[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-03: Censure of Arvin Vohra
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Mon Jan 29 18:18:26 EST 2018
;tldr the motion says something we can ALL agree on. He has presented
Libertarian ideas in the worst possible way. It doesn't claim all of his
ideas were. It says the one fact that we do have an authority to say.
That is why I say anything else is a purity test. In all directions -
radical, moderate, pragmatic, classical liberal or whatever the factions de
jeur are. This was never a PM issue and the complaint that made it that
way ironically sunk this whole effort. My yes votes remain. I believe in
them, and it is my position.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> Alicia--
>
> == I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about
> this,
> as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend to
> focus on and accomplish.==
>
> I'm done as well. But you deserve the respect of a response.
>
> == However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you are
> unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.==
>
> I don't have a pendulum. I have been steadfastly in the EXACT SAME PLACE
> since day one which anyone reading my long-winded explanations can
> determine.
>
> == Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to explain
> their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not
> fair.===
>
> It is my judgment. I am here to do that and report to my constituents who
> often disagree, offer additional perspectives, and change my mind. I have
> watched the discussions since day one, and I believe my judgment is pretty
> on point here. Additional data can change it. It is not presumptuous, it
> is my job. One constant refrain from me from day one is that MY DUTY IS TO
> REGION 1.
>
> == A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of censure
> (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).===
>
> I didn't say it was. I know you want at least that. You know I want at
> least that. But that is just you and me. There is not a majority that
> wants any kind of acceptable censure and that is obvious. And
> disappointing.
>
> == It is
> the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to
> broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas. Even
> you, in today's postings, say you think some
> were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes represent a
> purity test...?===
>
> It is, because our concern should be about the ones that WERE. I have
> some non-libertarian ideas according to many. That is not this body's
> concern. But if I am presenting LIBERTARIAN ones in a very bad light, that
> is this body's concern. I am pro-life. The Party is not. I can present
> pro-life ideas in a bad way and you guys should not be concerned about
> that. And Arvin's "non-libertarian" content could be due to the
> limitations of FB in which long treatises aren't the style. He neglected
> to add very important nuance. Does he deny that nuance? Or was he just a
> terrible communicator? I don't know, and we can't know. And his worst
> comment about ending welfare did have a grain of truth to it but it
> betrayed such callous indifference to other people that it is inappropriate
> for a leader. It is like a a racist bragging about his "white only" sign.
> Is that anti-libertarian qua libertarian? No, he has the right to do that.
> But it is anti-cosmopolitian, immoral, and just a slimy person. Is it
> unlibertarian for Arvin to prefer that something bad happens to someone
> else rather than something else so he doesn't have to pay for it? No. But
> it is a hard callous cold brutalism. The minute we start trying to parse
> out the two, we are engaging in purity tests.
>
> There is only ONE thing we know for certain. That he HAS presented
> Libertarian ideas in a foul way. Separating the two is up to delegates in
> Platform. Not us.
>
> == There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the LNC has
> the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or censure, or
> neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the
> end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to abstain
> in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded options will be
> available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite
> your face.==
>
> Alicia, I don't "rally" - I advise my chairs. They ask me to. They
> elected me for my advise. They often disagree. But it is my duty to them
> to tell them what MY judgment is. But I FOLLOW theirs.
>
> This is now clear as day to me that this is a waste of time, that this
> Body will do nothing. I am all for symbolic stands and am fine being a
> lone vote (though I know I won't, but it a figure of speech) but I prefer
> not to waste my time now in furtherance of Arvin's puppet mastering of this
> body. He is telling us to jump and we are saying how high. I am tired of
> it. He is reveling in this jerking us around and I prefer to protest. But
> my Region will decide that.
>
> You and I both know that it is very likely that nothing will happen. Can
> I be wrong? Obviously. I thought the regional chairs would not support
> suspension. And they did. But this is coming up on a month with Arvin
> wasting my time, and it only cemented in me that the affiliates need to
> take more control.
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Caryn Ann,
>> I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about this,
>> as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend to
>> focus on and accomplish.
>> However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you are
>> unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.
>> Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to explain
>> their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not fair.
>> A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of
>> censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that). It is
>> the rejection of this particular wording.
>> This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having been
>> libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think some
>> were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes represent
>> a purity test...?
