The Executive Committee further voted a “recommendation” that no action be taken to involve the Libertarian Party in any other project proposed or managed by Browne or Willis, until the full LNC had acted. Dehn as author of the resolution placed into the record of the meeting what his own motion meant: ‘it is also important to make it clear that any other business dealings with these people should be postponed until this matter has been fully addressed by the LNC.’ No member of the Executive Committee demurred from Dehn’s statement about his own motion. Steve Givot, speaking on the motion for which he later voted, said ‘in his view, the right thing is doing no business with these people’.
Under the resolution, the staff was to refer proposed LNC involvements to the Executive Committee, an absolute majority of which had just recommended that no action—an ExComm vote is an action—be taken until the full LNC was satisfied with the situation. One could consider to what extent the ExComm Resolution bound the National Chair as Party CEO. However, when you ‘recommend’ to yourself what is to be done, unless you have a difficulty with split personality you have said what you are going to do. Until reversed, the ExComm “recommendation” appears to close the door on ExComm approvals of business dealings prior to the next LNC meeting.
And now we reach the next ExComm Meeting. On May 30, 2001, the LNC Executive Committee Meeting held another teleconference, on very short notice, to re-examine their resolution. LNC ExComm members present were James Lark, Dan Fylstra, Deryl Martin, Steve Givot, Ken Bisson, Joe Dehn, and Michael “MG” Gilson de Lemos (MG joined the teleconference after it had started)
LNC members who listened in on the call were Lois Kaneshiki (PA), At Large Representative; Mike Dixon (IL), Region 1 Representative; Ben Scherrey (GA), Region 4 Alternate (joined the meeting at 1:00 PM); and Richard Schwarz (PA), Region 5 Representative. Staff members present were Steve Dasbach, National Director and Bill Hall, General Counsel.
Fylstra moved (and Bisson seconded) a resolution which after several friendly amendments read:
“To clarify the intent of, and expand upon its resolution of May 23 2001, the Executive Committee hereby
- Recommends that the LNC censure Perry Willis for his acknowledged violation of LNC policy in 1995-96 in working for the Browne campaign while being employed by the LNC.
- Recognizes that while Harry Browne was the head of the campaign, it is presently unclear to what extent he or others were involved in Willis’ actions or decisions.
- Requests that Harry Browne provide a public statement to the LNC to clarify the circumstances surrounding Willis’ actions, and any lessons that may be learned therefrom.
- Requests that all persons having any information relating to Willis’ actions, or any other intentional violation of LNC policy by other persons, provide that information to the LNC Chair no later than August 18, 2001.
- Clarifies that its resolution of 23 May 2001 requires the national staff to seek Executive Committee approval before entering into new business dealings with Willis or Browne, but is not per se a blanket prohibition against such dealings.
6) Sets a goal that any and all questions related to these matters be resolved to the satisfaction of LNC members by the time of, and be reflected in the minutes of the LNC’s August meeting, and asks all LNC members and other persons to work together to achieve resolution by that date.”
According to the ExComm Minutes, Fylstra advanced several reasons for proposing his resolution, notably his belief “that the previously-adopted resolution has left many people with the impression that there is a blanket prohibition against doing business with Willis or Browne.” Clarifying on this point, National Director Dasbach expressed doubts ‘as to what extent the resolution applied to persons other than Willis or Browne’. Dasbach also summarized his conversations with various Executive Committee members, saying that he found ‘there was a lack of clear consensus regarding which requests for list rental, running ads in LP News, or other transactions would require prior approval from the Executive Committee.’
The motion was divided. The first part of the divided motion—to adopt points (1), (3), (4), (5), and (6)—passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The second part of the divided motion—to adopt point (2)—passed by a vote of 3 to 2. Bisson, Givot, and Martin voted for the motion. Dehn and MG voted against the motion.
Fylstra’s discussion only makes sense if ‘new business dealings’ might now possibly be approved by the ExComm, contrary to the prior resolution’s recommendation that ‘no action be taken to involve the party’ prior to action of the full LNC. There have since been claims by LNC members that the second resolution did not invert a ban present in the first. Readers may judge for themselves what the record shows about this question.
The second resolution also asserted that it was ‘unclear’ to what extent Browne or others ‘were involved in Willis’s actions or decisions’. The reader will recognize that invoices do not commonly pay themselves. If Willis had in fact received payment for the Invoice, as he claimed, it was extremely clear that someone was involved in agreeing to the February Contract and paying the invoice.
