[Lnc-business] Note about our electronic meeting

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Mon Feb 5 14:36:50 EST 2018


Okay, first is from an informal summary of  RR which is where I think most
members are getting this understanding --- and the understanding makes a
lot of sense IMHO.  Of course one is not going to vote to censure oneself.

==
Making a Motion to Censure

To censure a member or an officer is to warn him or her that if a certain
behavior continues, the next step is suspension or expulsion.
Censure

   -

   Purpose: To reprimand the member with the hopes of reforming him or her
   so that he or she won't behave in the same way again.
   -

   Needs a second.
   -

   Amendable.
   -

   Debatable.
   -

   Requires a majority vote.
   -

   Can't be reconsidered.
   -

   Result: The member is put on notice that if he or she repeats the
   offense, he or she can be suspended or removed from membership or office.

This is an incidental main motion and can be made only when no business is
pending. All subsidiary and incidental motions can be applied to this
motion. The member or officer being censured may come to his own defense
during the debate but can't vote. Taking the vote by ballot is wise. A
member can not be censured twice for the same offense.
===  source https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html

Now I know that seems to be a document referring to an earlier version (or
the original) and I can only find this idea of not being allowed to vote in
the case of an imposed penalty or a trial in RONR Chapter 20.  But the
logic certainly holds.  And it wasn't for no reason that Nick originally
thought that Arvin couldn't vote, and Arvin originally thought so as well.
Of course I also think it logical that if a voting member of any body has a
specific pecuniary interest in the outcome, that they should be required to
recuse themselves, and RONR does not require that.

Alicia previously said that our bylaws supersede a requirement for a
trial.  I disagreed then and still disagree now.  If a suspension vote had
passed, I think that would have been a fatal defect.

So I am just trying to learn for my own benefit - can a member (officer or
not) vote on a censure motion?  I cannot find specific language that they
cannot - though I CAN find specific language that a member cannot if it is
an infraction during a meeting (page 647) and for which a penalty will be
imposed (and a censure alone is not a penalty) [implied by page 643
asterisked note on bottom).

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:

> This is why I asked you to cite your point from RONR.   It’s how you
> hopefully end an argument.
>
> Daniel
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 5, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >   Can you explain exactly what the objection is?  I don't the book in
> >   front of me, but I do not recall any statement in RONR about voting on
> >   censure.
> >
> >   Joshua A. Katz
> >   On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >   <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> >        Oh I know.  This is an informal question in order to learn.
> >        Without being binding - and even if raised then no result would
> >     be
> >        changed - does anyone have any thoughts?  If I’m mistaken can
> >     someone
> >        explain to me?
> >        This is simply an effort to further master RONR not to start a
> >        controversy or rehash a settled vote.
> >        On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:11 AM Nicholas Sarwark
> >     <[1][2]chair at lp.org>
> >        wrote:
> >          Points of order need to be made at the time.
> >          We are no longer at the time.
> >          -Nick
> >          On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >
> >        <[2][3]carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>   I think we made an error.  It doesn't affect the outcome but
> >   I
> >        have
> >>   seen members comment on this (and big surprise, there are a
> >        vocal few
> >>   who are seeing a conspiracy in it) but I don't think Arvin
> >        should have
> >>   been allowed to vote on the censure motion.
> >>   Our Bylaws supersede RONR on suspension (and I think our
> >   Bylaws
> >        are
> >>   flawed there but it is what it is) but do not supersede RONR
> >   on
> >>   censure.
> >>   Thus I think it was in order for Arvin to vote on suspension
> >        but not in
> >>   order for him to vote on censure.
> >>   Thoughts?
> >>   --
> >>   In Liberty,
> >>   Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> >        (Alaska,
> >>   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
> >        Washington)
> >>   - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> >>   Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado
> >>   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
> >>   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> >>   We defend your rights
> >>   And oppose the use of force
> >>   Taxation is theft
> >>
> >> References
> >>
> >
> >>   1. mailto:[3]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> >>   2. [4][4]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> >     References
> >        1. mailto:[5]chair at lp.org
> >        2. mailto:[6]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> >        3. mailto:[7]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> >        4. [8]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> >
> > References
> >
> >   1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> >   2. mailto:chair at lp.org
> >   3. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> >   4. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> >   5. mailto:chair at lp.org
> >   6. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> >   7. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> >   8. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
   Okay, first is from an informal summary of  RR which is where I think
   most members are getting this understanding --- and the understanding
   makes a lot of sense IMHO.  Of course one is not going to vote to
   censure oneself.
   ==

Making a Motion to Censure

   To censure a member or an officer is to warn him or her that if a
   certain behavior continues, the next step is suspension or expulsion.

