[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Wed Jan 17 03:06:13 EST 2018

After spending time reading through the actual comments in question, I am
willing to co-sponsor a motion for suspension.  I think this is a situation
where it's a good idea to explain the cause in writing, since we wish to
distance ourselves from a particular situation.  I've drafted the following
language for consideration.  If there are ways to improve it, I'm open to
hearing suggestions.

-Alicia

---------------------------------------------------

Whereas, Bylaw Article 6.7 states that the National Committee may, for
cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National
Committee;

Whereas, the Party’s platform plank on Personal Relationships states that,
“Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and
personal relationships;”

Whereas, the Party’s platform plank on Parental Rights states that,
“Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children
according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be
construed to condone child abuse or neglect;”

Whereas, children are particularly vulnerable members of society;

Whereas, Arvin Vohra, at times even using his title as LNC Vice Chair, has
repeatedly made public statements downplaying the harm of sexual
relationships between adults and children, and advocating allowing families
(or “their culture”) to somehow grant sexual consent on behalf of children;

Whereas, Mr. Vohra’s actions have the effect of damaging and dissuading the
campaigns of Libertarians who do believe in the limitations embodied by
these Party Platform planks;

Whereas, this is merely the latest episode of Mr. Vohra making particularly
inflammatory and insulting remarks, destructively stereotyping party
members and large segments of the population – such as veterans and school
teachers – a behavior completely at odds with our Party’s philosophy of
recognizing and treating people as individuals; and

Whereas, this pattern of behavior has caused such wide-spread offense that
it makes it difficult for the LNC, its committees, and Party affiliates to
focus on productive activities;

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends
Arvin Vohra for cause from his position as LNC Vice Chair.

---------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:21 PM, 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180117/61757e88/attachment-0002.html>