Earlier this month, it was revealed that some issues continue to be discussed regarding an audit of the Libertarian National Committee from 2012. You can read about it here . We learn from the reflector email list that there have been some questions asked of the audit committe. The questions and answers are here.
Date: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Subject: Response from Audit Committee to several questions
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Tim Hagan
Members of the LNC and LNC General Counsel Gary Sinawski,
In his role as counsel for the LNC, I am including on this email LNC General Counsel Gary Sinawski so that he is aware of these issues and can offer his legal advice.
Dianna Visek has asked the Audit Committee a number of questions that we attempt to answer here.
Some of these questions require expertise in labor law to answer. While I have experience overseeing the Human Resources department of a rather large company, I thought it better to obtain the opinion of someone with solid labor law expertise. Accordingly, I have retained on behalf of the Audit Committee a well-regarded management-side labor and employment attorney from a national law firm with offices in D.C. who has helped answer employment law questions related to the audit. The Audit Committee has not been given a budget to hire legal counsel or other professional advisors, so the LNC will not be incurring any cost related to this decision.
Q: “If the LNC pursues repayment of funds inappropriately paid to Ms. Howell, does that preclude the LNC from disciplining or terminating her?”
A: An employer pursuing the repayment of money wrongfully disbursed directly to an employee or made on her behalf does not deprive the employer from exercising its rights to discipline or even terminate the employee for violation of its work rules, practices and/or polices. An employer should make certain that its investigation has led it to conclude that the employee engaged in the conduct at issue. If so, and assuming that the employee is being treated similarly to other employees who have engaged in similar conduct in the past (or that this is the first time that conduct such as this has occurred), the employer can certainly discipline/discharge the employee consistent with its policies and treatment of others (if applicable) as well pursue the employee for repayment of the wrongfully disbursed money.
Q: “Were you presented with evidence that Mark Hinkle violated the LNC’s policies, practices, and procedures by authorizing payments to Ms. Howell?”
A: Ms. Howell had previously written this statement for us: “I was not aware of any particular approval process other than to approve expenditures myself. That seemed to be the modus operandi in the office, and from what I understand, EDs did not generally get approval from the Chair for individual expenditures unless they exceeded $7,500. The only exception to this regarding these moving /travel expenses was that I asked Mark Hinkle sometime after I was hired, when it became apparent that my house was not going to sell in time to move by end of February, for an extension, which he approved.”
Ms. Howell asserted to the Audit Committee that Mr. Hinkle verbally authorized the extension of time for her moving expenses – not that he reviewed and approved specific payments – and there is no written evidence of this authorization. Ms. Howell never states whether she believes that it was beyond Mr. Hinkle’s authority to modify her employment agreement. The Audit Committee is in the process of trying to interview Mr. Hinkle.
Q: “Can Ms. Howell argue that any monies disbursed to her were permitted because Mr. Hinkle had the actual or apparent authority to authorize those payments?”
A: Ms. Howell was given actual notice of the limits of Mr. Hinkle’s authority when she executed her employment agreement with the LNC. The language of her employment agreement with the LNC includes, “As ED, you will adhere to the bylaws and policies adopted by the LNC, you will hold the position of a fiduciary to the LNC, and you will be obligated to act in good faith and with the highest fidelity and prudence in the best interest of the LNC.” The bylaws state that the Chair’s authority is “subject to express National Committee policies and directives issued in the exercise of the National Committee’s plenary control and management of Party affairs, properties and funds.” The Policy Manual includes provisions such as “[a]ll contracts or modifications thereto shall be in writing;” “[a]ll contracts of more than one year in duration or for more than $25,000 shall be reviewed and approved by General Counsel prior to signing by the Chair;” and “[e]ach contract for director-level employment must be circulated to the LNC on a strictly confidential basis after it has been reviewed by Counsel and the E[mployment ]P[olicy and ]C[ompensation ]C[ommittee].” Ms. Howell did not adhere to these bylaws and policies when she modified her employment agreement to extend the time allowed for her moving expenses, and if her claim that Mr. Hinkle verbally approved the modification is true, then neither did he.
Notably, if Mr. Hinkle states to the LNC that he knowingly verbally authorized these payments in violation of the LNC’s policies, practices, and procedures, then the LNC could pursue Ms. Howell or Mr. Hinkle for the unauthorized payments. Depending upon the facts, Mr. Hinkle may have violated his fiduciary duty to the LNC and/or engaged in other tortious conduct that could make him personally liable.
Q: “Were you presented with any evidence that Ms. Howell is being uniquely targeted whereas others are not being subjected to similar scrutiny?”
A: The Audit Committee has not been presented with any evidence that Ms. Howell is being targeted on account of her belonging to any protected group or for any other reason. According to the Employee Manual, “It is the policy of the LNC to comply in good faith with all laws, regulations and ordinances that apply to the LNC’s employment practices” and, of course, it is the LNC’s and the Audit Committee’s policy and practice not to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
Q: “Were you presented with evidence that other persons were paid inappropriately?”
