Subject: Willis matter: addenda to report, comments about inquiry
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 03:38:40 -0400
From: "James W. Lark, III" <jwl3s@virginia.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Systems Engineering, University of Virginia
To: Steve Givot <givot@softwarena.com>, Thomas Knapp <tlknapp@free-market.net>,
Michael Gilson De Lemos <mg4u@oasis.net>, Joe Dehn <jwd3@dehnbase.org>,
Steve Dasbach <SteveDasbach@hq.lp.org>, Carl Milsted <cmilsted@earthlink.net>,
Elias Israel <eli@promanage-inc.com>, Jim Turney <JimTurney@lpva.com>,
Scott Lieberman <scott73@best.com>, Jim Dexter <jimdex@inconnect.com>,
Ken Bisson <kbisson@usa.net>, Mark Nelson <lpiachair@home.com>,
Lorenzo Gaztanaga <DiazVivar@aol.com>, Deryl Martin <dnc@multipro.com>,
Jim Lark <jwl3s@virginia.edu>, Daniel Wisnosky <stigmata@skylink.net>,
Lois Kaneshiki <lois@nb.net>, Daniel Karlan <DanKarlan@compuserve.com>,
Mary Ruwart <Mary@ruwart.com>, Mike Dixon <mdixonlp@earthlink.net>,
Richard Schwarz <hogweed@pop.mail.rcn.net>, Ed Hoch <edsway@sprynet.com>,
Greg Holmes <mag97@home.com>, Mark Rutherford <RUTHERFORDLAW@prodigy.net>,
Tim Hagan <trhagan@yahoo.com>, Ben Scherrey <Ben.Scherrey@ga.lp.org>,
Mark Cenci <mcenci@mindspring.com>
CC: Jim Lark <jwl3s@virginia.edu>, "Hall, William" <HALLWW@wnj.com>
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I am writing to provide some
additional information concerning my report about the Willis matter, and
to offer some comments about the inquiry as we approach the Las Vegas
meeting.
Since the distribution of the report, I have been contacted by the
following people:
Karen Allard
Gene Cisewski
Greg Dirasian
Art Olivier (left a message on my answering machine)
Amy Rule
I have enclosed e-mail messages from Ms. Allard, Mr. Cisewski, Mr.
Dirasian, and Ms. Rule at the end of this message, and I have summarized
Mr. Olivier's comments.
At the end of section III in the report, I indicated that evidently
Jack Dean was involved with a firm called WK Advertising, based in
Fullerton, California. However, upon subsequent reflection, allow me to
rephrase my comment to state that Mr. Dean may have been involved with
the firm. It is possible (indeed, I now consider it likely) that the
comment "Contact: Jack Dean" was meant to indicate that Mr. Dean was the
appropriate person to contact with the Browne campaign.
On Aug. 6, I spoke with John Famularo by telephone. Based upon that
conversation and some subsequent e-mail messages, it appears to me that
there is a "broad concern" and a "narrow concern" under consideration.
By these phrases I mean the following:
narrow concern: The narrowly focused matter of the violations of LNC
policy (and of trust) by virtue of the undisclosed work by Perry Willis
for the 1996 Browne for President campaign, the concealment of that
work, and and whatever associated improper behavior occurred.
broad concern: The broadly focused matter of whether the Libertarian
Party as currently organized is unduly vulnerable to predation and/or
corruption by "profiteers" and other unscrupulous people. In addition,
there is a general problem of dealing with patterns of actions by people
in responsibility such that the aggregate result of the pattern is
damaging to the party even though the individual actions need not
constitute improper behavior or demonstrate unsound judgment.
The inquiry I am leading is focusing upon the narrow concern; it
appears that Mr. Famularo is focusing on taking action that will address
the broad concern. In my view, the recent exchange of opinions by Mr.
Knapp and Mr. Scherrey goes to the heart of dealing with these two
related but different concerns. I believe the broad concern is
important and should be addressed; however, the current inquiry is
probably not the most appropriate mechanism for addressing that concern.