>> There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the LNC
>> has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or
>> censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the
>> end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to
>> abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded options
>> will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite
>> your face.
>> -Alicia
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>> <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> This is what I sent to my region one chairs:
>> Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not been
>> privy
>> to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this
>> because
>> it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution this
>> weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia which
>> obviously is in direct response to this situation.
>> The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have changed
>> their
>> vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same -
>> you
>> can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted
>> on the
>> state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an
>> asshole
>> works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I
>> suspect
>> that is not what many of you signed up for either.
>> My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons.
>> I
>> suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from
>> counsel
>> from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure
>> motion as
>> it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some want
>> to
>> claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others think
>> some
>> were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this has
>> devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to interpret
>> the
>> Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological struggle.
>> Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an
>> ideological
>> dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and
>> proper
>> conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority of
>> region
>> 1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what
>> he
>> said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and -
>> that is
>> nakedly a factional issue.
>> The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region 1
>> will
>> come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my
>> instructions,
>> but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my
>> instructions.
>> My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand.
>> Issue
>> your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the LNC
>> is
>> not capable of doing anything about this situation. I say this
>> with
>> regret.
>> I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute protest
>> and
>> for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the national
>> party
>> too much, that has also been my position, and remains so.
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[1][2]erin.adams at lp.org> wrote:
>> I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion
>> to
>> censure should have been made some time ago imo
>> On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>> So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act
>> horribly
>> and
>> we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his
>> fiduciary
>> duty HE
>> COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could
>> rise
>> to
>> the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke
>> their
>> legs.
>> My opinion.
>> I don’t care if I’m the sole yes.
>> I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way
>> works. I
>> do it
>> every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an
>> unempathic
>> edgelord.
>> And we bought it hook line and sinker.
>> Literally shaking my head.
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
>>
>> <[1][2][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>> I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional
>> Chairs
>> want.
>> I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate
>> those
>> to my
>> state Chairs to see if that influences their decision.
>> However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about
>> this
>> incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this
>> Party has
>> argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in
>> this
>> body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line
>> is
>> drawn and not the delegates.
>> This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s
>> reckless
>> behaviour and more and factional jockeying.
>> It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people
>> were
>> assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not
>> changed
>> - so
>> trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary
>> state
>> law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a
>> hand.
>> IMHO.
>> Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but
>> it’s
>> obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it.
>> I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly.
>> The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to
>> have
>> a
>> Libertarian Purity test.
>> Which I find so ironic.
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein
>>
>> <[2][3][4]sam.goldstein at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>> Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to
>> agree
>> with
>> those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure
>> seems to
>> imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to
>> the LP.
>> ---
>> Sam Goldstein
>> Libertarian National Committee
>> [4]317-850-0726 Cell
>> On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>> > I have to vote no.
>> > As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is
>> warranted
>> here,
>> > however, I
>> > cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous
>> comments
>> which
>> > were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and
>> that
>> our
>> leaders
>> > and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for
>> those
>> ideas
>> > espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different
>> way.
>> > -Alicia
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson
>> > <[1][3][5][5]agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > We have an electronic mail ballot.
>> > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30,
>> 2018
>> at
>> > 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>> >
>> > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
>> > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for
>> repeated
>> public
>> > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an
>> inflammatory
>> > and
>> > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to
>> Libertarian
>> leaders
>> and
>> > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds
>> for
>> those
>> > ideas.
>> > -Alicia
>> >
>> > References
>> >
>> > 1. mailto:[4][6][6]agmattson at gmail.com
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[7][7]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[8][8]sam.goldstein at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[9][9]agmattson at gmail.com
>> 4. mailto:[10][10]agmattson at gmail.com
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[11]erin.adams at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[12]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[13]sam.goldstein at lp.org
>> 4. tel:[14]317-850-0726
>> 5. mailto:[15]agmattson at gmail.com
>> 6. mailto:[16]agmattson at gmail.com
>> 7. mailto:[17]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 8. mailto:[18]sam.goldstein at lp.org
>> 9. mailto:[19]agmattson at gmail.com
>> 10. mailto:[20]agmattson at gmail.com
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 4. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
>> 6. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
>> 7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 8. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
>> 9. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
>> 10. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
>> 11. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
>> 12. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 13. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
>> 14. tel:317-850-0726
>> 15. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
>> 16. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
>> 17. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 18. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
>> 19. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
>> 20. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
;tldr the motion says something we can ALL agree on. He has presented
Libertarian ideas in the worst possible way. It doesn't claim all of
his ideas were. It says the one fact that we do have an authority to
say. That is why I say anything else is a purity test. In all
directions - radical, moderate, pragmatic, classical liberal or
whatever the factions de jeur are. This was never a PM issue and the
complaint that made it that way ironically sunk this whole effort. My
yes votes remain. I believe in them, and it is my position.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Alicia--
== I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about
this,
as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend
to
focus on and accomplish.==
I'm done as well. But you deserve the respect of a response.
