[Lnc-business] The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
Elizabeth Van Horn
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Sun Jan 21 08:37:39 EST 2018
Hello Scotty,
Thank you for your kind words. The LPMI Chair Bill Hall is aware of the
situation, as are both of LPMI's Vice-Chairs. They're all in the Region
3 Leaders group, where this was communicated. I just popped back into
the group to check, and all are aware. I also have received
communication from several LPMI District Reps on this matter, so I think
your Executive Committee is aware. I was told that since LPMI doesn't
have a bylaws provision for an email ballot, that they were going to
take up the issue at their regularly scheduled February meeting.
As for the situation of suspending an LNC officer, that is something the
current bylaws does allow. Is it the best situation? I don't know. I
wish LP members had gotten a more empathetic response to their many
concerns last year, and six months ago, and three months ago, (When LPIN
made their resolution regarding Arvin Vohra), as each time there were
state affiliates upset, no action was taken by the LNC. Currently,
there's a proposed LNC motion for a censure of Arvin Vohra. If such
action had been taken prior, we might not be in the situation we now
find ourselves. As, LP members who are upset, would have felt their
voices being heard. But, that didn't happen, and here we are.
Both LPIN and LPOH had their executive committees vote on their
respective resolutions and the votes were unanimous. The LPIN vote was
last year, in November. The LPOH was this month. I don't think it's
skulduggery. (Although, I am rather pleased to see you use a colorful
19th century descriptor.)
The situation has escalated to the point of losing members, LP
candidates being affected, and state affiliate officers and leaders
stepping down. The effectiveness of the LP as a political organization
has been negatively impacted. The LNC, as a board, as a duty to act in
the best interest of the Libertarian Party as a whole, and much look to
protect the efforts of hundreds of volunteers who put their time,
energy, and money into moving the LP forward. That is what this is
about. If the LNC has no responsibility to protect the Libertarian
Party and it's state affiliates, then this body wouldn't consider taking
action.
(There has been discussion elsewhere, of LP bylaws that would have a
provision for convention delegates to contacted, and have them vote, if
a recall of an officer was requested. It would be complicated and maybe
even costly. Both of which would discourage any but the most enthused
groups from attempting it. That's a matter for another discussion
though.)
The current situation hasn't moved to the point of anyone on the LNC
being able to vote on Arvin Vohra's suspension. At this time, we have
a motion for censure and a motion for an electronic meeting. The motion
for censure has advanced to the email ballot stage. That is where we
are on this situation. I expect that if we do end up having an
electronic meeting, and I do vote (yes) as asked by the Region 3 states
(not including LPMI), that the suspension won't happen. As I don't
think there'll be enough votes to carry that effort. I don't think it's
time wasted though. At last count, there are 17 state LP affiliates,
whose chairs and/or state committees have called for suspending Vohra:
NV, WA, MT, WY, CO, KS, WI, IL, IN, OH, KY, PA, NJ, SC, AK, HI, IA.
More are weighing on the issue daily it seems. If the upset LP members
have their concerns addressed, regardless of outcome, I think it will
help this issue to simmer down. Then everyone can do what they may at
the 2018 convention. Because, if the suspension goes to vote, and
fails, I'll urge all those who were calling for the suspension, to focus
their efforts on the 2018 convention. (Which is the same as I've been
telling people all along.)
Cheers, and hope to see you at the LPMI convention this year. (Under
more pleasant circumstances than this correspondence has warranted.)
Regards,
Elizabeth Van Horn
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
http://www.lpcaucus.org/
On 2018-01-20 19:12, Scotty Boman wrote:
> Dear Elizabeth Van Horn:
>
> Since this was "Reply All" I believe it is appropriate to respond in kind.
>
> Thank you in holding your ground, thus far. I didn't know there had already been resolutions in other states (which resolutions supported or opposed his removal?).
>
> Currently, there has been no discussion of this matter by the _LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MICHIGAN_ (other than one I started on my FB page). As Newsletter editor, I can attest that there has been no official notification to the membership about this matter. I would put it in the upcoming issue, but our editorial policy is to avoid factionalism and conflicts (Which this clearly is).
>
> To the best of my knowledge our state Chair, Bill Hall is unaware of this matter, but I will bring it to his attention. In fact, I will BCC him here to avoid his automatic inclusion in "Reply All" discussions that may follow.
>
> The only way I became aware of this issue was by chance, when I ran across a post by Arvin whom (along with almost 5,000 others), is a FB friend. I get the impression that the resolutions you mention were passed at small meetings, not state conventions. The apparently secretive manner in which these resolutions passed, leaves me to believe they are not representative of the delegation. I strongly doubt they solicited a vote from each voting member who attended the convention in Orlando.