A: We were made aware of several disbursements that are problematic, but we cannot determine whether they were inappropriate:
a. $252.00 to Bertucci’s – This appears to be a staff-related expense that benefited the entire organization – and not an expense submitted by an individual directly for the individual’s own benefit. No supporting receipts were provided for this expense.
b. $150.00 to Nick Dunbar for an election party – This appears to be an LNC staff-related function and not an expense submitted by an individual for the individual’s own benefit. No supporting receipts were provided for this expense.
c. $2,000 to incoming employee Eric Dixon as a moving stipend – Mr. Dixon’s offer letter of employment provided advance approval of a flat stipend: “You will [be] given $2,000 with your first paycheck to cover expenses for relocating to the D.C. area with the understanding that you will not end your employment with us nor be terminated for cause before your first year of employment, in which case $2,000 will be deducted from your final paycheck.” Contrast that with Ms. Howell’s contract, which specifically stated that she would be “reimbursed for expenses of moving from the Boston area to the Washington DC area and for commuting expenses (travel and lodging) between the two areas as necessary through February 28, 2012, not to exceed $20,000 overall expenses.” The only way for Ms. Howell to demonstrate the amount that she was owed is to present receipts supporting her incurred expenses.
In our report, we stated that our issues with the $2,000 payment to Mr. Dixon were that there needs to be a formal policy in the employee handbook addressing the payment of employee moving expenses and that Mr. Dixon needs to present receipts for those moving expenses he incurred to avoid having the LNC treat the amount as taxable wages.
To address the lack of receipts, we proposed (and the LNC adopted earlier this year) a Policy Manual change expressly requiring that “all expenditures be evidenced by receipts.” Ms. Howell was always subject to a different standard in the Policy Manual, presumably because the Executive Director has no one of higher rank in the office. Ms. Howell, who was the top ranking executive on location and was responsible for enforcing policy, decided that it was appropriate to approve her own expenses, even though the Policy Manual specifically required, “[t]he Chair or Treasurer shall be required to approve (and evidence by signing or initialing) all expenses and expense account reimbursements more than $200 made to the Executive Director or other officers prior to payment.”
If other employees were paid inappropriately, especially with circumstances parallel to that of Ms. Howell, the Audit Committee has not been made aware of that fact. If the Audit Committee should receive any information that other employees have received monies inappropriately, the Audit Committee is prepared and willing to fully investigate those circumstances and recommend what, if any, subsequent action would be appropriate based upon the findings of that investigation.
I welcome any other questions you may have.
Respectfully submitted,
Aaron Starr, Chairman
Libertarian Party Audit Committee
Yes, that is indeed true. I have heard there may be some plans like that afoot, but I haven’t been able to get the details.
I believe that the above two comments are largely solid. However, replacing most of the LNC will actually take a certain amount of work. Step one is persuading delegates to vote elsewhere.
Well, they could be experienced leaders somewhere other than LNC, I suppose. And thanks!
This almost sounds like an oxymoron. How do you get a clean slate of “experienced leaders”, when the current LNC are almost all “experienced leaders”?
While I think there are several members who should step away from the LNC and not come back, I am not ready to give up on several curent members. Thus, I can’t agree with the “clean slate” call.
Arvin Vohra, Paulie, Lee, and two or three others have brought some excellent fresh air to the LNC, and they work hard. Starchild, as much as I disagree with him on various things, has also done a great service at some risk to himself by making LNC deliberations public, as they should be. For one thing seeing how some of these people behave has revealed just how foolish they can be.
From the pingback, for those who read comments but not articles:
Additionally, there will be a goals discussion – but only for 15 minutes, unless the agenda is changed.
Regarding the other items I discussed in the prior post:
*I’ve received no response as to whether the preliminary budget has already been publicly posted anywhere. I would like to get some feedback about budget priorities from our readers. but I would rather not post it unless it has already been publicly posted somewhere since it is marked confidential.
*So far, no one commented on that post as to what questions LNC members should ask, or what further actions should be taken, in response to issues brought up by the audit oversight committee.
*It appears I most likely will not be voting, but I’ll try to be prepared in case I will be, since no definitive answer has been posted. However, even if I am not voting, I still don’t have a phone internet convention, so unless we find someone who can provide that or unless the hotel makes their wifi available to us at no charge, there may not be any live coverage of the meeting.
*In the comments on the previous post, interim chair Chuck Moulton said that rank and file members who have proposals they would like to have considered by the bylaws committee can write to him at [email protected] and that these can be either specific language or broad ideas for proposals. To date, we have received no similar reply from the platform committee to the same question.
Re: pingback
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/updates-on-libertarian-national-committee-bylaws-and-platform-committees-budget-and-audit/
It appears I most likely will not be voting, although that’s not 100% for sure yet.
Yes. My misinterpretation. Thanks, George.
However, as far as I know it is still true that it conflicts with Porcfest.
Shane, I had not thought of the alternative interpretation of “bottled water”. Sorry. I agree with your other point. George
It was big huge bottles that go upside down on a gadget, wasn’t it? However, that was an excellent bit of savings.
