Here is specific motion text for the item 2 that was noticed in my email above:
MOTION OF CENSURE
I move that the Libertarian National Committee censure Chair Steven Nekhaila for undisclosed conflicts of interest and improper governance conduct in the financial administration of litigation before this body.
1. On October 5, 2025, the full LNC unanimously directed the Chair to present a New Mexico trademark enforcement proposal to the Executive Committee within one week. He did not do so for approximately five and a half months. When he brought the matter to the
ExCom, he bundled it with authorization of litigation against Angela McArdle — a matter the full LNC had declined to fund in December — and funded the McArdle action by taking money directly from the budget assigned to the trademark litigation.
2. On the resulting Point of Order, the Chair voided the trademark litigation and the McArdle litigation together on an aggregate basis, while sustaining a separate retainer on an independent evaluation. The contradictory framings produced the same effect:
less funding available to the trademark action the LNC had unanimously directed.
3. Forced by his own ruling to return the trademark funding to the full LNC, the Chair co-sponsored the budget ballot and advanced it at a three-fourths threshold. When questioned, he defended it in writing on the grounds that "we do not have a funding source
(such as a donor), and we have not cut elsewhere on the budget." By the Chair's own articulation, a budget amendment without a designated funding source or offsetting cut requires the higher threshold.
4. For this meeting, the Chair has noticed a renewed McArdle motion funded by drawing from an existing legal budget line rather than by increasing the budget — a structure that avoids the threshold he invoked against the trademark action under his own stated
standard. That structure also departs from the LNC's adopted Special Investigatory Committee report, which directed that any such litigation proceed only if funded by earmarked donations for that purpose or conducted by pro bono counsel. Neither condition
has been met, and this body should not quietly set aside its own adopted conditions through a budget mechanic. The Secretary acknowledged on the record that this litigation will cost "at least $50,000 at least," against the $10,000 proposed. Repeated requests
for cost projections, success assessment, and collectability analysis have been repeatedly ignored.
5. The trademark litigation carries a unanimous LNC directive, a dedicated budget line, favorable prior precedent, and a cost estimate the authorized funding likely covers to completion. It satisfies every condition the LNC has placed on it, and discharges
a fiduciary duty this Committee owes the Party to defend its registered marks as required under trademark law. It has nonetheless been made to require the higher threshold. The McArdle litigation was declined by the full LNC, has no dedicated funding, has
a conceded cost floor many times the amount proposed, has no upper limit, and does not satisfy the conditions the LNC itself placed on its prosecution. It has been structured to require only a majority.
6. The Chair's pursuit of the McArdle litigation, in the structure now before this body, is in conflict with an undisclosed interest that deviates from the adopted position of the full LNC. The LNC's adopted Special Investigatory Committee report directed that
this litigation proceed only on pro bono or earmarked-donation funding. The Chair has made no disclosure of any donor, counsel arrangement, or party interest that would explain his departure from those conditions or his willingness to commit unrestricted party
funds to a matter the parent body declined to support.
The Chair is further on notice of material conflicts affecting the SIC process itself. When I publicly exposed undisclosed conflicts of interest on the part of SIC member Bill Redpath, the Chair responded with a motion of censure against me rather than with
any inquiry into the conflicts themselves. He now advances litigation that depends on the credibility of the same SIC report, while the conflicts that call that report into question remain both documented and unaddressed. A chair who censures disclosure of
a conflict, and then acts in reliance on the very work product the conflict taints, has placed the protection of the process above the integrity of the result.
7. Each decision above may admit of an explanation. Taken together, they reflect an administration that has elevated the authorization burden against litigation this body has directed, lowered it in favor of litigation this body has declined, and advanced matters
burdened by undisclosed and unaddressed conflicts of interest. That pattern is incompatible with the Chair's obligations to the body.
The LNC hereby expresses its formal disapproval of the conduct set forth above and directs the Chair to administer litigation and budget matters consistent with the Policy Manual, the expressed will of the full LNC, and an even-handed application of procedural
standards.