[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Thu Jan 18 09:29:10 EST 2018
I agree with Alicia, but I do not think the quoted section here says
anything about it.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> I will take a closer look at that section, but on first read, I don't
> think I agree that excludes what I said.
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Daniel Hayes <[1]daniel.hayes at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> Alicia is correct about this.
> See RONR(11th ed.),pp.589-590,ll.33-5.
> “If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other
> things of
> the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption
> that
> nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it.
> There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be
> done
> that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws,
> unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that
> may
> be done, all others being prohibited.”
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 17, 2018, at 1:21 AM, Alicia Mattson
> <[1][2]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
> <[2][3]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
>
> <[3][4]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
>
> <[4][5]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
>
> >> <[5][6]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
>
> >>> <[6][7]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
> >>>>
> >>>> [7][8]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
> business/kPps5ugbr1A
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>
> >>>> <[8][9]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
>
> >>>>> <[9][10]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
>
> >>>>>> <[10][11]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
>
> >>>>>>> [11][12]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
> >>>>>>> [12][13]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >>>>>>> [13][14]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
> >>>>>> [14][15]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >>>>>> [15][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > [16][17]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > [17][18]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [18][19]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [19][20]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [20][21]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [21][22]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> References
> 1. mailto:[23]alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[24]chair at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[25]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 4. mailto:[26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:[27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 6. mailto:[28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. [29]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
> business/kPps5ugbr1A
> 8. mailto:[30]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 9. mailto:[31]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 10. mailto:[32]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 11. [33]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 12. mailto:[34]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 13. [35]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 14. mailto:[36]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 15. [37]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 16. mailto:[38]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 17. [39]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 18. mailto:[40]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 19. [41]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 20. mailto:[42]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 21. [43]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [44]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [45]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 3. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 8. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
> 9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 10. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 11. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 12. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 13. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 14. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 15. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 17. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 18. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 19. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 20. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 21. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 22. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 23. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
> 24. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 25. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 29. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
> business/kPps5ugbr1A
> 30. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 31. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 32. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 33. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 34. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 35. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 36. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 37. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 38. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 39. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 40. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 41. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 42. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 43. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 44. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 45. 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 --------------
I agree with Alicia, but I do not think the quoted section here says
anything about it.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I will take a closer look at that section, but on first read, I
don't
think I agree that excludes what I said.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Daniel Hayes
<[1][2]daniel.hayes at lp.org>
wrote:
Alicia is correct about this.
See RONR(11th ed.),pp.589-590,ll.33-5.
“If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other
things of
the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a
presumption
that
nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason
for it.
There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things
to be
done
that can clearly be done without the authorization of the
bylaws,
unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class
that
may
be done, all others being prohibited.”
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2018, at 1:21 AM, Alicia Mattson
<[1][2][3]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
<[2][3][4]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
<[3][4][5]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
<[4][5][6]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
>> <[5][6][7]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
>>> <[6][7][8]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
>>>>
>>>> [7][8][9]https://groups.google.
com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
business/kPps5ugbr1A
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>> <[8][9][10]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
>>>>> <[9][10][11]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
>>>>>> <[10][11][12]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
>>>>>>> [11][12][13]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>> [12][13][14]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>> [13][14][15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> [14][15][16]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> [15][16][17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [16][17][18]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [17][18][19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
business
>
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[18][19][20]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[19][20][21]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[20][21][22]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[21][22][23]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
business
References
1. mailto:[23][24]alicia.mattson at lp.org
2. mailto:[24][25]chair at lp.org
3. mailto:[25][26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[26][27]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[27][28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[28][29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. [29][30]https://groups.google.com/
forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
business/kPps5ugbr1A
8. mailto:[30][31]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:[31][32]planning4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:[32][33]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
11. [33][34]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
12. mailto:[34][35]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. [35][36]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
14. mailto:[36][37]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. [37][38]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
16. mailto:[38][39]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
17. [39][40]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
18. mailto:[40][41]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
19. [41][42]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
20. mailto:[42][43]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
21. [43][44]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[44][45]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[45][46]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:[47]daniel.hayes at lp.org
2. mailto:[48]alicia.mattson at lp.org
3. mailto:[49]chair at lp.org
4. mailto:[50]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[51]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[52]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[53]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. [54]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
9. mailto:[55]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
10. mailto:[56]planning4liberty at gmail.com
11. mailto:[57]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
12. [58]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
13. mailto:[59]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14. [60]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
15. mailto:[61]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
16. [62]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
17. mailto:[63]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
18. [64]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
19. mailto:[65]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
20. [66]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
21. mailto:[67]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
22. [68]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
23. mailto:[69]alicia.mattson at lp.org
24. mailto:[70]chair at lp.org
25. mailto:[71]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
26. mailto:[72]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:[73]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:[74]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. [75]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
business/kPps5ugbr1A
30. mailto:[76]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
31. mailto:[77]planning4liberty at gmail.com
32. mailto:[78]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
33. [79]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
34. mailto:[80]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
35. [81]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
36. mailto:[82]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
37. [83]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
38. mailto:[84]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
39. [85]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
40. mailto:[86]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
41. [87]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
42. mailto:[88]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
43. [89]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
44. mailto:[90]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
45. [91]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[92]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[93]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
3. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
4. mailto:chair at lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
11. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
12. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
13. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
14. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
16. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
17. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
18. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
20. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
21. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
22. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
23. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
24. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
25. mailto:chair at lp.org
26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
31. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
32. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
33. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
34. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
35. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
36. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
37. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
38. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
39. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
40. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
41. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
42. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
43. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
44. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
45. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
46. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
47. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
48. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
49. mailto:chair at lp.org
50. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
51. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
52. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
53. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
54. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
55. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
56. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
57. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
58. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
59. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
60. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
61. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
62. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
63. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
64. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
65. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
66. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
67. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
68. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
69. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
70. mailto:chair at lp.org
71. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
72. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
73. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
74. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
75. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A
76. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
77. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
78. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
79. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
80. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
81. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
82. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
83. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
84. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
85. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
86. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
87. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
88. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
89. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
90. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
91. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
92. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
93. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list