Well I finally did it. I figured it was time to pay my dues considering that I intend to go to Vegas and run against Mr. Hinkle or any of the other Starr-cabal for chairperson.

Originally I had considered mailing in 2500 pennies in payment of my dues, in a nice flat rate US Postage box with a light activated audio player to belt out “zwanzig funfhundert Hinterpfennig” to the tune of “Neunundneunzig Luftbaloon”, but alas, I was certain the uberparliamentoonians would lay claim that it was not rendered in legal tender, so I used a credit card on the website instead.

See you all in Las Vegas!

-Wes Wagner
PS: This is why we can’t have nice things.

Wagner is the chair of the Oregon LP that is currently recognized by both the State of Oregon and the LNC, but is being sued by another faction which claims to be the real Oregon LP. For background on that see IPR archives for

Wes Wagner

Oregon Libertarian

Libertarian Party of Oregon

So far, there are no other announced candidates for national chair. It is expected that current chair Mark Hinkle will seek reelection.

Rumored candidates include current vice chair Mark Rutherford and At Large rep Kevin Knedler, who said in IPR comments that he “may” run.
George Phillies has also been a frequent candidate for national chair in the past, as has Ernest Hancock. Past comments by Dr. Phillies indicated that he was likely to run again this year, but in response to Wagner he wrote:

Congratulations on your sound decision, which I heartily endorse.

I have not yet been able to ascertain whether that means he is endorsing Wagner rather than running himself.

Of the remaining 2010 chair candidates, John Jay Myers wrote in IPR comments:

Mark Hinkle is a great chair, and I will support him again this year.

I haven’t asked Wayne Root for comment, but Knedler said in his IPR comment that Root will not run. Rutherford was Root’s running mate in 2010, so it is unlikely that they would both run.

I have not asked Hancock what his plans are.

These are all the likely/rumored candidates for national chair that I know of. Additions and corrections welcome in the comments.

In 2010, Libertarians made decisions.

Root and Starr were overwhelmingly rejected by our National Convention. Now the LNC has given them their own National Committee, one that legally has all the powers of the real National Committee, and no need for either of them to face election by the Libertarian Party’s membership.

IPR notes:

George Phillies ran for LNC national chair in 2010 against Mark Hinkle, Wayne Root, John Jay Myers and Ernie Hancock. The results of that election are here. Phillies comments regularly at IPR, as does Wayne Root, and Aaron Starr is an article writer for IPR as well.

Phillies has also run for chair several other times, and both Root and Phillies ran for the Libertarian presidential nomination in 2008.

IPR welcomes opinions on different sides of this issue, both in the comment section of this article as well as articles submitted for publication if anyone wishes to submit any.

•  ”Bill Cunningham Show” on Premiere Radio Network
• Nationally syndicated [NS] “Big Biz Show“
• “Captains America” Show [NS]
• “Rita Cosby Show” [NS]
• Bob “Sully” Sullivan on KOGO San Diego
• “The Washington Times Radio Show” in D.C.

• Washington Times
• Newsmax
• Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze
• Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment

David Blau is trying to setup a live video feed of the LNC meeting, but he is having some technical issues with getting his webcam recognized by justin.tv or uStream. He’ll try working on it again when there is a break.

Note: The agenda was heavily amended at the meeting. The following agenda versions do not reflect those amendments, but I will update them if anyone at the meeting emails me (Chuck Moulton) a list of said amendments.

Proposed agenda, PDF version (courtesy of Alicia Mattson):
Chair’s Proposed Agenda for the December 10-11, 2011 LNC meeting

Proposed agenda, text version (courtesy of George Phillies):

Libertarian National Committee
Chair’s Proposed Agenda
December 10-11, 2011 – Las Vegas, NV

Opening Ceremony
Call to Order 9:00 am
Moment of Reflection 1 minute
Opportunity for Public Comment 10 minutes

Housekeeping
Credentials Report and Paperwork Check 5 minutes
Adoption of Agenda 10 minutes
Report of Potential Conflicts of Interest (Mattson) 5 minutes

Executive Session
Hiring an Executive Director (Hinkle) 15 minutes
Hiring an Executive Director-open session (Hinkle) 15 minutes

Officer Reports
Chair’s Report 15 minutes
Treasurer’s Report 15 minutes
Secretary’s Report 15 minutes
Staff Reports 45 minutes
Counsel’s Report 5 minutes

Regional Reports (supplements to printed reports) 5 minutes each

Reports of Standing Committees
Affiliate Support Committee (Rutherford) 15 minutes
Audit Committee (Starr) 5 minutes
Convention Oversight Committee 15 minutes
Employment Policy & Compensation Committee (Wolf) 5 minutes
IT Committee (Flood) 15 minutes
Outreach Committee (Visek) 5 minutes

Reports of Special Committees
Membership Support Levels Committee (Wolf) 15 minutes
Supporting Affiliates (“New Visions Committee”) 45 minutes

LP Headquarters Office Building (Hinkle) 30 minutes

Unfinished Business and Items Postponed from Previous Meeting
New Business with Previous Notice
Approval Voting (Olsen) 15 minutes

Minutes Approval Process (Lark) 10 minutes
New Business without Previous Notice
LSLA presentation on IT project (Knedler) 45 minutes
Restructure ASC (Knedler) 15 minutes
LNC Goals (Lark) 30 minutes

Executive Session:
Board Self-Evaluation (Visek) 20 minutes

2012 LNC Budget (Redpath) 90 minutes
Revised LNC/LNCC Contract (Hinkle) 15 minutes
Endorsement of Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act (Hinkle) 10 minutes

Closing Ceremony
Announcements 5 minutes
Opportunity for Public Comment 10 minutes

TOTAL: 616 minutes

Open thread here to comment about the meeting!

To: statechairs@hq.lp.org

Fellow State Chairs:
 
Several of you also serve on the LNC and are aware of many of the concerns outlined by LNC Secretary but to most of you much of this will be new information.  I feel it is imperative that our affiliates understand the way this project has affected the workings of the LNC since the August meeting at Columbus. 
 
I am outraged that this much time and effort has been wasted on what should have been a well organized and executed plan to fund, find and purchase an acceptable building to serve as LP headquarters for many years to come.  Instead the whole effort might very well come to naught and in the meantime the LNC has done nothing to help our affiliates in our mission to elect Libertarians to public office.
 
In Liberty,
 
 
 
Sam Goldstein, Chair
Libertarian Party of Indiana
LNC Region 3 Alternate
8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
Indianapolis IN 46260
317-850-0726 Phone
 
You have my permission to distribute this to others who might be wondering about my opposition to this building purchase.
 
This will be long because I have experienced a long string of previous disappointments before I got to the point where I would write a message like this.  Some of it is info you already know, but I am piecing it all together in one place to put it in perspective.  If you just can’t read it all, at least skip to the “AND THE KICKER” section just before the conclusion.
 
This experience is Exhibit A for why experts will tell you that you should run a capital campaign FIRST and have cash in hand before you pick a site and try to buy.  Then there are no urgent races between the fundraising effort and the banks and the seller and the closing agents and the contracts and the lawyers and the mail ballots and the clock.
 
Regarding the execution of the building fund plan, I feel like this board has been manipulated, repeatedly misinformed, intimidated, and given artificial deadlines to pressure us into voting based on something other than our good judgment and the merits.  And I believe that members, donors, and state chairs have been misinformed as well.
 
Frankly, for some of us, this is no longer about whether it’s a better decision to buy or lease.  That concern is overshadowed by a fear that our party might be willing to tolerate decisions being made in this way.
 
 
SELLING THE IDEA
 
I’ll summarize the story of the plan that was sold to us.
 
Last November we saw a great presentation with a great plan for a capital campaign to eventually purchase a building.  I voted for it without any reservations.  If executed, it would be a beautiful thing for the LP.  I’ve reviewed the audio of that session, and among the features of the plan were:
 
1)  It would be at least a year-long effort, not a rush job just before the end of our Watergate lease.
 
2)  We would raise the money first before selecting a site, not pick a site and then wage war to get into that site at all costs.  From page 1 of the business proposal that was forwarded to us before the November 2010 LNC meeting, we were told “A decision as to the actual location would not be decided until sufficient funds were raised for the purchase.”
 
3)  Besides raising funds for the down payment, we would raise funds to also cover $50K of moving expenses, closing costs, etc.
 
4)  We should expect some degree of cannibalization of our general fundraising, though how much is hard to predict.
 
5)  We would know by the next LNC meeting if it was “a raging success or the Titanic”.  If it failed, we would give the money back, and we could spin that as a positive thing, championing our having been responsible and honorable.
 
6)  Since it was imperative that we be able to give the money back if it didn’t work out, we didn’t want the building fund to be used to pay for fundraising costs.  To help alleviate this concern, Geoff Neale volunteered to pay any fundraising costs in the “first phase” of the plan.
 
