[Lnc-business] The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Jan 20 22:09:01 EST 2018
Dear Mr. Boman:
The fact that Chairs have the authority to remove regionals is in fact a
direct result of our duty to them. But regardless of the Bylaws, this is
in fact the campaign promise I made to Region 1 and upon which I was
elected, so I will be keeping my word. I also believe it is the way all
regionals should handle important business. How the Chairs come to their
decision is between them and their constituents.
==Rep. Harlos: Is this a matter of either he goes or you go?==
I don't know where you got that from. I don't play games of chicken or
make ultimatums, so no, it isn't.
==1 & 2. Sorry, but it was my impression that their would be a vote
regarding the removal of Arvin at the next LNC meeting. Am I wrong? If
there is a vote, will it be at a meeting? Will the date be decided at an
LNC meeting?===
There may be a special electronic meeting. That is what I requested. If
not, it will be on our publicly viewable email list via e-voting.
==While the LNC meetings are not totally private, they might as well be if
people don't know they are happening or how to find out about them. The
natural place to look would be the lp.org website. I did not find any
information there. Thankfully, a Michigan Libertarian, who was privy to
this information, provided me with the following links: ==
We do not meet often. The meetings are very easy to find on the site when
they are happening (which is only three times a year). For instance see all
the notices of past meetings:
https://www.lp.org/?s=LNC+Meeting
Further your regional rep has a Facebook group where she would be notifying
members of her region. Region 1 (I am not sure of other regions) also has
a regular newsletter and our own website.
The link to the public email list is also on the LP.org site in the footer
under "LNC Business Archives." I would prefer it be more prominent however.
==3. I didn't say he was elected on his agenda. Every delegate had their
own reasons. Perhaps some liked his beard. The relevant point that I made
here-in was that none of the reasons given for his removal draw on things
the delegates didn't know, or should have known about Mr. Vohra before they
elected him. ==
I disagree. I in fact campaigned for Mr. Vohra and knew nor expected any
of this. This is not what he disclosed to the delegates. I daresay if he
said to the delegates that the LP needed "less empathy" that he would have
lost soundly. I wouldn't have supported or campaigned for him.
==He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics
because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone." *Using Force would
be a substantial change. Examples please. * Whenever I see him commenting
on third-rail issues he indicates that these are his opinions, and not
necessarily those of the LP. ==
First, the word force is equivocal. Not all force is a NAP violation. He
is forcing association by virtue of his position with issues that the rest
of us did not voluntarily choose to make our issues. He stated that he is
doing this because he thinks most of the rest of the Party will not so if
he has to make a spectacle out of himself to make these the issues, he
will, and will continue to. Whether or not they are presented as the
issues of the LP is irrelevant.
==5. Clearly, you (Rep. Harlos) have implied that you fall into the
pro-purge camp. ===
I reject that terminology. I am part of the "yes we have the right to have
professional expectations of our leaders that don't include raising the
possibility that a 14 year old might be a suitable romantic partner and
that is said 14 year old were to get pregnant it is better that it be by an
older man with a job" and more.
==Even here you seem to imply he is NOT a radical anarchist, by asserting,
"He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics
because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone." Seems to
violate the NAP. ==
I implied no such thing. In fact I said we both were radical anarchists.
I have the word from my region who overwhelming support removal. My duty
is to my region, and I shall due my duty. As I promised them.
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Scotty Boman <scottyboman at hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear Caryn Ann Harlos and other LNC members:
>
>
> Regarding the opening statement about the Regional Rep being required to
> follow the wishes of their regional chairs.
>
> The only place where the Bylaws give State Chairs the default authority
> here-in described is in *Article 7, Section 8*, where they may vote to
> remove Regional Reps. The only way this equals being able to dictate the
> removal of an LNC member is if they have threatened to remove a Regional
> Representative if she or he did not vote said LNC member.
>
> Rep. Harlos: Is this a matter of either he goes or you go?
>
> I will address the enumerated points made by Rep. Caryn Harlos item by
> item. My responses are intended for the entire LNC, but I will refer to
> her in second person here.
>
> 1 & 2. Sorry, but it was my impression that their would be a vote
> regarding the removal of Arvin at the next LNC meeting. Am I wrong? If
> there is a vote, will it be at a meeting? Will the date be decided at an
> LNC meeting?
