[Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] Oregon Resolution - is Wes Wagner chair of the Oregon affiliate

Fri Jul 18 18:26:25 EDT 2014

Moving this to Business to smooth the switch of lists going forward:

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a few things that I find interesting from reading the Chair's
> message below:
>
> 1.  I noticed the Chair referred to the JC ruling as "Judge Gray's opinion",
> but Mr. Sarwark's name is at the bottom of that opinion as well.  Perhaps
> Judge Gray drafted it, but when one consents to put their name on it, one is
> agreeing with it.  All the signers of that opinion get to take ownership of
> it regardless of who drafted it.
>

I agreed with the decision, but I would have drafted it differently.
Nothing more or less.

> 2.  This is the Chair's motion, but he is not inclined to debate the merits
> of the underlying assumptions inherent in the motion.
>

The motion is a resolution.  It doesn't take action and it doesn't
mention individuals in Oregon, only the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
If I had proposed a resolution to apologize to an individual, I would
happily debate whether that was the right individual.  Since the LNC
doesn't have the power in the bylaws to adjudicate internal disputes
within state affiliates, it would be inappropriate to debate such a
dispute.  You are free to disagree.

> 3.  I received no reply to my question about whether the new "rule" cited in
> the JC ruling will be applied to other affiliates who have no official
> recognition from their respective secretaries of state.  The JC ruling went
> out of its way to say they saw it as a general rule for all state affiliates
> and thus it also applied to the specific case of Oregon.  I suppose I am
> left to assume for now that even the Chair intends to not fully comply with
> the alleged new JC "rule" that he himself signed, and he intends to apply a
> different standard to the Oregon affiliate than is applied to other
> affiliates.  If one of the signers of the ruling won't even abide by it, why
> should the rest of the LNC be expected to do so?
>

The question appeared rhetorical.  Since you indicate it was not, I'll
answer it.  Political parties are regulated by state law.  I doubt the
Louisiana LP would have quite as complex a governing structure as it
does without being required to by the state ( see the org. chart here:
http://lplouisiana.org/party_organization ). In absence of an internal
resolution to a dispute (the Libertarian Party of Oregon judicial
committee was vacant at the time of this dispute), and given the LNC
has no authority in the bylaws to resolve an internal dispute in a
state affiliate, the next step is to look at the opinion of the state
government and courts who regulate the political party.  The Secretary
of State in Oregon determined Mr. Wagner was the Chair.  Mr. Reeves
sued to overturn that decision.  That suit was dismissed (as noted in
the order you forwarded to this list), which returns the issue to the
posture prior to the suit, i.e. the Secretary of State recognizes Mr.
Wagner as the Chair.

If a similar situation arose in another state and the Executive
Committee of the LNC acted similarly, I would hope the Judicial
Committee would abide by the previous ruling.  But our Judicial
Committee, like courts generally, does not seek out disputes, it only
decides those brought to it.  So no, I don't think the national office
should contact each Secretary of State to see if the affiliates have
their paperwork up to date.  If a dispute came up, it would be an
appropriate inquiry, however.

-Nick

P.S. Sorry for putting my vote at the bottom of discussion before.

> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <nsarwark at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The Judicial Committee decision was made.  The arguments you lay out
>> were made during the hearing prior to that decision.  You may not find
>> Judge Gray's opinion persuasive, but it was the decision of the
>> Judicial Committee.
>>
>> The 2011 LNC passed a resolution indicating that they disagreed with
>> the Judicial Committee decision.  That resolution had no legal effect
>> other than to express the opinion of the LNC (like the resolution
>> presently before the LNC).  That LNC could have disaffiliated the
>> Wagner group by a 3/4 vote and affiliated with the Reeves group.  They
>> didn't.
>>
>> There have been 3 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of
>> subsequent litigation.  The Reeves side has, to this point, lost in
>> the courts.  While I can see the obvious desire for the Reeves side to
>> go back to 2011 and try to re-argue their case, I am not inclined to
>> do so.
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Yes, let's discuss the Judicial Committee ruling regarding Oregon.  I
>> > have
>> > attached it for the benefit of those who have not seen it before.
>> >
>> > Wes Wagner appealed to the Judicial Committee the decision of the LNC's
>> > Executive Committee to recognize Tim Reeves as the Chair of the LP of
>> > Oregon.  Mr, Wagner claimed it was a disaffiliation of his group.
>> > Obviously, for it to be a disaffiliation, his group would have to
>> > actually
>> > be the affiliate, and the brief from the large group of LNC members
>> > argued
>> > that he was not.
>> >
>> > The party bylaws put limitations on what the Judicial Committee can do.
>> > If
>> > it were a case of disaffiliation, the operative bylaw would be Article
>> > 6.6.
>> > If you take out the timeline language and strip it down to the core
>> > elements, that article states:
>> >
>> > "The National Committee shall have the power to revoke the status of any
>> > affiliate party, for cause, by a vote of 3/4 of the entire National
>> > Committee. A motion to revoke the status of an affiliate party for cause
>> > must specify the nature of the cause for revocation. The affiliate party
>> > may
>> > challenge the revocation of its status by written appeal to the Judicial
>> > Committee within 30 days of receipt of notice of such
>> > revocation...[snip]...At the hearing the burden of persuasion shall rest
>> > upon the appellant. The Judicial Committee shall either affirm the
>> > National
>> > Committee's revocation of affiliate party status or order reinstatement
>> > of
>> > the affiliate party...[snip]"
>> >
>> > In a disaffiliation case, the Judicial Committee options are limited to
>> > to
>> > either a) affirming the revocation, or b) reinstating the affiliate.
>> > The
>> > majority of the JC stated, in reference to the recognition of the Reeves
>> > group,
>> >
>> > "This action was beyond the authority of the LNC or EC based on the
>> > bylaws,
>> > and is void."
>> >
>> > In deciding whether something is a violation of the bylaws, logically,
>> > the
>> > standard to be used should be the bylaws themselves.  But the majority
>> > of
>> > the Judicial Committee stated the basis for their decision was,
>> >
>> > "We find that the Libertarian Party of a particular state, in this case
>> > the
>> > State of Oregon, is the entity that is recognized by the secretary of
>> > state,
>> > in this case the Secretary of State of Oregon."
>> >
>> > Mr. Sarwark, can you show the LNC where this "rule" is found in the LP
>> > Bylaws, thus can be used as a standard by the Judicial Committee?  Our
>> > delegates have not agreed to this standard for identifying who our
>> > affiliate
>> > is.
>> >
>> > Since that "rule" is not in our bylaws, can you show the LNC where the
>> > LP
>> > bylaws grant the Judicial Committee the authority to legislate from the
>> > bench and construct this new "rule" for affiliate governance?
>> >
>> > Article 6.2 of the LP Bylaws give the LNC, not a secretary of state, the
>> > power to create affiliates.  It gives the LNC, not a secretary of state,
>> > the
>> > power to revoke an affiliate status.  The same body that can affiliate
>> > or
>> > disaffiliate naturally has the power to later identify who it is they
>> > have
>> > affiliated.
>> >
>> > Application of this "rule" in this particular case would directly
>> > interfere
>> > with the autonomy of the Oregon affiliate, in that the LPO members
>> > operating
>> > under the bylaws to which they mutually agreed selected one set of
>> > officers,
>> > but the Judicial Committee has declared that the affiliate is instead
>> > whoever is on file with the Secretary of State's office in Oregon.
>> > Article
>> > 6.5 of the LP Bylaws states:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > “The autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be
>> > abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party,
>> > except as provided by these Bylaws.”  (underline added for emphasis)
>> >
>> >
>> > Autonomy, by definition, is the right of self-rule, and an acceptance of
>> > that statement in the Judicial Committee decision would in this case
>> > effectively deprive the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon of
>> > the
>> > right to choose their own officers.
>> >
>> > Thus the LNC adopted the resolution spanning pages 11-13 of the December
>> > 2011 LNC minutes (found at http://www.lp.org/lnc-meeting-archives)
>> > calling
>> > the Judicial Committee's ruling an "arrogation of power".
>> >
>> > This Judicial Committee ruling itself violates the bylaws, thus is null
>> > and
>> > void.
>> >
>> > Additionally, as was referenced in the email we received from Tim
>> > Reeves,
>> > the Oregon Secretary of State has been advised by their legal counsel
>> > that
>> > Oregon state law forbids from them doing what the Judicial Committee
>> > prescribed.  Thus they filed a declaration in the court case that,
>> >
>> > "The Secretary of State's Elections Division has not and will not
>> > enforce or
>> > adjudicate disputes about political party bylaws.  We have told the
>> > parties
