[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Going to bed all will answer Alicia’s question at a later time.



On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:24 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> We all are on the same boat here, we can come to an agreement.  I would
> prefer more specifity to his actual remarks.
>
> And you may not feel like that Elizabeth but people in my states do.  I’ve
> gotten the letters.  I’ve had to assure them that my position is not
> grounded in that.
>
> A scattergun kills more than its target.  Let’s be precise and deal with
> the issue and be like government who takes an emergency and justifies
> overreach for our own good.  It never turns out well.
>
> This is triage.  If the delegates want to take a position in an internal
> dispute that is their job.  Not ours
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:11 AM Elizabeth Van Horn <
> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Caryn Ann, my mother was 17 and my father 25 when they eloped.  At no
>> time have I felt like Arvin was calling my father a sexual predator.  As
>> Arvin wasn't endorsing a situation where the "family" of a minor and the
>> adult, and "culture" make the decision.  What he was endorsing is a
>> scenario straight out of child bride horror stories.
>>
>> But, not relevant per se.  Nor, should that particular incident of lack
>> of judgement be the defining factor.  As the issue is a pattern of
>> insulting LP members, members of society, and inflammatory disregard for
>> his message and how it damages the LP and LP member efforts.  Instead of
>> working for the LP, his statements work against the LP.
>>
>> So, in this case, if the platform language is removed, that may be
>> better.  But, the rest sounds ok.
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>
>>
>> On 2018-01-17 04:37, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let's get one thing in the open here.  When I had been speaking with
>> members, I had some come to me feeling demonized.  Why?  Their parents had
>> married at 16 or some similar story and they felt like the Party was
>> calling their fathers sexual predators.  That is not acceptable either.
>> The argument is MUCH MORE NUANCED than that. Arvin oversimplified.  And I
>> think that proposal over-simplifies.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:24 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Where I think your statements are not an accurate representation of
>>> Vohra's arguments Alicia is that he was not arguing for proxy consent.  He
>>> was not arguing that families and culture could GIVE consent, he was
>>> arguing that they are in the best position to RECOGNIZE consent.  That has
>>> been a historical position in the Party - and an internal dispute.  And for
>>> the LNC to specific argue that a government is needed is purposefully
>>> saying that a common anarchist view is grounds for removal. That is
>>> absolutely unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Also, in the historical progression of the planks on children's rights
>>> and consent, the word adult has been consistently used, but it is obvious
>>> from the history and contexts that it was not used to indicate NECESSARILY
>>> some decree of the state and a state definition of adulthood (which could
>>> change tomorrow) but on adulthood as characterization as no longer have
>>> those rights in custodianship of parents, having obtained the necessary
>>> development and understanding and responsibility to exercise those
>>> choices.  Any other interpretation would be to argue that the prior
>>> platforms called for violations of children, in contradiction to the
>>> Statement of Principles.
>>>
>>> It is not our job to rule on internal disputes that have existed since
>>> the beginning.  All Libertarians agree on the issue of consent.  And that
>>> consent requires ability to consent.  The disagreement has been precisely
>>> when that happens - and no matter how uncomfortable that makes any of us -
>>> it is the reality of the history of this debate and HOW is that
>>> determined.  Some Libertarians argue for clear legal proceedings of
>>> emancipation.  What we clearly are NOT arguing for is rape, abuse, or
>>> predation.
>>>
>>> We have NO authority to author a resolution favouring one side or
>>> another in an internal dispute.  Put it before the delegates at convention
>>> to make a resolution.  That is not our job.
>>>
>>> This is a serious issue and we cannot allow it to be used, purposefully
>>> for not, for advancing one factional interest over another.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180117/36414782/attachment-0002.html>