[Lnc-business] Note about our electronic meeting
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Tue Feb 6 09:30:22 EST 2018
What do you think is the moral answer to this question? I incline towards
the view that a member accused is a member still, and think the moral
answer is to allow voting in all cases.
Regardless, I believe that a deeper moral basis is the right of human
beings to freely associate and, in so doing, to choose to adopt rules for
decisions to be made in the course of their association.
Joshua A. Katz
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:43 AM, <david.demarest at lp.org> wrote:
> 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]dan
> iel.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]dan
> iel.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]dan
> iel.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 --------------
What do you think is the moral answer to this question? I incline
towards the view that a member accused is a member still, and think the
moral answer is to allow voting in all cases.
Regardless, I believe that a deeper moral basis is the right of human
beings to freely associate and, in so doing, to choose to adopt rules
for decisions to be made in the course of their association.
Joshua A. Katz
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:43 AM, <[1]david.demarest at lp.org> wrote:
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:[2]lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf
Of Joshua Katz
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 10:32 PM
To: [3]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 <[4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]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][10]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][11]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][12]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][13]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][14]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.
>> [15]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
>> [16]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
>> .[17]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][18]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][19]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][20]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >>> References
>> >>> 1. mailto:[5][8][10][11][14][15][
>> 16][17][21]chair at lp.org
>> >>> 2. mailto:[6][9][11][12][15][16]caryn
>> [17][18][22]annharlos at gmail.com
>> >>> 3. mailto:[7]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> >>> 4.
>> [8][10][12][13][16][17][18][
19][23]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >>>
>> >>> References
>> >>>
>> >>> 1.
>> mailto:[11][13][14][17][18][
19][20][24]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> >>> 2. mailto:[12][14][15][18][19][
>> 20][21][25]chair at lp.org
>> >>> 3.
>> mailto:[13][15][16][19][20][
21][22][26]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >>> 4. [14][16][17][20][21][22][23]http:/
>> /[27]www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >>> 5. mailto:[15][17][18][21][22][
>> 23][24][28]chair at lp.org
>> >>> 6.
>> mailto:[16][18][19][22][23][
24][25][29]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >>> 7. mailto:[17]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> >>> 8. [18][19][20][23][24][25][26]http:/
>> /[30]www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >>
>> >> References
>> >>
>> >> 1. [20][21][24][25][26][27]https://
>> [31]www.kidlink.org/
>> > docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> >> 2. mailto:[21][22][25][26][27][28]dan
>> [32]iel.hayes at lp.org
>> >> 3.
>> mailto:[22][23][26][27][28][
29][33]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> >> 4. mailto:[23][24][27][28][29][30]car
>> [34]yn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> >> 5. mailto:[24][25][28][29][30][
31][35]chair at lp.org
>> >> 6. mailto:[25][26][29][30][31][32]car
>> [36]ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >> 7. [26][27][30][31][32][33]http://
>> [37]www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >> 8. mailto:[27][28][31][32][33][
34][38]chair at lp.org
>> >> 9. mailto:[28][29][32][33][34][35]car
>> [39]ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >> 10. [29][30][33][34][35][36]http://
>> [40]www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >> 11. mailto:[30][31][34][35][36][37]car
>> [41]yn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> >> 12. mailto:[31][32][35][36][37][
38][42]chair at lp.org
>> >> 13. mailto:[32][33][36][37][38][39]car
>> [43]ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >> 14. [33][34][37][38][39][40]http://
>> [44]www.lpcolorado.org/
>> >> 15. mailto:[34][35][38][39][40][
41][45]chair at lp.org
>> >> 16. mailto:[35][36][39][40][41][42]car
>> [46]ynannharlos at gmail.com
>> >> 17. mailto:[36]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> >> 18. [37][37][40][41][42][43]http://
>> [47]www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > References
>> > 1. mailto:[38][41][42][43][44]daniel.
>> [48]hayes at lp.org
>> > 2. mailto:[39][42][43][44][45]caryn.
>> [49]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 3.
>> [40][43][44][45][46][50]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/
RobertRules/
>> chap15.
>> html
>> > 4. mailto:[41][44][45][46][47]daniel.
>> [51]hayes at lp.org
>> > 5.
>> mailto:[42][45][46][47][48][52]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> > 6. mailto:[43][46][47][48][49]caryn.
>> [53]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 7. mailto:[44][47][48][49][50][54]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 8.
>> mailto:[45][48][49][50][51][55]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 9. [46][49][50][51][52][56]http://www.
>> [57]lpcolorado.org/
>> > 10. mailto:[47][50][51][52][53][58]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 11.
>> mailto:[48][51][52][53][54][59]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 12. [49][52][53][54][55][60]http://www.
>> [61]lpcolorado.org/
>> > 13. mailto:[50][53][54][55][56]caryn.