== However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you
are
unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.==
I don't have a pendulum. I have been steadfastly in the EXACT SAME
PLACE since day one which anyone reading my long-winded explanations
can determine.
== Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to
explain
their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not
fair.===
It is my judgment. I am here to do that and report to my constituents
who often disagree, offer additional perspectives, and change my mind.
I have watched the discussions since day one, and I believe my judgment
is pretty on point here. Additional data can change it. It is not
presumptuous, it is my job. One constant refrain from me from day one
is that MY DUTY IS TO REGION 1.
== A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option
of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).===
I didn't say it was. I know you want at least that. You know I want
at least that. But that is just you and me. There is not a majority
that wants any kind of acceptable censure and that is obvious. And
disappointing.
== It is
the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to
broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas.
Even you, in today's postings, say you think some
were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes
represent a purity test...?===
It is, because our concern should be about the ones that WERE. I have
some non-libertarian ideas according to many. That is not this body's
concern. But if I am presenting LIBERTARIAN ones in a very bad light,
that is this body's concern. I am pro-life. The Party is not. I can
present pro-life ideas in a bad way and you guys should not be
concerned about that. And Arvin's "non-libertarian" content could be
due to the limitations of FB in which long treatises aren't the style.
He neglected to add very important nuance. Does he deny that nuance?
Or was he just a terrible communicator? I don't know, and we can't
know. And his worst comment about ending welfare did have a grain of
truth to it but it betrayed such callous indifference to other people
that it is inappropriate for a leader. It is like a a racist bragging
about his "white only" sign. Is that anti-libertarian qua
libertarian? No, he has the right to do that. But it is
anti-cosmopolitian, immoral, and just a slimy person. Is it
unlibertarian for Arvin to prefer that something bad happens to someone
else rather than something else so he doesn't have to pay for it? No.
But it is a hard callous cold brutalism. The minute we start trying to
parse out the two, we are engaging in purity tests.
There is only ONE thing we know for certain. That he HAS presented
Libertarian ideas in a foul way. Separating the two is up to delegates
in Platform. Not us.
== There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the
LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension
or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the
end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you
to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded
options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to
spite
your face.==
Alicia, I don't "rally" - I advise my chairs. They ask me to. They
elected me for my advise. They often disagree. But it is my duty to
them to tell them what MY judgment is. But I FOLLOW theirs.
This is now clear as day to me that this is a waste of time, that this
Body will do nothing. I am all for symbolic stands and am fine being a
lone vote (though I know I won't, but it a figure of speech) but I
prefer not to waste my time now in furtherance of Arvin's puppet
mastering of this body. He is telling us to jump and we are saying how
high. I am tired of it. He is reveling in this jerking us around and
I prefer to protest. But my Region will decide that.
You and I both know that it is very likely that nothing will happen.
Can I be wrong? Obviously. I thought the regional chairs would not
support suspension. And they did. But this is coming up on a month
with Arvin wasting my time, and it only cemented in me that the
affiliates need to take more control.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alicia Mattson
<[2]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about
this,
as over in the real world there are productive things that I
intend to
focus on and accomplish.
However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you
are
unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.
Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to
explain
their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not
fair.
A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of
censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).
It is
the rejection of this particular wording.
This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having
been
libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think
some
were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes
represent
a purity test...?
There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the
LNC
has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or
censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being
the
end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to
abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded
options
will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to
spite
your face.
-Alicia
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
This is what I sent to my region one chairs:
Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not
been
privy
to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this
because
it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution
this
weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia
which
obviously is in direct response to this situation.
The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have
changed
their
vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same
-
you
can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted
on the
state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an
asshole
works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I
suspect
that is not what many of you signed up for either.
