LNC Chair Angela McArdle has asked the LNC to amend its procedure for acting on motions to suspend, i.e., to remove, LNC Officers and/or At-Large members.
The motion reads:
Motion: To strike out the current Section 1.01 4) text and insert the following:
4) Removal from Office
A Party Officer or At-Large Member may be disciplined as per the Bylaws Article 6.7 and 7.5, for cause, by the trial procedure outlined in the parliamentary authority. This requirement shall be modified by the following rules:
1. At least 14 days’ notice shall be given to the accused.
2. The accused’s rights of membership, except as they relate to the trial, may be suspended by a two-thirds vote upon the adoption of the charges and pending the disposition of the charges.
3. The accused may appear either personally or by counsel. Defense counsel may be either a sustaining member of the national Libertarian Party as per Bylaws Article 4.4, a licensed attorney, or both.
4. The manager for the Party shall be a sustaining member of the national Libertarian Party, as per Bylaws, Article 4.4.
- Testimony and deliberations, as being “pending or potential litigation,” as per Bylaws, Article 7.15, may be held in Executive Session. The LNC may, however, order a transcript or recording be made of the session even if in Executive Session.
- The LNC may act on the report of an investigatory committee at any point prior to the final adjournment of the next Libertarian National Convention.
- Prior to the commencement of the trial, the LNC, by majority vote, adopts a resolution to govern the trial specifying details not inconsistent with the procedures described in the Bylaws, rules in the policy manual, or the parliamentary authority.
Moved By: Chair McArdle
The amendment was adopted by a vote of 12-0-0 with 3 not voting.
There still has to be cause. So far the charges were found invalid by the JC. We await to see if the removal was valid.
The rule supposedly limiting cause has been removed.
Washington DC law doesn’t allow a nonprofit board to under
§ 29–408.22. Bylaw amendments requiring member approval.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or bylaws, the board of directors or designated body of a membership corporation that has one or more members at the time shall not adopt or amend a bylaw under:
(5) Section 29-406.08(a):
(A) Requiring cause to remove a director; or
(B) Specifying what constitutes cause to remove a director;
https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/29/chapters/4
This is NOT a bylaw amendment.
Bylaws still require cause!
Article 6 §7: The National Committee may, for cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee, excepting the officer that is the subject of the vote who may not participate in that vote…
Right and the LNC lacks authority to define cause.
If that is the case, the LNC’s removal of CAH cannot be challenged on the ground that it did not meet the PM requirement, The current rule has nothing about cause.
Section 5 is absurd. “Pending or potential litigation” has a very specific meaning, and suspension or removal of an LNC member isn’t that. That violates the Bylaws.
14 days notice of what?
Do these people have any clue what they’re doing, or are they just desperate to silence dissent?
Generally, there is a high risk of litigation with disciplinary action, leading to axiom, “Even if you do everything right, you still have about a fifty percent chance of being
sued.” See “Procedural Aspects of the Penn State Scandal,” Parliamentary Journal, October 2014.
14 days’ notice is the minimum notice for the trial.
So the LNC gets all the time it needs to trump up bullshit charges against a member but the member only has 14 days to prepare a defense in and around their real jobs and lives.
Yeah, that’s fair. It’s also why RONR recommends 30 days. Pass the blue-and-white striped caps and cue up the melody of The Yellow Rose of Texas.
And comparing the LNC to a university pedophilia scandal? Really? That is far beyond cognitively dissonant.
*The Eyes of Texas.
…all the live long day…
The bylaws sections referenced include the whole and entire amount of due process to which the member to be suspended is ENTITLED: A vote of the LNC.
If the LNC wants to hold a trial or whatever, that’s fine. But all they’re required to do is vote on a motion.
Then, according to you, CAH was properly removed in 2021 and 2024.
In terms of bylaws compliance, yes, she was properly removed, with far more process than she was due, both times.
That evaluation is independent of whether I like her (I love her as a friend and have personally always enjoyed working with her) and whether I think she SHOULD have been removed either time (I supported the 2021 removal for reasons I explained then and oppose the 2024 removal for reasons I’ve also explained).
The bylaws set the requirements for suspension and appeal. RONR cannot add conditions to requirements specified in the bylaws. Under the bylaws, all that’s required is motion and vote, just as with most things. Any “trial” elements are entirely optional until/unless the matter comes before the Judicial Committee (which writes its own rules of appellate procedure constituting the process to which all parties are entitled).
RONR required a trial, absent a rule; that is the default rule set when RONR became the parliamentary authority. The LNC can adopt rules requiring a trial or removing someone by motion, or by some combination. The LNC must determine cause.
RONR is only applicable where consistent with the bylaws.
The bylaws straightforwardly set forth the sole and exact requirement. RONR cannot modify that requirement.
Of course, there’s nothing in the bylaws to stop them from having a “trial,” in the form of debate on the motion and allowing, with the consent of the LNC, non-LNC-members to speak in that debate.
But neither is the “trial” an entitlement of the accused as “due process.” The exclusive required process due anyone is a vote of the LNC on a motion to suspend.
No, the bylaws do not establish a specific process. RONR does and permits special rules to supersede that process.
They seem to spend a lot of time worrying about how to organize their circular firing squad.
This should all be in rhe bylaws. It is a mistake to allow any national committee, good or bad, in any party, to create procedures for policing itself.
You would think they would be concerned about the corruption of their Chair. You would think their new parliamentarian would be concerned about that too. Oddly, he’s silent. Richard Brown is better off to be away from the inevitable implosion.
Who is their new parliamentarian?