I have informed Mr. Famularo that if he attends the August meeting
and is willing to answer questions, I shall ask that the LNC allow him
to address the meeting. However, I have also informed him that I
believe it
would not be the best use of his time or the committee's time for him to
travel to Las Vegas to make a presentation during the meeting. I
believe that there is insufficient time for a proper consideration of
the broad concern, in that understanding the broad concern will require
substantial background information and will take much more time than
will be available in Las Vegas.
I suggest we proceed in the following way. My suggestion is based
upon the notion that while the narrow and the broad concerns are not
completely divisible, it is possible for the LNC to deal with the narrow
concern at the August meeting and then address the broad concern as part
of a more general investigation of organizational structure.
1) I have attempted to answer Mr. Famularo's concerns about the scope
and procedure of the inquiry into the Willis matter. (See comments
below about suggested rules for conduct of inquiry.) I have asked him
to contact me as soon as possible if my comments did not satisfy his
request for information.
2) At the August LNC meeting, I believe the committee should focus upon
the narrow concern. However, the committee will ultimately make this
decision.
3) I have requested that Mr. Famularo provide his written presentation
(including documentation) about the broad concern to the LNC (and anyone
else he chooses) as soon as possible. I believe that we should consider
his comments and suggestions within the broader framework of evaluating
LP organizational structure. Indeed, if I have understood Mr. Famularo
correctly, I believe that his written presentation should be addressed
to the membership at large.
4) Perhaps Mr. Famularo could address the broad concern at the December
2001 meeting as part of the larger discussion of improving the LP
organizational structure.
Suggested rules for conduct of inquiry:
1) (Purpose of inquiry) On May 11, Perry Willis provided a statement
in which he said he had deliberately violated LNC policy by doing
undisclosed work for the 1996 Browne for President campaign, and that he
concealed this violation from the LNC. The purpose of the inquiry is to
determine to the extent possible what happened in this affair, to
determine whether the LNC should take action concerning those involved
in untoward behavior connected to the affair, and to institute changes
where appropriate to reduce the opportunity for similar problems.
The committee is willing to receive information that is relevant to
the process of understanding what happened in this affair. This
information may refer to actions that are not directly connected to the
specific locus of actions associated with Mr. Willis' violations of LNC
policy. In addition, the actions need not relate directly to violations
of LNC policy or law. However, the committee reserves the right to
determine whether a given piece of information is relevant, and to judge
whether consideration of such information should take place at another
time.
2) (Standard of evidence) At this time, the LNC has not selected a
specific standard of evidence (such as proof beyond reasonable doubt or
preponderance of evidence) to use; unless we select a standard, then
each member will decide what evidence he believes is appropriate in
determining courses of action. (In fact, this may be true even if we do
select a standard.) I believe hearsay evidence should be considered by
the committee, at least in the sense that we are willing to receive it;
however, each member of the LNC will decide the level of credibility and
importance to place upon a given piece of information.
3) I have allocated 90 minutes on the agenda to discussion of the
Willis matter on the morning of Sunday, Aug. 26 (8:05 a.m. - 9:35 a.m.
PDT). Of course, the committee can change the agenda. My plan at this
time is to begin the discussion with a short briefing from LP general
counsel Bill Hall as to the appropriate cautions for discussion of
matters in which possible legal action by the LNC may be considered.
Following the briefing, I shall ask whether there are any questions or
concerns about the information contained in the report or the conduct of
the inquiry. Thereafter, if there are attendees who wish to offer
pertinent information about the Willis matter, the committee may choose
to allow these attendees to address the committee. A majority vote of
the committee will be necessary to allow nonmembers to address the
meeting.
At this point, I believe it would be appropriate to go into
executive session to receive a briefing from Mr. Hall concerning legal
implications of possible LNC actions. After the briefing and attendant
discussion, the
committee would resume its deliberations in open session. Please note
that all formal actions taken by the LNC must be taken in open session.
4) The LNC has not determined whether there should be a formal report
prepared after the disposition of the Willis matter. I believe that the
report and updates submitted to the LNC prior to the August, 2001
meeting should be appended to the minutes of the meeting. Those who
wish to provide evidence about the Willis matter for inclusion in the
August meeting minutes or in any post-disposition report concerning the
Willis matter should contact the LNC to request inclusion of that
evidence. (For example, someone with relevant information about the
Willis matter could contact an LNC member prior to the August meeting
and ask the member to request that the information be entered into the
minutes of the meeting.) I believe the committee will endeavor to
accommodate all reasonable requests for such inclusion; in any event,
the final decision belongs to the committee.
5) (Opportunity for rebuttal or rejoinder) Should an attendee at the
August meeting request the opportunity to offer a rebuttal or rejoinder
concerning information presented or discussed during the meeting, the
committee will decide under standard rules of committee procedure in
what manner to handle the request. Again, I believe the committee will
endeavor to accommodate all reasonable requests; in any event, the final
decision belongs to the committee.
In his message of Aug. 8, Mr. Famularo requested that in the event
someone else presents written or oral testimony (including any findings
I may present), he be given an opportunity for an alternate or rebuttal
argument before the LNC takes a final vote on the disposition of this
matter. I informed him that for several reasons I do not believe it
would be appropriate to guarantee him the opportunity to offer an
alternative or rebuttal argument. As I mentioned previously, should he
attend the August meeting and be willing (as he has indicated) to answer
questions from the committee, I shall ask that he be allowed to address
the meeting. If he then determines a need to address the committee
again to offer an alternative or rebuttal argument, he can ask the
committee for permission to do so. The committee will decide whether to
accept his request; I believe the committee will grant all reasonable
requests (time permitting).
If Mr. Famularo does not attend the August meeting, I do not believe
the committee should be obligated to delay action until determining
whether he wishes to offer an alternative or rebuttal argument. Since
committee actions concerning the Willis matter will be a matter of
public record, Mr. Famularo would be able to offer comments about the
committee's decision and (where appropriate) request that the committee
reconsider its decision.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments concerning
my suggestions. It would be best if at all possible to resolve
disagreements about procedure prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your work for liberty. I look forward to seeing you
in Las Vegas.
Take care,
Jim
James W. Lark, III
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
University of Virginia
Chairman, Libertarian Party
-----
Comments in response to inquiry messages:
Karen Allard:
Subject: Re: Help with the Willis matter inquiry
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:39:58 -0700
From: Karen Allard <ninehole@foxinternet.net>
To: James Lark <jwl3s@virginia.edu>
CC: sayres1@mediaone.net
Dear Jim,
I have received your e-mail and inquiry into the matter of LNC staff
working for various campaigns. I have no information to add to what you
appear to have gathered already. I do have something to say about what
appears to be a "witch hunt" in progress (I thought Salem was dead). I
recall the LNC members discussed this issue very extensively and the
members recognized the fact that we in the movement have a limited pool
of talented people. Thus, it created multiple tasks for one talented
individual as their skills were in demand.
David Bergland, Sharon Ayres, and Jack Dean have been fellow
Libertarians and friends for many years. I have a great deal of respect
and admiration for these individuals as they have been great warriors
for freedom and have offered their time, money, and talents to help the
LP grow. I have also known Perry Willis and recognize that he too has
given of his time and has many talents to offer the movement. I was not
aware that he had chosen to continue to work for the Brown campaign
after the LNC resolution and I agree it was not a wise decision. Now,
let's move on.
If this counterproductive discussion and accusations do not end soon, I
may consider withdrawing my financial monthly pledge to the LP and
direct my efforts elsewhere.
Sorry I was unable to visit with you when you were in Seattle, but
business and personal issues take up all of my time. It is nice to see
that despite the fact that the LNC is drowning in a stinky pool, the
local LP
organizations are continuing to make an impact in their communities.
Sincerely,
Karen Allard
--
--
Gene Cisewski:
Subject: Re: Help with the Willis matter
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 05:30:59 -0500
From: "Gene C." <genec@cheqnet.net>
To: "James W. Lark, III" <jwl3s@virginia.edu>
References: 1
Dear Jim:
Thank you for writing me regarding this very important issue challenging
the LNC. Needless to say, I am concerned about any contact with the
national party at this point. My enthusiasm for entering that fray is
rather muted by past experiences that have done significant damage to
both my health and finances. That said, I believe that I may be able to
offer some helpful information for you, ranging from participation in
the campaign to the involvement of staff members in LNC elections. Yet
most of my notes and materials about the LP have been packed away and
put aside, so it will be a little while before I am able to dig the
material out. I'll do my best to see what I can find within the next
couple of weeks. This week is a bit hectic for me, yet if you'd like to
discuss this matter in a little more detail, I invite you to call me
during the first part of next week at:
715-561-2065.
Gene
--
--
Greg Dirasian:
Subject: Re: Help with Willis matter
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:59:12 -0400
From: Greg Dirasian <greg@newsnetpipeline.com>
To: "James W. Lark, III" <jwl3s@virginia.edu>
References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
Jim,
For the record, I have no knowledge of any violation of the LNC policy.
This looks very much like a witch hunt to me. It is my personal opinion
that we are lucky that Perry isn't suing us for breach of contract.
As I understand it, Perry moved from California to Washington to become
national director. Once there,
after performing his job to the satisfaction of his employer for quite
some time, the employer unilaterally changed the terms of his employment
without offering him any corresponding compensation or severance pay
should he decide that he could not live by those terms.
As somebody who was in a similar situation myself, I know exactly how
difficult it is to make the decision
to give up one's livelihood because terms of employment were
unilaterally changed.
I may have had some dissatisfaction with Perry's performance, but his
ethics, this situation not withstanding, was never part of it. Truth be
known, I think the party would be better off if we had more people with
Perry's dedication and fewer people running around criticizing those of
us who actually do the work.
Greg
"James W. Lark, III" wrote:
> Dear Greg:
>
> Thanks for the message. I am sorry to hear that you are having
problems in obtaining
> information concerning database matters. Please let me know more
about this. I spoke to
> Steve Dasbach about your efforts the weekend after the Michigan
Leadership event. Since I
> hadn't heard anything from you, I assumed that you were receiving
whatever help you
> required.
>
> I assure you that I am not interested in witch hunts or beating up
on my fellow
> Libertarians. The purpose of my inquiry is to find out what happened
concerning Perry
> Willis' violation of LNC policy and subsequent concealment of that
violation. Any
> information you can provide that will help people understand what
happened would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Take care,
> Jim
>
> Greg Dirasian wrote:
>
> > Dear Jim,
> >
> > I have been asking numerous questions of our
> > national office relating to specifics of our database
> > as I try to finish up my online membership database
> > system. I have yet to receive even one answer to
> > my numerous queries.
> >
> > Although I think Perry is incompetent and has an
> > over-inflated opinion of himself, at least he was
> > trying to be productive. I am in the party to fight
> > for liberty, not to engage in witch hunts nor to beat
> > up my fellow freedom fighters.
> >
> > When I start getting answers to my database questions,
> > I'll be happy to start answering your questions.
> >
> > Greg
--
--
Art Olivier:
Mr. Olivier called on Aug. 13 to indicate that he had received the
letter of inquiry, and that he had no information about improper
behavior by anyone prior to the LNC meeting in April, 2001.
--
--
Amy Rule:
Subject: Willis situation
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:04:46 -0400
From: Amy Rule <amyrule@home.com>
To: chair@lp.org
Jim, I am glad to see that the events which ultimately led to my
departure from the LP have finally seen the light of day. I am tied up
with a client training session this week, and will not have time to
address this in detail, but I would be happy to talk with you early next
week about what I knew back then. I will state up front that I have no
actual evidence; I long ago wiped all LP materials from my computer in
my disgust with what was happening, not that I ever had direct
first-hand evidence in any case. One document I am trying to track down
is a resolution that the MDLP passed in (I think) 1996 requesting that
Willis be censured for a
number of items, some relating to this, others not but clearly
indicating a pattern of arrogance and disregard for the rules. I have
asked the current MDLP officers to try to find a copy; but since our
regional rep did bring it before the LNC, a copy should be there
somewhere as well. I suggest you try to find it, since I suspect the
MDLP records are not the most complete; the hazards of running a
volunteer organization without permanent office staff.
Please feel free to contact me next week and I'll give you all the gory
details I can remember.
Regards,
Amy Rule