Analysis of the Strategists, Inc. Report, Part 1.

As readers will be aware, the full Strategists, Inc. report to the LNC appears at

https://theseditionpapers.substack.com/p/full-lnc-report-from-strategists

Mike Shaner went to the work of getting the report up on his substack site.  We will respect his work by referring you to there rather than posting it in full here, at least before the LNC has met on it.  We will, however, comment on sections of it.  In short, it is completely wrong-headed, though doubtless well-intentioned, for a political party in our position.  A major part of the issue is that the report authors appear to be misinformed as to National Party issues.

We quote from the report:

The LNC is currently in a highly stressed financial state. The abrupt departure of the prior chair in early 2025 initiated an unplanned leadership transition, compounding long-standing issues rooted in internal disharmony. These disruptions have significantly eroded donor and member confidence, as evidenced by a multi-year decline in financial support dating back to 2022.

A primary issue has been the historical pattern where the board chair alone established the organizational vision. This unilateral approach created instability whenever the chair changed, often leading to conflicting directions, visible board disagreements, and reputational damage. The board has not collectively owned a long-term vision for the organization, resulting in a cycle of inconsistent leadership, fractured messaging, and diminishing enthusiasm among stakeholders.

Furthermore, the model in which the chair functioned as both board leader and de facto CEO has reinforced singular, short-term priorities rather than sustainable strategies aligned with a unified board vision. Unfortunately, the organization has a history of disharmony at the board level which has created cumulative years of negative distractions for the organization. This is being felt with a direct impact to the finances, as demonstrated by the several year decline (2022-current) of support from members and donors. Loss of credibility for organizations shows up directly in its financial performance.

Is the financial state ‘highly stressed’?  That’s obviously true, and has been true for some time, as witness the decrease in  donations other than for the Kennedy Fund,as well as the decline in membership.  Readers may examine meeting minutes and officer reports for signs of Treasurer and Chair concern about these issues.

Is there ‘internal disharmony’?  That’s true, though not what was mentioned here.  The LNC is currently subject to two derivative lawsuits, a lawsuit by board members against the board as a whole, citing an extensive series of allegedly improper acts.

Is there ‘diminishing enthusiasm among stakeholders’? Yes, but not because ‘The board has not collectively owned a long-term vision for the organization’. Actual issues involve the LNC suing its own affiliates, the National Chair apparently endorsing the candidate of another party, and a joint fundraising campaign to raise money for a Presidential candidate other than our own, not to mention Jake Porter’s analysis of campaign finance.  In addition, the party newsletter ceased to appear, party resources were used to raise money for a rally at which the flag of the Russian fascists featured prominently, etc. etc. etc.

It should also be disturbing that the report refers to the National Chair as the “de facto CEO”.  The National Chair is the de jure CEO. The Bylaws say so.  We fought out this issue at the 1998 convention, defeating the effort of the Berglandistas to make the National Director (title has since changed) the CEO, and extend LNC terms to four years rather than two, thus ensuring that the party apparatus remained under the control of the membership.