[Lnc-business] Vice-Chair

Fri May 19 04:07:53 EDT 2017

Because he has, in his discretion, the right to determine his minimum bar.
I had the same group of delegates ask me- I told them that they should go
their regional representative.  They didn't have one.  I referred them to
Arvin.  There was, in the context of convention, and the proximity of the
event, a perfectly justifiable reason to bring it at a meeting that was
happening right then.  It was his discretion.  I think a regional
representative would be perfectly justified in not setting any bar.  You
really are stretching to attack me, and it is very odd.

*Things happen not in isolation but in the totality of the circumstances.
In those circumstances, he was perfectly justified.  There is also the
added issue of those states being region-less.  They had little other
direct representatives recourse.*

I really wonder at your extreme interest in my reasoning and aggressive
pursuit.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa at gmail.com> wrote:

> From May 30, 2016 post-convention LNC minutes:
>
> “After citing a Facebook post made by Alicia Dearn about the reasons for
> her actions concerning the Vice-Presidential nomination, Mr. Vohra moved to
> rescind the nomination of William Weld as the Vice-Presidential nominee.”
>
>
>
> From September 16, 2016 email:
>
> “And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of
> Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members
> (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it.”
>
> […]
>
> “Just like Arvin was *perfectly justified* in bringing that motion to
> disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support
> it.”
>
> --Caryn Ann Harlos
>
>
>
> Based on someone else’s Facebook post, you thought a “minimum bar” on a
> subject “of such momentous import” was met for Arvin Vohra to put forward
> his motion to remove our Vice Presidential nominee from the ticket. Why
> should there be a higher standard for you to make a motion to remove Arvin
> Vohra from the position of Vice Chair?
>
>
>
>
>
> Aaron Starr
>
> (805) 583-3308 Home
>
> (805) 404-8693 Mobile
>
> starrcpa at gmail.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Caryn Ann Harlos
> *Sent:* Friday, May 19, 2017 12:18 AM
>
> *To:* Libertarian National Committee list
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair
>
>
>
> Yes indeed.  I find it funny that you would seek to discredit me.
>
>
>
> *And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of
> Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members
> (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it.  I will
> ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they
> elected me on it.*
>
>
>
> *Do you see "there can be some minimum bars"?  In this case, a majority of
> my State Chairs.  If I got a letter from majority of 2016 delegates I would
> do so as well.*
>
>
>
> *I believe that motions should be heard.  If I didn't think this was of
> such momentous import, such as disaffiliating an affiliate, I would
> sponsor.  I have done this numerous times.  I have already emailed my State
> Chairs.*
>
>
>
> *This is pretty low Aaron.*
>
>
>
> *-Caryn Ann*
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From the historical email archives (emphasis added):
>
>
>
> “If the LNC took the time to meet, debate, and vote on every idea that
> some member somewhere has, we'd be meeting every day.  I do not think LNC
> members are obligated to put forward a motion that they don't even support
> just because one person asked them to.  I think part of the job of being on
> the LNC is understanding what things are or are not productive uses of our
> time.  It's not just about the time of the person putting forth the motion,
> but it is the time of 16 other LNC members, plus 8 alternates, and
> potentially some staff.  Sometimes it is our job to thank the person for
> the suggestion but politely reject an idea brought to us.”
>
> --Alicia Mattson (September 16, 2016)
>
>
>
> “Alicia, I strongly, but respectfully, disagree.  The number of members
> who actually try to get something heard is infrequent.  If there were a
> deluge, you would have a point, and then I would encourage stricter minimum
> standards to be in place but there isn’t.   *And yes, I do think Regional
> Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to
> bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even
> if they do not support it.  I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a
> promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.*  If it got to be
> so much that this was even a concern on time, I would set stricter bars.
> But each motion I have brought has had merit, and I supported each one […]
> Just like Arvin was perfectly justified in bringing that motion to
> disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support
> it.”
>
> --Caryn Ann Harlos (September 16, 2016)
>
>
>
> “If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so.
> That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting
> for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations
> about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would
> do what I believe a representative should do.  I would ask the Chairs and
> the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra.  I don't take overturning
> the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole
> job or purview.  And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do
> such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to
> email vote.  I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear
> from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10
> days. *This is not ad hoc for this.  This has been my consistent position
> on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past
> issues where I followed the same process.*  It requires 2/3 vote of the
> entire LNC to pass.  I think it would be impossible to even reach all of
> the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would
> require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.”
>
> --Caryn Ann Harlos (May 18, 2017)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Aaron Starr
>
> (805) 583-3308 Home
>
> (805) 404-8693 Mobile
>
> starrcpa at gmail.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Caryn Ann Harlos
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:52 PM
> *To:* Libertarian National Committee list
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair
>
>
>
> Thank you for your input Steve.  On difficult decisions of great import,
> my position remains the same as it did back when people were urging me to
> disqualify our Presidential ticket or to censure Bill Weld.  As a
> representative, there are some decisions that are referred to the persons
> who directly elected me and directly elected Mr. Vohra.
>
>
>
> If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so.  That
> doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it
> (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about
> over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do
> what I believe a *representative* should do.  I would ask the Chairs and
> the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra.  I don't take overturning
> the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole
> job or purview.  And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do
> such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to
> email vote.  I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear
> from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days.
