[Lnc-business] Note about our electronic meeting
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Mon Feb 5 16:45:04 EST 2018
I am also perplexed. The way I saw it, you asked a question, and I felt I
needed more information to answer it. In particular, you were asking if
something is allowed, which is very hard to explain in the abstract - it is
much easier if you tell me why you think it isn't allowed so I can deal
with the specific issue in question.
I see two possible reasons in your earlier email, and I'll give my opinion
on those (since we all agree it's an opinion question, not a formal
situation where I would let the chair answer):
>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.
I don't fully agree with this. RONR does not allow the body to force the
person to recuse themselves, nor does it actually require that they do, but
I think it's fair to say that, in such a situation, it is strongly urged
(where the interest is not in common with the others). The question is
whether a censure motion meets this threshold, in which case the person
would still be allowed to vote, but would be "supposed" to not do so. I'm
not sure that it does. There's clearly no pecuniary interest. Arguably,
there's a personal interest, but censure doesn't actually impact any rights
or obligations. The real interest at stake in a censure motion, in my
view, is the interest of the body in expressing its response to actions,
not any personal interest of the person censured. That is a common
interest.
You pointed out that no one will vote for their own censure. I agree, but
why not? Idealistically speaking, it's because they would not agree that
the actions in question are harmful to the organization. If they thought
that, they wouldn't have taken them. But others can share the same view,
and a "no" vote is a perfectly reasonable way of expressing that opinion -
it's not unique to the person.
Other than that, I agree with your observation that censure is not
disciplinary action, which is why (regardless of bylaws) it does not invoke
any of the Chapter XX procedures. I don't think you reach the question of
trial procedures (on which I agree with Alicia that our bylaws permit
suspension as a motion) because censure is not discipline. As a result,
you fall back on the general provision: no member of a body can ever lose
their right to vote, unless the bylaws say otherwise, except through a
disciplinary action. Hence, I would conclude that a member may vote on
their own censure.
That's my take, anyway. As a purely "rules bound" matter, members can vote
whenever there is not a rule saying otherwise, but it's worthwhile to look
at the why, I agree.
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> I am perplexed by the tone of this email chain.
>
> It appears that the nonsensical opportunism that has been rampant
> throughout our party has everyone on edge.
>
> I don’t believe in rote memorization. I am trying to understand the
> “why” of this - it makes no sense. Blind adherence to RONR may be our
> rules but that doesn’t make it logical.
>
> There is no agenda here other than me wanting to learn and understand.
>
> I’ll go join a RONR forum and not ask here in the future.
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:14 PM Daniel Hayes <[1]daniel.hayes at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> That is not Authoritative. ONLY RONR 11th ed and Roberts in brief
> to a degree fit that. All other works are only persuasive at best.
> RONR is part of our rules. What someone thinks it should be is not
> what if necessarily is legally.
> Daniel
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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][3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> >> References
> >> 1. mailto:[5][8][10]chair at lp.org
> >> 2. mailto:[6][9][11]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> >> 3. mailto:[7]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> >> 4. [8][10][12]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> >>
> >> References
> >>
> >> 1. mailto:[11][13]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> >> 2. mailto:[12][14]chair at lp.org
> >> 3. mailto:[13][15]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> >> 4. [14][16]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> >> 5. mailto:[15][17]chair at lp.org
> >> 6. mailto:[16][18]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> >> 7. mailto:[17]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> >> 8. [18][19]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. [20]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> > 2. mailto:[21]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> > 3. mailto:[22]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> > 4. mailto:[23]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > 5. mailto:[24]chair at lp.org
> > 6. mailto:[25]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> > 7. [26]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > 8. mailto:[27]chair at lp.org
> > 9. mailto:[28]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> > 10. [29]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > 11. mailto:[30]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > 12. mailto:[31]chair at lp.org
> > 13. mailto:[32]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> > 14. [33]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > 15. mailto:[34]chair at lp.org
> > 16. mailto:[35]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> > 17. mailto:[36]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 18. [37]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 4. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 5. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 8. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 10. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 11. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 13. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 14. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 15. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 16. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 17. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 18. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 19. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 20. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 21. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 22. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 23. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 24. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 25. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 26. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 27. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 28. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 29. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 30. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 31. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 32. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 33. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 34. mailto:chair at lp.org
> 35. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 36. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
I am also perplexed. The way I saw it, you asked a question, and I
felt I needed more information to answer it. In particular, you were
asking if something is allowed, which is very hard to explain in the
abstract - it is much easier if you tell me why you think it isn't
allowed so I can deal with the specific issue in question.
I see two possible reasons in your earlier email, and I'll give my
opinion on those (since we all agree it's an opinion question, not a
formal situation where I would let the chair answer):
>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.
I don't fully agree with this. RONR does not allow the body to force
the person to recuse themselves, nor does it actually require that they
do, but I think it's fair to say that, in such a situation, it is
strongly urged (where the interest is not in common with the others).
The question is whether a censure motion meets this threshold, in which
case the person would still be allowed to vote, but would be "supposed"
to not do so. I'm not sure that it does. There's clearly no pecuniary
interest. Arguably, there's a personal interest, but censure doesn't
actually impact any rights or obligations. The real interest at stake
in a censure motion, in my view, is the interest of the body in
expressing its response to actions, not any personal interest of the
person censured. That is a common interest.
