[Lnc-business] Fwd: Investigation of complaint against Arvin Vohra pursuant to LNC Policy Manual Section 2.01(4)
Starchild
starchild at lp.org
Sat Jan 27 05:13:15 EST 2018
Caryn Ann,
From your remarks yesterday on the "Accountability and frugality on LNC meeting expenses" thread, I got the impression that you've come to think having staff weigh in and influence LNC debate with their opinions is "extremely helpful" to us, and not a matter of "inappropriate interference in internal politics".
Yet you now seem to be taking a very different tack.
I'm somewhat more inclined to agree with you in this case. I think staff members should always be welcome to attend and participate in LNC meetings on the same basis as other party members (i.e. on their own time and dime), but I think it is a dangerous precedent for some unelected individuals to have special access to influence the debate of this body with their personal opinions, that is not enjoyed by other LP members.
In the case of this investigation however, I will note that the language of Merissa Hamilton's complaint specifically referenced the LP Bylaws, and our bylaws reference Robert's Rules of Order, so I don't think it necessarily inappropriate for counsel to have taken the language of those documents into consideration, or for him to have been instructed to do so. The original complaint itself wasn't exactly narrowly tailored either – not that it was required to be.
To my LNC colleagues in general,
It is my view that we as a party have too much of a "strong chair" system. This is not a criticism of Nick Sarwark, who inherited the current rules, but an institutional observation. It seems to me that the LP chair having sole direct authority over hiring and firing staff could lead individuals serving at his or her pleasure to be tempted to voice opinions in our debate that they believe s/he wishes to hear. In the case of counsel this seems less likely to occur however, since counsel serves at the pleasure of the entire LNC, not the chair (which is as it should be).
Part of the problem here, I think, is that Policy Manual (http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180115_LNC_Policy_Manual.pdf) Section 2.01, Subsection 4, on "Harassment and Offensive Behavior Prohibition" is in certain key respects poorly written. I believe its intended focus was on interpersonal interaction and behavior, and not on outreach material or public communications, which is really a separate issue. The present language that has apparently been interpreted as allowing a single LP member to generate a mandatory LNC investigation any time one such member is upset about posts or comments made by a member of the party's leadership that s/he finds offensive, disrespectful, or whatever, seems unwise to say the least. If more members chose to avail themselves of this provision, the situation could quickly become untenable.
Also problematic is the language for addressing complaints, which states that "In response to every complaint, LNC will take prompt and necessary steps to investigate the matter", but does not provide any specific mechanism for how this is to happen, other than to state that "Any violation of this policy should be brought to the attention of the Chair, or the Chairman of the Judicial Committee".
Given that latter sentence, it is somewhat understandable, especially in the absence of alternate proposed action on the matter from other members of the LNC, that the chair took it upon himself to initiate an investigation. Furthermore, given the lack of specifics about how such an investigation is to be conducted, and the fact that communications between individual LNC members other than the chair with our counsel have traditionally tended to be limited, by custom if not by rule, under our "strong chair" system, it seems further somewhat understandable that the chair initiated his investigation by delegating the matter to counsel (and presumably providing some form of instructions thereto, whether in writing or otherwise).
This procedure seems sub-optimal. If we had a better procedure in place, we might not now be facing the concerns raised by Caryn Ann and Elizabeth. If a complaint is to trigger a mandatory LNC investigation (even if only for the interpersonal matters for which I believe Section 2.01, Subsection 4 was intended), it should BE an LNC investigation, not a chair's investigation or counsel's investigation. Accordingly I recommend amending the Policy Manual to have such complaints automatically generate a motion which would refer the investigation to a subcommittee established for that purpose (or an existing subcommittee like the Employment Policy and Compensation Committee), with that committee being clearly empowered to directly seek the assistance of counsel if necessary. Then the entire LNC could vote up or down on that motion (if voted down, the investigation would then naturally default to being handled by the entire LNC).
More broadly, I also think the Policy Manual should be amended to explicitly empower each LNC to individually communicate with counsel on legal matters related to his or her role on the LNC as desired, with a reasonable cap on counsel expenses generated by any individual member within one calendar year unless a member is being personally sued in his or her capacity as a party leader, or the LNC votes to amend the budget.
As David Demarest would say... Thoughts? :-)
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
RealReform at earthlink.net
(415) 625-FREE
On Jan 26, 2018, at 11:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> I started a new email thread. I have concerns about this report.
> It goes beyond a PM investigation into the internal politics (including
> bylaws and RONR without mentioning them). Was he asked to do that? If
> so, that is improper on the part of the person giving the
> instructions. If he was not, that is inappropriate interference in
> internal politics on counsel's part.
On Jan 26, 2018, at 11:24 PM, 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.
