Last updated on November 10, 2024
Harlos Suspended under Bylaws 6.7.
I had video, but no audio. I am told that nothing of any significance beyond the voting was said. McArdle did not vote on these. Darr and Redpath were absent. Darr’s Alternate, Thompson, was present and voted. Redpath was absent without prior warning to the body.
Charge 2, Specification 1
No – Rutherford, Nanna, Thompson
All others except McArdle voted yes
Specification 2
abstain – Nanna, Rutherford, Thompson
All others except McArdle voted yes
Specification 3
No-Nanna, Rutherford , Thompson
All others except McArdle voted yes
Charge 2
No – Nanna, Rutherford, Thompson
All others except McArdle voted yes
Charge 1 – Specification failed to do what McArdle told her to do
Abstain-Nanna, Rutherford
No-Thompson
All others except McArdle voted yes
Charge 1 – Gross Misconduct
No-Nanna, Rutherford, Thompson
All others except McArdle voted yes
Motions all had 11 votes in favor and passed.
Suspend under Article 6.7:
No – Nanna, Rutherford, Thompson.
There are 16 voting members, Harlos not being allowed to vote. 2/3 of 16, always rounding up, is 11. There were 11 votes in favor. The motion passes.
Motion passes 11-3-0.
LNC discussion of this event is now completely gone. The LNC Public List, which is a google site that ought to be quite stable, is as I type off the air.
They seem to have moved here: https://groups.google.com/g/lnc-public
But, there are no discussions, yet. And the apparent deletion of the old business list archive leaves a large hole in the record.
That appears to be the very old discussion list.
The one in use prior to mid-February 2024 was lnc-business
The recently deleted one in use between February 2024 and the other day was lnc-business-list-public
The new one is lnc-public
I checked this morning, even going to it via the LNC website. Still down/deleted as of this morning.
They couldn’t wait to go dark after kicking CAH could they.
2 is the most obvious to even her most loyal supporters. 3 is very obvious too but most board members would be in violation of this.
1. and 4. are not as obvious but there’s still enough evidence to find her guilty.
The board made the right decision for her suspension and eventual removal.
OK, well considering that I have followed very little of what is going on within the LP since I left in the summer of 2020, I will take your word that 2 is obvious even to her supporters.
I did not even hear that she had been removed from office once before until at least a half a year or a year after it took place. I was completely avoiding all politics, including this website, at the time.
But since she ran again after removal and was voted back in, I have to assume that a majority of the delegates had no problem with whatever it was she did that got her kicked out in the first place. So it seems to me that some of this is simply revenge because they don’t like the fact that the convention voted her back in. (Full disclosure: I don’t consider myself an enemy or a supporter, and when I was in the party, I do not recall casting my vote for her for secretary)
If the standard is simply saying or writing things about others, true or not, then I will repeat my belief that all three terms I sat on the board would’ve been empty or nearly empty by the end of the term.
Again, the chair does not have the authority to order her around. I am not sure why anyone can possibly believe that would be true. She is not in an appointed position. She is in an elected position.
And I get the impression from your statement that the obstruction is not completely clear.
So this would just leave the potential lawsuit. Did anyone actually sue the party because of something she did?
Mr. Flood,
First let me say I am saddened we will not likely meet at convention because I am sure I would thoroughly enjoy debating with you.
As far as the obviousness of 2, I am not a CAH supporter in general, I used to be but not any longer, that being said none of these were “obvious” except it was obvious the powers that be wanted things workong in a very specific way and they are willing to punish any who might upset the plan.
I called over three years ago when the caucus took power that this was their plan but was accused of “Mises Derangement Syndrome” (Clue one people Mises and MAGA language mirrior eachother check it out.) But the bare bittom of it is there was no actionable thing to go after her so they made some up.
The MC seems to think the party has a top down dictatorial structure and once elected the executive has unchecked power, agains sounds like another political group I know.
I thought we made up.
