Steve G.

Why is Shane Cory still being paid by the LP?

In Libertarian on July 21, 2008 at 3:16 pm

We were all under the impression that former LP Executive Director Shane Cory resigned from his position. The official announcement was made May 3rd. Since that time, Cory has announced that he is working for the Bob Barr campaign, and in fact I’ve gotten multiple emails from him in that capacity, and I am sure others have as well, since they are merely for those who subscribed to updates from the Barr campaign.

Of course, Cory allegedly resigned due to having issued an unauthorized press release, calling for greater government intervention in child pornography; the press release was issued as a seeming response to the stance of LP Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart.

However, according to the official LNC reports, Shane Cory is still an employee, and he is still being compensated every two weeks.

In fact, since Shane Cory’s alleged resignation was announced by the LP, he has received a staggering $17,870.97 of members’ hard earned money.

Shane Cory
5 Burwell Place
Stafford, Virginia
Employee Net Pay 3156.95

Shane Cory
5 Burwell Place
Stafford, Virginia 225540000
Employee Net Pay 1216.13

Total compensation for June, after his resignation: $ 4373.08

Shane Cory
5 Burwell Place
Stafford, Virginia 225540000
Employee Net Pay 3156.95

Shane Cory
5 Burwell Place
Stafford, Virginia 225540000
Employee Net Pay 7184.00

Shane Cory
5 Burwell Place
Stafford, Virginia 225540000
Employee Net Pay 3156.94

Total compensation for May, after his resignation: $ 13,497.89

The question thus arises, has Shane Cory actually left his LP position, as members were told by the LP? Why is he still being compensated as an “employee”, and at the same general rate as when he was employed by the LP? Did the LNC enter into a contract with Cory, wherein they were required to pay him even after he resigned in disgrace? Or is he still working for the LP despite what members were told?

Even if he was party to a contract which required additional compensation upon resignation, Washington DC law very specifically states that employees who quit are to be paid on the next scheduled payday or within seven days, whichever occurs first.

Given that the LNC barely has enough money to function, why are they still paying someone who allegedly resigned over two months ago? Why is Corey being paid by the LNC while employed by the Barr campaign? Was he being paid by the LNC and working for Barr pre-nomination, in violation of federal election law?

These same questions arose when the May report was released, and Bill Redpath’s explanation was that the May compensation was for salary owed, accumulated vacation, and 2007 annual bonus. That explanation satisfied critics for that time, but since he was still being compensated in June, clearly there is far more to this than the LNC would have us believe.

  1. I’m pretty sure that Angela Keaton’s curiosity and criticisms weren’t satisfied. But, you know, “shut up” is rarely very satisfying.

    So I took this number $17,870.97 and divided it by 11 which is the number of weeks since the 3rd of May, right? Then I multiplied by 52 which is the number of weeks in a nominal year. And I get about $85K. Which, on the whole, seems like a lot more than many of the LP members who are contributing membership dues to pay this guy. It seems, to say only a little about it, weird.

  2. There are, of course, several scenarios for this. Maybe his 2007 bonus was for a hefty sum and the LNC couldn’t pay it out all at once, due to cash flow? The only explanation that counts is the one Redpath et al should give any member of the LNC who asks.

  3. The explanation from Redpath, when this was questioned last month, was given to Angela Keaton, a member of the LNC. So while it should indeed count, it still doesn’t quite seem to explain this.

    Given that membership decreased by about 4000 since Shane Cory took over, I’m not sure that he should even have gotten a bonus, but that’s just my personal opinion and I am of course not privy to the details of his compensation package.

    In all honesty, this kind of annoys me, because I was one of the people last month saying ‘maybe there’s a reasonable explanation’; so I didn’t put it on LFV at that time. When the explanation was given by Mr. Redpath, I thought it didn’t sound quite right, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt in light of his position.

    That’s a mistake I will never make again.

  4. Jim Davidson Says:
    July 21, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    So I took this number $17,870.97 and divided it by 11 which is the number of weeks since the 3rd of May, right?

  5. Jim Davidson Says:
    July 21, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    So I took this number $17,870.97 and divided it by 11 which is the number of weeks since the 3rd of May, right?

    The only problem with your analysis Jim is that the last payment to Cory was on June 25, which is only 7+ weeks from the date of resignation, not 11 weeks.

    I for one, would like to know what this money paid to Cory is paying for.

  6. Roscoe Says:
    July 21, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    The only explanation that counts is the one Redpath et al should give any member of the LNC who asks.

    I am the Region 7 Alternate to the LNC, and I have asked.