George, it wasn’t bottled water, it was a water service that ran about $170 a month if I recall correctly. I replaced it with a water filter. Times were tough then as the board had just voted to go to “zero dues” and every penny was needed.
As far as Carla and this audit, all I can say is that the LNC needs a clean slate of experienced leaders. The same names have been ineffectively “leading” the party for a decade or more. Their results speak for themselves.
Chuck – not late at all. Thanks!
Oops, you are correct.
http://www.lp.org/event/2014-libertarian-party-national-convention
Paulie–
You said above that the 2014 Convention is Memorial Day w/e. I think it’s actually the last w/e in June.
I am interim chair of the 2014 LP bylaws committee. Feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you have any bylaws proposals (or broad ideas for proposals) you want the committee to consider.
Sorry for my lateness chiming in. I didn’t follow IPR Thanksgiving weekend.
Hoping to get some reactions to the pingbacked post…
For now the only way I know of is by email to indiviual committe members. However, I’m pretty sure several bylaws committee members read IPR comments. That’s not a formal process for submitting ideas, but if they see something they like maybe they will act on it. There may be a formal method to submit proposals that I am not aware of, or there may be one in the future that has not been put together yet for the current term. Hopefully someone from the bylaws committee will answer these questions here.
Yes, although you may have to join the national LP to get them. Lists of delegates are public. They only provide snail mail addresses, you’d have to look up the rest. Keep in mind that not all delegates are necessarily known ahead of time, but many are.
paulie
This will be the last comment from me on this.
Submitting to a committee where no formal process of submission, vetting and voting is published gives zero weight then to a proposal from anyone one who the committee persons don’t have a personal relationship with or who is not a celebrity with in the organization.
You say: ‘You could also submit proposals to the Bylaws committee. ‘
How? By what process?
You say: ‘Bylaws proposals from the floor may be considered’
If you got the votes for this. Will I have access to a list of delegates, emails or postal addresses, prior to the convention?
As noted in my previous comment: by delegates from the floor.
Also, the bylaws commuttee is different from the LNC.
LNC members do not get any special standing in submitting bylaws proposals unless they happen to also be bylaws committee members.
http://www.lp.org/bylaws-mandated-committees
Only 4 of 10 current bylaws committee members and none of the 3 alternates are current LNC members. The chair pro tem is not a current LNC member.
You could also submit proposals to the Bylaws committee.
But process aside, you could discuss ideas here, regardless of whether you can ever get the committee or the delegates to consider them or not.
paulie,
I don’t see anywhere in the document of how proposals outside of being a member of the committee can be submitted. It looks to me like a closed loop system and only answers to those who gave the committee its power – thus the Board writes its own rules!
If there is a way to Formally submit bylaws changes, outside of being a board member, i don’t see it.
Floor bylaw changes are very difficult, and can only be done with populous support from the voting delegates. Given that it is difficult to know who the delegates will be, even up to convention time, this is a very challenging path to pursue to make needed changes.
Right now, my mind is on something like creating a ‘House of Members’ where those who are LNC supporters in good standing have a voice and a vote in the organization. Currently those who have a voice need not be an LNC supporter (dues paying), nor even need to be a Registered Libertarian Elector.
I also think that something like a senate with each state having representation needs to be considered. The current system is broken, I think we have all seen enough proof that it such.
It seems to me that your criticism was at the level of bylaws, which are decided at the biannual conventions; the next one will be in Columbus, Ohio, Memorial day weekend next year. States decide who their delegates will be, subject to review by the credentials committee and the delegate body as a whole. You do not necessarily have to be a national level member to be a delegate to the national convention right now, although there is a proposal to change that.
Bylaws proposals from the floor may be considered, but bylaws proposals that go through the bylaws committee first have a much higher chance of being considered and passed.
Aside from submitting bylaws proposals formally, you can also just float them here for discussion.
The current rules are here: http://www.lp.org/files/2012%20LP%20Bylaws%20and%20Convention%20Rules%20w%202012%20JC%20Rules.pdf
You and others are welcome to make proposals for changing them.
paulie
I am not a member of the LNC, nor a supporting member either. I am also with in a State that has no representation on the LNC as well.
I honestly have no idea of the process and procedure to submit any proposals to the LNC or to any committee that is created, nor do I have any assurances or trust at this time that any policy or procedure would be adhered too by the LNC or its committees.
All proposals have to have:
– A means to present it,
– A process of vetting it,
– A vote
If a clear and fair process of the above can be presented, perhaps there is then hope after all for the LNC.
After 30 years running the LNC like a privately held for-profit company has shown its results. Clearly, any reasonable person would conclude that changes are needed!
