ASFAR Officer Appointments Controversy

From YRN

The ASFAR Officer Appointments Controversy was an internal ASFAR dispute that was at its height from February to April of 2009 and was centered around charges that then ASFAR president Svend la Rose was abusing his parliamentary powers to avoid debate on the question of his own re-appointment, and was characterized by his conflict with a rival for the position, then ASFAR vice-president Julian Gutierrez. It was initially expected to come to a close upon la Rose's statement of resignation on March 22, 2009, but was rekindled when la Rose claimed that his resignation was not valid and he was still president. This was disputed by the other directors, and anger about this, along with other perceived abuses of power by la Rose, culminated in a 10-2 vote to remove la Rose from the Board of Directors by attendants representing the general membership on April 21, 2009. A measure that la Rose had placed on the agenda to remove Gutierrez failed by a 6-1 vote. The officer appointments process that la Rose had allegedly delayed was then conducted, with Julian Gutierrez being elected president, Matthew Keefe vice-president, and Susan Wishnetsky secretary-treasurer. At the following meeting, Max Harmony was appointed to fill the vacancy left by la Rose, and over the following months, Kevin Schmidt, Ryan Luchs, Victoria Rodríguez, Lindsay Coley, and Lexi Johnson were all appointed to the Board of Directors.

la Rose subsequently claimed and continues to claim that these procedures were conducted in violation of various parliamentary rules and that he is still the legitimate president of ASFAR and that none of appointments or meetings conducted after April 21 were valid (assuming sole control of the ASFAR website in the process to remove interference from members of the ASFAR web team), though he is opposed by effectively all active ASFAR members. In response to his takeover of the ASFAR website and claims to be president of ASFAR, the Board of Directors voted to indefinitely suspend his membership until conditions related to his voluntary transfer of the website and abandonment of presidential claims were met. As control of the website was eventually gained independently of la Rose, his membership in ASFAR now seems to be permanently revoked, as he can no longer meet the established conditions. Though la Rose was still permitted to attend ASFAR meetings as a non-member guest after this, perceptions of disruptive conduct on his part during a meeting of the general membership dedicated to bylaw revision caused him to be expelled from the ASFAR chatroom, and Gutierrez issued an unprecedented ban of la Rose from all ASFAR meetings. The controversy has largely died down since then and any remaining conflict is characterized only by la Rose's sporadic communications to the ASFAR email lists (which he retains control of), which contain claims that he is still president of ASFAR.

Contents 1 February-April 2009 2 Julian Gutierrez's arguments 3 Svend la Rose's arguments 4 Post-April 2009 Developments 5 References

February-April 2009

On February 17, 2009, the ASFAR Board of Directors considered a resolution to appoint officers for the year. There was no other business to be considered. la Rose proposed himself as president, Gutierrez as vice-president, ans Wishnetsky as secretary-treasurer. Gutierrez proposed himself as president, Ralph Verma as vice-president, and Wishnetsky as secretary-treasurer, citing what he regarded as insufficient progress during la Rose's tenure. A fierce debate about the appointments then ensued, with la Rose insisting on maintaining his position and flatly stating "I will not accept a demotion to vice-president."

During the course of the meeting, which was initially attended by five of ASFAR's then six directors (Wishnetsky was absent on account of illness), ASFAR director James Rottnek had to leave to attend to an emergency, tilting the balance of support evenly between la Rose and Gutierrez, each with one supporter. However, it became clear to la Rose that director Kelvin Oliver was no longer actively responding to messages during the meeting. Several observers attested that la Rose used his presiding authority in an obstructive manner, so as to delay the vote on the presidency until the number of director attendants shifted to his favor. la Rose himself claimed that he was merely using a filibuster technique acknowledged as valid in all major legislative bodies, and that he was within the rules of parliamentary procedure, citing Article 29 of the ASFAR Bylaws and two sections of Robert's Rules of Order. It was later alleged, based on an FAQ published by the Robert's Rules Association, that the introduction of resolutions while presiding was itself a violation of parliamentary procedure on his part.