When? We havn’t spoken in years apart from one request you made recently, just because I acquiesced doesn’t mean we are buddy buddy. I may have forgiven you for leaving me twisting in the wind when I was batteling the Mises Caucus, but I haven’t forgotten it and there is still repercussions of turning your back on me.
Yes, my last “in person” LP convention was in 2018 where I came to the conclusion that the current candidates for president, which included one red-nosed former republican governor as well as another wearing a Guy Fawkes mask were unacceptable. I recall shouting some expletive about Weld, et al, then Dr Jorgensen, who was sitting next to me, responded that she wanted to run.
Our state delegation met for dinner that evening, which was technically the first meeting of the Jorgensen campaign. That was followed by a very long two years. That was not my first presidential campaign, but it certainly will be my last.
I attended the virtual 2020 convention, but not the second part in Florida.
You are correct about the MC as you call it. When I spotted them holding their caucus meeting at the 2018 convention I knew they were going to be trouble.
Is the Secretary obligated to follow what the Chairs says? LNC members are not employees. I thought they all acted upon their own accord so long as they comply with by-laws.
What order or orders did she not follow?
How did she open the party up to a lawsuit?
What damaging comments did she make about who? What were the comments? I have seen other LNC members over the years make nasty comments about other LNC members and other party members and not get punished for it, include some others who have done it this term.
What false claims did she make about what the convention requires?
‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Caucus.
Can somebody list details of what offenses she is alleged to have committee?
I understand that one of the charges is apparently that she submitted paperwork to the Colorado Secretary of State for Chase Oliver to be on the ballot. I fail to see how this is an offense, regardless of whether she was acting as LNC Secretary or as a member of the LP of Colorado. Chase Oliver won at the national convention. The LP of Colorado willingly participated in that convention. Members of the LP of CO committee wanted ro put RFK Jr. on the ballot instead, even though RFK Jr. lost in the first round at the national convention, having received less than 2% of the vote, with ZERO votes from the Colorado delegation. The LP of CO did not and has not withdrawn as an LNC affiliate. Therefore, it would seem to me that it was the members of the LP of CO who attempted to place a different presidential ticket on the ballot who were in the wrong, and I say this as somebody who did not vote for Chase Oliver or Mike Ter Maat for their nominations as a national convention delegate.
I think it should now be apparent to all that placing RFK Jr. on the ballot as the LP’s presidential candidate in Colorado or anywhere else would have been a complete disaster. So if anything on this issue Caryn Ann Harlos helped the LP dodge a bullet in Colorado.
I am not really clear about the other charges. I have heard that she allegedly broke decorum. I assume this means she was rude to people. Regardless of whether there is truth to this charge ot not I have witnessed rude behavior from multiple LNC members over the years, including in the present, who did not get removed for their rude behavior.
I can think of multiple instances where LNC members did things that should have merited removal where the LNC members went unpunished.
So I would be interested in seeing more details and evidence to back up the allegations.
This looks like an unjust removal to me from what I know about the situation.
The reason that she was removed is as simple as the charge: “failed to do what McArdle told her to do.”
Of course she is NOT an employee which means she doesn’t need to follow the orders of the chair. She is an equal.
The entire “trial” was held illegally in “secret” – a direct violation of the District of Columbia Open Meetings Act (OMA) – as fully explained previously. They claimed they can do this under RPNR – which is incorrect – however even if RPNR says you can do this – it doesn’t supersede DC Law. – nor the bylaws of the LNC which also is in violation by this “secret” meeting. BTW – any member of the LP in good standing should request & receive a recording of the trial. If they do not receive it that’s in violation of DC’s Nonprofit Law which allows members to have access to official records & minutes.
Do you think the LNC is: “(3) “Public body” means any government council, including the Council of the District of Columbia, board, commission, or similar entity, including a board of directors of an instrumentality, a board which supervises or controls an agency, the board of trustees of a public charter school, or an advisory body that takes official action by the vote of its members convened for such purpose.”
