The fallout has been ugly, but not worse than we expected.
Perhaps the most surprising thing has been the commitment to denial that's been seen from the Mises Caucus. Based on a few clearly misrepresented technicalities, they have held to the position that none of the changes that effected their removal were valid and they are still members of the State Board of the Libertarian Party of Delaware.
They have three real-sounding objections and one silly one.
- The notification posted for the Bylaws change was not a "proper notice".
- The meeting where the Bylaws change was adopted was not properly noticed.
- The Bylaws on succession were meant for vacant offices, not merely the absence of the officers.
The silly one is that the members removed were "duly elected". Of course they were, and then they were duly removed. On to the ones that sound like they might be real.
The Articles of Association of the Libertarian Party of Delaware, as they existed prior to the events of October 1st, clearly defined what constituted "proper notice". That language still exists in the current Bylaws. That language explicitly stated that a post in the established LPD Facebook Group was proper notice. Several other mechanisms are also offered, but any one of them is sufficient. There is no confusion about which Facebook Group is the established LPD Facebook Group. Notifications have been posted there before by Mises Caucus members and then adopted without objections. There are no requirements as to the formatting of the post, but it is the formatting they are hung up on. They are also hung up on the fact that the individual who posted the notice is not a Board member and that they turned off comments on the post. Notifications have, again, been made by Mises Caucus members who were not on the Board and no one complained that they weren't permitted to do so. Comments on the post are also not a requirement for a valid notification. The final objection to "proper notice" is that there was a meme dump orchestrated to occur immediately after the notification was posted. This dump buried the notification so for 30 days, none of them saw it. No one has accused them of being attentive or diligent, but that too does not void the explicit language that a post constituted proper notice.
Between the required quarterly meetings of the LPD State Board, ad hoc business can be considered on the LPD's Discord Server in the State Board chat. It has been this way since the Discord Server was created and before that it was done in a private Signal chat and before that in a Facebook group chat. The "notice" is when Board members get a notification. A requirement was relatively recently added that any motions considered in this fashion must be made and seconded, but then a quorum call must complete. This additional step gives Board members time to see the motion and make any subsidiary motions. This is the extent of the requirements for convening an ad hoc meeting, and this process has been followed many times in the past without complaint. Now, the requirements to "convene" a meeting should have had explicit requirements to first give "notice" of that meeting. Except that has never been a thing and it still isn't one now.
The Bylaws on succession do use the word "vacancy", but it is not clear from the plain language whether that vacancy must be permanent or merely the temporary result of an absence. It has always been interpreted as just an absence. It specifies that the Chair comes first, then the Vice Chair, then the County Chairs in order of population. The Chair, Vice Chair, and the County Chair of the most populous county were all absent, so the Chair of the second most populous county made one ruling over the course of the time the motion to amend the bylaws was considered. That ruling was that the vote should NOT be called even though a quorum was present, had reviewed the motion, and had no discussion to offer. That ruling would not have benefited the removed members if it had gone any differently or if they'd been there to make it. The ruling was overturned on appeal.
All of these quibbles deliberately overlook the fact that a majority of the State Board supported these actions, and a majority of the State Board was empowered to take these actions. Complaints about notice and rulings on calling the vote are a smoke screen intended to distract from that fact.
Worse still, these quibbles ignore that a parallel track was pursued by the new Board to resolve any such complaints, on the presumption that they held any validity.
