January 2018 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

status of call for electronic meeting
by Alicia Mattson 24 Jan '18

24 Jan '18

>From the policy manual, "Each committee member calling for an electronic meeting must do so by emailing the entire committee and specifying the date of the meeting, time of the meeting, and the topic(s) to be addressed. Meetings must be so called no fewer than 2 days in advance for committees with fewer than 10 members, or 7 days in advance for committees with 10 or more members." The call needs to include 1) date, 2) time, and 3) topic(s) to be addressed. Previously there were six people requesting an electronic meeting for a topic (suspension of VC Vohra- previously moved by both McKnight and Van Horn), but there was no date/time specified. Those people were: Harlos, Katz, Redpath, Goldstein, McKnight, Van Horn. Now there is a date/time specified (on a thread which implies the topic is suspension of the Vice Chair), but since there is a sufficiently-sponsored email ballot on a related topic I cannot just assume that the same people are willing to still sponsor the call of the meeting under different circumstances. I have a lot of email clutter today, but so far I believe I have seen the following people join meeting calls: 01/28/17 at 10:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Katz) 10/28/17 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Hagan) As a parliamentary matter, scope of notice rules would allow a meeting called to consider suspension to also consider a lesser action such as censure. The scope of notice covers anything in the range between the status quo and the proposed action which was noticed. -Alicia From the policy manual, "Each committee member calling for an electronic meeting must do so by emailing the entire committee and specifying the date of the meeting, time of the meeting, and the topic(s) to be addressed. Meetings must be so called no fewer than 2 days in advance for committees with fewer than 10 members, or 7 days in advance for committees with 10 or more members." The call needs to include 1) date, 2) time, and 3) topic(s) to be addressed. Previously there were six people requesting an electronic meeting for a topic (suspension of VC Vohra- previously moved by both McKnight and Van Horn), but there was no date/time specified. Those people were: Harlos, Katz, Redpath, Goldstein, McKnight, Van Horn. Now there is a date/time specified (on a thread which implies the topic is suspension of the Vice Chair), but since there is a sufficiently-sponsored email ballot on a related topic I cannot just assume that the same people are willing to still sponsor the call of the meeting under different circumstances. I have a lot of email clutter today, but so far I believe I have seen the following people join meeting calls: 01/28/17 at 10:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Katz) 10/28/17 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Hagan) As a parliamentary matter, scope of notice rules would allow a meeting called to consider suspension to also consider a lesser action such as censure. The scope of notice covers anything in the range between the status quo and the proposed action which was noticed. -Alicia

4 8

Electronic meeting for consideration of suspension of the LNC Vice-Chair
by Sam Goldstein 22 Jan '18

22 Jan '18

Please respond as soon as possible: Which day would you prefer: Saturday, January 27th or Sunday, January 28th Would a Noon EDT start time work for you? Will you attend this meeting? I am participating in the call for this meeting since I would like to get this issue behind us. We have too much work to do in promoting our upcoming convention and our hundreds of candidates to allow this matter to be a distraction for the next 5 months. Personally, I am horrified that we have come to this juncture and am undecided as to where my vote will fall on the issue. I'm sure that many of you feel the same way but please make time to attend the meeting. Thanks and Live Free, -- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell Please respond as soon as possible: Which day would you prefer: Saturday, January 27th or Sunday, January 28th Would a Noon EDT start time work for you? Will you attend this meeting? I am participating in the call for this meeting since I would like to get this issue behind us. We have too much work to do in promoting our upcoming convention and our hundreds of candidates to allow this matter to be a distraction for the next 5 months. Personally, I am horrified that we have come to this juncture and am undecided as to where my vote will fall on the issue. I'm sure that many of you feel the same way but please make time to attend the meeting. Thanks and Live Free, -- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell

17 40

Delegate allocations for the 2018 LP national convention
by Alicia Mattson 21 Jan '18

21 Jan '18

I know that my listing of state chair contact information is several months old, so I am requesting the assistance of LNC Regional Representatives to forward this email to your current state chairs. Also, if Mr. Hayes as chair of the ASC could forward it to the state chairs' email list, that would be helpful. Thank you in advance! -Alicia -------------------------------------------- Libertarian Party Affiliate Chair, Attached you will find a document that: - shows how many delegates your affiliate can send to the 2018 Libertarian Party national convention in New Orleans, LA - shows the statistics you'll need for region formation calculations This document is a subset of a larger document, the Delegation Chair's Manual, which I am in the process of updating for the 2018 convention. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary I know that my listing of state chair contact information is several months old, so I am requesting the assistance of LNC Regional Representatives to forward this email to your current state chairs. Also, if Mr. Hayes as chair of the ASC could forward it to the state chairs' email list, that would be helpful. Thank you in advance! -Alicia -------------------------------------------- Libertarian Party Affiliate Chair, Attached you will find a document that: * shows how many delegates your affiliate can send to the 2018 Libertarian Party national convention in New Orleans, LA * shows the statistics you'll need for region formation calculations This document is a subset of a larger document, the Delegation Chair's Manual, which I am in the process of updating for the 2018 convention. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

3 2

FW: LPWI Resolution regarding the Vice Chair of the LNC
by David Demarest 21 Jan '18

21 Jan '18

Forwarding to the entire LNC on the business list. See email below from Phillip Anderson, LPWI Chair, and attached file. Thoughts? ~David Pratt May 25-27 2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom UnConvention - <https://omahaunconvention.com/> https://OmahaUnConvention.com/ Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less, For All People ~David Pratt Demarest Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder - <https://r2ff.org/> https://R2FF.org/ LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) LSLA Treasurer LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator <mailto:David.Demarest@LP.org> David.Demarest(a)LP.org <mailto:Secretary@LPNE.org> Secretary(a)LPNE.org <mailto:DPDemarest@centurylink.net> DPDemarest(a)centurylink.net <mailto:DPrattDemarest@gmail.com> DPrattDemarest(a)gmail.com <mailto:David.Demarest@OmahaUnConvention.com> David.Demarest(a)OmahaUnConvention.com Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873 From: chair(a)lpwi.org [mailto:chair@lpwi.org] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 4:49 PM To: 'David Demarest' <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net>; secretary(a)lp.org Cc: Secretary <Secretary(a)lpwi.org>; 'Nicholas Sarwark' <chair(a)lp.org> Subject: LPWI Resolution regarding the Vice Chair of the LNC Dear David and Alicia, Please see the attached signed resolution, approved by the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin. Text also provided below. Thank you! In Liberty, Phil Anderson Chair, LPWI Resolution regarding the Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee Whereas, Arvin Vohra, Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee, has at various times insulted and disrespected significant segments of the membership of the Libertarian Party, and Whereas, Arvin Vohra has been made aware that his public remarks have offended and disrespected significant segments of the membership of the Libertarian Party, and Whereas, Arvin Vohra has expressed no desire to publicly communicate in any way differently than he has been, Therefore be it resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin Executive Committee hereby requests of the Region 6 Representative to the Libertarian National Committee, and likewise to the LNC as a whole and its several members, to suspend Arvin Vohra as Vice Chair of the LNC, per the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party Article 6, Section 7. The LPWI Executive Committee, pursuant to our request, petitions the Chair of the Libertarian National Committee to call a meeting of the LNC to occur no later than February 15th, 2018, for the purpose of considering a motion to suspend Mr. Vohra. Respectfully submitted on January 21st, 2018 by Phillip Anderson Chair, LPWI Forwarding to the entire LNC on the business list. See email below from Phillip Anderson, LPWI Chair, and attached file. Thoughts? ~David Pratt May 25-27 2018 Omaha Roads to Freedom UnConvention - [1]https://OmahaUnConvention.com/ Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less, For All People ~David Pratt Demarest Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder - [2]https://R2FF.org/ LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) LSLA Treasurer LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator [3]David.Demarest(a)LP.org [4]Secretary(a)LPNE.org [5]DPDemarest(a)centurylink.net [6]DPrattDemarest(a)gmail.com [7]David.Demarest(a)OmahaUnConvention.com Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873 From: chair(a)lpwi.org [mailto:chair@lpwi.org] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 4:49 PM To: 'David Demarest' <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net>; secretary(a)lp.org Cc: Secretary <Secretary(a)lpwi.org>; 'Nicholas Sarwark' <chair(a)lp.org> Subject: LPWI Resolution regarding the Vice Chair of the LNC Dear David and Alicia, Please see the attached signed resolution, approved by the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin. Text also provided below. Thank you! In Liberty, Phil Anderson Chair, LPWI Resolution regarding the Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee Whereas, Arvin Vohra, Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee, has at various times insulted and disrespected significant segments of the membership of the Libertarian Party, and Whereas, Arvin Vohra has been made aware that his public remarks have offended and disrespected significant segments of the membership of the Libertarian Party, and Whereas, Arvin Vohra has expressed no desire to publicly communicate in any way differently than he has been, Therefore be it resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin Executive Committee hereby requests of the Region 6 Representative to the Libertarian National Committee, and likewise to the LNC as a whole and its several members, to suspend Arvin Vohra as Vice Chair of the LNC, per the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party Article 6, Section 7. The LPWI Executive Committee, pursuant to our request, petitions the Chair of the Libertarian National Committee to call a meeting of the LNC to occur no later than February 15^th, 2018, for the purpose of considering a motion to suspend Mr. Vohra. Respectfully submitted on January 21^st, 2018 by Phillip Anderson Chair, LPWI References 1. https://omahaunconvention.com/ 2. https://r2ff.org/ 3. mailto:David.Demarest@LP.org 4. mailto:Secretary@LPNE.org 5. mailto:DPDemarest@centurylink.net 6. mailto:DPrattDemarest@gmail.com 7. mailto:David.Demarest@OmahaUnConvention.com