You pointed out that no one will vote for their own censure. I agree,
but why not? Idealistically speaking, it's because they would not
agree that the actions in question are harmful to the organization. If
they thought that, they wouldn't have taken them. But others can share
the same view, and a "no" vote is a perfectly reasonable way of
expressing that opinion - it's not unique to the person.
Other than that, I agree with your observation that censure is not
disciplinary action, which is why (regardless of bylaws) it does not
invoke any of the Chapter XX procedures. I don't think you reach the
question of trial procedures (on which I agree with Alicia that our
bylaws permit suspension as a motion) because censure is not
discipline. As a result, you fall back on the general provision: no
member of a body can ever lose their right to vote, unless the bylaws
say otherwise, except through a disciplinary action. Hence, I would
conclude that a member may vote on their own censure.
That's my take, anyway. As a purely "rules bound" matter, members can
vote whenever there is not a rule saying otherwise, but it's worthwhile
to look at the why, I agree.
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I am perplexed by the tone of this email chain.
It appears that the nonsensical opportunism that has been rampant
throughout our party has everyone on edge.
I don’t believe in rote memorization. I am trying to understand
the
“why” of this - it makes no sense. Blind adherence to RONR may
be our
rules but that doesn’t make it logical.
There is no agenda here other than me wanting to learn and
understand.
I’ll go join a RONR forum and not ask here in the future.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:14 PM Daniel Hayes
<[1][2]daniel.hayes at lp.org>
wrote:
That is not Authoritative. ONLY RONR 11th ed and Roberts in
brief
to a degree fit that. All other works are only persuasive at
best.
RONR is part of our rules. What someone thinks it should be is
not
what if necessarily is legally.
Daniel
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[2][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> 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][3][4]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][4][5]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][5][6]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][6][7]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][7][8]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][8][9]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][9][10]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[5][8][10][11]chair at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[6][9][11][12]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 3. mailto:[7]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 4. [8][10][12][13]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:[11][13][14]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[12][14][15]chair at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[13][15][16]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 4. [14][16][17]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 5. mailto:[15][17][18]chair at lp.org
>> 6. mailto:[16][18][19]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 7. mailto:[17]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 8. [18][19][20]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
> References
>
> 1. [20][21]https://www.kidlink.org/
docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 2. mailto:[21][22]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[22][23]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 4. mailto:[23][24]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:[24][25]chair at lp.org
> 6. mailto:[25][26]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 7. [26][27]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 8. mailto:[27][28]chair at lp.org
> 9. mailto:[28][29]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 10. [29][30]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 11. mailto:[30][31]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 12. mailto:[31][32]chair at lp.org
> 13. mailto:[32][33]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 14. [33][34]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 15. mailto:[34][35]chair at lp.org
> 16. mailto:[35][36]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 17. mailto:[36]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 18. [37][37]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[38]daniel.hayes at lp.org
2. mailto:[39]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. [40]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
4. mailto:[41]daniel.hayes at lp.org
5. mailto:[42]planning4liberty at gmail.com
6. mailto:[43]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:[44]chair at lp.org
8. mailto:[45]carynannharlos at gmail.com
9. [46]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
10. mailto:[47]chair at lp.org
11. mailto:[48]carynannharlos at gmail.com
12. [49]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
13. mailto:[50]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
14. mailto:[51]chair at lp.org
15. mailto:[52]carynannharlos at gmail.com
16. [53]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
17. mailto:[54]chair at lp.org
18. mailto:[55]carynannharlos at gmail.com
19. [56]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
20. [57]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
21. mailto:[58]daniel.hayes at lp.org
22. mailto:[59]planning4liberty at gmail.com
23. mailto:[60]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
24. mailto:[61]chair at lp.org
25. mailto:[62]carynannharlos at gmail.com
26. [63]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
27. mailto:[64]chair at lp.org
28. mailto:[65]carynannharlos at gmail.com
29. [66]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
30. mailto:[67]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
31. mailto:[68]chair at lp.org
32. mailto:[69]carynannharlos at gmail.com
33. [70]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
34. mailto:[71]chair at lp.org
35. mailto:[72]carynannharlos at gmail.com
36. mailto:[73]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
37. [74]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
5. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
6. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:chair at lp.org
9. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
10. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
11. mailto:chair at lp.org
12. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
13. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
14. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
15. mailto:chair at lp.org
16. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
17. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
18. mailto:chair at lp.org
19. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
20. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
21. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
22. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
23. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
24. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
25. mailto:chair at lp.org
26. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
27. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
28. mailto:chair at lp.org
29. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
30. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
31. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
32. mailto:chair at lp.org
33. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
34. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
35. mailto:chair at lp.org
36. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
38. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
39. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
40. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
41. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
42. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
43. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
44. mailto:chair at lp.org
45. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
46. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
47. mailto:chair at lp.org
48. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
49. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
50. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
51. mailto:chair at lp.org
52. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
53. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
54. mailto:chair at lp.org
55. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
56. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
57. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
58. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
59. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
60. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
61. mailto:chair at lp.org
62. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
63. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
64. mailto:chair at lp.org
65. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
66. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
67. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
68. mailto:chair at lp.org
69. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
70. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
71. mailto:chair at lp.org
72. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
73. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
74. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list