[Lnc-business] Fwd: Investigation of complaint against Arvin Vohra pursuant to LNC Policy Manual Section 2.01(4)
Starchild
starchild at lp.org
Sat Jan 27 05:21:08 EST 2018
Oops, I see I left out the word "member" in this sentence (inserted in all caps):
> More broadly, I also think the Policy Manual should be amended to explicitly empower each LNC MEMBER to individually communicate with counsel...
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
RealReform at earthlink.net
(415) 625-FREE
On Jan 27, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Starchild wrote:
> Caryn Ann,
>
> From your remarks yesterday on the "Accountability and frugality on LNC
> meeting expenses" thread, I got the impression that you've come to
> think having staff weigh in and influence LNC debate with their
> opinions is "extremely helpful" to us, and not a matter of
> "inappropriate interference in internal politics".
>
> Yet you now seem to be taking a very different tack.
>
> I'm somewhat more inclined to agree with you in this case. I think
> staff members should always be welcome to attend and participate in LNC
> meetings on the same basis as other party members (i.e. on their own
> time and dime), but I think it is a dangerous precedent for some
> unelected individuals to have special access to influence the debate of
> this body with their personal opinions, that is not enjoyed by other LP
> members.
>
> In the case of this investigation however, I will note that the
> language of Merissa Hamilton's complaint specifically referenced the LP
> Bylaws, and our bylaws reference Robert's Rules of Order, so I don't
> think it necessarily inappropriate for counsel to have taken the
> language of those documents into consideration, or for him to have been
> instructed to do so. The original complaint itself wasn't exactly
> narrowly tailored either � not that it was required to be.
>
> To my LNC colleagues in general,
>
> It is my view that we as a party have too much of a "strong chair"
> system. This is not a criticism of Nick Sarwark, who inherited the
> current rules, but an institutional observation. It seems to me that
> the LP chair having sole direct authority over hiring and firing staff
> could lead individuals serving at his or her pleasure to be tempted to
> voice opinions in our debate that they believe s/he wishes to hear. In
> the case of counsel this seems less likely to occur however, since
> counsel serves at the pleasure of the entire LNC, not the chair (which
> is as it should be).
>
> Part of the problem here, I think, is that Policy Manual
> ([1]http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180115_LNC_Policy_Ma
> nual.pdf) Section 2.01, Subsection 4, on "Harassment and Offensive
> Behavior Prohibition" is in certain key respects poorly written. I
> believe its intended focus was on interpersonal interaction and
> behavior, and not on outreach material or public communications, which
> is really a separate issue. The present language that has apparently
> been interpreted as allowing a single LP member to generate a mandatory
> LNC investigation any time one such member is upset about posts or
> comments made by a member of the party's leadership that s/he finds
> offensive, disrespectful, or whatever, seems unwise to say the least.
> If more members chose to avail themselves of this provision, the
> situation could quickly become untenable.
>
> Also problematic is the language for addressing complaints, which
> states that "In response to every complaint, LNC will take prompt and
> necessary steps to investigate the matter", but does not provide any
> specific mechanism for how this is to happen, other than to state that
> "Any violation of this policy should be brought to the attention of the
> Chair, or the Chairman of the Judicial Committee".
>
> Given that latter sentence, it is somewhat understandable, especially
> in the absence of alternate proposed action on the matter from other
> members of the LNC, that the chair took it upon himself to initiate an
> investigation. Furthermore, given the lack of specifics about how such
> an investigation is to be conducted, and the fact that communications
> between individual LNC members other than the chair with our counsel
> have traditionally tended to be limited, by custom if not by
> rule, under our "strong chair" system, it seems further somewhat
> understandable that the chair initiated his investigation by delegating
> the matter to counsel (and presumably providing some form of
> instructions thereto, whether in writing or otherwise).
>
> This procedure seems sub-optimal. If we had a better procedure in
> place, we might not now be facing the concerns raised by Caryn Ann and
> Elizabeth. If a complaint is to trigger a mandatory LNC investigation
> (even if only for the interpersonal matters for which I believe Section
> 2.01, Subsection 4 was intended), it should BE an LNC investigation,
> not a chair's investigation or counsel's investigation. Accordingly I
> recommend amending the Policy Manual to have such complaints
> automatically generate a motion which would refer the investigation to
> a subcommittee established for that purpose (or an existing
> subcommittee like the Employment Policy and Compensation Committee),
> with that committee being clearly empowered to directly seek the
> assistance of counsel if necessary. Then the entire LNC could vote up
> or down on that motion (if voted down, the investigation would then
> naturally default to being handled by the entire LNC).
>
> More broadly, I also think the Policy Manual should be amended to
> explicitly empower each LNC to individually communicate with counsel on
> legal matters related to his or her role on the LNC as desired, with a
> reasonable cap on counsel expenses generated by any individual member
> within one calendar year unless a member is being personally sued in
> his or her capacity as a party leader, or the LNC votes to amend the
> budget.
>
> As David Demarest would say... Thoughts? :-)
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> [2]RealReform at earthlink.net
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> On Jan 26, 2018, at 11:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> I started a new email thread. I have concerns about this report.
> It goes beyond a PM investigation into the internal politics
> (including
> bylaws and RONR without mentioning them). Was he asked to do that?
> If
> so, that is improper on the part of the person giving the
> instructions. If he was not, that is inappropriate interference in
> internal politics on counsel's part.
>
> On Jan 26, 2018, at 11:24 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> I have read it multiple times and have some questions. First, I
> agree
> this is not a Policy Manual issue so the ultimate conclusion that
> this
> is not a PM issue I agree with. However, it seems to me that
> counsel
> greatly over-reached beyond the PM into Bylaws and RONR
> implications
> which was not his place IMHO, but in order to know that, I would
> like
> to know the specific instructions that were given to counsel. I
> understand that is attorney/client privilege and that can be given
> to
> me off-list.
> Specifically were the instructions written? I would like to see
> them.
> If oral, I would like permission to speak with counsel to find out
> the
> instructions.
>
> References
>
> 1. http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180115_LNC_Policy_Manual.pdf
> 2. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list