>
> So, IMHO the answer to your question, "Should I act on my own accord? Or, do I act as the state affiliates in the region ask me to?" Is neither. You should respect the wishes of the 2016 LP Delegation. They wanted Arvin Vohra to be their Vice Chair. Since this harmonizes with what you would do on your own accord, the choice should be easy. You are dealing with squeaky wheels trying to reverse the convention without cause. They are not comparable to a retraction by the delegation. They represent different bodies. It is analogous to the council of Governors rescinding a law passed by Congress.
>
> Why "without cause"? Because, as I have stated, there is nothing new here. The standard should be, "If the Delegation knew this, would they vote differently?" In a court of law a case is only appealed if there was a flaw in the original process or if there is new evidence. Disagreement with the verdict doesn't count.
>
> I don't oppose the LNC's authority to remove it's own members, but this should be reserved for exceptional cases like actions of moral turpitude not previously unknown to delegates, chronic non-attendance, embezzlement of Party funds, or conflicts of interest.
>
> If we were at this place a year or two ago, purge-advocates could argue that the harm being done is too severe to wait for a Convention. I could still make the above points, but since the Convention is coming up, here's the other. What's the hurry? It is almost as if a race is on to beat the delegation to the finish line. This more strongly points to my view that you are dealing with a vocal group of state officers who are not representative of the national delegation. Some might not even be Natonal LP members. They are trying to achieve by skulduggery and lobbying what they could not achieve on the convention floor.
>
> Thank you again for your thoughtful reply,
> Scotty Boman
>
> -------------------------
>
> FROM: Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
> SENT: Saturday, January 20, 2018 4:58 AM
> TO: Scotty Boman
> CC: chair at lp.org; vicechair at lp.org; treasurer at lp.org; secretary at lp.org; william.redpath at lp.org; sam.goldstein at lp.org; starchild at lp.org; daniel.hayes at lp.org; joshua.katz at lp.org; caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org; steven.nielson at lp.org; ed.marsh at lp.org; steven.nekhaila at lp.org; dustin.nanna at lp.org; jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org; aaron.starr at lp.org; james.lark at lp.org; trent.somes at lp.org; david.demarest at lp.org; sean.otoole at lp.org; whitney.bilyeu at lp.org; erin.adams at lp.org; patrick.mcknight at lp.org; larry.sharpe at lp.org
> SUBJECT: Re: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
>
> Hello Scotty,
>
> We met briefly, when I attended the LPMI convention this past year. You're in Region 3, which I represent. I appreciate your stance regarding waiting until convention to let the normal delegate process take place. That is my personal stance as well. That was my position, when many outraged LP members last year were calling for Arvin to resign or be removed. I tried to do damage control and talk them back from their stance. Regardless, this is now the situation:
>
> LPIN made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra, in November of 2017. It was the LPIN SCC, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I didn't know it was happening, and was surprised when I found out.
>
> LPOH made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra on Friday January 12th, 2018. It was the LPOH Executive Committee, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I knew nothing about the doings of the committee, and only found out after the LPOH chair shared the information in a Region 3 leaders group.
>
> Both LPIN and LPOH were directing me to take action to remove Arvin Vohra, through the LNC board. I DIDN'T. Instead I told the Region 3 chairs, that since there are four state affiliates in Region 3, I'd need a clear directive of 3/4 of the region. I brought this stipulation to the attention of all four state affiliate chairs. LPKY chair eventually responded that he too was in accord. (LPMI still has it under consideration, until a Feb meeting) Should I act on my own accord? Or, do I act as the state affiliates in the region ask me to?
>
> I want to be able to give voice to the LP members in Region 3. That's what I signed up for, and that's what I told the Regional chairs I'd do. Other than out-of-hand unethical actions, I'll try to stick to what Region 3 wants. (Even if it's something I personally wouldn't do.) Yes, I understand that you're in Region 3, and that you think your voice isn't being heard. Currently, we have a representative system in place for the LNC. That means that hundreds of LP members are all being represented by one person. (For At-Large Reps, it's thousands of LP members being represented) If you think that the ability for suspension of an officer shouldn't exist for the LNC, then it would need to be changed in the LP-Bylaws. Currently, there is a provision for doing so, otherwise, this body wouldn't have this issue under consideration.
>
> I fully except you to vote your conscience at the 2018 NOLA convention, as will I, as we are each individuals there, and have our one vote. If you chose to not vote for me to represent Region 3, I understand, and no hard feelings.
>
> Kind regards,
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>
> [1]
>
> Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus [1]
> www.lpcaucus.org
> The Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus (LPC) is the fastest-growing caucus in the Libertarian Party.Our membership is comprised of everyday Libertarians and nonpartisans ...
>
> On 2018-01-20 02:21, Scotty Boman wrote:
>
>> 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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.lpcaucus.org/
-------------- next part --------------
Hello Scotty,
Thank you for your kind words. The LPMI Chair Bill Hall is aware of
the situation, as are both of LPMI's Vice-Chairs. They're all in the
Region 3 Leaders group, where this was communicated. I just popped
back into the group to check, and all are aware. I also have received
communication from several LPMI District Reps on this matter, so I
think your Executive Committee is aware. I was told that since LPMI
doesn't have a bylaws provision for an email ballot, that they were
going to take up the issue at their regularly scheduled February
meeting.
As for the situation of suspending an LNC officer, that is something
the current bylaws does allow. Is it the best situation? I don't
know. I wish LP members had gotten a more empathetic response to their
many concerns last year, and six months ago, and three months ago,
(When LPIN made their resolution regarding Arvin Vohra), as each time
there were state affiliates upset, no action was taken by the LNC.
Currently, there's a proposed LNC motion for a censure of Arvin Vohra.
If such action had been taken prior, we might not be in the situation
we now find ourselves. As, LP members who are upset, would have felt
their voices being heard. But, that didn't happen, and here we are.
Both LPIN and LPOH had their executive committees vote on their
respective resolutions and the votes were unanimous. The LPIN vote was
last year, in November. The LPOH was this month. I don't think
it's skulduggery. (Although, I am rather pleased to see you use a
colorful 19th century descriptor.)
The situation has escalated to the point of losing members, LP
candidates being affected, and state affiliate officers and leaders
stepping down. The effectiveness of the LP as a political organization
has been negatively impacted. The LNC, as a board, as a duty to act in
the best interest of the Libertarian Party as a whole, and much look to
protect the efforts of hundreds of volunteers who put their time,
energy, and money into moving the LP forward. That is what this is
about. If the LNC has no responsibility to protect the Libertarian
Party and it's state affiliates, then this body wouldn't consider
taking action.
(There has been discussion elsewhere, of LP bylaws that would have a
provision for convention delegates to contacted, and have them vote, if
a recall of an officer was requested. It would be complicated and maybe
even costly. Both of which would discourage any but the most enthused
groups from attempting it. That's a matter for another discussion
though.)
The current situation hasn't moved to the point of anyone on the LNC
being able to vote on Arvin Vohra's suspension. At this time, we have
a motion for censure and a motion for an electronic meeting. The
motion for censure has advanced to the email ballot stage. That is
where we are on this situation. I expect that if we do end up having
an electronic meeting, and I do vote (yes) as asked by the Region 3
states (not including LPMI), that the suspension won't happen. As I
don't think there'll be enough votes to carry that effort. I don't
think it's time wasted though. At last count, there are 17 state LP
affiliates, whose chairs and/or state committees have called for
suspending Vohra: NV, WA, MT, WY, CO, KS, WI, IL, IN, OH, KY, PA, NJ,
SC, AK, HI, IA. More are weighing on the issue daily it seems. If
the upset LP members have their concerns addressed, regardless of
outcome, I think it will help this issue to simmer down. Then everyone
can do what they may at the 2018 convention. Because, if the
suspension goes to vote, and fails, I'll urge all those who were
calling for the suspension, to focus their efforts on the 2018
convention. (Which is the same as I've been telling people all
along.)
Cheers, and hope to see you at the LPMI convention this year. (Under
more pleasant circumstances than this correspondence has warranted.)
Regards,
Elizabeth Van Horn
---
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
[1]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
On 2018-01-20 19:12, Scotty Boman wrote:
Dear Elizabeth Van Horn:
Since this was "Reply All" I believe it is appropriate to respond in
kind.
Thank you in holding your ground, thus far. I didn't know there had
already been resolutions in other states (which resolutions supported
or opposed his removal?).
Currently, there has been no discussion of this matter by the
Libertarian Party of Michigan (other than one I started on my FB page).
As Newsletter editor, I can attest that there has been no official
notification to the membership about this matter. I would put it in
the upcoming issue, but our editorial policy is to avoid factionalism
and conflicts (Which this clearly is).
To the best of my knowledge our state Chair, Bill Hall is unaware of
this matter, but I will bring it to his attention. In fact, I will BCC
him here to avoid his automatic inclusion in "Reply All" discussions
that may follow.
The only way I became aware of this issue was by chance, when I ran
across a post by Arvin whom (along with almost 5,000 others), is a FB
friend. I get the impression that the resolutions you mention were
passed at small meetings, not state conventions. The apparently
secretive manner in which these resolutions passed, leaves me to
believe they are not representative of the delegation. I strongly
doubt they solicited a vote from each voting member who attended the
convention in Orlando.
So, IMHO the answer to your question, "Should I act on my own accord?
Or, do I act as the state affiliates in the region ask me to?" Is
neither. You should respect the wishes of the 2016 LP Delegation.
