names. We won (narrowly) the vote that the roll call of votes should be public.

  122. Wes Wagner

    p @136

    Not putting them in the minutes is partial obscurement … it means that only people who are super engaged and reading IPR will “get it” … and potentially when Chuck M does his biennial LNC in review spreadsheets it might get accidentally left out.

  123. paulie

    It is true that the minutes of the meeting have not yet been made final, which is a completely separate issue. However see @135 I wrote the roll call of votes was announced as it happened, has been published in IPR and Phillies’ own newsletter and website, and was included in he draft minutes.

  124. Wes Wagner

    Having the knowledge I do of how the floor fee plot really went down, I have a certain level of heightened paranoia about some thinks involving Mark and Ruth.

    I was off base on this one.

  125. paulie

    Yes, but it actually has to be in the minutes.

    What are you basing that on? It just said that the voters had to sign their ballots, I see nothing that says the new member can’t be seated until the minutes are made final. Part of the reason for having that vote early in the meeting was so that the newly appointed member could vote in the rest of that meeting. I did not hear a single person object to that, because I think that was an understanding everyone present shared. That would include Starchild, who made the motion that the votes should be roll call, and all of us who voted for that motion, as well as everyone who voted against it. For that matter any of the gallery could have been asked to be allowed to speak if they interpreted it that way, and no one did.

  126. George Phillies

    I can assure you that GoldUSAGroup is not an official LNC publication. Yes, I would be interested in seeing the minutes being approved, hopefully with the vote total that I reported.

  127. paulie

    ” Starchild moved that all voters sign their ballots for filling the At-Large vacancy.”

    I see nothing that says that the person elected is not seated until the minutes are finalized. The Secretary announced the roll call right then and there in an open meeting.

    I don’t see the word published in there, but even if it was, that doesn’t mean that the results of the election would not be official until the minutes are published – only that it would be included in the minutes later.

  128. George Phillies

    Paulie has convinced me that the signed ballots with the actual votes were not viewed as distinct from what I gather was an orthodox roll-call vote that was taken and announced in the meeting. In that case, there should hopefully be no problem.

  129. paulie

    Now that we have that hopefully resolved, I’m still curious if Wes W. is standing by the statement that Brett Bittner and Shawn Levasseur are generally regarded as troublemakers…or did I misinterpret him?

  130. Wes Wagner

    P @148

    You did not misinterpret me. Some people’s actions and alliances are better hidden from public view than others.

    Though… your first clue even in the absence of a sophisticated intelligence network would be that they were willing to stay or to begin association with the LSLA current leadership even with the obvious public evidence.

  131. paulie

    Here is the video of the entire 2012 credentials committee report and its debate
    http://vimeo.com/55499939

    Many of the conclusions that have been stated about the credentials committee report and the delegates voting are not supported in this video.

    Oops, missed that earlier.

  132. paulie

    FYI I watched that video, and there were in fact two standing counts on whether the Reeves or Wagner slates of delegates would be seated, so it was not a matter of some people being louder than others.

  133. George Phillies

    @140 I have received an email from Starchild denying that there was a roll-call of votes at the meeting; rather the list of who voted for whom would be circulated later. Paulie has sent me an email indicating that he misremembered; there was not a roll-call. He proposes that the draft minutes, which is what Liberty for America used, are valid because no one has complained about them. I do not believe his rationale is valid.

    Paulie has therefore convinced me that my assertion in 147 was incorrect, in that there was no roll call, and therefore my original issue remains.

    The core difficulty is that the LNC has for some time been unable to transact business, because the secretary refuses to post motions or vote results; when vote results have been posted, they have repeatedly been wrong.

  134. paulie

    LNC-Discuss, probably not yet on the reflector (I’ll need to check):

    On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Starchild wrote:
    Paulie,

    Actually the full role call of how each LNC member voted on the two ballots leading to Mark HInkle’s election to the LNC was *not* announced at the meeting. Individual votes were recorded, but if I recall correctly it was stated that they would not be immediately read out, in the interests of saving time. I was not really okay with those results not being fully and immediately made public, which should have taken no more than a couple minutes, but in the interests of placating other committee members I let it slide, which I probably shouldn’t have.

    I apologize, my recollection was apparently then incorrect. However, the results were by written ballot, were announced at the meeting (even if the roll call wasn’t), and no one challenged them. The roll call has since then been made public in the draft minutes, and no one has disputed their vote in that roll call. I don’t think we can legitimately claim that Mark was not elected or that his seating is supposed to wait the minutes being made final.

    It was *not* my understanding that this meant everyone would have to wait until the minutes were published to see those full results, and in light of this message expressing concern forwarded to us from LP member George Phillies, would ask that the Secretary publish the roll call of those two tallies on this list or the LNC-business list as soon as she can.