All we had to do was vote to create the fund, and the team would go to work!
 
The LNC then voted overwhelmingly to create an unnamed building fund with no specific property in mind.
 
 
AUGUST 2011 LNC MEETING
 
By the August 2011 LNC meeting, approximately 9 months after the vote to create the building fund, there had been essentially no fundraising from anyone except staff and LNC members.  The chair indicated he had made about 5 phone calls for the project.  We had $1000 cash and pledges totaling just under $100,000 for the building fund.  This was far short of the numbers we had discussed in November that we’d like to raise.
 
But there was a piece of property for sale at 1428 Duke St in Alexandria, and the Chair put 15 minutes on the meeting agenda in which we were asked to consider purchasing it.  (Tick, tock) We were given a spreadsheet comparing the purchase to some alternative 5-year lease options.  The draft minutes reflect that we were told we needed to make a decision by October at the latest due to the amount of time needed to close a purchase deal, and we were told that staying at the Watergate beyond our existing lease which ends in February 2012 would result in our rent increasing dramatically.
 
Since we didn’t have building funds ready to make a purchase yet, we asked if we could get a 3-year lease somewhere while we continued to work on the building fund.  We were told no, that 5-year leases were the standard in the DC area, and our options were buy now or lease for 5 years.  (A post-meeting spreadsheet update indicated that one particular property was “one of the few” 3-year leases available, and that building had been closed since the DC earthquake and was scheduled for demolition.)
 
We postponed the discussion until the next day.  In discussions outside the meeting that evening, it was evident that a number of LNC members felt like we were being pushed to make a decision too quickly with insufficient information.  The next day we voted to send me and another LNC member to the DC area for up to 10 days to bring back more information.  Between the meeting and my DC trip, the Chair repeatedly complained that I would be going and wanted me to cancel.  Then it was argued to me that I should shorten my trip, or limit myself to only seeing properties with Staff and our realtor, and not work on my own.  But I did work on my own anyway.
 
On the trip in September, I found that 3-year leases were plentiful.  And I found some 3-year lease options that would offer cheaper monthly expense than the building purchase shown on our spreadsheet.
 
 
URGENCY TO APPROVE A PURCHASE NOW
 
During the extensive email discussion, there was a drumbeat that it was imperative that we buy now.  We had to get out of the Watergate, and the time was ticking.  LNC members wanted a large down payment raised before agreeing to purchase, so that even if no extra principal payments could be made on the mortgage and real estate values dropped we wouldn’t find ourselves underwater when the balloon payment came due in a few years. 
 
Even though we hadn’t really tried any substantial fundraising so far, the story now became that creating the building fund wasn’t sufficient.  We had to vote to approve a purchase before they could actually raise the funds.
 
We gave that a shot.  From 10/3/11 to 10/18/11 the LNC adopted a motion dubbed as the “Dan Wiener motion”, which authorized a purchase offer to be made under certain conditions, if certain fundraising milestones were made on a certain timeline.  It also required that pledges be collected on legally enforceable pledge forms drafted by our attorney so that we could be confident the pledges were worth more than the paper the email was printed on.  The Secretary was one of the people tasked with verifying that the milestones were met and verifying that any offer met the conditions of the adopted motion.  The attorney provided the pledge form language on October 21st.
 
The Chair and Staff began trying to fundraise.  On October 24th an email blast went to our email list asking for building fund donations.  The Chair started working the phones calling those capable of large donations.  A fundraising dinner was planned for December.
 
 
BACKUP PLAN
 
One of the requirements of the Dan Wiener motion was that a separate motion would be adopted to authorize signing of a lease in the event that the fundraising milestones could not be met.  On October 28 a mail ballot was started to do just that, provide a backup plan.  The Chair promptly accused those sponsoring and voting for this motion of “sabotage” and “undermining” the building fund, even though it was a requirement of the motion we had adopted, and for which the Chair had voted.  Even last November when we heard the plan, we discussed the need for a backup plan should the fundraising not reach the goal.
 
 
THE OFFER TO PURCHASE
 
The Chair felt it was imperative that we immediately sign an offer to purchase, even though the fundraising requirements of the Dan Wiener motion had not yet been met to permit an offer to be made. 
 
A draft of an offer to purchase was presented to the Secretary for certification that it was ok for the chair to sign it.  The offer contained a 45-day opt-out-for-any-reason clause.  The Secretary said that in numerous ways the offer to purchase was not compliant with the approval given by the LNC, including the fact that it was still 66 days before we could determine if the conditions of the Dan Wiener motion would be met, and including the fact that it authorized purchase with a much smaller down payment than the LNC had approved (and would leave us with a larger mortgage balance).
 
The Chair and Staff wanted to sign it anyway, because it wasn’t enough that the LNC had created a building fund and authorized a purchase, now we supposedly had to have a signed contract in hand to show the donors or else we couldn’t raise the funds.
 
The Chair wanted to sign the contract first, and then ask the LNC to ratify the action by rescinding the previous authorization in the Dan Wiener motion and approve this instead.
 
The Secretary was told time was short because the seller expected it to be signed by October 31st.  Keep in mind that this property has been on the market for 2 years, so this seemed to the Secretary like a false urgency.
 
The Secretary advised the Chair and Staff that she didn’t feel it was likely the LNC would approve these purchase terms after-the-fact, and the Chair should talk to LNC members before proceeding.  But if they wanted to go ahead and submit a purchase offer that was not compliant with what the LNC authorized, they must include adequate clauses to make sure the contract could not be binding if the LNC did not subsequently approve the offer, and that a backup person should be authorized to opt-out should the Chair for some reason be unable to do so before the opt-out period ended.  There was much resistance to these suggestions.  The Secretary was initially told that the Seller would not agree to these types of changes, but the Secretary insisted it was imperative to add them before signing a legally binding offer.
 
To create such protection, the Secretary proposed specific language for the contract that would require LNC approval to be received before the contract became effective and before the 45-day clock started ticking.  The Secretary was told that clause was not acceptable, and the Seller would not wait that long.  The Secretary suggested that someone instead draft language that would allow the LNC approval to happen during the 45 days, but would result in the contract being automatically canceled on day 45 should LNC approval not be obtained by then.
 
Instead, the language in the final draft for the Secretary’s approval was crafted to allow only 15 days after contract ratification (both parties signing) for the LNC to give approval.  Note that only allowing 15 days for approval (tighter than the 45 days the Secretary recommended) created a stronger urgency argument that the LNC must approve this ASAP.  And it meant that the LNC would need to approve now before knowing about future fundraising progress.
 
The Secretary agreed that the contract finally had sufficient protections for cancellation if necessary, so the Chair’s plan commenced.  A 15-day mail ballot was started on Nov 2 (let’s call this the Hinkle motion) asking the LNC to rescind the previous Dan Wiener motion with its conditions and instead approve this offer.  Five days later the Chair and seller signed the offer while the mail ballot was underway, starting the contract clock ticking, with 15 days for LNC approval else the contract automatically terminates, and an additional 30 days after during which we could opt out.  The Seller did accept the contract a week later than I was told would be acceptable, and with the clauses that I was told they would not approve.
 
During the voting on the Hinkle motion, LNC members were lobbied with urgency that if we didn’t vote for this motion right now, the Seller and the banks would be done with us, and the deal would be impossible at any future time.  It was not enough to just have created the building fund, or to have approved purchase conditional on fundraising results.  Now we were told we had to vote for this motion and have the deal locked in or else the rest of the funds could not be raised.
 
The Chair applied pressure by sending emails to state chairs in two regions where the representatives were poised to vote no, giving those state chairs inaccurate/misleading/incomplete information and asking them on that basis to direct their LNC representative to vote yes.  Lobbying is one thing.  Misinforming is another.  The Chair told those state chairs that though the LNC had previously agreed to do this, now LNC members were getting “cold feet”.
 
The LNC did not approve the Hinkle motion, with the most common objection being that it didn’t require a down-payment large enough for what the LNC had said it wanted.  Instead of proposing to pay off the building with a capital campaign for a large down payment, the supporting spreadsheets forwarded during the Hinkle motion voting proposed that the mortgage balance would be lowered later by promising to use future general funds to make extra principal payments.  Note that this LNC cannot bind future LNC’s to make sure they will make such extra principal payments instead of using those funds for something else.
 
Even though the Hinkle motion had not passed, the Dan Wiener motion was still in effect, allowing an offer if certain fundraising goals were met on a specified timeline.
 
 
CONFUSION?
 
