1992:  EMERLING (CLOUD)'S ATTACKS ON ANDRE MARROU
(Note: Michael Emerling changed his name to Michael Cloud in the mid-1990s.)

From:    Joe Dehn (LNC Member)
To:      All
Msg #471, 13-Apr-92 02:34am
Subject: statement by Givot and Gingell re Marrou/Lord Campaign

    The following is the text of a joint statement by Steven Givot of the Marrou/Lord Campaign (MLC), and Mary Gingell, Chair of the Libertarian Party (LP):
   Last week, Michael Emerling, a disgruntled former employee of the Marrou/Lord Campaign, issued an unsolicited report to members of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC).  Emerling's statement purported to present facts which discredited the LP's presidential candidate, Andre Marrou.  The report requested that the LNC remove Marrou as the LP's presidential candidate.
    At a scheduled meeting of the LNC in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on April 11-12, the LNC was informed that Marrou and vice-presidential candidate Nancy Lord had appointed an Operating Committee (OC) for MLC.  The OC consists of Steve Dasbach, Steve Givot, and Steve Alexander.  Alexander will focus on campaign funding.  Givot will focus on candidate scheduling, media relations, and advertising.  Dasbach will focus on other aspects of the campaign.
    Prior to the LNC meeting, the OC had reviewed various aspects of the campaign and had, with the consent of both candidates, begun implementation of a plan to move the campaign headquarters to Washington, DC, from Las Vegas, NV.  The OC determined that the best interests of the campaign would not be served by continuing to retain the services of three outside contractors -- Perry Willis, Jim Lewis, and Marti Stoner.  These individuals are no longer associated with the campaign.  Me-Me King continues to act as candidate scheduler.
    Emerling and Marrou have expressed different views as to what, if any, role Emerling has had in the campaign since Emerling was replaced as Chief of Staff last fall.  To end any confusion in this matter, the OC has mailed Emerling written notice that he no longer holds any position in the campaign.
    In response to a request from the OC, LNC Chair Mary Gingell agreed to provide a room at LP National Headquarters for use by MLC and authorized LP National Director Nick Dunbar to travel to Las Vegas, at MLC expense, to supervise the relocation.
    At the Ann Arbor meeting, the LNC spent approximately seven (7) hours interviewing candidate Marrou to seek his response to each of the various allegations made by Emerling.  Each member of the LNC was permitted to ask any question he or she desired.
    After the interview a motion was made to reaffirm support for Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord as the LP's candidates.  The motion was passed unanimously.

From:    Libernet (Mary Gingell)
To:      All  Msg #1451, 19-Apr-92 06:34am Subject: Marrou controversy
TO  Eric S. Klien and All
FROM  Mary Gingell, LP National Chair

        In reference to a joint statement issued by myself and Steve  Givot of the Marrou/Lord campaign right after the recent National  Committee meeting, Mr. Eric S. Klien writes:
        A.  "for TWO months, others have been going through the proper  channels informing the LP of Marrou's serious ethical problems."
       I have to presume that any "proper channels" of handling such  problems would include presenting them in full to the National  Chair.  That did not happen.
       Approximately four weeks before the National Committee meeting I  participated in a conference call with Marrou/Lord Chief of Staff  Perry Willis and LP Vice Chair Steve Dasbach.  Perry had requested this conference in order to brief us on some problems  brewing in the campaign.
      During this conversation, Perry told us about several campaign  tactics on which he and Andre disagreed, and expressed his frus-tration at trying to convince Andre to do things Perry's way.   Perry also told us that he had discovered several personal debts  of Marrou's that might prove embarrassing if they were to come  out in the media.
       I advised Perry to try and work with Andre to resolve their  differences regarding campaign tactics, and if that was not pos-sible, to resign as Chief of Staff.  All three of us discussed  the best possible way to make the financial information public so  we could get beyond any embarassment and get on with the campaign.  Perry indicated that he planned to sit down with Marrou during the upcoming week and discuss these items with him.   We agreed to keep in close touch about these topics.
        Over the next few weeks Perry and Andre several times seemed to  have resolved their differences, only to get into additional dis-agreements a few days later.  I began talking with both Perry and  Andre fairly often to urge them to work things out, or to make  the staffing changes required so that the campaign's efforts  would not stagnate.
        Since the Marrou/Lord campaign is a joint effort of two candidates, I also talked extensively with Nancy Lord, getting  her input on the matter.  Frankly, although various financial  allegations were mentioned from time to time during these weeks,  my main concern during this time was to encourage the candidates  to get their staff (either existing or new) lined up to move the  campaign forward.
        I was very relieved when Nancy's and Andre's travel paths crossed  in Illinois April 5, where they were able to sit down with  National Committee member Steve Givot and talk through their con-cerns about staffing and about campaign strategy and tactics.  At  this meeting Andre and Nancy agreed to form a three-person  Operating Committee to serve as a management buffer between the  candidates and the staff.  Andre returned to Las Vegas later that  day, and the report I received was that both Andre and the  campaign staff were comfortable with this new arrangement.
        Four days later I received Mr. Emerling's missive.  This was the  first time I had been presented with specific, written allega-tions on certain items that had been mentioned to me by Perry,  and the first time I had heard or read anything at all about many  of the allegations.
        B.  Mr. Klien says: "To call Perry an "outside contractor" when  he was Andre's chief of staff is misleading to say the least.   I  am under the strong impression that Michael wasn't the original  source of these allegations . . ."
        Regardless of his title, it is my understanding that Perry  Willis's relationship to the Marrou/Lord campaign was that of an  independent contractor, NOT an employee.  Same for the other two  staffers who were working in Las Vegas.  Same for Me-Me King, who  is working in Tuscon.  I do not know who was the original source   of the allegations, but our joint statement did not claim that  Michael was the original source, only that he issued the report  to the National Committee.
    C.  Mr. Klein says: "The LP's solution?  To move the campaign  headquarters to D.C., the center of corruption in the U.S.!"
        This was not the LP's solution.  Andre, Nancy, and the Marrou/Lord Operating Committee asked me, as National Chair, to sup-port them to whatever extent possible in their relocation plans.   I had to think long and hard about this move, which I felt would  strain our already overworked staff in DC.  I ultimately decided  to allow this move to take place, and to allow National Director  Nick Dunbar to assist with the move, after long thought and dis-cussion and only after making several stipulations, one being  that two additional full-time staffers would be added in DC, at  campaign expense, to cover the increased workload.  I would have  preferred to keep the campaign and the National Office entirely  separate, but, as David Bergland says, "Utopia is not an option."
    D.  Mr. Klien quoted my statement: "After the interview a motion  was made to reaffirm support for Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord as  the LP's candidates.  The motion was passed unanimously."
    Then he commented:  "Another half truth!  The truth is that they  waited for the Nevada representive (sic) to leave to catch a  plane flight before they took the vote.  They REFUSED to vote  until she left."
        Mr. Klien, YOU are not just stating a half-truth.  Your comment  in this regard is completely untrue.
        National Committee meetings normally run all day Saturday and  until about 3 or 4 pm on Sunday.  Members sometimes have to start  leaving at about 2 pm to catch planes, depending on where the  meeting is being held in relation to where the members live.  At  this particular meeting, all but one person was still in attendance around 2 pm when we took the vote.  At least five  National Committee members of whom I am aware had planned ahead  to stay in the area overnight so they would not have to leave  before the end of the meeting.
        Tamara Clark, who is an At-Large Representative (elected by the  National Convention delegates last September) and who lives in  Nevada, was the only person who left before the vote.  But she  didn't leave at, say, 1:45 pm, right before we voted.  She left  around 10:30 am!
        I had no idea at the time she left what motion, if any, was going  to be proposed at the close of our discussion, which, by the way,  went on for another three hours!  I also, at 10:30 am, had no  idea how Tamara or any other committee members, including myself,  were going to vote on whatever motions would be presented.
        Tamara has since sent a note to National Committee members stat-ing that she would have voted not to reaffirm.  However, it  strikes me that someone who was unable (for whatever reason) to  stay for the entire discussion, motion, and debate on an item  can't possibly know all the facts or know conclusively how he or  she would have voted.  In any event, there was no attempt to  exclude Tamara from the vote.  We just were not finished con-sidering the item at 10:30 am on Sunday.
    D.  Mr. Klien states: "Finally, I would like to make public one  of the many allegations against Andre.  I'll list them all if  something doesn't happen soon."
        Rest assured, Mr. Klien, we are not trying to cover up these  allegations.  A factual story outlining the allegations and  Andre's responses, which will also appear for all LP members to  read in the May issue of LP News, has already been posted to  Libernet, the LIBERTY echo, and the LPUS echo.
        I am sure other National Committe members who read Libernet will  be able to provide additional details to help resolve some of the  confusion over last week's meeting.

