The Libertarian National Committee is voting on whether to dissolve an earlier investigatory committee formed to examine misconduct allegations against former Chair Angela McArdle. The committee, established before McArdle’s resignation, is being considered as “moot” by those members who are seeking to discharge it.
The motion, published this week on the public Business List, is sponsored by Travis Bost, Caryn Ann Harlos, Meredith Hays, and Adrian Malagon. As of this article, 11 national committee members have voted in favor, while the remainder have yet to cast their votes. The ballot will run through next Monday and a simple majority is required for passage.
The full language of the motion as presented states:
To discharge the Investigatory Committee created to investigate the allegations of malfeasance against former Chair Angela McArdle as moot due to resignation of Ms. McArdle and subsequent appointment of special investigation committee
Independent Political Report has learned through a member of the committee that the Investigatory Committee was initially intended as a prelude to removal and that McArdle’s resignation rendered it moot. The member clarified that a discharge does not dismiss the allegations against McArdle and others, but instead transfers them to a recently-created Special Investigatory Committee, which is tasked with broader authority and is seen as a more applicable focus for the purpose of the investigation.
Last month, the Libertarian National Committee voted 14-0, with two members abstaining, to establish the initial Investigatory Committee to examine allegations of misconduct against McArdle.
The allegations involved an undisclosed connection between McArdle’s domestic partner and Freedom Calls LLC, a voter outreach company used by the party during the 2024 cycle. Additionally, McArdle and her partner were accused of creating multiple corporations to leverage their positions within the Libertarian Party for self-dealing, allegedly promoting outside candidates in exchange for financial gain and access. A motion to establish the committee stated that, if substantiated, these allegations could have cast doubt on McArdle’s ability to remain in office.
Members appointed to that committee included Meredith Hays, Paul Darr, Bill Redpath, Andrew Chadderdon, and Steven Nekhaila. At the time of their appointment, neither Nekhaila nor Darr held leadership positions.
Editorial note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly misspelled Meredith Hays as “Meridith Hayes.” This article has also been changed to further explain the allegations being made against McArdle.
Voting on the motion to discharge the initial Investigatory Committee will close later today. Thirteen members have voted in favor, while four others have yet to cast their votes.
The process in place requires an Investigatory Committee to be appointed as the first step in a disciplinary process; its purpose is, ultimately, to remove the person from office . It is analogous to a grand jury being empaneled. The maximum penalty that could be inflicted as a result of the process is the removal from office.
Since McArdle resigned, there can be no penalty inflicted through this process.
The other committee will be looking, more broadly, at “issues of conflict of interest and business practices.”
“To discharge the Investigatory Committee […] as moot […] subsequent appointment of special investigation committee”
Let me translate that:
‘Even though we pre-loaded the LNC’s investigatory committee with 60% anti-McArdle clowns, now that she’s no longer on the LNC, we would prefer brushing our witch-hunt under the carpet by instead delegating it to a low-profile special investigation committee we can even more reliably and effectively control.’
“a recently-created special investigation committee, which is tasked with broader investigative authority and more applicable focus.”
“Broader investigative authority and more applicable focus” means ‘more scope to invent allegations without being questioned or challenged’.
———
@Nolan’s Duty cc. Rick
Spill the beans – what do you know about Harlos’ shadowy slush fund and its murky origins? As far as you can say safely, of course.
They might risk either accidentally accomplishing something or making even those who have not yet grasped that they can’t and won’t if they didn’t spend all the time they do on accusing and investigating each other, fanning lawsuits, jumping into state party faction fights, playing musical chairs, setting up and voting on the composition of useless subcommittees which they can then play more musical chairs with, and passing useless resolutions which get their peak coverage on IPR, TPW, f***book L.P. discussions, and on very rare occasions Reason Hit & Run or the LewRockwell.com blog – again, very rarely.
In case that still was unclear, I’ll break my rule of not posting comments unless they pose a question or questions to further clarify
“My apologies, I was not.I should have said:” was @ Jordan, and the part after that was @ Rick. Jordan made her source clear, and that source goes into details. Rick on the other hand made a very vague insinuation about rumblings. However that doesn’t mean that Mr. Porter’s allegations have anything substantial to them or that Rick’s don’t. It could just as easily be the other way around, they could both be right, or they could both be wrong
I was only addressing the fact that Mr. Porter, and thus Ms. Evans, provided the details for the suspicion, whereas Rick had not.
I’m not actually going to dig into either set of alleged facts; my curiosity about the matter just doesn’t rise to that level. I’ve spent much more time on it than I intended already by trying to clarify my questions which were asked in a moment of idle curiosity to begin with.
I hope that clears it up.
Oops, I did it again. That was @ Jordan.
Nolan’s duty: ok, that adds a little more context. Let’s keep going.
“Caryn Ann went into bankruptcy and can’t explain her income sources to the LNC.”
Did she or any entity she is connected with receive funds from them, or is there any confusion on their part whether she did or not? If the answer to those two questions is no, why are her personal finances their business?
Before you assume non existent motive for these questions, I don’t care about anyone currently or formerly on the LNC, any of their factions, the LNC as a whole, or anyone who does or may want to take their place(s), and I don’t have any answer to these questions in mind. They are actual questions, not rhetorical devices, but I don’t care about the answers regardless.
My apologies, I was not.I should have said:
Rick, I don’t care, but just out of fairness, if you bring up insinuations, please be more specific: what rumblings, where, by whom, and what’s the alleged evidence?
@Rick
Who cares that Caryn Ann went into bankruptcy and can’t explain her income sources to the LNC. Let’s keep this moving.
Apologies, Curious, but are you addressing me? If so, the paragraph discussing the formation of the initial committee last month—where it mentions “allegations of misconduct”—includes a direct link to Jake Porter’s article where he makes his claims.
I thought linking directly to his article in this case would plainly explain the situation better than summarizing the claims each time I’ve addressed them in an article. However, I have no issue with referencing them again if something related arises in a future post.
I don’t care, but just out of fairness, if you bring up insinuations, please be more specific: what rumblings, where, by whom, and what’s the alleged evidence?
You get an investigation! You get an investigation! Everyone gets an investigation!
Meredith Hays, not Meridith Hayes.
Will Caryn Ann Harlos be investigated next? There are rumblings with her and finances.
[S] The libertarian party will no doubt bring about freedom and liberty in our lifetime, or whatever they think that means (a question which only leads to ever more and more questions in my experience) by relentlessly focusing on games of musical chairs, investigation of each other, faction fights, internal and external legal challenges and appeals, and little if anything else.
On occasion they will break up the tedium by passing elaborate resolutions which take sides in international conflicts while calling on the US government to be neutral in those. These resolutions will be published or discussed only on libertarian or minor party centered fora, and thus will also be very useful in reining in government overreach just like the actions discussed in my first paragraph.
All of this focus will of course lead to so much donor confidence, generosity, and new members clamoring to join that even these titans of strategic thinking and managerial competence will have a difficult time keeping up with how to strategically leverage the rapid growth in funds, volunteers, and paid staff positions being created at ever increasing rates. As a big fan of their organization, I wish them good luck in this daunting endeavour.[/S]
s = sarcasm