Numerous times after the Dan Wiener motion was adopted, the Chair and Staff complained that they didn’t understand it, and alleged that nobody could tell them how much they were expected to raise for a down payment – in spite of having at least three LNC members who at any time would calculate from a given set of inputs what the requirement was – in spite of a spreadsheet having been provided on which they could change the inputs and the spreadsheet formulas would do the work – and in spite of the motion itself having laid out example calculations of what were likely the best-case and worst-case scenarios demonstrating a range between $245,000 and $300,000 would likely be needed.
 
Yet the October 24 email blast to our email list told membership that our goal was to raise only $125-200K.
 
 
FIRST MILESTONE
 
Along the way, Staff in passing told the Secretary and Dan Wiener that the first milestone of the Dan Wiener motion had been met, but provided no data.  When pressed for more information to verify, totals of amounts donated and pledged were provided, and it was not actually sufficient to meet the first milestone of the Dan Wiener motion.
 
When the first Dan Wiener motion milestone date later arrived (Nov 5th which was during the voting on the Hinkle motion), the Secretary requested data to determine if the milestone had been met.  No data was provided.  Instead the LNC was told we shouldn’t bother with such details, that they weren’t using the legally enforceable pledge forms required by the Dan Wiener motion, and we should just wait to see if the Hinkle motion passed, which had no milestones or requirements to verify fundraising. 
 
And we were told that we shouldn’t even expect them to abide by the legally enforceable pledge form requirement because it was offensive to ask people to sign a “blood oath”.  The Chair was apparently not offended by the Seller’s requirement that he sign a legally enforceable pledge to pay for the building, and many of us think the pledges we’re counting on for the down payment should be as certain as our obligation to pay for the building.
 
 
CANNIBALIZATION
 
We understood from the beginning that during a capital campaign for the building fund would inevitably attract some donations from people who otherwise would have been willing to give the same money to our general fund, thus cannibalizing our general fund somewhat.  We expected some, no ballpark predictions attempted, of that to occur.  And we’d have to cover some credit card processing fees, naturally.
 
But it was clear that the goal was not to create the building fund by intentionally cannibalizing our general fund, as we still have to fund party operations, especially coming into a presidential election year.
 
Early in the discussions some complained that the LNC’s fundraising expectations were too stringent, so the Dan Wiener motion generously loosened the terms to allow payment of perhaps $50,000 of moving costs and closing costs out of the general fund, so only the mortgage down payment would have to be raised.
 
Both the Dan Wiener motion and the Hinkle motion included explicit provisions that the down payment must be made with donations that had been restricted to the building fund, not from our party’s unrestricted general fund.
 
In early September the LNC was informed of a large donation that the Chair specifically indicated was unrestricted.  Later this was reclassified as a restricted building fund donation.
 
A donor who has previously given the legal annual maximum to our general fund has pledged to give two future-year donations to the building fund.  This may well be direct cannibalization of our future general fund.
 
The original capital campaign fund plan, with its promises of a team of past LNC Chairs and past Presidential candidates making 1-on-1 calls to large donors as phase 1, making calls to medium donors as phase 2, and then finally as phase 3 making general email/letter appeals to our broad membership base to finish the job…that plan was never executed.  A handful of large donors have been called by the chair, but largely the fundraising effort has been to send mass emails to our broad donor base which we typically rely upon for our general fund.
 
The plan offered with the Hinkle motion proposed to replace a large down payment with a smaller down payment and promise of future extra principal payments…from the general fund.
 
Since the LNC from the beginning a year ago insisted that the building funds had to be protected in case of a need to refund, thus they cannot be used for fundraising costs, I am left to presume that the LNC general fund is paying for a fundraising dinner in Las Vegas in December, so that all revenues can all be preserved in the building fund.
 
Since there was no “phase 1″ fundraising according to the plan, I do not know if Geoff Neale is redirecting his offer to pay for phase 1 fundraising costs and instead helping offset costs of some other aspect of the effort.
 
Saturday our Executive Director asked the LNC Executive Committee to approve spending $25,000 out of the general fund to send a fundraising letter out to our broad donor base.  Sunday the request was repeated but with only a request for $10,000.  The Executive Committee has so far not considered this idea.
 
In spite of the intent of minimizing general fund impact, the execution so far has been based nearly entirely on using the general fund to create the building fund.
 
 
MISINFORMATION, SPIN, AND MORE PRESSURE
 
The LNC did not name our building fund, nor has the LNC voted to name any eventual building after anyone.  After the LNC created the generic building fund, the Chair began calling it the David F. Nolan Memorial Building Fund and started using that in fundraising appeals.  Though when asked later by LNC members, the Chair indicated it was the name of the fund rather than the building, many LP members, understandably, inferred that if we purchased a building, it would be named after Mr. Nolan.  When the Chair sent emails to state chairs in at least two regions asking them to pressure the votes of their regional representatives, he claimed that the LNC had created the fund for the purpose of honoring Mr. Nolan, though at the time the fund was created the LNC had not yet learned of Mr. Nolan’s death.  After complaints from board members, at least this problem has now been addressed with an explanatory message to our email list sent on Monday.
 
At the beginning we were told that it would be no big deal if we didn’t raise enough money, and we could generate good donor vibes even if we had to give the funds back because we hadn’t raised enough.  But since fundraising efforts began, the Chair has repeatedly applied pressure for continued moving of the goalposts implying that it would be a horrible thing to have to give back any funds.
 
The Chair’s previously-referenced emails to some state chairs indicated that a failure to approve the Hinkle motion would mean we would have to return around $150K of donations, yet we had less than half of that in cash which would need to be returned.
 
When on November 16, well past the first milestone date of the Dan Wiener motion, some additional fundraising documentation was provided to two LNC members, it still was counting in pledge totals a $5,000 pledge that has clearly been retracted.  When this was mentioned, the response was dismissive, and I presume that pledge is still being reported in the fundraising status totals.
 
On Monday a message was sent to the LP email list asking for $30,000 more to convince those pesky (my word choice) LNC members who have been voting “no”.  I believe it is inappropriate to use our email list to suggest to future convention delegates that certain LNC members are not performing well.  We often praise Ron Paul for being “Dr. No” on things he finds to be unacceptable in Congress.  But vote “no” on this plan on the LNC, and the Chair might try to get your state chair to squeeze you, or he might send an email to the membership about you.
 
 
AND THE KICKER
 
All of the above has caused me and many others quite a bit of dismay.  But in the past few days, after the Hinkle motion failed to be adotped, I’ve learned something new that has infuriated me.
 
All along, we’ve been pressured that we HAVE to leave the Watergate. 
 
LNC draft minutes from August indicate we were told that if we stay in the Watergate beyond February, our rent will increase dramatically.
 
The October 24 email blast to our general email list included the following:
 
“The lease on our national Libertarian Party headquarters is up at the end of February 2012.
The landlord has indicated they’ll be raising the rates 10% to almost $140K per year.
The building (the infamous Watergate Building) is only 60% leased as it is, so we think they’re trying to get everyone to leave.
Speculation is that the owners want to sell an empty building, ready to occupy, to George Washington University, which is right across the street from our office.
Also, building maintenance has begun to slip and we’re overrun with mice and rats!
Time to move!”
 
So I thought it strange when recently I started receiving emails from proponents of this particular purchase saying that if we’re not going to buy this particular building, maybe we should just stay in the Watergate for a bit longer while we continue to raise building funds. 
 
When did that become an option?  Our rates are going up to an unaffordable level, right?  It’s rat-infested, right?  The owners want us out, right?
 
I was confused when on November 16 an email from the Chair to the LNC included the following:
 
“If we want to purchase a building later, it makes more sense to stay put and avoid the moving expenses into another leases building and commit ourselves to a 3 year lease at a minimum.
Let’s avoid the expense of two moves and move just once, shall we?  We don’t want to waste our donors money, do we?”
 
We haven’t even been talking about staying at the Watergate.  Wasn’t an option.  Had to move.
 
Then over this past weekend in an off-list discussion with some EC members and Staff, I was told that one of our options now that the Hinkle motion had failed was:
 
“Hold off a year and stay at the Watergate at current rent, raising even more funds for a much better HQ…”
 
About 10 hours later in the same email thread I was told that if we stayed at the Watergate it would cost us double what we’re paying now. 
 
(Recall that the message to our LP email list on Oct 24 indicated there would be a 10% increase.  The numbers have varied.)
 
I asked which statement was correct, that we could stay at current rate, or it would cost us double to stay.  The answer I received was that if we just over-stay our existing lease we will be penalized with a substantial increase, but we could possibly negotiate a new 1-year lease and keep our current rent rate.  ! ! ! ! !
 
The LNC has not before been told that this was even an option.  Instead we, and our members, and our donors heard talk of outrageous rent increases, creating a sense of urgency that we must buy this building right now.  And we had been told we shouldn’t expect to find a lease for any term less than 5 years.
 