Past IPR discussions of this audit for anyone who missed them:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/2012-libertarian-audit-committee-out-of-control/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/lnc-passes-policy-manual-changes-regarding-audit-related-issues/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/wes-benedict-responds-to-lnc-audit-controversy/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/joe-buchman-responds-to-lnc-audit-controversy/
The single reason I chose to stay away from the audit article was Starr. He was very loudly and unceremoniously NOT voted back onto the LNC–but look, he’s back on the LNC. He may have done a real service by uncovering these problems with Howell and Cloud. but when we see him acting like a dictator on the LSLA list (even though he is not a leader in the LP of CA and hasn’t been for years), I just can’t reconcile the two situations. I’m anxious to see how things play out in Denver.
When I see Aaron, I’m always happy to visit a while and see what he’s been up to. I like that Aaron Starr. Is it possible there are two or three of him that show up at alternate times?*
*To those of you beloved IPR readers who like to argue everything: I am joking!
Marc’s description might be the most accurate I have seen to date. Starr is not particularly competent when it comes to political maneuvering and has occasionally made up for it with tenaciousness.
I agree with Matt. Starr is a muckraker. Some people use others as stones to step on as they’re on their way up the power pyramid.
Hinkle is not an ally of Starr. I don’t believe he ever was.
I think Hinkle has good intentions, but he shoots himself in the foot quite often with bad decisions.
Starr, I have a hard time deciphering. He doesn’t shoot himself in the foot, he trips over himself and lands in the ditch — and then wonders why he’s waking up in a ditch.
I think there’s more to it than that but maybe that’s part of it.
I don’t know Mr. Starr personally. I’ve only exchanged a handful of words with him at conventions. But, from what I’ve learned over the years, it seems pretty clear to me that he just likes to stir up drama for drama’s sake. Finding (creating?) “problems” is just what he does.
I note that Starr has lawyered up, but how is his own ass on the line here?
Honestly I am not sure if he is building people up just to knock them down or what. Before Hinkle was ever elected chair, Starr made comments on IPR about Hinkle being an example of a radical he can work with. But when Hinkle was chair, Starr and his allies stymied Hinkle on numerous occasions, called his judgement into question, etc (examples: Republican wall of shame, building/office, and so on). If anyone wants to see the details I believe the LNC exchanges from that term are available in the files area at LNC-discuss public. Also, Starr promoted Carla Howell as a prospective ED even before Wes was hired the first time yet here he is going out of his way to impugn Howell and Cloud and suggest that they suffer serious represcussions. An earlier attempt against Cloud (and several others by implication) for his role in the convention by Starr allies was stymied. I’ve heard Cloud say that he was motivated to return to LP leadership to counteract the directions that Starr allies such as Root were taking the party in. I’m not sure if that is in writing anywhere, so I apologize if I am violating any confidences.
It’s all so mysterious…
If Hinkle is member of the Starr chamber why is Starr talking about taking action against Hinkle when no one else was discussing it before? Hinkle certainly seems to not be getting along with Lieberman, the latter being a reasonably reliable proxy for Starr.
In simpler terms:
Q: “If the LNC pursues repayment of funds inappropriately paid to Ms. Howell, does that preclude the LNC from disciplining or terminating her?”
A: No, because repayment of funds can be part of that discipline once it has been determined that repayment is appropriate. (HR 101 stuff)
Q: “Were you presented with evidence that Mark Hinkle violated the LNC’s policies, practices, and procedures by authorizing payments to Ms. Howell?”
A: Not directly, but that investigation is ongoing. However, if it wasn’t written down, it never happened. (Cathy Ryan Rule, Contracts 101)
Q: “Can Ms. Howell argue that any monies disbursed to her were permitted because Mr. Hinkle had the actual or apparent authority to authorize those payments?”
A: No, because it wasn’t in writing. Policy was not followed. (SSDQ)
Q: “Were you presented with any evidence that Ms. Howell is being uniquely targeted whereas others are not being subjected to similar scrutiny?”
A: No.
Q: “Were you presented with evidence that other persons were paid inappropriately?”
A: Yes, but the trails are cold. (Relatively speaking)
*****
Note that Starr has lawyered up to cover his own ass. Note also that Hinkle, being a member of the Starr Chamber despite his denials of such, ignored policy and procedure, as is his history in LP leadership at all levels, and here we are.
Frankly, this was avoidable had policy been properly followed and if LNC oversight was properly exercised at the time…management incompetence, or the foxes running the henhouse? You decide…
P.S. The way to solve the problem is to treat the members as stakeholders/shareholders/investors instead of ATMs to seek money from and otherwise be ignored…
Opinions on the LNC vary. It is formally on the agenda for next week’s meeting. The agenda does not say whether we will be in executive session for that discussion. I suspect we will be for at least part of it.
Here is the proposed agenda posted to the public LNC-business list; keep in mind that it can be amemded:
Jill:
I’m not on the bylaws committee, and wouldn’t want to be, but people should start getting together, threshing out and building arguments and support for concrete proposals and discussing them with the bylaws committee.
Thanks for your thoughts, Starchild. I’m also glad for your comment about Starr and the audit. I have questioned his motives, and wondered if people on the LNC felt he’d discovered a real problem or was just causing trouble or something that had already been cleared up. Apparently, it hasn’t been cleared up
The people who have been particularly obnoxious on the LNC Discuss Public list wouldn’t be removed because of term limits. except for perhaps Scott Lieberm,an. I don’t know how long he has served as a rep or alternate.
