[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Fri Jan 19 00:29:19 EST 2018
This is Region 1 update.
UT has given me a qualified yes with certain boundaries to use my
judgment. They oppose anything that looks like interence in an intra Party
ideological dispute and support only within the bounds of the reasons I
discussed. They also want a clear copy of the cause before the meeting.
That is fair.
CO has given a yes but there is some dispute about whether the instruction
from the Chair was valid. I’m not involved in that dispute and until told
otherwise the yes stands. I just wanted to make it known there is a
dispute within that Board. The majority of the Board supports removal.
I have four conditional yes instructions and one unconditional yes
instruction. Three remain outstanding. Any silence or declination to give
an instruction I will take as deferring to my judgment but I will actively
and personally speak to the remaining three.
3 no votes kills it. 6 yes or deference to my judgment will carry it.
I am appalled however at the behaviour of some pro removal members and have
cut ties with them.
And I see Arvin is already falsely casting this as merely a failure to be
nice and actively taking the martyr route. However he did promise if
removal fails he will continue that path so Amy doubt you have about his
intentions for these five months- well now you know.
And staff is being thrown under the bus - we asked them to make a
superhuman effort to meet the ambitious budget goals and 2000 candidates
and our vice chair is actively sabotaging it.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:17 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> I’ve examined. That doesn’t apply to my question- it would apply only to
> any alternate votes for removal such as a certain percentage of membership
> or the language on terms being in conflict- it doesn’t say anything about
> the issue of a trial.
>
> Now I DONT WANT A SECRET SESSION but I also don’t want the JC to have to
> overturn any decision on procedural grounds.
>
> Arvin I think could waive the secrecy.
>
> Secrecy is bad. Overturning will just drag on longer.
>
> -Caryn
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:29 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
This is Region 1 update.
UT has given me a qualified yes with certain boundaries to use my
judgment. They oppose anything that looks like interence in an intra
Party ideological dispute and support only within the bounds of the
reasons I discussed. They also want a clear copy of the cause before
the meeting. That is fair.
CO has given a yes but there is some dispute about whether the
instruction from the Chair was valid. I’m not involved in that dispute
and until told otherwise the yes stands. I just wanted to make it
known there is a dispute within that Board. The majority of the Board
supports removal.
I have four conditional yes instructions and one unconditional yes
instruction. Three remain outstanding. Any silence or declination to
give an instruction I will take as deferring to my judgment but I will
actively and personally speak to the remaining three.
3 no votes kills it. 6 yes or deference to my judgment will carry it.
I am appalled however at the behaviour of some pro removal members and
have cut ties with them.
And I see Arvin is already falsely casting this as merely a failure to
be nice and actively taking the martyr route. However he did promise
if removal fails he will continue that path so Amy doubt you have about
his intentions for these five months- well now you know.
And staff is being thrown under the bus - we asked them to make a
superhuman effort to meet the ambitious budget goals and 2000
candidates and our vice chair is actively sabotaging it.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:17 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I’ve examined. That doesn’t apply to my question- it would apply only
to any alternate votes for removal such as a certain percentage of
membership or the language on terms being in conflict- it doesn’t say
anything about the issue of a trial.
Now I DONT WANT A SECRET SESSION but I also don’t want the JC to have
to overturn any decision on procedural grounds.
Arvin I think could waive the secrecy.
Secrecy is bad. Overturning will just drag on longer.
-Caryn
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:29 AM Joshua Katz
<[2]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
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][3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]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][10]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][11]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][12]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][13]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][14]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][15]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>> [12][13][14][16]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>> [13][14][15][17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> [14][15][16][18]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> [15][16][17][19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [16][17][18][20]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
[17][18][19][21]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
business
>
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[18][19][20][22]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[19][20][21][23]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[20][21][22][24]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[21][22][23][25]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
business
References
1. mailto:[23][24][26]alicia.mattson at lp.org
2. mailto:[24][25][27]chair at lp.org
3. mailto:[25][26][28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[26][27][29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[27][28][30]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[28][29][31]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. [29][30][32]https://groups.google.com/
forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
business/kPps5ugbr1A
8. mailto:[30][31][33]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:[31][32][34]planning4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:[32][33][35]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
11. [33][34][36]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
12. mailto:[34][35][37]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. [35][36][38]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
14. mailto:[36][37][39]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. [37][38][40]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
16. mailto:[38][39][41]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
17. [39][40][42]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
18. mailto:[40][41][43]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
19. [41][42][44]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
20. mailto:[42][43][45]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
21. [43][44][46]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[44][45][47]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[45][46][48]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:[47][49]daniel.hayes at lp.org
2. mailto:[48][50]alicia.mattson at lp.org
3. mailto:[49][51]chair at lp.org
4. mailto:[50][52]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[51][53]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[52][54]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[53][55]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8.
[54][56]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
9. mailto:[55][57]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
10. mailto:[56][58]planning4liberty at gmail.com
11. mailto:[57][59]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
12. [58][60]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
13. mailto:[59][61]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
14.
[60][62]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
15. mailto:[61][63]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
16.
[62][64]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
17. mailto:[63][65]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
18.
[64][66]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
19. mailto:[65][67]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
20.