1 0

cc'ing the LNC email list causes extra work for me
by Alicia Mattson 21 Jan '18

21 Jan '18

In all the email traffic we are getting from members about the Arvin Vohra situation, some LNC members have taken to cc'ing this email list on their communications with party members. The natural result is that the party member then does a "reply all", but they can't post to this list. It creates busy work for the moderators to go clear those messages from the queue, and the members are annoyed or confused when their message is rejected from our internal list. One person, after her message was rejected from this list, later told people that she had been "banned" from our list. Others are just confused and then write asking why they can't post, which just makes the entire situation take up even more of our time. I think this has happened more in the past two weeks than it did in the entire year prior. Each of you can avoid causing this confusion for others and extra work for me if you don't cc this email list on your external communications. If you want to forward the LNC a copy of your external communication, please just do that as a separate step. -Alicia In all the email traffic we are getting from members about the Arvin Vohra situation, some LNC members have taken to cc'ing this email list on their communications with party members. The natural result is that the party member then does a "reply all", but they can't post to this list. It creates busy work for the moderators to go clear those messages from the queue, and the members are annoyed or confused when their message is rejected from our internal list. One person, after her message was rejected from this list, later told people that she had been "banned" from our list. Others are just confused and then write asking why they can't post, which just makes the entire situation take up even more of our time. I think this has happened more in the past two weeks than it did in the entire year prior. Each of you can avoid causing this confusion for others and extra work for me if you don't cc this email list on your external communications. If you want to forward the LNC a copy of your external communication, please just do that as a separate step. -Alicia

3 3

Re: [Lnc-business] The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
by Elizabeth Van Horn 21 Jan '18

21 Jan '18

Hello Scotty, Thank you for your kind words. The LPMI Chair Bill Hall is aware of the situation, as are both of LPMI's Vice-Chairs. They're all in the Region 3 Leaders group, where this was communicated. I just popped back into the group to check, and all are aware. I also have received communication from several LPMI District Reps on this matter, so I think your Executive Committee is aware. I was told that since LPMI doesn't have a bylaws provision for an email ballot, that they were going to take up the issue at their regularly scheduled February meeting. As for the situation of suspending an LNC officer, that is something the current bylaws does allow. Is it the best situation? I don't know. I wish LP members had gotten a more empathetic response to their many concerns last year, and six months ago, and three months ago, (When LPIN made their resolution regarding Arvin Vohra), as each time there were state affiliates upset, no action was taken by the LNC. Currently, there's a proposed LNC motion for a censure of Arvin Vohra. If such action had been taken prior, we might not be in the situation we now find ourselves. As, LP members who are upset, would have felt their voices being heard. But, that didn't happen, and here we are. Both LPIN and LPOH had their executive committees vote on their respective resolutions and the votes were unanimous. The LPIN vote was last year, in November. The LPOH was this month. I don't think it's skulduggery. (Although, I am rather pleased to see you use a colorful 19th century descriptor.) The situation has escalated to the point of losing members, LP candidates being affected, and state affiliate officers and leaders stepping down. The effectiveness of the LP as a political organization has been negatively impacted. The LNC, as a board, as a duty to act in the best interest of the Libertarian Party as a whole, and much look to protect the efforts of hundreds of volunteers who put their time, energy, and money into moving the LP forward. That is what this is about. If the LNC has no responsibility to protect the Libertarian Party and it's state affiliates, then this body wouldn't consider taking action. (There has been discussion elsewhere, of LP bylaws that would have a provision for convention delegates to contacted, and have them vote, if a recall of an officer was requested. It would be complicated and maybe even costly. Both of which would discourage any but the most enthused groups from attempting it. That's a matter for another discussion though.) The current situation hasn't moved to the point of anyone on the LNC being able to vote on Arvin Vohra's suspension. At this time, we have a motion for censure and a motion for an electronic meeting. The motion for censure has advanced to the email ballot stage. That is where we are on this situation. I expect that if we do end up having an electronic meeting, and I do vote (yes) as asked by the Region 3 states (not including LPMI), that the suspension won't happen. As I don't think there'll be enough votes to carry that effort. I don't think it's time wasted though. At last count, there are 17 state LP affiliates, whose chairs and/or state committees have called for suspending Vohra: NV, WA, MT, WY, CO, KS, WI, IL, IN, OH, KY, PA, NJ, SC, AK, HI, IA. More are weighing on the issue daily it seems. If the upset LP members have their concerns addressed, regardless of outcome, I think it will help this issue to simmer down. Then everyone can do what they may at the 2018 convention. Because, if the suspension goes to vote, and fails, I'll urge all those who were calling for the suspension, to focus their efforts on the 2018 convention. (Which is the same as I've been telling people all along.) Cheers, and hope to see you at the LPMI convention this year. (Under more pleasant circumstances than this correspondence has warranted.) Regards, Elizabeth Van Horn --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-20 19:12, Scotty Boman wrote: > Dear Elizabeth Van Horn: > > Since this was "Reply All" I believe it is appropriate to respond in kind. > > Thank you in holding your ground, thus far. I didn't know there had already been resolutions in other states (which resolutions supported or opposed his removal?). > > Currently, there has been no discussion of this matter by the _LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MICHIGAN_ (other than one I started on my FB page). As Newsletter editor, I can attest that there has been no official notification to the membership about this matter. I would put it in the upcoming issue, but our editorial policy is to avoid factionalism and conflicts (Which this clearly is). > > To the best of my knowledge our state Chair, Bill Hall is unaware of this matter, but I will bring it to his attention. In fact, I will BCC him here to avoid his automatic inclusion in "Reply All" discussions that may follow. > > The only way I became aware of this issue was by chance, when I ran across a post by Arvin whom (along with almost 5,000 others), is a FB friend. I get the impression that the resolutions you mention were passed at small meetings, not state conventions. The apparently secretive manner in which these resolutions passed, leaves me to believe they are not representative of the delegation. I strongly doubt they solicited a vote from each voting member who attended the convention in Orlando. > > So, IMHO the answer to your question, "Should I act on my own accord? Or, do I act as the state affiliates in the region ask me to?" Is neither. You should respect the wishes of the 2016 LP Delegation. They wanted Arvin Vohra to be their Vice Chair. Since this harmonizes with what you would do on your own accord, the choice should be easy. You are dealing with squeaky wheels trying to reverse the convention without cause. They are not comparable to a retraction by the delegation. They represent different bodies. It is analogous to the council of Governors rescinding a law passed by Congress. > > Why "without cause"? Because, as I have stated, there is nothing new here. The standard should be, "If the Delegation knew this, would they vote differently?" In a court of law a case is only appealed if there was a flaw in the original process or if there is new evidence. Disagreement with the verdict doesn't count. > > I don't oppose the LNC's authority to remove it's own members, but this should be reserved for exceptional cases like actions of moral turpitude not previously unknown to delegates, chronic non-attendance, embezzlement of Party funds, or conflicts of interest. > > If we were at this place a year or two ago, purge-advocates could argue that the harm being done is too severe to wait for a Convention. I could still make the above points, but since the Convention is coming up, here's the other. What's the hurry? It is almost as if a race is on to beat the delegation to the finish line. This more strongly points to my view that you are dealing with a vocal group of state officers who are not representative of the national delegation. Some might not even be Natonal LP members. They are trying to achieve by skulduggery and lobbying what they could not achieve on the convention floor. > > Thank you again for your thoughtful reply, > Scotty Boman > > ------------------------- > > FROM: Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org> > SENT: Saturday, January 20, 2018 4:58 AM > TO: Scotty Boman > CC: chair(a)lp.org; vicechair(a)lp.org; treasurer(a)lp.org; secretary(a)lp.org; william.redpath(a)lp.org; sam.goldstein(a)lp.org; starchild(a)lp.org; daniel.hayes(a)lp.org; joshua.katz(a)lp.org; caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org; steven.nielson(a)lp.org; ed.marsh(a)lp.org; steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org; dustin.nanna(a)lp.org; jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org; aaron.starr(a)lp.org; james.lark(a)lp.org; trent.somes(a)lp.org; david.demarest(a)lp.org; sean.otoole(a)lp.org; whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org; erin.adams(a)lp.org; patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org; larry.sharpe(a)lp.org > SUBJECT: Re: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra > > Hello Scotty, > > We met briefly, when I attended the LPMI convention this past year. You're in Region 3, which I represent. I appreciate your stance regarding waiting until convention to let the normal delegate process take place. That is my personal stance as well. That was my position, when many outraged LP members last year were calling for Arvin to resign or be removed. I tried to do damage control and talk them back from their stance. Regardless, this is now the situation: > > LPIN made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra, in November of 2017. It was the LPIN SCC, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I didn't know it was happening, and was surprised when I found out. > > LPOH made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra on Friday January 12th, 2018. It was the LPOH Executive Committee, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I knew nothing about the doings of the committee, and only found out after the LPOH chair shared the information in a Region 3 leaders group. > > Both LPIN and LPOH were directing me to take action to remove Arvin Vohra, through the LNC board. I DIDN'T. Instead I told the Region 3 chairs, that since there are four state affiliates in Region 3, I'd need a clear directive of 3/4 of the region. I brought this stipulation to the attention of all four state affiliate chairs. LPKY chair eventually responded that he too was in accord. (LPMI still has it under consideration, until a Feb meeting) Should I act on my own accord? Or, do I act as the state affiliates in the region ask me to? > > I want to be able to give voice to the LP members in Region 3. That's what I signed up for, and that's what I told the Regional chairs I'd do. Other than out-of-hand unethical actions, I'll try to stick to what Region 3 wants. (Even if it's something I personally wouldn't do.) Yes, I understand that you're in Region 3, and that you think your voice isn't being heard. Currently, we have a representative system in place for the LNC. That means that hundreds of LP members are all being represented by one person. (For At-Large Reps, it's thousands of LP members being represented) If you think that the ability for suspension of an officer shouldn't exist for the LNC, then it would need to be changed in the LP-Bylaws. Currently, there is a provision for doing so, otherwise, this body wouldn't have this issue under consideration. > > I fully except you to vote your conscience at the 2018 NOLA convention, as will I, as we are each individuals there, and have our one vote. If you chose to not vote for me to represent Region 3, I understand, and no hard feelings. > > Kind regards, > Elizabeth Van Horn > --- > Elizabeth Van Horn > LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) > Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana > Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee > Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus > http://www.lpcaucus.org/ > > [1] > > Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus [1] > www.lpcaucus.org > The Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus (LPC) is the fastest-growing caucus in the Libertarian Party.Our membership is comprised of everyday Libertarians and nonpartisans ... > > On 2018-01-20 02:21, Scotty Boman wrote: > >> Honorable LEC Members: >> >> I recently learned that you will soon be voting on the removal of Arvin Vohra from his office as Vice Chair. In researching what actions by Arvin justified this, I have learned that there is nothing new or exceptional about his conduct that would warrant said removal. I base this conclusion primarily on the words of the very people who want him removed. >> >> While there were some disturbing labels being pasted on him, all examples of substance showed that his critics wanted him to be removed for being the same person he was when he was elected by the delegation in 2016. He is philosophically purist (AKA consistent). He is abrasively direct. He doesn't avoid third-rail issues. So there is no new heinous sin that calls for an exceptional action as the one being voted on. If there was, I would have a different opinion than the one I'm expressing now. >> >> What we have then is a faction of LNC members who hope to have the numbers to purge someone who is other then them. This is the kind of in-fighting that has been eating away at our party from the inside. It is also a slap in the face to the delegates who elected a diverse LNC with the hope that you could all advance the Party together rather than trying to undo the will of the body. >> >> I was a delegate to the Convention in Orlando. I was part of the body that elected many of you. Even if you don't think Arvin Vohra was the best choice for Vice Chair, he was the choice of the majority of national convention delegates. The idea that a small committee ( that was elected the same way ) believes they have the moral authority to over-ride the people who elected them is repugnant. If you don't respect our choices, then you have no right to expect our support. >> >> Even regional representatives were chosen by delegates at that convention (from their region), not just state chairs. >> >> If Arvin is removed by your vote, you will set a harmful precedent. Not only will delegates be considering the talents, views or outreach styles of candidates; they will need to avoid giving any faction a majority for fear that the diversity they voted for will be destroyed by internal purges after the Convention closes. >> >> The next convention is only a few months away. This is the appropriate place to remove and elect officers, not under cover of darkness in a poorly publicized meeting. >> >> Please have that much respect for the delegates. I have publicly, pledged to actively campaign against the election of any LNC member, who votes against the choice of the 2016 delegation, to any post in the LNC. >> >> In liberty, >> Scotty Boman >> Libertarian