Has this entire process since August been based on scare tactics about something that wasn’t even true?  All the sense of urgency, the artificial deadlines, the claims of what the seller will/won’t agree to, the attempted intimidation of regional representatives, the difficulty getting accurate information about our fundraising status…???
 
 
CONCLUSION
 
Sadly, with this history of misinformation, moving goalposts, and the bait & switch operation, I’m at the point where it would be naive of me to believe anything I am told about this project.  What else might we need to know to make an informed decision?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me 20 times … it’s downright embarrasing.
 
Asking me to continue to vote for this particular purchase at this point is to ask me to reward some unacceptable behavior.  It’s not just been offending people and stepping on toes.  It’s more than that.
 
Over this past weekend, the LNC has been asked to scramble (in the 5 days between failure of the Hinkle motion and the automatic cancellation clause of the signed contract) to try to salvage the contract signed by the Chair before he had LNC approval for it, with its artificially urgent 15-day do-or-die deadline that may have been designed to pressure to the LNC to act sooner, a process started before getting LNC input on the idea.
 
It’s no wonder some of us have had enough and are putting our collective foot down.  It’s no wonder that some of us want some means to verify what we’re being told from here on out.
 
I feel like I’ve been manipulated and misinformed into wasting a colossal amount of my time over the past few months.  And many others have invested a lot of time also.  It is quite an understatement to say I am unhappy about this.
 
At this point, I have to consider which is worse for the future of the party:
 
a) to spend a little more money for office space for the next few years, or
 
b) to allow the LP to become one of those parties where $860,000 internal decisions are based on misinformation, confusion, and manipulation
 
I can live with (a).  If I vote for this purchase now, am I contributing to (b)?

“Voting “aye”:  Eshelman, Karlan, Knedler, Lark, Mattson, Redpath,
Root, Rutherford, Sink-Burris, Visek, Wiener, Wolf

Voting “nay”:  Blau, Craig, Olsen, Ploeger, Ruwart

With a final vote tally of 12-5, the motion PASSES.

Alicia Mattson
LNC Secretary”

__________________________________________________

Sponsors:  Dan Wiener, Wayne Root, Randy Eshelman, Dan Karlan

Motion:

Whereas, Article 9, Section 2 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws
specifically restricts the authority of the Judicial Committee:

The subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is limited
to consideration of only those matters expressly identified as
follows:
a. suspension of affiliate parties (Article 6, Section 6),
b. suspension of officers (Article 7, Section 8),
c. suspension of National Committee members-at-large (Article 8, Section 5),
d. voiding of National Committee decisions (Article 8, Section 13),
e. challenges to platform planks (Rule 5, Section 7),
f. challenges to Resolutions (Rule 6, Section 2), and
g. suspension of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates
(Article 14, Section5)

Whereas, these explicit restrictions were enumerated in detail in the
Bylaws for the purpose of preventing an unchecked Judicial Committee
from usurping the duly authorized powers of the Libertarian National
Committee to control and manage the affairs of the Party consistent
with the Bylaws;

Whereas, it is apparent under the 2009 Libertarian Party of Oregon
(LPO) Bylaws that it was impossible for Wes Wagner and his associate
claimants to be the legitimate leadership of LPO as of the date of the
Judicial Committee appeal, and therefore under Article 6, Section 6 of
the Bylaws the Wagner-led faction lacked standing to initiate an
appeal on behalf of the LPO;

Whereas, the Judicial Committee lacked jurisdiction under any other
provision of the Bylaws to hear the complaint brought by Mr. Wagner;

Whereas, the dispute in question has always been about recognizing the
leadership of officers properly selected under LPO’s 2009 Bylaws, and
not the choosing between two organizations or disaffiliating a state
affiliate;

Whereas, the Bylaws do not grant any authority to the Judicial
Committee to determine matters of state affiliate leadership;

Whereas, in its statement of August 25 and subsequent clarification on
September 23, the Judicial Committee declared that the Libertarian
Party of a particular state (and by implication, the leadership of
that state party), is the entity recognized by the secretary of state
(in this case, the Secretary of State of Oregon);

Whereas, this declaration is neither stated nor implied by any
provision of the Libertarian Party Bylaws, and thus amounts to the
crafting of a rule of its own making and an arrogation of power;

Whereas, this declaration and attendant decision may be mistakenly
cited by state agencies and courts as evidence that the Libertarian
Party Bylaws require the National Committee to recognize as affiliate
officers those people recognized by state officials, rather than those
who are duly selected according to the state affiliate’s bylaws;

Whereas, this declaration and attendant decision therefore places
state affiliates in greater jeopardy of untoward interference by state
officials and those hostile to the interests of the Libertarian Party
and its affiliates;
Whereas, the Judicial Committee made a further declaration on
September 23 concerning its view of affiliate autonomy, a subject
about which no appeal was made and no hearing conducted; and

Whereas, a direct consequence of the Judicial Committee’s improper
actions of August 25 and September 23 was the Oregon Secretary of
State’s September 29 decision to recognize the last officers known to
them, rather than the officers elected by members of the Libertarian
Party of Oregon in accordance with its bylaws.

Therefore be it resolved, it is the sense of the Libertarian National
Committee that the decision by four members of the Judicial Committee
in its 4-3 declaration regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon is
not justified by the Libertarian Party Bylaws, and that the Judicial
Committee has acted outside of its limited authority, which is clearly
and explicitly defined in the Libertarian Party Bylaws; and

Be it further resolved, the Libertarian National Committee finds that
the Judicial Committee’s decision is irreparably tainted by the fact
that the deciding vote on the decision was cast by a person with an
obvious conflict of interest, and that in any other venue of
jurisprudence a person with such conflicts of interest would have been
expected or required to recuse himself.
___________________________________________________

Thank you to Nicholas Sarwark for this story.

A history of the situation can be tracked by putting Oregon LP in the search box. then start treading from January 2011.

LNC Secretary Alicia Mattson has, we are told, advised the LNC that there is a disaffiliation request from Oregon, the re-ported text being:
“Chairman Hinkle had in a previous email indicated that 51 people in Oregon had asked the LNC to disaffiliate the LP of Oregon. As LNC Secretary, I am in receipt of that petition re-quest with those signatures. The signers have all been verified as either being sustaining members of the LP or as being LPO members with the best-available membership listing as of the date the Wagner-led LPO State Committee voted to toss the bylaws out the door.”

Dear LNC,
RE: the LPO mess
I’ve been giving this a lot of thought over the weekend and through today. And even lost sleep over it.
I have spoken to many of you privately regarding this mess. I have also talked with dedicated activists that I respect outside of the LNC.
My conclusion is that if any member of the LNC wants to co-sponsor the two Dan Wiener motions, that will be the way to submit it to a mail ballot.
I’m not going to do it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that LPO is a mess that we can’t fix and they can’t fix.
So, to devote any more time, money, and talent to resolving their issues is an unproductive use of my time and any LNC resources.
It’s just too much infighting. I ran for LP Chair to try and bring this sort of thing to a end.
Having the LNC battle the JC and the LPO and incur the wrath of dedicated activists and donors is just not in the best interest of the organization as a whole.
The situation was near hopeless to start with, then JC’s hor-rendously bad decision created a virtual no-win situation for the LNC. We either disaffiliate the LPO and lose ballot status or spend tens of thousands of dollars on a lawsuit that may, or may not, remove the thug Wes Wagner from his illegal claim as the Chair of the LPO. Neither is worth the cost. We have other, higher, priorities to deal with.
I intend to essentially drop it. And I recommend that the LNC also drop it. It has already consumed too much time, tal-ent, and money.
And it’s been way way too decisive.
I know that’s going to infuriate some folks and delight oth-ers.
But, I need to focus on the building fund and hiring a succes-sor to Wes Benedict and everything else on my plate.
Something has got to give and it’s the LPO situation.

Mr. Chair — Several thoughts:
First: When you wrote “And it’s been way way too decisive.”, I think you meant “divisive”.
Second, I realize this was not an easy conclusion for you to come to.
Third, the division was created by the outlaw gang in Oregon, though (as you note) it was reinforced by the majority of the JC. However, had the JC made the correct decision, Wagner most certainly would have still cost us money. It’s just the way he operates. His crew practically bankrupted the affiliate and forced them to close their popular and successful storefront office, so pursuing legal action if they had been rebuffed by the JC would have been a near certainty.
Fourth, I believe the outlaw gang that is currently in control of the LPO must be dealt with, and cannot be allowed to enjoy their victory. Doing so will poison every action the LNC and the LP take in accordance with our Bylaws, and will taint the very respect for the voluntary acceptance of reasonable rules that is part of the core libertarian philosophy. Leaving those thugs in control of the LPO will undermine our very legitima-cy, and not just in Oregon.
Fifth, no matter what we might decide in furtherance of trying to solve the problem that is Wagner and his gang, this would have remained a major aggravation to be addressed by the dele-gates at Convention in Las Vegas. And if they are going to HAVE to face this, and might very well reverse any action we take, why should we tread any deeper into that minefield?
Finally, I reluctantly and with substantial misgiving come to the same conclusion you have, and I commend you for the courage it took to make this difficult decision. It is a very bad position to take — but all the others are worse.
Dan Karlan

Dear Fellow Patriots,

I am reaching out to you in the spirit of fellowship and goodwill in the hope that all of us can arrive at a fair and just resolution to the very serious rift that currently threatens our beloved Libertarian Party of Oregon. In addition, it concerns me that this situation is negatively impacting the progress and direction of our national party. At a time when America sorely needs the ideas, passions, and solutions offered by Libertarians, we cannot in good conscience allow this quarrel to continue.