    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))
    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

    p] Sorry if I was not clear.

    We did see the results, which have been publicly posted on this list, the reflector, the Phillies website and print newsletter, IPR a number of different times, draft minutes, and so on. I have not seen one person challenge their vote as being inaccurate. Here is one additional opportunity to look over and see if anyone’s vote was recorded inaccurately:

    ———————————————————————————-
    The first round ballot went:
    Abstain-Neale
    Hinkle-Bennett, Cloud, Redpath, Vohra, Kirkland, Lark and Frankel. (Frankel voted at the instruction of a majority of his state chairs).
    Blau-Wiener, Pojunis, Mack, Olsen, Visek and Tomasso.
    Johnson of Texas-Wrights, Hagan
    Frankel-Starchild.

    The second round ballot went:
    Hinkle-Neale, Hagan, Bennett, Cloud, Starchild, Redpath, Vohra, Kirkland, Lark and Frankel. (Frankel voted at the instruction of a majority of his state chairs).
    Blau-Wrights, Wiener, Pojunis, Mack, Olsen, Visek and Tomasso.
    Hinkel won 10-7.

    As I indicated elsewhere, since I was a candidate, my intention was to not vote in this election.

    However, John Jay Myers asked me to represent our region at the meeting because he was burned out from the election and needed to rebuild his business. He said his main concern was that I should cast the vote that the state chairs instructed him to cast in the vacancy appointment, and asked if I would have any problem with doing that. So all I really did was save him a trip that he didn’t feel up to making right then.

    ————————————————————————————

    Starchild, are you saying the intent of your motion was that the person who won the election would not be seated until the minutes are made final? Because I did not understand that to be what I was voting on.

    Thus I don’t believe Mark Hinkle’s current membership on the LNC is in any way improper, nor do I believe that the business he participated in is therefore called into question.

    However, I would certainly join Starchild in asking that final minutes be submitted in a more timely fashion.

  135. paulie

    I see one likely error @135 (quote from GoldUSAGroup:

    from the LNC draft Minutes: Starchild moved that all voters sign their ballots for filling the At-Large vacancy. Mr. Cloud seconded the motion: On a roll call vote there were 9 votes for and 6 against so the motion passed. Voting aye: Neale,Wrights, Hagan, Bennett, Cloud, Starchild, Kirkland, Lark and Frankel. Voting nay: Wiener, Tomasso, Redpath, Olsen, Mack and Visek.

    My recollection, and Chuck Moulton’s comment in IPR comments on the meeting, was that Brett Pojunis also voted NAY, which would make it 9-7. Arvin was not there yet that morning.

  136. paulie

    I have received an email from Starchild denying that there was a roll-call of votes at the meeting; rather the list of who voted for whom would be circulated later. Paulie has sent me an email indicating that he misremembered; there was not a roll-call.

    I am assuming Starchild is correct, and I posted both emails as a comment here.

    He proposes that the draft minutes, which is what Liberty for America used, are valid because no one has complained about them. I do not believe his rationale is valid.

    I think there has been ample time to challenge the results, especially since many people (including LNC members) are not fans of Mark Hinkle or his motions, thus they had every incentive to check whether the vote to seat him was accurately recorded.


    Paulie has therefore convinced me that my assertion in 147 was incorrect, in that there was no roll call, and therefore my original issue remains.

    All of the discussion was posted to the LNC list, so we’ll see if anyone else chimes in. One new message from Starchild came in as I was typing this:

    Paulie,

    My bad — I had forgotten that the draft minutes with the info were published, and withdraw my request to the secretary. I don’t see any impropriety in Mark Hinkle being seated as a voting member of the committee prior to minutes being published, but I do think that in the future the results of each roll call vote should be fully disclosed prior to moving on to any other item of business. It is being penny-wise and pound-foolish to try to save a minute or two here and there by delaying the release of such information until a later time when memories may have faded is not practicing transparency, and only asking for trouble. I accept as much blame as anyone else on the committee for not insisting on this at the time.

    George Phillies continues


    The core difficulty is that the LNC has for some time been unable to transact business, because the secretary refuses to post motions or vote results; when vote results have been posted, they have repeatedly been wrong.

    I agree that this is a problem, and I have tried to address it quite a few times on the LNC list. Thus far I am seeing no solution to the issue.

    Two proposed solutions have been advanced

    1) Asking the Secretary to resign. She has been asked by several people several times and has repeatedly said no.

    2) Making the Assistant Secretary an official position and empowering the Assistant Secretary to officially open votes, tally and announce results in between meetings if that can be allowed under the bylaws. No one has taken me up on my suggestion that a motion be made to that effect.

    One weakness of my solution is that even if it is OK under the bylaws and even if it passes, the Secretary would still have to announce, tally and announce results of THAT vote.