Anything involving money, I’d say over $1,000, should be documented and even should need a second signature. It would be nice if we could trust everyone to work well based on a handshake, but the need and/or desire for money is just too tempting to some people. As far as a whole new way of doing things, such as Mark Ventanen has suggested, that’s really something to start working on. Some kind of quantum leap might be needed here.
LOL. Now what does Mark Vetanen propose? Others here?
I propose 3 baskets of eggs. The bylaw can go something like this:
The LNC shall keeps its eggs in 3 separate baskets.
I think that’s simple enough.
Do you have more concrete proposals? If so, you may direct them to the bylaws committee, as well as to us here for discussion.
@ TK
The National Party bylaws is designed to create warring factions on the board. The bylaws give the LNC board complete and unfettered control of the organization
“The National Committee shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties
and funds of the Party consistent with these Bylaws.” – http://www.lp.org/files/2012%20LP%20Bylaws%20and%20Convention%20Rules%20w%202012%20JC%20Rules.pdf
1.5 million is more than enough money to affect the ‘egos’ of people to do all sort of crazy things. Shawn Eckhardt, body guard for Tanya Harding, once told me when he was interviewing for a job that the reason they attacked Nancy Kerrigan was that ” when you are looking at a million in endorsements, it sort of does wierd stuff to your head”. – ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonya_Harding
The rest of the LNC bylaws only layout the battlefield and weapons to use on each other such as: Audit committees, judicial committees – and lets not forget the many passages of membership and affiliate purges.
I can see why most LNC board members are silent, inactive, and very reserved about stating any opinions or getting active in any issue – for it invites the Purge parties, the warring factions to descend on them.
Term limits on the LNC board members, won’t solve anything. What needs to be considered is the powers of the board, and perhaps to consider reforming the LNC to something much more workable and that does not put all the eggs in one basket as to not encourage warring parties to fight over the basket.
Thanks, George and Starchild! Part of the reason I haven’t resigned is because at least some people appreciate my work there, as hopeless as it seems at times.
Matt, re your 11/29 11:57 comment, I don’t believe your hypotheticals are obviously satisfied. George
And, in general, I do not think people should resign mid-term.
IMHO, even if you believe term limits for LNC members are a good idea (I don’t really have an opinion on the matter), there is no reason that the limit must be one term. I think some level of continuity is a good idea. Maybe 3 terms, then weigh whether or not you should set an example by voluntarily stepping aside.
Thanks, that is what I meant. My new computer has a bit of a sticky keyboard 🙂
I’ll go fix that now.
On the one hand, no, $20k is not a huge amount as covered moving expenses for a job in the corporate world.
On the other hand, it’s the kind of expense one would expect to see in a fairly large company.
According to reports filed with the Federal Elections Commission, the LNC brought in about $1.5 million per year in 2011-2012, and spent a little more than it brought in. It seems on track to bring in a little less (and still spend a little more than it brings in) in 2013.
The LNC is not a large enterprise.
If it could be argued that paying like a fairly large enterprise and offering benefits packages like a fairly large enterprise could turn the LNC into a fairly large enterprise, that would be one thing. But the LNC has been paying, and offering benefit packages, like a fairly large enterprise for years now, and there’s been no such magical transformation.
Matt Cholko (November 28, 2013 at 11:41 pm) writes:
In business terms, LNC Inc.is a tiny organization. In general, companies of this size do nearly all of their hiring, and contracting with familiar persons, via hand shake. I run one. I’ve worked for others. I know many people that run small businesses of various sizes. It is not practical to operate a small business with the same sort of employment and contracting practices of big companies. Some trust is required. All this talk of employee handbooks and contracts strikes me as…..I dunno….a bunch of BS.
Maybe we should bring in a legal department and an HR department to ensure that nobody ever makes a handshake deal again.
Couldn’t help responding to this…
Matt, I hear you. Believe me I do. I would *much* rather our party’s culture was more one of brother/sisterhood, with a revolutionary spirit of solidarity and camaraderie, passion for our shared goals, and mutual trust. This ought to be possible!
We have cultivated way too much of a corporate culture in the LP in general; all the talk of things like employee handbooks and contracts is just one facet of a much larger problem. But this design flaw in our party is not a simple problem by any means! It ultimately comes down to the extremely thorny question, rarely addressed directly, of how we as an organization handle dealing with power and money. We know as libertarians that power corrupts. But we have not safeguarded against this basic phenomenon within our own organization.
I doubt it would work well to simply start dealing with all familiar persons on a handshake basis, while leaving the rest of the party’s structure and culture alone — most particularly the way in which control over operations and resources are allowed to concentrate in a small number of people working without much transparency.
One thing I’m convinced we need is regular turnover — term limits — of anyone with any significant power or responsibility, and anyone being paid any significant amount by the party. Under our current structure, this means LNC members *and* staff or contractors.
