EMAIL BALLOT 20220423-01 TITLE

[secr...@lp.org]

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 30, 2022 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors:  Adams, Longstreth, Phillips, Wilford

=============================================

Motion: End the speaking agreement with Tom Woods for the breakfast at the 2022 National convention.

=============================================

THRESHOLD REQUIRED: Majority

You can keep track of the Secretary's manual tally of votes here: https://tinyurl.com/lncvote2022. You can find the time that the manual tally was last updated at the bottom of the sheet.

Please notify me of any discrepancies.

 

 

John Wilford | LNC Secretary
442 Valley View Dr
Lewisville, TX 75067
903-372-6931 Mobile  |  www.lp.org

 

[Joshua Smith]

No

Cheers,

Joshua 

[Erin Adams]

All, 

Due to personal life experience that could potentially bias my view of the situation, i must recuse myself from this vote, and therefore I turn the region 7 seat over to Beth Vest who will hold the seat for this vote.

Erin Adams region 7 Representative

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 2:01 PM <secr...@lp.org> wrote:

[Susan Hogarth]

Not interested in witch hunts and/or moral panics.  

No. 

--

Susan Hogarth
919-906-2106
Region 5 Representative

[Valerie Sarwark]

Yes

[Steven Nekhaila]

 Dear All,

I knew that at some point we would be considering this motion. There are several things that immediately come to my attention when this whole controversy came to be.

First and foremost, there is no victim here, the alleged victim has not come forward or identified herself as such. Furthermore, using someone as a political pawn without their permission or consent not only is destructive to the alleged victim’s reputation and peace but also to the family including the children of those involved. This is clearly a factional divide that is being used for overt political purposes, attempts at character assassination are unfortunately an all too common tool in this political age.

Further, I have been on the Tom Woods podcast and also had Tom Woods at our Florida State Convention in 2018, the same year we featured an event with Bill Weld. In all of those experiences we have had zero complaints and zero issues. So why now do we have a motion bringing up the removal of Mr. Woods as a speaker? There is no victim, there are onlu loose accusations of events that transpired decades ago, and there is an entire family involved that did not ask to be in the spotlight for purely political purposes. Pretending to be moral paragons of righteousness while dismissing defamation of character online is a double standard I will not entertain.

To that end, I will be voting Nay on this motion.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Impotentes defendere libertatum non-possunt

Those without power cannot defend freedom

---

From: Valerie Sarwark <valerie...@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 10:08:14 PM
To: lnc-bu...@lp.org <lnc-bu...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: [lnc-business] EMAIL BALLOT 20220423-01 TITLE

 

[John Phillips]

Yes.

And smdh.

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative
217-412-5973

[Ken Moellman]

All -

Ignoring the technical problems with the subject of this thread, which by precedent has previously caused ballots to be invalidated...

The original recommendation to add Mr. Woods as a speaker came from the COC. The LNC voted to adopt the recommendation of the COC, which is typically how sub-committees operate under RONR - they make recommendations to the main body.  While I would have preferred a recommendation from the COC, the LNC obviously has the power to override the COC, as it is a subsidiary body.  I personally am not one who goes to convention to hear people speak. I voted in favor of the previous motion on convention speakers because the COC recommended those speakers. The COC has not made a recommendation to add, remove, or otherwise change the speaker line-up. Therefore, I am immediately disinclined to vote for this motion.

The reason the LNC is to be informed of major decisions and have oversight of such decisions was to apply additional financial controls over the convention. I have not seen any concrete information as to the financial impact of such a vote. I have received multiple emails from those who (at least claim to) have bought packages to see Mr. Woods as an advertised convention speaker, while I do not believe I have received any messages from those who would demand a refund if Woods were to remain a speaker.  We would obviously be required to honor any refund request in either direction. The financial impact could be minimal, or it could be great. In my investigation into the matter, I have found that there are currently only 2 speakers for the 4 meal speaker slots: Mr. Woods and Mr. Horton; the other two scheduled speakers have backed out for their own reasons. Removing Mr. Woods from the official convention agenda may result in several consequences, including an alternate event being scheduled outside of the COC and the LNC as has been seen in the past (and to be clear, I have no information that this would happen, but it has happened at other conventions). I suspect that since the social media drama mill has been stirred, we will suffer financially either way, and so now the question must be, in part, which does the least damage? We, the LNC, have a fiduciary responsibility to this organization, and taking action with significant potential for negative financial ramifications is, IMO, dereliction of that fiduciary responsibility. Based upon the messages I have received, the most financial impact will occur from Woods' removal as a convention speaker. As one who must take the financial impact into account, I am strongly disinclined to vote for this motion.  (Related: don't forget that we were supposed to be able to pay back the LOC with convention funds almost immediately after convention.)