la Rose tabled the appointments motion and attempted to exclude Gutierrez when he moved to call a vote on the matter of appointments. He then advanced several other motions (which several members claimed was a further time consumption tactic), including a question of nominations. la Rose nominated ASFAR member Emmanuel Lai to fill the vacancy on the Board, but suddenly switched his support to former director Matthew Keefe, who was re-appointed and subsequently voted against Gutierrez's appointment, causing a tie, with himself and la Rose opposing Gutierrez and Director Ralph Verma, who was Gutierrez's prospective vice-president. After a tie was achieved twice, the motion failed. Director Oliver then returned to the meeting, granting la Rose a majority. la Rose claimed that ASFAR business could not proceed if he was not re-elected, and was then unanimously re-elected President, with Gutierrez and Verma switching their votes in the face of a clear majority so as to reduce animosity. la Rose departed the meeting with a comment of "Good night and good riddance."

In the aftermath of this process, there were numerous objections voiced by several ASFAR members on the grounds that la Rose had preserved his position through fraudulent means and an abuse of parliamentary procedure. During the course of discussion on the NYRA Forums, la Rose commented that he didn't "serve the short-sighted whims of 'numerous members,'"^[1] which some, namely ASFAR director (then member) Max Harmony, interpreted as being anti-democratic.^[2] la Rose denied all these allegations but included a motion to rescind the appointment resolution in his own report to the Board of Directors for inclusion on the Board's agenda of March 17, 2009. The motion to rescind was adopted and nominations were immediately opened. The offices of vice-president, secretary and treasurer were uncontested, with Keefe the sole nominee for vice-president and Wishnetsky the sole nominee for secretary and treasurer. Extensive debate ensued, with la Rose claiming a guarantee under Article 29 of the ASFAR bylaws, until directors Rottnek, Verma, and Gutierrez himself were forced to leave due to prior appointments. Nominations were tabled in order to consider calling a special meeting, an hour and three minutes after the original nominations had been entered. As with the previous meeting, the aftermath of this meeting was marked by angry complaints that la Rose had abused parliamentary mechanisms to stall and cause obstructive delays.

The special meeting was scheduled for March 23, 2009. However, on March 22, la Rose submitted a resignation from the presidency to Wishnetsky. He cited medical reasons for his resignation, though Gutierrez claims that la Rose privately admitted to him that he knew he did not have the votes to retain his position, and wished to avoid embarrassment. At the following day's meeting, the Board of Directors adopted special rules that la Rose claimed would simplify debate, though Gutierrez expressed distrust of rules that had been written entirely by la Rose and suspicion that he might exploit technicalities. Though there had been an expectation that the special meeting had been called expressly for the purpose of resolving the appointments controversy, la Rose insisted that debate on the adoption of ASFAR's 2009 work plan be conducted, and Gutierrez (who, as president, was in the chair), agreed. Gutierrez had submitted a package of amendments to la Rose's draft, and an hour and eleven minutes were spent debating and reconciling the two versions. Gutierrez became frustrated with what he perceived as further obstructions on la Rose's part, and was privately urged by Max Harmony to exclude la Rose from the meeting. He refrained from doing this until he had given la Rose three warnings. la Rose raised several alleged points of order and attempted to appeal his exclusion, but this was not put to a vote on the grounds that "nobody expressed an interest in voting," according to Gutierrez. Since the remaining attendants were Gutierrez, Oliver, and Verma, la Rose directed Oliver by a private channel to leave the meeting, thereby placing the attendance below the three members needed for quorum. Oliver walked out as requested and Gutierrez pronounced the meeting adjourned for a lack of quorum. Later that night, while consulting the bylaws about the procedure for removing directors, la Rose claimed to have realized that the ASFAR bylaws prohibit an officer's resignation from becoming effective until the successor is appointed to the office. He then claimed that his resignation was not valid and that he still held the post of president of ASFAR, a statement that was hotly disputed by the Board and membership and generally denied.