[66][68]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
21. mailto:[67][69]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
22.
[68][70]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
23. mailto:[69][71]alicia.mattson at lp.org
24. mailto:[70][72]chair at lp.org
25. mailto:[71][73]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
26. mailto:[72][74]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:[73][75]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:[74][76]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29.
[75][77]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
business/kPps5ugbr1A
30. mailto:[76][78]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
31. mailto:[77][79]planning4liberty at gmail.com
32. mailto:[78][80]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
33. [79][81]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
34. mailto:[80][82]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
35.
[81][83]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
36. mailto:[82][84]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
37.
[83][85]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
38. mailto:[84][86]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
39.
[85][87]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
40. mailto:[86][88]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
41.
[87][89]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
42. mailto:[88][90]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
43.
[89][91]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
44. mailto:[90][92]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
45.
[91][93]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[92][94]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[93][95]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:[96]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[97]daniel.hayes at lp.org
3. mailto:[98]alicia.mattson at lp.org
4. mailto:[99]chair at lp.org
5. mailto:[100]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:[101]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[102]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:[103]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. [104]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
10. mailto:[105]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
11. mailto:[106]planning4liberty at gmail.com
12. mailto:[107]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
13. [108]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
14. mailto:[109]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. [110]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
16. mailto:[111]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
17. [112]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
18. mailto:[113]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
19. [114]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
20. mailto:[115]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
21. [116]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
22. mailto:[117]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
23. [118]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
24. mailto:[119]alicia.mattson at lp.org
25. mailto:[120]chair at lp.org
26. mailto:[121]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:[122]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:[123]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:[124]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. [125]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
31. mailto:[126]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
32. mailto:[127]planning4liberty at gmail.com
33. mailto:[128]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
34. [129]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
35. mailto:[130]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
36. [131]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
37. mailto:[132]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
38. [133]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
39. mailto:[134]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
40. [135]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
41. mailto:[136]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
42. [137]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
43. mailto:[138]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
44. [139]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
45. mailto:[140]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
46. [141]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
47. mailto:[142]daniel.hayes at lp.org
48. mailto:[143]alicia.mattson at lp.org
49. mailto:[144]chair at lp.org
50. mailto:[145]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
51. mailto:[146]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
52. mailto:[147]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
53. mailto:[148]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
54. [149]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
55. mailto:[150]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
56. mailto:[151]planning4liberty at gmail.com
57. mailto:[152]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
58. [153]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
59. mailto:[154]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
60. [155]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
61. mailto:[156]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
62. [157]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
63. mailto:[158]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
64. [159]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
65. mailto:[160]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
66. [161]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
67. mailto:[162]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
68. [163]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
69. mailto:[164]alicia.mattson at lp.org
70. mailto:[165]chair at lp.org
71. mailto:[166]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
72. mailto:[167]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
73. mailto:[168]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
74. mailto:[169]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
75.
[170]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps
5ugbr1A
76. mailto:[171]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
77. mailto:[172]planning4liberty at gmail.com
78. mailto:[173]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
79. [174]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
80. mailto:[175]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
81. [176]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
82. mailto:[177]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
83. [178]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
84. mailto:[179]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
85. [180]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
86. mailto:[181]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
87. [182]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
88. mailto:[183]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
89. [184]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
90. mailto:[185]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
91. [186]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
92. mailto:[187]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
93. [188]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[189]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[190]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
5. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
6. mailto:chair at lp.org
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
11. https://groups.google/
12. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
13. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
14. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
15. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
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/
20. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
21. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
22. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
23. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
24. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
25. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
26. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
27. mailto:chair at lp.org
28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
31. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
32. https://groups.google.com/
33. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
34. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
35. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
36. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
37. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
38. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
39. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
40. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
41. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
42. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
43. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
44. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
45. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
46. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
47. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
48. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
49. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
50. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
51. mailto:chair at lp.org
52. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
53. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
54. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
55. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
56. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
57. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
58. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
59. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
60. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
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:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
70. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
71. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
72. mailto:chair at lp.org
73. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
74. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
75. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
76. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
77. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
78. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
79. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
80. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
81. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
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
94. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
95. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
96. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
97. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
98. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
99. mailto:chair at lp.org
100. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
101. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
102. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
103. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
104. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
105. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
106. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
107. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
108. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
109. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
110. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
111. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
112. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
113. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
114. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
115. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
116. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
117. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
118. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
119. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
120. mailto:chair at lp.org
121. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
122. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
123. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
124. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
125. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
126. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
127. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
128. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
129. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
130. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
131. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
132. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
133. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
134. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
135. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
136. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
137. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
138. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
139. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
140. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
141. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
142. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
143. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
144. mailto:chair at lp.org
145. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
146. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
147. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
148. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
149. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-
150. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
151. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
152. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
153. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
154. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
155. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
156. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
157. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
158. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
159. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
160. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
161. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
162. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
163. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
164. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
165. mailto:chair at lp.org
166. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
167. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
168. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
169. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
170. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A
171. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
172. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
173. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
174. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
175. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
176. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
177. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
178. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
179. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
180. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
181. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
182. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
183. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
184. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
185. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
186. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
187. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
188. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
189. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
190. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list