[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Thu Jan 18 01:42:35 EST 2018
I will take a closer look at that section, but on first read, I don't think
I agree that excludes what I said.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
> Alicia is correct about this.
>
> See RONR(11th ed.),pp.589-590,ll.33-5.
>
> “If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of
> the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that
> nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it.
> There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done
> that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws,
> unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may
> be done, all others being prohibited.”
>
> Daniel Hayes
>
> LNC At Large Member
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 17, 2018, at 1:21 AM, Alicia Mattson <[1]alicia.mattson at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> I think merely including "for cause" in the motion would be sufficient,
> and I haven't found a RONR provision which says the nature of the cause
> has to be explained in the motion.
> It may, however, be a good idea to explain for the record what the
> cause is, especially when an organization wants to distance itself from
> public statements it disagrees with.
> Regarding Caryn Ann's question about whether RONR requires that we have
> a trial under Chapter 20 procedures, I've heard this question come up
> before, and I've seen a written opinion from a member of the RONR
> authorship team which explained that the Chapter 20 protocol is the
> default, but when an organization takes the step of writing a different
> bylaws provision about removal, that serves to override the Chapter 20
> default process.
> -Alicia
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <[2]chair at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> On the parliamentary question:
> If there is going to be an email ballot, the motion would at least
> need to say "for cause" and would be better to state with clarity
> what
> the cause is, since there is only the option for members to vote for
> or against it without the potential for amendment. Members should
> be
> aware that there is an appellate procedure in the case of a
> suspension
> and that an appellate body would generally be looking to whether the
> appropriate procedure has been followed in deciding whether to
> overturn a suspension.
> In the case of a call for an electronic meeting, the subject of
> suspension would be sufficient to call the meeting, with cause being
> able to be discussed, debated, and attached to any final motion
> before
> voting. As a note, it requires 1/3 of the committee to request an
> electronic meeting, so it requires six members to request, not the
> four that are required for an email ballot.
> -Nick
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>
> <[3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> > I have several concerns here.
> >
> > And to point out one detail for party members reporting on this
> incident who
> > - inadvertantly I am sure - omitted the fact that I personally - a
> radical
> > anarchist - am willing to co-sponsor this motion, thus making four,
> but only
> > have not because I am awaiting the go ahead from my region. I don't
> need a
> > 2/3 to just co-sponsor, and I am getting more comfortable with it now
> that
> > two of my states are in favour of removal. CO and WA may have a
> decision
> > soon. And in reflecting on this, I am seeing my way clear to
> co-sponsor as
> > long as some of my states believe it needs a hearing. That protects
> > minority voices.
> >
> > This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart. But then
> again,
> > Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for
> tat, I
> > can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is
> fair play.
> > We need to stop that culture. Now.
> >
> > But to my concerns. I have been reading more in RONR and I think the
> motion
> > is improper for the reasons I stated before. It must state a cause.
> > Further, I do not think it CAN be handled by email, and I think it
> MUST (if
> > it has enough co-sponsors - or at a meeting - a second) take the form
> of a
> > trial - in executive session. I don't like secret sessions but that
> is my
> > reading of RONR, and it doesn't seem like it can be suspended -
> though it
> > seems that the subject of the discipline could waive that.
> >
> > I would like the Chair to weigh in on my objection to this Motion as
> being
> > out of order without a stated cause. That being said, I do have some
> > proposed cause language.
> >
> > Members reading this. Do not allow anyone to put you into a
> mentality of
> > purging anyone. Moderate, Radical, or otherwise. Our binding factor
> is the
> > Statement of Principles. Inciting a hate movement against Johnson
> > supporters is counterprodutive and just flat out wrong. The same is
> true
> > for Party radicals and anarchists. This is insane.
> >
> > -Caryn Ann
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> One of my states has requested the "cause" language for
> consideration.
> >>
> >> -Caryn Ann
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >> <[5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I spoke with the Chair of HI. She supports removal. Region 1:
> Utah
> >>> (no); Arizona (recused entirely); Alaska (yes); Hawaii (yes).
> >>>
> >>> Some may object that I have influenced some with my personal
> opinion. I
> >>> don't have that much power. But this is where the issue of us
> being elected
> >>> for our insight and judgment comes into play - the Chairs want my
> advice.
> >>> They can take it or not, but they want it. And I advise them on
> how to
> >>> protect their own state if the LNC does nothing. That is my job.
