For the March 2 meeting, there are two relevant motions made by Mr. Watkins:
Mr. Andrew Watkins:
- Rescinding the Building Fund (Notice given on 02/10/25)
- Authorize sale of 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA (Notice given on 02/10/25)
Adrian Malagon has been elected as an At-Large member of the Libertarian National Committee.
We are advised that the LNC was presented with another motion, on their secret business list, to fill the position that Malagon won with Jacob Bradley of Texas. Members did not learn of this alternative, because it was kept secret until after Malagon was elected.
LNC Minutes and Discussions list has been restored
and updated at LP.ORG.
Please supply a link.
I do not believe that is restored as of yet, but there IS a motion to do so. https://groups.google.com/g/lnc-public/c/vsX7aseEFjg
When the LNC sells the building, then they are obligated to at least ask the donors if they want their money back. If they fail, and spend the proceeds on other things, then I expect they will find themselves subject to legal action. Perhaps a class action suit?
Unless the donors were promised the building would never be sold — forever and ever, for all eternity — the LNC’s decision seems legal to me.
The donations were used to buy a building. Promise kept.
I don’t see that the LNC is now legally bound to keep the building forever. Circumstances change. The money was entrusted to them, so if they in good faith believe the cause is better served by cashing in the building and using the money on other matters, I think a court will agree that they have that discretion.
I remember when purchasing a building in D.C. first came up for discussion. The theory was the LP would be more influential politically if they had a permanent presence in Washington. I thought it was a stupid cargo cultist idea at the time. “The major parties have a permanent presence in D.C., so if we do likewise, we’ll be a major party!”
I agreed with those who said the LNC should be based in the middle of the U.S. Omaha perhaps. Cheaper, and shorter flight routes for most of its members.
Building funds, to my understanding, are a seperate legal category which allows donations to parties above the legal maximum and has other stipulations, one of which is that the money can only be used for a building or returned to donors. I would think that would include not flipping real estate to make the money available for other uses later on, but it’s been years since I looked it up and I don’t know if there’s some time cap on that which allows it after a certain number of years. If any of you are legal experts on this perhaps you might fill in additional details.
I have not been involved with the L.P. since 2008, so the building fund fundraising was after I left the party (I’m probably still a signature member, but that’s it). For those of you who were involved at the time the building funds were solicited, especially if you contributed, were any promises in fact made that the money would never be used for anything else? We’re any of those in writing? Did any of you keep copies of such solicitations?
Did anyone preserve your national committee discussions of that time, and what were they told when the building fund was discussed and approved?
I looked up online that the lnc chairman at the time was Geoffrey Neale. Is he still around, and is anyone in touch with him?
These are the sort of questions you all should ask if any of you feel strongly about this one way or the other.
I won’t delve into this further myself since I’m not a libertarian or L.P. member (other than in the sense of not having formally revoked my membership oath signatures from 1987-9 and 2008-9) or building donor, but I hope this helps those of you who are more involved with that party.
Mr. Teeth – These are considered under GAAP (required by LP Bylaws), IRS, DC Nonprofit Law & in particular FEC Regs (because this was a special designated fund with higher limits) as donor designated permanently restricted funds. This means it is 100% up to the donor what to do with the funds if the building is sold – unless they are used for the purchase of another building.
If the building is sold – & the LP is not immediately buying a new building – then the DONOR has several options as previously explained all over the place. They can keep the money is a segregated fund for use in the purchase of a future building, transfer their donation to another segregated fund (which currently doesn’t exist because the LNC got rid of the Legal Fund a year ago), donate the funds to the general account up to the legal limit (& receive a refund for anything over that limit), or receive a full refund.
Of course anything they receive for the building over the $750,672 in restricted funds used to purchase the building & pay off the mortgage can be used for any pourpose the LNC wants – including paying down credit card debt.
Depending on the amount of debt they may choose to rent the building – take a line of credit against the building – & use that to pay down the much higher interest credit card debt instead.
Thank you for refreshing my memory. That’s what I thought but I wasn’t sure. I wonder whether the current national committee either knows or cares about those legal obligations. If the answer to one of those is no, I imagine they or their successors will probably find out through a class action lawsuit, but then from reading this site it doesn’t appear to me that they are particularly averse to lawsuits – if anything, they seem to relish them.
Again this is only as a very outside observer – I haven’t considered myself a libertarian or given them a penny in over 16 years and have no favorite libertarian party factions at this point. I’ve voted for some of their down ballot candidates more recently than that, but the same might have been the case for the constitution party had there been more of those in those same year’s.
What if a donor is dead or has quit the party and can’t be reached because they have changed their contact information?