la Rose called a special meeting of the ASFAR membership in place of the usual Board meeting for April 21, 2009 (which occurred regardless of his status as president, as Gutierrez also issued that call), and it was agreed that the appointments controversy should be resolved there. The ASFAR workplan was adopted at the end of the first hour of business, and a motion to remove la Rose from the ASFAR Board of Directors was then made. la Rose began his case with an extensive summary of the events that had occurred up to that point. He then turned to refuting the arguments for his removal that issued from those events. He was asked several times if he would abide by certain time constraints, and though he agreed to do so, he exceeded them nonetheless. la Rose was in the process of stating his claims when the ASFAR chat room abruptly crashed. The meeting re-convened 45 minutes later in a different chat room, with Max Harmony suggesting that they remove la Rose in his absence to prevent further disruption, but Gutierrez insisting on ensuring that la Rose entered the chat room so as to prevent future disputes. la Rose returned and set about continuing his case for why he should not be removed. He quickly came under pressure to abandon his debate in order to save time, and he alleged that much of the 45 minutes after the meeting re-convened were spent questioning la Rose's motives for debating the present question and others. Two new arguments were made in rapid succession against la Rose - one regarding the legitimacy of an omnibus bylaws revision he spearheaded, another regarding whether his presidency impeded the progress of ASFAR, and a third regarding the veracity of the amount and nature of ASFAR activity he claimed - as pressure mounted to silence la Rose and call the vote. Ultimately, Wishnetsky (who was presiding pro tempore since both la Rose and Gutierrez had privileges or powers at stake) called the vote at 10:15 pm Central Time, with la Rose claiming that he had raised an unresolved point of order and ASFAR member and former director Jacob Kafka claiming the same, although stating that he was likely to vote against la Rose. The vote was 10-2 in favor of la Rose's removal, with him and previously uninvolved member Angelica Ochoa voting against his removal. la Rose claimed that the vote was out of order and was merely a "straw poll," but Wishnetsky stated that his own vote against his removal constituted an acknowledgment of its legitimacy.

With the issue of la Rose's removal apparently disposed of, a motion to remove Julian Gutierrez from the Board of Directors was made and debated. The vote was called with la Rose alleging that his points of order and debate issues themselves were unresolved and that most of the nineteen minutes of debate time was spent questioning Wishnetsky's decision to call the vote notwithstanding further debate and points of order and the validity of the ensuing decision. The vote was 6-1 in opposition to Gutierrez's removal, with a diminished number of voters due to departures because of the extensive length of the meeting. la Rose then nominated Matthew Keefe (who was not present) as president, with Gutierrez stating that Keefe had explicitly stated an unwillingness to be president. The meeting then heard the nomination of Julian Gutierrez to the office of president, Matthew Keefe to that of vice-president, and Susan Wishnetsky to those of secretary and treasurer and took a resolution appointing them to the respective offices.

la Rose has claimed that these procedures were invalid on account of their violation of parliamentary rules, though Gutierrez and others maintained their position that la Rose was exploiting technicalities better applied to a large parliamentary body than an online chat room with a handful of members and that his claims of his perceived obstructions constituting a "filibuster" were unsound and inappropriate. Gutierrez also claimed that la Rose was guilty of hypocritical inconsistencies in that he did not strictly adhere to parliamentary procedures himself when they were not in his favor(with his introduction of measures while presiding being an example), and that his claim that this was acceptable because the ASFAR Board of Directors was a small body was inconsistent with his notion that a "filibuster" was an appropriate strategy in ASFAR meetings because it was acceptable in large parliamentary bodies. It was first pointed out by Wishnetsky and then echoed by Gutierrez and others that la Rose himself conducted several actions that acknowledged the legitimacy of the vote on his removal and the following procedures, such as his vote against his own removal, his vote in favor of Gutierrez's removal (which indicated progression on the meeting agenda), and his nomination of Matthew Keefe to the presidency, which indicated an acknowledgment that he was ineligible for the position (as a result of no longer being a director), and was alleged by Gutierrez to be a spiteful attempt to deny him the position rather than advance the interests of ASFAR.

The controversy was characterized by arguments from both contenders about the actions committed during meetings and their relevance to each one's ability to govern ASFAR. These are summarized below, with a contender's claim being followed by his opponent's counterclaim and possibly a further claim by the initial contender.