But — to make this personal — does this mean Paulie and I and others of a reformist bent should resign after a single term even without such rules in place? Maybe we should, I don’t know. In one sense it would be the most principled thing for me to do. But I think that could also be said of a libertarian who never used government roads, yet I’m glad when libertarians are out there hitting the pavement while advocating our cause, and would not counsel them to stop simply in order to avoid using taxpayer resources. Quitting the LNC would mean fewer people of our views in the governing structure, and maybe less chance of moving things in the right direction.
On the other hand, I am mindful of the power of a Throw ‘Em All Out/Reelect Nobody campaign. If several of us were to resign en masse at the end of our terms and lend our names to such a campaign, it could be effective. If I knew that by resigning, I could cause no one else on the current board to be reelected, I would be highly tempted, even though there are a few people I feel are serving well, and other members of the so-called “Starr chamber” who were the dominant faction on the last LNC are still waiting in the wings. (Like Joe Buchman, I hold two opinions of Aaron Starr simultaneously that may seem surprisingly incongruous to some: (1) I think he is a skilled financial examiner who has done the Libertarian Party a real service in his work above and beyond the call of duty on the Audit Committee, and I would gladly see him involved in future audits of the Libertarian Party to help keep us honest; and (2) I think a great deal of his priorities for our party would take us further in the wrong direction and I would *not* like to see him voted back onto the Libertarian National Committee. He has plenty of power in this organization as it is.)
Ultimately though, I think major reform needs to come more from the bottom up, at the level of the delegates changing the bylaws and governing structure, not just changing the faces on the LNC. My sense is that the LNC as it currently exists as an entity is intrinsically too wedded to corporate culture to bring about change on the level it is needed.
Will you be a delegate to the 2014 convention and help organize change?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
Paulie, I hope you do not resign or drop off the committee. You so more good than most. George
Paulie Frankel (November 28, 2013 at 10:53 pm) writes:
>>I recommend mass resignations from the LNC
Certainly considering it (expensive, time wasting, and I am not accomplishing much if anything).
But I did sign up so I kind of feel like I should finish my commitment. Not running again though.
I definitely did know about any of these issues before the audit brought them up.
I assume you meant to say “I definitely did NOT know about any of these issues…”?
Either way though, I’m glad you’re not quitting, Paulie. You are not part of the problem! We need to figure out some priorities we and others I think often tend to see as we do (Arvin Vohra, Gary Johnson, others?) can get behind, and make a joint effort for them, hopefully backed by some popular opinion among those members who are paying attention.
More on the Audit Committee later, I don’t want to take the time to write a thoughtful post about that right now in response to all that’s been said.
“Jill Pyeatt Post authorNovember 30, 2013 at 1:35 am
It doesn’t seem Dondero’s style, but who knows? I also think it could be an IPR writer, but there have been many over the years and it might not be someone who is currently active. It does seem he or she has access to the dashboard, but I really don’t know who it is.”
Whoever it is does somehow get access to the dashboard, and they also sure do seem to follow the site closely, and they have been following it for several years. If it is somebody we know, which I think that there is a good chance that it is, it is probably somebody who is a closet racist, or perhaps they are using the racist angle to throw people off their trail.
I wonder if it is a bored nutcase, or a government saboteur/provocateur.
“He hasn’t been awful today,”
Who says that the person is a he? It could be a she, although I do agree that the most likely suspect is a he.
It doesn’t seem Dondero’s style, but who knows? I also think it could be an IPR writer, but there have been many over the years and it might not be someone who is currently active. It does seem he or she has access to the dashboard, but I really don’t know who it is. He hasn’t been awful today, which is why I haven’t deleted his comments. I believe someone deleted one or two earlier today, though..
“The LP honchos also come off as being unpatriotic. People who are proud of our Flag and have served in the military and are proud of their service or that of their family members are left feeling unappreciated.”
This sounds like something Eric Dondero would say. I’m not saying that this poster is necessarily Eric Dondero (although it may be), I’m just saying that this sounds like something that he’d say.
I think that whoever posted this is the troll, and I’m thinking that there is a good chance that the troll is signed up as an IPR writer.
Andy says:”Libertarians are patriots for liberty, not mindless flag wavers or mindless military worshippers.”
Great statement!
“The LP honchos also come off as being unpatriotic. People who are proud of our Flag and have served in the military and are proud of their service or that of their family members are left feeling unappreciated.”
Libertarians are patriots for liberty, not mindless flag wavers or mindless military worshippers.
“Spence November 29, 2013 at 9:38 pm”
Who is this Spence character? He sure seems to know and care a lot about what is going on in the LP. I’ve been around the party since 1996 and I know, or know of, LP members all over the country, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of a Spence in the LP. Which LP affiliate is your membership located? Does anyone know this guy?
I suspect that we do actually know this person, because it is probably the same troll who has been posting here for years, and I think that there is a good chance that this person is signed up as a writer at IPR, which would make the suspect list pretty short.
Again, I don’t disagree with you. My point is that if we want LNC Incorporated to operate efficiently, we have to extend a lot of trust to the employees. Handshake deals do not equal inappropriate deals. Likewise, stacks of paperwork do not prove that no funds were squandered, or stolen, or whatever. When we hire Libertarians, and they contract with other Libertarians, and both parties are known to be trustworthy, we should not be giving them a hard time for operating without said stacks of paper…..or anything else of the sort.
It could be worse. We could have a party led by war criminals who launched wars of aggression against foreign countries, killed hundreds of thousands of their people, revived the use of medieval torture techniques against prisoners of war, assassinated citizens of their own country, and are turning their country into a religious fascist police state. However, we’d never be able to compete with the two larger political parties that already have these features, so we are doing something else.
Matt, the issue is not 13,500 people managing the business. The issue is the board representing to the membership that there will be certain controls on how their donations will be spent, and those controls not being followed. Could we actually have 13,500 people running the business? I have no idea. The people who want to increase the size of the House of Representatives 100-fold certainly think so. I have no idea if it is possible, but it is clearly not what we are doing.
One of the biggest problems with the LNC is that you have a convicted felon, multi-state jailbird and currently wanted fugitive as a member of the board. Well that and all the leaks. Many of the members are various different kinds of degenerates. Liberty does not have to mean libertines, but with the LP leadership it is apparent that it does, which turns off many would be supporters who personally have a traditional morality even though they don’t believe in using big government to force it on others. The LP honchos also come off as being unpatriotic. People who are proud of our Flag and have served in the military and are proud of their service or that of their family members are left feeling unappreciated.
I don’t disagree with much of that George. But, that’s why the party members elect the LNC members, and the LNC (primarily the Chairman, as I understand it) hires an ED and other staff members. We can’t have 13,500 people trying to manage the business.
It seems that some people are unhappy that the LNC has too little bureaucracy.
One of the biggest problems I am seeing with LNC action or lack thereof is the standing interpretation of the bylaws that motions have to be made at in person meetings or by mail ballots. Motions by mail ballots take a couple of weeks to propose, count votes and announce results and take 4 sponsors, or the chair, to even allow a vote to take place. In person meetings happen only 3-4 times a year, only have a couple of workdays of meeting time, are expensive to attend, and much of the meeting time is eaten up by various reports and other thing that could easily be done on the phone or email. There is very little time to consider new proposals and virtually no chance to come up with new proposals once you are there and not have them punted to email discussion limboland.
There is no reason in this day and age that we can’t have meetings by phone and/or web conference, say once a week for a couple of hours, with the power to propose motions and vote on them then and there. The bylaws should either be changed to allow this or existing bylaws reinterpreted to allow it if they can be.
With respect to Matt Cholko, businesses this size are usually owned by the people making the hiring decisions. The way those businesses are run has little to do with the LNC, whose owners are the 13,500 National Party members and the National Convention delegates. If I own the corner comics emporium, I am responsible for my own decisions. The LNC is instead responsible to the members and donors.
We do have a legal counsel. A legal “department” is a bit above our price range at the moment. As for HR, the chair proposes an ED and the LNC votes on the contract. From there, the ED generally makes hiring decisions within LNC budget constraints. They usually do involve a contract (at least for employees as opposed to outside contractors) but I haven’t seen those routinely shown to the LNC. Perhaps the chair or some select members of the LNC such as the executive committee. Lately, hiring has mostly been done on a “who do we know that can do this and is available” basis. I remember a decade or more ago that staff vacancies were advertised in LNC News, LP.org etc., but that has not been the case lately.
As far as Dr. Phillies’ long comment from 9:13 above, I share his frustration. As far as Carla’s move, I kind of feel like that’s been dealt with, and she’s agreed to repay the money. Perhaps it’s not over with, but it’s being dealt with. The almost $39,000 situation with Michael Cloud, however, I find to be quite distressing. It doesn’t seem to me that the he has stepped up to clear things up. They had to know that someone might want documentation for that much money being spent. Both Howell and Cloud should be given a definite deadline to produce full documentation, and if they don’t they should be asked to resign.
Oh, I stand corrected on the amount of money for the Idaho employee’s move. It was indeed $2,000.
That’s what I get for riding in the back seat of my car, reading IPR on my Iphone. Either that, or I ate too much turkey.
In business terms, LNC Inc.is a tiny organization. In general, companies of this size do nearly all of their hiring, and contracting with familiar persons, via hand shake. I run one. I’ve worked for others. I know many people that run small businesses of various sizes. It is not practical to operate a small business with the same sort of employment and contracting practices of big companies. Some trust is required. All this talk of employee handbooks and contracts strikes me as…..I dunno….a bunch of BS.
Maybe we should bring in a legal department and an HR department to ensure that nobody ever makes a handshake deal again.
I believe that one was actually 2K, not 20k.
Forgot that one too…is anyone going to name names with these stories?
Perhaps $20,000 for Carla to move wasn’t excessive, but what was the position of the person who moved from Idaho? Was that worth paying $20,000?
Readers will perhaps recall the past Executive Director who recalled the painful sacrifices of donors he had known and shut down the supply of bottled water in the cooler, telling the staff to drink tap water instead.
