Division in the Libertarian National Committee
National Committee votes on the three resolutions on the Browne scandal and on the elections to fill vacancies in the National Committee showed a deep division within the 2000-2002 National Committee. Deep division represents positive change. Past National Committees had been uncritical of information presented by the Dasbach-Willis-Bergland leadership clique. For example, the 1998-2000 National Committee was given a ‘Strategic Plan’ that called for the LP being seen as serious challengers to take control of Congress before 2010, an image so remote from reality that one might have expected the Committee to take some exception. After all, for most of the 1970s the Republican Party was not seen as being a serious contender to take control of Congress. The Committee did not take exception. Presented with the same Plan, the 2000-2002 National Committee would have subjected it to vigorous debate.
In 2000 the factions were clearly visible. Representing the policies and directions of the past decade as led by Harry Browne, David Bergland, Perry Willis, and Michael Cloud were LNC members Bisson, Dixon, Givot, Hoch, Israel, Karlan, Lieberman, and Rutherford. Representing new directions are Kaneshiki, Gaztanaga, Gorman, Schwartz (at this meeting, Milsted), and Nelson. National Chair James Lark was the groomed candidate of the forces of the past decade. His election—writing as an eyewitness who ran against Lark for National Chair—received their active support. In the middle are Dehn, Gilson (at this meeting, Scherrey) and Turney. Milsted has since moved out of his region and been replaced by Della Croft of Pennsylvania. Neither faction is rock solid. Outrage over the Browne nomination scandal overcame other loyalties.
Efforts to Drive Kaneshiki From the National Committee
In a divided committee with a regular turnover of membership, one way to improve the position of your faction is to engineer the replacement of your opponents with your supporters. The forces of the past decade, or some of their members, appeared in 2001 to have targeted Lois Kaneshiki for replacement. In late 2001 I was sent by friends the text of an electronic mail message purportedly from LNC member Steve Givot, threatening to subject Kaneshiki with expulsion from the National Committee. Kaneshiki, who in 2000 ran for the National Committee as part of The Clean Slate, had been a regular critic of National Party operations. Kaneshiki informs me that she received three such threats in a single year from 2000-2002 National Officers.
Most Libertarians first heard of the events preceding the threat through the lpus-misc@dehnbase.org email list. LNC Alternate Representative Tom Knapp was responding to an attack on himself by LNC Alternate Representative Dan Wisnosky. Wisnosky complained that Knapp lobbied in the corridors rather than sitting in a meeting in which he could not vote. Knapp responded on the same list:
“I (Knapp) wonder what the state chairs of your (Wisnosky’s) Region would think of your discussion at Yanni’s (the bar next door to the Marriott Suites, where the LNC meeting was held), on the evening of the 25th of August and/or the early morning of the 26th of August, involving yourself and three LNC members, as well as the executive director of the LP of Nevada, the topic of which was how to force the resignation of another LNC member?”
First response came from former Nevada LP Executive Director Chris Azzaro, who said “I just want to make sure that everyone on this list is clear that I am NOT the Nevada executive director.”…”(The Executive Director is) is Kat Schlesinger, who was appointed to that position last week, and is Dan Wisnosky’s girlfriend.”
Libertarian columnist Della Croft, who has since been elected to the National Committee as an Alternate Representative, added “It amazes me that Mr. Wisnosky had the time to keep such meticulous records of Mr. Knapp’s activities given the amount of time he devoted to obvious eye rolls and looks of irritation every time Ms. Kaneshiki spoke.”
In a separate comment, Azzaro added:
“Actually, I was amazed at the amount of disrespect that was shown to Ms. Kaneshiki throughout the meeting. Towards the end, several LNC members were openly laughing out loud while Lois was speaking about serious issues. I found that to be very disappointing and unprofessional. Regardless of whether one agrees with another person’s ideas, or even finds them ridiculous, every person on the LNC (or any other similar LP committee) deserves to be treated with respect and courtesy.”
