[Lnc-business] The Judicial Committee decision and how it effects the Libertarian National Committee

[Alicia Mattson]

My opinion on this subject has been on the record and well known since 2011.

I do want to make a point about the following statement by the Chair:

NS:  "It is important to understand what a motion to rescind can and cannot
do to understand the effect of the Judicial Committee ruling.  Under
Robert's, motions to rescind cannot undo what has been done."

This is not an accurate representation of what Robert's says, as it leaves
out a really important qualification.  Let's take a look at the verbatim
wording from Robert's (11th ed, p. 308) (underline/bold added by me for
emphasis):

"ACTIONS THAT CANNOT BE RESCINDED OR AMENDED. The motions to Rescind and to
Amend Something Previously Adopted are not in order under the following
circumstances:

a) ...

b) When something has been done, as a result of the vote on the main
motion, *that is impossible to undo*. (The unexecuted part of an order,
however, can be rescinded or amended.)

..."

The only thing that was required to recognize the Wagner group following
the 2011 JC ruling was to change a link on our website and start emailing
monthly data dumps to a different email address.  Those same steps would be
taken to comply with this new JC ruling.

Which of those two things is allegedly impossible to undo?  We can't change
the links on our website or send future emails to a different email
address?  Obviously these are rhetorical questions, as we can do both of
those things easily.

-Alicia





On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

> All,
>
> I assume that you all have had a chance to read the document forwarded
> to this list by the Secretary and myself.
>
> There are a number of procedural defects in how the Judicial Committee
> came to meet, whether notice was proper, whether the issue they took
> up was actually authorized by the Bylaws, whether the explicit
> enumeration of causes in the Bylaws precludes rescinding a prior
> decision four years after the fact, etc.  Any one or more of those
> would make the decision we received invalid.  If anyone would like to
> discuss the specifics of those issues, I'm happy to do so.
>
> However, I think it's more productive to proceed with the decision we
> received and leave what to do about the process that allowed it to
> occur to the delegates in convention in Orlando in 2016.
>
> By a vote of 4-2, the current Judicial Committee decided to rescind
> the decision of the prior Judicial Committee in Wagner v. LNC.  Wagner
> v. LNC reversed decisions of the Executive Committee of the LNC that
> constructively disaffiliated the Libertarian Party of Oregon without
> the appropriate vote of the full LNC by recognizing officers and
> bylaws different from those recognized under state law as the officers
> of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, which is organized as a political
> party under the laws of the state of Oregon.
>
> For reference, the three Executive Committee motions originally adopted
> are:
> "--------------------------Motion 1------------------------
> Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Committee of the
> Libertarian National Committee finds that the Bylaws of the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon (as amended March 14-15, 2009) are the
> Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, and that these bylaws have
> been in effect since March 15, 2009.  (This motion was adopted by a
> vote of 6-1.)
> --------------------------Motion 2------------------------
> Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Committee of the
> Libertarian National Committee recognizes as the officers of the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon those people elected by the State
> Committee during its meeting on May 21, 2011. They are:
> Chair:  Tim Reeves
> Vice chair:  Eric B. Saub
> Secretary:  Carla J. Pealer
> Treasurer:  Gregory Burnett
> (This motion was adopted by a vote of 6-1.)
> --------------------------Motion 3------------------------
> The Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee urges
> the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to work together to
> resolve their disagreements. (This motion was adopted by a vote of
> 7-0.)"
>
> It is important to understand what a motion to rescind can and cannot
> do to understand the effect of the Judicial Committee ruling.  Under
> Robert's, motions to rescind cannot undo what has been done.  If a
> body votes to paint a building green, then paints the building green,
> a subsequent motion to rescind the decision to paint the building
> green does not unpaint the building, nor does it repaint the building
> a different color.  New action by the body is required to repaint the
> building.
>
> Accordingly, rescinding the decision that reversed the motions of the
> Executive Committee listed above has the effect of saying that the
> current Judicial Committee disagrees with the decision of the prior
> Judicial Committee.  It also reinstates the sense of the Executive
> Committee in 2011 that "based on the available evidence" a certain
> group of people and a certain set of bylaws were the correct ones for
> the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
>
> However, in the subsequent four years, perhaps in the spirit of
> "work[ing] together to resolve their disagreements," there has been
> extensive litigation in Oregon state courts over who controls the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon, a political party organized and governed
> by Oregon state law.  The result of that litigation has been that the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon is presently chaired by Lars Hedbor.  The
> rival group, presently chaired by Ian Epstein, has been ordered to act
> as a Political Action Committee, as there may not be more than one
> political party referred to as the "Libertarian Party of Oregon."
> There is an appeal pending, but the decision of the lower court was
> not stayed on appeal, so the lower court decision stands.
>
> The Libertarian Party of Oregon has nominated and run many Libertarian
> candidates for public office in the last four years, including placing
> Gary Johnson and Jim Gray on the ballot in 2012 as the Presidential
> and Vice Presidential nominees, as required by the affiliation
> agreement between the Libertarian National Committee and the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon.
>
> The LNC affiliates with state Libertarian parties.  Some of those
> parties are allowed or required to organize under state laws, some are
> not.  In Oregon, the LNC is affiliated with the Libertarian Party of
> Oregon, an Oregon political party.
>
> If the members of the Libertarian National Committee feel that the
> Oregon political party, the Libertarian Party of Oregon, should no
> longer be our affiliate in the state of Oregon, for whatever reason, a
> motion to disaffiliate that political party as our state affiliate is
> in order.  Until such time as such a motion is moved and passes, it is
> my intent as Chair of the Libertarian National Committee to maintain
> the affiliate agreement with the Oregon political party, the
> Libertarian Party of Oregon.  This would not and will not change
> should future litigation change who is in control of that political
> party.
>
> Yours in liberty,
>
> 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/20150915/35351423/attachment-0002.html>