Brief statement on recent actions taken by the Libertarian Party of Florida

I speak for myself and not for the Executive Committee, the Convention Committee, or any other individual members of the EC, nor for the party as a whole.

I voted, along with most of the EC, to give Char-Lez Braden authority to mediate on our behalf with Augustus Invictus. While I consciously knew the risk of allowing one person to mediate on behalf of the EC  - that the result of the mediation might be unsatisfactory to me - it was a risk that at the time, I was willing to take.

The result of the mediation can be found HERE .

I regret the decision now. I made a mistake. I assert that the result of the mediation helps obfuscate the truth and provide for an alternative narrative to the truth.

Most importantly because I always care about the truth, I will first dispel some inaccurate notions that many commentators have on the issue of the mediation. 

-         Some suggest that the Executive Committee voted in favor of the result of the mediation; this is patently false. The EC only voted to give the chair authority to mediate on our behalf .The EC did not vote for the final result of the mediation. Once we gave up control, the result was out of our hands. I fully acknowledge that I bear responsibility for the result along with almost all other EC members, as we voted for the mediation. But that DOES NOT MEAN that either me or other EC members agreed with the result. Of course, hindsight is 20-20 and knowing the result, I would not have voted for mediation.

-   Some suggest that Randy Wiseman “found in favor of Augustus Invictus.” While I am not privy to the direct conversations between Randy Wiseman, Char-Lez Braden, and Augustus Invictus, I do think I have a basic understanding of what a mediator is. It is not the mediator’s job to come to conclusions or to “find in favor of one side or the other.” It is the job of the mediator to pass information from one side and the other; it also might be his job to give suggestions to either side based on his general life experience and based on presentation of information. But my understanding suggests that the decision to amicably conclude mediation was left to Char-Lez Braden and Augustus Invictus.

EDIT (including one more inaccurate notion)
 -  Some have pointed to what I saw right after the conclusion of the mediation to be a lightning rod line in the statement released by the Chair, that mentioned that Augustus Invictus was an LPF member in good standing. By definition, this is true, it simply means that he signed up to be a member of the party and that his membership has not been suspended (and if we had membership dues, it would also reflect that he had paid his dues). In my correspondence to the chair and to others during the week of mediation, I cannot find any comments from me expressing a question as to why that line was included. I cannot find any text of the proposal for the LPF statement from before the mediation was concluded, as the proposal was on google document that was being changed as mediation was happening, but I do believe that this line was included in the proposal on which the chair consulted me. I opposed the statement on several grounds, but I did not express any thoughts on the "member in good standing" line before the mediation concluded. This is another regret I have. On the Friday that the mediation was concluded and the results were made public, I did express to a friend that this was a bad line and that I knew that the public would not like it. I knew that it had a connotation different from it's definition.
 

If I am weak willed, having been accused of such as a result of voting for mediation, I don’t think that was reflected in my decision to vote for mediation. My decision was based on hope that mediation would help clarify the truth and help resolve longstanding issues. And given that many of us run businesses and have many commitments, we do not necessarily have the time or the brain capacity to consider all possible options. The entirety of events leading up to the decision for mediation was very disheartening, and it was very difficult to think clearly. So my decision, I believe, was an error in judgement, not a lack of will. 

I run my own business, and I chair the LPF’s Convention Committee, and I serve on the LPF EC as Director At Large 3, and I am active with our local affiliate, and I serve on the Palm Beach Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors, I cannot consider every decision with as much care as I should. I wear way too many hats. This was one reason I chose not to run for my position on the EC again. 

Regardless of what else happens, I will continue to serve as Chair of the Convention Committee at the pleasure of the EC and with the support of my fellow committee members. And I will continue to do so in a dispassionate way – honestly, quickly, and concisely answering questions about the Convention to anyone who asks. I will continue to do so in a way that is fair to all committee members, all of who’s input I greatly value.

In the near future, I will elaborate on the circumstances surrounding my vote for mediation and on my assertion that the result of the mediation has helped obfuscate the truth and was bad for the party.

Finally, let me express that it is my opinion that Char-Lez Braden came to the decision he honestly thought was best for the party. I told him privately that I thought the best decision would be what ever decision would help put all of this behind us. I don’t know what that best decision would have been, but I strongly believe that upholding the truth would have been an integral part of that decision. I saw the final resolution before it was accepted, and I voiced my strong disagreement with it.

Marc Tancer