[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Tue Jan 16 18:45:04 EST 2018

If an electronic meeting is called, it will be announced and public.

If a member of the body during the meeting feels it appropriate to go
into executive session, they can make the appropriate motion at that
time and the body will determine whether to go into executive session.

-Nick

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>