     Two and a half weeks ago I promised you a Part 2 of my Chair's report for April, updating you on the Marrou/Emerling controversy and bringing you up to date on what else is happening in the LP at the national level.
    Marrou/Lord Situation
    Well, it's been a HECTIC two and a half weeks.  Nick Dunbar got back to LPHQ from Las Vegas on Tuesday after the National Committee meeting.  34 boxes of campaign papers and paraphernalia arrived in Washington several days later.  For two weeks Nick and I spent lots of time helping the Marrou/Lord Operating Committee begin to get organized in their new office.  Luckily, we will be able to minimize our involvement with the administrative management of the Campaign after this coming Wednesday when MLC contractor Bruce Baechler arrives in DC to take over management of campaign operations.  Bruce, who is a past LP of Texas Chair, has lots of grassroots organizing experience and should be a great asset to the Campaign.  (NOTE: Bruce died in Sept 2000. See his Memorial Page.)
.......
     Both the LNC and the MLC Operating Committee have continued to investigate the charges made by Mr. Emerling, as well as new charges recently made on the computer networks.  So far, all of the documentation we have been able to track down supports Marrou's explanations, which were summarized in my last report to you.
    Republican Liberty Caucus National Director Alan Lindsay has told us he plans to send the Emerling document (much of which has now been proven false or at least severely misleading) to the media just before each scheduled Marrou appearance.  He gave the information to the Manchester Union Leader, whose reporter interviewed me at length right after the National Committee meeting.  Givot and Dasbach were interviewed by the Las Vegas Sun, and Marrou was asked about the allegations on the Tom Snyder radio show two weeks ago........

From:    Joe Dehn
To:      Libernet-D (Bruce Baechler)              Msg #851, 23-Dec-92 05:43am
Subject: Re: "mission" and "goals"

 > BB: I was also disappointed to see this. ...  the Natcom has no business
 > BB: setting goals like eliminating the certification requirement
 > BB: or making wholesale changes in the platform. Those are matters
 > BB: for the convention.

They certainly are.  The "railroading", as someone else called it, of these "goals" through the LNC appears to have two purposes.  One, they want to use this action by the LNC for propaganda purposes, to make it appear that the ideas have a lot of support.  We can probably expect some "celebrity endorsements" soon as well.  Second, they may try to use it as the basis for attempts to manipulate the convention through further LNC action, arguing that since the LNC has endorsed these goals it is appropriate to take steps to support them.  Note that (over in LPUS) Steve Givot is already talking about this vote having "set the stage" for the appointment of convention committees that will present these ideas to the floor.  (Remember that the LNC appoints half of the Platform Committee, and the _entire_ Bylaws and Rules Committee.)

     The following is the Mission Statement adopted by the Libertarian National Committee at its 12-13 December 1992 meeting:
   The mission of the Libertarian Party is to move public policy in a libertarian direction by electing candidates of the Libertarian Party to public office.

The LNC also endorsed the following goals:

Image: Goal #1
    * Change the image of the LP to make it attractive to people anywhere in the libertarian quadrant.
    * Change platform criteria to be:
          * Maximum of 10 topical planks
          * 2-4 year perspective
          * Transitional proposals consistent with libertarian
            philosophy and the Statement of Principles
          * Presented in a positive, solution-oriented manner so that
            it helps rather than hurts LP candidates
          * Start from scratch at each convention
          * Majority delegate approval
    * Employ outside professionals to conduct a market analysis to
      determine how best to improve our image, attract members and
      increase vote totals.
    * Develop a strategy for TV and radio ads to attract people in the
      libertarian quadrant to join the LP.

Image: Goal #2
    * All libertarians should feel equally welcome in the LP.  No person within the libertarian quadrant should be considered inferior to any other.  The LNC should take a leadership role in promoting this attitude and achieving this goal.

Image: Goal #3
   * Create a sustained and proactive program to improve the LP's  public image:
    * Establish a "Shadow Cabinet" to comment regularly on current issues
    * Publish and release comments on current topics weekly; topics can include items from Shadow Cabinet, what elected Libertarians have done, etc.
      * Develop and vigorously market a speaker's bureau of screened representatives of the LP who can convey the positive image of the LP as a place where all in the libertarian quadrant are welcome

Organization: Goal #1
    * Improve internal operations of the LP by:
          * Operating an efficient and effective national office by  4/1/93
          * Having a presentable national office by 4/1/94
          * Striving for a dual-management approach to the operation of the national office
          * Producing an operating handbook for state parties describing their interface with the national party, services available, etc.
          * Defining and implementing an ongoing strategic planning process to establish goals as input prior to the beginning  of each budget cycle

Organization: Goal #2
    * Increase LP membership and contributor base by identifying them as different and distinct.  Specifically:
          * Eliminate the "oath"
          * Assure that all statistics and all communications use the broadest definition of "member"
          * Establish reciprocity between national and state LP membership, where possible
         * Include all registered Libertarians as non-contributing members
          * Develop new outreach materials building on image changes
          * Attract mainstream, articulate, successful, functional members
          * Increase proportion of minorities, women, and other groups not currently well represented in the LP membership
          * Improve outreach to special interest groups
    * Improve fundraising yield from membership by:
          * Doubling percentage of prospects who contribute
          * Increasing the number of contributing members by 400%
          * Reducing by 50% the proportion of contributing members who  fail to maintain that status

Organization: Goal #3
    * Improve the effectiveness of LP News as a means to attract members  and contributors by:
          * Including a monthly column on the activities of elected Libertarians
          * Including to the extent possible a state-by-state list of activities monthly
          * Adopting an ongoing review of the LP News editorial policy to ensure consistency with desired public image and mission

Organization: Goal #4
    * Improve affiliate party support:
          * Develop a suggested blue-print for state parties including
            organizational structure and objectives from the state level
            to the precinct level
          * Create and distribute a "Libertarian Data Book" (vote
            totals, ballot access facts, list of elected Libertarians,
            etc.)

