[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Tue Jan 16 16:25:07 EST 2018

Arvin started it.  Let me make that clear.  But there is an article that
came out today trying to paint it as a particularly divisive issue of one
faction.  And fails to mention that the main vocal critic of Arvin is from
that faction (yours truly).  Any reporting on LNC action that fails to
mention the quite obvious issue that it is the fellow anarchist and radical
who has been incessantly calling him to task is pretty transparently having
the opposite agenda, with the expected response of THROW OUT THE ANARCHISTS.

No. Bueno.

All.of.this.needs.to.STOP.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180116/8e10afb5/attachment-0002.html>