As it happens, I have had several professional moves.
Paid for by the people who were hiring me.
The insinuation is not malfeasance.
The insinuation is fat cat deals paid for by Libertarians of more limited means.
We’ve passed some new rules to help fix that.
Marc
I also advised Phillies that the amount was not outrageous and fairly normal for a corporate move.
The question is oversight. If I did not produce paperwork for accounting I would not expect to get paid.
Out of all these things it is the lack of process and control and the commission non-contracts plus the revisionist histories that bother me.
Certainly considering it (expensive, time wasting, and I am not accomplishing much if anything).
But I did sign up so I kind of feel like I should finish my commitment. Not running again though.
I definitely did not know about any of these issues before the audit brought them up.
Sigh. Here we go gain, with the Professor insinuating malfeasance where none exists.
Obviously the professor has never had a professional move. My wife had a career change a few years ago and the company paid for our move — which cost ~$ 18k, and wasn’t as far as a move from MA to DC.
It is hard to clean house when the whole board has been helping a corrupt staff … we had to deal with that in Oregon and having to have the membership deal with it gets ugly fast.
I recommend mass resignations from the LNC … but that would require honor.
There is a need to mobilize the membership with respect to the LNC’s protection — perhaps I mean lack of protection — of the money that has been entrusted with it by the members.
However, $20,000 in moving expenses? $38,000 in commissions and fees with no contract or reasonable way to compute commissions?
If you send money to the LNC, you are sending it down the drain.
Let us start to the payment to Mr Cloud of commissions. That’s been public record for quite some time now, because it was in the FEC reports. There are several obvious issues here, according to the audit committee report:
What were the commission rates?
How can someone invoice on a commission, when it is the person at the other end who knows how much money was brought in?
How did the commission turn out to be an even number of dollars, at one point an even number of thousands of dollars, on a commission payment?
How did Mr Cloud predict the dollar receipts six months in the future?
Try also:
How many other national party members have ever been offered $20,000 in moving expenses?
What are the unique skills that justified paying someone $2000 in moving expenses to move to DC from Idaho? I am sure the person who received it is a nice guy and is doing the work that he is being paid to do, but what were the unique skills that justified importing the gentleman from remote and beautiful Idaho?
Why is Mr Cloud being paid? I am also reminded of the observation of a participant in the last LNC meeting, the executive session part, namely that it is enormously demotivating to pay a member of the board, other than expenses, when many other board members are doing a great deal, for free.
Now, our policy manual in various forms (the following appears to be the closest to the right date) provides
“3) Contracts and Contract Approval
All contracts or modifications thereto shall be in writing. The Chair shall approve any
contract in excess of $7,500. All contracts of more than one year in duration or for more
than $25,000 shall be reviewed and approved by General Counsel prior to signing by the
Chair. Independent contractors doing business with the LNC are required to sign formal
contracts that clearly set forth the parties’ intention that they be treated as independent
contractors. Each contract for director-level employment must be circulated to the LNC on a strictly confidential basis after it has been reviewed by Counsel and the EPCC.”
How did the Treasurer fail to notice that $38,000 went out the door without a contract?
In addition, my sources report that when there was a search made for contracts, as required by LNC rules in the policy manual, that something close to one contract was found, that being the lawyer’s copy of his contract, and perhaps a few more. There is a violation of fiscal responsibility here.
In my opinion, it is time for the LNC to correct its failures.
I am making no suggestion that what was done here was illegal, but as the old Navy line goes “It happened on your watch”.
The appropriate correction is put forth motions of suspension against the LNC Chair and the LNC Treasurer, for failing to take adequate care to follow the rules specified by the National Committee acting with its plenary authority.
Now, one good and honest friend, who is also an LNC member, has noted to me that these issues appear to be of longstanding and took place under the stewardship of several past LNC Chairs and Treasurers, some of whom currently sit on the LNC.
If this assertion is true, and I infer that it may have been indicated in LNC Executive Session that this is the case, then these former Chairs and Treasurers who are still on the LNC should each also face motions of suspension
Motions to suspend are serious matters. Obviously each of these persons should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. However, members would be well advised to send their donations to their state parties, Libertarian PACs, or real Libertarian candidates.
I don’t remember hearing about this. What were the details on that?
The LP has .. over time … created a culture so toxic that the corrupt are drawn to it for purposes most of us would prefer they weren’t.
“Marc Montoni November 28, 2013 at 2:38 pm
I’m not sure why anyone would be willing to move from *anywhere* on the promise of employment from the LP.”
Sadly, I can see where you are coming from with this statement.
The Starr Chamber Strikes Back.
I’m not sure why anyone would be willing to move from *anywhere* on the promise of employment from the LP.
Just a few years ago, we had an ED who was taking credit for “increases” in membership and revenue that were engineered (the former by reclassifying “subscribers” as members, and other tricks; the latter by, for instance, taking credit for new monthly pledges others recruited). By these acts the individual in question received unearned accolades and other bonii.