Libertarian Party Transparency Caucus debate

Members of the Libertarian Party Transparency Caucus are debating the controversy between chair Bill Redpath and Political Director Sean Haugh.

West Virginia LP chair Matt Harris writes,

I think we need to issue a release in support of Bill Redpath. A big part of Haugh’s assault was that Redpath chose to deal with the Keaton matter openly and in public. Bill Redpath should be commended for that. Instead, both Redpath personally, and the very notion of transparency within the LNC, were attacked by Haugh in his post.

Haugh wrote,

Redpath allowed Flood to air his charges in an open meeting,…..Redpath had other options to take prompt and necessary steps to investigate the matter, but instead chose to hold the
hearing in open session in the most divisive way imaginable. Indeed, one such option, to create a reconciliation subcommittee of the LNC, was proposed by Vice Chair Mike Jingozian and approved as the method of formal resolution to this matter by the LNC.”

LPTC founder George Donnelly fired back with the following suggestion (not currently an official position of the caucus):

Whereas the LP Transparency Caucus wants a Libertarian Party where secrecy and mistrust have been banished because members have free, timely access to information on the administration of the party;

Whereas accomplishing this goal sometimes requires that individuals make tough decisions to come forward when none others dare; and

Whereas LP Political Director and member Sean Haugh has recently released previously unknown details of sexual harassment allegations involving a former Libertarian National Committee member and current Parliamentarian: now therefore, be it

Resolved, the LP Transparency Caucus applauds Mr Haugh for bringing these allegations to light.

32 thoughts on “Libertarian Party Transparency Caucus debate

  1. paulie cannoli Post author

    I’ll be offline today. Those of you who have my number are welcome to call me. It’s also on my facebook if we are friends on there. Signing off.

  2. George Donnelly

    I’m just a member. I’m not the founder any more than any of the other first 25 members are.

    Before this goes any further, I posted that resolution just for fun. I don’t expect the caucus to speak either way on this.

  3. Catholic Trotskyist

    My opinions are not well known, it is that I am running for the LNC, and I will be taking over the Libertarian Party as it crashes in flames. Paulie, you will be relieved to know I will not be calling you. I will be praying for the king of holy corruption, Milorad Blajgojevich, that he may be able to spread the glory of the obama revolution and the greatness of Catholic Trotskyism, amen.

  4. JimDavidson

    I applaud bringing information to the light of day. If it makes M Carling look like a goof, so much the better.

    I see no reason to praise Redpath, and few things about Haugh to like.

  5. paulie cannoli Post author

    I’m not the founder any more than any of the other first 25 members are.

    None of the other 25 members (sounds like we made progress while I was offline today) had the idea, named the caucus, created the website or either of the yahoo groups or wrote either of the first two resolutions to pass (or any – unless something happened today that I have not caught up on yet). None of the other members proposed governing rules, except Matt, and my understanding is that you decided that his proposal was not specific enough to count as a proposal, and thus that your proposal is in effect. Therefore, I stand by the description.


    Before this goes any further, I posted that resolution just for fun. I don’t expect the caucus to speak either way on this.

    Fair enough. However, if you throw out any resolutions in the future, consider the possibility that other people may take them more seriously than you do, and actually pass them.

  6. paulie cannoli Post author


    I applaud bringing information to the light of day. If it makes M Carling look like a goof, so much the better.

    I see no reason to praise Redpath, and few things about Haugh to like.

    Redpath had the charges against Keaton aired openly, which allowed us to do the broadcast of the presentation and gallery reaction, rather than having a secret trial behind closed doors, as Haugh would have liked. So, there is at least one thing to praise Redpath for. Being, personally, a competent ballot access manager (when he does so himself, unlike this year) and hard working volunteer petitioner are two others.