    I don’t see a solution to that as of now.

  137. George Phillies

    @155 In the absence of a vote on the minutes, there may be people who have not yet looked. We are grateful to you for finding the error in the recorded vote, a nay vote being omitted; did the person whose vote was misrecorded speak up. If not, why should the other record be believed.

  138. Chuck Moulton

    George Phillies wrote (@152):

    The core difficulty is that the LNC has for some time been unable to transact business, because the secretary refuses to post motions or vote results; when vote results have been posted, they have repeatedly been wrong.

    Paulie wrote (@155):

    I agree that this is a problem, and I have tried to address it quite a few times on the LNC list. Thus far I am seeing no solution to the issue.

    Two proposed solutions have been advanced

    1) Asking the Secretary to resign. [...]

    2) Making the Assistant Secretary an official position [...]

    There is a third obvious solution:

    3. If the secretary is not doing her job and refuses to resign, then she should be removed for cause under bylaw 7.8. That action should not be taken lightly, but this non-performance of core duties is really getting ridiculous.

    Alicia Mattson did a far superior job as secretary. However, if people are concerned about adding Alicia back to the LNC when the delegates clearly were dissatisfied with her (most likely for non-secretarial things like her voting patterns), then just pick a different replacement. This isn’t rocket science.

    If you want a less controversial replacement, you can submit my name. I read my email regularly, I’m detail oriented (minimal mistakes), I’m a professional registered parliamentarian, and I served as secretary of several organizations (including the state level in the LPPA and the local level in LPNOVA).

    Not that I’m campaigning vigorously for the job or trying to railroad Ruth out… but something needs to be done. This situation is outrageous!! The board of the national LP is basically neutered into total inaction without a working secretary.

  139. George Phillies

    @155 Actually there is a third solution to the total ineffectiveness of the LNC due to the absence of vote passage, a motion to suspend for cause the Secretary. Suspension is what the LNC calls impeachment. The most important feature of this motion is that, on the advance of the motion, the Secretary is obliged to step aside, just as the Chair must step aside if he faces a motion to suspend him, so the current Secretary;s antics cannot hinder the process of her possible removal.

    The forthcoming Liberty for America will be editorializing in favor of this action.

  140. paulie

    Chuck and George,

    I’ve thought of that, and I decided that the obvious reason why that has not yet been put forward as a motion by the people who have asked Ms. Bennett to resign repeatedly (Visek, for example) is that they have discussed that option privately and counted votes, and they don’t have 2/3 support to remove Ms. Bennett for cause.

    That is conjecture, I have not received any calls or been copied on any emails to that effect.

    I would encourage Chuck to email his offer to the entire LNC.

    Normally I would be happy to advance that offer, and would be more than happy to work with Chuck on LNC.

    Maybe some people would be more willing to consider it if Bennett and Mattson are not the only practical choices.

    Please write all of LNC directly – I don’t want to be the one seen as personally attacking Ruth, I’m the “new kid” and she has friendships going back decades on the LNC while I was the guy who got one vote for At Large. Besides, I’m trying to preach not personally attacking people. I know in some ways that it’s not really a personal attack at this stage to point out that the job is not being done, but I hope you know what I mean.

  141. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’m very sad about the situation with Ruth. Has she not been on the LNC before? Maybe she didn’t know what it involved.

    I could NEVER be secretary of anything. I just can’t sit still long enough (not that anyone asked). I’m certain it’s a very hard job.

  142. George Phillies

    Chuck Moulton would be an excellent choice. Gary Johnson of Texas, who was a candidate for at-large, is iirc a former National Secretary.

    Recycling people from the last LNC, people the NatCon just ejected, might have interesting consequences.

  143. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote (@160):

    I would encourage Chuck to email his offer to the entire LNC.

    I’ll try calling a few LNC members tomorrow to get their read on how the committee is treating the secretary situation. Seems more judicious than a blanket email.

    George Phillies wrote (@163):

    Gary Johnson of Texas, who was a candidate for at-large, is iirc a former National Secretary.

    Yes, Gary Johnson of Texas would probably be excellent.

  144. Ed Ng

    I’ll try calling a few LNC members tomorrow to get their read on how the committee is treating the secretary situation. Seems more judicious than a blanket email.

    Ayup.

  145. paulie

    Jim Lark to LNC:

    Dear colleagues:

    I hope all is well with you. I am writing to offer some comments concerning the message from Starchild that is enclosed below. I hope you find my comments helpful.

    Starchild states that “Actually the full role (sic) call of how each LNC member voted on the two ballots leading to Mark Hinkle’s election to the LNC was *not* announced at the meeting.” Allow me to mention that this statement is incorrect, at least with respect to the second ballot.

