[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

AND that section requires “charges”

I don’t think it fair to anyone to not be specific.  The tall tales are
already being spun and how can anyone vote on something so ambiguous.  I
could vote thinking it’s one thing and another vote with an entirely
different belief.

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:46 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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/20180117/17ae3018/attachment-0002.html>