>
> While the LNC meetings are not totally private, they might as well be if
> people don't know they are happening or how to find out about them. The
> natural place to look would be the lp.org website. I did not find any
> information there. Thankfully, a Michigan Libertarian, who was privy to
> this information, provided me with the following links:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes
> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/
>
> I will be working to make the membership more aware of these.
>
> 3. I didn't say he was elected on his agenda. Every delegate had their
> own reasons. Perhaps some liked his beard. The relevant point that I made
> here-in was that none of the reasons given for his removal draw on things
> the delegates didn't know, or should have known about Mr. Vohra before they
> elected him. What the saw is what they got, and they still have what they
> voted for. Here you seem to give the reason as, "He is forcing unwilling
> people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows
> what is good for everyone." *Using Force would be a substantial change.
> Examples please. * Whenever I see him commenting on third-rail issues he
> indicates that these are his opinions, and not necessarily those of the LP.
>
> 4. The relevance of this is echoed in the Bylaws. Article 6, Section 7
> reads, "The National Committee may, *for cause*, suspend any officer by a
> vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee." A reasonable understanding
> of this phrase would be similar to when it applies to employment. Being
> the person he was when the 2016 Delegation hired him to be their Vice
> Chair, is no sufficient cause; it is simply a group of people choosing to
> usurp the will of the delegation, because they are unhappy with their
> choice.
>
> 5. Clearly, you (Rep. Harlos) have implied that you fall into the
> pro-purge camp. There are different forms of us and them. You will get
> different assortments of people if you segregate them according to
> different categories. Even here you seem to imply he is NOT a radical
> anarchist, by asserting, "He is forcing unwilling people to be
> associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good
> for everyone." Seems to violate the NAP. Perhaps the factionalism
> concerns the "pet topics" you elude to. The specifics of what make your
> faction different from his isn't material to my concern expressed here-in.
> Clearly sides are being taken and there are some conspiring to remove him.
> Clearly there are factions, and you have only chosen one label that at some
> point you claim describes you and he.
>
> My material concern is that when dismissal without cause over pre-existing
> differences becomes the practice, the trust delegates have in their party
> keeping the leadership they elected is breached. So delegates must not
> only evaluate what candidates will do in matters of policy, work-ethic,
> outreach etc... but now they need to evaluate whether officers will respect
> their choices of other officers. Clearly some do not, and this
> response supports that concern loud and clear.
>
> In liberty,
> Scotty Boman
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 20, 2018 2:48 AM
> *To:* Libertarian National Committee list; scottyboman at hotmail.com
> *Subject:* Fwd: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
>
> Copying this for the LNC list.
>
> I spoke briefly with Mr. Boman on social media. Regional Representatives
> should do the will of their Region, and Mr. Boman is not in my region.
> Regional Representatives are accountable to their state chairs as per our
> Bylaws unless the regional agreement says otherwise. I promised at my
> election to follow the procedure I am following and thus upon which I was
> elected. I do not betray my promises.
>
> Some points though need to be addressed.
>
> 1. There isn't a "poorly publicized meeting" as no meeting has been set.
> One cannot publicize something that is not scheduled. Our discussions are
> far from poorly publicized. Any member can read every single LNC
> discussion if they avail themselves of it.
>
> 2. One thing the LNC is not is operating under a cover of darkness. That
> is unwarranted hyperbole that is not cognizant of the tremendous
> transparency we do have compared to LNC subcommittees and other
> organizations.
>
> 3. No, Mr. Vohra was not elected on this agenda. He is forcing unwilling
> people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows
> what is good for everyone. That is not acceptable to me.
>
> 4. The Bylaws give this option. The Bylaws that were not changed last
> convention and represent the rules of this Body. The same Bylaws that
> delegates voted to give this Body the discretion to do. I will be
> campaigning for a change to have a direct right of recall but that does not
> exist right now, and thus, this is properly in our purview.
>
> 5. As far as diversity and "not them." I beg to differ. I am a radical
> anarchist. Just like Mr. Vohra. This has nothing to do with "not them"
> and factionalism for me.