Julian Gutierrez's arguments

Gutierrez desired to have la Rose removed from the presidency, the Board of Directors and ultimately the membership for taking actions he considered undemocratic (though la Rose has claimed that Gutierrez is an anarchist and therefore not a democrat), for claimed violations of the rules of order at the February meeting of the ASFAR Board, and for using ASFAR's guaranteed right of debate to obstruct the progress of business. His specific claims are as follows, with further arguments by him and la Rose following each:

That the ASFAR Bylaws are illegitimate because the meeting that approved them was attended by no more than a quorum to conduct business. Gutierrez claims that the lack of a popular groundswell of attendance at the meeting that approved the current ASFAR bylaws questions their legitimacy, and that they may thus be disregarded if a greater number of members wishes to dispense with them. He concedes that the number of members present was sufficient for the bylaws to be considered legally adopted.

• la Rose's first answer is that once the bylaws are adopted, they are legally binding on ASFAR until they are amended. Only bylaws that are clearly in the nature of rules of order can be suspended, and then only with a two-thirds vote on a motion to suspend the rules. la Rose believes that the legally binding nature of the bylaws ought to be good enough for anyone fit to run a nonprofit organization. Gutierrez has countered that the departed members of early 2008 did not anticipate the allegedly unethical exploitation of technicalities that la Rose would engage in a year later, and would have joined the overwhelming majority of opposition to la Rose's tactics if they had.
• Moreover, and more to the point of legitimacy vs. legality, la Rose stated that the bylaws were established with a purpose of controlling ASFAR so that it remains orderly and does not degenerate into mob rule and claimed that the idea of allowing even a supermajority to dispense with the bylaws at will would completely undermine that purpose and cause ASFAR's positions, policies and parliamentary rules and courtesies to vary with the feelings of the moment instead of developing the permanence that is necessary to the establishment of an organizational identity and character. Gutierrez responded that the standard detachment between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law was even more pronounced in a small and somewhat informal organization, and that rigorous application of technical guidelines contrary to their intended purpose was counterproductive.

That the ASFAR Bylaws were not legitimately adopted, or even adopted at all, because the meeting at which they were held was not noticed to the membership. Gutierrez claims that notice of the 2008 annual meeting was never sent to the ASFAR membership. He has not denied that both the old and new bylaws provide that no failure in giving notice of a meeting shall invalidate its proceedings, but has instead claimed that there are still practical objections to this unassociated with those bylaws.

• la Rose claimed that he had noticed the 2008 annual meeting to the ASFAR-announce list on December 27, 2007 (which is unused by many active members), and forwarded the email message in question to the Board of Directors when Gutierrez denied that notice had been given.
• la Rose also claimed that the failure of the person responsible for adding new members to the ASFAR announcement list (which was Susan Wishnetsky in her capacity as secretary at the time of Gutierrez's joining in 2007) does not invalidate the general sufficiency of the ASFAR announcement list as a method of notice.

That la Rose's introduction of resolutions while in the chair constitutes a violation of the rules of order. la Rose claimed that this would only be true in a medium to large assembly and that Robert's Rules provided for the relaxation or suspension of certain rules in small boards and committees, defined as being not substantially larger than a dozen members, and for the existence in certain organizations of customs that become so established as to have the force of rules of order in those organizations. He did not elaborate on the specific provisions of Robert's Rules associated with these alleged relaxations.