My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons.
I
suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from
counsel
from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure
motion as
it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some
want
to
claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others
think
some
were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this
has
devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to
interpret
the
Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological
struggle.
Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an
ideological
dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and
proper
conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority
of
region
1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what
he
said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and -
that is
nakedly a factional issue.
The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region
1
will
come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my
instructions,
but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my
instructions.
My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand.
Issue
your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the
LNC
is
not capable of doing anything about this situation. I say this
with
regret.
I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute
protest
and
for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the
national
party
too much, that has also been my position, and remains so.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[1][2][4]erin.adams at lp.org>
wrote:
I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion
to
censure should have been made some time ago imo
On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act
horribly
and
we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his
fiduciary
duty HE
COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff
could
rise
to
the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke
their
legs.
My opinion.
I don’t care if I’m the sole yes.
I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way
works. I
do it
every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an
unempathic
edgelord.
And we bought it hook line and sinker.
Literally shaking my head.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][2][3][5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional
Chairs
want.
I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate
those
to my
state Chairs to see if that influences their decision.
However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just
about
this
incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this
Party has
argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here
in
this
body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the
line
is
drawn and not the delegates.
This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s
reckless
behaviour and more and factional jockeying.
It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where
people
were
assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not
changed
- so
trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an
arbitrary
state
law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing
a
hand.
IMHO.
Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable
but
it’s
obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it.
I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly.
The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to
have
a
Libertarian Purity test.
Which I find so ironic.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein
<[2][3][4][6]sam.goldstein at lp.org>
wrote:
Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend
to
agree
with
those who have pointed out that the wording of the
censure
seems to
imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and
to
the LP.
---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
[4]317-850-0726 Cell
On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote:
> I have to vote no.
> As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is
warranted
here,
> however, I
> cannot vote for a motion which claims the
outrageous
comments
which
> were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas",
and
that
our
leaders
> and candidates are trying to win hearts and
minds for
those
ideas
> espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a
different
way.
> -Alicia
>
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson
> <[1][3][5][5][7]agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by
January 30,
2018
at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>
> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra
for
repeated
public
> comments which have presented libertarian ideas
in an
inflammatory
> and
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to
Libertarian
leaders
and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and
minds
for
those
> ideas.
> -Alicia
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[4][6][6][8]agmattson at gmail.com
References
1. mailto:[7][7][9]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[8][8][10]sam.goldstein at lp.org
3. mailto:[9][9][11]agmattson at gmail.com
4. mailto:[10][10][12]agmattson at gmail.com
References
1. mailto:[11][13]erin.adams at lp.org
2. mailto:[12][14]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:[13][15]sam.goldstein at lp.org
4. tel:[14]317-850-0726
5. mailto:[15][16]agmattson at gmail.com
6. mailto:[16][17]agmattson at gmail.com
7. mailto:[17][18]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:[18][19]sam.goldstein at lp.org
9. mailto:[19][20]agmattson at gmail.com
10. mailto:[20][21]agmattson at gmail.com
References
1. mailto:[22]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[23]erin.adams at lp.org
3. mailto:[24]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:[25]sam.goldstein at lp.org
5. mailto:[26]agmattson at gmail.com
6. mailto:[27]agmattson at gmail.com
7. mailto:[28]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:[29]sam.goldstein at lp.org
9. mailto:[30]agmattson at gmail.com
10. mailto:[31]agmattson at gmail.com
11. mailto:[32]erin.adams at lp.org
12. mailto:[33]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
13. mailto:[34]sam.goldstein at lp.org
14. tel:[35]317-850-0726
15. mailto:[36]agmattson at gmail.com
16. mailto:[37]agmattson at gmail.com
17. mailto:[38]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
18. mailto:[39]sam.goldstein at lp.org
19. mailto:[40]agmattson at gmail.com
20. mailto:[41]agmattson at gmail.com
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
7. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
8. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
10. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
11. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
12. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
13. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
14. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
15. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
16. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
17. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
18. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
19. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
20. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
21. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
22. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
23. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
24. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
25. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
26. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
27. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
29. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
30. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
31. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
32. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
33. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
34. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
35. tel:317-850-0726
36. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
37. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
38. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
39. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
40. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
41. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list