[Lnc-business] Counsel Opinion Letter
Alicia Mattson
alicia.mattson at lp.org
Sat Jan 27 04:02:16 EST 2018
I also had concerns as I read the document from our special counsel.
We received a complaint regarding the sexual harassment portion of our
policy manual, and the policy requires that, "In response to every
complaint, LNC will take prompt and necessary steps to investigate the
matter and will protect the individual’s confidentiality, as much as
possible, recognizing the need to thoroughly investigate all complaints."
It says the LNC will take prompt and necessary steps to investigate the
matter. If we wish to obtain legal advice from our special counsel, that's
fine, and we can take his opinion under advisement. However, our legal
counsel's opinion is not substituted on behalf of the LNC in the matter.
The LNC is his client, and his communication to the LNC about legal
opinions is subject to attorney-client privilege, and the LNC can choose to
waive confidentiality, but Mr. Vohra does not get to unilaterally decide to
waive it for the LNC. What Mr. Vohra can waive is confidentiality over the
LNC's investigation, not our attorney's legal opinion. The attorney's
opinion is not the official result of the LNC's investigation, though the
language in the document could sound as though it is.
I also agree that the written opinion exceeds its proper scope of giving us
legal advice. Our legal counsel is not empowered to speak with any
authority about whether a particular idea violates the party platform.
Nothing in our party rules grants him any such role. Nor should the legal
counsel opine about whether something violated the policy manual, whether
something was rude or professional, or what a political remedy should or
shouldn't be.
I perceive the sexual harassment policy as dealing with personal
interaction situations and workplace environment, not theoretical policy
musings on Facebook which are not aimed at any particular person. I don't
think the nature of these posts constitutes sexual harassment in the sense
our policy manual intends it, though I do think they warrant suspension
from his position as Vice Chair for different reasons. The current email
ballot and the upcoming electronic meeting will deal with the issues that I
do believe should result from this.
-Alicia
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn <
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> Caryn Ann,
>
> I also read the " factual findings and legal conclusions", of Oliver B.
> Hall, Special Counsel.
>
> I wrote this elsewhere, regarding discussion of the document:
>
> "That document has no bearing on what the LNC can do. It's merely stating
> that in the opinion of legal counsel, the particular complaint that Ms.
> Hamilton did, was deemed not to violate the line items in the policy that
> she used to complain. I agree with the decision by legal counsel on that,
> btw. Ms. Hamilton was making a stretch-at-best, with her complaint."
>
> With that said, I also think Mr. Hall overstepped from giving counsel on
> the particulars of Ms. Hamilton's complaint, to giving unsolicited advice.
> (I also wondered if that advice was unsolicited?)
>
> "Conclusion
> The foregoing analysis takes no position on the wisdom or political
> utility of Mr. Vohra’s
> commentary published on Facebook. The investigation conducted was confined
> to whether such
> commentary violated Section 2.01-4 of the LNC Policy Manual, and whether
> it was inconsistent
> with Section 1.4 of the Libertarian Party Platform, as alleged in the
> Complaint. For the reasons
> stated herein, I found no such violation or inconsistency. "
>
> I agree with the above.
>
> The section below isn't part of the above, and isn't appropriate. He's
> giving his opinion that Arvin's many posts and comments were " respectfully
> and professionally
> communicating ideas". That's not what was asked, and shows a bias. The
> legal counsel should have only looked into whether the particular
> line-items of the policy manual were countermanded. This second paragraphs
> is contradicting his own declaration of what he's "confined" to.
>
> "If the content of Mr. Vohra’s ideas are
> objectionable, or if communicating those ideas makes him unpopular, the
> appropriate remedy for
> the Complainant is political in nature – Mr. Vohra’s removal from office
> by a majority of voting
> delegates at the next convention. But I do not believe that Section 2.01-4
> provides the LNC with
> authority to impose disciplinary action on an officer for respectfully and
> professionally
> communicating ideas that may be controversial or even objectionable to
> party members."
>
> This is about the complaint by Ms. Hamilton on specifics of the policy
> manual.
>
> None of this changes my wanting an opportunity to vote regarding the
> motion for suspension. Region 3 state affiliates haven't cited the policy
> manual, nor is it relevant to them wanting Arvin Vohra suspended.
> I doubt it changes how any of the 17 state affiliates that have called for
> Arvin to resign or be removed want done. (If anything, it may further
> galvanize them.)
>
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
>
>
>
> On 2018-01-27 02:24, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>> I have read it multiple times and have some questions. First, I agree
>> this is not a Policy Manual issue so the ultimate conclusion that this
>> is not a PM issue I agree with. However, it seems to me that counsel
>> greatly over-reached beyond the PM into Bylaws and RONR implications
>> which was not his place IMHO, but in order to know that, I would like
>> to know the specific instructions that were given to counsel. I
>> understand that is attorney/client privilege and that can be given to
>> me off-list.