> >>>
> >>> As promised, this is what Alaska wrote to me:
> >>>
> >>> After discussion with our state board, it is our view that Arvin
> Vohra
> >>> should be removed from the position of Vice Chair of the
> Libertarian Party.
> >>> On an intellectual level, some logic may exist in his arguments,
> however the
> >>> topics and conclusions he forwards repeatedly result in discredit
> to the LP.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This cannot continue.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Our leaders must be ambassadors as well as philosophers. One role
> cannot
> >>> exist at the expense of the other. The LP is not a hermetic
> association for
> >>> the advanced study of arcane philosophical concepts, but a
> political
> >>> organization with the intent to guide and influence our government
> and
> >>> citizenry. All political correctness aside, earning the
> credibility to do
> >>> this comes at the cost of tailoring our message to our audience,
> the
> >>> American people. Mr. Vohra does not, or perhaps cannot understand
> this
> >>> fundamental constraint.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -Caryn Ann
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>> <[6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> FYI - LPCO has an open email list. Its time we heard the voices
> of our
> >>>> members - anyone can follow their discussion
> >>>>
> >>>> [7]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
> business/kPps5ugbr1A
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>>> <[8]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you Joshua, I am flattered that some of my words were
> persuasive.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me argue more in favour of a meeting. If this motion got
> four
> >>>>> co-sponsors and went to email vote, I am not going to have full
> word from
> >>>>> region 1 in ten days. Not gonna happen. So even though I
> suspect they will
> >>>>> not favour, this guarantees that there will be no region 1
> support. A
> >>>>> meeting can give more time and can allow me to let the region
> know they can
> >>>>> attend for public comment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (states have told me that they have to wait for a board
> meeting). I
> >>>>> have three definite responses. AZ asked to be recused. AK is in
> favour of
> >>>>> suspension (and I will be forwarding their missive to me here).
> UT opposes.
> >>>>> The CO chair supports but the rest of the Board has not weighed
> in (FYI I
> >>>>> recused myself from the LPCO Board discussion).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz
> >>>>> <[9]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting. I also
> said in
> >>>>>> that email that this is the second time this has come up, and it
> needs a
> >>>>>> full hearing. Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos
> and from Mr.
> >>>>>> Sharpe which have called some of my beliefs on this topic into
> question. I
> >>>>>> still am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have been convinced
> that
> >>>>>> consideration is due. I believe motions get clearer and better
> >>>>>> consideration when they are actually pending - there is a
> difference,
> >>>>>> psychologically, between speaking in general, and speaking on a
> precise
> >>>>>> motion. (On a side note, I agree with Ms. Harlos that this
> motion would be
> >>>>>> better if it specified the cause, although I do not think this
> is
> >>>>>> necessary.) Therefore, I will cosponsor.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding, and I
> ask
> >>>>>> the Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
> According to
> >>>>>> RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in debate
> (but may vote
> >>>>>> against it), but the seconder may speak against it in debate.
> Our email
> >>>>>> ballots generally list everyone who wished to see the motion,
> the original
> >>>>>> maker and the cosponsors, as "cosponsors." That
> notwithstanding, it is my
> >>>>>> understanding that a cosponsor is in the position of a seconder
> and may
> >>>>>> speak in debate against the motion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn
> >>>>>> <[10]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as
> Vice
> >>>>>>> Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> _______________________________
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now
> backing
> >>>>>>> this motion. I told Region 3 that I'd need at least 3/4 of the
> region in
> >>>>>>> accord to make the motion to suspend Arvin. That percent was
> reached last
> >>>>>>> night.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep on
> the
> >>>>>>> LNC, I didn't do it under the circumstances of, "only if
> convenient".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm doing this because I care about giving a voice to the many
> LP
> >>>>>>> members who are running for office, getting out the vote, and
> spending their
> >>>>>>> hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It is
> their
> >>>>>>> voice that I represent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, it is with calm resolve that I make this motion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
> >>>>>>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
> >>>>>>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
> >>>>>>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
> >>>>>>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
> >>>>>>> [11]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
> >>>>>>> [12]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >>>>>>> [13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
> >>>>>> [14]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >>>>>> [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > [16]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > [17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [18]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [20]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [21]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 2. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
> business/kPps5ugbr1A
> 8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 9. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 10. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 11. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 12. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 14. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 16. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 17. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 18. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 20. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 21. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
I will take a closer look at that section, but on first read, I don't
think I agree that excludes what I said.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Daniel Hayes <[1]daniel.hayes at lp.org>
wrote:
Alicia is correct about this.
