From the LNC-Business list. Notice of LNC ExCom Meeting Monday 8/14 8:30 Eastern
Angela McCardle wrote: I’m calling for an excom meeting Monday evening to discuss potential legal issues and political strategy. This is a no vote, discussion only meeting, to take place in executive session. Our attorney is invited to attend.
and then
I was just given notice of the following item of business:
The appointment of an investigatory committee regarding preferral of charges for allegations of violations of confidentiality by an LNC member to meet immediately prior to the Saturday portion of the LNC Meeting in DC and report back to the LNC as the first item of business.
This means there will be a vote at the meeting. It will not be a discussion only meeting.
Readers might suspect that the topic of investigation is the two leaked “State Chair Blasts…” memoranda we recently posted here. IPR always protects its sources. In past decades I published several newsletters which featured news from the LNC. With great regularity, someone was accused of being the leaker. With equal regularity, the guesses were wrong.
Mr. Burke, I do agree that these matters should be in executive session when done by the LNC.
This was Executive Committee, of which Duque is not a member, appointing people to a committee that will report to the LNC (though the LNC can decline to hear the report). It will effectively be a communication from another body.
The language is actually not appropriate. RONR says that in the formation of a disciplinary committee, neither the name of the subject nor the potential charges be made public.
Mr. Duque has the right to know that there is an investigation, and what it’s about but the rest of us do not. That rule is to prevent the sullying of his good name.
Thank you for confirming my memory that there was a complicated process. First the committee must be formed. Then it must investigate. Then it must decide what if anything it will recommend as charges and write the language. Then it must present. Ms. Harlos’ motion could be misread as implying as skipping the investigate and decide steps.
George Phillies, that is incorrect.
The appointment of the committee is instructed to investigate and then recommend the preferral of charges or not. Robert’s refers to “resolutions covering the situation,” but those would be the charges. The language is appropriate.
Note that the LNC does not have to follow the recommendation of the committee.
For this sort of motion, Roberts has an involved process involving hearings, etc. Saying ‘preferral of charges’ before you have examined the evidence seems irregular, something more typically is assigned to a lynch mob than to a committee.
From that lnc business thread
“to lnc-bu…@lp.org, Angela McArdle
Would this be in regards to you, Ms. McArdle, and other LNC members repeatedly and continuously throughout our term breaking confidentiality in your dealings with Michael Heise, Mises PAC, and others outside of this board? There should definitely be investigation into that and I am in support. Once place where I would start would be to investigate the Mises Caucus Discord server, where select LNC members had a channel named #lnc-2022 (which Michael Heise had access to) that they used heavily from about May of 2022 through April 2023, but someone else would have to look into that as I no longer have access.
Miguel Duque, R1 Rep”