Peter,
I was quite surprised at the content of your latest email.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2000 16:04:33 PGSchmerl wrote:
>Unfortunately, a small cadre of the old group has disavowed the election of
>the ALP, Inc. as the new affiliate and has continued to sue us in Maricopa
>County Superior Court.
I have been in contact with several people on the ALP side of this dispute and have not heard anyone claim that ALP, Inc. was not elected as the affiliate of the national LP. Who specifically has "disavowed" that fact? Who is in this "small cadre"? The last time I checked, the ALP web page proclaimed the fact that they are no longer affiliated with the national LP.
>This last week, the judge in the case ordered the
>Libertarian Party in Arizona to follow Arizona election law. Leaders of the
>old group have not been doing this. It is our belief that those individuals
>who were elected by law via the precinct committeeman system in January of
>last year are the true and correct officers of the Libertarian Party in
>Arizona. This means I am the state party chairman and Kat Gallant is the
>Maricopa party chairman -- regardless of what a few people like Ernie Hancock
>may claim.
I have read the judge's ruling and I can't understand how you could make the above statement. To quote from the Judge's ruling:
"Even though Plaintiff ALP is no longer the National Libertarian Party's Arizona affiliate, this does not mean Defendant ALP, Inc. is entitled to recognition as the official Libertarian representative by the State of Arizona.
Having found that Plaintiff ALP did not vote to merge with the Defendant ALP, Inc. at the April, 1999 convention, it follows logically that the Plaintiffs continue in their capacity as the official body recognized to act on behalf of the Libertarian Party in Arizona."
Peter, that's the JUDGE writing, NOT Ernie Hancock.
>I wish I could say for sure that the dispute will end soon. I hope so, but
>it may not.
I also hope the dispute ends soon. As you know, I have mostly supported the ALP, Inc. side in this "feud". I voted with you at the April 1999 convention. I signed ALP, Inc.'s application to the national LP. I voted for ALP, Inc. in the referrendum. I am not part of some "old guard" or "small cadre" in ALP. I am not making an ad hominem attack against you or anyone else. I am not afraid of party success; I desire it wholeheartedly. Even though I oppose the election law, I have always supported obeying it, and I still do. I want the party to be professional, effective, and principled. I by no means support everything ALP has done. I say all that just to remind you that what follows isn't some rant from someone with a beef against ALP, Inc.
I believe ALP, Inc. not ALP, is the only reason this dispute now continues. That's a bold statement. Let's look at the two sides' reaction to the judge's ruling. As you know, the ruling was a mixed one, with ALP, Inc. winning part and ALP winning part.
As you say, ALP has been ordered by the court to obey the election laws. Every indication I have seen coming from the ALP leadership is that as a result of the judge's ruling they are now going to comply with the law. If that is indeed the case, then in regards to getting the party to obey the law, you have won. _We_ have won. The party is going to obey the law. This is a major change in the ALP position and negates ALP, Inc.'s original reason for forming.
On the other hand, ALP has clearly been named "the official body recognized to act on behalf of the Libertarian Party in Arizona." Yet rather than recognize this, claim a policy victory, merge ALP, Inc. with ALP under condition that ALP obeys the law and thus end the dispute, you have chosen to send the above message proclaiming ALP, Inc.'s officers as the "true and correct" officers of the Libertarian Party in Arizona. This appears to be an attempt to deny the side of the case that ALP won. You have often chided the ALP leadership for their unwillingness to make reasonable compromises. Yet in this matter ALP has made significant movement and ALP, Inc. has made none. ALP appears to be moving in the direction of compliance with the judge's ruling, and ALP, Inc. appears to be moving away from compliance with the judge's ruling.
If ALP, Inc. were to merge with ALP, we would end up with:
If ALP, Inc. does not merge with ALP, we continue to have two party organizations -- one recognized by the state and the other recognized by the national LP. That's a recipe for ineffectiveness, rancor, and a poor public image on both sides.
>Our real opponents are the
>Democrats and Republicans who continue to increase government at all levels.
I agree with that. ALP is not our real opponent. I ask you to stop treating them as such and end this feud. I hope you will reconsider your position and act in a manner which will allow the party to effectively combat the big government Democrats and Republicans.
I urge you and the rest of ALP, Inc. to join the lpaz-discuss list and work out a compromise with ALP. Anyone may join the list at:
http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
If you are serious about wanting to end the dispute, let's have a dialog and end this feud for the good of BOTH sides and all Libertarians in Arizona.
--Jason Auvenshine