• Initially, la Rose dismissed the claims on the grounds that they were based on the Robert's Rules Association's interpretation of the rules and not on the rules themselves. la Rose, a student parliamentarian studying for his Registered Parliamentarian exam, considered the Robert's Rules Association's use more conservative than some others he'd seen. la Rose found that this interpretation was based on provisions of Robert's Rules of Order that were phrased as recommendations rather than as hard rules (e.g., "should" rather than "shall" or "must" or "may not").
• After this was shown to be false, la Rose then claimed that ASFAR had a custom of treating the rule requiring presidential neutrality as one that did not apply to the ASFAR Board by virtue of its small size. Neither past ASFAR president Justin Mallone, who served on Board from 1999 to 2002, nor past director Oliver Traldi, who served from 2003 to 2005, recalled such a prohibition when la Rose asked them about it. Furthermore, the last three years of ASFAR's practice was for the chair (la Rose) to introduce the bulk of the business in order to set and advance the agenda. la Rose claims that the lack of a parliamentary objection (a Point of Order) combined with the long history of customary use together establish that his actions in this regard were proper. Ultimately, the Board of Directors codified this practice into its rules of order on March 23, 2009, in order to prevent such a controversy from arising in the future. Gutierrez claimed that this focus on actual practice and what la Rose described as "exigencies" of the situation was contradictory with his attempts to "filibuster" votes in meetings, as such tactics were similarly unsuitable for small parliamentary bodies.
• In partial response to that, la Rose further insisted that the relaxation of strictures on the chair's and members' handling of motions do not necessarily imply the concomitant relaxation of requirements that the motions themselves by unambiguously and validly phrased. Accordingly, he claims that Gutierrez's claim of hypocrisy is invalid. Gutierrez countered that la Rose deliberately prevented him from moving to nominate himself as president by abusing technical guidelines about phrasing, which he claimed was obfuscatory and counterproductive rather than helpful and conducive to the elimination of ambiguity.

That la Rose's refusal to call the vote on account of his own right to continued debate constituted an abuse of power. Gutierrez claims that la Rose filibustered the motion to amend the appointment resolution to name Gutierrez president in order to wait for Oliver to come back until he tabled the motion for the purpose of appointing a new director. la Rose claims that his questions were rooted in a legitimate examination of the issues. la Rose switched his support from chapters officer Emmanuel Lai, whom the other directors present had questioned quite harshly, to past director Matthew Keefe in order to secure a consensus on the appointment. Keefe then immediately voted in favor of la Rose's nomination, which led to speculation that he had insisted that Keefe vote for him as a condition of his nomination.
That la Rose's correction of his resignation to reflect the requirements of the ASFAR bylaws constitutes an unethical power grab. Gutierrez claims that the correction of the resignation letter to reflect the bylaw prohibition of a snap resignation represents a manipulation of the ASFAR membership in the wake of an unpleasant meeting that ended when Gutierrez could not keep a quorum. la Rose claimed that he made an "oversight" in determining when his resignation as president would be effective.
That la Rose's extended debate and questioning of Gutierrez serve no purpose except to obstruct the flow of ASFAR business. Gutierrez claims that la Rose's debate of the February appointment resolution and the March appointment slate amounted to a filibuster intended only to prevent or delay a vote and not to add to the information the Board has at its disposal.

• la Rose claimed that he sought to determine whether Gutierrez had the knowledge, skills, abilities and personal characteristics needed to run ASFAR.
• la Rose further claimed that Gutierrez's interest was in avoiding the questions and an extended debate on the grounds that they could embarrass him, although this view was apparently not shared by any other members. la Rose claimed that he was acting in ASFAR's interest to require as much information as possible about its leadership candidates in order to make the most informed decision, which he further stated was in conflict with the interest he believed Gutierrez was pursuing. Accordingly, he claimed that he used the chair to force a minimum of questioning regarding Gutierrez's plans for running ASFAR, especially its research and public education operations, though he was opposed by a supermajority that claimed that he merely sought to waste time.

That the ASFAR membership was entitled to deviate from the rules of order without suspending the rules during the April 21 meeting in order to hold a vote without hearing further debate. Gutierrez claims that the rules of order, which he voted for after reading them, were a part of la Rose's attempt to seize and retain power by anti-democratic means. He has referred to ASFAR's Rule 4, which abolishes parliamentary time limits on debate (as contained in Robert's Rules of Order), as a loophole that he believes la Rose snuck into the rules in order to prevent the democratic process from unfolding.