As previously explained in another post – yes – the The District of Columbia Open Meetings Act (OMA) applies to all DC based nonprofits. I do not recall the LNC changing their corporate registration out of DC. Perhaps that is why the 2 derivative lawsuits are filed there…..
Andy,
Please stop being rational. The truth no longer matters.
And if you are referring to the meeting in 2007 where I referred to Senator Lindsey Graham as “light in the loafers, Lindsay”, I still stand by that statement.
LNC meetings are frequently contentious. People can be rude, either visibly or very subtly by taking actions that cause others to react. That has never been cause for removal. If it were, I believe that by the end of the 2010–2012 term, the LNC might have consisted of chairman Hinkle and possibly one or two alternates asleep in a corner of the room.
If there was audio of the trial, or if it had been held in public session, instead of a possibly illegal executive session, we could discuss what happened.
And I certainly would not expect anyone, especially the defendant or her counsel, to discuss details of what took place. They would simply charge her with another crime of revealing their secret meeting.
So your well thought out and quite articulate comment may have no effect, other than to possibly get you added to the LNC enemies list. Assuming you are not already on it.
Take the hint from the cast of Saturday Night Live. We are about to enter a strange New World. Copies of 1984 are flying off the shelf — while they are still permitted to be sold.
It was a fair trial. Harlos committed misconduct.
I assume by that statement that you were present and observed it. If not, then you have no basis for your statement.
If it was a fair trial, and if it was a fair outcome, then it will not be overturned on appeal.
Personally, I do not see how any trial held in secret can be fair. It violates all the basic tenets of what is normally viewed as fair. What were they afraid of people seeing or hearing? That is the only question I have.
CAH was not charged with filing the Oliver paperwork. She was charged with:
1. Failure to follow the Chair’s instructions (which the require).
2. Opening the party up to a lawsuit.
3. Making damaging comments about members online.
4. Obstructing by making false claims about what the convention required.
That is basically a thumbnail.
And to fully explain where are so dishonest, the alleged “instruction” of the chair would result in Chase’s paperwork not being filed. I could go through the rest but your conduct on Facebook and the way you treat Party members and got thrown out of Michigan group has let the vast majority know exactly who you are.
The first charge is stupid, because the chair does not have the authority to order any other member to do or not do something. I served on the LNC. The chair could ask for something, but not order.
The second, if true, is concerning. I am guessing the nature of the potential lawsuit is confidential at this point in time? (A rhetorical question, as I don’t really want to know what it is)
The third could be a violation of fiduciary responsibility, but only if it damaged the party’s image to donors. Anything against another member would be potential liability only if they sued personally.
Obstructing in what manner? Sounds a bit vague. And it would have to be proven to have been done intentionally with malice. People make false statements by accident. I am assuming they concluded it was done intentionally.
Like I said, I trust that the judicial committee will rule on the facts and arrive at the correct conclusion.
To clarify…a statement saying something like “don’t contribute to this party, it is failing and is being run by fascists” could be considered a fiduciary violation. But a statement that “this person is a fascist” would not be.
If opening the LNC up to lawsuits is a reason for removal, why hasn’t the chair been removed as her actions have caused two lawsuits to be files?
GOOD QUESTION. And a likely third one as stated by another member under RICO and Federal wire transfer laws. Does it have merit? I don’t know. I do know LPCO’s “threats” were a paper tiger.
Of course I am filing an appeal, the violations were numerous and no where near the burden of proof was met. And Dave, you seem nice. but you will sad. I am not going anywhere. No matter what “faction” is in charge, I am going to do the right thing. That is actually a good thing.
For doing the right thing both times. It says a lot about you that you cannot see that’s exactly the whistleblower we need.
It’s the correct vote but sadly Harlos won’t take the hint she needs to just go away.
Being removed by both factions in a three year span is quite an accomplishment.