>> > that they have to go to court to adjudicate this matter if there is to
>> > be
>> > any change because we do not adjudicate this type of dispute."
>> >
>> > Spanning pages 3-4 of RONR 11th ed. you will find that,
>> >
>> > "Aside from rules of parliamentary procedure and the particular rules of
>> > an
>> > assembly, the actions of any deliberative body are also subject to
>> > applicable procedural rules prescribed by local, state, or national law
>> > and
>> > would be null and void if in violation of such law."
>> >
>> > The Judicial Committee prescribed a procedure for identifying our
>> > affiliates
>> > which would be in violation of Oregon state law, thus it is null and
>> > void on
>> > those grounds as well.  Oregon is not the only state in which state law
>> > would prohibit the Secretary of State from adjudicating this sort of
>> > dispute
>> > over the leadership of a political party.
>> >
>> > Mr. Sarwark, now that you are national chair, should we expect you to
>> > broadly implement compliance with this "rule" you helped write and seem
>> > to
>> > believe is binding?  The ruling claimed it applied to any state, not
>> > just
>> > Oregon.  You could direct staff to remove from our website all the
>> > listed
>> > affiliates.  Then they could call all the secretary of state offices
>> > around
>> > the country and ask them whether they recognize the Libertarian Party as
>> > a
>> > political party in that state.  The only affiliates to be added back to
>> > the
>> > website will then be those who are recognized by their secretary of
>> > state
>> > offices.
>> >
>> > We would likely lose a number of affiliates that way.  You could try out
>> > a
>> > couple by first calling the secretary of state of Oklahoma, then Alabama
>> > and
>> > see what they say.  I would like to be a fly on the wall when you
>> > explain to
>> > these state chairs that we don't recognize those affiliates because they
>> > have no legal status with the secretary of state.
>> >
>> > How soon should these state affiliates expect you to implement this
>> > Judicial
>> > Committee-created rule?
>> >
>> > -Alicia
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Subsequent to the 2011 decision mentioned by Alicia above, the
>> >> Judicial Committee reversed the decision of the LNC Executive
>> >> Committee recognizing Reeves without a disaffiliation vote of the
>> >> entire LNC.   The LNC never took such a vote.  Mr. Wagner is
>> >> recognized as the Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon by the
>> >> Oregon Secretary of State.  Pursuant to the Judicial Committee
>> >> decision, he is recognized as the Chair of the Libertarian Party of
>> >> Oregon by the LNC unless or until (a) the LNC takes a vote to
>> >> disaffiliate the Libertarian Party of Oregon or (b) the Oregon
>> >> Secretary of State or the Oregon Courts decide someone else is the
>> >> Chair.  The Reeves group did sue in Oregon court and had their case
>> >> dismissed at summary judgment.  They are presently appealing that
>> >> decision, but the decision is not stayed.
>> >>
>> >> In 2012, the Libertarian Party of Oregon placed Gary Johnson and Jim
>> >> Gray on the ballot for President.  The Libertarian Party of Oregon
>> >> will be able to place a Presidential ticket on the ballot in 2016.
>> >> Unless something changes drastically in the courts, the Chair will be
>> >> Mr. Wagner or his successor.
>> >>
>> >> For those members of the Committee who were not around in 2000, I
>> >> would urge you to contact Bill Hall of Michigan to discuss what
>> >> happened when the LNC decided to disaffiliate the group in Arizona
>> >> that held ballot access.  If we ignore the lessons from that episode,
>> >> we risk cutting off our ballot access nose to spite Mr. Wagner's face.
>> >> I have yet to hear the argument that action would be in the best
>> >> interest of the Libertarian National Committee.
>> >>
>> >> I will, under separate cover, forward to the list a message from Mr.
>> >> Moellman from Kentucky.
>> >>
>> >> -Nick
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > As I have stated before, I do not agree that Wes Wagner is the chair
>> >> > of
>> >> > our
>> >> > Oregon affiliate.  This motion under consideration implies that he
>> >> > is.
>> >> > It
>> >> > suggests the event for which we are apologizing violated the autonomy
>> >> > of
>> >> > the
>> >> > affiliate with Wes Wagner as its chair.
>> >> >
>> >> > For those of you new to the story, I cannot re-explain it better than
>> >> > has
>> >> > already been done.  Attached you will find three documents that lay
>> >> > out
>> >> > the
>> >> > story in great detail.
>> >> >
>> >> > The LNC's Executive Committee in 2011 voted to recognize the Reeves
>> >> > group as
>> >> > our Oregon affiliate.  Wes Wagner appealed this decision to the
>> >> > Judicial
>> >> > Committee claiming that he represented the affiliate, thus the
>> >> > decision
>> >> > to
>> >> > recognize Reeves was essentially a disaffiliation.  These three
>> >> > documents
>> >> > were filed with the Judicial Committee as a defense of the action.
>> >> > They
>> >> > lay
>> >> > out the argument that Wes Wagner ceased to be the chair of the LP of
>> >> > Oregon
>> >> > in May of 2011.
>> >> >
>> >> > The story plot after this JC appeal was told fairly well in the
>> >> > 4-page
>> >> > document distributed by the Reeves group at this convention.  If you
>> >> > didn't
>> >> > get to read it but would like to do so, just ask.  I can scan in my
>> >> > copy
>> >> > and
>> >> > send it to you.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Alicia
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Lnc-discuss mailing list
>> >> > Lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
>> >> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Lnc-discuss mailing list
>> >> Lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
>> >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Lnc-discuss mailing list
>> > Lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
>> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-discuss mailing list
>> Lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-discuss mailing list
> Lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
>