Readers who might be offended by indelicate language should perhaps skip this article, but it is the extended debate of the LNC on the LNC Public List.
———-
Todd Hagopian: LNC Motion: Rescind the Libertarian National Convention Speaking slots offered to any declared candidates seeking the Presidential nomination of any U.S. Political Party other than the Libertarian Party.
———-
Adrian Malagon: Grow a pair, Todd.
———-
Mark Tuniewicz: Co-sponsor.
———-
Beth Vest: Region 7 co-sponsors.
———-
Adam Haman: For those interested, I’ll share my thoughts on this matter:
https://hamannature.substack.com/p/trump-to-speak-at-the-libertarian?r=2u0knv
———-
Steven Nekhaila: The speakers, schedule, and other items need to be ratified through the LNC. We need to hold a meeting; I have been wanting to talk finances both for convention and in general. Do we have interest in doing so now?
———-
LP Secretary: The fact is that with one exception I can remember last term the LNC never has approved every speaker. That provision has been routinely ignored. That certainly is unfortunate and that passage of PM should be revisited. However contracts have already been signed with speakers and announced long ago so the LNC has effectively acquiesced.
The one exception is in this thread. That speaker did not come through CoC as described in that PM provision, it came through Chair acting as CEO and thus does not fall under that provision. It properly falls under rescission which is the subject here.
If someone wishes to try to rescind other speakers they may get co-sponsors if they can.
tldr; it is being addressed already through this thread as all others already contracted.
I will be making a motion to amend that PM section. It’s been routinely ignored for multiple terms and should reflect actual practice.
LP Secretary: Actually I was incorrect – at least for 2022 all speakers from CoC were approved. My faulty memory. I went and found the voting records. The ones that came out CoC could be ratified at this time if someone wish to make that motion.
The speaker in this thread did not come from CoC.
Apologies for faulty memory. But that PM still needs to be changed as “convention program” has never been approved which includes far more than speakers.
And actually specific apologies to all members of prior fine CoC as I incorrectly stated they did not ask for approval when they did. That error is entirely mine, and I ask their forgiveness.
———-
Dustin Nanna : 2 of my chairs are in favor of rescinding outright and 1 more would like the policy manual to be satisfied so based on that I am cosponsoring this motion.
———-
Adrian F Malagon: What a bloody joke.
Todd,
Instead of wasting our time with this pathetic attempt at appeasing our lessers who do nothing but seek to destroy the efforts of others, stay in the Shire after second breakfast, where you’ve seemingly been for months instead of doing your job.
———-
Andrew Malagon: Point of Order:
The Policy Manual does not require approval for after-hours speakers. Therefore, the Chair acted within her authority as CEO of the Party and entered into, at a minimum, an oral contract with President Trump that has at least already been partially executed, and this motion does not specify what unexecuted portions are to be rescinded.
Furthermore, based on Convention sales, third parties have invested money and perhaps made travel plans in reasonable reliance upon this contract, especially here in California.
———-
Mark Tuniewicz : Madame Chair, Enough is enough.
I ask that you act NOW to sanction Mr. Malagon, for repeated cause.
He has repeatedly demeaned, in the most unprofessional way, officers and members of this board, other party leaders, and members who contact him.
His comments directed to the treasurer today are once again beyond the pale. They’re outside of what is permissible in any professional organization. It is your responsibility to stop it.
Sanction him now, please, or step aside immediately for someone who will (Andrew, Steven, Kathy, anyone!).
You are enabling this, Madam Chair, by not taking action. It’s not just because we’re near the convention. It’s been going on for months.
Please take action. Sanction Mr. Malagon, propose a censure motion, whatever comes to mind. But do something, please.
———-
Adrian Malagon: Mark,
Your entire existence demeans anyone who has to deal with you.
Choke on your words or whatever thing in a red dress you fancy.
———-
Beth Vest, J.D. : Mr. Malagon,
This is either an after hours event which needs no permission or consideration by the entire committee, or it is “… based on Convention sales, third parties have invested money and perhaps made travel plans in reasonable reliance upon this contract, especially here in California.”
I cannot be both. Which do you prefer?
———-
Adrian Malagon: To Beth Vest: I prefer that you not cosplay as someone who has an IQ of above 70.
———-
LP Secretary: I await the ruling of the Chair. Per the Policy Manual I have two days to start a ballot (i.e., by Saturday), and I am giving the Chair that time.
———-
Todd Hagopian: What ruling are we waiting on?
Regardless of whether her action violated the PM, the LNC can vote to undo an invitation. Correct?
———-
Todd Hagopian: My motion does not reference the Policy Manual
It is simply an LNC vote to rescind an invitation
———-
LP Secretary: Mr. Malagon raised a point of order. I am awaiting the ruling of the Chair
———-
Adrian Malagon: You’ll have to forgive Todd, he’s checked out again
———-
LP Secretary: Mr. Hagopian, I am not the Chair, and the Chair needs to rule on Mr. Malagon’s Point of Order which he has every right to make. I await her ruling, and until then I am bowing out of naked game of political theatre.
