[Lnc-business] Note about our electronic meeting
david.demarest at lp.org
david.demarest at lp.org
Tue Feb 6 08:43:36 EST 2018
I appreciate the concerted efforts to properly define and interpret our rules, which, in this case, are certainly more than mere hair-splitting. However, I would keep in mind that our rules, regardless of whether they are based on RONR, are a best effort to codify moral law, including objective right versus wrong, fairness, and a level playing field. Rules not derived from a moral base are a danger. When faced with a decision based on rules, I first ask myself, what are the relevant logical moral issues and standards? Rules must be derived from moral law, not the reverse, as amply demonstrated by the general success of human survival, despite statist interference, based on the former, and the horrific consequences of statist applications of the latter.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt Demarest
-----Original Message-----
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Katz
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 10:32 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Note about our electronic meeting
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.
>
>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list