An opinion statement from Susan Hogarth, referring to a recent change in the policy manual.
Hogarth writes:
This is such ridiculous Animal Farm level nonsense that it would be amusing if I didn’t care about the Libertarian Party.
This is a Policy Manual change implemented by the current LNC. The Bylaws are not changeable by the sitting LNC, but the Policy Manual is. Using the PM as a Bylaws circumvention is the real issue here.
The problem is not *primarily* that one policy is good and one is awful (or, really, that one was bad and the other worse), the real problem is that the Policy Manual has been weaponized as a workaround for rules the LNC leadership finds inconvenient. In a stunning but not surprising bit of projection, the ‘leadership’ of McArdle, et al., who are constantly harping on the political ill of ‘lawfare’ are themselves masters (or so they think) of this sort of bullshit.
The ‘current language’ (now former) was added to the @LPNational policy manual by the current leadership in response to a previous administration’s removal of an officer for what the LNC at the time considered good reason (full disclosure: I agreed with the removal at the time and haven’t changed my opinion about that decision).
It should not have been added; it was a reactionary sop to anger felt by those who thought the removal was unwarranted. It was in my opinion a weaponization of the Policy Manual as a workaround for what SHOULD be the source for LNC action of that sort, the member-determined Bylaws.
“But it’s an added layer of protection!” Yeah, no. It was a precedent creating a layer of LNC-controlled legalism between the bylaws (members) and direct LNC action.
As is the case with most reactionary measures, the new leadership soon felt itself hindered by its overreaching response to a perceived/exploited issue.
So their response was to – and this is the Orwellian part – not just reverse the reactionary measure but to make the system WORSE by using their precedent of creating Policy Manual rules that usurp the role of the bylaws but that are convenient to their control.
Make no mistake: this change WILL be used against officers of the LP who don’t fall in line with the current ‘leadership’ of McArdle and her toadies. Its mere existence serves to quell any inclination of an officer to question leadership – something that should never be discouraged. But it’s pretty clear that when anyone does speak up, ask questions, or in any way inconvenience McArdle’s questionable actions, they will be easily booted using this ‘policy’ as a tool.
The Policy Manual should never have been weaponized, and now that it is, reverting it to a useful tool of commonplace policy for the LNC is going to be difficult. The new leadership MUST resist the temptation to go further down this path by ‘fixing’ the mistakes of this administration with another layer of ‘better’ mistakes.
The mere existence of this change ought to strengthen the derivative lawsuit immeasurably in my (legally uneducated) opinion. It’s a clear subversion of the bylaws, replacing a slightly-less-clear earlier subversion of the bylaws, and is therefore clearly against member interests.
I am very interested to see such a wide diversity of Party “elders” all speaking out on this subject. Those who are much newer to the Party might be well advised to pay attention to the views expressed.
I don’t understand how they think they can do this. I served on the LNC for six years. The policy manual never superseded the bylaws. Never. It dealt with the internal operation and procedures of the national party, but it had no authority outside of that committee and staff.
Somehow, they seem to be in topsy-turvy world. Soon they will be putting things in the policy manual that say the bylaws don’t count.
Oh wait…
They just did…
Hogarth supported no trial for disciplinary action when on the LNC.
Further, this does not violate the bylaws; it is a special rule of order. The PM has had special rules of order in it since at least 2012.
But didn’t the Mises Caucus use CAH’s martyrdom to bring legitimacy to their movement and dcmecried the abuse of power used to throw CAH off the LNC (when she was championing their caucses) but are perfectly fine with the same procedures when they are in power. Called over 3 years ago, these people are rule for thee people who only want power and to exercise it
If you take a look at the filings CAH made in 2021, you will see that the LNC could have a adopted a rule to remove an officer by motion.
And that does nothing to address what I brought up. We can sit here and talk coulda woulda shoulda all day long and only waste oxygen. The Mises Caucus rode to victory fihhting against these exacts types of actions. Apparently though the MC is more Feranghi than they would like to admit. They don’t want to end the exploitation, the simply want to become the exploiters.
I had already left the party, and actually was not aware of that removal because I was not following any party event events for a while.
Based on what I read at the time, I may have supported the reasons she was removed. But this is analysis after the fact.
This time, her removal has been clearly to cover up suspicious acts of the chair and others.
Mr Flood,
It is actually quite funny (not for Mrs Harlos of course) that she was twice in a position where she was wanted to be removed for ultimatley personal reasons, while there existed reasons that could be legitimatley used for removal, and both time two board from oppasite ends of the slectrum went with improper and potentially illegal removal strategies. Thats why I have fought and stood against both of her removals, they went about it the wrong way and off principle.
I would not expect the policy to remain in place.