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

[Alicia Mattson]

Joshua,

If you accept the notion that nobody (not even the parliamentary authority
our convention delegates adopted) can say a JC ruling is null and void, and
if you accept this particular JC ruling as binding even though it was based
on a new rule that they made up on their own rather than based on the
bylaws, and even though the ruling itself violates the bylaws, then what's
to stop the JC from making up other new rules and saying that they're
binding on the party?

And why stop at one new rule?  Why can't they just rewrite the bylaws
completely and claim they're binding because there is no body assigned to
oversee the JC?  Would you just accept their new bylaws as binding because
of the theory that they get to determine their own jurisdiction?

What if the JC wrote new bylaws, and the new bylaws said that conventions
can do nothing more than nominate the presidential candidate, and the JC
will now appoint the LNC members (but in no case can anyone named Joshua be
on the LNC), the JC will reappoint themselves to life terms, and the JC
will have full jurisdiction over anything they please?  (If that sounds
familiar, maybe it's because the Wagner group did that, just with the
Executive Committee instead of the Judicial Committee.)

Would your response still be that we have to accept their ruling?  How far
outside of their authority can they go before it is invalid?

Haven't our convention delegates chosen to oversee the JC by adopting rules
that limit them, including the bylaws and RONR?

-Alicia




On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Joshua Katz <joshua.katz at lp.org> wrote:

> Here's my position, in brief.  I don't think there is a definitive answer
> to who gets the benefit of the doubt.  As I see it, there are three
> positions possible:
> 1.  The JC gets the benefit of the doubt, for the reason you summarized
> above - the job of the JC is overseeing decisions of the LNC, this is the
> intent in the bylaws, and the JC is elected with this understanding.
> 2.  The LNC gets the benefit of the doubt.  I can see two arguments for
> this.  One is the one you presented briefly in your email.  Another is that
> the LNC is, ultimately, the governing body of this organization outside of
> conventions (in turn, the LNC itself has a governing body when it isn't
> meeting.)  The JC has oversight within its jurisdiction, but in keeping
> with Locke's principles, the JC cannot decide what its jurisdiction is.
>  Therefore, the only reasonable body to make that decision is the LNC.
> 3.  There is no answer, and each case is just decided on its merits.
>
> In this case, 2 and 3 result in the same actions, but there remain
> practical differences.  I believe you have presented arguments for 2 and
> for 3 (or, at least, you've argued for 2 and given other arguments, on the
> details of the JC decision, that are only necessary if one accepts 3.)  I
> tend towards 1, but at a higher level, as I argued here, I don't think I
> have any knock-down argument for 1, I just also don't find a knock-down
> argument for 2.  As for 3, I find it very attractive, and wish I could
> embrace it, but I cannot accept the idea of simply having no answer at all
> as to which committee has the say in cases of dispute.  Maybe I should
> embrace 3, but at the moment I can't do it.
>
> I presented my reasons for 1, but I don't think they're conclusive.
>
> My position has the serious weakness of allowing the JC to decide its own
> jurisdiction.  But 2 allows the LNC to exempt its decisions from JC
> oversight.  I'll take the first weakness over the second.  Both allow
> someone to be a judge in their own case.
>
> Joshua Katz
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
> Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Joshua, that's an excellent question.  I'm sorry that I don't have time
>> to write a more thorough answer, as I am fairly pressed for time this
>> week.  But my short answer is that since the JC stepped well outside of its
>> bounds of authority, and as I earlier described that I see it as being null
>> and void, therefore I will not give it any consultative value, and I
>> believe that it leaves the LNC decisions on the question still in effect.
>>
>> In another email, though I don't have the time to go find it right now,
>> you discussed something to the effect of who gets the benefit of the doubt
>> in situation like this, and your sense (if I recall correctly) was that
>> because the purpose of the JC was to oversee the LNC, the JC should get the
>> benefit of the doubt.
>>
>> However, I would ask you to consider that the bylaws put very strict
>> limits on the JC powers of oversight and actually give benefit of the doubt
>> to the LNC in that the bylaws say an appellant (not the LNC) has the burden
>> of proof for a JC hearing, and if the JC issues no ruling, the LNC decision
>> stands.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Suppose one were to accept that the JC made an incorrect decision.
>>>  Clearly, a majority of a past LNC agreed.  Also clearly, the JC at that
>>> time did not agree.  What would follow if one accepted this?  Suppose that,
>>> as in a past LNC, the majority of the LNC held this view.  Again, what
>>> would follow?  Would the JC decision not be binding anyway?  Is there an
>>> applicable rule covering such a dispute?
>>>
>>> A reasonable digression:  One argument regarding minarchism/anarchism is
>>> that government is not so much undesirable as impossible, given the ways it
>>> is usually defined.  In particular, Locke argues for government because one
>>> may not be a judge in one's own case - and he considers anarchy to be
>>> simply the situation in which each is a judge is their own case.  To the
>>> extent that one is a judge in one's one case, then, anarchy reigns.
>>>
>>> So, the argument goes - what happens in the case of internal
>>> disagreements in the government, especially given a government in which
>>> power is divided among 3 branches with a system of 'checks and balances?'
>>>  If a court claims that an act of Congress is unconstitutional, and the
>>> Congress believes that the court has overstepped its power, the only
>>> solution - exactly the same as the nightmare scenario presented of anarchy
>>> by those who favor the state - is for either one side to give in for no
>>> good reason, or for the two branches to go to war in one way or another.
>>>  Indeed, the latter has happened in some form or another at various times.
>>>  Lincoln ordered the Chief Justice arrested.  Jackson was more restrained
>>> (perhaps a sentence never before written) in simply declaring that the
>>> court has made its decision, and now is free to enforce it, but he would
>>> not.  There have been attempts, some successful, in recent days to declare
>>> members of other branches in contempt of Congress and have them arrested.
>>>
>>> The LNC governs the party under delegation of authority.  It seems that,
>>> in the scenario I outlined (and which clearly existed in the past, and
>>> could well exist again) we face the same problems actual governments face.
>>>  What is to be done about this seemingly irresolvable conflict?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 3:09 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140720/b35f305a/attachment-0002.html>