Let’s review the facts that lay before us. Over the past two years, two rival factions have been battling for control of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (LPO). Each faction is promoting its own agenda and supporting its own slate of candidates for state and national offices.

One faction, led by Wes Wagner, recognizes him as chairman of the LPO. The other faction recognizes Tim Reese as chairman. The Reese faction is backed by Richard Burke and M Carling. In my opinion, both factions want to do the right thing by pursuing their own agenda and strategies. However, when strong passions and dynamic personalities clash, feelings and egos can become bruised.

It’s important to understand how this unfortunate situation developed. At the 2009 LPO state convention, we voted on many changes to our bylaws. All of these amendments were prepared in advance and recommended by Burke and Carling. One of the motions was not published in advance. This amendment stated that if no explicit rules existed in our bylaws regarding any issue, then the issue would be resolved by applying Robert’s Rules of Order.

I was present at this convention. I expressed my concern about voting for an amendment that was presented hastily and which did not seem to serve any practical purpose. . (I’ve seen this tactic tried when I served as Vice Chair of the LNC). However, Carling supported the amendment’s passage and I deferred to his superior knowledge of Libertarian bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order. The amendment passed and the bylaws were amended.

At the invitation of the Reese faction, LNC Chair Mark Hinkle and LNC Secretary Alicia Matson attended the subsequent state convention. Citing the newly adopted amendment to the bylaws, Hinkle and Matson ruled that an LPO quorum was not based on the number of active party members but rather on everyone who had ever joined the party—an unrealistic number. As a result of this ruling, it is now virtually impossible to achieve quorum to call a meeting, elect new officers, amend the party bylaws, or conduct any meaningful LPO business.

The current situation is a dysfunctional stalemate with two executive committees, one led by the Wagner faction and the other led by the Reese faction – each claiming legitimacy. To convolute matters even further, the Wagner executive committee adopted a new set of bylaws to support its agenda. The legitimacy of this new set of bylaws has been called into serious question.

The bottom line is how do we resolve this dispute in the easiest, quickest way possible – so that we can move on with the party’s business? Currently, there seem to be two courses-of-action.

The first option is to recognize the Wagner executive committee as the legitimate governing body of the LPO. The Libertarian Party National Judicial Committee ruled that the Wagner executive committee was in fact the legitimate ruling arm. However, this decision was not supported by LNC Chair Hinkle, who has stated that he does not recognize the Wagner executive committee.

The second option is to disaffiliate the LPO and install a new executive committee. This would essentially create a new and second LPO. The Reese faction is actively pursuing this course of action. Although this second option may initially appear feasible, it would likely create even more problems and uncertainty. Our party would likely encounter serious reproof from the secretary of state’s office, from our membership, and from our donors and supporters. Party assets would be in dispute. We face the real chance of loosing our ballot access status.

Yes, friends. We’ve created a huge challenge for ourselves. But the overriding question is where do we go from here? In my opinion, neither of the two aforementioned options is ideal. After evaluating facts, personalities, and agendas, I propose a different course of action:

o We recognize the Wes Wagner executive committee. This was also the ruling by the LPO Judicial Committee. I agree with their decision.

o We need to void (nullify, etc.) the amendment that created the unrealistic quorum requirement. There are many reasons why this amendment can and should be nullified. I propose that the national Judicial Committee meet again and vote to void this amendment.

o We also need to nullify the new Oregon bylaws that were adopted by the Wagner executive committee. In my opinion, the executive committee did not have the authority to adopt new bylaws. (If the LPO membership wishes to change bylaws, it can do so at any future state convention.)

Even if this course of action is taken, there is no guarantee that the Wagner faction will recognize these decisions. It is my hope that he (along with the rest of the Oregon Executive Committee) decides to resolve this stalemate before this problem escalates even further.

Moving forward, I urge that all of us to drop our fixation with bylaws,
Robert’s Rules of Order, and other constraints and clever attempts to further an agenda by manipulating our policies. Please keep in mind our true adversaries in our fight for liberty! Let’s devote our time, energy, and brainpower on activities that are key to our party’s growth – activities like marketing, membership recruitment, candidate development, and fundraising. I also urge the LNC to not over-step their bounds or muddle in the activities of the state affiliates.

When I served on the LNC, too many of our discussions revolved around rules and parliamentary procedure. Friends, we’re losing touch with what’s truly important. In our preoccupation with rules, we’re neglecting our friends and neighbors who desperately need action and solutions. Parliamentary procedure is not going to create jobs or put food on the table. I fervently believe that our party is not about rules. It’s about a purpose – to increase personal freedom and personal responsibility. It’s about fundraising, and spreading our message, and attracting powerful candidates to run for office. It’s about inspiring more citizens to rally around our principles and join the Libertarian party.

At future Libertarian conventions, I respectfully ask you (the LP members) to re-evaluate the qualities that your leadership should possess. I encourage you to especially consider individuals who can share experience and knowledge in areas like marketing, public relations, organizational development, fundraising, just to name a few.

The situation that we find ourselves in is politically driven – and it is a mistake. Let us put aside our petty differences and desire for control. Let us forgive the barbs and insults that may have wounded us. Let us remember why we joined the Libertarian Party in the first place. At this dangerous juncture in our nation’s history, it is critical that we recommit ourselves to the greater fight – the fight for personal liberty and freedom. Please. Let’s do the right thing now.

Freedom & Peace,

Michael P. Jingozian

Former Vice Chairman, LNC

WHEREAS, the actions by the LNC appear to have exceeded its authority and is in gross violation of the guaranteed autonomy of a state party as stated in Article 6, Section 5 of the National Party Bylaws and Convention Rules adopted in convention in May 2010 in St. Louis, Missouri (National Convention);
WHEREAS, the LPGA ExCom finds the LNC has established a dangerous precedent by interfering in the actions of a state party; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Stewart Flood did previously refuse to read into the LNC records the LPGA motion dated December 1, 2008 regarding LPGA disapproval of the LNC activities regarding Angela Keaton; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Stewart Flood did previously refuse the re-quest of the LPGA to vote for the Libertarian Party’s National Convention for 2012 to be held with a Region 1 affiliate’s state; and,
WHEREAS, The delegates to the last National Convention from the Libertarian Party of Georgia, Inc. (LPGA) voluntarily joined Region 1 and elected Mr. Flood to represent the interests of this state party and the other the states which comprise Region 1; and,
WHEREAS, in light of these facts, Mr. Flood can no longer claim to represent the best interests of the LPGA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF GEORGIA, INC, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Chairman is hereby authorized to vote for the removal of Mr. Stewart Flood from the office of Representative for Region 1 to the LNC.
Section 2. The Chairman is hereby further authorized to speak with the State Chairs of Region 1 in order to encourage them to vote to remove Mr. Stewart Flood from the office of Representative for Region 1 to the LNC.
Section 3. The LPGA ExCom encourages the Chairman to vote for a replacement that he believes will best serve the interests of the LPGA.
Section 4. The LPGA ExCom directs its remaining representatives to read this resolution into the record and provide a copy to LNC Secretary Alicia Mattson for inclusion in the minutes of the next LNC meeting.

Wherefore, this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon passage and shall continue to be in force until the close of Libertarian Party of Georgia’s annual convention on February 25, 2012, and no longer.

For history into the complicated situation in Oregon, the reader can do an IPR search on Oregon LP, and read the articles by date starting in February, 2011, or go to  this article.

The linked article lists other links.

Fellow Libertarians,

A very important message is attached, regarding some of the problems
with a recent Executive Committee decision to effectively disaffiliate
the existing Oregon party, and the nearly assured destruction and
humiliation this could cause the party.

I have written to many of you before, as I was on the Oregon’s state
party chair, and on the chair’s Email list from March of 2008 through
September of 2008, when I resigned as state party chair to focus on
running for US Congress, where I received an astounding 3% of the vote
against 4 other candidates. Have been associated with the
Libertarian Party for over 20 years, an activist for nearly as long,
and a 5-time Libertarian candidate.

Please read and give this your consideration. Again this is important.

Also, please check over the “To” list and send to others who need to
receive it.

If you feel that a disaffiliation is necessary, please read follow
your bylaws to correctly see the process through.

Thank you for your consideration.

H. Joe Tabor

To all LP State Chairs and LNC members,

I am concerned that the LNC is destroying itself by trying to disaffiliate the Oregon organization. That we all received an envelope from the national LP last month, marked “Membership Down” and “Fundraising Down” suggests that the LNC is already in trouble! Things will be much, much worse if the course of its present leadership continues.

As a 16-year activist in Oregon, I have some very important things to say regarding the past, present and future of the Libertarian party in Oregon and at National. My letter is organized as follows:

I. The Oregon Conflict, and LNC’s upcoming major embarrassment!
II. What has been fixed.
III. What is broken.
IV. Having fun fixing the broken stuff.

Part I. The Oregon Conflict and LNC’s upcoming major embarrassment!

First of all, the upcoming embarrassment: The Oregon disaffiliation and replacement shepherded by Chair Hinkle, Secretary Matson and others would put a convicted auto thief and fraudster, recently released, into the LP of Oregon Vice Chair seat! His name is Eric B. Saub, and here is one of several nice stories about his many talents:

http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20070720/NEWS0107/707200448/

The present LPO vice chair, H. Joe Tabor (myself) has a significantly different background — no criminal record, a registered Professional Engineer, a 5-time Libertarian candidate, winning over 3% of the vote in my U.S. Congressional race in 2008. In fact, the present LPO Board of Directors (called by some in the LNC as the Wagner faction) is made of 9 members includes 7 former candidates (6 who ran as Libertarians), whereas the self-proclaimed LPO State Committee (similarly called the Reeves faction) has no former libertarian candidates among the officers, an officer who was a Republican PCP (Precinct Committee Person) last year, and a county representative member who initiated force and broke a few state laws by grabbing the throat of our treasurer on March 31.

This replacement is only the tip of the iceberg. At present the news media perceive the Libertarian Party as ineffective, but overall composed of nice, well-meaning people. Imagine the national media attention as a crook-friendly party that cannot fix itself, replaces the present, more friendly collective public image. Will this help fundraising? Will this help membership?

This Oregon disaffiliation attempt, led by six on the LNC Executive Committee (EC), Hinkle, Mattson, and others, has been either a collaboration or an act of good faith to help an Oregon political operative, Richard Burke, who has sabotaged Libertarian candidates in favor of their Republican opponents since at least 1994. Many effective and decent people have left the state party because of this man. We know he instigated the recent actions by the EC. I am witness to the years of continuing damage by parliamentary tricks, party reorganizations for power brokering, etc., that Mr. Burke has perpetrated.

It is really telling that Mr. Burke could only find a convicted criminal when he put together a replacement for the state party he is trying to disaffiliate. This can only be because Mr. Burke has very few non-criminal friends among the 2,000,000 or so registered voters in the state of Oregon. It is also telling that while people closer to Burke in Oregon won’t go for his plans, Burke has so many friends in the National organization: at least Hinkle, Matson, and four more of the six EC members who voted for disaffiliation of Oregon, as well as M Carling — the man who helped undermine the Oregon 2009 bylaws, traveling to Oregon anytime Burke needed help in wrecking the state party during party business conventions where bylaws were reviewed and modified.

I tried to dissuade the EC from making such a foolish decision during a phone conference this July, but one of the six “force mystics” discussed the “nuclear option” regarding our state. (I like the term “force mystic” which I got from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” as a description of establishment bullies within a collapsing establishment. Can’t help but think it is really appropriate here.) Also, during the phone conversation, our “nanny-state” EC members spoke me to like a child needing help and guidance.

As I understand, the EC vote was 6 to 1 in favor of disaffiliation; hence I’m referring to the “EC Six” as the troublemakers for all of us.

Fortunately the LNC Judicial Committee overturned the EC Six decision, effectively a second time with a clarification. Unfortunately, Hinkle and Matson are pretending to put their authority over the rest of the national party and violate the bylaws by bringing this to a vote, presumably a majority vote, where a ¾ majority would normally be required. This is the kind of treachery Libertarian party candidates are trying to defeat. Aren’t we supposed to get our Libertarian candidates elected to real positions to stop all this nonsense?

So, where is the conflict?

Simply put, the Oregon conflict is a battle among about five factions of libertarians versus one dysfunctional faction that has been trying to sabotage the Libertarian Party of Oregon and its candidates for 17 years. With official changes made in Oregon, the latter faction has finally been dis-empowered, leaving the other factions to have friendly debates and share activism in areas of common interest. Six members of the EC are now trying to put the dysfunctional faction back in power.

Even though the “EC Six” are in violation of the National Party bylaws, they are trying to disaffiliate Oregon from the Libertarian Party by accusing the present and state-recognized Oregon faction (Wes, myself, Mark Vetanen and others) solely on the supposed grounds of violating our own Oregon bylaws.

Now it’s time to explain the paradoxical 2009 Oregon Bylaws!

The Oregon Bylaws were updated in 2009, with a lot of “help” from national operative, M Carling, a Roberts’ Rules parliamentary expert who at the time was a member (out of state) of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, who often traveled to Oregon to participate in our many business meetings, including the March 13th LPO business convention this year. According to Hinkle, Mattson, Carling, Burke, and his convicted criminal friend, these 2009 bylaws are current, not the 2011 LPO bylaws adopted on March 31 of this year.

So, the former bylaws were last revised in 2009 as described, but our 2010 business convention passed, by 2/3, a resolution calling for a special convention to fix the bylaws. Accordingly a committee was formed and diligently wrote new bylaws that conformed to Oregon state laws, unlike the 2009 bylaws. For example, the $50 dollar dues charged by the 2009 bylaws were arguably illegal. As state election laws trump party bylaws, the 2009 bylaws were broken here and in other places as well.

As Oregon attempted to fix the bylaws in a special convention in November of 2010, M. Carling, Alicia Matson, and Mark Hinkle arrived the afternoon before and convinced our former chair Jeff Weston, then Vice Chair Wes Wagner, and Treasurer Mark Vetanen that a majority of paid-up members was required for quorum — quorum number that has mostly been unrealistic in the LPO’s history. A few minutes after the convention began, Burke’s friend and political operative Adam Mayer stood and made a quorum call which successfully shut down the meeting (originally pushed for by a 2/3 vote resolution, previous business convention).

On March 12 of 2011, a quorum again was not reached and that annual business convention was adjourned until May. M Carling was present during the March 12 adjourned convention and referred to the 2009 bylaws as a “circular firing squad” and I also believe hearing “the worst I have seen.” Prior to the May continuation of the convention, the existing state committee realized that it was within state laws to make bylaws changes as the party’s central committee. The new bylaws were adopted on March 31 and accepted by the Oregon Elections Division soon thereafter. That March 31st vote was taken with (I believe) about 8 or 9 state committee members present and with no opposition.

So, the “EC Six” issue is about restoring the 2009 bylaws, partly created by M Carling, abused by M Carling on the 50% quorum, and sharply criticized by M Carling on March 12 (a video was made). This plus the attempt to replace me with a convicted criminal is what Hinkle, Matson, Carling and others high up in the LNC are pushing.

Regarding any precedent of what was done on March 31st to establish the true and recognized LPO central committee, my limited experience of such historical knowledge cites the Declaration of Independence in 1776, signed by those who represented our early ancestors, thereby forming our great nation out of an established but corrupt English colonial government.

So why does Oregon’s Mr. Burke not like the 2011 bylaws? The new bylaws disempower the cronies who will pay $50 a year to keep Mr. Burke in control of the party. It replaces an old farts club kissing up to Republicans with a vibrant state Libertarian party open to all registered Libertarians and open to growth.

Part II. What is Fixed:

The new bylaws fix many problems:

1. The Libertarian Party is now a truly Libertarian Party. The new
bylaws require registration as a Libertarian. No more Republicans
controlling state party business. No out-of-staters like M Carling
coming to Oregon business conventions to wreck our bylaws in favor
of turning the party into an obnoxious bunch of Republican
worshippers who sabotage real Libertarian candidates.
2. No membership dues. This increases membership. Colorado and Texas
have zero dues and are doing quite well.
3. We have the talent and ability to run a state-wide primary without
forcing money from tax payers. This is indeed a bragging right,
and many state LP’s will follow this.
4. Over the last month, and on short notice, the LPO practically
doubled the active membership in the state party by sending out
postcards to all Registered Libertarians in the 1st Congressional
District. This was an emergency nomination, since our
Congressman David Wu has resigned
5. Last Wednesday, we had two totally new dyed in the wool Libertarians
run for our emergency nomination. We chose one, James Foster. The
Secretary of State of Oregon recognizes our candidate. He will be on
the ballot.

