Press "Enter" to skip to content

Tuniewicz Raises Financial Issues

LNC Regional Representative Mark Tuniewicz has continued to raise questions about the conduct of LNC financial affairs.  Third Party Watch was forwarded the following discussion by a highly reliable source.

The following discussion did not occur on the LNC Public business list at Google, because that list has been shut down.  The LNC has moved its business discussion to a new non-public Microsoft list that I cannot access.

Mark Tuniewicz <mark.tuniewicz@lp.org> Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 12:37 PM
To: LNC Business <lnc-business@lp.org>

Madame Chair,

LNC Regional Representative Mark Tuniewicz has continued to raise questions about the conduct of LNC financial affairs. Third Party Watch was forwarded the following discussion by a highly reliable source.

The following discussion did not occur on the LNC Public business list at Google, because that list has been shut down. The LNC has moved its business discussion to a new non-public Microsoft list that I cannot access.

Mark Tuniewicz <mark.tuniewicz@lp.org> Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 12:37 PM
To: LNC Business <lnc-business@lp.org>

Madame Chair,

Returning to a couple of topics and unanswered questions:

1) CA Black Tie Fundraiser: The LNC has not been provided with details about how this event went. It’s important and relevant since we have another high end fundraiser pending in FL. I’m not asking for anything more than the basics….a brief summary of how the event went, how many people attended, a brief break-out of costs along with revenues. How many people gave? How many people paid to attend? Did costs include the cost of staff to be there and work the event? I’ve received conflicting cost figures (as low as 6000, as high as over 10,000) and zero information about how much was raised. I’ve been to fancy fundraisers that certainly raised into the 6 fig, but hopefully we raised 2-3 times the total costs? If it didn’t go as well as we thought, that’s OK….what did we learn, and what will we do differently in FL as a result? A complete answer with some details would be appreciated, see my original message below.

2) Details about Rage Against the Machine rally income and expenses: This item is relevant to the LNC because we as an organization were asked and did co-sponsor it, and our HQ address was used as an address for the organizing entity. That entity was comprised of the Chair, presumably acting in her individual capacity, along with the chair of another political party. As a co-sponsor of the event who helped to promote it, the LNC has a responsibility to understand how the six figure sum from that event was raised, and how it was spent. To date, zero information has been provided, and I’m asking that you rectify that with a full disclosure of the finances of the event.

3) LPNational Twitter account not promoting certain LP Presidential candidates: Mr. Benner recently wrote that we, @LPNational “retweet individual presidential candidates when they have put out good libertarian messaging, with exceptions for candidates that have broadly called this board racist/bigoted and asked us not to promote them in any way.”. Most of our Presidential hopefuls have put out good libertarian messaging this year. Which specific candidates fall under the “exception” category, as Mr. Benner mentioned? How was that exception policy created, and by whom? Is it a written policy, to be applied consistently to all candidates? Since deciding not to promote one of our presidential candidates is inherently problematic, and we seek to avoid the appearance of favoritism in our nominating process, it’s important to know if and when was it communicated to the LNC, since I don’t recall hearing about it. And depending how long ago the decision was made, have their been subsequent conversations with the campaign that would allow any such BAN to be lifted?

Addressing the first two items in sufficient detail now has the advantage of potentially freeing up our agenda at our upcoming March in-person meeting. I’m sure we’ll have a lot to talk about.

Thank you.
With best wishes,
Mark Tuniewicz

From: Dave Benner <dave.benner@lp.org> Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 2:24 PM
To: Mark Tuniewicz <mark.tuniewicz@lp.org>, LNC Business <lnc-business@lp.org>,

Because Mr. Tuniewicz already revealed my comments from a clearly marked confidential discussion in violation of our confidentiality agreement, and it’s now out for all to see, I will simply note that what I wrote below was my personal position as a volunteer on the communications committee. It’s not any part of any “exception policy” that Brian McWilliams, the Chair, or anyone else created. I don’t apologize for my stance on this, and believe it to be completely defensible.

If he had included other text in the same sentence of the original message, that was made completely clear, though I will not paste such text in brazen violation of our confidentiality arrangement as he did. While some members on social media may know, I will also not be naming names publicly in the middle of our candidates’ presidential campaigns as Mr. Tuniewicz wishes. The original message was intended to remain confidential for that very reason.

