[Lnc-business] Note about our electronic meeting
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Mon Feb 5 23:32:17 EST 2018
Tim, since you asked, I'll try to be a little more precise with my
language. It might have some elements of discipline to it (although I
maintain, as I said before, that unlike discipline, it is aimed at the
action, not the person), and maybe I should have said it doesn't share
disciplinary procedures. See, for instance, p. 125, l. 19 ("Since the
motion to ratify (or to censure)..."). In context, that passage is about
amending a ratification motion to a censure motion. Clearly, no
disciplinary procedure is called for in a motion to ratify, and if censure
can be substituted, it seems no disciplinary procedure is called for when
considering the main motion to censure. The same example is discussed in
more detail on p. 137.
On page 344, we find "Except as may be necessary in the case of a motion of
censure or a motion related to disciplinary procedures, a motion must not
use language that reflects on a member's conduct or character..." If a
censure were a disciplinary procedure, there would be no need for the
disjunction here, it could just say "disciplinary procedures."
Most importantly, see page 643, l. 13, and the footnote thereto: "It is
also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary
procedures." Certainly, an organization could follow Chapter XX procedures
and then, at the remedy stage, decide to simply impose a censure. However,
the point of the footnote is that a censure is also in order as an ordinary
main motion without a trial procedure.
It is this final point which explains the quote on p. 668. When a
disciplinary procedure is used, censure is one possible outcome. This is,
though, not the only way to reach censure.
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan at lp.org> wrote:
> Now that we've dived down the RONR rabbit hole, I question the comment
> below, "censure is not disciplinary action". Same as Caryn Ann, I'm asking
> just to understand.
>
> RONR page 668 says, "The usual possible penalties for an officer are
> censure or removal from office, although in special circumstances others
> may be appropriate." This is in Chapter XX, Disciplinary Procedures. Even
> though a censure does not cost the member something tangible like a fine or
> removal from office would, I see it as being disciplinary action, similar
> to the way Hester Prynne was disciplined by having to wear a scarlet letter.
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
> On 2018-02-05 17:05, Joshua Katz wrote:
>
>> I was speaking about the personal or pecuniary interest not in common
>> language. Chapter 20 describes a disciplinary process, and the general
>> rule is that rights can only be lost by a disciplinary process.
>> I can see advantages and disadvantages of that change. I think I'd
>> lean against it, personally.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>> <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think our Bylaws should be that high threshold if the entire
>> LNC
>> minus the officer in question- they don’t say that but I think
>> they
>> should.
>> And I don’t think it’s internalky consistent as chapter 20 does
>> deny a
>> member the right to vote in deciding IF discipline is necessary -
>> ie
>> prior to any discipline
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:10 PM Joshua Katz
>> <[1][2]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Like I said, it doesn't require it because the basic assumption
>> is that
>> rights can only be lost via a disciplinary process unless the
>> organization's bylaws say otherwise (or higher rules). You
>> might
>> not
>> like it (there are some places I think RONR gets it wrong), but
>> I
>> think
>> it is internally consistent on this point. When it matters
>> enough,
>> organizations tend to adopt rules, or governments tend to write
>> laws
>> (for instance, neighborhood association memberships when
>> serving
>> on a
>> land use board).
>> On the suspension vote, I would point out that it doesn't
>> matter
>> at all
>> (assuming the person votes no). Recusal is the same as
>> abstention, and
>> our rules set the threshold as based on the entire membership,
>> not
>> those voting. When the threshold is based on the entire
>> membership, an
>> abstention is equivalent to a no (or, to put it another way,
>> there is
>> no such thing, mathematically, as abstaining). In such a vote,
>> all
>> you're doing is counting how many yes votes you get.
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>
>> <[1][2][3]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>> Ahhhh no the pecuniary interest is from a totally separate
>> thing
>> involving Oregon. Nothing at all to do with here. There
>> is
>> nothing to
>> do with pecuniary interest here. I learned then that RONR
>> did
>> not
>> require recusal (the member did later voluntarily recuse).
>> I was just pointing out now I see two areas where RONR
>> makes
>> no
>> sense
>> (IMHO).
>> And for the suspension vote it really makes no sense. The
>> threshold is
>> already high (and of the ENTIRE LNC) with at least one
>> nearlay
>> certain
>> no.
>> Where I got a bad vibe Daniel was the comment about
>> members
>> making
>> things mean what they want. I know some members are
>> freaking out
>> over
>> this and I felt like there was an implication that I was
>> putting
>> on an
>> innocent face while really stirring that pot. Which I’m
>> not.
>> I’ve
>> been studying RONR daily for a bit now and wanted to
>> understand.