>
> I await the final instruction from my Regional Chairs.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Scotty Boman* <scottyboman at hotmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:21 AM
> Subject: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
> To: "chair at lp.org" <chair at lp.org>, "vicechair at lp.org" <vicechair at lp.org>,
> "treasurer at lp.org" <treasurer at lp.org>, "secretary at lp.org" <
> secretary at lp.org>, "william.redpath at lp.org" <william.redpath at lp.org>, "
> sam.goldstein at lp.org" <sam.goldstein at lp.org>, "starchild at lp.org" <
> starchild at lp.org>, "daniel.hayes at lp.org" <daniel.hayes at lp.org>, "
> joshua.katz at lp.org" <joshua.katz at lp.org>, "caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org" <
> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>, "steven.nielson at lp.org" <steven.nielson at lp.org>,
> "ed.marsh at lp.org" <ed.marsh at lp.org>, "steven.nekhaila at lp.org" <
> steven.nekhaila at lp.org>, "elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org" <
> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>, "dustin.nanna at lp.org" <dustin.nanna at lp.org>, "
> jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org" <jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>, "aaron.starr at lp.org" <
> aaron.starr at lp.org>, "james.lark at lp.org" <james.lark at lp.org>, "
> trent.somes at lp.org" <trent.somes at lp.org>, "david.demarest at lp.org" <
> david.demarest at lp.org>, "sean.otoole at lp.org" <sean.otoole at lp.org>, "
> whitney.bilyeu at lp.org" <whitney.bilyeu at lp.org>, "erin.adams at lp.org" <
> erin.adams at lp.org>, "patrick.mcknight at lp.org" <patrick.mcknight at lp.org>, "
> larry.sharpe at lp.org" <larry.sharpe at lp.org>
>
>
> Honorable LEC Members:
>
> I recently learned that you will soon be voting on the removal of Arvin
> Vohra from his office as Vice Chair. In researching what actions by Arvin
> justified this, I have learned that there is nothing new or exceptional
> about his conduct that would warrant said removal. I base this conclusion
> primarily on the words of the very people who want him removed.
>
> While there were some disturbing labels being pasted on him, all examples
> of substance showed that his critics wanted him to be removed for being the
> same person he was when he was elected by the delegation in 2016. He is
> philosophically purist (AKA consistent). He is abrasively direct. He
> doesn't avoid third-rail issues. So there is no new heinous sin that calls
> for an exceptional action as the one being voted on. If there was, I would
> have a different opinion than the one I'm expressing now.
>
> What we have then is a faction of LNC members who hope to have the numbers
> to purge someone who is other then them. This is the kind of in-fighting
> that has been eating away at our party from the inside. It is also a slap
> in the face to the delegates who elected a diverse LNC with the hope that
> you could all advance the Party together rather than trying to undo the
> will of the body.
>
> I was a delegate to the Convention in Orlando. I was part of the body
> that elected many of you. Even if you don't think Arvin Vohra was the best
> choice for Vice Chair, he was the choice of the majority of national
> convention delegates. The idea that a small committee ( that was elected
> the same way ) believes they have the moral authority to over-ride the
> people who elected them is repugnant. If you don't respect our choices,
> then you have no right to expect our support.
>
> Even regional representatives were chosen by delegates at that convention
> (from their region), not just state chairs.
>
> If Arvin is removed by your vote, you will set a harmful precedent. Not
> only will delegates be considering the talents, views or outreach styles of
> candidates; they will need to avoid giving any faction a majority for fear
> that the diversity they voted for will be destroyed by internal purges
> after the Convention closes.
>
> The next convention is only a few months away. This is the appropriate
> place to remove and elect officers, not under cover of darkness in a poorly
> publicized meeting.
>
> Please have that much respect for the delegates. I have publicly, pledged
> to actively campaign against the election of any LNC member, who votes
> against the choice of the 2016 delegation, to any post in the LNC.
>
> In liberty,
> Scotty Boman
> Libertarian Party Member
> (313) 247-2052
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
Dear Mr. Boman:
The fact that Chairs have the authority to remove regionals is in fact
a direct result of our duty to them. But regardless of the Bylaws,
this is in fact the campaign promise I made to Region 1 and upon which
I was elected, so I will be keeping my word. I also believe it is the
way all regionals should handle important business. How the Chairs
come to their decision is between them and their constituents.
==Rep. Harlos: Is this a matter of either he goes or you go?==
I don't know where you got that from. I don't play games of chicken or
make ultimatums, so no, it isn't.
==1 & 2. Sorry, but it was my impression that their would be a vote
regarding the removal of Arvin at the next LNC meeting. Am I wrong?
If there is a vote, will it be at a meeting? Will the date be decided
at an LNC meeting?===
There may be a special electronic meeting. That is what I requested.
If not, it will be on our publicly viewable email list via e-voting.