• la Rose claimed that Rule 4 is necessary to force the meeting to slow down and consider the consequences of its actions. He considers a genuine democratic process to require the rational consideration of the costs, benefits and risks of the proposed action, rather than a gut-level or emotional reaction to the proposition. He considers Rule 4 necessary to protect against mob rule, and that subsection 4b affords adequate protection against repetitive remarks that are legitimately dilatory. Gutierrez noted that this was simply one of the most obvious manifestations of la Rose's strategy of causing obstructive delays, and that he had violated his own promise to limit his discussion to 20 minutes. la Rose had earlier claimed that time measurements on AIM were conducted according to the amount of time it took for a message to be posted, and that only actual posting of messages constituted active time expenditure.
• la Rose also insisted that ASFAR is "bound by its rules" until it suspends or amends them under the rules set forth for that purpose, and that an outcome that can't be achieved by "playing by the rules" cannot be fair.

Svend la Rose's arguments

la Rose sought to oppose Gutierrez's ascension to the office of president on certain grounds related to his knowledge, skills and abilities and to his ideas or lack of ideas on how to run ASFAR. As the controversy over appointments gained steam, la Rose took an intense dislike to Gutierrez's willingness to bend or break the rules in the name of expediency or even that of democracy. la Rose considers Gutierrez's anarchism and his distaste for the rules and bylaws to come from the same distaste for legitimate authority. Gutierrez and others have criticized the fact that la Rose's primary arguments against Gutierrez's presidency are allegedly based in personal attacks on his character rather than more substantive observations about his actions during meetings, in contrast to Gutierrez's arguments against la Rose. la Rose's specific arguments against Gutierrez are as follows, with Gutierrez's response following each:

That Gutierrez did not have the experience or knowledge of ASFAR's operations needed to run ASFAR. ASFAR's president is by default responsible for all areas of ASFAR's operations until those responsibilities are delegated to the staff. When questioned about his plan for research and education, Gutierrez stated that it involved using la Rose and Oliver, first and foremost, to be followed by later expansion. la Rose implied that they would not be available to help, insinuating that he was unwilling to aid ASFAR further if he could not be president.

That Gutierrez was too confrontational to be taken seriously by the erudite public. Based on some position paper drafts Gutierrez submitted to la Rose for consideration, including one in which Gutierrez allegedly sought to win the respect of the media by accusing them of "vicious slander" to their faces, la Rose claimed Gutierrez lacked the communications skills to project a positive public face for ASFAR. la Rose considered it necessary to "disagree without being disagreeable, to object without being objectionable, and to be as firm in one's manners as in one's position." Gutierrez claimed that he had obtained some success with such confrontational language in causing Max Harmony's high school to cease an unconstitutional restriction on student rights, a claim corroborated by Harmony.

That Gutierrez was too focused on growing ASFAR at the expense of operating ASFAR. Gutierrez's plan focused on growing ASFAR: re-establishing the chapters program, recruiting new members heavily, reaching out to youth media and youth organizations in the hope of gaining new membership and volunteer commitments, and so on. He did not state any details on what he wanted these new members to do once they got in here. la Rose claimed to be troubled by a lack of specifics on how he would organize ASFAR's functions, or even on what functions he considered most important aside from growth. la Rose stated that he was concerned that ASFAR's charitable status could be jeopardized by a haphazard approach that could make ASFAR seem like nothing more than a lobbying group.

That Gutierrez lacked the knowledge to preside. Gutierrez was transferred to a continuation school during his sophomore year of high school on account of a deficiency of 15 credits, which is a very sizable deficiency at that point in school (equivalent to failing a course or taking a free period in each of the first three semesters). Gutierrez denied the legitimacy of the credit deficiency and questioned why it was even a pertinent issue, as ASFAR is a youth rights organization that opposes compulsory schooling. la Rose further claimed that Gutierrez lacked the "high-level knowledge required of the president of ASFAR" because he had left high school two years early with an associate's degree. At the time of Gutierrez's announcement of this in July of 2008, la Rose had stated "That piece of paper, ladies and gentlemen, will get Mr Gutierrez into a community college from whence he can obtain an associate degree at the point where most people would obtain their high school diplomas. Which is awesome."^[3] His position since then was that Gutierrez lacked the knowledge to preside because the proficiency exam that he passed had no content on American history or economics, two subjects la Rose alleged were "foundational to the knowledge of the social sciences that ASFAR's president and other top representatives would need to draw on in advocating ASFAR's agenda in public."

