[Lnc-business] Fwd: Investigation of complaint against Arvin Vohra pursuant to LNC Policy Manual Section 2.01(4)
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Jan 27 07:47:06 EST 2018
Staff weighs in at meetings with what they are asked. In an issue of of
potential discipline of an LNC meeting it would be highly inappropriate for
them to go beyond that unless it was to report some violation.
So no, I am not going beyond anything.
== 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.==
Counsel himself said he was confined to reviewing the Policy Manual. And
then went beyond.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Oops, I see I left out the word "member" in this sentence
> (inserted in all caps):
>
> > More broadly, I also think the Policy Manual should be amended to
> explicitly empower each LNC MEMBER to individually communicate with
> counsel...
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> RealReform at earthlink.net
> (415) 625-FREE
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Starchild wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
Staff weighs in at meetings with what they are asked. In an issue of
of potential discipline of an LNC meeting it would be highly
inappropriate for them to go beyond that unless it was to report some
violation.
So no, I am not going beyond anything.
== 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.==
Counsel himself said he was confined to reviewing the Policy Manual.
And then went beyond.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Starchild <[1]starchild at lp.org> wrote:
Oops, I see I left out the word "member" in this sentence
(inserted in all caps):
> More broadly, I also think the Policy Manual should be amended to
explicitly empower each LNC MEMBER to individually communicate with
counsel...
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
[2]RealReform at earthlink.net
(415) 625-FREE
On Jan 27, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Starchild wrote:
> 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][3]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][4]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. [5]http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180115_LNC_
Policy_Manual.pdf
> 2. mailto:[6]RealReform at earthlink.net
References
1. mailto:starchild at lp.org
2. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
3. http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180115_LNC_Policy_Ma
4. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
5. http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180115_LNC_Policy_Manual.pdf
6. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list