>> Specifically were the instructions written? I would like to see them.
>> If oral, I would like permission to speak with counsel to find out the
>> instructions.
>> --
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
>> - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> We defend your rights
>> And oppose the use of force
>> Taxation is theft
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 2. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
I also had concerns as I read the document from our special counsel.
We received a complaint regarding the sexual harassment portion of our
policy manual, and the policy requires that, "In response to every
complaint, LNC will take prompt and necessary steps to investigate the
matter and will protect the individual’s confidentiality, as much as
possible, recognizing the need to thoroughly investigate all
complaints."
It says the LNC will take prompt and necessary steps to investigate the
matter. If we wish to obtain legal advice from our special counsel,
that's fine, and we can take his opinion under advisement. However,
our legal counsel's opinion is not substituted on behalf of the LNC in
the matter.
The LNC is his client, and his communication to the LNC about legal
opinions is subject to attorney-client privilege, and the LNC can
choose to waive confidentiality, but Mr. Vohra does not get to
unilaterally decide to waive it for the LNC. What Mr. Vohra can waive
is confidentiality over the LNC's investigation, not our attorney's
legal opinion. The attorney's opinion is not the official result of
the LNC's investigation, though the language in the document could
sound as though it is.
I also agree that the written opinion exceeds its proper scope of
giving us legal advice. Our legal counsel is not empowered to speak
with any authority about whether a particular idea violates the party
platform. Nothing in our party rules grants him any such role. Nor
should the legal counsel opine about whether something violated the
policy manual, whether something was rude or professional, or what a
political remedy should or shouldn't be.
I perceive the sexual harassment policy as dealing with personal
interaction situations and workplace environment, not theoretical
policy musings on Facebook which are not aimed at any particular
person. I don't think the nature of these posts constitutes sexual
harassment in the sense our policy manual intends it, though I do think
they warrant suspension from his position as Vice Chair for different
reasons. The current email ballot and the upcoming electronic meeting
will deal with the issues that I do believe should result from this.
-Alicia
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn
<[1]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
I also read the " factual findings and legal conclusions", of Oliver
B. Hall, Special Counsel.
I wrote this elsewhere, regarding discussion of the document:
"That document has no bearing on what the LNC can do. It's merely
stating that in the opinion of legal counsel, the particular
complaint that Ms. Hamilton did, was deemed not to violate the line
items in the policy that she used to complain. I agree with the
decision by legal counsel on that, btw. Ms. Hamilton was making a
stretch-at-best, with her complaint."
With that said, I also think Mr. Hall overstepped from giving
counsel on the particulars of Ms. Hamilton's complaint, to giving
unsolicited advice. (I also wondered if that advice was
unsolicited?)
"Conclusion
The foregoing analysis takes no position on the wisdom or political
utility of Mr. Vohra’s
commentary published on Facebook. The investigation conducted was
confined to whether such
commentary violated Section 2.01-4 of the LNC Policy Manual, and
whether it was inconsistent
with Section 1.4 of the Libertarian Party Platform, as alleged in
the Complaint. For the reasons
stated herein, I found no such violation or inconsistency. "
I agree with the above.
The section below isn't part of the above, and isn't appropriate.
He's giving his opinion that Arvin's many posts and comments were "
respectfully and professionally
communicating ideas". That's not what was asked, and shows a bias.
The legal counsel should have only looked into whether the
particular line-items of the policy manual were countermanded. This
second paragraphs is contradicting his own declaration of what he's
"confined" to.
"If the content of Mr. Vohra’s ideas are
objectionable, or if communicating those ideas makes him unpopular,
the appropriate remedy for
the Complainant is political in nature – Mr. Vohra’s removal from
office by a majority of voting
delegates at the next convention. But I do not believe that Section
2.01-4 provides the LNC with
authority to impose disciplinary action on an officer for
respectfully and professionally
communicating ideas that may be controversial or even objectionable
to party members."
This is about the complaint by Ms. Hamilton on specifics of the
policy manual.
None of this changes my wanting an opportunity to vote regarding the
motion for suspension. Region 3 state affiliates haven't cited the
policy manual, nor is it relevant to them wanting Arvin Vohra
suspended.
I doubt it changes how any of the 17 state affiliates that have
called for Arvin to resign or be removed want done. (If anything,
it may further galvanize them.)
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On 2018-01-27 02:24, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I have read it multiple times and have some questions. First, I
agree
this is not a Policy Manual issue so the ultimate conclusion that
this
is not a PM issue I agree with. However, it seems to me that
counsel
greatly over-reached beyond the PM into Bylaws and RONR
implications
which was not his place IMHO, but in order to know that, I would
like
to know the specific instructions that were given to counsel. I
understand that is attorney/client privilege and that can be
given to
me off-list.
Specifically were the instructions written? I would like to see
them.
If oral, I would like permission to speak with counsel to find
out the
instructions.
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
- [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto:[2]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
2. [3]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
3. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list