Great question – under GAAP when a donor with permanently restricted funds dies, the funds remain restricted according to the donor’s original instructions, unless the restriction becomes obsolete, inappropriate, or impracticable, in which case the organization may seek a court order or other legal means to release the restriction. The LNC knew this going in with the Building Fund. But of course there was never going to be an issue because there was always going to be an HQ even if the building or location changes – many political parties own multiple properties for various uses. This is why I suggest a new Building Committee be set up so all the facts can be sorted out in a very transparent fashion & an informed decision can be made.
I agree the LNC should contact an attorney first.
During the BLM era a few years go, many university buildings were renamed because the original name was of a slave owner. In at least one instance, a donor had financed the building with the stipulation that it be named after him. But the donor had lived over a century ago, and the agreement was simply ignored. The conservative press complained about it, but that was all. I forget the details.
There might be a time limit on how long the LNC has to keep the building. There might also be an “emergency” doctrine in law for nonprofits. If a nonprofit is facing bankruptcy or financial distress, they might be allowed to sell the building to pay for normal expenses.
Again, the LNC should consult an attorney. Perhaps they already have?
Mr. Root, perhaps there is a moral obligation in play here, if not a legal one? In any case, it would behoove the LNC to obtain an advance opinion from the FEC before selling the building.
Note that the “secret” motion would have been out of order while the motion to appoint Malagon was pending.
Yes, we can all plainly see that the LNC chose not to use a transparent, competitive, and deliberative process here.
It has to dowith one motion bec=ing made first. Had the LNC voted down the first motion, the second could have been made.
I understand that the LNC chose to take up an insider preferred candidate first instead of choosing to use a genuinely open process that would have encouraged additional applicants and allowed for all candidates to be considered and debated together, including the opportunity for feedback from members, prior to making a decision.
If the process for electing a President was that the country first had to vote on a motion to make Harris president, and only if that failed then vote on a motion to make Trump president, that would obviously be a bad process because it heavily favors the first person considered.
I am not saying the LNC didn’t follow the process correctly. I am saying they did not use the right process.
As soon as the Jesus Caucus Anschluss was completed, I worried about the looting of party assets. Now it appears I was insufficiently pessimistic.
Reminder: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2023/06/robert-kraus-speaks-on-selling-lp-headquarters/
So appx. $750K was raised specifically for a headquarters building (to honor David Nolan, if I recall). I don’t remember if it was Bill Redpath or Mark Hinkle who solicited me, and many others, but someone somewhere has the records of who donated. Those giving above a certain amount were to have their names placed on a plaque on the office wall. I recall several people donated multi-thousands of dollars, and thus may be very upset if not recompensed.
When the LNC sells the building, then they are obligated to at least ask the donors if they want their money back. If they fail, and spend the proceeds on other things, then I expect they will find themselves subject to legal action. Perhaps a class action suit? Perhaps involuntary bankruptcy petition? Perhaps suits of personal liability for failure to perform fiduciary responsibilities? The risks are many, so it behooves the LNC members to do the right thing.
While I disagreed at the time and still disagree with Andy’s position that the building was unnecessary when it was purchased more than a dozen years ago, today’s work climate makes it no longer relevant.
I still contend that they will have serious filing issues if they just take the money and spend it as part of the general fund. Obviously, their party is in serious financial distress. We can debate what caused it, but the result is the same. They are hurting and looking for quick cash. Will this be enough, or is it too late?
The LNC already had some people working remote at least as far back as 2006. The trend for remote workers was already around before the LNC purchased the office. There was nothing that was,done at the office which could not have been done elsewhere for a cheaper price.
The LP had offices in the DC metro area for many years and it never got the party any publicity or gave the party any influence with the federal government.
So what was the point of it?
The original idea was to have a facility to handle the following, in no particular order:
1. Storage for swag and outreach materials.
2. A meeting place for the LNC.
3. A meeting place for LPDC.
4. A base of operations to establish and run a lobbying presence on Capitol Hill.
5. A place to store our own server to run everything electronic.
Unfortunately, none of those ever came to fruition.
You are not completely correct in your statement. My understanding is that a lot of stuff was stored there, mostly old junk.
As I recall, it was possible for the LNC to meet there, but not to have a meeting with any audience present. The same was true of the Watergate office. We were aware of that when the building was purchased.
At the time, the libertarian party did have its own internal server to run raisers edge. I remember having to repair it and do upgrades to it a number of years ago. When they switched to the online version of the application, in house servers became unnecessary.
There was never any intent of putting the main website on a server in house. The cost of a network connection fast enough and reliable enough to service that would’ve been prohibitive.
The ability for the DC affiliate to meet there was mentioned, but it was not part of the requirements and not an actual goal. It was viewed as just an extra “benefit“ of having an office. I am not sure if the DC affiliate ever met in the Watergate office.
The critical requirement was really having a presence to make the party visible and remain visible in the DC area. It certainly should have been a base of operations for lobbying, but since that depends on having staff that don’t fear for their job on a daily basis and are not mistreated by the LNC, that is a ship that has sailed.