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:38 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
>>
>> <[1][2][3][4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>> 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
>> <[2][3][4][5]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
>>
>> <[3][4][5][6]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][4][5][6][7]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][5][6][7][8]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][6][7][8][9]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][7][8][9][10]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][8][9][10][11]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][9][10][11][12]planning4
>> liberty 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][10][11][12][13]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][11][12][13][14]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][12][13][14][15]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][13][14][15][16]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >>> References
>> >>> 1. mailto:[5][8][10][11][14][15][
>> 16][17]chair at lp.org
>> >>> 2. mailto:[6][9][11][12][15][16]caryn
>> [17][18]annharlos at gmail.com
>> >>> 3. mailto:[7]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> >>> 4.
>> [8][10][12][13][16][17][18][19]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >>>
>> >>> References
>> >>>
>> >>> 1.
>> mailto:[11][13][14][17][18][19][20]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> >>> 2. mailto:[12][14][15][18][19][
>> 20][21]chair at lp.org
>> >>> 3.
>> mailto:[13][15][16][19][20][21][22]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >>> 4. [14][16][17][20][21][22][23]http:/
>> /www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >>> 5. mailto:[15][17][18][21][22][
>> 23][24]chair at lp.org
>> >>> 6.
>> mailto:[16][18][19][22][23][24][25]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >>> 7. mailto:[17]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> >>> 8. [18][19][20][23][24][25][26]http:/
>> /www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >>
>> >> References
>> >>
>> >> 1. [20][21][24][25][26][27]https://
>> www.kidlink.org/
>> > docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> >> 2. mailto:[21][22][25][26][27][28]dan
>> iel.hayes at lp.org
>> >> 3.
>> mailto:[22][23][26][27][28][29]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> >> 4. mailto:[23][24][27][28][29][30]car
>> yn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> >> 5. mailto:[24][25][28][29][30][31]chair at lp.org
>> >> 6. mailto:[25][26][29][30][31][32]car
>> ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >> 7. [26][27][30][31][32][33]http://
>> www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >> 8. mailto:[27][28][31][32][33][34]chair at lp.org
>> >> 9. mailto:[28][29][32][33][34][35]car
>> ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >> 10. [29][30][33][34][35][36]http://
>> www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >> 11. mailto:[30][31][34][35][36][37]car
>> yn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> >> 12. mailto:[31][32][35][36][37][38]chair at lp.org
>> >> 13. mailto:[32][33][36][37][38][39]car
>> ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >> 14. [33][34][37][38][39][40]http://
>> www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >> 15. mailto:[34][35][38][39][40][41]chair at lp.org
>> >> 16. mailto:[35][36][39][40][41][42]car
>> ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >> 17. mailto:[36]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> >> 18. [37][37][40][41][42][43]http://
>> www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > References
>> > 1. mailto:[38][41][42][43][44]daniel.
>> hayes at lp.org
>> > 2. mailto:[39][42][43][44][45]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 3.
>> [40][43][44][45][46]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/
>> chap15.
>> html
>> > 4. mailto:[41][44][45][46][47]daniel.
>> hayes at lp.org
>> > 5.
>> mailto:[42][45][46][47][48]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> > 6. mailto:[43][46][47][48][49]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 7. mailto:[44][47][48][49][50]chair at lp.org
>> > 8.
>> mailto:[45][48][49][50][51]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 9. [46][49][50][51][52]http://www.
>> lpcolorado.org/
>> > 10. mailto:[47][50][51][52][53]chair at lp.org
>> > 11.
>> mailto:[48][51][52][53][54]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 12. [49][52][53][54][55]http://www.
>> lpcolorado.org/
>> > 13. mailto:[50][53][54][55][56]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 14. mailto:[51][54][55][56][57]chair at lp.org
>> > 15.
>> mailto:[52][55][56][57][58]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 16. [53][56][57][58][59]http://www.
>> lpcolorado.org/
>> > 17. mailto:[54][57][58][59][60]chair at lp.org
>> > 18.
>> mailto:[55][58][59][60][61]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 19. [56][59][60][61][62]http://www.
>> lpcolorado.org/
>> > 20.
>> [57][60][61][62][63]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/
>> chap15.
>> html
>> > 21. mailto:[58][61][62][63][64]daniel.
>> hayes at lp.org
>> > 22.
>> mailto:[59][62][63][64][65]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> > 23. mailto:[60][63][64][65][66]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 24. mailto:[61][64][65][66][67]chair at lp.org
>> > 25.
>> mailto:[62][65][66][67][68]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 26. [63][66][67][68][69]http://www.
>> lpcolorado.org/
>> > 27. mailto:[64][67][68][69][70]chair at lp.org
>> > 28.
>> mailto:[65][68][69][70][71]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 29. [66][69][70][71][72]http://www.
>> lpcolorado.org/
>> > 30. mailto:[67][70][71][72][73]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 31. mailto:[68][71][72][73][74]chair at lp.org
>> > 32.
>> mailto:[69][72][73][74][75]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 33. [70][73][74][75][76]http://www.
>> lpcolorado.org/
>> > 34. mailto:[71][74][75][76][77]chair at lp.org
>> > 35.
>> mailto:[72][75][76][77][78]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 36. mailto:[73]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> > 37. [74][76][77][78][79]http://www.
>> lpcolorado.org/
>> >
>> > References
>> >
>> > 1. mailto:[77][78][79][80]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 2. mailto:[78][79][80][81]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> > 3. mailto:[79][80][81][82]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 4. [80][81][82][83]https://www.kidlink.org/
>> docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> > 5. mailto:[81][82][83][84]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> > 6. mailto:[82][83][84][85]planning4li
>> berty at gmail.com
>> > 7. mailto:[83][84][85][86]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 8. mailto:[84][85][86][87]chair at lp.org
>> > 9. mailto:[85][86][87][88]carynannhar
>> los at gmail.com
>> > 10. [86][87][88][89]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 11. mailto:[87][88][89][90]chair at lp.org
>> > 12. mailto:[88][89][90][91]carynannhar
>> los at gmail.com
>> > 13. [89][90][91][92]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 14. mailto:[90][91][92][93]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 15. mailto:[91][92][93][94]chair at lp.org
>> > 16. mailto:[92][93][94][95]carynannhar
>> los at gmail.com
>> > 17. [93][94][95][96]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 18. mailto:[94][95][96][97]chair at lp.org
>> > 19. mailto:[95][96][97][98]carynannhar
>> los at gmail.com
>> > 20. [96][97][98][99]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 21. [97][98][99][100]https://www.kidlink.org/
>> docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> > 22. mailto:[98][99][100][101]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> > 23. mailto:[99][100][101][102]planning4
>> liberty at gmail.com
>> > 24. mailto:[100][101][102][103]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 25. mailto:[101][102][103][104]chair at lp.org
>> > 26. mailto:[102][103][104][105]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 27. [103][104][105][106]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 28. mailto:[104][105][106][107]chair at lp.org
>> > 29. mailto:[105][106][107][108]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 30. [106][107][108][109]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 31. mailto:[107][108][109][110]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 32. mailto:[108][109][110][111]chair at lp.org
>> > 33. mailto:[109][110][111][112]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 34. [110][111][112][113]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 35. mailto:[111][112][113][114]chair at lp.org
>> > 36. mailto:[112][113][114][115]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 37. [113][114][115][116]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 38. mailto:[114][115][116][117]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> > 39. mailto:[115][116][117][118]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 40. [116][117][118][119]https://www.kidlink.org/
>> docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> > 41. mailto:[117][118][119][120]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> > 42. mailto:[118][119][120][121]planning
>> 4liberty at gmail.com
>> > 43. mailto:[119][120][121][122]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 44. mailto:[120][121][122][123]chair at lp.org
>> > 45. mailto:[121][122][123][124]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 46. [122][123][124][125]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 47. mailto:[123][124][125][126]chair at lp.org
>> > 48. mailto:[124][125][126][127]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 49. [125][126][127][128]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 50. mailto:[126][127][128][129]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 51. mailto:[127][128][129][130]chair at lp.org
>> > 52. mailto:[128][129][130][131]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 53. [129][130][131][132]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 54. mailto:[130][131][132][133]chair at lp.org
>> > 55. mailto:[131][132][133][134]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 56. [132][133][134][135]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 57. [133][134][135][136]https://www.kidlink.org/
>> docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> > 58. mailto:[134][135][136][137]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> > 59. mailto:[135][136][137][138]planning
>> 4liberty at gmail.com
>> > 60. mailto:[136][137][138][139]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 61. mailto:[137][138][139][140]chair at lp.org
>> > 62. mailto:[138][139][140][141]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 63. [139][140][141][142]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 64. mailto:[140][141][142][143]chair at lp.org
>> > 65. mailto:[141][142][143][144]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 66. [142][143][144][145]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 67. mailto:[143][144][145][146]caryn.
>> ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 68. mailto:[144][145][146][147]chair at lp.org
>> > 69. mailto:[145][146][147][148]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 70. [146][147][148][149]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 71. mailto:[147][148][149][150]chair at lp.org
>> > 72. mailto:[148][149][150][151]carynann
>> harlos at gmail.com
>> > 73. mailto:[149]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> > 74. [150][150][151][152]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[151][152][153]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[152][153][154]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[153][154][155]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 4. mailto:[154][155][156]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:[155][156][157]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 6. mailto:[156][157][158]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 7.
>> [157][158][159]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.
>> html
>> 8. mailto:[158][159][160]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 9. mailto:[159][160][161]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 10. mailto:[160][161][162]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 11. mailto:[161][162][163]chair at lp.org
>> 12. mailto:[162][163][164]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 13. [163][164][165]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 14. mailto:[164][165][166]chair at lp.org
>> 15. mailto:[165][166][167]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 16. [166][167][168]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 17. mailto:[167][168][169]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 18. mailto:[168][169][170]chair at lp.org
>> 19. mailto:[169][170][171]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 20. [170][171][172]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 21. mailto:[171][172][173]chair at lp.org
>> 22. mailto:[172][173][174]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 23. [173][174][175]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 24. [174][175][176]https://www.kidlink.org/
>> 25. mailto:[175][176][177]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 26. mailto:[176][177][178]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 27. mailto:[177][178][179]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 28. mailto:[178][179][180]chair at lp.org
>> 29. mailto:[179][180][181]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 30. [180][181][182]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 31. mailto:[181][182][183]chair at lp.org
>> 32. mailto:[182][183][184]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 33. [183][184][185]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 34. mailto:[184][185][186]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 35. mailto:[185][186][187]chair at lp.org
>> 36. mailto:[186][187][188]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 37. [187][188][189]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 38. mailto:[188][189][190]chair at lp.org
>> 39. mailto:[189][190][191]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 40. [190][191][192]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 41. mailto:[191][192][193]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 42. mailto:[192][193][194]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 43.
>> [193][194][195]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.
>> html
>> 44. mailto:[194][195][196]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 45. mailto:[195][196][197]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 46. mailto:[196][197][198]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 47. mailto:[197][198][199]chair at lp.org
>> 48. mailto:[198][199][200]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 49. [199][200][201]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 50. mailto:[200][201][202]chair at lp.org
>> 51. mailto:[201][202][203]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 52. [202][203][204]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 53. mailto:[203][204][205]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 54. mailto:[204][205][206]chair at lp.org
>> 55. mailto:[205][206][207]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 56. [206][207][208]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 57. mailto:[207][208][209]chair at lp.org
>> 58. mailto:[208][209][210]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 59. [209][210][211]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 60.
>> [210][211][212]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
Tim, since you asked, I'll try to be a little more precise with my
language. It might have some elements of discipline to it (although I
maintain, as I said before, that unlike discipline, it is aimed at the
action, not the person), and maybe I should have said it doesn't share
disciplinary procedures. See, for instance, p. 125, l. 19 ("Since the
motion to ratify (or to censure)..."). In context, that passage is
about amending a ratification motion to a censure motion. Clearly, no
disciplinary procedure is called for in a motion to ratify, and if
censure can be substituted, it seems no disciplinary procedure is
called for when considering the main motion to censure. The same
example is discussed in more detail on p. 137.
On page 344, we find "Except as may be necessary in the case of a
motion of censure or a motion related to disciplinary procedures, a
motion must not use language that reflects on a member's conduct or
character..." If a censure were a disciplinary procedure, there would
be no need for the disjunction here, it could just say "disciplinary
procedures."
Most importantly, see page 643, l. 13, and the footnote thereto: "It is
also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary
procedures." Certainly, an organization could follow Chapter XX
procedures and then, at the remedy stage, decide to simply impose a
censure. However, the point of the footnote is that a censure is also
in order as an ordinary main motion without a trial procedure.
It is this final point which explains the quote on p. 668. When a
disciplinary procedure is used, censure is one possible outcome. This
is, though, not the only way to reach censure.
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Tim Hagan <[1]tim.hagan at lp.org> wrote:
Now that we've dived down the RONR rabbit hole, I question the
comment below, "censure is not disciplinary action". Same as Caryn
Ann, I'm asking just to understand.
RONR page 668 says, "The usual possible penalties for an officer are
censure or removal from office, although in special circumstances
others may be appropriate." This is in Chapter XX, Disciplinary
Procedures. Even though a censure does not cost the member something
tangible like a fine or removal from office would, I see it as being
disciplinary action, similar to the way Hester Prynne was
disciplined by having to wear a scarlet letter.
---
Tim Hagan
Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2018-02-05 17:05, Joshua Katz wrote:
I was speaking about the personal or pecuniary interest not in
common
language. Chapter 20 describes a disciplinary process, and the
general
rule is that rights can only be lost by a disciplinary process.
I can see advantages and disadvantages of that change. I think
I'd
lean against it, personally.
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I think our Bylaws should be that high threshold if the
entire
LNC
minus the officer in question- they don’t say that but I
think
they
should.
And I don’t think it’s internalky consistent as chapter 20
does
deny a
member the right to vote in deciding IF discipline is
necessary -
ie
prior to any discipline
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:10 PM Joshua Katz
<[1][2][3]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
Like I said, it doesn't require it because the basic
assumption
is that
rights can only be lost via a disciplinary process unless
the
organization's bylaws say otherwise (or higher rules).
You
might
not
like it (there are some places I think RONR gets it
wrong), but
I
think
it is internally consistent on this point. When it
matters
enough,
organizations tend to adopt rules, or governments tend to
write
laws
(for instance, neighborhood association memberships when
serving
on a
land use board).
On the suspension vote, I would point out that it doesn't
matter
at all
(assuming the person votes no). Recusal is the same as
abstention, and
our rules set the threshold as based on the entire
membership,
not
those voting. When the threshold is based on the entire
membership, an
abstention is equivalent to a no (or, to put it another
way,
there is
no such thing, mathematically, as abstaining). In such a
vote,
all
you're doing is counting how many yes votes you get.
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][2][3][4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Ahhhh no the pecuniary interest is from a totally
separate
thing
involving Oregon. Nothing at all to do with here.
There
is
nothing to
do with pecuniary interest here. I learned then
that RONR
did
not
require recusal (the member did later voluntarily
recuse).
I was just pointing out now I see two areas where
RONR
makes
no
sense
(IMHO).
And for the suspension vote it really makes no
sense. The
threshold is
already high (and of the ENTIRE LNC) with at least
one
nearlay
certain
no.
Where I got a bad vibe Daniel was the comment about
members
making
things mean what they want. I know some members are
freaking out
over
this and I felt like there was an implication that I
was
putting
on an
innocent face while really stirring that pot. Which
I’m
not.
I’ve
been studying RONR daily for a bit now and wanted to
understand.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:38 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1][2][3][4][5]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
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
<[2][3][4][5][6]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
<[3][4][5][6][7]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][4][5][6][7][8]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][5][6][7][8][9]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][6][7][8][9][10]caryn.ann.h
arlos 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][7][8][9][10][11]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][8][9][10][11]daniel.
[12]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][9][10][11][12]planning4
[13]liberty 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][10][11][12][13]caryn
.[14]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][11][12][13][
14][15]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][12][13][14][1
5][16]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][13][14][15][1
6][17]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>> References
>>> 1. mailto:[5][8][10][11][14][15][
16][17][18]chair at lp.org
>>> 2. mailto:[6][9][11][12][15][16]caryn
[17][18][19]annharlos at gmail.com
>>> 3. mailto:[7]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> 4.
[8][10][12][13][16][17][18][19
][20]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>> 1.
mailto:[11][13][14][17][18][19
][20][21]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>>> 2. mailto:[12][14][15][18][19][
20][21][22]chair at lp.org
>>> 3.
mailto:[13][15][16][19][20][21
][22][23]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>> 4. [14][16][17][20][21][22][23]http:/
/[24]www.lpcolorado.org/
>>> 5. mailto:[15][17][18][21][22][
23][24][25]chair at lp.org
>>> 6.
mailto:[16][18][19][22][23][24
][25][26]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>>> 7. mailto:[17]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>> 8. [18][19][20][23][24][25][26]http:/
/[27]www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. [20][21][24][25][26][27]https://
[28]www.kidlink.org/
> docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> 2. mailto:[21][22][25][26][27][28]dan
[29]iel.hayes at lp.org
>> 3.
mailto:[22][23][26][27][28][29
][30]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> 4. mailto:[23][24][27][28][29][30]car
[31]yn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:[24][25][28][29][30][31
][32]chair at lp.org
>> 6. mailto:[25][26][29][30][31][32]car
[33]ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 7. [26][27][30][31][32][33]http://
[34]www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 8. mailto:[27][28][31][32][33][34
][35]chair at lp.org
>> 9. mailto:[28][29][32][33][34][35]car
[36]ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 10. [29][30][33][34][35][36]http://
[37]www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 11. mailto:[30][31][34][35][36][37]car
[38]yn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 12. mailto:[31][32][35][36][37][38
][39]chair at lp.org
>> 13. mailto:[32][33][36][37][38][39]car
[40]ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 14. [33][34][37][38][39][40]http://
[41]www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 15. mailto:[34][35][38][39][40][41
][42]chair at lp.org
>> 16. mailto:[35][36][39][40][41][42]car
[43]ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> 17. mailto:[36]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 18. [37][37][40][41][42][43]http://
[44]www.lpcolorado.org/
> References
> 1. mailto:[38][41][42][43][44]daniel.
[45]hayes at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[39][42][43][44][45]caryn.
[46]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3.
[40][43][44][45][46][47]https://ww
w.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/
chap15.
html
> 4. mailto:[41][44][45][46][47]daniel.
[48]hayes at lp.org
> 5.
mailto:[42][45][46][47][48][49]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 6. mailto:[43][46][47][48][49]caryn.
[50]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 7. mailto:[44][47][48][49][50][51]cha
ir at lp.org
> 8.
mailto:[45][48][49][50][51][52]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 9. [46][49][50][51][52][53]http://www.
[54]lpcolorado.org/
> 10. mailto:[47][50][51][52][53][55]cha
ir at lp.org
> 11.
mailto:[48][51][52][53][54][56]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 12. [49][52][53][54][55][57]http://www.
[58]lpcolorado.org/
> 13. mailto:[50][53][54][55][56]caryn.
[59]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 14. mailto:[51][54][55][56][57][60]cha
ir at lp.org
> 15.
mailto:[52][55][56][57][58][61]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 16. [53][56][57][58][59][62]http://www.
[63]lpcolorado.org/
> 17. mailto:[54][57][58][59][60][64]cha
ir at lp.org
> 18.
mailto:[55][58][59][60][61][65]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 19. [56][59][60][61][62][66]http://www.
[67]lpcolorado.org/
> 20.
[57][60][61][62][63][68]https://ww
w.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/
chap15.
html
> 21. mailto:[58][61][62][63][64]daniel.
[69]hayes at lp.org
> 22.
mailto:[59][62][63][64][65][70]planning4liberty at gmail.com
> 23. mailto:[60][63][64][65][66]caryn.
[71]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 24. mailto:[61][64][65][66][67][72]cha
ir at lp.org
> 25.
mailto:[62][65][66][67][68][73]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 26. [63][66][67][68][69][74]http://www.
[75]lpcolorado.org/
> 27. mailto:[64][67][68][69][70][76]cha
ir at lp.org
> 28.
mailto:[65][68][69][70][71][77]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 29. [66][69][70][71][72][78]http://www.
[79]lpcolorado.org/
> 30. mailto:[67][70][71][72][73]caryn.
[80]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 31. mailto:[68][71][72][73][74][81]cha
ir at lp.org
> 32.
mailto:[69][72][73][74][75][82]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 33. [70][73][74][75][76][83]http://www.
[84]lpcolorado.org/
> 34. mailto:[71][74][75][76][77][85]cha
ir at lp.org
> 35.
mailto:[72][75][76][77][78][86]carynannharlos at gmail.com
> 36. mailto:[73]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 37. [74][76][77][78][79][87]http://www.
[88]lpcolorado.org/
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:[77][78][79][80][89]caryn.a
nn.harlos at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[78][79][80][81][90]daniel.
hayes at lp.org
> 3. mailto:[79][80][81][82][91]caryn.a
nn.harlos at lp.org
> 4. [80][81][82][83][92]https://www.ki
dlink.org/
docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 5. mailto:[81][82][83][84][93]daniel.
hayes at lp.org
> 6. mailto:[82][83][84][85]planning4li
[94]berty at gmail.com
> 7. mailto:[83][84][85][86][95]caryn.a
nn.harlos at lp.org
> 8. mailto:[84][85][86][87][96]chair at lp.org
> 9. mailto:[85][86][87][88]carynannhar
[97]los at gmail.com
> 10. [86][87][88][89][98]http://www.lpc
olorado.org/
> 11. mailto:[87][88][89][90][99]chair at lp.org
> 12. mailto:[88][89][90][91]carynannhar
[100]los at gmail.com
> 13. [89][90][91][92][101]http://www.lpc
olorado.org/
> 14. mailto:[90][91][92][93][102]caryn.a
nn.harlos at lp.org
> 15. mailto:[91][92][93][94][103]chair at lp.org
> 16. mailto:[92][93][94][95]carynannhar
[104]los at gmail.com
> 17. [93][94][95][96][105]http://www.lpc
olorado.org/
> 18. mailto:[94][95][96][97][106]chair at lp.org
> 19. mailto:[95][96][97][98]carynannhar
[107]los at gmail.com
> 20. [96][97][98][99][108]http://www.lpc
olorado.org/
> 21. [97][98][99][100][109]https://www.k
idlink.org/
docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 22. mailto:[98][99][100][101][110]danie
l.hayes at lp.org
> 23. mailto:[99][100][101][102]planning4
[111]liberty at gmail.com
> 24. mailto:[100][101][102][103]caryn.
[112]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 25. mailto:[101][102][103][104][113]cha
ir at lp.org
> 26. mailto:[102][103][104][105]carynann
[114]harlos at gmail.com
> 27. [103][104][105][106][115]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 28. mailto:[104][105][106][107][116]cha
ir at lp.org
> 29. mailto:[105][106][107][108]carynann
[117]harlos at gmail.com
> 30. [106][107][108][109][118]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 31. mailto:[107][108][109][110]caryn.
[119]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 32. mailto:[108][109][110][111][120]cha
ir at lp.org
> 33. mailto:[109][110][111][112]carynann
[121]harlos at gmail.com
> 34. [110][111][112][113][122]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 35. mailto:[111][112][113][114][123]cha
ir at lp.org
> 36. mailto:[112][113][114][115]carynann
[124]harlos at gmail.com
> 37. [113][114][115][116][125]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 38. mailto:[114][115][116][117][126]dan
iel.hayes at lp.org
> 39. mailto:[115][116][117][118]caryn.
[127]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 40. [116][117][118][119][128]https://ww
w.kidlink.org/
docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 41. mailto:[117][118][119][120][129]dan
iel.hayes at lp.org
> 42. mailto:[118][119][120][121]planning
[130]4liberty at gmail.com
> 43. mailto:[119][120][121][122]caryn.
[131]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 44. mailto:[120][121][122][123][132]cha
ir at lp.org
> 45. mailto:[121][122][123][124]carynann
[133]harlos at gmail.com
> 46. [122][123][124][125][134]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 47. mailto:[123][124][125][126][135]cha
ir at lp.org
> 48. mailto:[124][125][126][127]carynann
[136]harlos at gmail.com
> 49. [125][126][127][128][137]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 50. mailto:[126][127][128][129]caryn.
[138]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 51. mailto:[127][128][129][130][139]cha
ir at lp.org
> 52. mailto:[128][129][130][131]carynann
[140]harlos at gmail.com
> 53. [129][130][131][132][141]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 54. mailto:[130][131][132][133][142]cha
ir at lp.org
> 55. mailto:[131][132][133][134]carynann
[143]harlos at gmail.com
> 56. [132][133][134][135][144]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 57. [133][134][135][136][145]https://ww
w.kidlink.org/
docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
> 58. mailto:[134][135][136][137][146]dan
iel.hayes at lp.org
> 59. mailto:[135][136][137][138]planning
[147]4liberty at gmail.com
> 60. mailto:[136][137][138][139]caryn.
[148]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 61. mailto:[137][138][139][140][149]cha
ir at lp.org
> 62. mailto:[138][139][140][141]carynann
[150]harlos at gmail.com
> 63. [139][140][141][142][151]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 64. mailto:[140][141][142][143][152]cha
ir at lp.org
> 65. mailto:[141][142][143][144]carynann
[153]harlos at gmail.com
> 66. [142][143][144][145][154]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 67. mailto:[143][144][145][146]caryn.
[155]ann.harlos at lp.org
> 68. mailto:[144][145][146][147][156]cha
ir at lp.org
> 69. mailto:[145][146][147][148]carynann
[157]harlos at gmail.com
> 70. [146][147][148][149][158]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
> 71. mailto:[147][148][149][150][159]cha
ir at lp.org
> 72. mailto:[148][149][150][151]carynann
[160]harlos at gmail.com
> 73. mailto:[149]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 74. [150][150][151][152][161]http://www
.lpcolorado.org/
References
1. mailto:[151][152][153][162]caryn.an
n.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:[152][153][154][163]daniel.hayes at lp.org
3. mailto:[153][154][155][164]planning
4liberty at gmail.com
4. mailto:[154][155][156][165]caryn.an
n.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:[155][156][157][166]daniel.hayes at lp.org
6. mailto:[156][157][158][167]caryn.an
n.harlos at lp.org
7.
[157][158][159][168]https://www.kid
link.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.
html
8. mailto:[158][159][160][169]daniel.hayes at lp.org
9. mailto:[159][160][161][170]planning
4liberty at gmail.com
10. mailto:[160][161][162][171]caryn.an
n.harlos at lp.org
11. mailto:[161][162][163][172]chair at lp.org
12. mailto:[162][163][164][173]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
13. [163][164][165][174]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
14. mailto:[164][165][166][175]chair at lp.org
15. mailto:[165][166][167][176]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
16. [166][167][168][177]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
17. mailto:[167][168][169][178]caryn.an
n.harlos at lp.org
18. mailto:[168][169][170][179]chair at lp.org
19. mailto:[169][170][171][180]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
20. [170][171][172][181]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
21. mailto:[171][172][173][182]chair at lp.org
22. mailto:[172][173][174][183]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
23. [173][174][175][184]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
24. [174][175][176][185]https://www.kidlink.org/
25. mailto:[175][176][177][186]daniel.hayes at lp.org
26. mailto:[176][177][178][187]planning
4liberty at gmail.com
27. mailto:[177][178][179][188]caryn.an
n.harlos at lp.org
28. mailto:[178][179][180][189]chair at lp.org
29. mailto:[179][180][181][190]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
30. [180][181][182][191]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
31. mailto:[181][182][183][192]chair at lp.org
32. mailto:[182][183][184][193]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
33. [183][184][185][194]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
34. mailto:[184][185][186][195]caryn.an
n.harlos at lp.org
35. mailto:[185][186][187][196]chair at lp.org
36. mailto:[186][187][188][197]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
37. [187][188][189][198]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
38. mailto:[188][189][190][199]chair at lp.org
39. mailto:[189][190][191][200]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
40. [190][191][192][201]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
41. mailto:[191][192][193][202]daniel.hayes at lp.org
42. mailto:[192][193][194][203]caryn.an
n.harlos at lp.org
43.
[193][194][195][204]https://www.kid
link.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.
html
44. mailto:[194][195][196][205]daniel.hayes at lp.org
45. mailto:[195][196][197][206]planning
4liberty at gmail.com
46. mailto:[196][197][198][207]caryn.an
n.harlos at lp.org
47. mailto:[197][198][199][208]chair at lp.org
48. mailto:[198][199][200][209]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
49. [199][200][201][210]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
50. mailto:[200][201][202][211]chair at lp.org
51. mailto:[201][202][203][212]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
52. [202][203][204][213]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
53. mailto:[203][204][205][214]caryn.an
n.harlos at lp.org
54. mailto:[204][205][206][215]chair at lp.org
55. mailto:[205][206][207][216]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
56. [206][207][208][217]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
57. mailto:[207][208][209][218]chair at lp.org
58. mailto:[208][209][210][219]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
59. [209][210][211][220]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
60.
[210][211][212][221]https://www.kid
link.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.
References
1. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
7. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
11. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/
12. mailto:hayes at lp.org
13. mailto:liberty at gmail.com
14. mailto: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:annharlos at gmail.com
20. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
21. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
22. mailto:chair at lp.org
23. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
24. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
25. mailto:chair at lp.org
26. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
27. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
28. http://www.kidlink.org/
29. mailto:iel.hayes at lp.org
30. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
31. mailto:yn.ann.harlos at lp.org
32. mailto:chair at lp.org
33. mailto:ynannharlos at gmail.com
34. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
35. mailto:chair at lp.org
36. mailto:ynannharlos at gmail.com
37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
38. mailto:yn.ann.harlos at lp.org
39. mailto:chair at lp.org
40. mailto:ynannharlos at gmail.com
41. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
42. mailto:chair at lp.org
43. mailto:ynannharlos at gmail.com
44. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
45. mailto:hayes at lp.org
46. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
47. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/
48. mailto:hayes at lp.org
49. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
50. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
51. mailto:chair at lp.org
52. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
53. http://www/
54. http://lpcolorado.org/
55. mailto:chair at lp.org
56. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
57. http://www/
58. http://lpcolorado.org/
59. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
60. mailto:chair at lp.org
61. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
62. http://www/
63. http://lpcolorado.org/
64. mailto:chair at lp.org
65. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
66. http://www/
67. http://lpcolorado.org/
68. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/
69. mailto:hayes at lp.org
70. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
71. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
72. mailto:chair at lp.org
73. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
74. http://www/
75. http://lpcolorado.org/
76. mailto:chair at lp.org
77. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
78. http://www/
79. http://lpcolorado.org/
80. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
81. mailto:chair at lp.org
82. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
83. http://www/
84. http://lpcolorado.org/
85. mailto:chair at lp.org
86. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
87. http://www/
88. http://lpcolorado.org/
89. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
90. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
91. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
92. https://www.kidlink.org/
93. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
94. mailto:berty at gmail.com
95. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
96. mailto:chair at lp.org
97. mailto:los at gmail.com
98. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
99. mailto:chair at lp.org
100. mailto:los at gmail.com
101. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
102. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
103. mailto:chair at lp.org
104. mailto:los at gmail.com
105. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
106. mailto:chair at lp.org
107. mailto:los at gmail.com
108. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
109. https://www.kidlink.org/
110. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
111. mailto:liberty at gmail.com
112. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
113. mailto:chair at lp.org
114. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
115. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
116. mailto:chair at lp.org
117. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
118. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
119. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
120. mailto:chair at lp.org
121. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
122. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
123. mailto:chair at lp.org
124. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
125. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
126. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
127. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
128. https://www.kidlink.org/
129. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
130. mailto:4liberty at gmail.com
131. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
132. mailto:chair at lp.org
133. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
134. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
135. mailto:chair at lp.org
136. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
137. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
138. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
139. mailto:chair at lp.org
140. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
141. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
142. mailto:chair at lp.org
143. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
144. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
145. https://www.kidlink.org/
146. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
147. mailto:4liberty at gmail.com
148. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
149. mailto:chair at lp.org
150. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
151. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
152. mailto:chair at lp.org
153. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
154. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
155. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
156. mailto:chair at lp.org
157. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
158. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
159. mailto:chair at lp.org
160. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
161. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
162. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
163. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
164. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
165. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
166. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
167. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
168. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15
169. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
170. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
171. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
172. mailto:chair at lp.org
173. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
174. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
175. mailto:chair at lp.org
176. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
177. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
178. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
179. mailto:chair at lp.org
180. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
181. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
182. mailto:chair at lp.org
183. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
184. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
185. https://www.kidlink.org/
186. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
187. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
188. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
189. mailto:chair at lp.org
190. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
191. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
192. mailto:chair at lp.org
193. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
194. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
195. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
196. mailto:chair at lp.org
197. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
198. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
199. mailto:chair at lp.org
200. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
201. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
202. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
203. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
204. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15
205. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
206. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
207. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
208. mailto:chair at lp.org
209. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
210. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
211. mailto:chair at lp.org
212. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
213. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
214. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
215. mailto:chair at lp.org
216. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
217. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
218. mailto:chair at lp.org
219. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
220. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
221. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list