LNC Debates Basic Policy
Recently, the LNC has debated recent outcomes of the new board’s policies. The starting point was one of LNC Regional Representative Mark Tuniewicz’s uncommon posts on Facebook, which follows:
To provide some clarity….most on the LNC in the mid 90’s to 2000 were not “woke,” as it’s currently interpreted. They were generally successful businesspeople and professionals, full-throated, big-L Libertarians who moved the party forward by cooperating to get more public officers, more revenue, more staffing and more outreach, members & positive media coverage. Those things led to the Party being its most successful, by far.
The decline in membership we see today is due in large measure to poor leadership execution nationally, unprecedented resulting staff and LNC turnover, and internal dysfunction that allows nothing to get accomplished that moves the needle. The truth is, “The Takeover has Failed.” I’ll add to that by saying once again that we, as a National Committee, are collectively responsible for that failure….I certainly include myself in that….and I urge anyone with a different opinion to cite the metrics that prove me wrong in terms of fundraising, membership, quality of training, staffing levels, traditional media mentions and overall organizational acumen. Growth in twitter followers has proven inconsequential to accomplishing any of our goals–certainly hasn’t led to better press, fundraising, more candidates, votes, etc.
And suing our fellow Libertarians? Well, IMO it’s chilled contributions nationally.
Are people trying hard and working hard? Sure, and I can appreciate those efforts, while understanding that failure is still failure, and real leadership acknowledges it. I’ll continue to work hard as a resource to the 9 states in my Region, but with just 8 short months left before the next National Convention, it’s hard to envision a scenario in which this LNC doesn’t have the WORST performance track record of ANY of it’s predecessors over the last 20 years in terms of our desired, measurable outcomes. And that saddens me. It’s a dark time for liberty, and the Libertarian Party.
Marcos Tuniewicz, September 30, 2023. https://www.facebook.com/groups/254985825071721/posts/1447478145822477/
[Editor’s note: GP: Paragraphing inserted for clarity. JWE: Quotation blocks and citations added for additional clarity.]
Tuniewicz followed this with a post on the LNC public list. On Oct 4, 2023, 7:45:40 PM he wrote:
Folks,
I got a couple of upset emails from members of the LNC about a rare social media post of mine in one of the uncensored LP delegate groups. Anyone reading it certainly sensed my frustration with our progress on the LNC.
I just wanted to say…..there’s nothing ugly or dishonest about speaking the truth. Truth to power, I believe, is the expression. I’ve got nothing personal against the chair, have not sought to humiliate her or anyone else. Our lack of results is what this is about. Metrics matter. IMO most of ours are bad. And there has been zero refutation of anything I wrote in that one, solitary post.
Publicly acknowledging failures is something that mature organizations do. It’s something that we as leaders can and should do. It’s not an insult to acknowledge reality.
Our members are wise enough to know things have been going poorly over much of this term, notwithstanding some recent fundraising wins…which I was glad to hear about. A couple of months hitting six figures would be nice, but it’s by no means cause for celebration, when you look at our recent 26% budget cuts for 2023, and our upcoming ballot access needs. It’s not all rainbows and unicorns out there.
And there are storm clouds still ahead…..in our last Region 6 Roundtable video meeting, multiple states reported that, while contacting members for renewals, they were having difficulty overcoming member objections to renewing related both to the MC takeover and to changes in the platform made (abortion, bigotry) at the last convention.
My Alternate Mr. Redpath and I are gave some verbal examples and will provide some written talking points to help them overcome those objections. But these are unforced errors, friends. Organizationally, they keep us from attaining much, much more. They are unnecessary barriers to our success, which I believe in part are reflected in our declining membership stats.
Personally, I hope everyone on the LNC and elsewhere realizes you can be both completely committed to seeing an organization have success, while at the same time being concerned about how things have been going. They are two sides of the same coin.
I haven’t been a life member since ’94 for nothing, haven’t served on 5 state boards just for the fun of it, haven’t worked so hard during my tenure in my native New Hampshire and much more… and now I have to spend time helping the 9 states in my region rebound from the ill effects felt throughout the Region (and I suspect, the Party) since Reno?
That’s not an insult. It’s just the truth.
With best wishes,
Mark Tuniewicz (“tune-YEV-ich”)
Mark Tuniewicz, Oct 4, 2023, 7:45:40 PM
Region 6 Representative
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
LNC Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos responded:
I’m sure those LNC members love you using a private communication to posture as you continually do.
Please don’t respond. I’m not your prop.
LNC At-Large Member Adrian F Malagon responded:
Mr. Tuniewicz,
There is nothing noble about your constant negativity, half-truths or need to grandstand.