And this whole issue of working remotely is really a problem. I can speak to this, because I have worked remotely and had a home office for over 40 years. I have at times also had jobs where I worked in the office, but worked from home at night or on weekends when things needed to be done. These days I have an office at home, an actual office with a server room across town, and a desk in the NOC on the Yorktown.
Some jobs, like technical support, can easily be done from home. And people who are calling donors to raise money can be at home. They need a quiet environment in the background to talk anyway, so it actually works best if they are not in a busy environment.
But collaboration works best in person. Zoom meetings can never replace planning sessions where people can mark things up on a whiteboard or flipboard, and interact with multiple people jumping in the discussion. Zoom just does not replace that effectively.
The real issue is the need. The libertarian party, no matter how effective it was at its height, is not effective anymore. The bloviating by the recent resigned in disgrace chair aside, they have no influence and no real need to try to lobby. Media isn’t going to come and visit them. Why? Politicians certainly aren’t going to either.
So we could debate endlessly over whether there ever was a need or whether the party could have improved had they actually used the facility for what it was intended for. We can all agree that it isn’t needed anymore.
I can’t comment on the libertarian party related specifics, but there are significant downsides to relying on remote work, especially exclusively, that have been independently discovered by many companies and nonprofits and many of their employees, particularly over the last 5 years. For example, Elon Musk forced Twitter (now X) employees back into the office and now is applying the lessons he learned from that experience to the federal government. From what I’ve read only 6% of federal employees are currently showing up regularly in person and many of those “working from home” are doubtfully working at all, unless it’s at other jobs or businesses outside of their tax funded duties.
Another reason for a political organization which relies on donors to have a physical office inside the DC beltway is to give donors the impression that they have some sort of influence in federal politics, even if that influence is much exaggerated or even nonexistent in reality.
Many donors, especially larger donors, tend to be older, given the positive correlation of age with wealth in today’s America. They may not spend much time on social media or political websites, particularly ones that deal with the LP and its internal minutia, and might check email sparingly and not open or gloss over political party emails. They might pay attention to the LP, and especially consider sending it money, only if they receive an old fashioned physical newsletter and old fashioned physical fundraising and membership renewal letters, although as a counterpoint they might not need to worry about recurring donor attrition as much if they relied less on opt in yearly donations and more on opt out monthly debits.
Networking with the staff of other political and politics adjacent organizations in the DC area is another potential benefit.
Pat, you are obviously correct, for all the reasons you mentioned and many others. Now, a press and public relations office in DC proper, and a building significantly larger than the current one someplace else, might make more sense.
I agree. I had submitted my previous comment before I saw this latest comment. Obviously all of those arguments are correct and go into more detail of what I was talking about.
When we searched for offices, we found several options. The one we chose was within the price range we felt could be handled. Considering the real estate market at present, if the Libertarian Party were still trying to maintain an office, you are correct that a larger one would be better. Maybe even actually move back into DC.
But we all know that it’s not going to happen. They will sell the building, and then the money will disappear into paying off debts that the previous chair and the current LNC ran up as they spent the party into oblivion over the past few years.
As you allude to, there are significant benefits to being in the DC metro area. There are a lot of networking opportunities in DC. It’s not just lobbying! Even without big-L congressmen, there have always been a lot of sympathetic staff members on a range of issues. Political journalists tend to be in DC, and they incude many small-L libertarians. DC contains numerous think tanks with policy experts who take libertarian positions, such as those at the Cato Institute. When I lived in suburban DC, I regularly hung out with libertarian congressional staffers, libertarian journalists, and libertarian policy wonks. I never saw LP staff network with them at the happy hours.
So while there are good reasons to be in DC in theory, if we aren’t using them in practice, then it is probably wasted money. My preference would be to hire a communications director who actually networks with journalists and/or a political director who actually lobbies. Failing that though, LPHQ should be somewhere else with cheaper real estate and cost of living.
Work from home is not the same as being on site. Productivity is significantly improved if staff can collaborate in person — if not daily, then at least weekly. I donated to the building for 2 reasons: because I know there is an actual advantage to working in person and because it adds gravitas to the party to have a physical presence. It shows we are not a fly-by-night organization. We can save and plan for the future and intend to be around for decades to come.
Unfortunately, the current LNC wants the opposite of that. They want to systematically dismantle all of our progress and squander the donations of others. It is very sad. I will join in a lawsuit if this LNC tries to flush another million dollars of other people’s money down the toilet.
The building has outlived its usefulness. It should be sold or rented out. It has been proven that staff jobs can all be done remote. The money from the sale or rental of the building could go to more productive uses.
Legally, building fund money can only be spent on another building or returned to donors. There are additional problems related to fraud if any explicit promises were made to donors that the money would never be put towards other types of uses through selling the building. This isn’t specific to the libertarians but rather a general statement.