Party Member >> (313) 247-2052 Links: ------ [1] http://www.lpcaucus.org/ Hello Scotty, Thank you for your kind words. The LPMI Chair Bill Hall is aware of the situation, as are both of LPMI's Vice-Chairs. They're all in the Region 3 Leaders group, where this was communicated. I just popped back into the group to check, and all are aware. I also have received communication from several LPMI District Reps on this matter, so I think your Executive Committee is aware. I was told that since LPMI doesn't have a bylaws provision for an email ballot, that they were going to take up the issue at their regularly scheduled February meeting. As for the situation of suspending an LNC officer, that is something the current bylaws does allow. Is it the best situation? I don't know. I wish LP members had gotten a more empathetic response to their many concerns last year, and six months ago, and three months ago, (When LPIN made their resolution regarding Arvin Vohra), as each time there were state affiliates upset, no action was taken by the LNC. Currently, there's a proposed LNC motion for a censure of Arvin Vohra. If such action had been taken prior, we might not be in the situation we now find ourselves. As, LP members who are upset, would have felt their voices being heard. But, that didn't happen, and here we are. Both LPIN and LPOH had their executive committees vote on their respective resolutions and the votes were unanimous. The LPIN vote was last year, in November. The LPOH was this month. I don't think it's skulduggery. (Although, I am rather pleased to see you use a colorful 19th century descriptor.) The situation has escalated to the point of losing members, LP candidates being affected, and state affiliate officers and leaders stepping down. The effectiveness of the LP as a political organization has been negatively impacted. The LNC, as a board, as a duty to act in the best interest of the Libertarian Party as a whole, and much look to protect the efforts of hundreds of volunteers who put their time, energy, and money into moving the LP forward. That is what this is about. If the LNC has no responsibility to protect the Libertarian Party and it's state affiliates, then this body wouldn't consider taking action. (There has been discussion elsewhere, of LP bylaws that would have a provision for convention delegates to contacted, and have them vote, if a recall of an officer was requested. It would be complicated and maybe even costly. Both of which would discourage any but the most enthused groups from attempting it. That's a matter for another discussion though.) The current situation hasn't moved to the point of anyone on the LNC being able to vote on Arvin Vohra's suspension. At this time, we have a motion for censure and a motion for an electronic meeting. The motion for censure has advanced to the email ballot stage. That is where we are on this situation. I expect that if we do end up having an electronic meeting, and I do vote (yes) as asked by the Region 3 states (not including LPMI), that the suspension won't happen. As I don't think there'll be enough votes to carry that effort. I don't think it's time wasted though. At last count, there are 17 state LP affiliates, whose chairs and/or state committees have called for suspending Vohra: NV, WA, MT, WY, CO, KS, WI, IL, IN, OH, KY, PA, NJ, SC, AK, HI, IA. More are weighing on the issue daily it seems. If the upset LP members have their concerns addressed, regardless of outcome, I think it will help this issue to simmer down. Then everyone can do what they may at the 2018 convention. Because, if the suspension goes to vote, and fails, I'll urge all those who were calling for the suspension, to focus their efforts on the 2018 convention. (Which is the same as I've been telling people all along.) Cheers, and hope to see you at the LPMI convention this year. (Under more pleasant circumstances than this correspondence has warranted.) Regards, Elizabeth Van Horn --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus [1]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-20 19:12, Scotty Boman wrote: Dear Elizabeth Van Horn: Since this was "Reply All" I believe it is appropriate to respond in kind. Thank you in holding your ground, thus far. I didn't know there had already been resolutions in other states (which resolutions supported or opposed his removal?). Currently, there has been no discussion of this matter by the Libertarian Party of Michigan (other than one I started on my FB page). As Newsletter editor, I can attest that there has been no official notification to the membership about this matter. I would put it in the upcoming issue, but our editorial policy is to avoid factionalism and conflicts (Which this clearly is). To the best of my knowledge our state Chair, Bill Hall is unaware of this matter, but I will bring it to his attention. In fact, I will BCC him here to avoid his automatic inclusion in "Reply All" discussions that may follow. The only way I became aware of this issue was by chance, when I ran across a post by Arvin whom (along with almost 5,000 others), is a FB friend. I get the impression that the resolutions you mention were passed at small meetings, not state conventions. The apparently secretive manner in which these resolutions passed, leaves me to believe they are not representative of the delegation. I strongly doubt they solicited a vote from each voting member who attended the convention in Orlando. So, IMHO the answer to your question, "Should I act on my own accord? Or, do I act as the state affiliates in the region ask me to?" Is neither. You should respect the wishes of the 2016 LP Delegation. They wanted Arvin Vohra to be their Vice Chair. Since this harmonizes with what you would do on your own accord, the choice should be easy. You are dealing with squeaky wheels trying to reverse the convention without cause. They are not comparable to a retraction by the delegation. They represent different bodies. It is analogous to the council of Governors rescinding a law passed by Congress. Why "without cause"? Because, as I have stated, there is nothing new here. The standard should be, "If the Delegation knew this, would they vote differently?" In a court of law a case is only appealed if there was a flaw in the original process or if there is new evidence. Disagreement with the verdict doesn't count. I don't oppose the LNC's authority to remove it's own members, but this should be reserved for exceptional cases like actions of moral turpitude not previously unknown to delegates, chronic non-attendance, embezzlement of Party funds, or conflicts of interest. If we were at this place a year or two ago, purge-advocates could argue that the harm being done is too severe to wait for a Convention. I could still make the above points, but since the Convention is coming up, here's the other. What's the hurry? It is almost as if a race is on to beat the delegation to the finish line. This more strongly points to my view that you are dealing with a vocal group of state officers who are not representative of the national delegation. Some might not even be Natonal LP members. They are trying to achieve by skulduggery and lobbying what they could not achieve on the convention floor. Thank you again for your thoughtful reply, Scotty Boman __________________________________________________________________ From: Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 4:58 AM To: Scotty Boman Cc: chair(a)lp.org; vicechair(a)lp.org; treasurer(a)lp.org; secretary(a)lp.org; william.redpath(a)lp.org; sam.goldstein(a)lp.org; starchild(a)lp.org; daniel.hayes(a)lp.org; joshua.katz(a)lp.org; caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org; steven.nielson(a)lp.org; ed.marsh(a)lp.org; steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org; dustin.nanna(a)lp.org; jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org; aaron.starr(a)lp.org; james.lark(a)lp.org; trent.somes(a)lp.org; david.demarest(a)lp.org; sean.otoole(a)lp.org; whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org; erin.adams(a)lp.org; patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org; larry.sharpe(a)lp.org Subject: Re: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra Hello Scotty, We met briefly, when I attended the LPMI convention this past year. You're in Region 3, which I represent. I appreciate your stance regarding waiting until convention to let the normal delegate process take place. That is my personal stance as well. That was my position, when many outraged LP members last year were calling for Arvin to resign or be removed. I tried to do damage control and talk them back from their stance. Regardless, this is now the situation: LPIN made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra, in November of 2017. It was the LPIN SCC, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I didn't know it was happening, and was surprised when I found out. LPOH made a resolution regarding Arvin Vohra on Friday January 12th, 2018. It was the LPOH Executive Committee, of which I'm not a member, nor was I in attendance. I knew nothing about the doings of the committee, and only found out after the LPOH chair shared the information in a Region 3 leaders group. Both LPIN and LPOH were directing me to take action to remove Arvin Vohra, through the LNC board. I didn't. Instead I told the Region 3 chairs, that since there are four state affiliates in Region 3, I'd need a clear directive of 3/4 of the region. I brought this stipulation to the attention of all four state affiliate chairs. LPKY chair eventually responded that he too was in accord. (LPMI still has it under consideration, until a Feb meeting) Should I act on my own accord? Or, do I act as the state affiliates in the region ask me to? I want to be able to give voice to the LP members in Region 3. That's what I signed up for, and that's what I told the Regional chairs I'd do. Other than out-of-hand unethical actions, I'll try to stick to what Region 3 wants. (Even if it's something I personally wouldn't do.) Yes, I understand that you're in Region 3, and that you think your voice isn't being heard. Currently, we have a representative system in place for the LNC. That means that hundreds of LP members are all being represented by one person. (For At-Large Reps, it's thousands of LP members being represented) If you think that the ability for suspension of an officer shouldn't exist for the LNC, then it would need to be changed in the LP-Bylaws. Currently, there is a provision for doing so, otherwise, this body wouldn't have this issue under consideration. I fully except you to vote your conscience at the 2018 NOLA convention, as will I, as we are each individuals there, and have our one vote. If you chose to not vote for me to represent Region 3, I understand, and no hard feelings. Kind regards, Elizabeth Van Horn --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus [2]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ [3]Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus www.lpcaucus.org The Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus (LPC) is the fastest-growing caucus in the Libertarian Party.Our membership is comprised of everyday Libertarians and nonpartisans ... On 2018-01-20 02:21, Scotty Boman wrote: Honorable LEC Members: I recently learned that you will soon be voting on the removal of Arvin Vohra from his office as Vice Chair. In researching what actions by Arvin justified this, I have learned that there is nothing new or exceptional about his conduct that would warrant said removal. I base this conclusion primarily on the words of the very people who want him removed. While there were some disturbing labels being pasted on him, all examples of substance showed that his critics wanted him to be removed for being the same person he was when he was elected by the delegation in 2016. He is philosophically purist (AKA consistent). He is abrasively direct. He doesn't avoid third-rail issues. So there is no new heinous sin that calls for an exceptional action as the one being voted on. If there was, I would have a different opinion than the one I'm expressing now. What we have then is a faction of LNC members who hope to have the numbers to purge someone who is other then them. This is the kind of in-fighting that has been eating away at our party from the inside. It is also a slap in the face to the delegates who elected a diverse LNC with the hope that you could all advance the Party together rather than trying to undo the will of the body. I was a delegate to the Convention in Orlando. I was part of the body that elected many of you. Even if you don't think Arvin Vohra was the best choice for Vice Chair, he was the choice of the majority of national convention delegates. The idea that a small committee ( that was elected the same way ) believes they have the moral authority to over-ride the people who elected them is repugnant. If you don't respect our choices, then you have no right to expect our support. Even regional representatives were chosen by delegates at that convention (from their region), not just state chairs. If Arvin is removed by your vote, you will set a harmful precedent. Not only will delegates be considering the talents, views or outreach styles of candidates; they will need to avoid giving any faction a majority for fear that the diversity they voted for will be destroyed by internal purges after the Convention closes. The next convention is only a few months away. This is the appropriate place to remove and elect officers, not under cover of darkness in a poorly publicized meeting. Please have that much respect for the delegates. I have publicly, pledged to actively campaign against the election of any LNC member, who votes against the choice of the 2016 delegation, to any post in the LNC. In liberty, Scotty Boman Libertarian Party Member (313) 247-2052 References Visible links 1. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 2. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 3. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ Hidden links: 5. http://www.lpcaucus.org/