>> [62]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 14. mailto:[51][54][55][56][57][63]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 15.
>> mailto:[52][55][56][57][58][64]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 16. [53][56][57][58][59][65]http://www.
>> [66]lpcolorado.org/
>> > 17. mailto:[54][57][58][59][60][67]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 18.
>> mailto:[55][58][59][60][61][68]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 19. [56][59][60][61][62][69]http://www.
>> [70]lpcolorado.org/
>> > 20.
>> [57][60][61][62][63][71]https://www.kidlink.org/docs/
RobertRules/
>> chap15.
>> html
>> > 21. mailto:[58][61][62][63][64]daniel.
>> [72]hayes at lp.org
>> > 22.
>> mailto:[59][62][63][64][65][73]planning4liberty at gmail.com
>> > 23. mailto:[60][63][64][65][66]caryn.
>> [74]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 24. mailto:[61][64][65][66][67][75]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 25.
>> mailto:[62][65][66][67][68][76]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 26. [63][66][67][68][69][77]http://www.
>> [78]lpcolorado.org/
>> > 27. mailto:[64][67][68][69][70][79]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 28.
>> mailto:[65][68][69][70][71][80]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 29. [66][69][70][71][72][81]http://www.
>> [82]lpcolorado.org/
>> > 30. mailto:[67][70][71][72][73]caryn.
>> [83]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 31. mailto:[68][71][72][73][74][84]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 32.
>> mailto:[69][72][73][74][75][85]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 33. [70][73][74][75][76][86]http://www.
>> [87]lpcolorado.org/
>> > 34. mailto:[71][74][75][76][77][88]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 35.
>> mailto:[72][75][76][77][78][89]carynannharlos at gmail.com
>> > 36. mailto:[73]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> > 37. [74][76][77][78][79][90]http://www.
>> [91]lpcolorado.org/
>> >
>> > References
>> >
>> > 1. mailto:[77][78][79][80][92]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 2. mailto:[78][79][80][81][93]daniel.
hayes at lp.org
>> > 3. mailto:[79][80][81][82][94]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 4. [80][81][82][83][95]https://www.
kidlink.org/
>> docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> > 5. mailto:[81][82][83][84][96]daniel.
hayes at lp.org
>> > 6. mailto:[82][83][84][85]planning4li
>> [97]berty at gmail.com
>> > 7. mailto:[83][84][85][86][98]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 8. mailto:[84][85][86][87][99]chair at lp.org
>> > 9. mailto:[85][86][87][88]carynannhar
>> [100]los at gmail.com
>> > 10. [86][87][88][89][101]http://www.
lpcolorado.org/
>> > 11. mailto:[87][88][89][90][102]chair at lp.org
>> > 12. mailto:[88][89][90][91]carynannhar
>> [103]los at gmail.com
>> > 13. [89][90][91][92][104]http://www.
lpcolorado.org/
>> > 14. mailto:[90][91][92][93][105]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 15. mailto:[91][92][93][94][106]chair at lp.org
>> > 16. mailto:[92][93][94][95]carynannhar
>> [107]los at gmail.com
>> > 17. [93][94][95][96][108]http://www.
lpcolorado.org/
>> > 18. mailto:[94][95][96][97][109]chair at lp.org
>> > 19. mailto:[95][96][97][98]carynannhar
>> [110]los at gmail.com
>> > 20. [96][97][98][99][111]http://www.
lpcolorado.org/
>> > 21. [97][98][99][100][112]https://www.
kidlink.org/
>> docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> > 22. mailto:[98][99][100][101][113]danie
l.hayes at lp.org
>> > 23. mailto:[99][100][101][102]planning4
>> [114]liberty at gmail.com
>> > 24. mailto:[100][101][102][103]caryn.
>> [115]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 25. mailto:[101][102][103][104][116]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 26. mailto:[102][103][104][105]carynann
>> [117]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 27. [103][104][105][106][118]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 28. mailto:[104][105][106][107][119]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 29. mailto:[105][106][107][108]carynann
>> [120]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 30. [106][107][108][109][121]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 31. mailto:[107][108][109][110]caryn.
>> [122]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 32. mailto:[108][109][110][111][123]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 33. mailto:[109][110][111][112]carynann
>> [124]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 34. [110][111][112][113][125]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 35. mailto:[111][112][113][114][126]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 36. mailto:[112][113][114][115]carynann
>> [127]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 37. [113][114][115][116][128]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 38. mailto:[114][115][116][117][129]dan
iel.hayes at lp.org
>> > 39. mailto:[115][116][117][118]caryn.
>> [130]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 40. [116][117][118][119][131]https://
www.kidlink.org/
>> docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> > 41. mailto:[117][118][119][120][132]dan
iel.hayes at lp.org
>> > 42. mailto:[118][119][120][121]planning
>> [133]4liberty at gmail.com
>> > 43. mailto:[119][120][121][122]caryn.