    The vote totals of the first ballot were announced by Ms. Bennett (Blau 5, Hinkle 7, Johnson 2, Frankel 1); the names of those who voted for each candidate were not announced, although it was noted that Mr. Neale had abstained. (Actually, the first announcement of the vote totals contained an error; Mr. Blau received six votes rather than the five votes initially indicated.)

    For the second ballot, Ms. Bennett announced the names of those who voted for Mr. Hinkle (Redpath, Vohra, Kirkland, Lark, Frankel, Starchild, Hagan, and Bennett). She then announced the names of those who voted for Mr. Blau (Wrights, Mack, Pojunis, Visek, Tomasso, Wiener, and Olsen), and indicated that Mr. Neale had abstained.

    After it was noted that only 16 of the 17 possible voter names had been mentioned, Mr. Cloud stated that he had voted and had given his ballot to Ms. Bennett. Ms. Bennett subsequently found Mr. Cloud’s second ballot among her collection of first ballots, and stated that the vote count was now 9 for Mr. Hinkle and 7 for Mr. Blau. Mr. Neale then changed his vote from an abstention to a vote for Mr. Hinkle.

    As always, thanks for your work for liberty. Best wishes to you for a great 2013.

    Take care,
    Jim

    James W. Lark, III
    Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
    University of Virginia

    Region 5S Representative, Libertarian National Committee

  146. paulie

    Gary Johnson (TX) and Chuck Moulton would be fine as Secretary. I know Chuck better.

    Although Alicia Mattson did fine work in performing secretarial duties, for reasons previously mentioned by myself and others I will not support her for filling a vacancy if one should occur by whatever means or for whatever reason.

    With Dr. Lark’s message (copied @167), hopefully there will no longer be any questions as to the previous vacancy appointment for At Large at this last meeting.

  147. paulie

    I seemed to remember the results being announced as well, but was willing to defer to Starchild’s recollections over mine.

    Given that Jim Lark was working as an Assistant Secretary (unofficially) and kept close track of the proceedings, including using a tape recorder to help him with the task, I don’t think there is any chance that he made a mistake.

    His count of the votes agrees with the draft minutes, with what has been published various places, and so on.

    If you want to keep pursuing challenging the results, that’s up to you, but I’m pretty confident that the end result will be Mark Hinkle remaining on the LNC and all the votes and debates he has participated in thus far this term remaining unaffected.

    It is possible, however, that your challenge (if you pursue one) will add to growing chorus of discontent with the counting and announcement of votes and the amount of time it takes to get minutes of meetings approved this term.

  148. paulie

    Starchild to LNC-Discuss:

    Jim,

    What you say here accords with my memory of what took place. My statement was technically accurate, except for the “role” misspelling, since it was not disclosed who had voted for whom on the first ballot (only if how each LNC member voted on both ballots had been announced at the meeting would the statement have been incorrect). However I agree that I could have worded it more clearly, and thank you for providing a clearer and more detailed account.

    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))
    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
    (415) 625-FREE

  149. George Phillies

    We still seem to be lacking the final minutes. Jim having a tape recorder was a definite major plus that seems to resolve matters, assuming that the minutes are finally approved.

  150. Wes Wagner

    I tell you… after one ill-mannered woman dropped the (sic) bomb … they just fly like they are nothing.

    I remember when we were all nice to each other and only used flaming middle fingers.

    These types of escallations (sic) of incivility must stop in the new year.

  151. paulie

    @94 Escalation ….

    @177 escallations (sic) ….

    A text search seems to indicate @177 is the first time in this thread that escallation(s) (sic) got all double Led.

    Q.E.D., the usage of (sic) @177, being apparently self-referential, is inaccurate, but the usage in this comment is proper.

    Happy new year WW :-)

  152. Wes Wagner

    paulie @178

    Look at you, telling me I can’t (sic) myself. How unlibertarian.

    Ill (sic) (sic) myself all I want, and ill (sic) do it in pubic (sic) too if I want – because this is Amerika (sic) and your (sic) not going to stop me. And afterwards I am going to a nude beech (sic) and attend a santanic (sic) wedding.

    Trying to infringe on another libertarians (sic) right to do what he pleases. That is just sic. (sic)

  153. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    WW said: “after one ill-mannered woman dropped the (sic) bomb”

    Yup, that would be me (she said proudly).

  154. Wes Wagner

    JP @182

    I think you forgot the thumbs in the suspenders and the long piece of straw grass.

  155. paulie

    One reviewer starts “In the anals of useless kitchen/household products this device takes the cake (or in this case, banana).” (Does that rate a (sic) or not? It may have been intentional). The author concludes: “God forbid and help us, if a sicko like a Lorena Bobbitt ever gets ahold (sic) of this product whilst her man tries to nap.”

  156. Be Rational

    @188 In your post, “anals” should get a “(sic)” since “annals” is the correct word, and because “anal” is an adjective, not a noun, so it has no plural form.

    However, “ahold” is correct and should be “un-(sic)-ed.”

  157. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Disclaimer: I actually own one of those banana slicers. I actually spent money on one that could have–and undoubtedly should have–been donated to the LP.

  158. William the Conqueror

    In the anals of IPR banter, the a-hole paulie got a-holed when he self-siced an unsic ahold. Time to put that little prick in the banana slicer!

  159. paulie

    @192 Your screen name no doubt makes up for feelings of inadequacy, which drives you into seething, unrequited rage.

    Unlike your name sake, I get the impression that you are not a closer:

  160. paulie

    Doesn’t take an advanced degree when someone tells me their new years resolutions revolve around me.

    You’re only one letter short from being a closer. I’ll give you a hint, maybe it was a grade you used to get a lot of in school?

  161. Dave Terry

    Fred Jabin (41) wrote:

    I would prefer to have the spirited disagreement than to have an appointed group with the values of Californians decide how my state runs its politics”

    So, Fred, what ARE “values of Californians” and who represents them? For THAT matter, what are the values of Oregonians? The 2010 documentary, “The Ku Klux Klan in Oregon, 1920-1923,” documents the rise and fall of the Klan in Oregon as working-class white people grew frustrated with new competition from jobs and embraced “100 percent Americanism.” Substitute Muslim for Catholic and Latino for Asian, and you might well have fast-forwarded a few generations.

    I hear people I know talk about immigration, and some of the language is very similar to what was used back then. But you mention the Klan, and they’re horrified. They don’t see the underlying connections.

    I might also add that except for Indiana, the Klan was more powerful in Oregon than ANY state outside the deep south.

    >I suspect only other Oregonians will truly
    >appreciate the comment, but the influx on
    > those who want to build strip malls and
    > chain stores that dominate the SoCal
    >landscape, and don’t seem to respect the
    >local businesses, farmers, and culture of
    > Oregon are doing a great deal to kill the
    > personality of our communities.

    I MUST say that you sound VERY much like a typical “Friend of (19th century) Oregon.
    (for those readers not from Oregon, is an org.
    dedicated to keeping Oregon rural and virtually undeveloped.

    The fact is Oregon has the most draconian land
    use laws this side of the former Soviet satellites.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love Oregon. I’ve lived here for well over 30 years, but any comparison to the kind of “urban sprawl” that the F.O.O. fulminate against is specious in the extreme.

    Next to Alaska and Nevada, no other state has as great a contrast between urban and rural populations.

    > If we want to spread Libertarian ideas in Oregon–we must understand Oregon culture

    Yes! UNDERSTAND it, NOT agree with it.

    > Frequently people from outside our area try
    > to speak on issues without the
    > understanding of what motivates people in
    > our area. This can potentially do more
    > harm than good

    I agree 100%, but the purpose of understanding is just as often essential in converting the kind of thinking that divides us into thinking that unites us.

  162. Fred Jabin

    Dave,
    I think you get the point of what I was trying to convey. I’m not trying to exclude Californians and I’m not jumping up and down with Oregonian state supremacy.
    What I was trying to point out is that if the national party wants to try to replace Oregon libertarian groups then they are destined to fail. Despite the factional disagreements that are a hindrance to our cause–we are better off then we would be if had a top down structure from the national party because the national party won’t have the ability to speak to Oregonians about values that are true to Oregonians.
    There are many values that have great popularity in Oregon that are completely compatible with libertarian philosophy. Oregon is one of the strongest states in the locavore movement, CSA farming, farmers markets, and independent restaurants. We also have strong support for alternative medicine, home birthing, home schooling, and DIY home building.
    When we utilize grass roots efforts to show people how libertarian political solutions help them achieve there goals we grow as a party. When we try to make them fit into a mold of “libertarian values” they discard our ideas and work against us.
    The majority of Oregonians list the environment as one of the most important
    issues they take into consideration when they vote. Unfortunately too many Libertarian groups complain about environmentalists instead of trying to show them how libertarian ideas can be better for the environment than our the political solutions that come from the major parties.
    We need people who understand Oregon concerns and how libertarian solutions apply to them–we have those people, we just need to stop fighting each other and utilize our time reaching out instead.

  163. Dave Terry

    Paulie (49)

    Your hindsight is 20-20. Yes we COULD have put up a website, but quite frankly, if you’ve never been in a litigious situation like this, one has no idea of all of the stalling judicial tactics that are involve

    I would have “thought” that this case “should” have been adjudicated satisfactoraly long ago.
    In plenty of time to reclaim ‘our’ website and prepare for the Nov. election.