That Gutierrez would cause ASFAR to be taken less seriously. la Rose is an ordained Christian minister (by the Universal Life Church, which Gutierrez noted had weak standards that would allow even an atheist as himself to be ordained) and registered Republican (though he was a Democrat at the time of the events in question), and a student in one of America's top universities. As such, he claimed to be much less vulnerable to the allegations commonly made against the youth rights community, such as that youth rights activists are ungrateful teen misfits, that they are antisocial or radical, that they will grow out of it, and that the cause is driven by teen angst and discontent and not by the wealth of legal, philosophical, social and political argument that really undergirds it. Gutierrez, by comparison, is an anarchist who has talked publicly about being transferred to a continuation school on account of lack of credits after racking up an impressive disciplinary history, which la Rose stated would harm ASFAR because of his radicalism.

• Gutierrez responded by alleging that notwithstanding the alleged effect of academic achievement on reputation and public perception, ASFAR should not hold what la Rose described as his "colorful school history" against him on the grounds that ASFAR opposes compulsory schooling.
• Gutierrez sarcastically pointed out that it was unlikely that anyone sufficiently radical to have an interest in an organization that promotes the abolition of age restrictions would be put off by his anarchism, and also commented that "[t]he youth rights movement (particularly its liberationist vanguard), draws upon a large base of political radicals, as evidenced by the Socialist Party USA's plank of lowering the voting age to 15 and abolishing curfews, and your [la Rose's] inclusion of recruitment amongst the 'Young Communists' in our work plan. You've decried my anarchism well enough, but have ignored the self-professed anarchism of Vice-President Keefe and Directors Rottnek and Harmony, at least one of whom believes that the Confederate States of America still exist as a legitimate political entity."^[4] He also raised la Rose's self-described "brief and distant" past service as co-chair of the California Socialist Party as an impediment against la Rose's own credibility among political moderates, pointing out that this had actually been mentioned by an external party in September of 2005, unlike Gutierrez's anarchism.^[5]

That Gutierrez would expose ASFAR to liability by throwing caution to the wind, the way la Rose claims he did in accusing la Rose of delusions and mental instability on account of what la Rose claimed was merely a disagreement about parliamentary law, but Gutierrez stated was a more persistent and troubling pattern. la Rose has claimed that this allegation was evidence of Gutierrez's recklessness and irresponsibility.

• Gutierrez has commented that la Rose demonstrated potential signs of mental instability, citing his constant shifts in political ideology, unsupported claim that ASFAR Director Max Harmony had been arrested and imprisoned in the Leon County Jail for attempting to extort him (discussed in further detail below), and posts on the NYRA Forums that consisted of odd chanting and singing, with these comments being specifically pointed out:

"[sings voice=cartoon-teddy tune=random intonation=none] The teddy wuvs you, the teddy wuvs you, the teddy wuvs you, the teddy wuvs you... you can ::never escape the wuv of the teddy... and you, and you, and you, and you stragglers in the back, you can never escape the wuv OF THE TEDDY... the ::teddy wuvs you, the teddy wuvs you, the teddy wuvs you... the teddy brought huggles... the teddy wuv you... the teddy wuv the huggles... take the ::huggles home by the case box and give them to the peoples... if there are no peoples, give them to the faeries... the faeries wuv you... the faeries ::need you... [/sings]

Wherever the faeries are, they must take huggles to Argenta. She needs them to repair her wings. If any faeries happen to read this, they should take ::5 cases (or more) into the Middle Kingdom, and give them to Argenta (the new one, who's never made a flight). Also, they should take a case to each ::of the love pixies; that should get rid of the excess huggles that this forum is unable to deal with."^[6]

"I have a pre-order on limited-edition new-initiate faerie huggles... perhaps that will arrive this weekend, in time for the June rollout. I promised ::a major end seller that I would have 5 new varieties in time for the June sale... I've dropped some overstock into this thread, and looked for how it ::would work... Italian huggles are a mainstay (as Joia demonstrated on her birthday), but I needed to find others (like the Cypriot huggles, the ::Swedish huggles from H.M. King Carl XVI Gustaf, and the American-made San Francisco-bottled microbrew hapa huggles) to keep our more discriminating ::buyers happy. The faerie huggles had better arrive...

