Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:55:52 -0700 From: cartero@nguworld.com (Mike Dugger) Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Dan Fylstra has missed the point To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Cc: LP-State-Chairs@list.tyrell.com, palibernet@egroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
-- This is Ken Sturzenacker's reply to Dan Fylstra --
On Monday, May 28, LNC vice chairman Dan Fylstra wrote: I now believe that my vote in favor was a mistake that could hurt the LP.
Dan, the LP has already been hurt. Indeed, wounds were inflicted at least as early as 1994, in the manner in which Perry Willis discouraged Richard Cowan, the executive director of NORML, from seeking our 1996 nomination. Your vote was for the first step which must be taken to restore the LP's credibility with its own members, financial supporters and prospects.
I believe we should rescind the resolution we passed, and simply CENSURE WILLIS AND MOVE ON.
We cannot simply "move on." That mentality is precisely what has gotten us into the situation which exists now -- more than five years after the fact. For far too long, far too many individuals at our party's highest level were eagerly _not_ curious about the allegations of favoritism and conflicts of interest. In the past five years, literally _thousands_ of members of the LP have chosen NOT to renew their members. (Joe Dehn can give you the numbers.) Among them are perhaps hundreds of long-time, top-flight activists who became disgusted with what thy had seen. (Ask Don Ernsberger.)
On May 11, Perry Willis ... defended his action in his statement, saying that he felt the LNC policy was wrong and misguided, and arguing that his actions hurt no one and actually helped the LP considerably.
Just because Perry says something, t'aint necessarily so. What Willis has admitted is that for 5+ years, he's been a liar.
I must join many other people in censuring Perry Willis for disobeying the LNC's policy -- even if he thought it was wrong. And I further, and with special emphasis, censure him for hiding this fact for 4-5 years after the campaign had ended, even as other LPers were defending him.
Willis did more than hide the facts of his deliberate and willful vilation of LNC policy. For all of that time, he allowed others to defend him -- much as Bill Clinton used his entire cabinet to defend him after the Monica Lewinsky story first became public, knowing full well he was a liar. By his silence -- (and perhaps with his active denils) -- Willis abused and betrayed the trust of a host of individuals. This is not a matter for censure. In the tradition of the Amish, it is cause for ostracism. Dan, for 5+ years, Perry Willis and Harry Browne knew the truth, and lived a lie.
Suspicions that Perry had done something like this, and accusations by a variety of people, have led to much dissension within the LP ever since.
Dan misses the point: It was _not_ the suspicions and accusations which led to dissension. It was that individuals who had witnessed Willis in questionable actions were spurned, even trashed, when they try to have their accusations heard and to present their evidence.
The EC resolution is a very strong reaction (or overreaction) to Perry's published statement.
The EC's resolution was not strong enough, in that it did not include Jack Dean, who willingly used a company in which he was a partner, to hide the payments made to Willis for his violations of the LNC policy. That action may involve a violation of federal law.
The EC was also upset that certain people close to Perry, notably Harry Browne, may have known about Perry's disobeying the policy, but did not reveal what they knew to the LNC.
"May have known" falls far short of being precise. Browne has said (His email is part of the draft minutes.) that he both knew of and approved of Willis's violations.
Because of this last point, the resolution mentions "Browne and Willis" together in points 1) and 2), even though it was only Perry Willis whose actions were governed by the LNC policy, and only Perry Willis who disobeyed it. This was, I believe, a mistake.
Browne was a co-conspirator in the subterfuge.
In my judgment, there is NO evidence that Harry Browne has done anything to warrant a prohibition of any kind from doing business with the LP.
Dan's judgment does not match the facts.
We had no policy obligating Harry Browne to inform the LNC about Perry's actions, and we have no right to impose such an obligation after the fact.
Again, Browne was a co-conspirator in both the subterfuge and the subsequent five years of deceit.
I want to emphasize the importance of MOVING ON. The LP has many challenges to face in the present and the immediate future.
True. One of them is cleaning up the mess Willis, Dean and Browne have left in their wake.
We're behind where we want to be in fundraising, and even in maintaining membership, let alone growing it.
How you stopped to consider why? Perhaps it's because a large number of current members do not like what they have seen. How else do you explain the fact that LP national membership DECLINED during a presidential campaign year?
The last thing we need right now is to get bogged down in some kind of "investigation" of events from five years ago.
We are finally examining the validity of charges that were first made more than five years ago. Two of the culprits have confessed; but, as been noted elsewhere, shown no contrition. This is _not_ a matter of being "bogged down;" it is a matter of dealing with old business too many people would have preferred not to see on the agenda.
Moreover, it would (rightly, IMO) anger many people who contributed their hard work, money and effort to the last (two) LP presidential campaigns, only to be "rewarded" by suspicion and hostility from other LPers. It would only cause us to lose more good Libertarian activists, which we can ill afford right now.
The LP has already lost hundreds and hundreds of good activists, individuals who gave of their time, energy and money during the past two presidential cycles only to discover at one point or another that the system had been rigged against them.
Please do not underestimate the damage that yet another "investigation" (or "witchhunt" or "purge", take your pick) would do to today's Libertarian Party. I personally know of far too many key activists who will resign from the Party, or end their activism, if we let this resolution stand, or even worse, cast suspicion on still mre people.
Dan, please do not underestimate the damage that excusing the behavior of Willis, Dean and Browne with a slap on the wrist will cause. Newcomers may be willing to visit; few will choose to stay if our house is not clean.
Respectfully, Ken Sturzenacker
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/