    YES, WE could have “listed” our choice of candidates, but; as you said, They wouldn’t have gone on the ballot; So WHY bother? No one is going go seek a nomination that will NOT get them on the ballot.

    HOWEVER, we did invite many of the nominees of the Wagner faction to come to our meeting and several of them did.

    In retrospect, it is certainly true that we “should”
    have incorporated sooner, but prior to this we could not use any funds for anything other than legal expense. I’m not positive about our options
    even now.

    Ten years ago in 2002, 20 Libertarians ran for office, 14 of those for the Oregon Legislative Assembly. The Libertarian candidate for Gov. of Oregon that year, Tom Cox, garnered 5% of the vote.

    Eight years ago in 2004, the number of Oregon Libertarian candidates rose to 32, nearly half of them recent converts to the party.

    During both of these elections, Richard Burke was the Executive Director of the LPO

    Further, during this same period of time the LPO occupied a 2500 square foot office in Beaverton
    on the corner of two main thoroughfares with high visability. The LPO took over the office from the Cox Campaign after the November 2002 election. We held the office until around July of 2007, and the rent was approximately $2,500 per month

    The funds for this expenditure was raised primarily by our Executive Director from many contributors who could clearly see that the LPO had a future, BUT have since moved on

    Thanks, MAINLY to the legal mechanizations of the Wes Wagner and his group of radical malcontents.!

  164. Be Rational

    “… the legal mechanizations of the Wes Wagner … ”

    Have they deployed an armored division against you? Is Wes Wagner so famous that he has become “the” Wes Wagner?

    Perhaps you meant to say, “… the legal machinations of Wes Wagner …

    (This message has been brought to you in the interest of learning to be better communicators in 2013 and to avoid the pointed usage of “sic” in posting replies to adversaries.)

  165. Dave Terry

    Be Inane (200)

    “MECHANIZATION”: the condition of having a highly technical implementation.

    >>>>Is Wes Wagner so famous that he has become “the” Wes Wagner?

    The correct word is “INfamous! :>)

  166. Be Rational

    @201 Nice try. You used the wrong word. Your use of the word “mechanization” in the context of your post as a plural noun modified by the adjective “legal” is a laughable non sequitur. Your attempt to pretend it was not an error is just sad.

    You meant to say “machinations” but you mispelled or never quite understood the word that actually fits your context.

    Look it up:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machinations?s=t

  167. Michael H. Wilson

    Dave Terry at 199. How about telling folks how far behind on the rent the LPO was when the finally moved out.

  168. Dave Terry

    Fred Jabin (198)
    > What I was trying to point out is that if the > national party wants to try to replace Oregon libertarian groups then they are destined to fail Despite the factional disagreements that are a > hindrance to our cause–we are better off then > we would be if had a top down structure from > the national party because the national party > won’t have the ability to speak to Oregonians > about values that are true to Oregonians

    Not sure WHAT top down structure from the national party you refer to, but clearly there must be some LIBERTARIAN structure, (even if it no more than a requirement that participating members sign the NAP, rather
    than the “all ideologies are equal” nonsense that the Wagner faction has accepted.

    >There are many values that have great
    > popularity in Oregon that are completely
    > compatible with libertarian philosophy.
    > Oregon is one of the strongest states in the
    > locavore movement, CSA farming, farmers
    > markets, and independent restaurants. We
    > also have strong support for alternative
    > medicine, home birthing, home schooling,
    > and DIY home building.

    This must be where the idea for the bumper sticker; “Keep Oregon Weird” came from.

    I’ll admit, I had to look up “locavore” to be sure
    what it meant, but what I CAN’T figure is WHAT
    is remotely “POLITICAL” about these ideas. There is nothing either counter to OR opposed to libertarian values and ideal.They are clearly personal choices, that do NOT require the activity of the Libertarian Party or any other political group.

  169. Dave Terry

    Michael H Wilson (204)

    Doesn’t matter, the REASON for the arrears was the contributors got tired of the sniping and other internal distress and stopped contributing.
    THAT is due to YOU and YOURS!

    BTW, how big is YOUR Office. How many of the local TV outlets sent camera crews to report election activities and results from YOUR office office?

    In 2008, Channel 2 (ABC), Channel6 (CBS) and Channel 8, (NBC) all reported from LPO Hqtrs.

    How many of you folks in the rest of the country
    can claim anything close to that?

  170. Michael H. Wilson

    I don’t run the party David. I just get the news letter out and make a bit of a profit in doing so.

  171. Wes Wagner

    The party was in debt before the infighting started. There was embezzlement and coverup., and treasurers were threatened and character assassinated when they would make overtures that they were going to inform the board about the financial situation.

    Only about 8k of the 40k in debts could be reasonably attributed to “lost revenue”

    The reality is that the part went about 2k further into debt on a monthly basis for nearly a year and half before the blow up.

  172. Michael H. Wilson

    DT @ 206 Doesn’t matter, the REASON for the arrears was the contributors got tired of the sniping and other internal distress and stopped contributing.
    THAT is due to YOU and YOURS!

    Wow! At least I was personally successful at stopping the Republican Party blowhard. I’ll be sure to tack that skin to my wall.

  173. Michael H. Wilson

    David I have nothing to do but read a good book so instead I will clue you in to some of Mr. Burke’s past.

    Back in the early 1990’s he was chair of the LPO. At that time according to the bylaws the Chair was to oversee the treasurer when it came to keeping the books. To put it bluntly Burke failed to do this. The books were a mess and the treasurer was fined. As I recall the fine was $2000.

    I forget exactly what year Dan vander Ploeg ran for governor but Burke tried to get Dan to endorse the Republican candidate at one stage of the campaign.

    In 1994 we nominated a number of people in Multnomah Co. to run for office and Burke did his best to get them declared ineligible to run. I think he even wrote to the SoS’s office. I’ll check with Bob Tiernan about this.

    About this same time he wrote up charges against Jon Zimmerman and tried to have Jon thrown out of the LPO. Burke was sitting on the Judicial Committee at this time and I asked him to recuse himself because he had written the charges. He informed me that even though he had written the charges he could be fair.

    In 1995 when Bob Packwood resigned the U.S. Senate seat and I was chair Burke told me I did not have the authority to call a convention to nominate a person to run as the LPO candidate. I called a convention anyway and we had a candidate.

    In 1996 Burke tried to stop the LPO from running a candidate against Bill Witt the Republican candidate. He got up on the platform at Stark St. Pizza and said something like we have shown them we can run a candidate now let’s show them we don’t need to.

    Remember how Burke left the credit card on the table at a restaurant in Bend, OR the day Badnarik came to speak. As I recall the next day you were escorted off the campus of Willamette University over a parking issue where Badnarik was to speak.

    Now go forward to the 2008 convention in Bend when Christine Smith got up and spoke about the fact that she had come out there to speak at the convention seeking support for the nomination. That was the convention when one of Burke’s exfriends took a swing at him in the restroom. That was also the convention of the big walkout and how the next day Burke got up when he was seeking the nomination for some position and admitted to all the things he had NOT done. Burke had also arranged such an expensive location for the convention that it was $2000 in the red as I recall.

    I could go on especially about the incident where he had to resign from the alternate position on the LNC but Bruce covered that previously. There is a lot more for damn sure.

    Your friend Mr. Burke has trouble dealing with money and he also has trouble being loyal to the LP. Maybe someday you will wake up.

  174. Fred Jabin

    Michael at 212

    For clarity. Burke’s former friend did not take a swing at him. He did get into Burke’s personal space (within inches of his face) and state something like, “you need to stop it, just stop it”

    Burke came out saying that he, “was assaulted” but nobody tried to hit anyone in that incident.

    *I’m not justifying anyone’s actions, I’m just trying to clarify what I observed.

  175. Fred Jabin

    Dave @205

    If you look at my original comment you would notice that I am responding to a suggestion that the national party should place a delegation in Oregon that would replace the two current factions. This is the “top down structure” that I am stating won’t work.
    The fact that you don’t see the political connections to the movements I listed makes me believe you could do a little more research about the movements to see what is behind them and how they are being wooed by the left side of the political spectrum.
    I don’t suggest that you are the person to reach that audience or that we need to concentrate on areas outside our expertise.
    What I do suggest is that we need to be organic in our approach. (Let me define my odd use of the term before the word police come.) I mean that we need to let our politics grow out of our own interests in our communities. As a proud participant in keeping Oregon weird, I can speak to others who understand why we want to “keep weird”. Is weird a political movement? No, but there are political issues that affect our ability to be weird in peace and there are movements designed to sway weirdos away from libertarian solutions.
    Outsiders don’t understand the “weird” community in Oregon. They are likely to belittle it. Which is a very poor way to communicate to those who identify with it.
    The groups I mentioned have many principles that fit well with Libertarianism. They are also a growing group of people who consider themselves, “progressive”.
    If we learn to embrace the group and understand what they mean when they say, “progressive” we may also find a lot of areas in which they fit the Libertarian party best.

    *also, check your Facebook account.

  176. George Phillies

    Paulie quoted the convention committee minutes “OK, I looked up the convention minutes:

    Credentials Committee Chair Emily Salvette presented the credentials report.

    Ms. Salvette reported that they had received two competing delegation lists from Oregon, one from the group chaired by Tim Reeves and one from the group chaired by Wes Wagner. ”

    Recall that the credentials committee had an established method for getting the list of delegates from each state, except the LNC mysteriously failed to give Mr Wagner access to it. If the LNC had followed its regular process, there would have been only one list of delegates, from the affiliate recognized by the LNC.