Censure

     * Purpose: To reprimand the member with the hopes of reforming him or
       her so that he or she won't behave in the same way again.
     * Needs a second.
     * Amendable.
     * Debatable.
     * Requires a majority vote.
     * Can't be reconsidered.
     * Result: The member is put on notice that if he or she repeats the
       offense, he or she can be suspended or removed from membership or
       office.

   This is an incidental main motion and can be made only when no business
   is pending. All subsidiary and incidental motions can be applied to
   this motion. The member or officer being censured may come to his own
   defense during the debate but can't vote. Taking the vote by ballot is
   wise. A member can not be censured twice for the same offense.
   ===  source [1]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
   Now I know that seems to be a document referring to an earlier version
   (or the original) and I can only find this idea of not being allowed to
   vote in the case of an imposed penalty or a trial in RONR Chapter 20.
   But the logic certainly holds.  And it wasn't for no reason that Nick
   originally thought that Arvin couldn't vote, and Arvin originally
   thought so as well.  Of course I also think it logical that if a voting
   member of any body has a specific pecuniary interest in the outcome,
   that they should be required to recuse themselves, and RONR does not
   require that.
   Alicia previously said that our bylaws supersede a requirement for a
   trial.  I disagreed then and still disagree now.  If a suspension vote
   had passed, I think that would have been a fatal defect.
   So I am just trying to learn for my own benefit - can a member (officer
   or not) vote on a censure motion?  I cannot find specific language that
   they cannot - though I CAN find specific language that a member cannot
   if it is an infraction during a meeting (page 647) and for which a
   penalty will be imposed (and a censure alone is not a penalty) [implied
   by page 643 asterisked note on bottom).

   On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Hayes <[2]daniel.hayes at lp.org>
   wrote:

     This is why I asked you to cite your point from RONR.   It’s how you
     hopefully end an argument.
     Daniel
     Sent from my iPhone

   > On Feb 5, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Joshua Katz
   <[3]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
   >
   >   Can you explain exactly what the objection is?  I don't the book in
   >   front of me, but I do not recall any statement in RONR about voting
   on
   >   censure.
   >
   >   Joshua A. Katz
   >   On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   >   <[1][4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
   >
   >        Oh I know.  This is an informal question in order to learn.
   >        Without being binding - and even if raised then no result
   would
   >     be
   >        changed - does anyone have any thoughts?  If I’m mistaken can
   >     someone
   >        explain to me?
   >        This is simply an effort to further master RONR not to start a
   >        controversy or rehash a settled vote.
   >        On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:11 AM Nicholas Sarwark
   >     <[1][2][5]chair at lp.org>
   >        wrote:
   >          Points of order need to be made at the time.
   >          We are no longer at the time.
   >          -Nick
   >          On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   >
   >        <[2][3][6]carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
   >>   I think we made an error.  It doesn't affect the outcome but
   >   I
   >        have
   >>   seen members comment on this (and big surprise, there are a
   >        vocal few
   >>   who are seeing a conspiracy in it) but I don't think Arvin
   >        should have
   >>   been allowed to vote on the censure motion.
   >>   Our Bylaws supersede RONR on suspension (and I think our
   >   Bylaws
   >        are
   >>   flawed there but it is what it is) but do not supersede RONR
   >   on
   >>   censure.
   >>   Thus I think it was in order for Arvin to vote on suspension
   >        but not in
   >>   order for him to vote on censure.
   >>   Thoughts?
   >>   --
   >>   In Liberty,
   >>   Caryn Ann Harlos
   >>   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
   >        (Alaska,
   >>   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
   >        Washington)
   >>   - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
   >>   Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado
   >>   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
   >>   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
   >>   We defend your rights
   >>   And oppose the use of force
   >>   Taxation is theft
   >>
   >> References
   >>
   >
   >>   1. mailto:[3]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
   >>   2. [4][4][7]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
   >     References
   >        1. mailto:[5][8]chair at lp.org
   >        2. mailto:[6][9]carynannharlos at gmail.com
   >        3. mailto:[7]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
   >        4. [8][10]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
   >
   > References
   >
   >   1. mailto:[11]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   >   2. mailto:[12]chair at lp.org
   >   3. mailto:[13]carynannharlos at gmail.com
   >   4. [14]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
   >   5. mailto:[15]chair at lp.org
   >   6. mailto:[16]carynannharlos at gmail.com
   >   7. mailto:[17]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
   >   8. [18]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

References

   1. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
   2. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
   3. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
   4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   5. mailto:chair at lp.org
   6. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
   7. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
   8. mailto:chair at lp.org
   9. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  10. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  11. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  12. mailto:chair at lp.org
  13. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  14. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  15. mailto:chair at lp.org
  16. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
  17. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  18. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list