[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