Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:58:08 -0700
From: randerson22@home.com ("Robert Anderson")
Subject: Re: [lpaz-govcom] Re: J. Auvenshine Affair
To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C09DCA.901ABD40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First sorry if you got something similar to this already I was sending it f
rom work and the mailer was sick. I think Powell may have been the only one
getting it and He may have it two or three times. That said....
----- Original Message -----
From: Powell E. Gammill
To: lpaz govcomm
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 7:31 AM
Subject: [lpaz-govcom] Re: J. Auvenshine Affair
Well, I must say, this has opened up a lively debate. My two cents: No
individual can automatically declare someone to have resigned from the Gov
erning Committee and proceed to replace or ignore that individual. Can't y
ou see where that would lead? I am sure Peter would love that kind of powe
r. What we are doing is all about due process, not only a fundamental conc
ept in our country but especially OUR philosophy.
Even if the facts are not in dispute, Jason is entitled to due process be
fore involuntary removal. He has not, to my knowledge, officially written
notice that he is an officer in another political party to either the Chair
man or the GovCom.
That is correct he has not officially said he is member of another politi
cal party. And we should officially ask him if he holds a position on the I
nc. board. But to think we need to wait for someone to notified us that the
y have blown off the Bylaws is naive. We have good information that this is
the case and we should make the official inquiry.
So at this time. ( JASON... ARE YOU CURRENTLY HOLDING A OFFICER POSITION
IN THE INC. ORGANIZATION?)
That said please inform the Govcom of your answer at your earliest conven
ience.
Yes there are e-mails and verbal confirmations, but since he has failed
to officially resign and appears to actively oppose his removal, he deserve
s the GOVCOM's full consideration of his situation. And I for one am fully
committed to him getting that consideration. If you want to see internal
breakup in the ALP GovCom, try to do an end run when it appears Jason's rem
oval may not be as easy as it was thought, and see how many members you mig
ht lose. Also, the Bylaws will have been shredded and will be meaningless.
There is a process, and DAMN IT that process WILL be followed. I am cert
ainly responsible for initiating this, and have been selected by the Primar
y Committee to prosecute this matter. It is not a position I relish, but I
will do the very best I can having instigated the matter.
I see no end run. In fact the end run seems to be the whole trial thing.
If Jason is contesting the facts than fine he has the right to a hearing on
the facts and the facts only. I see no room for question in what the bylaw
say's as I'll go into below. The whole idea that we can some how choose wh
at to follow and what not to follow seems pretty undermining to the Bylaws.
I have just as much concern of shredding as you do and see the "process"
as the shredder. The only thing we should be looking at are the facts. And
at this time Jason has not contested them.
1) The Bylaws of the
Arizona Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, February 19th, 2000
SECTION VII. VACANCIES
(a) The Governing Committee may, by a three-fourths vote, declare
vacant
any office in the Committee, except County Representative, upon t
he
absence of the officer from two consecutive meetings of the Commi
ttee,
So a vacancy is formed if someone stops coming to the meetings and the Go
vcom by 3/4 vote decides to open that position to someone that want to hold
it and work for the party.
or
upon the officer's failure to perform the duties described in Sec
tion III.
No 3/4 vote needed. This is a statement. If someone falls out of complian
ce with Sec. lll. They are no longer eligible to be on the Govcom.
(b) A vacancy occurring in the office of Vice Chair, Secretary, T
reasurer or
at-large members of the Governing Committee shall be filled by se
lection
from among Members of Record at its next meeting.
This is plain: 1) It is the Governing Committee that declares a seat vaca
nt on the Governing Committee.
For not coming to two meetings
2) A 3/4 vote is required to declare Jason's seat vacant in this case.
Not for the Sec.lll stuff
3) The Governing Committee MAY declare this seat vacant, that is, it is
up to the GovCom, but is neither required or automatic that they declare t
his seat vacant.
I can not believe that the Bylaws allow the govcom to ignore the wishes o
f the resolution passed by the convention. That is why I think the Sec.lll
stuff is self executing. If my reading is wrong than we have some big probl
ems with the bylaws if they allow us to blow off the wishes of the people t
hat elected us to safeguard their interests.
SECTION III. ORGANIZATION of the PARTY
2) THE GOVERNING COMMITTEE
(a) The Governing Committee shall consist the officers of the Pri
mary
Committee as well as the Chair (or other designated member) of ea
ch
recognized County Party and no more than 15 at-large members. Upo
n
taking office, all Governing Committee members must be qualified
Members
of-Record, and shall remain so throughout their term.
(b) The primary function and responsibility of the Governing Comm
ittee shall
be the attainment and retention by the Party, in every Arizona Co
unty, of all
rights and privileges of a recognized political party under Arizo
na law.
4) TERMS in OFFICE
(d) No member of the Governing Committee or of the State Committee,
whether elected publicly or in convention, shall be permitted to
be an officer
or member of any other organized political party during their ter
m, and such
membership shall be grounds for termination from the post.
This also seems clear to me. No member of GovCom can be permitted to ser
ve who is an officer of another political party, and if found to not be in
compliance with this provision, should be removed from the GovCom.
It seems clear to me also. At the time Jason became either aware of the p
roblem and choose to do nothing about or at the time he was elected knowing
of the problem he fulfilled the grounds and was no longer a Officer. All
I see Jason being able to do at this time is to contest the facts. If the f
acts are shown to not meet the grounds than no problem but if the facts are
born out he's gone. Unless we plan on just blowing off the wishes of the c
onvention that pass the resolution. The only trial is of the facts not Jaso
n. The facts call for certain actions to happed and no vote is needed. He i
s either in compliance or not.
But it does not say that the person is automatically removed from offic
e without due process. Indeed, our bylaws demand that the GovCom meet and
remove (declare vacant) the office by a 3/4 vote.
I see no process called for. The 3/4 vote is to replace someone that is n
ot performing the office they were elected to by not coming to the meetings
.
If they choose not to remove Jason, that is their right, apparently find
ing insufficient grounds to do so.
That is what the fact finding does. Has nothing to do with the result if
the facts are proven out.
In my opinion, the GovCom members who failed to vote for removing Jason
would be in obvious violation of their fiduciary oath as GovCom members
This I see as also true. If we prove that the facts are true. then the ou
tcome is self fulfilling. And remember Jason has not contested them yet. Al
l he's done is run a trial balloon up as to the argument of if Inc. is a di
fferent political party.
, with the only remedy the next convention. But that is the way the byla
ws are written, and thank God they are written in this manner. In this man
ner Jason gets due process, and not the automatic boot delivered by one per
son.
Jason would not be getting the boot dilivered by one person. If he contes
ts the facts I say as a Govcom member he has the right to have the facts lo
oked at. But he is not contesting the facts at this time that I'm aware of.
And if he does then he has the right to be heard on the facts. The problem
I'm having is from those that say that we have the power to ignore the wis
hes of the convention. I say we do not. If there is a trial it's of fact on
ly not on what the outcome maybe if he is indeed a officer of another polit
ical party.
As for Robert's Rules of Order, clearly where our Bylaws and Constitution
are silent, RRO Rules. The Constitution, Bylaws and RRO in that trumping
order.
Powell
I would have to agree.
Bob
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Click here for Classmates.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpaz-govcom-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.