The Libertarian National Committee will meet remotely for a special meeting this weekend, where members are expected to discuss potentially reappointing Bylaws Committee members, consider two proposed Policy Manual amendments, and receive updates on several committees.
According to a posted notice, the meeting will be conducted over Zoom and begin at 7:00 p.m. EST. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and observe must register at least one hour in advance. A full agenda has yet to be released; however, LNC members have been submitting items for discussion through the public Business List.
Among those items submitted by LNC members is an update by Vice Chair Paul Darr on the activities of the Special Investigatory Committee, which has been tasked with investigating accusations of wrongdoing against the most recent former LNC chair. Additionally, member Kathy Yeniscavich will present an update from the Audit Committee, as well as from the Kennedy Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee established last year between the LNC and the former independent presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos will provide an update on the building funds record and deliver a verbal report regarding the delegate allocation process. Harlos has also proposed a change to the current composition of the Bylaws Committee, suggesting that any interested regular members of the previous committee be automatically reappointed, with any remaining vacancies to be filled at the LNC’s in-person May meeting in Michigan.
Additionally, Harlos has put forward two Policy Manual amendments. The first would address the process for resolving delegate allocation challenges, clarifying who serves as the final authority on such challenges. The current wording places sole discretion with the Secretary; however, Harlos has expressed her discomfort with that lack of clarity. She plans to discuss a recent state-level challenge as part of her report.
Her second proposal concerns the Convention Oversight Committee. The amendment would require full LNC approval for all convention speakers rather than just keynote speakers, addressing concerns over past practices. It also refines language around contract bidding, specifying that any contract exceeding $3,000 must go through a transparent bidding process.
Ah yes, the (national) socialist frothing at the mouth, swearing and cursing, insulting and attacking anyone it lays eyes on, lying and projecting for all its worth, is clearly interested in and attempting to have “intelligent conversation”. U+1F602
Rest assured, Seebeck, all sorts of interesting things will happen posthumously. For starters, I look forward to watching you, Harlos and your cronies finally being handed your just deserts by the highest judge of all, one you cannot bribe or lie to, nor hide your crimes from… U+1F60F
In other words, Nuña, like pRick, is simply yet another dreg of humanity kidiot who never met a survey they didn’t fail, who also not only doesn’t know what they’re talking about (no surprise there) but can’t find correct with a GPS and AAA. In short, yet another waste of food and oxygen.
So much for intelligent conversation. From them, it simply isn’t possible, because they’re simply…amoebic stupid. No receipts, either.
They’ll get up to my level someday–probably when they’re posthumous.
“I used re-nominated for a reason, primarily because even if the motion passes, those members can decline. But the motion says reappointed, which is accurate.”
I don’t know what you mean by “accurate” here; I’m guessing you mean Jordan accurately represented the motion – which I agree with – but that is not what I was getting at by noting the difference between your choice of word and Harlos’s.
The motion says: “if any [of last term’s Bylaws Committee regular members] wish to serve again, that they be automatically appointed by the Committee”.
That is clearly not a good idea. Hence why I prefer your choice of words: “re-nominated” instead of “reappointed”. The motion already takes account of the possibility that some of the previous term’s (regular!) Bylaw Committee members would NOT wish to serve again, in the conditional part of that clause.
What I am more concerned with is that at the very least the National Committee, if not delegates at the national convention, have the opportunity to turn down the reappointment of previous Bylaw Committee members – i.e. that they not be automatically reAPPOINTED but merely re-NOMINATED for consideration (and even having that done automatically seems unnecessary: if they want to serve another term, they can go through the usual procedure).
—
“Seebeck blatantly committed an ethics violation for not recuseing himself in the Harlos matter.”
True. Very true. Objectively so. And yet nothing was done about it. Surprise, surprise.
“Are Harlos and Seebeck really the ones embezzling money?”
Who knows? It’s entirely feasible, but that doesn’t make it true.
“Would it be a surprise if that’s the case?”
Absolutely not. It would be more surprising if it wasn’t the case. But that still doesn’t mean it is a fact.
—
“It’s called ‘knowing what hat you’re wearing.'”
And which hat are you talking through right now? U+1F60F
You’ve already established ad nauseam that you are incapable of keeping your hats separate when it comes to covering for your crooked buddy Harlos, even in IPR’s comment sections alone.
“I receive no pecuniary benefit or otherwise from it”
Poor grammar aside, this is clear deflection. Whether or not you received any express benefit, you were obviously not impartial and should consequently have recused yourself. (Cf. Richard T. Snyder.) The fact that you were not kicked off the Judiciary Committee – let alone had your LP membership revoked – tells all regarding how total the corruption at the LP is become.
“As I stated in in that opinion”
As I stated at the time, your “opinion” is dishonest and worthless bunk. Ken Krawchuck alone managed to pen an opinion that could stand the light of day.
“In other words, pRick doesn’t have a clue about ethics, the LP, or much of anything.”
You projection only serves to lend him credence, you know.
“I have contributed tens of thousands of dollars and hours to it over the past 25 years”
Which is exactly how it got to be such an anti-libertarian shit show: totalitarian conspirators infiltrating and sabotaging the LP, destroying it from within.
“Ask Hagopian and Redpath instead of continuing to embarrass yourself.”
If you think Todd is going to defend your ethics violation in not recusing yourself, then you must not have been keeping up with him much the past few years… U+1F60F
“Frankly, the accusation is absurd and illustrates that pRick has absolutely no idea about anything in the LP.”
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Again, your own words are only serving against you. After all, you’ve falsely accused me of being clueless about the LP before too…
The more angry, unhinged and expletive-laced your ranting becomes, the more likely it seems that Rick has put his finger on a sore spot.
Unfortunately that does not constitute proof, as your rightly point out. And the fact that you were not disciplined over your ethics violation, demonstrates that you will also get your ass covered in case of any embezzlement – just as you covered Harlos’s ass over fraud, insubordination and base treachery.
>What’s your evidence of embezzlement?
He has none. If he did, he would have put it out here, or given it to the LNC’s “Investigatory Committee” and used as charges in the suspension.
Plus, if it occurred, and it didn’t, it would require co-conspirators of two LNC Treasurers and the Audit Committee to cover it up, which illustrates just how absurd the allegation is.
>Seebeck blatantly committed an ethics violation for not recuseing himself in the Harlos matter.
Nope. It’s called “knowing what hat you’re wearing.” If you had any clue about that, you might understand. Ethics do not require recusal in that case, because I receive no pecuniary benefit or otherwise from it. As I stated in in that opinion:
During the appeal hearing, the impartiality of members of the Judicial Committee was improperly attacked by the respondents, claiming bias towards the appellant from personal relationships with appellant. It would bear the respondents well to remember that just because people in the Party have personal relationships with the parties involved that aren’t the respondents, that doesn’t mean there’s bias. A lot of us in the Party know, have worked with, and are friends with many other people in the Party, some of it going back decades; it comes with the small size of the Party and simply times and places where Party activities are done. The respondents gave the distinct impression that anyone with a view, opinion, or relationship that is contrary to their wishes somehow creates a conflict of interest. That idea is completely rejected, because that simply is not how this Party works; if libertarians are anything, we’re not lock-step automatons or Borg drones under a queen. The Judicial Committee is not any “yes men” for any caucus or the LNC, nor should they be. The Judicial Committee is the Delegates’ oversight of the LNC, not the LNC’s rubber stamp.
It’s also worth noting that even if the attacked members of the Judicial Committee did recuse themselves, the vote would still have been 5-1 or 4-1 to overturn the suspension, making the recusal moot. Rather than complain about others, perhaps the respondents should look hard in the mirror first, and
not the one in the carnival funhouse. Mt 7:3 comes to mind for consideration.
Nor does the Judicial Committee answer to the LNC, either. LNC members calling for recusal of Judicial Committee members for supposed conflicts of interest based on personal relationships is absurd and actually reflects badly on the LNC, because there is no personal benefit, pecuniary or otherwise, to the Judicial Committee members. To apply their standard with any resemblance of consistency, everyone would have to recuse themselves, leading to chaos and a runaway LNC, with no Judicial Committee able to oversee anything. It might be what those LNC members want, but that’s not what the Delegates want, it’s not what the membership wants, it’s not how the Party’s organizational structure is defined, and it certainly is not conducive to building and running a functional political party, which is what we are supposed to be doing. The Libertarian Party is not a Boss Tweed organization, nor should it be.
In other words, pRick doesn’t have a clue about ethics, the LP, or much of anything.
>Are Harlos and Seebeck really the ones embezzling money? Would it be a surprise if that’s the case?
You keep making that libelous allegation, and you provide nary a shred of proof. You made the allegation, so it’s on you to back it up. Put up or shut up, pRick. Oh, that’s right, you can’t, because there’s nothing there; you’re just spewing bovine excrement out your back end around your head. I for one have never been paid one cent for anything by the LPUS, even though I have contributed tens of thousands of dollars and hours to it over the past 25 years. Ask Hagopian and Redpath instead of continuing to embarrass yourself. Or ask the Audit Committee, or the FEC.
Frankly, the accusation is absurd and illustrates that pRick has absolutely no idea about anything in the LP.
Since posting this article, several additional items have been added to the April 6 agenda. These include a motion to authorize up to $16,000 for HQ roof repairs and a motion to appoint Alexandre Pierre Crevaux as an additional LNC liaison to the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties. He would join current liaison Dr. Jim Lark. Both motions are being brought forward by Chair Steven Nekhaila.
Nekhaila and Treasurer Bill Redpath will also be presenting a financial review. At this point, there should be no further additions to the agenda.
>I also do not care, but just for discussion – what is the penalty if they fail to appoint and how is it enforced?
As currently worded, no penalty or enforcement. That’s a different problem that the current Bylaws report proposes to address, but the catch-22 is that it has to be heard to address it.
What’s your evidence of embezzlement?
Seebeck blatantly committed an ethics violation for not recuseing himself in the Harlos matter.
Are Harlos and Seebeck really the ones embezzling money? Would it be a surprise if that’s the case?
“That’s not allowed under the Bylaws…”
But of course. I should have known, lol
It’s the L.P., how could it be otherwise?
If there’s anything they excel at, it’s setting up internal bureaucratic Gordian slipknot.
Good luck with that.
I also do not care, but just for discussion – what is the penalty if they fail to appoint and how is it enforced?
>I don’t care, but if I did, I might say they should leave those committees vacant until they get a convention to look at the committee reports that they ran out of time to look at last time. If that’s allowed under their bylaws, lol.
That’s not allowed under the Bylaws as the appointments are a “shall” requirement and not a “may”.
But I do agree that the convention should hear those proposals. As the most recent Platform Committee Chair, that’s exactly what I am pushing for.
If pRick, whoever that is, opens his yap, you know it’s wrong…then again, he probably hasn’t read either report of have much of a clue about what is going on…
I used re-nominated for a reason, primarily because even if the motion passes, those members can decline. But the motion says reappointed, which is accurate.
I don’t care, but if I did, I might say they should leave those committees vacant until they get a convention to look at the committee reports that they ran out of time to look at last time. If that’s allowed under their bylaws, lol.
If Seebeck supports it, it’s probably a bad idea.
In all, with the exception of Yeniscavich’s updates and perhaps practical housekeeping, this “special meeting” is just going to be another bunch of scheming bovine excrement. Surprise, surprise.
—
@Seebeck
I note – approvingly – that you use the word “re-nominated”, rather than “reappointed” as your crony Harlos did.
While the proposal regarding the Bylaws Committee does not affect the Platform Committee, both committees should have their most recent members re-nominated to the committees to take a step forward to getting the past committees’ reports heard at convention. This serves the purpose of respecting the work of those committees and of the delegates, as well as preventing backlog.