I’ve done more in my short time on this Board than you have this entire term because I would rather spend my time being productive than bitching in toxic echo chambers.
I’ll say to you here what I said to you privately: the greatest value you could provide your Region and this Board is a resignation. You’re an embarrassment.
(Don’t bother replying to me either. As the token diversity hire, I reserve the right to consider any snarky remark you’re itching to give, racist.)
LNC Chair McArdle tried to calm the waters, writing simply:
Folks.
LNC Member Meredith Hays wrote:
Hello all,
I know I’m new to the board, but I do have a lot of experience with fiduciary duties, and I think those are something everyone could use a refresher in learning. “Speaking truth to power” on a public-facing forum is not something I would expect from a fiduciary, and I don’t mean to pick on you Mr. Tuniewicz.
I’ve spoken to the Chair about doing this, and I hope to have something for you all soon.
LNC Member Kathy Yeniscavich wrote:
Mr. Tuniewicz,
Related to your condescending statement on “unforced errors” (Reno reset, changes to the platform in abortion and bigotry) – these were changes made by the delegates in Reno. The LNC carries out the will of the delegates and we were all elected to do so. The delegates to the upcoming convention will be the ones to determine whether these changes were in error and, if so, act accordingly.
LNC Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I just popping in as I see something of concern. I have a huge issue with how Mr. Tuniewicz has grandstanded etc, but I will be opposed to any attempt to control what anyone says on their personal account if they are not violating confidentiality. That was abused badly last term to shut me up over COVID and New Hampshire. People can say what they wish and the rest of the Board can respond through private action as I have by blocking Mr. Tuniewicz. But it is a dangerous precedent to say people cannot talk. They then have to bear the consequence of other LNC members not liking them very much. I will never support anything that lays the groundwork for what the LNC unjustly did to me last term. I can hate Mr. Tuniewicz’ actions but that his Region’s to deal with and if they think he can be effective representing them when he has alienated most of the LNC.
{Editor’s note: edited slightly as per her later request}
LNC Member Meredith Hays wrote:
Of course someone can speak out, as long as they are not violating confidentiality or exposing board secrets, but as I said, I would not expect someone to do something like that while they are supposed to be acting within the best interests of the organization. I should clarify that I did not see the post in question, as Facebook is goofy.
[Editor’s note: Several seemingly off-topic one-line posts omitted]
LNC Member Mike Rufo wrote:
Mr. Tuniewicz,
For 16 months, you have spoken down to everybody on this board, and I’m not speaking to your physical height. Your elitist, condescending tone is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the politcal class and those of our party that wish to share the table of power rather than flip it, light it on fire, and spit on its ashes.
The “take over” that you lament has happened, it will continue, and in the long run will be more successful than imaginable.
We came into this term knowing changes were needed and requested by the delegates. With change sometimes comes set back. Fortunately, when one has their plan and sticks to it, those set backs are almost always temporary. The recent success that you wish to downplay is a sign that we may be turning the corner and is cause for celebration. May we all be grateful and work together to ensure continued success.
We will not be going backwards; we will only go forward. You can either be a productive and supportive member or continue to be the negative, manipulative, and condescending presence you have been thus far.
Your response isn’t needed because at this point your opinion no longer holds any value.
If they really wanted to fix CiviCRM which it seems there’s too much discord to do, what you do is take the screwed up databases from the smallest membership states, that way you have a defined small finite data set to work with. Fix that, figure out the best methods, then work your way up from there. And I’m sure someone is reading this and saying “you’re an idiot” but when nothing ever gets shared publicly and instead sits behind Executive Session, all a person can do is view what they can from the outside, and blaming CiviCRM for all failings of the party’s membership data management is She Doth Protests Too Much territory. CiviCRM works great in my state according to our Chair. We also have an IT person that volunteers to handle that stuff.
Complaining about the database to me is laughable. My jobs over my 19 to 20 years in the workforce I’ve heavily done product data management. Databases are all about quality of the data entered. When you do software changes, nothing is ever 100% right. You still have all the errors of the old database, plus a whole other slew of new errors added on top of it. It requires human hands to analyze the data and fix the errors. So if they get rid of CiviCRM (which I’ve only had a couple problems I was able to work through in my limited use of it) and get new database management software, it doesn’t automatically fix all the problems they’re having and will probably create new ones.
The current iteration of the LNC has done a pretty good job distancing themselves from the idea of observable metrics. ‘Funding is off because of database issues’, ‘membership isn’t really trackable because we’re working on data migration’, ‘counting elected libertarians is less important because our new goal is helping elect Republicans who are more in line with our beliefs than their party’s average’, etc. Tuniewicz’s observations seem like attempt to return to the idea of being able to make success/failure assessments.