>> [134]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 44. mailto:[120][121][122][123][135]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 45. mailto:[121][122][123][124]carynann
>> [136]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 46. [122][123][124][125][137]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 47. mailto:[123][124][125][126][138]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 48. mailto:[124][125][126][127]carynann
>> [139]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 49. [125][126][127][128][140]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 50. mailto:[126][127][128][129]caryn.
>> [141]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 51. mailto:[127][128][129][130][142]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 52. mailto:[128][129][130][131]carynann
>> [143]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 53. [129][130][131][132][144]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 54. mailto:[130][131][132][133][145]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 55. mailto:[131][132][133][134]carynann
>> [146]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 56. [132][133][134][135][147]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 57. [133][134][135][136][148]https://
www.kidlink.org/
>> docs/RobertRules/chap15.html
>> > 58. mailto:[134][135][136][137][149]dan
iel.hayes at lp.org
>> > 59. mailto:[135][136][137][138]planning
>> [150]4liberty at gmail.com
>> > 60. mailto:[136][137][138][139]caryn.
>> [151]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 61. mailto:[137][138][139][140][152]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 62. mailto:[138][139][140][141]carynann
>> [153]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 63. [139][140][141][142][154]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 64. mailto:[140][141][142][143][155]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 65. mailto:[141][142][143][144]carynann
>> [156]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 66. [142][143][144][145][157]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 67. mailto:[143][144][145][146]caryn.
>> [158]ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > 68. mailto:[144][145][146][147][159]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 69. mailto:[145][146][147][148]carynann
>> [160]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 70. [146][147][148][149][161]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> > 71. mailto:[147][148][149][150][162]cha
ir at lp.org
>> > 72. mailto:[148][149][150][151]carynann
>> [163]harlos at gmail.com
>> > 73. mailto:[149]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> > 74. [150][150][151][152][164]http://
www.lpcolorado.org/
>> References
>> 1. mailto:[151][152][153][165]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[152][153][154][166]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[153][154][155][167]planning
4liberty at gmail.com
>> 4. mailto:[154][155][156][168]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:[155][156][157][169]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 6. mailto:[156][157][158][170]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 7.
>> [157][158][159][171]https://www.
kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.
>> html
>> 8. mailto:[158][159][160][172]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 9. mailto:[159][160][161][173]planning
4liberty at gmail.com
>> 10. mailto:[160][161][162][174]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 11. mailto:[161][162][163][175]chair at lp.org
>> 12. mailto:[162][163][164][176]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 13. [163][164][165][177]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 14. mailto:[164][165][166][178]chair at lp.org
>> 15. mailto:[165][166][167][179]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 16. [166][167][168][180]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 17. mailto:[167][168][169][181]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 18. mailto:[168][169][170][182]chair at lp.org
>> 19. mailto:[169][170][171][183]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 20. [170][171][172][184]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 21. mailto:[171][172][173][185]chair at lp.org
>> 22. mailto:[172][173][174][186]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 23. [173][174][175][187]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 24. [174][175][176][188]https://www.kidlink.org/
>> 25. mailto:[175][176][177][189]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 26. mailto:[176][177][178][190]planning
4liberty at gmail.com
>> 27. mailto:[177][178][179][191]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 28. mailto:[178][179][180][192]chair at lp.org
>> 29. mailto:[179][180][181][193]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 30. [180][181][182][194]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 31. mailto:[181][182][183][195]chair at lp.org
>> 32. mailto:[182][183][184][196]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 33. [183][184][185][197]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 34. mailto:[184][185][186][198]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 35. mailto:[185][186][187][199]chair at lp.org
>> 36. mailto:[186][187][188][200]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 37. [187][188][189][201]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 38. mailto:[188][189][190][202]chair at lp.org
>> 39. mailto:[189][190][191][203]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 40. [190][191][192][204]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 41. mailto:[191][192][193][205]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 42. mailto:[192][193][194][206]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 43.
>> [193][194][195][207]https://www.
kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.
>> html
>> 44. mailto:[194][195][196][208]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>> 45. mailto:[195][196][197][209]planning
4liberty at gmail.com
>> 46. mailto:[196][197][198][210]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 47. mailto:[197][198][199][211]chair at lp.org
>> 48. mailto:[198][199][200][212]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 49. [199][200][201][213]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 50. mailto:[200][201][202][214]chair at lp.org
>> 51. mailto:[201][202][203][215]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 52. [202][203][204][216]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 53. mailto:[203][204][205][217]caryn.
ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 54. mailto:[204][205][206][218]chair at lp.org
>> 55. mailto:[205][206][207][219]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 56. [206][207][208][220]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 57. mailto:[207][208][209][221]chair at lp.org
>> 58. mailto:[208][209][210][222]carynann
harlos at gmail.com
>> 59. [209][210][211][223]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 60.
