[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Tue Jan 16 18:36:44 EST 2018

Would such a meeting have to be in secret session?

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:31 PM Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

> On the parliamentary question:
>
> If there is going to be an email ballot, the motion would at least
> need to say "for cause" and would be better to state with clarity what
> the cause is, since there is only the option for members to vote for
> or against it without the potential for amendment.  Members should be
> aware that there is an appellate procedure in the case of a suspension
> and that an appellate body would generally be looking to whether the
> appropriate procedure has been followed in deciding whether to
> overturn a suspension.
>
> In the case of a call for an electronic meeting, the subject of
> suspension would be sufficient to call the meeting, with cause being
> able to be discussed, debated, and attached to any final motion before
> voting.  As a note, it requires 1/3 of the committee to request an
> electronic meeting, so it requires six members to request, not the
> four that are required for an email ballot.
>
> -Nick
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:54 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/dc243a66/attachment-0002.html>