[Lnc-business] Fwd: Re: Recent VC Comments

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I already wrote a proposal Starchild (well members did and gave it to me to
finesse a tiny bit) and I am submitting it.

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:

>
>         I hear you, David. I believe Libertarian Party members should have
> the ability to directly recall members of the National Committee, without
> having to rely on LNC members themselves, or wait up to two years for the
> opportunity to do so at a national convention. Such a procedure could at
> least partly address, in a bottom-up manner, the issues you raise. Either
> those who desire a recall would muster the support to meet the threshold
> for it to pass, or they would not.
>
>         Since you are on the Bylaws Committee, perhaps you might even put
> forward such a proposal for the committee's consideration? Let me know if
> you or another Bylaws Committee member wishes to do so and would like help
> writing it.
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>                                    ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                         RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2018, at 4:08 PM, david.demarest at lp.org wrote:
>
> > Good discussion!
> >
> > Here are the choices in a top-down representative democracy electoral
> system as applied to a possible vote on the suspension or removal motion.
> >
> > First, take a poll of the constituents (an obviously flawed process).
> Let's say the 60% of the vocal constituents favor approval. 30% favor
> rejection. and 10% don't care. Wishes of the silent minority are unknown.
> Let's say the dictates of my conscience favor rejecting the motion.
> >
> > Now, the question is, whose dictates of conscience am I going to screw
> over, the vocal majority, the vocal minority, the silent minority, or mine.
> Hmmmm. Could there be a moral flaw in the top-down representative democracy
> electoral system?
> >
> > However, have no doubt about how I would vote.
> >
> > The solution to this moral dilemma is beyond the scope of this
> discussion except to say that the independent Roads to Freedom Foundation
> is focused on building bottom-up entrepreneurial private-sector social
> services, competitive governance, and bottom-up collaborative leadership by
> example. Guess what, our foundation does not suffer from the obvious moral
> dilemma presented in the previous paragraph.
> >
> > Food for thought.
> >
> > ~David Pratt Demarest
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Fwd: Re: Recent VC Comments
> > Date: 2018-01-15 18:02
> > From: david.demarest at lp.org
> > To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > Reply-To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >
> > Amen. I just had one disappear into the ether. Actually, I think it went
> to Caryn Ann. I will figure out how to resend it. Thanks to the IT folks
> that are working hard to solve the issue.
> >
> > ~David
> >
> > On 2018-01-15 17:48, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
> >> Well, this illustrates that we're both wrestling with the reply
> >> feature.  *laughing*
> >> ---
> >> Elizabeth Van Horn
> >> I understand.
> >> Although, I don't see where he called anyone cowards.   I think his
> >> "sign of fear" verbiage is more alluding to how others may perceive
> >> it.   Plus, having fear isn't the same as being a coward.  Everyone
> >> has fear.  I had fear before I made the motion, as I knew it would
> >> open an ugly can of worms.  : (
> >> ---
> >> Elizabeth Van Horn
> >> On 2018-01-15 18:40, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> >>> When people are called cowards it is personal. Larry is usually way
> >>> more precise than that.
> >>> And as we learned with Arvin, how a message is received is just as
> >>> important as how it was intended.
> >>> In the past he has always exemplified that, so I am asking for that
> >>> now.
> >>> I will drop it after this post.
> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn
> >>> <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> >>> Hi Caryn Ann,
> >>> I know that you'd probably co-sponsor the motion I made, (and maybe
> >>> even vote in favor) except that you wish to abide by your Region's
> >>> wishes.  I respect that.
> >>> I'm in the same situation, only in reverse. For instance, all this
> >>> time, I PERSONALLY have told everyone that the way to remove Arvin
> >>> is to vote him out at the 2018 NOLA convention. That was, and still
> >>> is, my personal position.
> >>> But, I want to be able to give voice to the LP members in Region 3.
> >>> That's what I signed up for, and that's what I told the Regional
> >>> chairs I'd do. Other than out-of-hand unethical actions, I'll try to
> >>> stick to what Region 3 wants. (Even if it's something I personally
> >>> wouldn't do.) Because, now I'm representing hundreds of LP members
> >>> and it would be disingenuous for me to take on that role, and push
> >>> my personal views onto those who entrusted me.
> >>> Larry Sharpe's commentary isn't a personal judgement of you, or
> >>> others, who may decide to not support the motion.  It's his view on
> >>> the RESPONSIBILITIES of the LNC role. His personal opinion.  Larry's
> >>> not impugning your character or motivations.  He's saying what he
> >>> thinks is the "responsibility" of the LNC members.  Just as there
> >>> are LP members saying that they think my responsibility should be to
> >>> my conscience, as that's how *they* view the LNC role.  I don't take
> >>> it personal, if it's not directed at me, or a smear on motivations.