  7. Roscoe Says:
    July 21, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    “The only explanation that counts is the one Redpath et al should give any member of the LNC who asks.”

    Based on the historical conduct of LNC Chairs and Executive Directors as various titled, Roscoe’s claim is open to question, especially with that (spelling flame but only for humor’s sake) “, et al.” hanging off the end.

  8. Any thoughts on who should run for Chair next?

    Wait, is the next one elected in 2010 or 2012?

  9. When I served on the LNC, the Treasurer wouldn’t dare refuse to explain to his or her fellow LNC members how an ex-employee came to be paid so much money. If the Treasurer won’t, then perhaps an LNC member with “standing” could file a suit to compel, because fiduciary duties may have been breached and/or fraudulent payments made. ‘Cause once a request has been stonewalled, then Occam’s Razor makes that the most logical explanation.

  10. …payoff money for screwing up the LP along with Starr even more?

    Remember they created an open activity based system so members needn’t ask these questions (and also makes fraud very difficult). Starr got rid of it, it seems.

    BTW, that’s an 85% actives loss according to LNC staff.

  11. I see talk of a Treasurer, but what about the Finance Committee? They’re usually great for applying pressure on the Treasurer to get real answers.

  12. Hiya, webhick! How goes it in your neck of the woods, my old friend?

    Does the LP even have a Finance Committee? I’m not sure, but I am sure that someone else here will know.

  13. webhick,

    I have repeatedly run for LNC Chair. One of my campaign planks has been that the LNC should have a subcommittee structure.

    I have never won, and the folks on the committee never did this.


  14. I’d support Phillies for Chair, but I think I’d be one of the only libertarians that would support it.

  15. I’m with you, Mike. I’d support Phillies for Chair as well.

  16. I’d support Phillies as well.

  17. Liberty for America

    There is a future.

  18. However, the server appears to be down at the moment. (8^((

  19. George Phillies using an online grumpy face?
    Now I’ve seen everything.

  20. And now it is back (8^))

  21. What have been people’s objections to Phillies as Chair in the past? While I don’t like him as a candidate due to what I consider ideological deviations, I think he would be the perfect chairman: He’s honest, he’s dedicated to the party, and he doesn’t take any B.S.

  22. *raise eyebrow*

    G.E., I figured you’d be one of the people against Phillies being chair. I don’t think we really need a “pure” libertarian Chair. I’d take a conservative, even. We just need someone like Phillies in the position. Someone to stop all the shadowy corruption and cronyism inside the “Party of Principle”.

    Isn’t there a rule that LNC members can’t post in blogs? He’d have to get rid of that. So I can still see stuff like this: (8^)) (8^((

  23. From Phillies’ site: “Liberty for America is not currently a political party.”

    I’m not particularly enamored of the idea of a chair who is spending his time promoting an alternative political party – err, sorry, ‘not currently a political party’. I want a Libertarian Party chair who is consistently dedicated to growing and strengthening the Libertarian Party, not to providing ‘alternatives’ to it.

    I wish George’s experiment well, and I’ll watch with interest, but I do not consider him to have shown interest in a position within the national LP when he is busy constructing an ‘alternative’ to it.

  24. Susan,
    Liberty for America seems like just an advocacy group. They have a monthly newsletter, and that’s about it. I think what he’s saying, is that if it gets big and someone wants to run under it’s banner locally, they could.
    Phillies is dedicated to libertarianism and I’m sure he’s not designating a second break in an already broken party.


  25. I said:
    July 21, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    (regarding question to pose to the LNC about Shane Cory being paid in May and June)

    I am the Region 7 Alternate to the LNC, and I have asked.

    William Hall, the LNC’s attorney has given this explanation:

    (The answer to any question regarding, “why were payments made to Shane Cory in May and June, after he had resigned”) . . .

    “the answer (is) that he was owed accrued leave pay and a bonus for the year ended 3/31/08, but otherwise his salary ended effective upon his resignation.”

    Cory’s resignation was effective May 1, 2008.

    I am not at liberty to divulge any more information than that.

  26. Mike Theodore Says:
    July 22, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    Isn’t there a rule that LNC members can’t post in blogs? He’d have to get rid of that. So I can still see stuff like this: (8^)) (8^((

    I’ve been posting, and I am an LNC Alternate. If there is a “rule”, then I have broken it. I shall await “disciplinary” action if there is such a rule and it will now be enforced.

