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

[Joshua Katz]

As the vote closes today, I will vote today.  I have long considered my
vote.  My explanation of my vote appears below.

Step 1:  I cannot accept the reasoning of the JC decision.
Step 2:  I believe that the JC is appointed to oversee the LNC.
Step 3:  I believe that the LNC, while it cannot decide who is the chair of
an affiliate, can decide who to recognize for its own purposes.
Step 4:  Since the LNC has jurisdiction to decide who the chair is for
internal purposes, that decision can be appealed to the JC.
Step 5:  The LNC cannot have the power to decide what the jurisdiction of
the JC is.  The JC answers only to the convention.
* Step 6:  The JC decision is binding even if I cannot accept its reasoning.
Step 7:  That the JC decision is binding means that the LNC cannot use the
OJC in its decision-making.
Step 8:  Since the JC decision is binding and the OJC decision is
meaningless, there was no reasonable disputed delegation from Oregon.
Step 9:  Robert's consistently uses dispute to mean reasonable dispute.
Step 10:The procedures for disputed delegations are inappropriate here,
making the motion to push delegates into a delegation without a 7/8 vote
was out of order.
Step 11:The ruling was incorrect.
Step 12:The ruling was appealed and sustained.
Step 13:The LNC can only criticize the ruling, not the result of the
appeal, and the motion meets this requirement.
Step 14:The above leaves me undecided as to how to vote.  A new chair
deserves a honeymoon period and I will tend to vote with the chair unless I
have a convincing reason not to.
Step 15:Apologies are free, are not actions, and are appropriate when a
mistake may have been made.

I will vote yes.  This does not commit me to any position on any other
question, including bylaw revisions, officer slates, or delegation slates.

My reasoning does commit me to accepting the JC's claim of jurisdiction
when an appeal is made and accepted by the JC, and to believe that JC
decisions are binding unless reversed by the convention.

Objection:  The vote to sustain the ruling overturns the JC's decision.
Answer:  A vote cannot have a wide-ranging meaning without those voting
intending this.  An affirmative vote on sustaining the ruling of the chair
cannot be a vote to overturn a JC decision.  It can apply only to a point
of order, not to substantive underlying issues.  The ruling was that a
motion to add three delegates is in order, not that a motion to replace the
slate because the convention recognizes Reeves as the chair was in order,
so the appeal cannot touch on the latter.

Objection:  Mr. Wagner's behavior, including blackmail and personal
attacks, and flaming middle fingers (even if authorized by a vote), is
tactless, disruptive, and hostile.  An apology opens us up to lawsuits and
admits guilt.
Answer:  True.  However, an apology remains appropriate regardless, and
only highlights that behavior and shows that we are not in the wrong.  As
far as a lawsuit - act correctly at all times, not in fear of consequences.
 In any case, an apology for seating three delegates is not an admission of
wrong-doing in any other matter, and seating three delegates is not
actionable since there is no harm outside of party matters, and thus no
standing since we have internal mechanisms to handle party matters.

Objection:  This must end, and we must not tie up this LNC term discussing
Oregon.
Answer:  Agreed.  Let's issue an apology and move on to substantive
matters.  Let's find a way, moving forward, for Oregon not to be our main
topic of discussion.

* Those who disagree with me here should, in my opinion, probably vote
against this motion.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)


On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Regarding the portion excerpted below...
>
> No, the Secretary of State in Oregon did not determine Mr. Wagner was the
> Chair of the LP of Oregon.  As I posted previously, the SOS filed a
> declaration in the case specifically stating that their Elections Division
> office
>
> "...*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*."
>
> I have attached that declaration for easy verification of the quote.
>
> The SOS and the judge both disagreed with the national Judicial Committee
> ruling about how this should be decided.
>
> Besides the point that it's just bizarre for Libertarians to say the
> government gets to regulate our party workings, the SCOTUS has found (see
> Eu vs. San Francisco County Democrat Central Committee) that it is
> unconstitutional for state governments to regulate the internal workings of
> political parties.  Any of our affiliates who have state laws prescribing
> membership, structure of the party, etc. might be able to sue on the basis
> of that ruling and have those laws overturned.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
> On 7/18/14, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote (in part):
>
>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140719/d93cd2b0/attachment-0002.html>