[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

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 <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
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <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 <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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180115/0e53ba2e/attachment-0002.html>