Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:27:12 -0400 From: bobhunt@erols.com Subject: [lpaz-repost] (fwd) Re: [LNC-Discuss] RE: LNC EC resolution - 23 May 2001 - CENSURE WILLIS AND MOVE ON To: lpaz-repost@yahoogroups.com
Fylstra is now worried that other people might get angry!!!
ha!
bob hunt
On Tue, 29 May 2001 09:51:01 -0700, "Daniel H. Fylstra" <dfylstra@frontsys.com> wrote:
> "Daniel H. Fylstra" wrote:
>
> > Last Wednesday May 23, the LNC Executive Committe met by telephone
> > and passed a resolution that is reproduced at the end of this email.
> > The minutes of this meeting are not yet available,
>
> "Joe Dehn" wrote:
> Not true - draft minutes were distributed by the Secretary four days
> ago.
For all of the people reading this who are wondering about the minutes -- a draft was distributed to LNC MEMBERS ONLY on May 24, with a request to EC members to submit corrections to Steve Givot by the end of the week. They are not yet available publicly, but should be shortly.
I think this illustrates the problem, though. This resolution is "inwardly focused." Its proponents are, IMO, not paying attention to the negative impact on hundreds of activists and thousands of LP members who see this resolution as a condemnation of Harry Browne.
Every single person I've talked to, including state chairs and people from the Browne campaign, has interpreted point 2) of the resolution as prohibiting Harry Browne, Perry Willis and their organizations from doing business with the LP. When I pointd this out to Joe Dehn, he replied "It's not my fault if people can't read." That's not how I see it. It is OUR fault if we've passed a bad resolution that is causing dissension in the LP.
> "Daniel H. Fylstra" wrote:
> > These EC members now feel betrayed by Perry. As individuals
> > they are very angry. They are also embarrassed by the fact
> > that they were wrong in defending Perry, and they want everyone
> > to know for sure that they have not, and will not "cover" for
> > him, or anyone else. The EC resolution is a very strong
> > reaction (or overreaction) to Perry's published statement.
>
> "Joe Dehn" wrote:
> I have already told you that your analysis is incorrect with respect to
> at least one of the people who voted for the resolution, specifically
> its author (me). I did not propose this resolution because I was
> "very angry", at Willis or anybody else, and for you to dismiss it on
> this basis is disingenuous.
I'm not dismissing the resolution, or anyone's feelings. I cited them so eople would understand where the EC is coming from. But I do believe that the resolution is an overreaction, specifically on your part.
I've never seen you act towards Harry Browne the way you did in the last few days. I won't cite the details in this email which is being distributed very widely, out of regard for you. But these things have made other people in the LP very angry.
> "Daniel H. Fylstra" wrote:
> > I will seek to rescind this resolution, and replace it with
> > a simple statement that we CENSURE WILLIS AND MOVE ON.
>
> "Joe Dehn" wrote:
> Censure of Willis may well be a step that the full LNC decides to take
> after it has had a chance to consider the matter. Nothing in the
> current EC resolution conflicts with that in any way. The EC resolution
> is in support of whatever the full LNC eventually decides to do.
By the time the full LNC meets in August and "eventually decides [what] to do," a GREAT DEAL OF IRREPARABLE DAMAGE to the LP will have been done. Some of it will be visible, e.g. resignations of life members and loss of pledge revenue, and some will not -- e.g. decisions of candidates not to run in 2002 and 2004, because they "see what we are doing to Harry Browne," who gave so much to the Party. That's why I am taking these extraordinary steps to try to rescind the EC resolution.
> "Daniel H. Fylstra" wrote:
> > I want to emphasize the importance of MOVING ON.
>
> "Joe Dehn" wrote:
> I think that is something on which we can all agree. I do not
> want to see this matter conume any more of our attention than
> necessary. But we cannot successfully move on if we fail to
> address the legitimate concerns of our members.
Censuring Perry Willis and moving on is, IMO, the right way to respond and does address the legitimate concerns of our members. Most important, it focuses us on the business of the Party, which is to move public policy in a Libertarian direction by ELECTING CANDIDATES to public office.
I would ask all members: Which is your primary concern -- some kind of detail of expenditures or accounting in a campaign FIVE YEARS AGO, or what we are going to do RIGHT NOW to regain or maintain ballot access, field candidates (we're way behind prior years), or raise money for the LP (we're also way behind)?
People who are preoccupied with the past have been making their voices heard to the LNC and EC, for a long time. If you are more interested in the future, you need to make your voice heard.
My position is a minority one on the EC -- remember that the original vote on the resoltion was 5-0. It will be very difficult to change minds and hearts on this matter. All EC members' email addresses should be in the To: field of this message -- I hope you'll let us know.
In Liberty,
Dan Fylstra Vice Chair
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-repost@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-repost-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-repost-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-repost-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-repost
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/