==While the LNC meetings are not totally private, they might as well be
if people don't know they are happening or how to find out about them.
The natural place to look would be the [1]lp.org website. I did not
find any information there. Thankfully, a Michigan Libertarian, who
was privy to this information, provided me with the following links: ==
We do not meet often. The meetings are very easy to find on the site
when they are happening (which is only three times a year). For
instance see all the notices of past meetings:
[2]https://www.lp.org/?s=LNC+Meeting
Further your regional rep has a Facebook group where she would be
notifying members of her region. Region 1 (I am not sure of other
regions) also has a regular newsletter and our own website.
The link to the public email list is also on the LP.org site in the
footer under "LNC Business Archives." I would prefer it be more
prominent however.
==3. I didn't say he was elected on his agenda. Every delegate had
their own reasons. Perhaps some liked his beard. The relevant point
that I made here-in was that none of the reasons given for his removal
draw on things the delegates didn't know, or should have known about
Mr. Vohra before they elected him. ==
I disagree. I in fact campaigned for Mr. Vohra and knew nor expected
any of this. This is not what he disclosed to the delegates. I daresay
if he said to the delegates that the LP needed "less empathy" that he
would have lost soundly. I wouldn't have supported or campaigned for
him.
==He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics
because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone."
Using Force would be a substantial change. Examples please. Whenever
I see him commenting on third-rail issues he indicates that these are
his opinions, and not necessarily those of the LP. ==
First, the word force is equivocal. Not all force is a NAP violation.
He is forcing association by virtue of his position with issues that
the rest of us did not voluntarily choose to make our issues. He
stated that he is doing this because he thinks most of the rest of the
Party will not so if he has to make a spectacle out of himself to make
these the issues, he will, and will continue to. Whether or not they
are presented as the issues of the LP is irrelevant.
==5. Clearly, you (Rep. Harlos) have implied that you fall into the
pro-purge camp. ===
I reject that terminology. I am part of the "yes we have the right to
have professional expectations of our leaders that don't include
raising the possibility that a 14 year old might be a suitable romantic
partner and that is said 14 year old were to get pregnant it is better
that it be by an older man with a job" and more.
==Even here you seem to imply he is NOT a radical anarchist, by
asserting, "He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his
pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone."
Seems to violate the NAP. ==
I implied no such thing. In fact I said we both were radical
anarchists.
I have the word from my region who overwhelming support removal. My
duty is to my region, and I shall due my duty. As I promised them.
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Scotty Boman
<[3]scottyboman at hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Caryn Ann Harlos and other LNC members:
Regarding the opening statement about the Regional Rep being required
to follow the wishes of their regional chairs.
The only place where the Bylaws give State Chairs the default authority
here-in described is in Article 7, Section 8, where they may vote to
remove Regional Reps. The only way this equals being able to dictate
the removal of an LNC member is if they have threatened to remove a
Regional Representative if she or he did not vote said LNC member.
Rep. Harlos: Is this a matter of either he goes or you go?
I will address the enumerated points made by Rep. Caryn Harlos item by
item. My responses are intended for the entire LNC, but I will refer
to her in second person here.
1 & 2. Sorry, but it was my impression that their would be a vote
regarding the removal of Arvin at the next LNC meeting. Am I wrong?
If there is a vote, will it be at a meeting? Will the date be decided
at an LNC meeting?
While the LNC meetings are not totally private, they might as well be
if people don't know they are happening or how to find out about them.
The natural place to look would be the [4]lp.org website. I did not
find any information there. Thankfully, a Michigan Libertarian, who
was privy to this information, provided me with the following links:
[5]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes
[6]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/
I will be working to make the membership more aware of these.
3. I didn't say he was elected on his agenda. Every delegate had their
own reasons. Perhaps some liked his beard. The relevant point that I
made here-in was that none of the reasons given for his removal draw on
things the delegates didn't know, or should have known about Mr. Vohra
before they elected him. What the saw is what they got, and they still
have what they voted for. Here you seem to give the reason as, "He is
forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because
he has decided he knows what is good for everyone." Using Force would
be a substantial change. Examples please. Whenever I see him
commenting on third-rail issues he indicates that these are his
opinions, and not necessarily those of the LP.
4. The relevance of this is echoed in the Bylaws. Article 6, Section 7
reads, "The National Committee may, for cause, suspend any officer by a
vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee." A reasonable
understanding of this phrase would be similar to when it applies to
employment. Being the person he was when the 2016 Delegation hired him
to be their Vice Chair, is no sufficient cause; it is simply a group of
people choosing to usurp the will of the delegation, because they are
unhappy with their choice.
