Credentials committee meeting 05/04

556 views
Skip to first unread message

Susan Hogarth

unread,
May 5, 2022, 12:06:22 AMMay 5
to LNC-Business list
Full minutes not finished, but just to keep you informed, the Credentials Committee took the following actions this evening regarding Delaware and Massachusetts, both of which have had two delegations submitted:

(1) Chris Vellrath, Bill Hinds, Carter Hill, and Dave Casey are the recognized delegates from the Libertarian Party of Delaware.

The first action was without objection.

(2) Josh Anderson, Jason Brand, Nathan Brand, Andrew Cordio, Patrick Douglas, Thomas Eddlem, Brodi Elwood, Dan Garrity, Janel Holmes, Charlie Larkin, Jacob Nemchenok, Thomas Silvia, John Pazinokas, Stephanie Pazinokas, David Redding, Christopher Thrasher, and Brian Zakrajsek are the recognized delegates from the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts.

The second action was debated and passed with four ‘ayes’ and three abstentions.

Susan
--
Susan Hogarth
919-906-2106
Region 5 Representative

Pat Ford

unread,
May 5, 2022, 1:38:49 AMMay 5
to lnc-business
Great job & Great news! With this issue behind us, I am looking forward to an outstanding Convention.

Regards

Pat Ford
Region 8 Alternate

John Phillips

unread,
May 5, 2022, 11:42:12 AM (13 days ago) May 5
to Lp
Ms Hogarth, 

I am ... uncomfortable ... with this choice of action.

 I believe under the current stance the LNC has taken as a board, as well as under Robert's, the correct action is for the committee to officially accept neither delegation at this stage.

I do not believe the credentials committee has the authority to make a defacto declaration of which disputed group is the acknowledged affiliate. 

I do believe that Robert's specifies that in cases with such a dispute neither group should be officially recognized.  Somewhere in section 50 something I believe.

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative

Joshua Smith

unread,
May 5, 2022, 11:47:00 AM (13 days ago) May 5
to lnc-bu...@lp.org
That is literally their job, Mr. Phillips. You are free to object from the Convention floor and see how it works out. 

Cheers,
Joshua 

Tim Hagan

unread,
May 5, 2022, 11:53:01 AM (13 days ago) May 5
to lnc-business
I believe you're looking for RONR 59:21, which starts with, "Cases of contested seats in a delegation will seldom arise except in political conventions."

Tim Hagan
Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

Richard Longstreth

unread,
May 5, 2022, 11:56:46 AM (13 days ago) May 5
to lnc-business
I do believe that Mr. Phillips is correct. According to rule 59:21 of RoNR 12th edition, contested seats should not be seated. I have attached a relevant screenshot of the rule. Our convention operates according to RoNR 12th edition. To make a move otherwise will mean that the credentials report is out of order.

The key here is that there must be doubt. If there is doubt, the RONR instruction is clear. Given that, at least in the case of LAMA, there is still a pending judiciary manner which may have bearing on the delegation, I believe there is, or ought to be significant doubt and it should be left to the body to decide. I happen to believe this also applies to DE as we still hear about conflict within the state to this day.


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

Sent from my Mobile Device
1651765852421.jpg

John Phillips

unread,
May 5, 2022, 12:08:20 PM (13 days ago) May 5
to Lp
It is quite literally not there job to decide a dispute such as those states are facing, just as it was not for us, and not for the states of region 8. 

There might be an argument for DE, given the ... oddity ... of the JC handling of that situation, I would disagree but I can see the argument, but not for Mass.

 I won't have to do it, plenty of people are lined up to make that challenge regardless.


John Phillips
Region 6 Representative

Susan Hogarth

unread,
May 5, 2022, 12:28:25 PM (13 days ago) May 5
to lnc-bu...@lp.org
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 11:42 AM John Phillips <john.p...@lp.org> wrote:
Ms Hogarth, 

I am ... uncomfortable ... with this choice of action. …

As am I, as I expressed quite strongly to the committee. As you know, a Chair is not empowered to make many decisions unilaterally. 

The vote was proposed and taken despite objections from several committee members. But it was taken. 

I don’t wish to set myself at odds with the committee based on a single disagreement. We had a vote and it was recorded. I don’t mind expressing publicly my objection and it is recorded in the (as yet draft) minutes of the meeting, but for my part the vote has happened and is over. 

If someone within or outside of the committee wishes to take the matter up in a broader perspective, we will work forward from that action.  

 I believe under the current stance the LNC has taken as a board, as well as under Robert's, the correct action is for the committee to officially accept neither delegation at this stage.

I disagree with you there. I would have - and recommended - recognizing the affiliate still recognized by the LNC itself until the delegates could settle the matter. 

But either way it will be in the hands of the convention body in less than a month. I don’t see a reason to keep re-fighting votes that don’t go the way I see best. 

I do not believe the credentials committee has the authority to make a defacto declaration of which disputed group is the acknowledged affiliate.

I agree in general. But in two states, two delegations have presented themselves.

In the case of DE, the LNC was (finally) clear on the recognized affiliate, and the decision was simpler (though that too will be adjudicated finally by the convention body). 

