Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 06:10:28 -0000
From: auvenj@mailcity.com
Subject: [lpaz-govcom] Re: [Resolution]
To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com


My recollection is that a resolution passed at the 1999 ALP 
convention affiliating the Pima County party (the current 
organization), and that resolution was one of the few left standing 
under Meyers' ruling.  As long as we're talking about "the intent of 
the convention" instead of personal pronouncements I think that's a 
very pertinent fact to keep in mind.

Look guys, if y'all really think that disaffiliating Pima, or 
claiming that it was never affiliated, will advance the ALP and/or 
the cause of freedom in this state then you're going to find a reason 
and you're going to do it.  Jay may well make it quite easy for you 
by dilly-dallying around on sending the bylaws long enough for you to 
disaffiliate on those grounds.  No one on the current board of PCLP 
is likely to object to the disaffiliation, norwill more than a 
handfull of "mere members" such as myself.  Peter told people to 
expect Pima to be disaffiliated soon after Meyers' ruling.

I guess I'm just thick-skulled but I feel the need to piss into the 
wind yet again and say, "Can't you guys think of something more 
productive to do?"

--Jason Auvenshine

--- In lpaz-govcom@y..., Paul Schauble <pls@t...> wrote:
> Pardon me, but there was rebuttal about Pima's status.

> 

> I still contend that the organization presently in Pima is not the 

same
> organization as or former affiliate. The former affiliate was 

formally
> disbanded by Peter when they elected precinct committeemen and 

formed
> the present county committee. It's not the same organization. and

> they couldn't have become the affiliate be our rescinding the 

> ban. That would restore the old organization.

> 

> I'd very much like to see the document by which the current 

organization
> applied for affiliated. Can we meet at Ernie's or can you email it?

> 

>     ++PLS

> 

> P.S.  Tim, you seem to have developed the habit of assuming that 

> any statement you make that is not immediately contradicted if

> ALP official policy. You don't make policy, and I'll have to be

> very careful to jump on you.

> 

> 

> 

> RegistrLBT@a... wrote:

> > 

> > In a message dated 7/14/2001 9:16:08 PM US Mountain Standard Time,

> > mikeh@c... writes:

> > 

> > > Tim -

> > >

> > > Please provide copies to the GovComm list of:

> > >    1] all of the correspondence from Pima that you mention in 

this
> > > missive

> > > that gives them status.

> > 

> > Dear Michael:

> > 

> >       Please see the attached file. It is in Word format. Because 

the
> > e-mails are held as files, my AOL filing cabinet will not let me

> > forward them

> > directly. I had to download them and put them in Word.

> >       You will notice that they are from the last two quarters of 

last
> > year

> > (from Bob Bushkin) and the first quarter of this year (from his

> > successor Jay

> > Walsh, who is not a member of the ALP Inc. board). I have also

 > included
> > several other noteworthy e-mails to Bob Bushkin.

> > 

> > >    2] the message specifically from Bob Bushkin you oft mention

> > > stating

> > > that he feels that he is a part of ALP.

> > 

> >       That message is One on the attachment. Please note that Bob

> > refers to

> > 'catching a ride' with Jason. If you will remember, Bob Bushkin 

was at
> > that

> > GovCom meeting last December, at the headquarters on 4208 State 

Ave.
> > in

> > Phoenix. Although he was there, he did not try to force the issue 

or
> > otherwise resolve his conflict of interest, true to his 

statements in
> > the

> > e-mails.  Nevertheless, he was available to all on the GovCom for

> > questioning.

> >       In Two, kindly note that in response to Jason's impeachment

> > call, Jay

> > Walsh copied his response to the Governing Committee. If you file 

your
> > GovCom

> > e-mail, you still have it.

> >       Please note in Four (sent last September), that I stated

> > unequivocally

> > that Pima was an affiliate. There was discussion, but no

> > contemporaneous

> > rebuttal. In fact, in Seven, Ernie specifically states the same 

thing
> > I

> > maintain.

> > 

> > P

> > 

> > > lease provide these a.s.a.p. so that the WHOLE govcomm can 

decide on
> > > the

> > > status of PIMA.

> > > This is a reasonable request, I feel, and must be done before 

the
> > > govcomm

> > > can act in the way you have ruled we must.

> > 

> > I didn't make any ruling. I simply wasn't aware of any differing

> > interpretation of the situation. Althugh many didn't seem to 

enjoy
> > having

> > Pima as an affiliate, no one moved to force the issue at any of 

the
> > GovCom

> > meetings. That there is now some perceived conflict was a shock 

to me,
> > but

> > not a surprise, given the present mood on the GovCom. 

Nevertheless,
> > here is

> > what you requested.

> > 

> > U

> > 

> > > ntil they are reviewed by the WHOLE (or a quorum) of the 

govcomm, we
> > > must

> > > assume they do not exist and that the Pima group is not in

> > > compliance.  It

> > > would be no different if the Chair was the only one getting the

> > > communications... we all need to see it.

> > >

> > > Thank you,

> > > Michael Haggar

> > 

> > d

> > 

> > Thanks for the vote of confidence.

> > 

> >                   Tim

> > 

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> > lpaz-govcom-unsubscribe@egroups.com

> > 

> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 

Service.
> > 

> >                   Name: Forward.doc

> >    Forward.doc    Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)

> >               Encoding: base64



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpaz-govcom-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/