5. Clearly, you (Rep. Harlos) have implied that you fall into the
pro-purge camp. There are different forms of us and them. You will get
different assortments of people if you segregate them according to
different categories. Even here you seem to imply he is NOT a radical
anarchist, by asserting, "He is forcing unwilling people to be
associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is
good for everyone." Seems to violate the NAP. Perhaps the
factionalism concerns the "pet topics" you elude to. The specifics of
what make your faction different from his isn't material to my concern
expressed here-in. Clearly sides are being taken and there are some
conspiring to remove him. Clearly there are factions, and you have
only chosen one label that at some point you claim describes you and
he.
My material concern is that when dismissal without cause over
pre-existing differences becomes the practice, the trust delegates have
in their party keeping the leadership they elected is breached. So
delegates must not only evaluate what candidates will do in matters of
policy, work-ethic, outreach etc... but now they need to evaluate
whether officers will respect their choices of other officers. Clearly
some do not, and this response supports that concern loud and clear.
In liberty,
Scotty Boman
__________________________________________________________________
From: Caryn Ann Harlos <[7]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 2:48 AM
To: Libertarian National Committee list; [8]scottyboman at hotmail.com
Subject: Fwd: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
Copying this for the LNC list.
I spoke briefly with Mr. Boman on social media. Regional
Representatives should do the will of their Region, and Mr. Boman is
not in my region. Regional Representatives are accountable to their
state chairs as per our Bylaws unless the regional agreement says
otherwise. I promised at my election to follow the procedure I am
following and thus upon which I was elected. I do not betray my
promises.
Some points though need to be addressed.
1. There isn't a "poorly publicized meeting" as no meeting has been
set. One cannot publicize something that is not scheduled. Our
discussions are far from poorly publicized. Any member can read every
single LNC discussion if they avail themselves of it.
2. One thing the LNC is not is operating under a cover of darkness.
That is unwarranted hyperbole that is not cognizant of the tremendous
transparency we do have compared to LNC subcommittees and other
organizations.
3. No, Mr. Vohra was not elected on this agenda. He is forcing
unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because he has
decided he knows what is good for everyone. That is not acceptable to
me.
4. The Bylaws give this option. The Bylaws that were not changed last
convention and represent the rules of this Body. The same Bylaws that
delegates voted to give this Body the discretion to do. I will be
campaigning for a change to have a direct right of recall but that does
not exist right now, and thus, this is properly in our purview.
5. As far as diversity and "not them." I beg to differ. I am a
radical anarchist. Just like Mr. Vohra. This has nothing to do with
"not them" and factionalism for me.
I await the final instruction from my Regional Chairs.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Scotty Boman <[9]scottyboman at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:21 AM
Subject: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
To: "[10]chair at lp.org" <[11]chair at lp.org>, "[12]vicechair at lp.org"
<[13]vicechair at lp.org>, "[14]treasurer at lp.org" <[15]treasurer at lp.org>,
"[16]secretary at lp.org" <[17]secretary at lp.org>,
"[18]william.redpath at lp.org" <[19]william.redpath at lp.org>,
"[20]sam.goldstein at lp.org" <[21]sam.goldstein at lp.org>,
"[22]starchild at lp.org" <[23]starchild at lp.org>,
"[24]daniel.hayes at lp.org" <[25]daniel.hayes at lp.org>,
"[26]joshua.katz at lp.org" <[27]joshua.katz at lp.org>,
"[28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org" <[29]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>,
"[30]steven.nielson at lp.org" <[31]steven.nielson at lp.org>,
"[32]ed.marsh at lp.org" <[33]ed.marsh at lp.org>,
"[34]steven.nekhaila at lp.org" <[35]steven.nekhaila at lp.org>,
"[36]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org" <[37]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>,
"[38]dustin.nanna at lp.org" <[39]dustin.nanna at lp.org>,
"[40]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org" <[41]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>,
"[42]aaron.starr at lp.org" <[43]aaron.starr at lp.org>,
"[44]james.lark at lp.org" <[45]james.lark at lp.org>,
"[46]trent.somes at lp.org" <[47]trent.somes at lp.org>,
"[48]david.demarest at lp.org" <[49]david.demarest at lp.org>,
"[50]sean.otoole at lp.org" <[51]sean.otoole at lp.org>,
"[52]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org" <[53]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org>,
"[54]erin.adams at lp.org" <[55]erin.adams at lp.org>,
"[56]patrick.mcknight at lp.org" <[57]patrick.mcknight at lp.org>,
"[58]larry.sharpe at lp.org" <[59]larry.sharpe at lp.org>
Honorable LEC Members:
I recently learned that you will soon be voting on the removal of Arvin
Vohra from his office as Vice Chair. In researching what actions by
Arvin justified this, I have learned that there is nothing new or
exceptional about his conduct that would warrant said removal. I base
this conclusion primarily on the words of the very people who want him
removed.