    * Develop a world-class campus organizing program, with:
          * Contacts on 500 campuses and between 100 and 200 organized
            and functioning campus clubs going into the '96 elections
          * Such a visible presence on campus that any student
            attending an American college or university will have
            heard of the LP and have some idea of what a libertarian is

Campaigns and Candidates: Goal #1
  * State and local 1994 goals are to:
          * Elect 5 state legislators (outside NH)
          * Raise $1,000,000 to support state house candidates
          * Recruit 1,500 candidates (all levels) nationwide
          * Identify and provide campaign materials and promote professional campaign training

Campaigns and Candidates: Goal #2
   * Federal 1994 goals are:
          * Have 200 federal candidates file with the FEC
          * Obtain NES coverage of returns
          * Obtain 30-state ballot access by 12/94
          * Provide support for federal candidates including:
                * bookkeeping, caging and FEC reporting
                * generic TV and radio ads
                * other services, if possible
          * Recruit qualified 1996 presidential candidates

Campaigns and Candidates: Goal #3
    * 1996 Campaign goals include:
          * 51-state ballot access
          * Enabling presidential candidate to qualify for federal matching funds
          * Participation in presidential debates
          * Recruiting 50 former or current non-Libertarian office holders to run as Libertarians
          * Doubling our average 1992 US House vote percentages by 1994

     Several votes were involved in the endorsement of these goals.
     The bulk of the text was passed as a package on a voice vote.  Dehn and Gingell asked that their "no" votes on this motion be noted, giving as their reason that there had not been sufficient time for any discussion of most of the individual points.
     "Organization: Goal #2" was voted on separately, after a discussion which dealt almost exclusively with the question of eliminating the membership "oath" (certification that the individual opposes the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals).  Voting in favor were: Crickenberger, Dasbach, Givot, Hall, Karlan, Kohls, Neale, Prazak, and Redpath; voting against were Alexander, Clark, Dehn, Ernsberger, Gingell, Johnson, and McLean, with Gingell noting that she voted "no" primarily because there had not been time to discuss the other points.
      The second part of "Image: Goal #1", concerning changing the nature and scope of the Platform, was also voted on separately.  Voting in favor were: Clark, Crickenberger, Dasbach, Ernsberger, Givot, Hall, Karlan, Neale, Prazak, Redpath, and Schumacher; voting against were: Alexander, Dehn, Gingell, Johnson, Kohls, and McLean.
       Several other small portions were approved separately by voice vote, with no members asking that their votes or comments be recorded.

Steve Givot wrote:
  > I am saddened that Steve Alexander felt it necessary to resigned from
  > the LNC.  Frankly, however, I think the basis of Steve's resignation,
  > as expressed in his letter, is incorrect.

For those who have not seen it, the letter to which Mr. Givot is referring
is the following:
  |
  |                        Steven J. Alexander
  |               824 Bing Drive    Santa Clara, CA 95051
  |                           December 14, 1992
  |
  | Ms. Mary Gingell, Chair
  | Libertarian National Committee
  | 2340 Princeton
  | Palo Alto, CA 94306
  |
  | Dear Mary,
  |
  | With deep regret I hereby resign from the Libertarian National Committee.  I will not be part of a political organization that repudiates the non-initation of force pledge and the Libertarian  Party platform.
  |
  |                                    Sincerely,
||                                    Steven J. Alexander

  > My dictionary defines "repudiate" as ...

I have my own opinion of Mr. Givot's dictionary-quoting sophistries, but in this case for me to argue about the meaning of Mr. Alexander's words would be superfluous.  Mr. Alexander is a subscriber to LPUS, and I'm sure he can clear up whatever confusion Mr. Givot's may have about the meaning of this letter.

  > First, Joe's definition of "rude" is inconsistent with his own behavior.
 > It was no more "rude" to bring this to the LNC the week of the LNC
  > meeting than it was for Mr. Dehn to deliver the minutes of the previous
  > LNC meeting AT THE MEETING,

      Mr. Givot's ad hominem argumentation is one of the things to be expected now that, as I noted in my message to Libernet-D, the Atlanta group has chosen to politicize the LNC.  I will not be surprised to see all manner of misleading arguments, convoluted parliamentary maneuvers, and personal attacks, as they seek to gain advantage for their position. Those of us who had an opportunity to observe the tactics that Mr. Givot used against outsiders such as CNN during the Marrou/Lord campaign know that he basically follows an "all's fair..." philosophy; as the attack dog of the Atlanta group, he will now be turning those tactics against his fellow Libertarians who happen to disagree with him on internal policy.
       Late distribution of the minutes is one of my many failings.  It is, however, irrelevant to the question of the appropriateness of the Atlanta group's political tactics.  Even _if_ my complaint had been that the list of proposed goals was delivered to the LNC only a few days before the meeting, the tardiness of others in delivering their reports would be no excuse ("two wrongs don't make a right").
      However, as those who saw my posting to Libernet-D already know, that is not what I said was "rude" about the action of the Atlanta group. My objection is that, by forcing a vote on this question, LNC members who disagree with the outcome have had words put in their mouths, when, in my opinion, no collective statement was called for.  The advocates of this position will miss no opportunity to remind people that the LNC has endorsed their goals. The rest of us have no choice but to note our objections, making this a continuing sore point that is in the process of driving the LNC into full-fledged factionalization.

  > Nor was it inappropriate for a MAJORITY of the LNC members to place
  > consideration of these items on the agenda.  If Mr. Dehn would like to
  > see CONCENSUS decision making, then he should propose the necessary
  > changes to depart from Robert's Rules of Order, which clearly calls
  > for a majority vote on such items.

Mr. Givot is confusing what _can_ be done with what _should_ be done. I do not question the procedural legitimacy of the actions of the Atlanta group. But not every consideration relating to the smooth and cooperative functioning of an organization is found in Robert's Rules. One of the unwritten rules that I believe important is that members refrain from making decisions on matters on which members have differing and strongly held opinions.  Sometimes this is unavoidable, because the organization, in order to conduct its business, _must_ chose one path or another.  But in those cases where there is no consensus and it is not necessary to make a collective decision, it is better simply to take no position.
    Consensus decision-making does not require a change in our rules.  All that is needed is an attitude of self-restraint in which members refrain from using their parliamentary "rights" when they can see that to do so will cause discord.

  > Mr. Dehn's claim of a "deep division" may, in fact, be true.  But until
  > the vote was taken, no one knew the outcome.  In fact, taking a vote
  > was the only way to determine how people would actually vote.

This is silly.  Everybody knew these were controversial points, on which a number of LNC members had deeply-held positions not likely to be reversed during the brief discussion time available at the LNC meeting.  If this fact wasn't clear in the minds of the Atlanta group as they set up their secret meeting, it certainly should have been obvious from the comments during the LNC meeting. If the proponents of this action had cared about the kinds of problems they would be creating, they could have asked for a straw vote and withdrawn their motion upon seeing the result.  No, the behavior of the Atlanta group was not the result of any ignorance of the feelings of the other LNC members -- it was a deliberate political tactic which they considered worth using to advance their goals, regardless of the cost in distraction from and disruption of work toward our common goals.

  > The LNC is not constituted to implement the foreign
  > policy of the US.  Yet it regularly passes resolutions on foreign
policy.
  > The same can be said of many topics which are not within the purview of
  > the LNC.  Yet Joe has expressed no problem with any of these resolutions

  > as coming from a body which should not "decide them." ...