They wanted Arvin Vohra to be their Vice Chair. Since this
harmonizes with what you would do on your own accord, the choice should
be easy. You are dealing with squeaky wheels trying to reverse the
convention without cause. They are not comparable to a retraction by
the delegation. They represent different bodies. It is analogous to
the council of Governors rescinding a law passed by Congress.
Why "without cause"? Because, as I have stated, there is nothing new
here. The standard should be, "If the Delegation knew this, would they
vote differently?" In a court of law a case is only appealed if there
was a flaw in the original process or if there is new evidence.
Disagreement with the verdict doesn't count.
I don't oppose the LNC's authority to remove it's own members, but this
should be reserved for exceptional cases like actions of moral
turpitude not previously unknown to delegates, chronic non-attendance,
embezzlement of Party funds, or conflicts of interest.
If we were at this place a year or two ago, purge-advocates could argue
that the harm being done is too severe to wait for a Convention. I
could still make the above points, but since the Convention is coming
up, here's the other. What's the hurry? It is almost as if a race is
on to beat the delegation to the finish line. This more strongly
points to my view that you are dealing with a vocal group of state
officers who are not representative of the national delegation. Some
might not even be Natonal LP members. They are trying to achieve by
skulduggery and lobbying what they could not achieve on the convention
floor.
Thank you again for your thoughtful reply,
Scotty Boman
__________________________________________________________________
From: Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 4:58 AM
To: Scotty Boman
Cc: chair at lp.org; vicechair at lp.org; treasurer at lp.org; secretary at lp.org;
william.redpath at lp.org; sam.goldstein at lp.org; starchild at lp.org;
daniel.hayes at lp.org; joshua.katz at lp.org; caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org;
steven.nielson at lp.org; ed.marsh at lp.org; steven.nekhaila at lp.org;
dustin.nanna at lp.org; jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org; aaron.starr at lp.org;
james.lark at lp.org; trent.somes at lp.org; david.demarest at lp.org;
sean.otoole at lp.org; whitney.bilyeu at lp.org; erin.adams at lp.org;
patrick.mcknight at lp.org; larry.sharpe at lp.org
Subject: Re: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
Hello Scotty,
We met briefly, when I attended the LPMI convention this past year.
You're in Region 3, which I represent. I appreciate your stance
regarding waiting until convention to let the normal delegate process
take place. That is my personal stance as well. That was my position,
when many outraged LP members last year were calling for Arvin to
resign or be removed. I tried to do damage control and talk them back
from their stance. Regardless, this is now the situation:
LPIN made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra, in November of 2017. It
was the LPIN SCC, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I
didn't know it was happening, and was surprised when I found out.
LPOH made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra on Friday January 12th,
2018. It was the LPOH Executive Committee, of which I'm not a member,
nor was I in attendance. I knew nothing about the doings of the
committee, and only found out after the LPOH chair shared the
information in a Region 3 leaders group.
Both LPIN and LPOH were directing me to take action to remove Arvin
Vohra, through the LNC board. I didn't. Instead I told the Region 3
chairs, that since there are four state affiliates in Region 3, I'd
need a clear directive of 3/4 of the region. I brought this stipulation
to the attention of all four state affiliate chairs. LPKY chair
eventually responded that he too was in accord. (LPMI still has it
under consideration, until a Feb meeting) Should I act on my own
accord? Or, do I act as the state affiliates in the region ask me to?
I want to be able to give voice to the LP members in Region 3. That's
what I signed up for, and that's what I told the Regional chairs I'd
do. Other than out-of-hand unethical actions, I'll try to stick to what
Region 3 wants. (Even if it's something I personally wouldn't do.) Yes,
I understand that you're in Region 3, and that you think your voice
isn't being heard. Currently, we have a representative system in place
for the LNC. That means that hundreds of LP members are all being
represented by one person. (For At-Large Reps, it's thousands of LP
members being represented) If you think that the ability for
suspension of an officer shouldn't exist for the LNC, then it would
need to be changed in the LP-Bylaws. Currently, there is a provision
for doing so, otherwise, this body wouldn't have this issue under
consideration.
I fully except you to vote your conscience at the 2018 NOLA convention,
as will I, as we are each individuals there, and have our one vote. If
you chose to not vote for me to represent Region 3, I understand, and
no hard feelings.
Kind regards,
Elizabeth Van Horn
---
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
[2]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
[3]Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
www.lpcaucus.org
The Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus (LPC) is the fastest-growing caucus
in the Libertarian Party.Our membership is comprised of everyday
Libertarians and nonpartisans ...
On 2018-01-20 02:21, Scotty Boman wrote:
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
References
Visible links
1. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
2. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
3. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
Hidden links:
5. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list