  27. I remember something with higher members or people hired by them, or something…

  28. I think the rule about not posting on blogs references employees of the LP, not LNC members.

  29. That’s probably it. I recall someone mentioning it during the whole Fincher thing. I just searched, but I couldn’t find who or when. I did dig up some fun old comments though. 😀

  30. If Dr. Phillies was chair, Sean Haugh would be on the public dole collecting unemployment right now.

  31. I think the rule about not posting on blogs references employees of the LP, not LNC members.

    Yes, that’s correct. Robert Kraus conveyed that to me, and I repeated it here at one point.

  32. […] regard to the LP continuing to compensate Shane Cory months after his resignation; you can read the original entry here.  They have been informed that Mr. Cory was owed payment for accrued leave and a bonus for the […]

  33. Actually, to our great surprise.


    He is on track to being on the ballot in more than 40 states.

    If you don’t think he is the Liberty For America candidate–though not on purpose, I suspect–just go look at his web site, top page, right under the name, where says “Libertarian” .

  34. ENM, it’s been a nightmare trying to get the new food pantry up and running after the old pantry shut down with five days notice. Between all the forms, setting up an inventory system that should have been in place twelve years ago, regional meetings, fulfilling program and educational requirements, as well as keeping up with my regular Illuminati duties, I feel like my brain is about to power down to save itself from the pending explosion.

    How are things on your end?

  35. If you look far enough through the list of Presidential candidates, you will indeed eventually find the fellow whose web site opens “Liberty for America” rather than naming his party. Mind you, no one here views him as actually having jumped from his party to join us, but sometimes something slightly lighthearted is appropriate.

  36. Personally, I like the idea of George Phillies, or anyone else who is principled and consistent, being the chair of the LP.

    I find Susan Hogarth’s objection to be bizarre. So George is more loyal to the ideals of liberty than to the LP? How is that unhealthy?

    Party loyalty is the penultimate refuge of the scoundrel. Like patriotism, it does nothing to advance the cause of freedom.

  37. In any event, I am not a candidate for LNC Chair.

  38. Redpath was a good guy to work for in the 2004 petition drive. I think that the primary problem is that he doesn’t have anyone on the payroll who is honest enough to delegate responsibility to. (That, and the fact that Scott Kohlhaas is using Sean Haugh as a tool to eliminate petitioners that reference his shady recent past in Nebraska, has become a stumbling block for Redpath. Nobody wants to pull the rug out from under anyone in the middle of a petition drive, no matter how criminal they have acted. I understand this, even if I disagree with it.)

    I think that getting good people like Wes Benedict into a position like Executive Director might make a world of sense. As far as I know, there is nothing to indicate a lack of resolve in W.B.

    Suggested remedies for existing LP problems:

    1) Kohlhaas signs a statement that he was found to be responsible for the nonpayment of Andy Jacobs, Mark Pickens, Gary Fincher and ‘Paulie Cannoli’ in NE, in 2006.
    This makes it impossible for him to continue to interfere with their future employment, and makes it possible for them to interfere with his future employment, barring an admission of guilt and a formal apology that each of the defrauded petitioners agree to sign off on in exchange for their silence on all NE 2006 matters except future work denied to them.

    I would personally encourage State Parties to hire Kohlhaas, so long as they have a clear contract drawn up with a clear payment structure for subordinates, which forbids malfeasance of the kind he has recently displayed. …No more “oral contracts” designed to screw the petitioner.

    2) Haugh is gently informed that he can continue cussing people out (and crying when the same is done to unidentified friends of his), telling longtime libertarian activists that they are “never going to work for the party again”, and costing LP donors tons of extra money that could be saved by hiring those longtime libertarian activists, but that the Libertarian Party can no longer continue paying him to do so.

    3) All people in a position to hire petitioners are recommended to have them sign a contract to the effect that they are not to engage in certain prohibited actions, including fraud or election crimes (like burning or withholding signatures). These contracts should clearly delineate what is expected from those petitioners, as well as leave ways for additional duties (such as subcontracting) to be added for additional pay (When I was hired in TX in 2004, I soon expanded beyond my base petitioner duties, and hired several other petitioners who produced well. One of those petitioners went on to become a professional petitioner with no knowledge of Scott Kohlhaas’s malfeasance in NE, so he is currently hired in CT and Maine by the National LP –AKA Emperor Sean Haugh. Another of them was asked by me to help save WV, so he is currently persona-non-grata in the LP). Should certain people engage in actions prohibited by the contract, those actions will be documented and subject to disciplinary action, such as hiring other petitioners first, or not offering to pay expenses on future work. (NOTE: this should not pertain to existing instances, like mine, where petitioners are defrauded or “delayed payment” on existing expenses that they are already owed.)

