[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And we will be on record.

Nothing should not be an option.

More states are making resolutions.  The STATES are the Party - not us.

They should find their power.

CO was upset at the history of committee secrecy- they called national’s
bluff.  We shall see what happens but those reps are not agreeing to secret
email lists.  What’s national going to do?  Exclude a top ten affiliate?
The birthplace of the Party?

Same here.  Don’t be surprised if our inaction provokes at least a
disaffiliation threat.

And.  I wouldn’t blame them.

It’s too much.

Yes opportunists will opportune.  As inevitable as death and taxes (which
is theft).

-Caryn Ann


On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:01 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:

> And say we suspend/remove him.  He will still be the Libertarian Senate
> Candidate for Maryland.  To my understanding that CANT be rescinded. That
> ship has sailed as the paperwork is filed with the Maryland Secretary of
> State.
>    Arvin’s not going to magically shut up if he gets suspended from the
> LNC.  He likely will see a greater need to “teach everyone what
> Libertarianism really is”.
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> What solutions?  A resolution that satisfied no one and only let it happen
> again?
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:42 PM David Demarest <david.demerest at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Tough decision and it will only get tougher if it goes to a vote that
>> will result in perhaps irreparable repercussions to all on both sides of
>> the issue. Not much happened last year when it died on the vine with no
>> co-sponsors and gave everyone a chance to step back from the nuclear option
>> abyss and saner minds space to work on solutions.
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2018 4:28 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’m saying it’s interesting when this is brought up as a radical issue
>> (not in this Body) yet the fact that the LNC member who might be one of the
>> most visible radicals who in this case is the primary antagonist is missing
>> from the narrative.
>>
>> Because it’s not as simple as that.
>>
>> We don’t need enemies.  We do it to ourselves.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:17 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like you're saying one example of a Radical is being pointed
>> to, to tar the whole.  That sounds like what many of us are saying can
>> happen to the Party.
>>
>> But, that aside, I wasn't advocating for yes or no.  I was advocating for
>> a decision.  Issues become more divisive if they continually come back up
>> than if they are resolved, one way or the other.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> But that is how it starts.  Bullshit hit piece articles by those angling
>> for political advantage.   It starts with Arvin, but it doesn’t stop there.
>> THAT is why I will vote no.  The purge starts with Arvin but it won’t stop
>> there.
>>
>> In my conversation with Dr Howard Wetsman yesterday we were taking about
>> revolutionary movements of the past having digressed from our original
>> conversation and he said this:
>>
>> “ Authoritarian revolutionary parties have a history of creating offenses
>> with which to convict individuals in the party and remove them from a
>> position of influence.”
>>
>>
>> But we aren’t authoritarians..we don’t spend hours fighting over rules
>> and arguing over the way we tell people how to be a Libertarian every two
>> years.. errr..
>>
>>
>> This purge it starts with Arvin, then they will go after Nick, including
>> in his campaign for mayor(can’t have a guy that might succeed), then they
>> will come for me because I won’t stand for people LYING about what Arvin
>> actually said and I don’t want to feed the guillotine because it’s thirst
>> is never sated once it gets a taste.  Then it will be for radicals other
>> than Arvin, and others that don’t agree with the new saviors/overlords of
>> the Party.
>>
>> Look at some of the opportunistic behavior.  Trent Somes and the
>> Libertarian Youth Caucus advocate for removal of what they see as laws that
>> discriminate against teens based on age.  Arvin calls for that removal and
>> they condemned him and mischaracterize what he said. Trent’s own Uncle has
>> pointed out this hypocrisy.
>>
>>
>> Then there are NUMEROUS would be candidates and caucuses, some of who
>> agree with Arvin’s basic positions and are also mischaracterizing what he
>> actually said and trying to use it for political advantage.
>>
>> Who will be the Libertarian Party’s Mao, Lenin, Castro or Danton(and
>> those that took his head)? Who will start the purge?
>>
>>
>> Daniel Hayes
>> LNC At Large Member
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180116/80ff9657/attachment-0002.html>