As a reminder, advance registration is required at least one hour before the meeting.
Editor explains: The meeting is to deal with Mr. Bohler’s points of order, over lack of prior notice, concerning the Special Investigatory Committee and the election of some committee people. The meeting follows from the LNC debate on Mr. Bohler’s points of order. That debate follows.
Of special note is the Chair’s statement in calling the meeting: “I am calling a Special Meeting for August 24, 2025, at 7:30PM EST, where we can adopt the resolutions and appointments anew and place these matters to rest.” In the Editor’s opinion, meetings are called to debate and vote upon motions; they are not called with the outcome announced in advance.
Keith Thompson wrote:
My motion to add Mr. Knebel to the FSC was not intended to deprive any member of notice or rights. As we were already filling a vacancy on the committee, I felt amending it to fill the other vacancy on the same committee was germane.
However, there is value in making sure things are done in a way that cannot be questioned.
While I don’t think the SIC resolutions or the appointments were out of order, I appreciate your points of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to move forward in a way that sets members at ease.
Thanks,
Keith Thompson
Region 3 South Rep
———-
Andrew Watkins wrote:
Was a nomination period permitted?
———-
Evan McMahon wrote:
Chair Nekhaila,
I was not on the board during the June 9th meeting regarding the SIC report and the subsequent motions, but I concur with Mr. Bohler that this is a continuing breach that needs remedied. Had the original notice been to adopt the SIC report AND to adopt motions and resolutions recommended in the SIC report I would hold this differently. But the original notice only mentioned the adoption of the SIC report.
While I hold that the motion to amend adding Doug Knebel to the main noticed motion to appoint Jessi Cowart to the FSC was germane and is reasonable to be held in order, I agree with Mr. Bohler and Mr. Thompson that to maintain a working board the strives for fairness, legitimacy, and transparency in our dealings – we should set a higher standard.
I ask you to rule Mr. Bohler’s objections well taken and for the LNC to work to remedy these issues.
————–
Steven Nekhaila <steven….@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 8:10:03 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Evan McMahon <evan.m…@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir…@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi…@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Points of Order on June 9th Resolutions and August 10th Appointments
Mr. Bohler,
I have reviewed your points of order.
First off, with respect to the June 9th resolutions, it is my judgment that the noticed items in the agenda were sufficiently in scope as adopted. The notice was for motions appurtenant to the SIC report, which those were.
Second off, my view on the August 10th appointments is that the notice reflected the filling of vacancies on the FSC. All members, including ones that were absent, were aware that there would be appointments to the FSC, which is the basis for the main motion.
However, in the spirit of cooperation, and to allow the LNC to move past these obstructions, I will rule your points well taken, making the June 9th resolutions (fitness and recovery), and the August 10th appointments (Cowart and Knebel) null and void.
I am not conceding the merits of the motions, I am just trying to be prudent. Ruling this matter well taken will give us an opportunity to edify the record so that there is no reasonable misunderstanding of the LNC’s position on these matters.
I am calling a Special Meeting for August 24, 2025, at 7:30PM EST, where we can adopt the resolutions and appointments anew and place these matters to rest. I am noticing the following:
Resolution 1
Whereas, the Special Investigatory Committee has found that former Chair Angela McArdle engaged in actions that, in the LNC’s view, violated fiduciary duties to the Libertarian Party, including concealing conflicts of interest and misusing donor funds;
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee censures Angela McArdle for conduct in violation of the fiduciary duties and ethical standards expected of Party leaders;
Be it further resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee expresses its opinion that Angela McArdle’s conduct, as detailed in the Special Investigatory Committee report, reflects behavior inconsistent with the standards expected of those serving in leadership roles of the Libertarian Party or as a candidate representing it.
Resolution 2
Whereas, the Special Investigatory Committee finds that former Chair Angela McArdle financially benefitted from her deception of the Libertarian National Committee;
Be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee shall explore fundraising and/or pro bono legal counsel to pursue the recovery of funds, under any legal procedures available, as outlined in this report and any supplemental report(s) produced by the Special Investigatory Committee.
Motion to appoint FSC Members
Moved, that the LNC appoint Jessi Cowart and Doug Knebel to the Financial Standards Committee.
Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, Libertarian National Committee
————–
Travis Bost wrote:
I would like to suggest an amendment or substitution, that the election of Ms. Cowart and the election of Mr. Knebel be conducted separately.
There was good debate on the individual merits of each candidate, and the amendment to include both of them passed by a very slim margin.
Travis L. Bost
LNC At-Large
Another 7 day shoot from the hip special meeting? Why the rush?
The hearing on it is scheduled for 9/3. The hope is to resolve the matter before the hearing.
I’m going to nitpick the Editor’s special note:
“In the Editor’s opinion, meetings are called to debate and vote upon motions; they are not called with the outcome announced in advance.”
I do not believe Chair Nekhaila announced the outcome in advance. He said he was calling a meeting “where we can adopt the resolutions and appointments anew and place these matters to rest.”
We, the LNC, *can* adopt, or we could choose not to. It’s an opportunity, much like any item of business in any meeting including the debate thereof. Had he said “where we *will* adopt,” then I would agree with you. Putting the matters to rest appears to be more in reference to the procedural issues/appeals around the actions taken, rather than the actions themselves.
Editor responds: Mr. Bohler, we thank you for your thoughtful observations. We agree that a careful speaker distinguishes between can, may, and will. We are not convinced that this description would apply to the National Chair. We are inclined to expect that efforts to defeat the motion via debate may again not be permitted, in which case ‘can’ was a normal if casual replacement for ‘will’. In addition, if motions to adopt those resolutions are presented, and debate or amendment are not permitted, the matter will assuredly return to the Judicial Committee.
It is perfectly in order to move to end debate and that would not be JC issue whatsoever, but would be a gross abuse of the JC. That comment is not said to say there should be such a motion, but just to note that it would not be a violation.
I wanted to add that Steve is not the most careful communicator, particularly in articulating reasoning for his rulings on Points of Order. But knowing him, I believe Sam’s assessment is spot on here. And his prior rulings on the resolutions were correct in my view, though inartfully articulated. I believe it best to try to figure out what people mean by what they say rather than being literalistic on the words, particularly if literalism isn’t granting the most charitable reading.
I would interpret “can” as meaning that these resolutions may properly come before the LNC, not that they will be adopted by the LNC.
I, for one, do NOT treat the adoption of any of these resolutions as a forgone conclusion. The LNC will deliberate and make its decisions.
Note that the points of order regarding the action taken at the June 9 meeting only refer to the two resolutions adopted. They specifically do not deal with the adoption of the SIC report itself.