Removing Mr. Woods would also likely deepen the divide between certain members of this party. For the health and well-being of this party, we need to work to actively stop the drawing of ever-darkening lines between various members of our party. If you disagree on those grounds, then agree based upon potentially finding yourself in the minority in the future. Consider how you would like to be treated, if roles are reversed. To stop the escalation of the caucus wars, I am disinclined to support this motion.

Since the time at which the LNC voted to permit Mr Woods to be a speaker, based upon the previous recommendation of the COC, there has been only one new item which has come to light and is now being used as the reason to remove Mr. Woods as a speaker. To date, I have not chimed in on that controversy, and do so not because it is the only thing that has changed since the original LNC motion to have Mr Woods as a speaker. To be clear, I generally do not condone courtships with significantly disparate ages between the particular participants. However, human relationships are complex and it is generally not my concern unless there is abuse or force. From what I have been able to ascertain, neither force nor abuse were involved in this particular relationship. It does not appear that Mr Woods has engaged in any sort of pattern of seeking young women. They were married for many years, and have several children from that marriage. While that marriage has unfortunately ended, as too many do (because human relationships are both difficult at times and ever-evolving) I see no pattern of behavior suggesting anything other than an abnormal - but not illegal, forced, or fraudulent - relationship occurred. It has been suggested (whispered) on some social media that Mr Woods' ex-wife has been silent due to an NDA in the divorce decree; however, an NDA cannot prevent someone from reporting an actual crime. As such, I find this issue to be moot. I will note that I find it sad that people are using a failed marriage as a hammer against someone they disagree with on other matters. As one who doesn't hammer people for doing things that are legal and voluntary, even when I disagree with those choices (because I'm a Libertarian), I'm disinclined to vote for this motion in response to this latest drama.

I am always willing to listen to additional points of view, and I have reached out for additional information from multiple sources who have yet to return my call (and to be fair, I was delayed in initiating that contact due to the bylaws committee meeting this weekend).  Unless and until additional information comes to light to counter one or more of the points above, I am a "no" vote on this motion.

Therefore, as there has been no recommendation from the COC, because the financial impact is not known, and the drama-of-the-moment doesn't change the facts of his being added as a speaker to begin with, I vote "no" at this time.

I'm sure there will be those who run with this message and complain on social media. For those who need to hear it: Twitter (and to a lesser extent, Facebook) is a dumpster fire. Get off your computer and go outside. The pandemic is over. Quit being a hermit. Start being a human again.

Ken Moellman

Libertarian National Committee

Vice Chair

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:01 PM <secr...@lp.org> wrote:

[Richard Longstreth]

Yes

Richard Longstreth
At Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
richard.l...@lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

[Laura Ebke]

I vote Yes. 

----------------------------------

Laura Ebke, PhD
LNC At-Large

Former NE State Senator
laura...@lp.org
Cell: 402-540-6510

[Erik Raudsep]

I vote no I thought I had already voted my apologies 

[Tim Hagan]

I vote no.

Tim Hagan

Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

[Dustin Nanna]

I abstain. My chairs are split evenly.

Dustin Nanna

Region 3 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

740-816-9805

[Rich Bowen]

I vote no.

Rich

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:01 PM <secr...@lp.org> wrote:

--

Rich Bowen

Libertarian National Committee

Region 8 Representative (NJ/NY/CT/RI/MA/VT/NH/ME)

Audit Committee Member

Convention Oversight Committee Member

Chair's Advisory Budget & Operations Committee Member

[Beth Vest]

I want to preface my vote by saying that I reached out in a big way to people in my region. I spoke to people from both sides of this issue, state chairs, members, and delegates. I was trying to figure out how many people I talked to personally through various channels, and it was nearly 100 people. My communication crossed factional lines, and I had some very nice conversations in the process. I posted my contact information in the Region 7 Facebook group and made genuine efforts to get as much feedback as possible.

It is my job to give voice to those people. To cast a principled vote means to seek their input and vote accordingly as long as that vote doesn’t contradict the principles of the party. While the issues raised on social media about Mr. Woods are controversial and unsavory, nearly all members I spoke to felt that we do not have enough facts about the circumstances of his relationship with his first wife before they were married.

As a person involved in law, I would agree with that sentiment, even while I find his actions distasteful. My faith in human nature leads to me think the worst, but we really don’t know the facts. This has been the most consistent opinion of most people in my region. Many that I spoke with feel that canceling a speaker when we lack the full facts of the reasons we want to do so, is also an unprincipled action.

There are no winners in this contest, and the party already loses by having arrived at this place. On that note, and on behalf of the voices of my region, our vote is no.

Beth Vest, JD
LNC Region 7 Alternate
beth...@lp.org
Cell: 985-400-4683

[Jeff Hewitt]

I vote no. 

Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Rep

[Alex Flores]

The majority (7) of the state chairs of Region 1 have expressed, some very strongly, that they do not support removing Mr. Woods. 2 were in favor, and 3 abstained.

Therefore, Region 1 votes no.

Alex Flores
Region 1 Alternate
Libertarian National Committee