Oh shit, the faeries are delivering them right now!! And Argenta made her first flight!"^[7]

la Rose has not replied to Gutierrez's inquiry on the forums about these allegedly odd comments.

That Gutierrez would erode the integrity of ASFAR's governing rules and bylaws by setting them aside when he deems it proper. Gutierrez has stressed that he believes that there is at times a detachment between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, a claim that la Rose flatly denied, insisting that the spirit of the law was always dependent on the letter of the law. At the March 17 meeting, Gutierrez stated that "there would be slight deviations where clearly appropriate," which la Rose claimed could prevent ASFAR from maintaining a "governance of laws and not of people" that he stated that was emblematic of legitimate democracy, describing the alternative as a degeneration into mob rule where the mood of the majority in the moment rules ASFAR and determines members' rights and the ability or inability of the minority to be heard. Gutierrez has countered that this claim is a ploy to utilize obscure parliamentary technicalities to stall and obstruct overwhelming majorities, thereby undermining the spirit of the law.

That the April 21 meeting was stacked against la Rose from the moment it reconvened after the crash, in that some of ASFAR members' frustration about the crash and the steps involved in recovering from it may have transferred over to him, and in that the crash had eroded members' patience enough to allow la Rose to be silenced in the name of clearing obstructions, thus preventing him from pleading the rest of the case he had planned. la Rose claimed that if he had the opportunity to plead his full case in an orderly environment, the vote on his removal would have been less than two-thirds favorable, and he would thus have survived to the nomination phase, on which the debate could take hours, necessitating its postponement (Gutierrez has claimed that this admission also reflects an intent to stall and obstruct ASFAR affairs even further). Gutierrez has stated that the meeting could have theoretically progressed in la Rose's absence, but that he went to extensive measures to ensure that la Rose could attend, asking that the meeting not be re-started until he was present.

Post-April 2009 Developments

After his removal from the Board of Directors, la Rose claimed that he would sue ASFAR and Gutierrez in his individual capacity to force the removal of Gutierrez and Rottnek from the Board. He immediately removed the access of ASFAR web team members from the website in order to ensure that there would not be interference with his claim to be president of ASFAR. In response to this, the Board passed a motion indefinitely suspending la Rose's membership until he abandoned his claim to be president of ASFAR and returned control of the website and other online assets of ASFAR to the Board.

la Rose then returned to a May 4, 2009 meeting of the general membership, again asserting that he was the president of ASFAR and claiming that the gathered assembly was merely an informal one. The members present apparently chose not to argue with him for a time, but Gutierrez stated to la Rose that he was "not a voting member" when he attempted to cast a vote on the issue. la Rose responded that he was the president of ASFAR and had "the right to preside," which Gutierrez responded to by threatening him with forcible removal from the meeting. la Rose seemed angered and demanded to know what force Gutierrez "presumed to use." He was then removed from the chatroom by the host, Susan Wishnetsky. la Rose expressed anger at this, claiming that his rights as a voting member had been violated. Gutierrez then prohibited la Rose from attending future ASFAR meetings.

Some time after that, Susan Wishnetsky was able to retrieve her login information for the domain www.asfar.org, as she was registered as the billing contact. This was used by Max Harmony to restore control of the website to Gutierrez and the Board of Directors, with la Rose dubbing this group "the Gutierrez faction," a title that somewhat matched his earlier reference to "Julian Gutierrez and his clique." la Rose then hosted his separate website on www.youthliberation.org, claiming that this was what he had wanted initially anyway.

Near the end of the year, in November, la Rose claimed that his Facebook account had been "hacked" on November 12 and immediately alleged that Gutierrez was responsible and that he was suing him for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Gutierrez denied responsibility, and la Rose then claimed that Harmony was responsible, and that he was seeking criminal prosecution against him for extortion. He then claimed to have contacted the Tallahassee Police Department and gotten Harmony imprisoned in Leon County Jail, though this is not confirmed and apparently not regarded as true.

References