    Haugh worked for the cause of openness with his blogging of the ongoings in a past LNC term which was even more secretive than the present one, and airing the charges in his Liberty For All article was a form of whistleblowing IF what he writes is accurate. Unfortunately, I have personal experience with him writing and saying things which are inaccurate, so I can’t take it as unimpeachable. At the same time, in the very same article he spoke against openness by saying the Keaton affair should have been handled behind closed doors.

    He also worked against openness in my case. His stated chief reason why I am not on his list of approved contractors was because I aired, or was in some case presumed by him to have been the one who have aired (he is quite prone to jumping to conclusions), details of 2008 ballot access mismanagement. He also said at the same time that he was not allowed by HQ policy to comment about party controversies on blogs. Has the policy changed, did it never exist, or has he just violated it in a major way?

    Also, the article at LFA by Haugh, and the poll about whether more US troops should be sent to Afghanistan (and quasi-burying of LNC resolution calling for withdrawing the troops already there), fits into a pattern which indicates HQ is running the party more than the LNC is. In fact, one former staffer told me today that the chair can not fire Haugh or any staffers except for the executive director – only the executive director can fire his staff. However, he was not sure how this applies at present since Kraus is only “acting ED.”

  7. Michael Seebeck

    Paulie, the open airing of the charges was not due to Redpath. Remember it was asked repeatedly by several LNC members to drop the whole thing, and he refused to do so.

    Open airing was actually a strategy of The Keaton, who had decided in advance that if they tried to air the stuff in ES she would waive all confidentiality in order to have it all in the open. She knew at that point that I was going to either tape (definitely) or broadcast (possibly) the whole thing, and it most likely helped her make that decision. Haugh had nothing to do with it. The Keaton’s decision was part of the reason I decided to try to broadcast the whole thing live rather than just record it, and also a key to torpedoing the whole thing along the way. The rest of the reason I decided to take it to the airwaves was to make a point to the LNC about their priority problems and the state of unhappiness of the membership. The LPTC was a beneficiary of it, which is great, but even if it wasn’t for Floodgate, I would have done the same thing anyway–Floodgate was just the thing that clinched it.

  8. paulie cannoli Post author

    Paulie, the open airing of the charges was not due to Redpath. Remember it was asked repeatedly by several LNC members to drop the whole thing, and he refused to do so.

    Open airing was actually a strategy of The Keaton, who had decided in advance that if they tried to air the stuff in ES she would waive all confidentiality in order to have it all in the open. She knew at that point that I was going to either tape (definitely) or broadcast (possibly) the whole thing, and it most likely helped her make that decision.

    You may well be correct that Redpath had little to do with, but see where I quote Haugh in the article we are commenting on – he faults Redpath for allowing it to be on the agenda, rather than behind closed doors (not even ES), which is his stated preferred suggestion.

    The LPTC was a beneficiary of it, which is great, but even if it wasn’t for Floodgate, I would have done the same thing anyway–Floodgate was just the thing that clinched it.

    And here some people thought Stewart’s charges were totally without benefit. He’s actually a brilliant and hard working mole for the other side 😛

  9. JimDavidson

    @6 I like people to bring information to the light of day. Even unlikable, disreputable people can, at times, do something right. Like those old style analog clox. Stopped, they still told the right time twice a day.

  10. JimDavidson

    @8 “…secret trial behind closed doors, as Haugh would have liked.”

    I think Flood is meant where Haugh is named?

  11. George Donnelly

    – I was not the only one who liked the name. You already know this Paul.

    – Just bc I create a website does not make me “founder”. Website creators/maintainers are usually called webmasters.

    – resolution writer does not mean the same thing as founder.

    – everyone who has registered so far has the privileges necessary to edit all aspects of the website.

    I’m constantly amazed at how people around here play fast and loose with the facts and just itch to tear good things down for no reason at all.

    For the record, I personally applaud Sean Haugh for writing that article. I do think it is something the Transparency Caucus would do well to endorse, however I recognize that certain persons in the caucus do not want that to happen because they have other bones to pick with Mr Haugh.

