[Lnc-business] Note about our electronic meeting
Daniel Hayes
daniel.hayes at lp.org
Mon Feb 5 17:37:30 EST 2018
Caryn Ann,
I was trying to get you to site that specific passage from RONR so we could parse it out. I wasn’t being a jerk, more than Parliamentary Procedure normally allows for.
It is common that when someone makes a claim that a citation is requested. I expected that you were referencing that section Joshua mentioned regarding pecuniary interest. If you notice he used the language from Roberts. I don’t have MY copy at hand to cite. It does use the word “should” and not “shall” or “must”. It might seem reasonable that a person recuse their self but why? Have they been convicted? Because they are accused why do they lose their right to vote and represent those that selected them for the office?
As to using other texts. I stand by what I said, I am pretty sure I got that language either from RONR or “Dan”(read the authors on the book). Both are generally considered the final word. That said, I can’t cite it so don’t consider this authoritative.😇
Sorry if it came off the wrong way.
Daniel
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 3:45 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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