See RONR(11th ed.),pp.589-590,ll.33-5.
“If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other
things of
the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption
that
nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it.
There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be
done
that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws,
unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that
may
be done, all others being prohibited.”
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2018, at 1:21 AM, Alicia Mattson
<[1][2]alicia.mattson at lp.org>
wrote:
I think merely including "for cause" in the motion would be
sufficient,
and I haven't found a RONR provision which says the nature of the
cause
has to be explained in the motion.
It may, however, be a good idea to explain for the record what
the
cause is, especially when an organization wants to distance
itself from
public statements it disagrees with.
Regarding Caryn Ann's question about whether RONR requires that
we have
a trial under Chapter 20 procedures, I've heard this question
come up
before, and I've seen a written opinion from a member of the RONR
authorship team which explained that the Chapter 20 protocol is
the
default, but when an organization takes the step of writing a
different
bylaws provision about removal, that serves to override the
Chapter 20
default process.
-Alicia
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Nicholas Sarwark
<[2][3]chair at lp.org>
wrote:
On the parliamentary question:
If there is going to be an email ballot, the motion would at
least
need to say "for cause" and would be better to state with
clarity
what
the cause is, since there is only the option for members to
vote for
or against it without the potential for amendment. Members
should
be
aware that there is an appellate procedure in the case of a
suspension
and that an appellate body would generally be looking to
whether the
appropriate procedure has been followed in deciding whether to
overturn a suspension.
In the case of a call for an electronic meeting, the subject of
suspension would be sufficient to call the meeting, with cause
being
able to be discussed, debated, and attached to any final motion
before
voting. As a note, it requires 1/3 of the committee to request
an
electronic meeting, so it requires six members to request, not
the
four that are required for an email ballot.
-Nick
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[3][4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> I have several concerns here.
>
> And to point out one detail for party members reporting on this
incident who
> - inadvertantly I am sure - omitted the fact that I personally - a
radical
> anarchist - am willing to co-sponsor this motion, thus making
four,
but only
> have not because I am awaiting the go ahead from my region. I
don't
need a
> 2/3 to just co-sponsor, and I am getting more comfortable with it
now
that
> two of my states are in favour of removal. CO and WA may have a
decision
> soon. And in reflecting on this, I am seeing my way clear to
co-sponsor as
> long as some of my states believe it needs a hearing. That
protects
> minority voices.
>
> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart. But then
again,
> Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit
for
tat, I
> can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is
fair play.
> We need to stop that culture. Now.
>
> But to my concerns. I have been reading more in RONR and I think
the
motion
> is improper for the reasons I stated before. It must state a
cause.
> Further, I do not think it CAN be handled by email, and I think it
MUST (if
> it has enough co-sponsors - or at a meeting - a second) take the
form
of a
> trial - in executive session. I don't like secret sessions but
that
is my
> reading of RONR, and it doesn't seem like it can be suspended -
though it
> seems that the subject of the discipline could waive that.
>
> I would like the Chair to weigh in on my objection to this Motion
as
being
> out of order without a stated cause. That being said, I do have
some
> proposed cause language.
>
> Members reading this. Do not allow anyone to put you into a
mentality of
> purging anyone. Moderate, Radical, or otherwise. Our binding
factor
is the
> Statement of Principles. Inciting a hate movement against Johnson
> supporters is counterprodutive and just flat out wrong. The same
is
true
> for Party radicals and anarchists. This is insane.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[4][5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> One of my states has requested the "cause" language for
consideration.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>> <[5][6]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I spoke with the Chair of HI. She supports removal. Region 1:
Utah
>>> (no); Arizona (recused entirely); Alaska (yes); Hawaii (yes).
>>>
>>> Some may object that I have influenced some with my personal
opinion. I
>>> don't have that much power. But this is where the issue of us
being elected
>>> for our insight and judgment comes into play - the Chairs want
my
advice.
>>> They can take it or not, but they want it. And I advise them on
how to
>>> protect their own state if the LNC does nothing. That is my
job.
>>>
>>> As promised, this is what Alaska wrote to me:
>>>
>>> After discussion with our state board, it is our view that Arvin
Vohra
>>> should be removed from the position of Vice Chair of the
Libertarian Party.
