Notice was given that the motion will be made at the next LNC meeting. The motion reads:
Whereas, on August 10, 2025, a motion was considered to amend the policy manual to include, among other changes, the language that “Communication with LNC Counsel: Only the LNC Chair and ExD shall have free and direct contact with LNC Counsel. LNC members wishing to make an inquiry of counsel shall seek permission from the LNC Chair. The LNC Chair shall serve as the intermediary between the inquiring LNC member and LNC counsel at their discretion”;
Whereas, the above reference Policy Manual amendment was not adopted;
Whereas, LNC Policy Manual §1.06.2 states that “The LNC shall be kept advised of the progress and goals of the suit. Any settlement or dismissal of the entire lawsuit recommended by the Executive Committee must be approved by the LNC.”
Whereas, Mr. Nekhaila has attempted to overstep his authority as Chair to interfere with inquiries to counsel by members investigating possible negligence and/or misconduct by Mr. Nekhaila;
Whereas, Mr. Nekhaila disclosed information containing sensitive legal strategy to an individual not authorized to receive it, and at odds with the LNC’s interests;
Whereas, Mr. Nekhaila has violated the fiduciary duty section of the policy manual, withheld legal updates from LNC members, and acted contrary to the best interests of the LNC;
Whereas, Mr. Nekhaila has denied LNC members access to General Counsel, placing the LNC potentially at risk of additional legal action;
Whereas, Mr. Nekhaila has acted outside of his authority in a manner that is unbecoming of a professional organization;
Whereas, in performing the above-mentioned acts, Mr. Nekhaila has violated his duty of care and created an irreconcilable conflict of interest;
POLICY MANUAL 1.07 FIDUCIARY DUTY VIOLATIONS
Whereas, Policy Manual Section C Subsection I Duty of Obedience states, “LNC members have a duty to act in a manner that carries out the LNC’s mission and purpose”;
Whereas, Policy Manual Section C Subsection II Duty of Care states, “LNC members have a duty to act in a manner that carries out the LNC’s mission and purpose”;
Whereas, Policy Manual section C Subsection IV Duty of Good Faith states that LNC members must act “with honesty”;
Be it resolved that Mr. Nekhaila is censured for the above actions.
Motion was offered by Andrew Chadderdon, Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee.
Readers will not be surprised to learn that Mr. Nekhaila vigorously denies the accusations,and will present a defense at the next LNC meeting.
Readers will not be surprised to learn that Mr. Nekhaila vigorously denies the accusations,and will present a defense at the next LNC meeting.
I will repeat what I said on Twitter. I have no idea what half of this is about as probably happened after I resigned. But he missed the one indisputable thing Nekhaila deserves censure on: ignoring an officially filed harassment complaint against his buddy Malagon.
And though not censure worthy it is lack of leadership and cringe that he would actually allow on the agenda Watkins arrogant motion to charge Party members for the “privilege” to write the LNC.
Watkins made that motion the day after I had a contentious email exchange with him about the “Zelensky’s War” tweet.
I sure there were emails by others as well, not just mine.
Watkins is too dim to understand Ukraine has every right to defend itself from outside aggression and to reject outside pressure to appease Putin by giving up Ukrainian land for peace.
Watkins doesn’t seem to understand Putin attacked Ukraine, Ukraine didn’t attack Russia.
Watkins doesn’t seem to understand this war would be over in 5 minutes if Russian troops left Ukraine and went back to Russia.
Watkins, apparently, doesn’t think the LNC/LP should issue a statement calling for Russian troops to leave Ukraine and go back to Russia, which would end the war immediately.
Joseph, the way member emails have been responded to since Reno have been atrocious by some, and neither McArdle or Watkins ever reprimanded anyone for it. You can imagine how Malagon responded to some. The fact that Nekhaila even allowed this motion is a disgrace.
I think Nekhaila has no choice but to allow the motions criticizing him, as they are not patently libelous.
I didn’t mean those. In fact I agree with the additional language by Chadderdon and do believe Nekhaila should be censured for the abuse he allowed and tried to reward. I don’t know enough about the first part to have an opinion. Nekhaila has face planted and is incapable of admitting a screwup and making things right. All people screw up. A leader handles it properly. He did not.
I mean the Watkins motion to charge members to email.
Even if libelous, the motion is still in order. You may wish to look at the first filing in Jacobs vs. LNC, End Note 17, which says, “A main motion may not be ruled out of order on the ground that it creates legal liability for the organization. Should the LNC adopt a motion that is libelous, they would still face liability for that; that fact that the rules permit it does not immunize the LNC. For the very specific grounds that a main motion may be ruled out of order, see RONR 10:26”
The draft has been amended to include these clauses:
Whereas, Mr. Nekhaila received multiple complaints under Policy Manual Section “Harassment and Offensive Behavior Prohibition” regarding the behavior of one individual, and failed to perform appropriate investigation or perform necessary corrective/preventative measures as required;
Whereas, Mr. Nekhaila later supported the subject of the insufficiently addressed harassment complaints for a promotion to an officer position;