In the case of MA, events have been squeezed into a short enough timeline that there was reasonable doubt which claimant would be recognized. For me, that wasn’t a good reason to choose one outside of the currently-recognized LAMA, but I was overruled. 

Going forward, I will stand with the decision made by the committee. I did want to explain myself here though, to those who can still understand that none of this is simple or straightforward unless you are looking through a purely factional lens. 

I do believe that Robert's specifies that in cases with such a dispute neither group should be officially recognized.  Somewhere in section 50 something I believe.

Thank you, but in our review of RONR we got a little further than “I believe”. We did actually review the relevant sections. I would have preferred more time to review and discuss, but again, a Chair has only limited powers (which is a good thing, all things considered). 

Susan Hogarth

Susan Hogarth

unread,
May 5, 2022, 12:32:37 PM (13 days ago) May 5
to lnc-bu...@lp.org
“If, on the other hand, after hearing the facts, the committee thinks the contest is not justified, it should enter on the list only the names of the delegates whose claim it finds to be legitimate.”

Again, the commute was not unanimous in thinking ‘the contest is not justified’, and for my part the default should have gone to the recognized affiliate, but again, a chair has only one vote in the end. 

Susan

Susan Hogarth

unread,
May 5, 2022, 12:36:41 PM (13 days ago) May 5
to lnc-bu...@lp.org
*Committee, not commute. But speaking of commute, I need to get back to work. 

Susan

Joshua Smith

unread,
May 5, 2022, 12:49:21 PM (13 days ago) May 5
to lnc-bu...@lp.org
Mr Phillips,


Their*


Cheers,
Joshua 

Otto Dassing

unread,
May 5, 2022, 12:55:52 PM (13 days ago) May 5
to lnc-bu...@lp.org
I can understand the concerns with credentialing of the Massachusetts delegation with a pending judiciary matter, but the Delaware “question” has been long settled and there should be zero question on this board or from any committee as to who the clear and rightful delegation is. If the Mandalorian Party chair wishes to challenge that on the floor of the convention, then so be it. If there is to be a question of proper credentialing from last nights meeting, Delaware must not be lumped into it.

Richard Longstreth

unread,
May 5, 2022, 1:20:15 PM (13 days ago) May 5
to lnc-business
In think that's fair, Mr. Dassing.

All of this said, the credentials committee is a bylaws committee. They do not answer to the LNC, similar to Platform and Bylaws. Ultimately all of this will be decided and debated on the floor in Sparks.

Any contested seats will require a motion from the floor from an uncontested seat to move forward and a resolution will, eventually, emerge. This committee is welcome, as with any member, to share their thoughts with the credentialing committee but we have to remember that we have no authority over their actions.

If a seat is contested from the floor, all contested seats will not be able to participate in debate or voting while the rest of the Party decides. All factions ought to be prepared to lay out their cases in detail at that time.

Thanks to Ms Hogarth and the entire committee for their work. I hope they consider some of the statements from this group, but if not, the delegates will be the avenue to correct or change the report. I am certain there will be debates in at least two states.


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

Sent from my Mobile Device

John Phillips

unread,
May 5, 2022, 1:21:33 PM (13 days ago) May 5
to Lp
I have every belief that Mrs Hogarth and the credentials committee did not have the intent of declaring an affiliate in either state.

And while they do have the authority to make some manner of determination on delegates, the fact that there exist groups in each state that both have an arguable case that they are the affiliate that gets to name delegates takes this well beyond that scope.

Despite intent the result of this action is declaring an affiliate and well beyond their scope. They have in fact done what BOTH JC appeals were based on, and that is constructive disaffiliation of the other group. 

Beyond that, in doing so they impact any appeal at the convention.  Any previous judgement colors the case in itself, and beyond that they have granted a higher apparent status to one group over the other.

That IS what they have done if this stands, and is most definitely interfering in the autonomy of an affiliate.  Paint all the pretty justifications you like.

In the case of Mass I am quite literally arguing against friends that I WANT to be the delegates, Mr Larkin in particular, before the "bias" claims start flying.

I am being fully consistent.  If it is not the scope of THIS board to interfere in the autonomy of an affiliate, it is absolutely not in the scope of other bodies.


John Phillips
Region 6 Representative

Richard Longstreth

unread,
May 6, 2022, 5:45:02 PM (12 days ago) May 6
to lnc-business
As the decision has now come out for the JC case on LAMA and the motion to overrule the LNC's decision to uphold the chair was upheld, I ask the credentials committee to reconsider the named delegates for MA.

The decision was made by a tie. The state is still very much contested, within the state and by the JC, and the LNC, who is charged with recognizing the affiliates according to JC decision in DE, continues to recognize the legacy LAMA organization and their status as the state affiliate. 

That being the case, either their delegates should be seated or none of the delegates from that state be seated at all. I leave it to the wisdom of the credentials committee to reconsider or standby their decision to recognize delegates from an unrecognized affiliate.


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

Sent from my Mobile Device

Susan Hogarth

unread,
May 6, 2022, 5:47:29 PM (12 days ago) May 6
to lnc-bu...@lp.org
We meet again on Wednesday. I’m sure this will be discussed. 

Susan
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages