[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