1 0

Motion to suspend for cause
by Alicia Mattson 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

If the censure email ballot means we're not going to have an electronic meeting, then I want us to still be able to consider both censure and suspension. Since the Platform references in my previous draft were not agreeable to all the potential supporters of a motion for suspension, I'll ask for co-sponsors for the following instead. -Alicia ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whereas, Bylaw Article 6.7 states that the National Committee may, for cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee; Whereas, Vice Chair Arvin Vohra’s public discourse has repeatedly included inflammatory and insulting remarks which bring the Party, its candidates, and its principles into disrepute; Whereas Mr. Vohra’s remarks have destructively stereotyped party members and large segments of the population, a behavior completely at odds with our Party’s philosophy of recognizing and treating people as individuals; Whereas, Mr. Vohra’s stated intent is to cause internal division, and his comments have caused wide-spread offense; and Whereas, the result is that the LNC, its committees, and Party affiliates are distracted from productive activities; Therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin Vohra for cause from his position as LNC Vice Chair; and Furthermore, we disavow and repudiate Mr. Vohra’s comments as being unrepresentative of the Libertarian National Committee. If the censure email ballot means we're not going to have an electronic meeting, then I want us to still be able to consider both censure and suspension. Since the Platform references in my previous draft were not agreeable to all the potential supporters of a motion for suspension, I'll ask for co-sponsors for the following instead. -Alicia ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Whereas, Bylaw Article 6.7 states that the National Committee may, for cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee; Whereas, Vice Chair Arvin Vohra’s public discourse has repeatedly included inflammatory and insulting remarks which bring the Party, its candidates, and its principles into disrepute; Whereas Mr. Vohra’s remarks have destructively stereotyped party members and large segments of the population, a behavior completely at odds with our Party’s philosophy of recognizing and treating people as individuals; Whereas, Mr. Vohra’s stated intent is to cause internal division, and his comments have caused wide-spread offense; and Whereas, the result is that the LNC, its committees, and Party affiliates are distracted from productive activities; Therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin Vohra for cause from his position as LNC Vice Chair; and Furthermore, we disavow and repudiate Mr. Vohra’s comments as being unrepresentative of the Libertarian National Committee.

2 4

Re: [Lnc-business] The impending purge of Arvin Vohra
by Caryn Ann Harlos 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