  > BECAUSE JOE DISLIKES THE OUTCOME, JOE SEEMS TO BE
  > CRITICIZING THE PROCESS.  Having two standards to apply to judge
  > comparable actions is NOT, in my opinion, a reflection of anything
  > other than inconsistency.

Mr. Givot is pointing out an inconsistency between my position in this instance and what he presumes my position to be in the case of stands on public policy.  This is simply a result of his ignorance of my views on the
latter.
     It has been customary for the LNC to pass resolutions relating to public policy.  For the most part, this has  not been a matter of "deciding" the LP's position, but simply a move to publicize what is already expressed or implied in our Platform.  Of course, applying the ideas of the Platform to a specific situation, and expressing them in specific language, involves a certain amount of interpretation and judgement.  But the ability of the LNC to pass such a resolution by a substantial majority is usually a good sign that a reasonable job of this has been done.
   If the LNC finds itself split on such a resolution, there is a good chance that somebody is trying to get the LNC to decide an issue that _isn't_ stated or strongly implied by the Platform.  That is likely to mean that the issue has either never been considered in convention, or that it was considered and found to be sufficiently divisive that a 2/3 majority could not be formed. In either case I would consider it inappropriate for the LNC to make a statement on the subject.  If declaring something to be the official LP position requires a two-thirds vote of the delegates to a convention, no way should a simple majority of the LNC, a smaller and less representative body, be considered sufficient to declare it so.  (Again, as in the present case, I am not proposing that the LNC formally adopt any new voting rule for resolutions regarding public issues, but simply  advocating that LNC members refrain from pushing the limits of the existing rules to get their way in cases where they can see that it would be divisive.)

  > The LNC is elected to LEAD the LP.

The LNC is elected to _serve_ the LP.  Part of that service is to lead in certain areas where it is uniquely qualified.  But in those matters which our rules specify are to be decided in convention, the LNC's job is to implement, not create, policy.  Anyone who wants to advocate and campaign for a specific position on such matters is free to set up some other committee for that purpose.  The LNC has enough matters to attend to without taking on additional roles that can be adequately played by others, and the playing of which is almost guaranteed to interfere with its own important work.

There is a clear  difference between the NatCom taking quick action to implement, reiterate or publicize a policy set by the convention and the NatCom taking action to call for the reversal of a policy taken by the convention.  Joe has already pointed out this difference in language clear enough for a man of Steve Givot's intelligence to understand.  Therefore Steve's continued attempts to blur this distinction must be interpreted as deliberate.

GIVOT
>I find it strange that you
>would suggest as a libertarian to another libertarian that he SHOULD not
>exercise his rights, and that the MAJORITY of the LNC SHOULD not exercise
>their rights.  Instead we should subordinate our rights and our best
>judgment to appease a discordant MINORITY.  Whoa.... Maybe Joe wants to
>[analogy with abortion controversy omitted]

Did Steve learn this tactic from the Bolsheviks?  A narrow majority of attendees at a NatCom meeting now becomes "the Majority" even if their views contradict the views of a majority of the delegates to previous conventions.  (Not to mention the views of the majority of the rank and file).

GIVOT
>So where are we?  Politicization and factionalization will occur only if
>the opponents wish to promote them.  The proponents want an open a lively
>debate leading to delegate consideration of the proposals and a vote.  If
>the passes---or if the fails---the proponents have said they will stay
>in the LP.  Will the opponents make the same pledge and, thereby, preempt
>a split?  I hope so.

Now this is beautiful.  A group of people who join a party despite its requirement of agreement with the nonaggression principle want to remove it.  Then they magnanimously offer to stay in the party whether the requirement is kept or not, and invite those who joined the party BECAUSE of the requirement to make the same pledge.  Forgive the obvious exaggeration in the following parable, but chew on it: A group of cardinals propose that belief in Jesus no longer be an article of faith of the Catholic Church.  They agree that they will not leave the Church regardless of the outcome and invite the other 700 million Catholics to make the same pledge. Get real.

The proposal to "eliminate the oath" as a condition for national membership grew out of a general concern that we are putting up unnecessary barriers to membership; barriers that prevent some libertarians from joining the LP or from staying. The stated problems with the oath, as best as I can describe them, were the following:
1. IT READS LIKE AN "OATH", WHICH MANY PEOPLE HAVE TROUBLE WITH ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES. Bob Waldrop described the current wording as "quirky" and not like something you would sign to join a political party. Bob proceeded to list a "Statement of Political Independence" which included the NCP and sounded like something you might sign to join a political party. Dana suggested a statement of what the LP believes in, followed by a place for the person to request to join. Either suggestion would address the "oath" problem.
2. IF FULLY UNDERSTOOD, IT CANNOT BE SIGNED (IN GOOD CONSCIENCE) BY A MENARCHIST. (Sic)
A menarchist accepts that some level of government is NECESSARY to preserve individual rights. If one also believes that some level of taxation (however small) would be needed to fund that government, then one is sanctioning some level of initiation of force. Anyone who falls in the Libertarian region of the Diamond Chart (as a general principle) should be able to join the LP in good conscience and any "reform" must address this concern.
3. REQUIRING A CERTIFICATION "IN WRITING" PREVENTS SIGNUPS BY E-MAIL, TELEPHONE, AND OTHER MODERN COMMUNICATION METHODS. Any reform should address this problem as well.

CLM'S PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES: INTRODUCTION
          Almost eight months ago, a set of goals was adopted by the LNC, largely based on a document drafted a week earlier by a group of   Libertarian activists who met in Atlanta. Parts  of two of those goals required action by the national convention to be achieved and have been the source of considerable discussion throughout the LP since December. Because they required action by the convention, and because they did not represent a consensus among the LNC, those portions of the goals were rescinded by the LNC in April. It now falls upon the delegates to the national convention to address those concerns.
           In the months following the December LNC meeting, two groups have been formed. PLEDGE opposes the proposals to eliminate the membership statement and change the platform criteria. CLM supports broadening the base of the LP to appeal to all libertarians, presenting our message in a positive manner without compromising our principles, and focusing our efforts on electing libertarians to public office. As part of that support, CLM has supported eliminating the membership statement and changing the platform criteria.
           As the debate has progressed, CLM has listened to the concerns raised by those who want to keep the membership statement and platform the way they are, those who favor change, and those who are undecided. We have commented on proposed compromises, and solicited input from CLM's supporters. We have looked for ways to address the concerns which led to the original proposals, while also addressing concerns raised by opponents of change. We have searched for common ground which can serve as a basis for unity at the convention and beyond.
           Based on eight months of debate, CLM has drafted proposed bylaw changes that we believe address most of the concerns that led to the original proposals while also addressing the major objections that have been raised. We are proposing changes in the following areas:
1. Membership
2. The Platform
3. Convention Committees
4. Delegate Allocation
5. Seconding Motions
            Details of the proposed bylaw changes follow in subsequent messages.

Subject: CLM'S PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES: MEMBERSHIP (2 OF 6)
           Currently, state and national membership in the LP are completely separate. National members must sign a membership statement which  meets the requirements set out in the  Bylaws, while each state affiliate sets their own membership requirements. The number of national members in each state largely determines the number of convention delegates each state is entitled to, but it is the members of that state affiliate, not national members, that actually choose the delegates. Those delegates must be members of either the state or national LP.
           CLM is proposing that we eliminate national membership, while continuing to allow each state affiliate to set their own membership requirements. States that believe that a membership statement is unnecessary will no longer have one imposed by the national party. Those that feel that a membership statement is necessary to protect the LP can require one without imposing on their neighbors. Those that wish to modify the statement can freely do so. Decentralizing membership accommodates the diverse opinions which exist between state affiliates on the issue of membership.
           Delegates are currently "required to be members of either the Party or an affiliate party." CLM proposes that this be changed to "required to be members of the affiliate party."
           National membership is currently used to determine affiliate party delegate entitlement ("one delegate for each 20 members, or fraction thereof, of the National Party"). CLM proposes that this be changed to "one delegate for each 20 contributors, or fraction thereof, to the National Party" and that we define contributor in a manner equivalent to that presently used to determine if a member's dues are current.
           National membership is also used to determine which states are entitled to name members of the platform and credentials committees, and to define regions for the purpose of selecting LNC representatives. In the absence of national membership, CLM proposes that these determinations be made on the basis of delegate allocation instead. For example, the statement "...each such 'region' with an aggregate national party membership of 10% or more shall be entitled to one National Committee representative for each 10% of national party membership" would be replaced with "...each such 'region' with an aggregate delegate allocation of 10% or more (excluding ex-officio delegates) shall be entitled to one National Committee representative for each 10% of the total allocated delegates (excluding ex-officio delegates).
           Finally, LNC members and our nominees for President and Vice- President are presently required to be national party members. CLM proposes instead that all candidates for these positions be required to submit a written declaration of candidacy prior to nomination, which includes a signed statement of support for the Statement of Principles.

Subject: CLM'S PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES: THE PLATFORM (3 OF 6)
           CLM supports presenting the Libertarian message in a positive, solution-oriented manner without compromising our principles. We   believe that the present platform is  relentlessly negative, while failing to clearly propose positive solutions. It uses extreme, "macho-flash" rhetoric that turns off potential supporters. It presents a long-term vision of a libertarian society, without specifying what can be done today to move society in that direction.
           Eight months ago, the group in Atlanta proposed that the LP "Change platform criteria to be:
 * Maximum of 10 topical planks
* 2-4 year perspective
* Transitional proposals consistent with libertarian philosophy and the Statement of Principles      * Presented in a positive, solution-oriented manner so that it helps rather than hurts LP candidates
* Start from scratch each convention
* Majority delegate approval"
           CLM initially supported this proposal. However, eight months of debate has persuaded us that substantial changes in the proposal are required.
           The 10 plank limit was initially proposed to ensure that the platform focus on issues of importance to the voters and ensure sufficient time to debate each plank. However, many Libertarians expressed a legitimate fear that an arbitrary limit on the number of planks might force the exclusion of important issues from the platform. We have since concluded that there are other ways to address these concerns, and that an arbitrary limit is unnecessary.
           CLM still believes that platform planks should concentrate on a 2-4 year perspective, should include transitional proposals consistent with the Statement of Principles, and should be presented in a positive, solution-oriented manner. However, we also believe that it is inappropriate to carve these criteria into stone by making them a part of the Bylaws. It is our responsibility to draft planks that meet these criteria and to try to persuade delegates to support them.
           CLM has been persuaded by the debate that it is important to retain the two-thirds requirement for the approval of platform planks. We believe that the platform should represent areas of broad agreement among Libertarians, which a two-thirds vote helps ensure. In fact, it was this desire that the platform represent areas of consensus among Libertarians that led to the proposal that the platform "start from scratch each convention". While CLM does not believe that the entire platform should be re-written each convention, we do believe that every plank should be voted on and receive the approval of two-thirds of the delegates before it is included in the new platform.
           Under our present rules, one-third of the delegates can block any change to a plank, even if a majority of the delegates are unhappy with either the style or substance of the existing plank. The only recourse the majority has is to delete the entire plank, assuming that they can get a motion to that effect onto the floor.
           CLM believes that it important that the platform represent areas of broad agreement among Libertarians. To help achieve this, we propose that prior to the Platform Committee report, delegates vote on whether to approve each plank in the existing platform without further amendment. This voting can be tabulated in each delegation (similar to voting for at-large LNC members) or be conducted using computer bubble sheets. During the Platform deliberations, new planks and proposed amendments to planks which did not receive support from two-thirds of the delegates would be considered first. After the close of platform deliberations, delegates would vote whether to approve those planks which had not received two-thirds support on the first vote (as amended) as well as any new planks. This vote would be handled in the same manner as the first vote. Those planks which received two-thirds support on either vote would constitute the new platform.
           CLM believes that this procedure will promote concensus. The first vote will identify those planks where concensus is currently lacking and focus debate on those planks. The need to obtain two-thirds support to include a plank will encourage those who approve of the existing language to try to address the concerns of those who desire change. We believe that the result will be a platform that enjoys broad support within the LP, a platform that we will be proud to provide to the media, a platform that helps our candidates.

Subject: CLM'S PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES: CONVENTION COMMITTEES (4 OF 6)
           CLM believes that reasoned debate and discussion is important to the growth of the LP. While debate can become heated at times,     discussing our differences is often the first  step in resolving them. Certainly, the debate on the membership statement and platform has altered CLM's position from what it was six month's ago.
           CLM believes that it is important to present proposed changes to the Bylaws and Platform to all Libertarians well in advance of each convention, rather than unveiling them on the day they're to be voted on. Vigorous debate can help identify flaws in proposed changes, and suggest better alternatives.
           CLM is proposing that the Bylaws and Platform committees be selected at the close of each convention, to serve until the next convention. Each committee would complete its report several months prior to the convention, to allow sufficient time for debate and discussion.
           Currently, the National Committee selects all ten members of the Bylaws Committee, and ten of the twenty members of the Platform Committee. Each of the ten largest state affiliates also appoints a member to the Platform Committee. CLM is proposing instead that each region elect one representative to the Bylaws Committee and two to the Platform Committee for each LNC representative that the region is entitled to.
           CLM'S PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES: DELEGATE ALLOCATION (5 OF 6)
           Delegates to each national convention are currently allocated based on national membership (one for every 20 or fraction thereof) and the most recent vote for president [one for each 1% (rounded) of the total vote cast for President in that state
          . In addition, LNC members and alternates, former Party nominees for President and Vice-President, and each LP governor, U.S. Representative, and U.S. Senator are ex-officio delegates. Thus, we allocate delegates based on membership (contributors), votes, elected officials, and party officials.
           Membership currently accounts for about 600 delegates, LNC members and alternates account for another 27, while former Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees account for another 10. Only 3 delegates were allocated based on votes, and none were allocated for elected officials.
           CLM believes that while our present delegate allocation rewards the right things (members/contributors, votes, elected officials, and party officials), it is heavily biased toward membership. It provides little incentive to gain votes in large states, and targets elected offices that are presently beyond our reach.
           CLM is proposing that each state receive one delegate for each 0.5% (rounded) of the national Libertarian vote for President that was cast in that state, replacing the present method of allocating delegates based on the presidential vote. About 200 delegates would be allocated this way, verses three using the present formula.
           CLM is proposing that elected state legislators and state officials be adding to the list of ex-officio delegates. Currently, this would add the four New Hampshire representatives as delegates. We are also proposing that state chairs be designated ex-officio delegates.
           CLM believes that this represents a more balanced method of delegate allocation, while still placing the primary emphasis on members (contributors).