Part III. What is Broken

The LNC is broken in its fundamental ability to grow the national party, very broken. As a dues paying member, I received an amber-colored letter last month from LP National, with the words “FUNDRAISING DOWN” and “MEMBERSHIP DOWN.” There is Mark Hinkle’s legacy for y’all!

National LP is organizationally broken because of the “EC Six” ruling, and because of Hinkle’s and Matson’s defiance of the Judicial Committee and their efforts to get the LNC to buy into their wrongful disaffiliation of the Oregon party.

The LP organization that supposedly does not accept the initiation of force or fraud surely seems to have no good way of kicking out those out who cause force or fraud, and support rival parties and criminals. Millions of organizations all over the world kick out troublemakers without having the powerful pledge that we have, so why can’t we? It’s all about following laws. It’s all about morality. It’s all about “guts.”

Part IV. Having Fun Fixing the Broken Stuff

With 16 years of activism, I have a few suggestions: Fight crime. Fight corruption. Run for office if you are able! Keep the national LP healthy.

Also, don’t expect increasing membership and fundraising until the “EC Six” are out of the picture.

Kicking out bozos like Hinkle, Mattson, the rest of the EC Six, M Carling and Mr. Burke should be done just for practice, so we may do more of the same when we all get elected to positions in Washington DC, our state governments, and our local governments.

If this isn’t fun for you, please help those of us who do find this fun. Other than that, please just stay out of the way.

Let’s not try to break things, unless we really must. It is entirely possible that Hinkle, Matson, and Carling have been planted by a rival party or political organization, with or without help from Oregon’s Architect of Libertarian Doom, Richard Burke. They might simply be doing their job, causing us to melt down, self-destruct, and disband the party, if only to rid ourselves of their influence. Let’s first try to save the party, not bring the party down just to bring them down.

Thank you for your guts. Getting involved in politics involves knowing people you would never normally like to know. I am ashamed and embarrassed to have Richard Burke associated with me; even though we are enemies, as that itself constitutes an association. Unfortunately, any serious political practitioner must suffer this, and this takes guts. It’s the nature of preserving our Republic.

Thank you for your patience. If you wish to get involved in Oregon politics, please move here. Otherwise, please keep the troublemakers and crooks out of our way, and please don’t try to be our nanny.

Cheers!

H. Joe Tabor
Libertarian of the 21st Century!

From Mark Hinkle:

Dear JC Chairman Bill Hall,

I’ve read the clarification of the LP JC decision regarding Wagner vs. the LNC.

I have a question for the entire JC regarding this statement:

“Until such time as that occurs, the LNC must continue to treat the
Wagner group of LPO officers similar to other LP state-level affiliate
officers (for example, by providing monthly data dumps, and
recognition on the lp.org website as the official LP state affiliate
in Oregon)”.

Please show me in the LP Bylaws where the JC has the authority to
issue such a statement.

Data Sharing with affiliates, as far as I can determine, is not
codified in the Bylaws. So, it would seem to be outside the authority
of the JC to issue such a ruling.

Likewise, there is no mention of our web site in the LP Bylaws. So,
again it would seem to be outside the authority of the JC to issue
such a ruling.

According to our current Bylaws, Article 9: Judicial Committee, Section 2:

2. The subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is
limited to consideration of only
those matters expressly identified as follows:
a. suspension of affiliate parties (Article 6, Section 6),
b. suspension of officers (Article 7, Section 8),
c. suspension of National Committee members-at-large (Article 8, Section 5),
d. voiding of National Committee decisions (Article 8, Section 13),
e. challenges to platform planks (Rule 5, Section 7),
f. challenges to Resolutions (Rule 6, Section 2), and
g. suspension of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates
(Article 14, Section
5).

The line “2.a suspension of affiliate parties (Article 6, Section 6)”
seems to be the only relevant rule here.

Since there are affiliates that we don’t, currently, send data dumps
to for reasons other than disaffiliation, i.e. there’s no one to send
the data to, there is no connection between data dumps and
disaffiliation.

And since there is nothing in our Bylaws that require the LNC to link
our web site to affiliate party web sites, that too seems to be
outside the jurisdiction of the JC.

Would you please confer with the entire JC and let me know your
thoughts on this matter.

Yours in liberty……………………Mark Hinkle, LNC Chair

“It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

– Samuel Adams

Response from Bill Hall:

Dear Mr. Hinkle:

The Judicial Committee is not willing to issue any further
clarification of its opinion in the Wagner matter, or engage in an
ongoing argument over the basis for its decision.

Personally, I feel that our decision could not have been clearer, and
it is now up to the Libertarian National Committee to decide whether
it will comply with the Libertarian Party Bylaws, as duly interpreted
by the Judicial Committee.

Very truly yours,

Bill Hall

According to these sources,

There is now a motion before the Libertarian National Committee

Votes are due to the LNC Secretary by 10/16/2011, 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Sponsors: Mary Ruwart, Doug Craig, Vicki Kirkland, Norm Olsen

Motion: That the LNC direct our ED to reinstate Wagner et al. as our official LPOregon affiliate as per the JC decision of 8/26/2011 and the JC Clarification of 9/23/2011.

My anonymous source claims that the votes are currently 5-2 to not follow the Judicial Committee decision.

My anonymous source says that members of the LNC have told him or her that there are not enough votes to disaffiliate the Oregon LP, which would be the only other course allowed by the Judicial Committee decision.

For further background see previous reports here and here. The second link has links to even earlier reports.

-Paulie

UPDATE: In the comments of this post, George Phillies is liveblogging the votes as they allegedly come in. Since these votes are not officially public at this time, readers will have to decide for themselves whether they believe that the information as leaked to and presented by Dr. Phillies is accurate.

The Libertarian Party National Judicial Committee has responded to the request by the Oregon State Party for clarification of their ruling on Oregon.

The Judicial Committee directed that so long as the Oregon State Party has not been disaffiliated, the LNC is required to supply the LP ORegon with datadumps and recognition as the official party affiliate in Oregon.

See previous reports here and here.The second link has links to even earlier reports.

UPDATE: The text of the decision, from Judicial Committee member Lee Wrights in IPR comments:

We have been asked by Mr. Wes Wagner to clarify our decision in Wagner v. LNC, given the apparent decision of Libertarian National Committee Chair Mark Hinkle to suspend treatment by the LNC of the Wagner group of officers as the representatives of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, on a par with other state affiliates of the national Libertarian Party.

The Judicial Committee did not rule that the LPO has no leadership. The Judicial Committee ruled that the LNC must by default recognize the affiliate representatives that are currently recognized by the affiliate’s secretary of state, and that it would take an exercise of LNC’s 6.6 disaffiliation power to do otherwise.

A state political party committee (no matter the party) is defined by its governing documents, as interpreted under the laws of the State where it is organized and operates. The Bylaws of the national Libertarian Party grant the Libertarian National Committee the power to affiliate and disaffiliate a state-level affiliate in each state of the United States. They do not grant the LNC (or the LP Judicial Committee) the power to interpret and then enforce the bylaws of a state political party committee that is a state-level affiliate of the national Libertarian Party. To the contrary, Article 6, Section 5, of the LP Bylaws expressly prohibits the LNC from “abridg[ing]” the “autonomy” of its state affiliates, “except as expressly provided by [the LP] Bylaws.” The interpretation of a state-level affiliate’s bylaws is an internal matter for the members of the state-level affiliate to pursue by negotiation, political action, litigation and/or other action in state-level affiliate meetings, and before the state-level judicial committee (if any), courts and governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the state-level affiliate.

This means that if the LNC desires to ‘abridge the autonomy’ of the LPO by ceasing to treat the Wagner group of LPO officers as its state affiliate contact in Oregon, its avenue to do so is as “expressly provided by [the LP] Bylaws”, i.e., to take formal action to disaffiliate, for cause, by a 3/4ths vote, as more specifically provided in Article 6, Section 6, of the Bylaws of the national Libertarian Party. Until such time as that occurs, the LNC must continue to treat the Wagner group of LPO officers similar to other LP state-level affiliate officers (for example, by providing monthly data dumps, and recognition on the lp.org website as the official LP state affiliate in Oregon).”