    So if it passes, I’m fine and dandy with it. But I won’t be starting a poll on it.

    libertarian barracudas: it’s dinner time!

  12. paulie cannoli Post author

    I was not the only one who liked the name. You already know this Paul.

    I didn’t say you were. However, ultimately you picked the name, since you created the website and said the poll was not overwhelming enough to make you change your mind. I don’t want to revisit that discussion, though, as it is a distraction.

    Just bc I create a website does not make me “founder”. Website creators/maintainers are usually called webmasters.

    Yes, if that was all you did, then I would say correct. However it was part of a total list of actions which I think amount to you legitimately being called the founder. I’m not sure why you do not want to take credit for it. You had a good idea and made it happen. You got other people involved, including me. That is good.

    resolution writer does not mean the same thing as founder.

    I realize that. But given that you also created the website and yahoo groups, proposed and ultimately decided on the caucus name, wrote both of the resolutions that passed so far, proposed the rules for decision making that are in effect and decided that the only other proposal was not detailed enough to consider, make it a piece of evidence toward my claim that you are the founder.

    everyone who has registered so far has the privileges necessary to edit all aspects of the website.

    Correct.

    For the record, I personally applaud Sean Haugh for writing that article. I do think it is something the Transparency Caucus would do well to endorse, however I recognize that certain persons in the caucus do not want that to happen because they have other bones to pick with Mr Haugh.

    Not at all. I made a real argument against this, as did Matt. Your only response to that argument thus far has been that the charges against Angela were bogus – but that is not a transparency argument. The transparency argument is in favor of airing charges openly, whether bogus or not, not behind close doors as Haugh proposes in his article.

    It’s true that I have another bone to pick with Haugh – although Matt doesn’t, as far as I know. My other bone with Haugh also revolves around the issue of openness, which Haugh in that case is standing in the way of. But, the existence of that other bone does not invalidate the straight-up, factual argument that Haugh argues against openness, and for secret hearings, in a portion of his article.

    I did also acknowledge that he is serving the cause of openness in other parts of this article, though – and that is not taking a position one way or the other on whether his charges against Carling are true.

  13. LibertarianGirl

    I believe founder comes from the fact that you were one of the few people who founded the group. paulie , Jim , Rachel ,myself would also be considered ‘founding members’ no?

  14. paulie cannoli Post author

    Yes, to varying extents. Also Harris and M. Seebeck, and others. I only see 20 endorsers at LPTC – is 25 a combination of those and everyone who signed up for the yahoo groups?

  15. Michael Seebeck

    Easy, folks. Who founded what and such doesn’t really matter. George is the webmaster because he put up and runs the page. The rest of it is just words, so let’s keep the focus on the mission, OK? 🙂

    Haugh wanted it in ES for his own reasons, and I speculate it was to unload on the things mentioned in his article and more, but I don’t know. In any case, Redpath controlled setting the agenda, and he could have exercised good discretion and taken it off but didn’t, so Keaton dropped a trump on his play and it all wound up in open session.

  16. paulie cannoli Post author

    The rest of it is just words, so let’s keep the focus on the mission, OK?

    OK.

    Haugh wanted it in ES for his own reasons

    He states at least one of those in the article. It is at variance with the caucus mission.

  17. Gene Trosper

    libertarian barracudas: it’s dinner time!

    That would make a great tshirt slogan for the next national convention. LOL

  18. George Donnelly

    I already stated elsewhere i don’t want to distinguish between founding and other members or officers and members or any of that kind of stuff.

    If other people want to call themselves founding members, that is up to them. If you want to call me “the founder” that is up to you. I for one reject the title.

  19. JimDavidson

    @24 A way around this “the founder” issue is to use the term “co-founder.”

    There does seem to have been a set of people involved at the inception. Only one had the commitment to register a domain name and put up a web site, which I reference in my TLE article (see 25).

  20. JimDavidson

    @26 By which I mean “some co-founders are more equal than others.” And, praise to George for quick action on an important matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *