The Libertarian National Committee will meet this month to consider disciplinary action against Caryn Ann Harlos, the party’s National Secretary. This move follows a recent decision by the party’s Judicial Committee to reinstate Harlos to her position.
“Hello everyone, I am giving notice of a special LNC meeting on January 26, 2025 at 7:00pm est via Zoom to consider disciplinary action against the Secretary, Caryn Ann Harlos, and any related motions,” Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle posted to the Public Business List over the weekend.
The Libertarian National Committee Judicial Committee recently overturned Harlos’ suspension by a 6-1 vote. Harlos’ appeal, heard back in December, contested her suspension after being found guilty of charges including “Gross Misconduct in Office” and “Conduct That Disturbs the Well-Being of the Libertarian Party.”
“The Libertarian Judicial Committee affirms its prior veto and declaration as null and void each of the LNC’s decisions subject of the appeal in Phillies vs. LNC, and orders the immediate reinstatement of Caryn Ann Harlos to the position of Secretary with full duty and rights of the elected position,” reads a summary produced by the Judicial Committee that has since been shared by Third Party Watch.
While a majority of Judicial Committee members voted to overturn the suspension, its decision included several different opinions. Judicial Committee member Blay Tarnoff authored the majority opinion, joined by Stephan Kinsella and Rob Stratton, which emphasized that the Libertarian National Committee’s charges were procedurally invalid, stating, “No charges means no valid trial, which means no valid conviction, which means no valid vote to suspend.”
Member Rob Latham authored a concurring opinion, joined by Marc Montoni, focusing on due process and the failure to meet the standards of “gross malfeasance.” Both Latham and Montoni concurred in the order to reinstate Caryn Ann Harlos to the position of Secretary only. Member Mike Seebeck, in a standalone opinion, criticized the investigatory committee and trial procedures for failing to adhere to party rules and Robert’s Rules of Order, highlighting the use of executive sessions, conflicts of interest among committee members, and broader deficiencies in the Libertarian National Committee’s approach to due process.
Meanwhile, the sole dissenting opinion by Judicial Committee Chair Ken Krawchuk argued that the Judicial Committee should not be bound by precedent established in Phillies v. Libertarian National Committee, a prior case that nullified related charges. Krawchuk contended that the committee had the authority to consider the case de novo and could have affirmed Harlos’ suspension independently of the procedural deficiencies, citing the potential for a different interpretation of the case.
Editorial note: Further information explaining the opinions of Judicial Committee members was added at 12:00 PM EST following the article’s initial publication.
(Sorry, a smiley emoticon was replaced with a question mark there. Dunno why. Must be a WordPress thing.)
No worries, Jordan. ?
“Seebeck […] criticized the investigatory committee and trial procedures for […] conflicts of interest among committee members”
The sheer amount of irony and hypocrisy contained in that fragmented sentence alone… He should have recused himself, or failing that been suspended from voting and from issuing his opinion in the capacity of JC member.
“My opinion said far more than that, however.”
Indeed (#1): generous Jordan has spared you a great deal of humiliation in front of anyone who does not follow the link. Given your actual opinion, you should be extremely grateful for being portrayed in such a charitable light.
“You, along with every other member who shared an opinion, touched on many points with various degrees of detail, […] Readers are encouraged to check out the full collection of opinions linked above to get the complete picture!”
Indeed (#2): based Krawchuk is based. I like how he subtly points out the statist saboteurs which have infiltrated party offices and keep trying to shanghai and subjugate the party that claims to be libertarian…
A lot more can be said, but the short and the long of it does boil down to the brass tacks:
1) The Secretary shall perform such duties as are assigned by the Chair or the National Committee.
2) The Secretary may be removed from office for failure to perform the duties of office or for gross malfeasance.
3) The Chair assigned the Secretary the duties to cease going behind the LPCO’s back, to cease threatening the LPCO and its individual board members, to cease her constant insubordination against the chair, and to cease trying to stir up trouble by feeding false and defamatory rumors to the press.
4) The Secretary failed to even make any attempt at fulfilling those duties AND demonstrated gross malfeasance besides.
5) Thus it is not only the National Committee’s prerogative, but also their responsibility and duty to remove the Secretary AND all co-conspirators – including in particular those who are members of the National Committee and of the Judicial Committee.
I would nominate Krawchuk for next LP chair, except that I’m not, have never been, nor will ever be part of that embarrassing circus. I previously said I follow LP news the same way people watch sports; I must have mispoken: I observe LP events unfold in the same way people watch fail compilations.
“It’s obvious the Judicial Committee is in the pockets of CAH and Nick Sarwark and thus should be investigated for corruption and gross misconduct.”
Indeed (#3): they’ve made it so abundantly clear again and again, that there is hardly anything to investigate. With the sole exception of Krawchuk, they need to be suspended from all party offices and stripped of their party membership – no taksies backsies – along with CAH and Sarwark.
It’s obvious the Judicial Committee is in the pockets of CAH and Nick Sarwark and thus should be investigated for corruption and gross misconduct.
Hi Mike, thank you for commenting. I didn’t mean to oversimplify your words. You, along with every other member who shared an opinion, touched on many points with various degrees of detail, and what I’ve summarized above is only meant to offer a brief glimpse of that. Readers are encouraged to check out the full collection of opinions linked above to get the complete picture!
Member Mike Seebeck, in a standalone opinion, criticized the investigatory committee and trial procedures for failing to adhere to party rules and Robert’s Rules of Order.
My opinion said far more than that, however.