[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