    4) All salaried hires of the LP will be hired “at will”, and will be fully accountable to the LNC, and the chair for their actions. Ideally, all hires will be “independent contractors” with clearly delineated responsibilities, and a clear heirarchy of authority, which prevents people from committing wrongs and then pointing the finger at each other.

    Thusly, there would not be any problem with eliminating someone like Haugh from LP employment: Haugh could simply cease his insane behavior, or not have his contract renewed.

    This would also more gracefully apply to someone who started out with useful skills, who simply cracked under the pressure of doing actual work.

    5) It might also be a good idea to have a set of realistic questions for candidates or new hires to answer, such as a “litmus test” to prevent anti-liberty whack-jobs from getting the LP nomination. One question I’d ask every presidential candidate is if they support “jury nullification of law”. If they don’t, they might still be a drug warrior prosecutor, and thus not fit to run for president, or executive director for us.

    Such questions could also be added to a long computer “FACEBOOK-style” file on each employee/petitioner/chairman/executive director. This would help add information to the process, and help people find other people with similar strategic goals. For instance, there are many paths to liberty, but not all people are equally suited to all paths. This says nothing to denigrate or elevate one path over another, it simply means that someone who builds a cell-phone mobbing network might not have the same skills as someone who organizes a FIJA protest at a local courthouse, or as someone who gets elected as a libertarian Judge or Sherriff. All of those people have legitimate skills, but all those skills are different. If we have a chairman who understands how deeply regular FIJA activism could motivate and organize the LP, we might want to engage in such as a party, and stop having the system laugh at us.

    Such an executive director might post systematic instructions regarding FIJA activism, so that that activism would be more effective.

    It would also be good to simply have a set of questions that a real libertarian interviewer would find very valuable for the determination of whether or not someone is an actual libertarian, such as:

    1) What books, websites, or other resources, from memory alone, would you recommend to someone who was interested in finding out more about the philosophy of individual freedom?

    2) What books, websites, or influences most influenced you on your path to the political ideology of libertarianism?

    3) What strategical influences are you familiar with?
    What technological influences are you familiar with?
    What informational influences are you familiar with?
    –Extropian pursuit of intellectual firepower (Heinlein, “Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, internet in Poland in 1989)
    –Jury rights pamphleting
    –Libertarian activism around popular libertarian issues / hot topics / initiatives/referenda (like the anti-eminent domain initiatives that were widely popular in 2005 and 2006)

    4) How familiar are you with what libertarians are doing in each State? What efforts do you think are likely to be successful, and why? What should the LP do to leverage this success, if anything?

    5) Are you willing to give a daily voice or text update via voicemail to libertarians and the public, via the web? Do you agree to complete transparency with regard to your daily work? (Events that needed to be secrety due to timing could be logged as “5 hours spent on secret event to be made public on”)

    6) Do you favor outreach and cooperation with organizations that have subset-of-libertarianism focuses, goals, and philosophies? If so, which ones do you favor the most? Do you favor changing with the current news environment, or maintaining a certain focus? Why?

    Transparent Questions like this where the subject was given a day or a week to answer any question that was not “off the top of your mind, right now”…

    Moreover, the “off the top of your mind, right now” question could be asked in addition to the same question, given time for private reflection and web use. As the web grows more and more as a connector of thoughts and people, it becomes more essential to the stream of work that any executive director will do.

    I urge all libertarians to work towards freedom maximally, and to value freedom as if it were literally the billions of dollars of additional wealth (measured in quality and quantity of life) that they would have if we were living in a society of enlightened self interest.

    Since we are libertarians, we are smart enough to use our knowledge of markets in our activism.

    There is a market for freedom that is relatively untapped. Any serious mind rapidly realizes that there is a lot that could be done to tap that market.

    Allying with existing pro-freedom forces that amount to greater than 25% of the voting population is a good idea. (the effort to repeal the Anchorage smoking ban –financed with $16,000 of donor money failed to win on the ballot, but was placed on the ballot, and did get the LP 4 front page ADN mentions, and more than ten subsection mentions. Our opponents, the AK lung association opposed us with $350,000 of federal grant money.)

    As a good examples of positive media coverage, resulting from pursuit of a specific small-government goal, I offer:

    The Anchorage Daily News Covers the Libertarian Argument Regarding the Anchorage Smoking Ban, 8 months later!:

    several proponents of smoking ban lose reelection:


    If Carla Howell’s attempt to end the State Income Tax in Massachusetts is successful, it will be a HUGE LIBERTARIAN VICTORY. I hope everyone here is supporting her efforts:

  39. Wes Benedict seems like he’d make a good Executive Director.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: