[Lnc-business] Note about our electronic meeting
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Mon Feb 5 18:38:41 EST 2018
That makes sense Joshua but still odd.
I note that Chair Wylie did vote yes on the no confidence vote against him.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:37 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
That makes sense Joshua but still odd.
I note that Chair Wylie did vote yes on the no confidence vote against
him.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:37 PM Daniel Hayes <[1]daniel.hayes at lp.org>
wrote:
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
<[2]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][3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]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][10]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][11]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][12]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>> References
>>> 1. mailto:[5][8][10][11][13]chair at lp.org
>>> 2. mailto:[6][9][11][12][14]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>> 3. mailto:[7]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> 4. [8][10][12][13][15]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>> 1. mailto:[11][13][14][16]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>>> 2. mailto:[12][14][15][17]chair at lp.org
>>> 3. mailto:[13][15][16][18]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>> 4. [14][16][17][19]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>> 5. mailto:[15][17][18][20]chair at lp.org
>>> 6. mailto:[16][18][19][21]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>> 7. mailto:[17]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> 8. [18][19][20][22]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. [20][21][23]https://www.kidlink.org/
> docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> 2. mailto:[21][22][24]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[22][23][25]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 4. mailto:[23][24][26]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:[24][25][27]chair at lp.org
>> 6. mailto:[25][26][28]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 7. [26][27][29]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 8. mailto:[27][28][30]chair at lp.org
>> 9. mailto:[28][29][31]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 10. [29][30][32]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 11. mailto:[30][31][33]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 12. mailto:[31][32][34]chair at lp.org
>> 13. mailto:[32][33][35]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 14. [33][34][36]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 15. mailto:[34][35][37]chair at lp.org
>> 16. mailto:[35][36][38]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 17. mailto:[36]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 18. [37][37][39]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> References
> 1. mailto:[38][40]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[39][41]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3.
[40][42]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 4. mailto:[41][43]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 5. mailto:[42][44]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 6. mailto:[43][45]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. mailto:[44][46]chair at lp.org
> 8. mailto:[45][47]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 9. [46][48]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 10. mailto:[47][49]chair at lp.org
> 11. mailto:[48][50]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 12. [49][51]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 13. mailto:[50][52]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 14. mailto:[51][53]chair at lp.org
> 15. mailto:[52][54]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 16. [53][55]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 17. mailto:[54][56]chair at lp.org
> 18. mailto:[55][57]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 19. [56][58]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 20.
[57][59]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 21. mailto:[58][60]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 22. mailto:[59][61]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 23. mailto:[60][62]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 24. mailto:[61][63]chair at lp.org
> 25. mailto:[62][64]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 26. [63][65]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 27. mailto:[64][66]chair at lp.org
> 28. mailto:[65][67]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 29. [66][68]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 30. mailto:[67][69]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 31. mailto:[68][70]chair at lp.org
> 32. mailto:[69][71]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 33. [70][72]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 34. mailto:[71][73]chair at lp.org
> 35. mailto:[72][74]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 36. mailto:[73]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 37. [74][75]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[76]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[77]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[78]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 4. [79]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 5. mailto:[80]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 6. mailto:[81]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 7. mailto:[82]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 8. mailto:[83]chair at lp.org
> 9. mailto:[84]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 10. [85]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 11. mailto:[86]chair at lp.org
> 12. mailto:[87]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 13. [88]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 14. mailto:[89]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 15. mailto:[90]chair at lp.org
> 16. mailto:[91]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 17. [92]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 18. mailto:[93]chair at lp.org
> 19. mailto:[94]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 20. [95]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 21. [96]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 22. mailto:[97]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 23. mailto:[98]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 24. mailto:[99]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 25. mailto:[100]chair at lp.org
> 26. mailto:[101]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 27. [102]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 28. mailto:[103]chair at lp.org
> 29. mailto:[104]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 30. [105]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 31. mailto:[106]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 32. mailto:[107]chair at lp.org
> 33. mailto:[108]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 34. [109]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 35. mailto:[110]chair at lp.org
> 36. mailto:[111]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 37. [112]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 38. mailto:[113]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 39. mailto:[114]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 40. [115]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 41. mailto:[116]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 42. mailto:[117]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 43. mailto:[118]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 44. mailto:[119]chair at lp.org
> 45. mailto:[120]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 46. [121]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 47. mailto:[122]chair at lp.org
> 48. mailto:[123]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 49. [124]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 50. mailto:[125]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 51. mailto:[126]chair at lp.org
> 52. mailto:[127]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 53. [128]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 54. mailto:[129]chair at lp.org
> 55. mailto:[130]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 56. [131]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 57. [132]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 58. mailto:[133]daniel.hayes at lp.org
> 59. mailto:[134]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 60. mailto:[135]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 61. mailto:[136]chair at lp.org
> 62. mailto:[137]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 63. [138]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 64. mailto:[139]chair at lp.org
> 65. mailto:[140]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 66. [141]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 67. mailto:[142]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 68. mailto:[143]chair at lp.org
> 69. mailto:[144]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 70. [145]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 71. mailto:[146]chair at lp.org
> 72. mailto:[147]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 73. mailto:[148]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 74. [149]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
2. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
4. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
7. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
8. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
10. mailto:chair at lp.org
11. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
12. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
13. mailto:chair at lp.org
14. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
15. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
16. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
17. mailto:chair at lp.org
18. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
19. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
20. mailto:chair at lp.org
21. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
22. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
23. https://www.kidlink.org/
24. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
25. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
27. mailto:chair at lp.org
28. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
29. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
30. mailto:chair at lp.org
31. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
32. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
33. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
34. mailto:chair at lp.org
35. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
36. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
37. mailto:chair at lp.org
38. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
39. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
40. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
41. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
42. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
43. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
44. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
45. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
46. mailto:chair at lp.org
47. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
48. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
49. mailto:chair at lp.org
50. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
51. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
52. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
53. mailto:chair at lp.org
54. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
55. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
56. mailto:chair at lp.org
57. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
58. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
59. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
60. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
61. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
62. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
63. mailto:chair at lp.org
64. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
65. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
66. mailto:chair at lp.org
67. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
68. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
69. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
70. mailto:chair at lp.org
71. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
72. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
73. mailto:chair at lp.org
74. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
75. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
76. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
77. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
78. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
79. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
80. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
81. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
82. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
83. mailto:chair at lp.org
84. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
85. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
86. mailto:chair at lp.org
87. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
88. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
89. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
90. mailto:chair at lp.org
91. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
92. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
93. mailto:chair at lp.org
94. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
95. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
96. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
97. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
98. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
99. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
100. mailto:chair at lp.org
101. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
102. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
103. mailto:chair at lp.org
104. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
105. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
106. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
107. mailto:chair at lp.org
108. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
109. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
110. mailto:chair at lp.org
111. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
112. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
113. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
114. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
115. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
116. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
117. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
118. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
119. mailto:chair at lp.org
120. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
121. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
122. mailto:chair at lp.org
123. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
124. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
125. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
126. mailto:chair at lp.org
127. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
128. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
129. mailto:chair at lp.org
130. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
131. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
132. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
133. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
134. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
135. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
136. mailto:chair at lp.org
137. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
138. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
139. mailto:chair at lp.org
140. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
141. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
142. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
143. mailto:chair at lp.org
144. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
145. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
146. mailto:chair at lp.org
147. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
148. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
149. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list