Dear Mr. Boman: The fact that Chairs have the authority to remove regionals is in fact a direct result of our duty to them. But regardless of the Bylaws, this is in fact the campaign promise I made to Region 1 and upon which I was elected, so I will be keeping my word. I also believe it is the way all regionals should handle important business. How the Chairs come to their decision is between them and their constituents. ==Rep. Harlos: Is this a matter of either he goes or you go?== I don't know where you got that from. I don't play games of chicken or make ultimatums, so no, it isn't. ==1 & 2. Sorry, but it was my impression that their would be a vote regarding the removal of Arvin at the next LNC meeting. Am I wrong? If there is a vote, will it be at a meeting? Will the date be decided at an LNC meeting?=== There may be a special electronic meeting. That is what I requested. If not, it will be on our publicly viewable email list via e-voting. ==While the LNC meetings are not totally private, they might as well be if people don't know they are happening or how to find out about them. The natural place to look would be the lp.org website. I did not find any information there. Thankfully, a Michigan Libertarian, who was privy to this information, provided me with the following links: == We do not meet often. The meetings are very easy to find on the site when they are happening (which is only three times a year). For instance see all the notices of past meetings: https://www.lp.org/?s=LNC+Meeting Further your regional rep has a Facebook group where she would be notifying members of her region. Region 1 (I am not sure of other regions) also has a regular newsletter and our own website. The link to the public email list is also on the LP.org site in the footer under "LNC Business Archives." I would prefer it be more prominent however. ==3. I didn't say he was elected on his agenda. Every delegate had their own reasons. Perhaps some liked his beard. The relevant point that I made here-in was that none of the reasons given for his removal draw on things the delegates didn't know, or should have known about Mr. Vohra before they elected him. == I disagree. I in fact campaigned for Mr. Vohra and knew nor expected any of this. This is not what he disclosed to the delegates. I daresay if he said to the delegates that the LP needed "less empathy" that he would have lost soundly. I wouldn't have supported or campaigned for him. ==He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone." *Using Force would be a substantial change. Examples please. * Whenever I see him commenting on third-rail issues he indicates that these are his opinions, and not necessarily those of the LP. == First, the word force is equivocal. Not all force is a NAP violation. He is forcing association by virtue of his position with issues that the rest of us did not voluntarily choose to make our issues. He stated that he is doing this because he thinks most of the rest of the Party will not so if he has to make a spectacle out of himself to make these the issues, he will, and will continue to. Whether or not they are presented as the issues of the LP is irrelevant. ==5. Clearly, you (Rep. Harlos) have implied that you fall into the pro-purge camp. === I reject that terminology. I am part of the "yes we have the right to have professional expectations of our leaders that don't include raising the possibility that a 14 year old might be a suitable romantic partner and that is said 14 year old were to get pregnant it is better that it be by an older man with a job" and more. ==Even here you seem to imply he is NOT a radical anarchist, by asserting, "He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone." Seems to violate the NAP. == I implied no such thing. In fact I said we both were radical anarchists. I have the word from my region who overwhelming support removal. My duty is to my region, and I shall due my duty. As I promised them. On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Scotty Boman <scottyboman(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear Caryn Ann Harlos and other LNC members: > > > Regarding the opening statement about the Regional Rep being required to > follow the wishes of their regional chairs. > > The only place where the Bylaws give State Chairs the default authority > here-in described is in *Article 7, Section 8*, where they may vote to > remove Regional Reps. The only way this equals being able to dictate the > removal of an LNC member is if they have threatened to remove a Regional > Representative if she or he did not vote said LNC member. > > Rep. Harlos: Is this a matter of either he goes or you go? > > I will address the enumerated points made by Rep. Caryn Harlos item by > item. My responses are intended for the entire LNC, but I will refer to > her in second person here. > > 1 & 2. Sorry, but it was my impression that their would be a vote > regarding the removal of Arvin at the next LNC meeting. Am I wrong? If > there is a vote, will it be at a meeting? Will the date be decided at an > LNC meeting? > > While the LNC meetings are not totally private, they might as well be if > people don't know they are happening or how to find out about them. The > natural place to look would be the lp.org website. I did not find any > information there. Thankfully, a Michigan Libertarian, who was privy to > this information, provided me with the following links: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes > http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/ > > I will be working to make the membership more aware of these. > > 3. I didn't say he was elected on his agenda. Every delegate had their > own reasons. Perhaps some liked his beard. The relevant point that I made > here-in was that none of the reasons given for his removal draw on things > the delegates didn't know, or should have known about Mr. Vohra before they > elected him. What the saw is what they got, and they still have what they > voted for. Here you seem to give the reason as, "He is forcing unwilling > people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows > what is good for everyone." *Using Force would be a substantial change. > Examples please. * Whenever I see him commenting on third-rail issues he > indicates that these are his opinions, and not necessarily those of the LP. > > 4. The relevance of this is echoed in the Bylaws. Article 6, Section 7 > reads, "The National Committee may, *for cause*, suspend any officer by a > vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee." A reasonable understanding > of this phrase would be similar to when it applies to employment. Being > the person he was when the 2016 Delegation hired him to be their Vice > Chair, is no sufficient cause; it is simply a group of people choosing to > usurp the will of the delegation, because they are unhappy with their > choice. > > 5. Clearly, you (Rep. Harlos) have implied that you fall into the > pro-purge camp. There are different forms of us and them. You will get > different assortments of people if you segregate them according to > different categories. Even here you seem to imply he is NOT a radical > anarchist, by asserting, "He is forcing unwilling people to be > associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good > for everyone." Seems to violate the NAP. Perhaps the factionalism > concerns the "pet topics" you elude to. The specifics of what make your > faction different from his isn't material to my concern expressed here-in. > Clearly sides are being taken and there are some conspiring to remove him. > Clearly there are factions, and you have only chosen one label that at some > point you claim describes you and he. > > My material concern is that when dismissal without cause over pre-existing > differences becomes the practice, the trust delegates have in their party > keeping the leadership they elected is breached. So delegates must not > only evaluate what candidates will do in matters of policy, work-ethic, > outreach etc... but now they need to evaluate whether officers will respect > their choices of other officers. Clearly some do not, and this > response supports that concern loud and clear. > > In liberty, > Scotty Boman > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 20, 2018 2:48 AM > *To:* Libertarian National Committee list; scottyboman(a)hotmail.com > *Subject:* Fwd: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra > > Copying this for the LNC list. > > I spoke briefly with Mr. Boman on social media. Regional Representatives > should do the will of their Region, and Mr. Boman is not in my region. > Regional Representatives are accountable to their state chairs as per our > Bylaws unless the regional agreement says otherwise. I promised at my > election to follow the procedure I am following and thus upon which I was > elected. I do not betray my promises. > > Some points though need to be addressed. > > 1. There isn't a "poorly publicized meeting" as no meeting has been set. > One cannot publicize something that is not scheduled. Our discussions are > far from poorly publicized. Any member can read every single LNC > discussion if they avail themselves of it. > > 2. One thing the LNC is not is operating under a cover of darkness. That > is unwarranted hyperbole that is not cognizant of the tremendous > transparency we do have compared to LNC subcommittees and other > organizations. > > 3. No, Mr. Vohra was not elected on this agenda. He is forcing unwilling > people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows > what is good for everyone. That is not acceptable to me. > > 4. The Bylaws give this option. The Bylaws that were not changed last > convention and represent the rules of this Body. The same Bylaws that > delegates voted to give this Body the discretion to do. I will be > campaigning for a change to have a direct right of recall but that does not > exist right now, and thus, this is properly in our purview. > > 5. As far as diversity and "not them." I beg to differ. I am a radical > anarchist. Just like Mr. Vohra. This has nothing to do with "not them" > and factionalism for me. > > I await the final instruction from my Regional Chairs. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Scotty Boman* <scottyboman(a)hotmail.com> > Date: Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:21 AM > Subject: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra > To: "chair(a)lp.org" <chair(a)lp.org>, "vicechair(a)lp.org" <vicechair(a)lp.org>, > "treasurer(a)lp.org" <treasurer(a)lp.org>, "secretary(a)lp.org" < > secretary(a)lp.org>, "william.redpath(a)lp.org" <william.redpath(a)lp.org>, " > sam.goldstein(a)lp.org" <sam.goldstein(a)lp.org>, "starchild(a)lp.org" < > starchild(a)lp.org>, "daniel.hayes(a)lp.org" <daniel.hayes(a)lp.org>, " > joshua.katz(a)lp.org" <joshua.katz(a)lp.org>, "caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org" < > caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org>, "steven.nielson(a)lp.org" <steven.nielson(a)lp.org>, > "ed.marsh(a)lp.org" <ed.marsh(a)lp.org>, "steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org" < > steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org>, "elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org" < > elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org>, "dustin.nanna(a)lp.org" <dustin.nanna(a)lp.org>, " > jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org" <jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org>, "aaron.starr(a)lp.org" < > aaron.starr(a)lp.org>, "james.lark(a)lp.org" <james.lark(a)lp.org>, " > trent.somes(a)lp.org" <trent.somes(a)lp.org>, "david.demarest(a)lp.org" < > david.demarest(a)lp.org>, "sean.otoole(a)lp.org" <sean.otoole(a)lp.org>, " > whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org" <whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org>, "erin.adams(a)lp.org" < > erin.adams(a)lp.org>, "patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org" <patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org>, " > larry.sharpe(a)lp.org" <larry.sharpe(a)lp.org> > > > Honorable LEC Members: > > I recently learned that you will soon be voting on the removal of Arvin > Vohra from his office as Vice Chair. In researching what actions by Arvin > justified this, I have learned that there is nothing new or exceptional > about his conduct that would warrant said removal. I base this conclusion > primarily on the words of the very people who want him removed. > > While there were some disturbing labels being pasted on him, all examples > of substance showed that his critics wanted him to be removed for being the > same person he was when he was elected by the delegation in 2016. He is > philosophically purist (AKA consistent). He is abrasively direct. He > doesn't avoid third-rail issues. So there is no new heinous sin that calls > for an exceptional action as the one being voted on. If there was, I would > have a different opinion than the one I'm expressing now. > > What we have then is a faction of LNC members who hope to have the numbers > to purge someone who is other then them. This is the kind of in-fighting > that has been eating away at our party from the inside. It is also a slap > in the face to the delegates who elected a diverse LNC with the hope that > you could all advance the Party together rather than trying to undo the > will of the body. > > I was a delegate to the Convention in Orlando. I was part of the body > that elected many of you. Even if you don't think Arvin Vohra was the best > choice for Vice Chair, he was the choice of the majority of national > convention delegates. The idea that a small committee ( that was elected > the same way ) believes they have the moral authority to over-ride the > people who elected them is repugnant. If you don't respect our choices, > then you have no right to expect our support. > > Even regional representatives were chosen by delegates at that convention > (from their region), not just state chairs. > > If Arvin is removed by your vote, you will set a harmful precedent. Not > only will delegates be considering the talents, views or outreach styles of > candidates; they will need to avoid giving any faction a majority for fear > that the diversity they voted for will be destroyed by internal purges > after the Convention closes. > > The next convention is only a few months away. This is the appropriate > place to remove and elect officers, not under cover of darkness in a poorly > publicized meeting. > > Please have that much respect for the delegates. I have publicly, pledged > to actively campaign against the election of any LNC member, who votes > against the choice of the 2016 delegation, to any post in the LNC. > > In liberty, > Scotty Boman > Libertarian Party Member > (313) 247-2052 > > > Dear Mr. Boman: The fact that Chairs have the authority to remove regionals is in fact a direct result of our duty to them. But regardless of the Bylaws, this is in fact the campaign promise I made to Region 1 and upon which I was elected, so I will be keeping my word. I also believe it is the way all regionals should handle important business. How the Chairs come to their decision is between them and their constituents. ==Rep. Harlos: Is this a matter of either he goes or you go?== I don't know where you got that from. I don't play games of chicken or make ultimatums, so no, it isn't. ==1 & 2. Sorry, but it was my impression that their would be a vote regarding the removal of Arvin at the next LNC meeting. Am I wrong? If there is a vote, will it be at a meeting? Will the date be decided at an LNC meeting?=== There may be a special electronic meeting. That is what I requested. If not, it will be on our publicly viewable email list via e-voting. ==While the LNC meetings are not totally private, they might as well be if people don't know they are happening or how to find out about them. The natural place to look would be the [1]lp.org website. I did not find any information there. Thankfully, a Michigan Libertarian, who was privy to this information, provided me with the following links: == We do not meet often. The meetings are very easy to find on the site when they are happening (which is only three times a year). For instance see all the notices of past meetings: [2]https://www.lp.org/?s=LNC+Meeting Further your regional rep has a Facebook group where she would be notifying members of her region. Region 1 (I am not sure of other regions) also has a regular newsletter and our own website. The link to the public email list is also on the LP.org site in the footer under "LNC Business Archives." I would prefer it be more prominent however. ==3. I didn't say he was elected on his agenda. Every delegate had their own reasons. Perhaps some liked his beard. The relevant point that I made here-in was that none of the reasons given for his removal draw on things the delegates didn't know, or should have known about Mr. Vohra before they elected him. == I disagree. I in fact campaigned for Mr. Vohra and knew nor expected any of this. This is not what he disclosed to the delegates. I daresay if he said to the delegates that the LP needed "less empathy" that he would have lost soundly. I wouldn't have supported or campaigned for him. ==He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone." Using Force would be a substantial change. Examples please. Whenever I see him commenting on third-rail issues he indicates that these are his opinions, and not necessarily those of the LP. == First, the word force is equivocal. Not all force is a NAP violation. He is forcing association by virtue of his position with issues that the rest of us did not voluntarily choose to make our issues. He stated that he is doing this because he thinks most of the rest of the Party will not so if he has to make a spectacle out of himself to make these the issues, he will, and will continue to. Whether or not they are presented as the issues of the LP is irrelevant. ==5. Clearly, you (Rep. Harlos) have implied that you fall into the pro-purge camp. === I reject that terminology. I am part of the "yes we have the right to have professional expectations of our leaders that don't include raising the possibility that a 14 year old might be a suitable romantic partner and that is said 14 year old were to get pregnant it is better that it be by an older man with a job" and more. ==Even here you seem to imply he is NOT a radical anarchist, by asserting, "He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone." Seems to violate the NAP. == I implied no such thing. In fact I said we both were radical anarchists. I have the word from my region who overwhelming support removal. My duty is to my region, and I shall due my duty. As I promised them. On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Scotty Boman <[3]scottyboman(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Dear Caryn Ann Harlos and other LNC members: Regarding the opening statement about the Regional Rep being required to follow the wishes of their regional chairs. The only place where the Bylaws give State Chairs the default authority here-in described is in Article 7, Section 8, where they may vote to remove Regional Reps. The only way this equals being able to dictate the removal of an LNC member is if they have threatened to remove a Regional Representative if she or he did not vote said LNC member. Rep. Harlos: Is this a matter of either he goes or you go? I will address the enumerated points made by Rep. Caryn Harlos item by item. My responses are intended for the entire LNC, but I will refer to her in second person here. 1 & 2. Sorry, but it was my impression that their would be a vote regarding the removal of Arvin at the next LNC meeting. Am I wrong? If there is a vote, will it be at a meeting? Will the date be decided at an LNC meeting? While the LNC meetings are not totally private, they might as well be if people don't know they are happening or how to find out about them. The natural place to look would be the [4]lp.org website. I did not find any information there. Thankfully, a Michigan Libertarian, who was privy to this information, provided me with the following links: [5]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes [6]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/ I will be working to make the membership more aware of these. 3. I didn't say he was elected on his agenda. Every delegate had their own reasons. Perhaps some liked his beard. The relevant point that I made here-in was that none of the reasons given for his removal draw on things the delegates didn't know, or should have known about Mr. Vohra before they elected him. What the saw is what they got, and they still have what they voted for. Here you seem to give the reason as, "He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone." Using Force would be a substantial change. Examples please. Whenever I see him commenting on third-rail issues he indicates that these are his opinions, and not necessarily those of the LP. 4. The relevance of this is echoed in the Bylaws. Article 6, Section 7 reads, "The National Committee may, for cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee." A reasonable understanding of this phrase would be similar to when it applies to employment. Being the person he was when the 2016 Delegation hired him to be their Vice Chair, is no sufficient cause; it is simply a group of people choosing to usurp the will of the delegation, because they are unhappy with their choice. 