-------------- next part --------------
Caryn Ann,
From your remarks yesterday on the "Accountability and frugality on LNC
meeting expenses" thread, I got the impression that you've come to
think having staff weigh in and influence LNC debate with their
opinions is "extremely helpful" to us, and not a matter of
"inappropriate interference in internal politics".
Yet you now seem to be taking a very different tack.
I'm somewhat more inclined to agree with you in this case. I think
staff members should always be welcome to attend and participate in LNC
meetings on the same basis as other party members (i.e. on their own
time and dime), but I think it is a dangerous precedent for some
unelected individuals to have special access to influence the debate of
this body with their personal opinions, that is not enjoyed by other LP
members.
In the case of this investigation however, I will note that the
language of Merissa Hamilton's complaint specifically referenced the LP
Bylaws, and our bylaws reference Robert's Rules of Order, so I don't
think it necessarily inappropriate for counsel to have taken the
language of those documents into consideration, or for him to have been
instructed to do so. The original complaint itself wasn't exactly
narrowly tailored either � not that it was required to be.
To my LNC colleagues in general,
It is my view that we as a party have too much of a "strong chair"
system. This is not a criticism of Nick Sarwark, who inherited the
current rules, but an institutional observation. It seems to me that
the LP chair having sole direct authority over hiring and firing staff
could lead individuals serving at his or her pleasure to be tempted to
voice opinions in our debate that they believe s/he wishes to hear. In
the case of counsel this seems less likely to occur however, since
counsel serves at the pleasure of the entire LNC, not the chair (which
is as it should be).
Part of the problem here, I think, is that Policy Manual
([1]http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180115_LNC_Policy_Ma
nual.pdf) Section 2.01, Subsection 4, on "Harassment and Offensive
Behavior Prohibition" is in certain key respects poorly written. I
believe its intended focus was on interpersonal interaction and
behavior, and not on outreach material or public communications, which
is really a separate issue. The present language that has apparently
been interpreted as allowing a single LP member to generate a mandatory
LNC investigation any time one such member is upset about posts or
comments made by a member of the party's leadership that s/he finds
offensive, disrespectful, or whatever, seems unwise to say the least.
If more members chose to avail themselves of this provision, the
situation could quickly become untenable.
Also problematic is the language for addressing complaints, which
states that "In response to every complaint, LNC will take prompt and
necessary steps to investigate the matter", but does not provide any
specific mechanism for how this is to happen, other than to state that
"Any violation of this policy should be brought to the attention of the
Chair, or the Chairman of the Judicial Committee".
Given that latter sentence, it is somewhat understandable, especially
in the absence of alternate proposed action on the matter from other
members of the LNC, that the chair took it upon himself to initiate an
investigation. Furthermore, given the lack of specifics about how such
an investigation is to be conducted, and the fact that communications
between individual LNC members other than the chair with our counsel
have traditionally tended to be limited, by custom if not by
rule, under our "strong chair" system, it seems further somewhat
understandable that the chair initiated his investigation by delegating
the matter to counsel (and presumably providing some form of
instructions thereto, whether in writing or otherwise).
This procedure seems sub-optimal. If we had a better procedure in
place, we might not now be facing the concerns raised by Caryn Ann and
Elizabeth. If a complaint is to trigger a mandatory LNC investigation
(even if only for the interpersonal matters for which I believe Section
2.01, Subsection 4 was intended), it should BE an LNC investigation,
not a chair's investigation or counsel's investigation. Accordingly I
recommend amending the Policy Manual to have such complaints
automatically generate a motion which would refer the investigation to
a subcommittee established for that purpose (or an existing
subcommittee like the Employment Policy and Compensation Committee),
with that committee being clearly empowered to directly seek the
assistance of counsel if necessary. Then the entire LNC could vote up
or down on that motion (if voted down, the investigation would then
naturally default to being handled by the entire LNC).
More broadly, I also think the Policy Manual should be amended to
explicitly empower each LNC to individually communicate with counsel on
legal matters related to his or her role on the LNC as desired, with a
reasonable cap on counsel expenses generated by any individual member
within one calendar year unless a member is being personally sued in
his or her capacity as a party leader, or the LNC votes to amend the
budget.
As David Demarest would say... Thoughts? :-)
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
[2]RealReform at earthlink.net
(415) 625-FREE
On Jan 26, 2018, at 11:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I started a new email thread. I have concerns about this report.
It goes beyond a PM investigation into the internal politics
(including
bylaws and RONR without mentioning them). Was he asked to do that?
If
so, that is improper on the part of the person giving the
instructions. If he was not, that is inappropriate interference in
internal politics on counsel's part.
On Jan 26, 2018, at 11:24 PM, 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.
References
1. http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180115_LNC_Policy_Manual.pdf
2. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list