[Lnc-business] Note about our electronic meeting
david.demarest at lp.org
david.demarest at lp.org
Tue Feb 6 11:51:50 EST 2018
Agreed. My concern is that moral aspects have not been conspicuous in this discussion of rules. I agree with you that the moral answer is to allow voting in all cases, but, as Starchild pointed out, from the bottom up that would allow for as much direct representation as possible. Unfortunately, any top-down representation, especially in the coercive sector, instantiates the tyranny of the majority, but short term it beats other historical alternatives and we will have to make the best of it until the voluntary sector wins out. Tyranny of the majority by any other name is still tyranny. The voluntary sector obviates the need for elected representatives and the tyranny of the majority.
My votes were clearly delineated by earlier verbose moral logic argumentation and unambiguously reflected my moral position on the overall issues involved. We have great internal disagreement on moral aspects of this issue for reasons that I have opined on at length. Those disagreements muddied the waters during our deliberations to the detriment of the LNC. Arguing about rules is important but will not resolve the underlying moral law disagreements, particularly as they apply to the future direction of the Libertarian Party as we struggle against the two major parties that have no moral compass other than getting themselves elected to top-down positions of authority over others for obvious unsavory reasons. The good news is that mankind has managed to survive despite massive disruptive statist intrusions. We have always known how to get along with each other without their oppressive statist "help", their wars, and their mismanagement of our economy and society.
Yes, this is a big picture extension of a smaller issue. The LNC just might have a better chance of achieving the goal of freedom by stepping back and taking a big picture von Mises Praxeology view and approach in their deliberations as they deal with both macro and micro Libertarian challenges, including outreach, messaging, suspension, censure and related rules discussions.
Thought?
~David Pratt Demarest
-----Original Message-----
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Katz
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 8:30 AM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Note about our electronic meeting
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.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list