They need to burn Tuniewicz at the stake for that betrayal. It’s what their forefathers in the Bolsheviks would have done.
Alternatively, if the number of twitter followers mattered, Trump would be President.
“Growth in twitter followers has proven inconsequential to accomplishing any of our goals–certainly hasn’t led to better press, fundraising, more candidates, votes, etc.”
The WWE (WWF if your knowledge of pro wrestling never went into the 21st century) forever on every one of their quarterly reports for Wall Street would comment on their social media with stuff like how “they had more Twitter followers than the NFL” for example, which they did. All this in an era when their TV viewership was declining 10% year over year (they’re doing relatively well now, but from 2001 to 2019 they’d lost something like 80% of their TV audience from what WWF and WCW would get combined).
So if their social media was such they were larger than the NFL and yet the NFL was massively larger than them as far as attendance, TV ratings, all while theirs got smaller, what did the social media numbers mean?
If social media was everything when it came to politics, Jagmeet Singh would be the Prime Minister of Canada because the guy is all about Tik Tok.
Tuniewicz is a joke and should resign immediately. He adds nothing to the board.
Tuniewicz is basically right. There is a serious lack of professionalism in the LNC that has nothing intrinsic to do with ideology. It simply has to do with the fact that unserious, unorganized, unstrategic people are in charge.
I don’t even put most of this blame on McArdle. I actually think she’s in over her head and trying to stay above water, but she was put into a role she was unqualified for and the expectations of people around her make it difficult. I actually feel sorry for her. She doesn’t look healthy, either. The best thing for the LNC and for her personally would be to step back and not run for re-election (though whoever takes her place may be someone worse than simply being ineffective).
Most of what you need to know about this LNC can be seen by reading the public business e-mail list and watching what they say on social media.
Watkins – it’s not even clear what he’s doing for the party or why he’s qualified to be there or run anything, let alone be VC. He just pops in once in a while to make a quip. Where’s the actual work product other than him warming a seat?
Harlos – sure, she does a lot of volunteer work for the party, but it’s self-imposed. You can’t put all that on yourself and then claim to be a victim. Also, the drama is palpable and follows her wherever she goes, because she’s the source for a lot of it. She says “I’m not your prop” here but goes out of her way to make herself a prop and inserts herself obnoxiously and confidently into countless situations. Again, another person clearly not in a healthy state, and the best thing for the party and her own wellbeing is that she step away.
Hagopian – smart and professional. No objection here. Seems to be trying to do his best in a bad situation.
Malagon – a complete joke. The fact that he got made at-large instead of a distinguished, experienced leader like Redpath (who I disagree with often), just so a certain board fraction could give themselves an extra vote, is a disgrace. Again, just look at the LNC business e-mail list and how he behaves towards others. And that’s to say nothing of the complete delusions of grandeur evident in the excerpts above. Professionally he claims to be a sales recruiter. If he wants to actually do something productive, he should go “recruit” some donors. Until then, he’s just blowing air to inflate his own ego.
As for the rest, a few good people trying to do the best they can, and a lot of people obviously in way over their heads. Professional board members don’t cast votes in meme form and curse on public lists. This is one of the most comically-dysfunctional organizations I’ve ever seen. The Classical Liberal Caucus doesn’t even need to do anything to be a threat to them because they are self-destructing.
And I say all this as a member of the Mises Caucus. I wish it were different.
As far as I can see, Mr. Tuniewicz is the first member of the LNC to take his fiduciary duty to The Libertarian Party seriously. The Libertarian Party is in real decline because of the actions of the LNC and the “M” Caucus (old movie buffs will recognize “M”), and it is the duty of activists and leading members to point out the problems that have caused a decline in party membership and support.
Some might call the responses by other LNC members “petulant” but I am not sure they reach that level of sophistication..
It is rich that LNC members say he has a fiduciary responsibility to refrain from criticizing the direction the LNC has taken. These same people have supported litigation in government courts to deal with elected leaderships of the Libertarian Parties in several states.
Responses to Mr. Tuniewicz’s post are a bunch of non-rebuttal rebuttals.
They’ll question your loyalties, your motives, your parentage…
…but the core facts never get refuted.
“Shut up,” they explained.
“Please don’t respond. I’m not your prop.”
“Don’t bother replying to me either.”
“Your response isn’t needed”
Probably not coincidence that these responses come from some of the people who might have benefited most (if the criterion was the good of the party) by taking Mr. Tuniewicz’s initial remarks to heart.
I expected the replies to be obnoxious. That’s the MC only method of communication. But, I didn’t think they would still be so delusional. Fixing CiviCRM will only help so much. The party is clearly shrinking and it’s their fault.