[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

But our Bylaws only day vote threshold not a process and that threshold is
the same as Chap 20.  But I refer to 654:4-14 which seem to apply - and a
trial is required.

What am I missing here?

BTW for members claiming only a platform or SoP violation is “cause” I
refer them to page 644:5-7.




On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:21 AM Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
wrote:

> I think merely including "for cause" in the motion would be sufficient,
> and I haven't found a RONR provision which says the nature of the cause has
> to be explained in the motion.
>
> It may, however, be a good idea to explain for the record what the cause
> is, especially when an organization wants to distance itself from public
> statements it disagrees with.
>
> Regarding Caryn Ann's question about whether RONR requires that we have a
> trial under Chapter 20 procedures, I've heard this question come up before,
> and I've seen a written opinion from a member of the RONR authorship team
> which explained that the Chapter 20 protocol is the default, but when an
> organization takes the step of writing a different bylaws provision about
> removal, that serves to override the Chapter 20 default process.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:31 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180117/ee35a309/attachment-0002.html>