>>> On an intellectual level, some logic may exist in his arguments,
however the
>>> topics and conclusions he forwards repeatedly result in
discredit
to the LP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This cannot continue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our leaders must be ambassadors as well as philosophers. One
role
cannot
>>> exist at the expense of the other. The LP is not a hermetic
association for
>>> the advanced study of arcane philosophical concepts, but a
political
>>> organization with the intent to guide and influence our
government
and
>>> citizenry. All political correctness aside, earning the
credibility to do
>>> this comes at the cost of tailoring our message to our audience,
the
>>> American people. Mr. Vohra does not, or perhaps cannot
understand
this
>>> fundamental constraint.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> <[6][7]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> FYI - LPCO has an open email list. Its time we heard the
voices
of our
>>>> members - anyone can follow their discussion
>>>>
>>>> [7][8]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
business/kPps5ugbr1A
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>> <[8][9]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Joshua, I am flattered that some of my words were
persuasive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me argue more in favour of a meeting. If this motion got
four
>>>>> co-sponsors and went to email vote, I am not going to have
full
word from
>>>>> region 1 in ten days. Not gonna happen. So even though I
suspect they will
>>>>> not favour, this guarantees that there will be no region 1
support. A
>>>>> meeting can give more time and can allow me to let the region
know they can
>>>>> attend for public comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> (states have told me that they have to wait for a board
meeting). I
>>>>> have three definite responses. AZ asked to be recused. AK is
in
favour of
>>>>> suspension (and I will be forwarding their missive to me
here).
UT opposes.
>>>>> The CO chair supports but the rest of the Board has not
weighed
in (FYI I
>>>>> recused myself from the LPCO Board discussion).
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz
>>>>> <[9][10]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting. I
also
said in
>>>>>> that email that this is the second time this has come up, and
it
needs a
>>>>>> full hearing. Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos
and from Mr.
>>>>>> Sharpe which have called some of my beliefs on this topic
into
question. I
>>>>>> still am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have been
convinced
that
>>>>>> consideration is due. I believe motions get clearer and
better
>>>>>> consideration when they are actually pending - there is a
difference,
>>>>>> psychologically, between speaking in general, and speaking on
a
precise
>>>>>> motion. (On a side note, I agree with Ms. Harlos that this
motion would be
>>>>>> better if it specified the cause, although I do not think
this
is
>>>>>> necessary.) Therefore, I will cosponsor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding,
and I
ask
>>>>>> the Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
According to
>>>>>> RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in
debate
(but may vote
>>>>>> against it), but the seconder may speak against it in debate.
Our email
>>>>>> ballots generally list everyone who wished to see the motion,
the original
>>>>>> maker and the cosponsors, as "cosponsors." That
notwithstanding, it is my
>>>>>> understanding that a cosponsor is in the position of a
seconder
and may
>>>>>> speak in debate against the motion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>>> <[10][11]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as
Vice
>>>>>>> Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
_______________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now
backing
>>>>>>> this motion. I told Region 3 that I'd need at least 3/4 of
the
region in
>>>>>>> accord to make the motion to suspend Arvin. That percent
was
reached last
>>>>>>> night.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep
on
the
>>>>>>> LNC, I didn't do it under the circumstances of, "only if
convenient".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm doing this because I care about giving a voice to the
many
LP
>>>>>>> members who are running for office, getting out the vote,
and
spending their
>>>>>>> hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It
is
their
>>>>>>> voice that I represent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, it is with calm resolve that I make this motion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>>>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>>>>>>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
>>>>>>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
>>>>>>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
>>>>>>> [11][12]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>> [12][13]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>> [13][14]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> [14][15]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> [15][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [16][17]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [17][18]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[18][19]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[19][20]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[20][21]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[21][22]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:[23]alicia.mattson at lp.org
2. mailto:[24]chair at lp.org
3. mailto:[25]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. [29]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
business/kPps5ugbr1A
8. mailto:[30]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:[31]planning4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:[32]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
11. [33]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
12. mailto:[34]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. [35]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
14. mailto:[36]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. [37]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
16. mailto:[38]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
17. [39]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
18. mailto:[40]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
19. [41]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
20. mailto:[42]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
21. [43]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[44]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[45]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
3. mailto:chair at lp.org
4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
10. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
11. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
12. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
13. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
15. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
17. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
18. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
19. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
20. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
21. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
22. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
23. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
24. mailto:chair at lp.org
25. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A
30. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
31. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
32. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
33. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
34. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
35. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
36. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
37. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
38. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
39. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
40. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
41. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
42. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
43. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
44. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
45. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list