  177. Wes Wagner

    GP @216

    Correct… unlike the other 49 state chairs, I was not sent credentials to the database to submit our credentials.

    I was preemptively asked to only do it via a spreadsheet. The entire thing was a setup from go, which is why I was so abusive to Ms. Salvette in my correspondence.

    It is important to not give tyrants respect when they are plying their trade.

  178. George Phillies

    @217 And, of course, she could count the votes and knew that the motion to seat the Reeves delegation would pass, so she could vote to seat you instead and still seat Reeves’ crew.

  179. Richard P. Burke

    An interesting threat thread.

    Michael Wilson’s accounting of past events @212 makes me believe he is living in some sort of alternate universe. Fred Jabin found one inaccuracy (about someone taking a swing at me).

    I’m not inclined to chronicle them here, but there were many, many more such inaccuracies and incomplete accounts of events. I can only believe that Mr. Wilson’s recollections are colored by his emotions.

    By the way, all LPO officers dues were paid in the fall of 2010, so they were eligible to become officers in May of 2011. We have the dues submissions, all signed by then chair Jeff Weston.

    As for everything else going on in Oregon, I am confident that we will be vindicated in court.

    Richard P. Burke

  180. Bob Tiernan

    Mile Wilson:

    “Burke had also arranged such an expensive location for the convention that it was $2000 in the red as I recall.”

    Me:

    Hey, remember the time in 1994 when, even though there was less than $2,000 in the LPO bank account, State Chair Burke steered $1,000 to an outsider to be a “convention planner” (and she wasn’t even listed anywhere as a convention planner)? Just two years later you and I planned an even larger convention in less than 30 minutes, using only one arm and half our brains.

    B. Tiernan

  181. Bob Tiernan

    Burke:

    Michael Wilson’s accounting of past events @212 makes me believe he is living in some sort of alternate universe.

    Me:

    He was quite accurate save for a minor typo or two – and oh yeah, the fact that your ex-friend didn’t take a swing at you (although he should have). You can protest all you want, but your reputation as first class liar is impossible to challenge.

    By the way, it was funny seeing Tim Reeves write that Wes Wagner “managed to chase a lot of good people away”.

    I’m sure some people drifted away during the infighting of recent years, but what Reeves has little or no knowledge of (particularly since he was no doubt fed tons of bullshit history by you) is that you, Burke, are the champ at chasing good people away. Very good people, in fact. Many of them. You’ve been doing that since 1992 at the earliest.

    B. Tiernan

    Fred Jabin found one inaccuracy

  182. Bob Tiernan

    Mike Wilson:

    “[Burke] got up on the platform at Stark St. Pizza and said something like we have shown them we can run a candidate now let’s show them we don’t need to.”

    Me:

    Close. In his fight (or backstabbing) to prevent our nominating that candidate, Burke said: “We’ve already shown that we can run candidates. Now let’s show that we cannot”.

    That’s classic, man. That was awarded “Quote of the Year” for 1996, but it must be the Quote of the Quarter-Century as well. Jeez, what a puke.

    B. Tiernan
    President, Burke-Haters International

  183. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry:

    Further, during this same period of time the LPO occupied a 2500 square foot office in Beaverton
    on the corner of two main thoroughfares with high visability.

    Me:

    So visible, in fact, that a vehicle crashed into it once for some reason, and for many, many months afterwards a large sheet of plywood covered the front (highly visible) window, giving the office a cheap, run-down, unoccupied look.

    Dave Terry:

    The LPO took over the office from the Cox Campaign after the November 2002 election. We held the office until around July of 2007, and the rent was approximately $2,500 per month

    Me:

    Yeah, what a huge waste of money. To think what could have been done with that money!
    All the office was to you, Burke and others was a prestige thing, paid for by others who were duped into thinking it was worth it.

    Considering the small number of people who joined the party mainly because they were “impressed” that the LPO had a very visible office (with a huge, cheap-looking sheet of plywood covering the main window for many, many months), and comparing that to the number of people who joined at other times when we had no office at all, or a not very visible one (one with NO cheap-looking plywood covering the main window for many, many months), that $2,500 per month for some years was a classic waste of money.

    Dave Terry:

    The funds for this expenditure was [sic! "were"] raised primarily by our Executive Director from many contributors who could clearly see that the LPO had a future, BUT have since moved on

    Me:

    No, they were duped into thinking there was future by the snake-oil salesman named Burke, who by the way received as compensation a nice percentage of all of these large monthly contributions. And he needed that money so that he could fund his hobby which was, well, something that starts with the letter “P” and ends with “ography”.

    B. Tiernan
    Vice-President, “Dave Terry Needs to Go!”

Leave a Reply