> >>> I don't think Larry is indicating a judgement on your character or
> >>> others who might act accordingly.
> >>> ---
> >>> Elizabeth Van Horn
> >>> On 2018-01-15 17:17, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> >>> FYI - Many times my region says - we leave it to you.  That is their
> >>> prerogative.  Not mine. This also protects small states to have an
> >>> equal voice.  Montana knows that they have equal pull with me. They
> >>> don't have to worry that me, a Coloradoan, may let unconscious
> >>> prejudice for my home state to creep in.  I feel pretty fiercely
> >>> about this.  I don't mind a disagreement.   I do mind greatly a
> >>> judgment on my character.  To put it mildly.
> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >>> In my opinion we do what we promised to do when elected. If YOUR
> >>> region has no issue with that, that is YOUR prerogative. Region 1
> >>> elected me on certain premises.  It is patently unfair and
> >>> inflammatory to suggest that I am a coward or shirking my
> >>> responsibility if I do what they elected me to do.  Seriously Larry,
> >>> that is not right.  Don't make yourself wrong when you are right in
> >>> everything else you said.
> >>> If I felt I could NOT keep that promise, I would resign.  But I
> >>> really take offense at you judging what the agreement is between me
> >>> and my region.
> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Larry Sharpe
> >>> <govsharpe at larrysharpe.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Caryn Ann,
> >>> In my opinion, we are representatives. We should vote on what we
> >>> feel is best. As acting Region 8 rep in December, I voted for Austin
> >>> for the 2020 convention, when my region might have asked for
> >>> Atlanta. If they had asked for Atlanta, I still would have voted for
> >>> Austin and I would have explained my vote. Reps like Amash and
> >>> Massie do this all the time. I assume that they select us to use our
> >>> knowledge, insight and judgement. They would have the option of
> >>> accepting my explanation or asking me to step down or demanding my
> >>> removal. All good. If Patrick does not want to handle this issue and
> >>> I need to step in as Region 8 Rep, I will vote yes to removal
> >>> regardless of my states because I know that it is the best thing to
> >>> do. They can ask for my explanation, my removal or both. All good. I
> >>> think you should do what you think is best.
> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >>> Do you agree that regionals should vote yes regardless of the wishes
> >>> of their region?  Because that is what he said.
> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Dustin Nanna <dustin.nanna at lp.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> Could not agree more Larry
> >>> Dustin Nanna
> >>> LNC Region 3 Alternate
> >>> Vice Chair/Deputy Communications Director
> >>> Libertarian Party of Ohio
> >>> (740) 816-9805 [1]
> >>> On Jan 15, 2018 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> Hi Larry, great minds think alike ;)  I posted a similar letter
> >>> about ten minutes ago.
> >>> I will disagree sharply on one point however.
> >>> Regional Representatives have a duty to their region.  To say that a
> >>> regional should not vote the way their region wants is an abdication
> >>> or fear.  I actually take sharp offense at that.  I have been the
> >>> most outspoken in the past few days.  I am not afraid.  My personal
> >>> position is clear.  But my region expects me to represent THEM and
> >>> if they don't want us to take action - though I disagree - that is
> >>> their right to make.  Please be more careful in making such
> >>> judgments against your peers.
> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Larry Sharpe
> >>> <govsharpe at larrysharpe.com> wrote:
> >>> Dear LNC,
> >>> With the most recent comments and controversy regarding our
> >>> Vice-Chair, Arvin Vohra, we find ourselves in another quagmire,
> >>> wasting our time and efforts, dividing us and making us look
> >>> unprofessional once again.
> >>> The key word is again. This is no longer about Arvin. For clarity, I
> >>> am not angry at him at all. This is about us and our failures. We
> >>> are here again because of our inaction. This is our fault; our
> >>> responsibility. We cannot prevent all of these issues before they
> >>> arise, but we can certainly act every time they do. I am
> >>> disappointed in our organization. We need to be better, bolder and
> >>> smarter.
> >>> Arvin bullied many of our constituents last year (Veterans,
> >>> Military, Teachers, Parents, etc...) and we did nothing. We hid
> >>> behind policy and procedure, cowering, hoping the bully would just
> >>> go away. His enablers tried to intimidate and squelch us. And
> >>> together, with our inaction, we empowered Arvin to do more. So, he
> >>> did.
> >>> Now, as he bullies even more and moves into the realm of children,
> >>> will we fail again? Please no! This time we must act. We must act
> >>> quickly and decisively, or we will pay tenfold in the future. There
> >>> are three reasons why we must:
> >>> Moral: We have created this bully, by standing by while his enablers
> >>> created false narratives and fantasy scenarios and pressured us by
> >>> selfishly invoking our "values" for their needs. These enablers are
> >>> flunky bullies that defend Arvin so that they can bully too. As they
> >>> silence us, they punish our members, our donors, our candidates and
> >>> our advocates.  Good leaders do not let that happen.
> >>> Practical: To make change in this nation, we need to grow our party.
> >>> Alienating has proven to fail. Democrats called Vietnam Vets
> >>> "baby-killers" when they came home. How did that work out?  His
> >>> enablers will say that we are not being honest. They are wrong. We
> >>> can be honest without being mean. We can be principled without
> >>> alienating. These enabling-petty tyrants see little value in growth
> >>> that may lessen their control of their local fiefdom. Good leaders
> >>> can see the big picture and act accordingly.
> >>> Professional: NO other public professional organization in the
> >>> country would accept this behavior. As an officer in a public
> >>> organization, your speech (public or private) represents that
> >>> organization. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant and we see
> >>> that EVERYWHERE. Some of Arvin's enablers think that private
> >>> opinions are somehow immune. These are the thoughts of naïve
> >>> idealists.  When you voluntarily take a position in a public
> >>> organization, you also volunteer to curb your speech, both public
> >>> and private. If you are not prepared to do that, you shouldn't
> >>> accept the position. Good leaders must hold their own accountable.
> >>> This is not about Arvins's correctness, nor his attitude. It isn't
> >>> about him at all. Because an "Arvin" will always pop up here and
> >>> there. It is about us. Do we have the moral courage as an
> >>> organization to quell behavior that is both impractical and
> >>> unprofessional, or not? Will we set the precedent and create the
> >>> environment within this organization that promotes growth with
> >>> principle and communication with compassion and support our
> >>> candidates and advocates, so we can make real impact in our nation?
> >>> Or will we encourage angry pettiness and stay in the basement of
> >>> history smugly watching as our rights get voted away, but feeling
> >>> warm in our righteousness?
> >>> I realize that acting will cause strife in our party. We have strife
> >>> already. This strife is required growing pain for us to make the
> >>> next step. If we don't accept this short-term pain for long-term
> >>> gain, we will suffer even more, as the recent issues from our
> >>> inaction last year have shown.
> >>> We must prioritize this and vote to remove Arvin from his position
> >>> now.  Anything else shows that we will kowtow to bullies, that we
> >>> are ill prepared to lead and that we are not ready for the big
> >>> leagues. As we grow in stature and influence, the nation will be
> >>> watching.
> >>> There is a second motion (the 2nd in less than a year) from the
> >>> Region 3 Rep, Elisabeth Van Horn, to remove Arvin. The first motion
> >>> came from Region 8 Rep, Patrick McKnight, last year. We need to
> >>> second either motion and vote on it as soon as possible.
> >>> An abstention in this vote is an abdication of responsibility and a
> >>> sign of fear. We need to be bold more than ever. The buck must stop
> >>> somewhere. Let it stop here. A no vote validates this behavior and
> >>> encourages more of it. Let's not be here again in 6 months wasting
> >>> more time and energy.
> >>> We must not hide. Let's get this done now. If we don't, we will
> >>> hamper our growth, handicap our candidates and discourage our
> >>> advocates.
> >>> Let's fix this.
> >>> Larry Sharpe
> >>> Region 8 Rep Alternate, LNC
> >>> --
> >>> Larry
> >>> LARRY SHARPE
> >>> Larry Sharpe for Governor [2]
> >>> 445 Park Ave, 9th Floor [3]
> >>> New York, NY 10022 [3] [4]   [5] [6]  [7]
> >> --
> >> Larry
> >> LARRY SHARPE
> >> Larry Sharpe for Governor [2]
> >> 445 Park Ave, 9th Floor [3]
> >> New York, NY 10022 [3] [4]   [5] [6]  [7]
> >> Links:
> >> ------
> >> [1] tel:(740)%20816-9805
> >> [2] http://www.larrysharpe.com/
> >> [3]
> >> https://maps.google.com/?q=445+Park+Ave,+9th+FloorNew+
> York,+NY+10022&entry=gmail&source=g
> >> [4] https://www.facebook.com/LarrySharpe4Gov/
> >> [5] https://twitter.com/LarrySharpe
> >> [6] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp2EegvSGEsgc-diPwc0ZHQ
> >> [7] https://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180115/4afa0cd3/attachment-0002.html>