>
>
>
> This is not ad hoc for this.  This has been my consistent position on all
> positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues
> where I followed the same process.  It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC
> to pass.  I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates
> from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3
> approval of responding delegates.
>
>
>
> This is what I believe is the right way to handle and is in line with how
> I have handled my representation in the past.  However, 10 days is not
> enough time for me to do my duty, and I think an email vote is way too
> trivial to the gravity of this motion.
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson at lpwa.org>
> wrote:
>
> Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
>
>
>
> I had originally voiced my opposition to a motion for removal, however
> strongly encouraged action by our Chairman to address the comments made by
> our Vice Chairman. Since that time there have been, as Mr. Sharpe noted,
> several further communications that have caused concern with my original
> position. The circumstances have since changed and as such my position of
> general neutrality has also changed.
>
>
>
> Mr. Vohra holds a position of great influence when it comes to perceived
> positions of the national party. What he does while in this position, both
> "on the clock" or off, directly impact perception. It is a reality that
> every single one of us who hold a position of influence must face.
>
>
>
> This body has an opportunity before it, nay an obligation before it to
> take an official position on such actions of those who hold the highest
> positions of influence within our ranks.
>
>
>
> I am merely an alternate to Ms. Harlos, and as such I am not eligible to
> second the motion made by Representative McKnight. However, I strongly
> encourage a second and a vote by this body, and by doing so either support
> or oppose both the statements made and the subsequent actions taken by our
> Vice-Chairman.
>
>
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Steven M. Nielson
>
> Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2017 9:37 PM, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight@
> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I
> personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We
> can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names.
> This is unacceptable behavior.
>
>
>
> Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra
> from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
> Who will second this motion?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Patrick McKnight
>
> Region 8 Rep
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe at neo-sage.com> wrote:
>
> Dear LNC,
>
> The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding
> Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
>
> If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said
> anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved
> immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock,
> on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL
> opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an
> apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints
> on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this
> role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause
> whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was
> never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our
> customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is
> no different.
>
> What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related?
> Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's
> a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because
> no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for
> it, and neither should we.
>
> Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and
> their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
>
> After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally
> provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in
> another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the
> actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million
> voters!  Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs.
> Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no
> intention of stopping.
>
> He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is
> making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's
> not stopping.
>
> Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations,
> members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must
> spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the
> precious time they give us.
>
> Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want
> to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle
> our own. We need to act now.
>
> As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a
> threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us.
> What story will we tell?
>
> "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
>
> They will hear that we agree with him:
>
>    - Our veterans are murders
>    - Our teachers are enemies
>    - Our candidates are liars and trickster
>
> It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political
> party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several
> candidates that are about to win.
>
> Or we can say:
>
> "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and
> decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
>
> He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he
> represents the LP.
>
> This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about
> insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting
> our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of
> our bylaws.
>
> I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses
> to adjust his behavior.
>
> Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit
> who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So
> should he.
>
> Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC
> issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as
> needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and
> sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
>
> I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to
> apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am
> an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC
> member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove
> Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of
> our Bylaws.
>
> Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
>
> --
>
> Larry
>
> *Larry Sharpe*
>
> *The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
>
> http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
>
> *https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
>
> *212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>*
>
>   *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
>
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>
> *We defend your rights*
>
> *And oppose the use of force*
>
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
>
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>
> *We defend your rights*
>
> *And oppose the use of force*
>
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170519/a3e9b1d7/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3629 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170519/a3e9b1d7/attachment-0002.png>