Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 05:42:05 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: Political parties, bylaws, epiphanies, and governing bodies To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
--- In lpaz-discuss@y..., "Kent Van Cleave" <kvc@c...> wrote: > Inquiring minds want to know ... WHAT HAPPENED?!?
DISCLAIMER: The following is my own rendition of events and does NOT constitute the official minutes of the ALP GovCom meeting on Sunday. You are hereby encouraged o seek out the official meeting minutes from the ALP Secretary, Tim McDermott.
No 'trial' or other fact-finding process was held. Liz made a ruling from the chair that my election to second vice-chair of ALP, Inc. violated the ALP bylaws, and declared that I had ceased to be a GovCom member the instant of my election to ALP, Inc. This ruling of the chair was challenged, and was upheld by a slim majority.
Putting aside for the moment the serious questions of fact I was intending to raise, in my opinion this sets a precedent that is quite dangerous. It is dangerous because it effectively permits to occur on the GovCom what was so directly lamented about the '99 ALP convention: it gives the slimmest majority essentially limitless power, assuming the chair is one of their number. Consider for the moment a faction which achieves a slim majority of the GovCom. They need not even hold an ACTUAL majority, just a majority of attendees at any particular meeting. Such a majority could immediately eliminate all dissenters by means of the chair simply declaring that the dissenters had violated a bylaw and are hereby removed, with the majority upholding that declaration. Similarly, such a faction could then schedule future conventions on their "home turf" to insure an easy majority of attendees, immediately declare all opponents ineligible to hold office due to their particular interpretation of the bylaws, and uphold all challenges to such a ruling.
In practice, one would hope that no one so utterly evil as to uphold a ruling from the chair with no basis in fact, for entirely political purposes, would ever be elected to the ALP GovCom -- much less a majority of such individuals. Nor do I at all mean to imply that the chair made a ruling with _no_ basis in fact in my specific case, or that those who upheld the ruling in my specific case did so for _entirely_ political reasons. Still, I think the precedent is quite dangerous and bears close scrutiny and consideration from the general membership of the party.
There is a flip side to my argument, of course. This was made first by Ernie Hancock, who foretold of imminent doom should "1/4th of the GovCom" be allowed to thwart the enforcement of the ALP bylaws as he interpreted those bylaws and the facts of my case. I do not deny that such a danger exists if expulsions go through a "trial" with a 3/4 majority required, although I disagree that it applied to the facts of my specific situation. Under such a system a airly small minority (say 1/3) of the GovCom could effectively violate any bylaw it chose without possibility of expulsion, so long as they all stuck together. As above, such a danger ought to be scrutinized and considered at length by the membership.
Is it more dangerous to permit the possibility of arbitrary bylaw enforcement by a simple majority, or the possibility of a minority thwarting legitimate bylaw enforcement? You can't prevent both! My tendency is to compare this situation to general law enforcement, where the motto "better 10 guilty go free than one innocent man punished" applies. Perhaps my point of view is colored by the fact that I consider myself to be innocent of the alleged bylaw infraction that I was summarily "booted" for.
I remain 100% convinced that ALP, Inc. does NOT qualify as a political party, by either a common sense definition or a legal definition. If ALP, Inc. does not qualify as a political party then I have violated no ALP bylaw. Bear in mind that the ALP bylaws themselves do NOT define what a political party is, so we must rely on outside sources to make the determination of what a political party is. I have substantial evidence to back up my point of view, including the very statutes ALP is currently under court order to comply with and a common sense definition which includes registered voters, candidates, and principle/platform. Yes, there is also evidence on the other side. What I (and a few others) find so disturbing is that NEITHER side's evidence was allowed to be presented to the GovCom before a decision was made. Also very disturbing to me was the sentiment heard (from yourself and others, Kent) that "We've been fighting for years on the basis that ALP, Inc. IS a political party...so we can't possibly be expected admit now that they aren't". Aside from the fact that I see no harm whatsoever coming to ALP (and no benefit acruing to ALP, Inc.) were ALP to admit that ALP, Inc. is not really a political party, this approach is "pragmatism" in its wost possible form. It says that maintaining the prevailing ALP view of reality is more important than reality itself.
I said prior to Sunday's meeting that ALP could "boot me" by whatever method they chose, and I would not take it personally and I would not sue or otherwise attempt to retaliate over it. None of that has changed; I ask only that the ALP members consider whether or not this is really the way they want their party to be run. Liz is supposed to be sending me an "official" notice of her ruling, via letter or email. As soon as I receive that notice I will notify Liz of my desire to appeal her decision to the upcoming general convention.
If this matter concerns people at all (whether you agree with my point of view concerning ALP, Inc. or not) please pay attention to whether or not my appeal is scheduled on the convention agenda.
--Jason Auvenshine
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/