From: Mark Hinkle
Date: September 5, 2011 1:15:20 AM EDT
To: lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] JC ruling…
Reply-To: lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org
>
Dear LNC,
>
I just re-read the JC’s decision and have come to another conclusion.
>
The LNC EC’s action never dis-affiliated the Oregon LP (and JC states exactly that in their ruling) and that was never part of the motion nor was it part of the EC’s discussion in the first place.
>
The JC’s decision, as I interpret it, is that the LPO (Libertarian Party of Oregon) has no leadership. Their Bylaws clearly state the term of office for the past LPO Chair, Wes Wagner, has ended along with the other past officers. The JC does not recognize the LPO leadership (Tim Reeves) that the LNC EC sought to recognize, therefor there is no leadership in the LPO.
>
The SOS there may still recognize Wes Wagner as LPO Chair (for life if he chooses), but we don’t.
>
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Party’s may handle their internal affairs as they see fit and are not subject to the laws of the states that may try and override internal decisions of the LP.
>
See: March Fong Eu vs. the San Francisco Democratic Central Committee (decision February 22, 1989).
>
To quote, in part, from that ruling:
>A State cannot justify regulating a party’s internal affairs without showing that such regulation is necessary to ensure that elections are orderly, fair, and honest, and California has made no such showing.
Until the LPO can elect someone per their Bylaws, my ruling is that there is no leadership in the LPO and thus we are not required, nor would it be prudent, to send any membership data to them, nor link our web site to any faction that claims to be the leadership of the LPO.
>
Our Policy manual states:
>Data Sharing with Affiliates
>LPHQ will provide all officially recognized state-level affiliates with a list of Constituents
>residing in the area covered by that affiliate, within the first 5 business days of the month to
>the affiliate chair, or his designee.
Since there is no affiliate chair, or his designee, there is no one to send the data to.
>
The JC has prevented the LNC EC from recognizing the Tim Reeves faction and the Oregon SOS has effectively done the same thing.
>
So, the only fair and equitable solution for the LNC is to treat the LPO as a dormant affiliate until they can resolve their issues.
>
We have been cautioned not to get involved in the internal affairs of the LPO and to recognize the Wagner group would be doing exactly that.
>
Therefor, the LNC should take a hand off approach and let them come to some sort of resolution and then bring that back to the LNC.
>
That is my ruling. The LNC, as always, can override my decision if they think my decision is in error.
>
Yours in liberty………………..Mark Hinkle, LNC Chair
>
P.S. I will instruct Wes Benedict and Robert Kraus to suspend any standard affiliate communication to the LPO until such time as they resolve their issues internally.

P.P.S. the LSLA is free to add, or not, Wes Wagner to it’s “state-chair” email list. The LNC has no jurisdiction there.

The past few months have seen the Ex Com from Oregon replaced by a new Ex Com by some members of the National Executive Committee. The secretary of state from Oregon has recognized the old Ex Com, with Wes Wagner as the state chair. Here is an article published here in IPR by Mr. Wagner. Here is a current article about the latest developments.

This writer would be happy to post any new articles or opinion pieces regarding the Oregon situation. Please email me at: stone@altrionet.com.

Following is the brief.
Ploeger Brief

July 1, 2011

Dear Friend of Liberty:

Two hundred and thirty-five years ago, freedom-loving Americans banded together
to declare their independence from the King of Great Britain, and to proclaim to
the entire world that men were not meant to be slaves to their government.

Today, the Libertarian Party champions those same ideals.

In celebration of Independence Day, and the unalienable rights our Founding
Fathers put their lives at risk for, we are asking for a symbolic donation of
$17.76 to help continue our new American Revolution.

Simply click here to rush us your special gift
of $17.76.

Government is once again at a level incompatible with the freedom our Founding
Fathers believed we should have. In some ways, we are even less free today than
colonial Americans were under King George III. Just think about that.

Your symbolic donation of $17.76 will help to turn back this tide of tyrannical
government, and help to bring in a new era of liberty and prosperity for all
Americans.

How will your $17.76 help the fight for liberty?

It will help fund our fight to change ballot access laws throughout the country
to give voters more choice.

It will help fund volunteer and outreach activities to bring more patriots like
you into the Libertarian Party.

It will help us create videos to spread the message of our principles to a new
generation of potential Libertarians.

Most of all, it will help the Libertarian Party be more effective in fighting
assaults on freedom from all levels of government!

Will you donate today by clicking here

If we raise $1,776 in online donations before midnight on the Fourth of July,
one of our stalwart Libertarian supporters will immediately donate another
$1,776 to our party!

That represents $17.76 from just 100 of you! Don’t miss the chance to be one of
those proud 100.

Click here to donate today.

If you feel the spirit of the American Revolution welling up inside of you, and
want to donate more than $17.76, feel free to do so.

Every dollar will be used to further the cause of liberty and freedom for all
Americans.

Thank you for your donations, your dedication, your support and your commitment
to liberty in America.

Sincerely,

Mark Hinkle
Chair, Libertarian National Committee

A new CNN poll is making libertarian waves, as election expert and political analyst Nate Silver reports on his FiveThirtyEight Blog in the New York Times: Americans are becoming more libertarian in their basic attitudes. The story has also been picked up by The Daily Caller and The Atlantic Wire.

The CNN poll tracks responses to the twin questions of (1) whether government should not favor any particular set of values, and (2) whether government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses.  Affirmative answers to both questions have now reached new peaks (50% and 63%, respectively) for the time period of 1993-2011 during which CNN has polled them.  Here’s the graph:

In essence this is a highly abbreviated version of the Nolan chart which measures political opinions along the two dimensions of personal freedom and economic freedom. Although the CNN questions are somewhat simplistic and open to interpretation, the important point is that the trend is clearly moving in the right direction. And that direction is our direction — libertarianism.

View this message at LP.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 17, 2011

Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive Director
E-mail: wes.benedict@lp.org
Phone: 202-333-0008 ext. 222

Libertarian Party: 40 years is enough – end the Drug War

WASHINGTON – June 17, 2011 is the 40th anniversary of America’s War on Drugs. Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:

“On June 17, 1971, President Richard Nixon declared a ‘War on Drugs,’ which has become a relentless violation of the lives and property of Americans, including many who have never taken illegal drugs. These violations continue under President Barack Obama, an admitted former cocaine user who has shown no hesitation in throwing people into prison — a punishment he might have suffered had he been caught. Moreover, although promising to respect medical marijuana use in states where voters have approved it, the Obama administration has already conducted close to 100 raids on patients, growers, and compassion centers in those states.

“America’s first experiment in prohibition involved alcohol, and is widely recognized as a failure. Approved in 1919, Prohibition I led to a steady rise in both alcohol usage and violent crime. The murder rate rose 50% between 1919 and 1933, peaking at 9.7 murders per 100,000 population in 1933, when the country finally decided enough was enough. Immediately after the repeal of Prohibition I, gangsterism went into a swift decline, with all of the major gangs disappearing within 18 months, and the murder rate dropping every single year for more than a decade.

“Prohibition II — the War on Drugs — has been another tragedy. We applaud the efforts of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of current and former police, prosecutors, judges, DEA agents, and others, which issued a 20-page report this month detailing the tragic results of this misguided crusade, entitled ‘Ending the Drug War: a Dream Deferred.’

“In their report, LEAP documented some of the measurable costs: over a million people arrested each year, a trillion dollars spent, and drug gangsterism at a level that dwarfs its alcohol equivalent and which has led to a bloodbath in Mexico that is spilling over into the United States. Not because of drugs, but because of drug laws. And over 120 million Americans have used illicit drugs: only the most deluded observer believes the laws have curbed drug abuse, and only the cruelest believes that 40% of the American population belongs in prison. No wonder 67% of police chiefs say the War on Drugs is a failure.

“Ultimately, of course, this tragedy is the result of our government’s refusal to allow people to engage in peaceful choices as to what they consume. Even if drug use were to rise upon a return to the American tradition of tolerance that existed before the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, our streets would be safer, innocent people would not have their homes raided and pets killed by narcotics agents entering the wrong house, victims of asset forfeiture laws wouldn’t have their houses and other assets seized without due process, and resources would be freed to spend on improving peoples’ lives instead of destroying them.

“Ten years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drug use, including substances classified as hard drugs. As a Cato Report entitled ‘Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies’ showed, drug use dropped over the next several years and the Portuguese now use marijuana at lower levels than Americans use cocaine.

“It only took Americans 14 years to realize the insanity of Prohibition I. Both practical considerations and simple human decency demand that our government end Prohibition II now.”

The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:

1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.2 Personal Privacy
Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

There was a time when I considered myself something of a libertarian.

I never liked the label “conservative.” Conservatives for me were … well … too conservative, for lack of a better way of saying it. I actually wanted to shrink the federal government down to a size reflecting its strict constitutional limitations. Not many conservatives actually believe that. And even fewer act on those convictions when they have the chance.

So, for a while in my life, I considered myself a “Christian libertarian.”

But not many libertarians, I found, agreed with me about protecting our borders, a clear constitutional imperative of the federal government under the Constitution. Most of them were open-borders utopians.

Most libertarians also have utopian notions about drugs, too.

Read the rest here: The trouble with libertarians http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=310397#ixzz1PDvlneDe