[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Tue Jan 16 14:54:37 EST 2018

I have several concerns here.

And to point out one detail for party members reporting on this incident
who - inadvertantly I am sure - omitted the fact that I personally - a
radical anarchist - am willing to co-sponsor this motion, thus making four,
but only have not because I am awaiting the go ahead from my region.  I
don't need a 2/3 to just co-sponsor, and I am getting more comfortable with
it now that two of my states are in favour of removal.  CO and WA may have
a decision soon.  And in reflecting on this, I am seeing my way clear to
co-sponsor as long as some of my states believe it needs a hearing.  That
protects minority voices.

This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then again,
Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for tat,
I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair
play.  *We need to stop that culture.  Now.*

But to my concerns.  I have been reading more in RONR and I think the
motion is improper for the reasons I stated before.  It must state a
cause.  Further, I do not think it CAN be handled by email, and I think it
MUST (if it has enough co-sponsors - or at a meeting - a second) take the
form of a trial - in executive session.  I don't like secret sessions but
that is my reading of RONR, and it doesn't seem like it can be suspended -
though it seems that the subject of the discipline could waive that.

I would like the Chair to weigh in on my objection to this Motion as being
out of order without a stated cause.  That being said, I do have some
proposed cause language.

Members reading this.  Do not allow anyone to put you into a mentality of
purging anyone.  Moderate, Radical, or otherwise.  Our binding factor is
the Statement of Principles.  Inciting a hate movement against Johnson
supporters is counterprodutive and just flat out wrong.  The same is true
for Party radicals and anarchists.  This is insane.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> One of my states has requested the "cause" language for consideration.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > wrote:
>
>> 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/20180116/ff7c34c0/attachment-0002.html>