[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Joshua Katz]

Both, whichever gets the requisite number.

Joshua A. Katz


On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> 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."
>
> Are you co-sponsoring the email ballot or joining in the call for an
> electronic meeting?
>
> "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."
>
> I agree with this interpretation that your co-sponsorship of a motion
> for an email ballot would not prevent you from speaking against the
> motion in the email ballot during debate.
>
> -Nick
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz <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
> > <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
> >> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lnc-business mailing list
> >> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180115/ebd1f532/attachment-0002.html>