[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

This is a quote from an email I sent to a region 1 chair two days ago.
Also LPCO made it CLEAR they were not alleging a platform violation in
their discussions.

====

My exact cause would be repeated inappropriate and reckless conduct
bringing the Party, it’s candidates, and it’s principles into disrepute.

I think the cause needs to be stated so that there is no ideological gaming
in the Party - this isn’t about some clear departure from a libertarian
item but about irresponsibility from an officer.

As I said directly to Arvin, no you are not a martyr for being “too
libertarian” I hold the same radical anarchist creed - it’s not too
libertarian, it’s much jackass.  No discernment or discretion.=====

So my proposed language for cause would be:

*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, Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra has engaged in repeated inappropriate and
reckless conduct bringing the Party, its candidates, and it's principles
into disrepute;*


*Whereas, Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra has dealt with the subject of children and
consent in a manner that has displayed callous disregard and actively given
an impression through his words that predatory behaviour by adults is not a
specific risk inevitably tied to the biological facts of maturity and
development;*


*Whereas, Vice Chair Arvin Vohra equated a clear example of fully
consensual and voluntary sexual relations amongst adult men who have
historically suffered the wrongful association with predators with that of
a teenager and a partner at least ten years their senior in which there is
a clear possibility of non-consent or predation;*



*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,  a behavior completely
at odds with our Party’s philosophy of recognizing and treating people as
individuals and recognizing that the ultimate problem is government
aggression, not other victims of its aggression; 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 Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:44 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Alicia I would not agree to that language.
>
> 1. I don’t think it is accurate in stating what he said.  And I don’t
> think it is accurate in what the plank is intended.  This isn’t a platform
> issue.  Making it so
> is a shot across the bow and wil make it about being “too libertarian” and
> fracture us.  I do not think the two states in Region 1 would agree to that
> either.
>
> It factionalizes.
>
> 2. It is much more than that.  It is reckless lack of judgment and harmful
> messaging.
>
> 4. It is an argument for the state.
>
> And I would hope that would never pass the JC.
>
> I would propose something much simpler and something we should ALL be able
> to agree upon.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:22 AM Elizabeth Van Horn <
> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Alicia, and everyone else too,
>>
>> Help me understand this process here.  The cause written below would be
>> attached with the motion?  For the purpose of following the language where
>> it says, "The National Committee may, for cause..."?
>>
>> If so, then this looks appropriate. As, for me, it's not a particular
>> action or statement of Arvin's, but the systemic long-time damage to the
>> state affiliates (and recently even candidates) to conduct LP work,
>> recruit, and go about the business of being a viable political entity.
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>
>>
>> On 2018-01-17 03:06, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180117/2795f01f/attachment-0002.html>