           CLM'S PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES: SECONDING MOTIONS (6 OF 6)
           CLM supports substantive debate on the issues that come before the convention. However, the limited time available to the delegates is often wasted on motions, including amendments, that have little support and no chance of passing.
           Many organizations use a "standing second" to address this problem. After a motion is made, the maker is given one minute to speak to his/her motion. When the chair asks for a second, those who wish to debate the motion stand. If a sufficient number of delegates stand, the motion is considered seconded and debate commences. If not, the motion dies for lack of a second.
           CLM proposes that the LP require a standing second equal to 10% of the registered delegates. We believe that this will help ensure that most of the delegates' time is spent debating substantive issues that have significant support among the delegates.

From: LibertyDC@aol.com  [Note: Liberty Council PAC formed by Gene Cisewski, John Famularo, and others]
To:   lpus@dehnbase.fidonet.org
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 06:47:49 -0500

The following article from the December issue of "Unconventional Wisdom" [Note: unidentified publication and author] is posted with permission:

Appearances of Impropriety
     As we grow as a party, it is essential that we develop policies and behavior that reflect the Libertarian Party as "ready for prime time."  To that end, this article explores a potential controversy within the national party organization.  It may be that nobody has done anything improper.  However, we must remain diligent in making sure that our house is in order if weexpect the public to accept us as a legitimate alternative to the two big parties for governing the United States.
     In 1993, the delegates to the Libertarian Party National Convention in Salt Lake City significantly changed the way the Libertarian Party operates.  From that point forward, our presidential ticket will be selected in convention during the election year.  Before this time, the party selected the top of our ticket a year or so before the elections.  Advocates of this change, including national chair Steve Dasbach, said this reflects our growth and signals our becoming a major player in the political fortunes of America.
     Because it is important that the national office of the party - an institution owned by all the members - remain neutral before the delegates make their selection, bylaws were established to help address this question.  The pertinent sections include:
     Article I, Section 2
     D.   Neither the national Director nor any other employee of the Party shall:
          1. Endorse, support, contribute any money, or use his or her title or position to aid any           candidates in any Party primary, or in any campaign for office, or nomination, within the Party or any State Party.
          2. Serve as a delegate to any National or  State Party Convention.
          3. Permit LPHQ to be used by anyone at any time to aid any candidate in any Party primary, or in any campaign for office, or nomination, with the Party or any State Party.
     More than a year ago, it came to our attention that this rule was probably being violated.  Kiana DelaMare discussed the topic with LPVA Chair Richard Sincere.
     Sincere noticed that an invitation to his membership to meet Harry Browne was mailed without a vital piece of information. Sincere asked Kiana (an early Browne operative and an unpaid management staff member of the national party at the time - described variously in official LP documents:  as National Director Perry Willis's spouse in one fund raising letter to the membership then as "the woman Mr. Willis was living with" in the most recent LNC minutes) what had happened.  She informed him that Perry was working late at the headquarters to get it out and it was a simple oversight.
     Another example of a potential conflict arose when the national director lobbied aggressively to have his office provide accounting services for Browne and any other campaign that may want to use those services.  Richard Cowan's exploratory campaign committee rejected this offer as bad political strategy.  Having the national office - which had already demonstrated what appeared to be a serious bias for one candidate - count and track your revenue would not be altogether unlike having Bill Clinton's treasury department offer to count and track Bob Dole's revenue.
     Yet more charges of bias in the national office surfaced with the challenges the Arizona LP is facing.  The leaders of the legitimately recognized affiliate make a rather convincing case that national officers and staff interfered in their internal struggles to help the Browne campaign.  Now they've been dragged into court and the IRS is looking into what has been happening as a result of complaints filed by other Libertarians.
     We've also learned that one of the presidential candidates recently received a communication from headquarters management staff instructing him to change his campaign style.  If he doesn't, his contact information would be purged from that sent out by the national office to people asking for information about
LP presidential candidates.
     While these are a few of the more significant charges documented against the national office, others rise from time to time.  A couple of state chairs reported last year that Kianna had called them from the headquarters to try to book "our presidential candidate, Harry Browne" at their state conventions. Still other questions have arisen that the national office is primarily directing reporters to the Browne campaign and positioning Browne as the "front runner."  This although no delegates have been chosen yet and therefore there's no objective means to measure such a claim.
     Could this be happening?
     According to a message from LNC Treasurer Hugh Butler to Darren Capriotti posted by Butler on LPUS on May 11, 1995, "You are right that it is wholly inappropriate and specifically prohibited for staff members to work for a particular candidate prior to his/her nomination.  You are wrong in thinking this is happening.  No staff member of the Party has or will give unequal assistance to candidates for our nomination."
     On the other hand, the minutes of the LNC meeting of August 26-27, 1995, say "Mr. Dasbach said that there has been some paid work has been done [sic] by both Mr. Willis and Mr. Winter.  He said that he requested that they do not do any further work until the matter could be presented to the LNC.  In each case some of the work was done on the computers at the headquarters and Mr. Dasbach indicated that this was not acceptable."
     While there appears to be a case building that the staff of the national office is operating as a subsidiary of the Browne campaign, attention should also be focused on the officers of the LNC who manage that staff.  Perhaps they, too, should be included in the conflict of interest section of our bylaws.
     Since the last national convention, the LNC has reorganized themselves, setting up a corporation (you may have noticed that the legal name of the party entity is now the Libertarian National Committee, Inc.).  In doing that, the governing body of the LNC for all of the day-to-day affairs is the Executive Committee, comprised of LNC Chair Steve Dasbach, Vice Chair Karen Allard, Treasurer Hugh Butler, Secretary John Famularo, and at-large member Sharon Ayres.
     Allard was among the first to endorse Browne on his WWW page on the Internet.  Ayres (who is in charge of major donor programs for the party) is heading Browne's campaign.  Butler has embraced the Browne camp and - based on his LPUS post - doesn't see what's happening in the national office.  Dasbach has often cited Browne in his "progress reports" to the entire party membership with few mentions of the other candidates in the race.  Only Famularo seems to remain uncommitted to a specific presidential campaign.
     When a majority of the Executive Committee, charged with the oversight of the national office, shares what appears to be a common bias, it is almost impossible to avoid appearances of impropriety.  Whether there is any actual malfeasance in office will be up to the delegates to decide next year.  Meanwhile, LP leaders at the grassroots level should start to consider the standards to which we will hold our party leadership.
     How can we complain about ballot access restrictions thrown at us by Democrats and Republicans if the individuals running our National Party use their power and influence to have a determining impact on the result of our nomination process?

Friends:
        I'm starting to get reports that supporters of a particular presidential candidate have been actively trying to convince state committees to put unusual restrictions on who they will allow to speak as presidential hopefuls at their state conventions.  And the restrictions proposed seem designed to favor one candidate over any others, based on current campaign activity.
        As I have been told, restrictions would be only on those who would be speaking in the capacity of a presidential candidate for the LP nomination.  The restrictions I've heard about so far would go something like this:
    Exclude from speaking if no exploratory committee formed, or
    Exclude if no campaign committee filed with the FEC; or
    Exclude if haven't raised $250,000+ in contributions;
        There are other restrictions, but you get the idea.  It's an exclusionary tactic, 15 months away from our nominating convention.
        Keep in mind, these are being encouraged at the STATE convention level, the traditional place where folks get a chance to see how a Presidential hopeful performs on the stump, often their first chance at retail politics in that state.
        I certainly encourage people to use the three items above, along with other criteria, in making their decision who to VOTE for when we NOMINATE at our national convention.  But state party events are supposed to be where we are exposed to those seeking to recruit our support.
        Back-room attempts to exclude candidates at the state party level are, IMHO, a heavy-handed, "dark cloud"  tactic promoted by partisans of one candidate purposefully to exclude another.   Shame!
        Please be aware of this if it starts to happen in your state.  Tell them to stop this....stop it NOW, and instead start talking about the issues and strategies they will use during the post-convention campaign to benefit the LP.
       On a personal note, I'm looking forward to seeing and hearing a variety of candidates--I believe there is great VALUE in doing so!-- and making my decision accordingly.  I hope you will too.
       Yours for an open and clean LP presidential campaign,
Mark Tuniewicz

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:17:20 -0800
From: Joe Dehn <jwd3@dehnbase.org>
Reply-To: lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LP business - presidential <LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org>
Subject: Re: Israel vs Other Prez Candidates on MA Ballot

Carol Moore wrote:
>
> While we're digging up dirt on Israel, I'd heard
> that he tried to get Kip Lee kicked off MA ballot
> as competitors for Browne.  I recently did a
> Google search and found that Lee and several other
> candidates were in fact on the ballot.
>
> However, I've now heard Don Gorman was kicked
> off.  So what's the scoop on that story??

    I don't think it is accurate to say that anybody was "kicked off" the Massachusetts presidential primary ballot.
    In Massachusetts, a presidential candidate can be put on the ballot by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, by the state chair of the party, or by petition.  The Secretary of the Commonwealth put on everybody who was listed on the LP site. (Gorman missed getting on by this method because he announced too late.)  My recollection is that Israel was not happy about some of these people being on the ballot, but that in the end he didn't do anything about it (possibly there was nothing he could do at that point).  As state chair he could have asked for Gorman to be added, and did not, but I don't think "kicking off" is the right word for that.  (I am also not clear on exactly when he would have been asked to make that decision, relative to when Gorman announced his candidacy.)

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:28:07 -0500
From: Bill Woolsey <wwoolsey@comcast.net>
Reply-To: lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LP business - presidential <LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org>
Subject: Re: Israel vs Other Prez Candidates on MA Ballot

----- Original Message -----From: "Carol Moore" <carol@carolmoore.net> <Same as above, Deleted here>
To: "LP business - presidential" <LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: Israel vs Other Prez Candidates on MA Ballot

        To my best recollection, this occurred while Don was considering running but hadn't yet decided to run.
        Someone loosely associated with the effort to get Don to run did try to have his name put on  the Massachusetts ballot.
        Israel decided that Gorman wasn't eligible to be put on the ballot because his dues to the National LP weren't current.
        That Gorman's dues weren't current wasn't an accident, but some kind of protest.  I never found out exactly what sort of protest it was, but rather focused on getting Don to just go ahead and pay now.     I think all the future staffers insisted that he didn't want to run for President based upon whatever it was that made him upset with National.   All said we needed to focus on the need for serious races for winnable office.   Some said we needed to focus on the need for an incremental program that would have broad appeal.   Within a few days, Don agreed.  (With the first view, especially.)
       It appeared to us that we met the deadline.  Don paid his national dues through the NH party.   We didn't pursue the matter because an activist from Massachusetts who appeared to sympathize with Gorman at the time told us that Gorman would be on the Massachusetts ballot.
     Our view was that Israel's policy was absurd.   Dues simply had to be paid before the nomination at the National convention.   There is no requirement that one's dues are current four months before the nomination.
     My view was (and is) that the bylaw is absurd.   It treats the LP as a membership club.  Israel's policy, however, wasn't aimed at Gorman. It was rather aimed at Kip Lee.   Israel was overheard discussing the matter at some National LP meeting.  Israel seemed to think Kip Lee was an embarrassment.  Perhaps he feared that any press the primary generated would be of the "look at the loons" sort with valuable column inches going to the looniest--Lee.
     I wasn't aware that the policy failed to hit its intended target.
     I have no knowledge as to whether Israel was pleased that this policy aimed at Kip also kept Gorman off the ballot.   I don't understand why Gorman was kept of the ballot.  He did pay his dues well before the deadline we were given.
     On a related subject, I believe that the LP national office was supportive of the Gorman campaign in the sense that they _wanted_ there to be competition for the LP nomination.   It would be a publicity hook for media.  Heck, maybe they thought it would boost convention registrations.
     I've never really considered what the Browne, Berlgand, Willis, Emerling/Cloud, Howell, Israel clique thought of the matter.   Perhaps they shared the staff's view.    On the other  hand, much of their strategy seemed based on creating the image that Browne was already our nominee and that they were campaigning for  November already.   Maybe the did want to keep Gorman off the ballot.

Note: Information on the Candidates who actually ran is at http://www.politics1.com/vote-ma.htm

EXCERPTS FROM:
Subject: "Russell Kirk, Ayn Rand, and the National LP" by Jacob G. Hornberger
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:34:01 -0400
From: "Jacob G. Hornberger" <jhornberger@jacobghornberger.com>
To: <list@jacobghornberger.com>

Russell Kirk, Ayn Rand, and the National LP by Jacob G. Hornberger
        ....After I filed my request for an Ethics Amendment to the LNC Policy Manual that would subject the LNC to the same ethical constraints that the LNC has imposed on its subordinates, some LNC members, not surprisingly, reacted ferociously, even resorting to a few personal attacks against me. Then, after I requested LNC members to voluntarily disclose the monies they have received as a result of their very own policy, the reaction, again not surprisingly, was an even higher level of ferocity.... This is one reason why the Wall Street Journal exit poll last November is so important. The poll reflected that the American people placed ethical and moral principles at the top of their scale of political values. How likely is it that these people, who obviously are sick and tired of sleaze-buckets in the Democrat and Republican parties, will ever embrace a minor third party that is deliberately operating under a paradigm of unethical conduct? ... Let me give you a recent example of this phenomenon. One of the ardent supporters of Harry Browne who currently serves as an alternate member of the LNC is a woman named Barbara Goushaw. (I believe she was elected in 1998.) Goushaw was one of Browne's fiercest supporters for the 1996 presidential nomination, even providing a nominating speech that has become infamous within the LP.
           Sometime after the 1998 national LP convention, Goushaw approached me at a state LP convention in Texas. She told me that she had not yet made up her mind about whom to support in 2000 and that she could be persuaded to support me (since I was considering seeking the LP presidential nomination at that time). Her statement surprised me since I knew how deeply committed she was to Browne, but in any event, I politely but firmly reminded her of my position that LNC members should remain neutral in pre-nomination LP races.
           Then, in the latter part of 1998, I was invited to speak at a Michigan LP convention and Goushaw was responsible for arranging one of my speeches during my visit to Michigan. I again politely but firmly reminded her that since she was a LNC member, her help had to be limited only to arranging the talk in Michigan and nothing else after that.
           Thus, you can imagine my surprise over Goushaw's sending me a $600 check after I announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee in 1999. Of course, I returned the check to Goushaw. Let me restate and reemphasize that: I returned Goushaw's original check for $600 to her. That is, I didn't cash it or deposit it and then send her a reimbursement check. I returned her original check to her.
           A few days ago, as part of her LNC Campaign-Finance Disclosure Statement, Goushaw sent the following email to each and every member of the LNC:
           "I, Barbara B. Goushaw, a member of the LNC, hereby voluntarily openly and publicly declare and disclose that I HAVE ACCEPTED, either directly or indirectly, payments totaling $600.00 from the following LP candidates, their staff, organizations, or campaign-related third-party entities: Jacob Hornberger for President."
           That was the sum total of Goushaw's letter to the LNC. No explanation. No details. Simply an unequivocal statement that she had "accepted payments totaling $600" from me.
           The $600 "payments" to which Goushaw referred in her letter to the LNC refer to my return of her original check of $600 to her. That's correct -- the return of her $600 check is what she represents to the LNC to be a $600 "payment" to her.
          (Interestingly, Goushaw didn't negate the possibility that she has received money from other LP candidates, either directly or indirectly, while serving an a LNC member, which is why her disclosure is being listed under "Incomplete" on the Disclosure Report on my website: www.jacobghornberger.com)
           The problem is that when you have a governing board that is committed to an unethical paradigm or policy, it will inevitably attract to it people of the Goushaw caliber, that is those who see absolutely nothing wrong with what she has done. Remember what Russell Kirk and Ayn Rand said about value-free libertarians: they have no internal, independent code of right and wrong independent of the nonaggression principle. Since Goushaw's letter doesn't involve the initiation of force or fraud, in her mind there is absolutely nothing wrong with what she has done.
           But she's not the only one of this ilk that has been attracted to the LNC. There's also Steven I. Givot, who as LNC Secretary is a member of the all-powerful LP ExecCom. Givot, you will recall, was one of the LNC members (along with Browne friend and supporter Ken Bisson) who initially began the stonewalling with respect to whether the LNC should look into the Browne-Willis-Optopia-Yanik scandal. (See "An Open Letter to Steve Givot, posted at www.jacobghornberger.com) Givot has also been the most vociferous opponent of the Ethics Amendment and of the Request for Financial Disclosure during the course of the LNC's discussions and debates on these issues, often resorting to very nasty personal attacks against me for having the audacity to try to bring a paradigm and policy of ethics to the LNC and the Libertarian Party.
           Givot followed up the deceptive claim made by his cohort Goushaw in several separate emails to the LNC, which repeated and restated the following:
           "As a presidential nomination contender, Mr. Hornberger hired LNC member Barbara Goushaw and paid her $600 to work for his campaign to win the LP presidential nomination. That also violates the ethical standards that Mr. Hornberger publicly embraces."
           There are of course some people whose integrity is impeccable serving on the LNC. What are the chances that they would call for a censor of Goushaw and Givot for their deceitful and malicious misconduct against a member of the Libertarian Party? None, because the good and honest people on the LNC are terrified that Goushaw and Givot (and others like them on the LNC) will do this sort of thing to them!....

A Matter of Image: An Open Letter to Libertarians Everywhere
from Jacob G. Hornberger

 April 25, 2001

Dear Fellow Libertarians:

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update on the results
of the LNC meeting held last Saturday, April 21.

My sources on the LNC advise me that for some reason, LNC Secretary Steven
I. Givot intends to delay for several weeks the posting of the minutes of
this particular meeting on the LNC meeting archive website:
http://archive.lp.org/lnc

However, this is a run-down of what I think took place, based on what I have
learned from reliable sources.

1. The LNC chose not to take any vote on the Ethics Amendment, which means,
of course, that no one can determine where individual LNC members publicly
stand on the issue. However, a reliable source on the LNC advised me
that there were three LNC members who were fiercely leading the fight
against the Ethics Amendment behind the scenes before the meeting: Steve
Givot, Colorado, who is current LNC Secretary; Ken Bisson, Indiana, who
reputedly wants to be LNC Vice-Chairman in 2002; and Elias Israel,
Massachusetts, who reputedly wants to be LNC National Chairman in 2002....
See full texts at http://www.jacobghornberger.com

LNC Minutes April 29-30,  1995  LNC meeting  29-30 April 1995 / Phoenix, Arizona
    Regarding: Initiation of Arizona LP investigation.

LNC Minutes [Anaheim] 14-15 August 1999 / Anaheim, California
    Report from Richard Scharwz Region 5 Representative
    Long and complete discussion of Arizona LP dispute and passing of below resolution.

     "That the national party shall notify all dues-current national members as of August 15, 1999
     with AZ mailing addresses of the disaffiliation of the LP's Arizona affiliation, that the LNC is
     soliciting applications for an Arizona affiliate, that the Chair and National Director will set a
     deadline for receipt of such applications, that upon receipt of the applications all applicants will
     be asked to submit a list of names and address of who should vote on affiliate preference, that
     the national party will conduct that preference-type mail ballot of those members, and that the
     results of that mail ballot will be presented to the LNC for consideration in selecting the new
     Arizona affiliate."

See also LNC Minutes of November 1999

This is a timeline of the events, albeit through the eyes of an ALP
member: http://www.members.home.net/pls2/timeline.htm

On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:51:03 EDT, RegistrLBT@aol.com wrote:
Dear Mike and Ernie:
    The correct chronology was that they filed their Statement of
Organization FIRST, then they;
 1)  tried to embezzle our bank account, then
 2)  tried to proxy-pack our '95 Convention, in the name of reconciliation, then
 3) sued us.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 12:40:54 -0700, Rick Tompkins/Kathy Harrer
<spooner@doitnow.com> wrote:  [relevant exceprts only]
.....As has been made clear many times, the record shows that Schmerl filed a new political party (with a slightly different name) with the AZ Sec. of state, received his own separate file number, sent a letter on his law office letterhead to our bank telling them to switch the account to his name, etc. etc. ad nauseam. (When we discovered the theft of the bank account, I personally went to the bank, read the riot act to the bank's branch manager, and they promptly fell all over themselves to correct their error, apparently fearing we might sue the bank.)
   At the next state convention, their formation of a new party was recognized. The participants in the new party were barred from holding office in our party. This is evil? This is unusual? There was also a great deal of sentiment at that convention to bar some of them from our party as punishment for their fraudulent actions, but the actual action taken was no more than an acceptance of their defection....Rick Tompkins

In 1998 some of the LPofAZ's problems threatened to spill over into Utah. So I made some inquiries. Following are the responses from two` in a position to know, John Buttrick and then national vice chair and fellow Utahn, Hugh Butler.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John Buttrick"<buttrick@brownbain.com>

        All: This is in response to Hugh's message set forth below. I have no knowledge of the previous post referred to and I have no idea at all regarding some "bad situation" or being "taken to the statehouse (or the Big House) in Arizona."
    Let me state at the outset how I know what I know. I became highly active in the Arizona LP around early 1994 when I was coaxed into running for Governor. Before that time while I was nominally a state party member (as well as a national LP member) and attended some party functions, I really was pretty much out of the loop regarding the ins and outs of party infighting, triumphs and tragedies. Therefore, virtually everything I say about events before that time is hearsay.
    Since early 1994, however, I have been very involved having attended every party convention, been the lawyer for the party (and its officers and certain other members) in all its lawsuits, have been a continuous member of the state executive committee, twice a delegate to the National LP Convention and twice a candidate (in 94 and presently). I know what I'm talking about from 94 to date.
    Here's the overview of the situation: The ALP has been in continuous existence and recognized as an affiliate by the LP since the 70's I think. The ALP has a set of generally pedestrian by-laws and has recognized county organizations with minimal oversight.
    The party does mo