From Angela McArdle <angela.mcardle@lp.org> Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 3:26 PM
To: Dave Benner <dave.benner@lp.org>, Mark Tuniewicz <mark.tuniewicz@lp.org>, LNC Business <lnc-business@lp.org>,

This thread was a clear violation of a confidential thread and taken completely out of context in an attempt to rile people up. No further public responses, please.

 

10 Comments

  1. Sylvia Arrowwood Sylvia Arrowwood February 24, 2024

    When does ‘Bab Daddy” reach his second three-month time limit set
    by LNC?

  2. Robert Kraus Robert Kraus February 19, 2024

    Now they want to remove Mark – of course – for violating a confidential discussion – which apparently is not noted anywhere on the confidential discussion list & I see nothing confidential above that would fall under the confidentiality clause for secret meetings. But then again this was 100% predictable – oh wait I did predict it! If you are NOT a member of the Useless Caucus then you can not serve as a (fill in the blank)…. Committee member, region rep, volunteer, or even a delegate. Reminds me of a Niemöller quote:

    First they came for the reformist, and I did not speak out—because I was not a reformist.

    Then they came for the radicals, and I did not speak out—because I was not a radical.

    Then they came for the classical liberals, and I did not speak out—because I was not a classical liberal.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    • J. M. Jacobs J. M. Jacobs February 24, 2024

      Benner is a volunteer and falls under personnel. This is discussing his conduct as a volunteer. This is clearly covered under Article 7, #15 of the LP Bylaws, “executive session may only be used for discussion of personnel matters, contractual negotiations, pending or potential litigation, or political strategy requiring confidentiality.”

      Also, acting on its own, the LNC cannot remove any regional representative based on #8 of the same article, based on the principle that expression of one thing excludes like things of the same class (RONR, 58:68).

  3. Darryl W Perry Darryl W Perry February 18, 2024

    The Chair is consistent in her position of “criticize in private.”

  4. Robert Kraus Robert Kraus February 17, 2024

    Once again the Chair shuts down any discussions of important issues. The records Mark requests are available to him under DC Open Records laws for non profits as previously discussed. The Chair is both civilly & criminally negligent. Perhaps someone on the board might file certain complaints formally & we can all watch the officers be arrested on CSPAN during the convention. Now that much be a bit more fun then seeing someone strip!

  5. Nicholas Sarwark Nicholas Sarwark February 17, 2024

    Knowing that a member of the party’s official social media team created a policy to suppress messaging from select presidential contenders based on his own views of who ought to be promoted violates the longstanding practice of the Libertarian National Committee remaining neutral in the presidential nomination process.

    It may also violate the policy manual, unless this LNC has removed those provisions as well when they were removing conflict of interest prohibitions.

    Shocking behavior from Benner.

    • Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp February 19, 2024

      I’m shocked — shocked! — that you still retain the capacity to find anything shocking, at least from the the “current LNC” sewer.

    • J. M. Jacobs J. M. Jacobs February 21, 2024

      How is promoting several candidates’ tweets a “policy to suppress messaging?”

      What section of the policy manual does this violate?

    • Mark Tuniewicz Mark Tuniewicz February 22, 2024

      Mr. Benner has since clarified that no such policy exists, he is free to retweet….or not….those candidates that he so chooses are appropriate, in his own opinion. The chair chimed in that he had her support in doing so. My mistake was thinking there was a written policy surrounding this important activity that directly impacts the LP’s presidential hopefuls. And now, they delete my emails to the LNC Business list without any stated reason or notice to me. If that’s not fuel for a lawsuit, I don’t know what is. The answer is more transparency, not less, but the LNC has moved firmly in the opposite direction.

      • Robert Kraus Robert Kraus February 23, 2024

        1.13-2 of the Policy Manual covers this me thinks (& IMHO STRONGLY implies that all pre-nominated candidates be treated equal):

        2) Limitations on Party Support for Public Office
        Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for any candidate for
        public office prior to the nomination unless:
        • Such information or services are available and announced on an equal basis to all
        Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that nomination;
        • Such information or services are generally available and announced to all Party
        members; or
        • The service or candidate has been approved by the state chair.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

sixteen − 15 =