A further post revealed Knapp’s source:
“I am Della Croft. I am also the person that overheard the conversation concerning Ms. Kaneshiki at Yanni’s bar the weekend of the LNC meeting…I attended the LNC meeting as an average LP member working in the trenches…
“I felt that Ms. Kaneshiki was treated very unkindly during the course of both sessions. As pointed out to Mr. Azzaro in a previous post to this list, LNC members actually snickered and rolled their eyes as Ms. Kaneshiki spoke. I seriously doubt that any of them can recall the substance of her statements or could intelligently refute them because they were too involved in playground antics. Common courtesy should be the least we can expect at these meetings. I complained bitterly to Mr. Knapp and, upon my return home, to Mr. Famularo and Mr. Sturzenacker about what I perceived as a boy’s club attempting to bully the only girl…
“Late Saturday evening/early Sunday morning, I joined Mr. Knapp, Mr. Lark, Ms. Ramirez, Mr. Hayes at a bar called Yanni’s. Shortly after we sat down, another group came to sit at the table next to us. Our tables were quite close and I do not suffer from hearing loss so it was not a strain to hear what was being discussed. The first remarks I heard were complaints from a woman about Ms. Kaneshiki’s criticism of the Strategic Plan. The second remark was, “We should force her to resign.” That remark caused me to look over my shoulder and at that point I identified Mr. Wisnosky as the source of the statement. I was also able to identify Ms. Schlesinger as the source of the previous remark. The next remark came from an unknown male voice who said that it will have to wait until the convention next year…”
Wisnosky has categorically denied making the statement. Wisnosky has since resigned from the National Committee.
In a message dated August 30, 2001, purported to be from National Secretary Steve Givot to Lois Kaneshiki and supplied to me by LNC sources, preceding such remarks as: “… ignorance has never stopped Lois Kaneshiki from forming a conclusion…Lois crossed the line and impugned the integrity of others—truly good people—based on the mountain of fecal material she has built in her mind..”, one finds (directed by Givot at Kaneshiki):
“Since you are not part of SPT (having reneged on your commitment, I’ll note), you are not part of the marketing plan or its implementation. “I understand that you all but threatened the LNC not to send anyone into PA to attempt to market the plan. That speaks volumes about your willingness to permit the other leaders of LPPA to reach their own, independent conclusions about the value of the strategic plan. It also smacks of censorship, bureaucracy, dictatorship, and—horror of all horrors—TOP DOWN management within LPPA.
“Unless you are trying to undermine the efforts of the LNC to market the plan, I cannot imagine why you would have ANY interest whatsoever in what we are doing to market it.
“And if you are trying to undermine the efforts of the LNC to market the plan, I’ll be the person making the motion to remove you from the LNC for cause.”
Our other sources report that the LNC voted “to take the plan to the affiliate’s executive committees to seek input and comments.” Seeking input on the plan and marketing it to state committees apparently overlap as activities, at least in the eyes of some LNC members.
In November, 2001 LNC Secretary Steve Givot reopened his attacks on LNC At-Large Member Lois Kaneshiki. Givot concluded a huge, widely-circulated missive:
“I have served on many boards of directors, however I have never seen a more egregious act by a fellow board member than Ms. Kaneshiki has demonstrated in authoring this article [GP: a heavily-edited article under Kaneshiki’s name in Liberty magazine.]
In the best of cases, Ms. Kaneshiki is not capable of accurately recalling and accurately referencing matters of fact. If this is the case, we have a director on our board who is a loose cannon—someone willing to make public statements which have no relation to reality and which potentially can damage the organization.
In the worst of cases, Ms. Kaneshiki is deliberately dishonest and willfully attempting to harm the organization.
So, I pose the question, can the LNC afford to continue to have a board member who—through either incompetent or malice— poses a threat to the health of the organization?
I don’t think so.
If any of you is interested in pursuing this discussion, please contact me privately.”
Be First to Comment