While there were some disturbing labels being pasted on him, all
examples of substance showed that his critics wanted him to be removed
for being the same person he was when he was elected by the delegation
in 2016. He is philosophically purist (AKA consistent). He is
abrasively direct. He doesn't avoid third-rail issues. So there is no
new heinous sin that calls for an exceptional action as the one being
voted on. If there was, I would have a different opinion than the one
I'm expressing now.
What we have then is a faction of LNC members who hope to have the
numbers to purge someone who is other then them. This is the kind of
in-fighting that has been eating away at our party from the inside. It
is also a slap in the face to the delegates who elected a diverse LNC
with the hope that you could all advance the Party together rather than
trying to undo the will of the body.
I was a delegate to the Convention in Orlando. I was part of the body
that elected many of you. Even if you don't think Arvin Vohra was the
best choice for Vice Chair, he was the choice of the majority of
national convention delegates. The idea that a small committee ( that
was elected the same way ) believes they have the moral authority to
over-ride the people who elected them is repugnant. If you don't
respect our choices, then you have no right to expect our support.
Even regional representatives were chosen by delegates at that
convention (from their region), not just state chairs.
If Arvin is removed by your vote, you will set a harmful precedent.
Not only will delegates be considering the talents, views or outreach
styles of candidates; they will need to avoid giving any faction a
majority for fear that the diversity they voted for will be destroyed
by internal purges after the Convention closes.
The next convention is only a few months away. This is the appropriate
place to remove and elect officers, not under cover of darkness in a
poorly publicized meeting.
Please have that much respect for the delegates. I have publicly,
pledged to actively campaign against the election of any LNC member,
who votes against the choice of the 2016 delegation, to any post in the
LNC.
In liberty,
Scotty Boman
Libertarian Party Member
[60](313) 247-2052
References
1. http://lp.org/
2. https://www.lp.org/?s=LNC+Meeting
3. mailto:scottyboman at hotmail.com
4. http://lp.org/
5. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes
6. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:scottyboman at hotmail.com
9. mailto:scottyboman at hotmail.com
10. mailto:chair at lp.org
11. mailto:chair at lp.org
12. mailto:vicechair at lp.org
13. mailto:vicechair at lp.org
14. mailto:treasurer at lp.org
15. mailto:treasurer at lp.org
16. mailto:secretary at lp.org
17. mailto:secretary at lp.org
18. mailto:william.redpath at lp.org
19. mailto:william.redpath at lp.org
20. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
21. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
22. mailto:starchild at lp.org
23. mailto:starchild at lp.org
24. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
25. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
26. mailto:joshua.katz at lp.org
27. mailto:joshua.katz at lp.org
28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
30. mailto:steven.nielson at lp.org
31. mailto:steven.nielson at lp.org
32. mailto:ed.marsh at lp.org
33. mailto:ed.marsh at lp.org
34. mailto:steven.nekhaila at lp.org
35. mailto:steven.nekhaila at lp.org
36. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
37. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
38. mailto:dustin.nanna at lp.org
39. mailto:dustin.nanna at lp.org
40. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
41. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
42. mailto:aaron.starr at lp.org
43. mailto:aaron.starr at lp.org
44. mailto:james.lark at lp.org
45. mailto:james.lark at lp.org
46. mailto:trent.somes at lp.org
47. mailto:trent.somes at lp.org
48. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
49. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
50. mailto:sean.otoole at lp.org
51. mailto:sean.otoole at lp.org
52. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
53. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
54. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
55. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
56. mailto:patrick.mcknight at lp.org
57. mailto:patrick.mcknight at lp.org
58. mailto:larry.sharpe at lp.org
59. mailto:larry.sharpe at lp.org
60. tel:(313) 247-2052
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list