———-
Todd Hagopian: My motion does not reference the Policy Manual. It is simply an LNC vote to rescind an invitation. What ruling are we waiting on?
———-
Andrew Watkins: This thread is obnoxious.
———-
Todd Hagopian: I mplying that I engage in political theater is rich. I will wait the ruling of the chair on the point of order that did not bring up any issue in which to be ruled on. Thank you.
———-
Adrian F Malagon: You’re not qualified to understand the meaning of the word “rich.” Your financial track record here shows as much.
———-
Todd Hagopian: Interesting day to make that comment, given the seven figures that hit my bank account around 2pm. Have a blessed day, Adrian.
———-
Adrian F Malagon: That’s great! I look forward to a massive donation to the LNC then to help offset some of your failures here.
———-
LP Secretary: Against my better judgment, Mr. Malagon’s Point of Order was not based on the Policy Manual. He mentioned the Policy Manual as I understand it to address comments made in public by members. His point of order that the invitation cannot be rescinded in full and there are financial costs to the party that were not addressed in the motion which is part of the whole procedure of rescission and did not address the liability to the Party from third parties.
It is ironic that some did not want to vote for a Line of Credit without knowing all the details but are fine with malformed motion that I do not believe is in order as written (I made the same point of order before) with catastrophic financial implications. Further anyone can read the room and know this will not pass. That is why I called it political theater. Being on the losing side of an issue, knowing one will remain on the losing side with a motion to rescind, is deeply inconsiderate of the time and emotional cost on fellow LNC members. I stand by that statement. With that, I am out.
Mr. Malagon’s Point of Order is being misrepresented.
———-
Todd Hagopian: The minority should not speak up if they are likely to lose a vote?
Perhaps we should stop running candidates?
Sorry, I rarely engage in debate on non-debate threads, but that was a ridiculous post. I have voted, on principle, on the losing side of dozens of issues this term. I never read the riot act afterwards, but I have the right to vote my conscience, and “wasting people’s time” on an email ballot is the least we can do when over half of the membership is up in arms surrounding an issue.
I will be done for the night, and await whatever ruling the chair believes she has to make on the point of order.
———-
Angela McArdle: I’m in the middle of late night trial prep. I will catch up fully on the thread once I’m finished.
———-
Dustin Nanna: Madame Chair,
It was 85 degrees outside in Ohio today. My northern blood would curdle if I attempted to touch grass. Tomorrow looks more promising.
In all serious, thank you for taking the time to let us know you’re looking into it.
———-
Adrian Malagon: If saying out loud what everyone else on this list is thinking is “atrocious,” so be it.
I believe in transparency which is why I do it here instead of in a social media circle jerk a coward.
I stand by everything I’ve said, because it’s tru
Donald Trump has nothing to offer the Libertarian Party. His presence at the convention can be nothing more than a side show similar to the strip down charade that took place eight years ago in Florida. Donald Trump advocates the initiation of force and does not belong at a Libertarian Party event.
They invited him; they should let him come. Too many LP types are all or nothing.
The reality is IF Trump shows up (& he will not) – they will need to clear the ballroom no later than 2 pm for an 8 pm speech. The way this works is the secret service & police make sure the space is cleared & locked down. They then do a full sweep removing any items left behind that would be considered “banned” by law or the rules of the Hilton for this type of event – the campaign then will do a full sweep as well to make sure the messaging is controlled – removing any anti-Trump signs as an example. So in this example it is likely business for the day will need to end by 1 pm. Keep in mind the room we are using maxes out at 1100 so very few extra tickets can be sold if all the delegates are present.
The alternative is the LNC paying for the use of the other ballroom at the Hilton. There will be considerable expense related to getting this space set up along with a/v. There’s no way the Trump campaign is paying for any related expense. So – in addition to about $100K in added security costs from the police & SS – there will be another $X amount related to the use of the other ballroom – if even available – & the set up of everything. On the other hand – this room can sit 2800+ classroom style. So the opportunity to recover some of these added expenses will exist. Business will still need to end early to allow folks to get in very long lines to enter the other ballroom as they’ll want to start clearing folks no later than 6 pm. The other option is a full list of individuals who might attend or purchased tickets is given the SS at least 24 hours in advance.
The bottom line is the LNC can be on the line for an additional $50-100k in net expenses – good thing they have that large line of credit! Oh wait……..
Things are getting ridiculous. What are the odds Trump’s handlers will let him appear before a partially hostile audience? What is the over/under on the number of fistfights on the convention floor?
Any expenses on behalf of Trump or incurred by the LNC because of Trump’s appearance must be reported as a “donation in kind” – that literally means the LNC is making a contribution that benefits a candidate of another party. If you do NOT now think that violates the bylaws & that the spending does not violate the Policy Manual – then please hare with everyone whatever it is you’re smoking. The fact is this was not done in an appropriate fashion. The LNC should vote on this regardless so we know where each & every one of them stands on this – which will allow us to make an informed decision as delegates in DC. The Chair should resign immediately & drop out of the race. The folks who have sued the LP on behalf of Membership should include these actions in their complaint.
The Chair ruled the motion out of order. There is an appeal.
Sorry for the delay. I’ve consulted 3 different parliamentarians and my ruling is as follows:
The point of order is well taken for two reasons:
Mr. Hagopian’s motion is procedurally incorrect. The LNC cannot rescind something they have not voted on. As the Chair, I made the invitation to Donald Trump. The correct motion would be to direct me to rescind my invitation to him, and to rescind any and all other invitations to other presidential candidates who are not seeking our nomination. I have extended the invite to three other candidates.
The motion is also out of order because we have already entered into financial contracts regarding Donald Trump’s appearance. Ticket sales jumped up considerably, we sold debate topic questions, and people have begun to arrange travel, including media.
Additional, relevant information: I extended the invite to other candidates, including Afroman, who is performing for us at an afterparty event. He’s been a guest at state conventions in the past. It would be tacky and classless and to now turn him away. While Rich Bowen was COC Chair, he and the committee agreed to let me select all the convention speakers, so I have done that. I kept two of the officers and one COC member in confidence regarding the invitation to Pres. Trump because I wanted some feedback and support before arranging his appearance officially. I did not inform the entire COC or LNC because we have an obvious history of leaks and violations of confidentiality. That’s still an ongoing concern.
You can appeal my ruling, if you want. If you make a separate motion on the same topic, I’m going to rule it out of order for the same contractual reasons, but you can appeal that and we can start the appeal/overturn process.
Angela McArdle
Chair, Libertarian National Committee
Todd Hagopian
I appeal the ruling of the chair
My appeal is because this point of order was ruled on based on things that were not in the point of order at all.
The point of order never clamed my motion to be out of order, nor did the point of order reference my motion being procedurally incorrect. It referenced the policy manual, which my motion never referenced, so is moot. It referenced individuals making financial arrangements based on the announcement, which does not rise to the level of “contracts”
My original motion never asked to rescind an LNC action, it asked to rescind invitations. This is absolutely in order, just as the LNC could order the Chair/Staff not to spend money on a certain thing that was never voted on, but that they were normally allowed to spend money on within the typical rules.
Donations can be refunded, those are not contracts. Has Trump been paid? Have we been paid? As Treasurer, if either of these things have happened, I am unaware.
Part of extending a controversial invitation, without a vote, is the risk that people would want to rescind it. The Chair knowingly took this risk, despite this exact same thing happening earlier in the term.
Point: Nothing in the Chair’s ruling addresses the point of order. My motion has received the correct amount of sponsors. There is no need to stifle debate on important issues. The next step should be a vote. If you don’t like the motion, vote against it, but this LNC has had a terrible history of stifling debate, and this would be an egregious example of that again.
Secretary: Mr. Hagopian, please request co-sponsors for your appeal in a new thread. I cannot possibly keep track of things in multiple threads with the amount of emails I get. Thank you so very much.
Perhaps replacing Trump with Michael Wood is an acceptable compromise.
Who is Michael Wood?
The presidential nominee of the Prohibition Party.
But , what are their kids and grandkids on the playground saying about each other and each other’s mothers? I wouldn’t have thought the LP was worthy of Donald Trump But I would have been mistaken.
Whatever the merits of the initial decision, canceling Trump now would make the LP look inept and unserious.
You don’t take decisive action (inviting Trump), and then when your action succeeds (invitation accepted), quickly say, “Never mind.”
The LP would look like Gilda Radner as Emily Litella on SNL.
Gee, didn’t I say that “Never mind!” line several days ago?
Why yes, I certainly did!
Glad someone else sees it, too.
That headline is misleading, no debate has occurred yet.
To paraphrase Monty Python’s Arguement Sketch:
This isn’t a debate, this is abuse!
Reading that thread reminded me of kindergarteners yelling at one another, except no one said “poopoo head”!
Has the thread been closed for comment? If not, it’s probably still coming.
Grading recess banter on a curve: “Your entire existence demeans everyone who has to deal with you” is the current zinger champ. Mommy, he’s being MEAN is runner up. The suggestion that anyone who brings up a losing motion is inconsiderate of the time and MENTAL CONDITION of fellow committee members has to get bronze medal, as I see it.
Gentlemen and ladies, you are all out of order, and quite profoundly so.
All comments are moderated. When I get around to it.
I’m sorry , I meant the lnc business thread , in reply to Mr Perry comment regarding which terms they hadn’t yet used. It was not a comment on the IPR discussion thread. Sorry for being unclear.
not yet