[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Tue Jan 16 15:49:58 EST 2018

This specifies the chair, and RONR provides that no member may assist the
chair in parliamentary matters without the chair's request, so I will not
address the parliamentary question.

However, I wanted to second this:

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.

This is precisely why I am cosponsoring and/or joining a call for a
meeting.  Issues left unresolved but continually brought back up have this
tendency to be divisive.  I favor coming a resolution.

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180116/4dfc869f/attachment-0002.html>