>> [210][211][212][224]https://www.
kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15.
>
>
References
1. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:tim.hagan at lp.org
5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
6. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
9. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
10. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
11. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
12. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
13. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
14. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/
15. mailto:hayes at lp.org
16. mailto:liberty at gmail.com
17. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
18. mailto:chair at lp.org
19. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
20. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
21. mailto:chair at lp.org
22. mailto:annharlos at gmail.com
23. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
24. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
25. mailto:chair at lp.org
26. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
27. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
28. mailto:chair at lp.org
29. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
30. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
31. http://www.kidlink.org/
32. mailto:iel.hayes at lp.org
33. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
34. mailto:yn.ann.harlos at lp.org
35. mailto:chair at lp.org
36. mailto:ynannharlos at gmail.com
37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
38. mailto:chair at lp.org
39. mailto:ynannharlos at gmail.com
40. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
41. mailto:yn.ann.harlos at lp.org
42. mailto:chair at lp.org
43. mailto:ynannharlos at gmail.com
44. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
45. mailto:chair at lp.org
46. mailto:ynannharlos at gmail.com
47. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
48. mailto:hayes at lp.org
49. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
50. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/
51. mailto:hayes at lp.org
52. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
53. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
54. mailto:chair at lp.org
55. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
56. http://www/
57. http://lpcolorado.org/
58. mailto:chair at lp.org
59. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
60. http://www/
61. http://lpcolorado.org/
62. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
63. mailto:chair at lp.org
64. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
65. http://www/
66. http://lpcolorado.org/
67. mailto:chair at lp.org
68. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
69. http://www/
70. http://lpcolorado.org/
71. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/
72. mailto:hayes at lp.org
73. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
74. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
75. mailto:chair at lp.org
76. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
77. http://www/
78. http://lpcolorado.org/
79. mailto:chair at lp.org
80. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
81. http://www/
82. http://lpcolorado.org/
83. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
84. mailto:chair at lp.org
85. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
86. http://www/
87. http://lpcolorado.org/
88. mailto:chair at lp.org
89. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
90. http://www/
91. http://lpcolorado.org/
92. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
93. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
94. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
95. https://www.kidlink.org/
96. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
97. mailto:berty at gmail.com
98. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
99. mailto:chair at lp.org
100. mailto:los at gmail.com
101. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
102. mailto:chair at lp.org
103. mailto:los at gmail.com
104. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
105. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
106. mailto:chair at lp.org
107. mailto:los at gmail.com
108. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
109. mailto:chair at lp.org
110. mailto:los at gmail.com
111. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
112. https://www.kidlink.org/
113. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
114. mailto:liberty at gmail.com
115. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
116. mailto:chair at lp.org
117. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
118. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
119. mailto:chair at lp.org
120. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
121. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
122. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
123. mailto:chair at lp.org
124. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
125. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
126. mailto:chair at lp.org
127. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
128. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
129. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
130. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
131. https://www.kidlink.org/
132. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
133. mailto:4liberty at gmail.com
134. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
135. mailto:chair at lp.org
136. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
137. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
138. mailto:chair at lp.org
139. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
140. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
141. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
142. mailto:chair at lp.org
143. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
144. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
145. mailto:chair at lp.org
146. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
147. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
148. https://www.kidlink.org/
149. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
150. mailto:4liberty at gmail.com
151. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
152. mailto:chair at lp.org
153. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
154. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
155. mailto:chair at lp.org
156. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
157. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
158. mailto:ann.harlos at lp.org
159. mailto:chair at lp.org
160. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
161. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
162. mailto:chair at lp.org
163. mailto:harlos at gmail.com
164. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
165. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
166. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
167. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
168. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
169. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
170. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
171. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15
172. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
173. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
174. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
175. mailto:chair at lp.org
176. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
177. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
178. mailto:chair at lp.org
179. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
180. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
181. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
182. mailto:chair at lp.org
183. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
184. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
185. mailto:chair at lp.org
186. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
187. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
188. https://www.kidlink.org/
189. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
190. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
191. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
192. mailto:chair at lp.org
193. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
194. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
195. mailto:chair at lp.org
196. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
197. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
198. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
199. mailto:chair at lp.org
200. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
201. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
202. mailto:chair at lp.org
203. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
204. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
205. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
206. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
207. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15
208. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
209. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
210. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
211. mailto:chair at lp.org
212. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
213. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
214. mailto:chair at lp.org
215. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
216. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
217. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
218. mailto:chair at lp.org
219. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
220. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
221. mailto:chair at lp.org
222. mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com
223. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
224. https://www.kidlink.org/docs/RobertRules/chap15
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list