5. Clearly, you (Rep. Harlos) have implied that you fall into the pro-purge camp. There are different forms of us and them. You will get different assortments of people if you segregate them according to different categories. Even here you seem to imply he is NOT a radical anarchist, by asserting, "He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone." Seems to violate the NAP. Perhaps the factionalism concerns the "pet topics" you elude to. The specifics of what make your faction different from his isn't material to my concern expressed here-in. Clearly sides are being taken and there are some conspiring to remove him. Clearly there are factions, and you have only chosen one label that at some point you claim describes you and he. My material concern is that when dismissal without cause over pre-existing differences becomes the practice, the trust delegates have in their party keeping the leadership they elected is breached. So delegates must not only evaluate what candidates will do in matters of policy, work-ethic, outreach etc... but now they need to evaluate whether officers will respect their choices of other officers. Clearly some do not, and this response supports that concern loud and clear. In liberty, Scotty Boman __________________________________________________________________ From: Caryn Ann Harlos <[7]caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 2:48 AM To: Libertarian National Committee list; [8]scottyboman(a)hotmail.com Subject: Fwd: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra Copying this for the LNC list. I spoke briefly with Mr. Boman on social media. Regional Representatives should do the will of their Region, and Mr. Boman is not in my region. Regional Representatives are accountable to their state chairs as per our Bylaws unless the regional agreement says otherwise. I promised at my election to follow the procedure I am following and thus upon which I was elected. I do not betray my promises. Some points though need to be addressed. 1. There isn't a "poorly publicized meeting" as no meeting has been set. One cannot publicize something that is not scheduled. Our discussions are far from poorly publicized. Any member can read every single LNC discussion if they avail themselves of it. 2. One thing the LNC is not is operating under a cover of darkness. That is unwarranted hyperbole that is not cognizant of the tremendous transparency we do have compared to LNC subcommittees and other organizations. 3. No, Mr. Vohra was not elected on this agenda. He is forcing unwilling people to be associated with his pet topics because he has decided he knows what is good for everyone. That is not acceptable to me. 4. The Bylaws give this option. The Bylaws that were not changed last convention and represent the rules of this Body. The same Bylaws that delegates voted to give this Body the discretion to do. I will be campaigning for a change to have a direct right of recall but that does not exist right now, and thus, this is properly in our purview. 5. As far as diversity and "not them." I beg to differ. I am a radical anarchist. Just like Mr. Vohra. This has nothing to do with "not them" and factionalism for me. I await the final instruction from my Regional Chairs. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Scotty Boman <[9]scottyboman(a)hotmail.com> Date: Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:21 AM Subject: The impending purge of Arvin Vohra To: "[10]chair(a)lp.org" <[11]chair(a)lp.org>, "[12]vicechair(a)lp.org" <[13]vicechair(a)lp.org>, "[14]treasurer(a)lp.org" <[15]treasurer(a)lp.org>, "[16]secretary(a)lp.org" <[17]secretary(a)lp.org>, "[18]william.redpath(a)lp.org" <[19]william.redpath(a)lp.org>, "[20]sam.goldstein(a)lp.org" <[21]sam.goldstein(a)lp.org>, "[22]starchild(a)lp.org" <[23]starchild(a)lp.org>, "[24]daniel.hayes(a)lp.org" <[25]daniel.hayes(a)lp.org>, "[26]joshua.katz(a)lp.org" <[27]joshua.katz(a)lp.org>, "[28]caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org" <[29]caryn.ann.harlos(a)lp.org>, "[30]steven.nielson(a)lp.org" <[31]steven.nielson(a)lp.org>, "[32]ed.marsh(a)lp.org" <[33]ed.marsh(a)lp.org>, "[34]steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org" <[35]steven.nekhaila(a)lp.org>, "[36]elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org" <[37]elizabeth.vanhorn(a)lp.org>, "[38]dustin.nanna(a)lp.org" <[39]dustin.nanna(a)lp.org>, "[40]jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org" <[41]jeffrey.hewitt(a)lp.org>, "[42]aaron.starr(a)lp.org" <[43]aaron.starr(a)lp.org>, "[44]james.lark(a)lp.org" <[45]james.lark(a)lp.org>, "[46]trent.somes(a)lp.org" <[47]trent.somes(a)lp.org>, "[48]david.demarest(a)lp.org" <[49]david.demarest(a)lp.org>, "[50]sean.otoole(a)lp.org" <[51]sean.otoole(a)lp.org>, "[52]whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org" <[53]whitney.bilyeu(a)lp.org>, "[54]erin.adams(a)lp.org" <[55]erin.adams(a)lp.org>, "[56]patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org" <[57]patrick.mcknight(a)lp.org>, "[58]larry.sharpe(a)lp.org" <[59]larry.sharpe(a)lp.org> Honorable LEC Members: I recently learned that you will soon be voting on the removal of Arvin Vohra from his office as Vice Chair. In researching what actions by Arvin justified this, I have learned that there is nothing new or exceptional about his conduct that would warrant said removal. I base this conclusion primarily on the words of the very people who want him removed. While there were some disturbing labels being pasted on him, all examples of substance showed that his critics wanted him to be removed for being the same person he was when he was elected by the delegation in 2016. He is philosophically purist (AKA consistent). He is abrasively direct. He doesn't avoid third-rail issues. So there is no new heinous sin that calls for an exceptional action as the one being voted on. If there was, I would have a different opinion than the one I'm expressing now. What we have then is a faction of LNC members who hope to have the numbers to purge someone who is other then them. This is the kind of in-fighting that has been eating away at our party from the inside. It is also a slap in the face to the delegates who elected a diverse LNC with the hope that you could all advance the Party together rather than trying to undo the will of the body. I was a delegate to the Convention in Orlando. I was part of the body that elected many of you. Even if you don't think Arvin Vohra was the best choice for Vice Chair, he was the choice of the majority of national convention delegates. The idea that a small committee ( that was elected the same way ) believes they have the moral authority to over-ride the people who elected them is repugnant. If you don't respect our choices, then you have no right to expect our support. Even regional representatives were chosen by delegates at that convention (from their region), not just state chairs. If Arvin is removed by your vote, you will set a harmful precedent. Not only will delegates be considering the talents, views or outreach styles of candidates; they will need to avoid giving any faction a majority for fear that the diversity they voted for will be destroyed by internal purges after the Convention closes. The next convention is only a few months away. This is the appropriate place to remove and elect officers, not under cover of darkness in a poorly publicized meeting. Please have that much respect for the delegates. I have publicly, pledged to actively campaign against the election of any LNC member, who votes against the choice of the 2016 delegation, to any post in the LNC. In liberty, Scotty Boman Libertarian Party Member [60](313) 247-2052 References 1. http://lp.org/ 2. https://www.lp.org/?s=LNC+Meeting 3. mailto:scottyboman@hotmail.com 4. http://lp.org/ 5. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes 6. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/ 7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:scottyboman@hotmail.com 9. mailto:scottyboman@hotmail.com 10. mailto:chair@lp.org 11. mailto:chair@lp.org 12. mailto:vicechair@lp.org 13. mailto:vicechair@lp.org 14. mailto:treasurer@lp.org 15. mailto:treasurer@lp.org 16. mailto:secretary@lp.org 17. mailto:secretary@lp.org 18. mailto:william.redpath@lp.org 19. mailto:william.redpath@lp.org 20. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 21. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 22. mailto:starchild@lp.org 23. mailto:starchild@lp.org 24. mailto:daniel.hayes@lp.org 25. mailto:daniel.hayes@lp.org 26. mailto:joshua.katz@lp.org 27. mailto:joshua.katz@lp.org 28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 30. mailto:steven.nielson@lp.org 31. mailto:steven.nielson@lp.org 32. mailto:ed.marsh@lp.org 33. mailto:ed.marsh@lp.org 34. mailto:steven.nekhaila@lp.org 35. mailto:steven.nekhaila@lp.org 36. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 37. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 38. mailto:dustin.nanna@lp.org 39. mailto:dustin.nanna@lp.org 40. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt@lp.org 41. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt@lp.org 42. mailto:aaron.starr@lp.org 43. mailto:aaron.starr@lp.org 44. mailto:james.lark@lp.org 45. mailto:james.lark@lp.org 46. mailto:trent.somes@lp.org 47. mailto:trent.somes@lp.org 48. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 49. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 50. mailto:sean.otoole@lp.org 51. mailto:sean.otoole@lp.org 52. mailto:whitney.bilyeu@lp.org 53. mailto:whitney.bilyeu@lp.org 54. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 55. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 56. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 57. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 58. mailto:larry.sharpe@lp.org 59. mailto:larry.sharpe@lp.org 60. tel:(313) 247-2052

1 0

Special meeting
by Caryn Ann Harlos 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

I would call the meeting for 1/28 at 10 eastern. I will change my flight and stay an extra night in AZ to accommodate. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> 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* I would call the meeting for 1/28 at 10 eastern. I will change my flight and stay an extra night in AZ to accommodate. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)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:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org 2. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

4 3

Motion to Censure
by Jeff Hewitt 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

Move to censure LNC Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated comments made on social media that are inflammatory and destructive to the building of a competent political entity whose primary function is to draw people to libertarian ideas and to elect Libertarian candidates to office. Jeff Hewitt LNC Region 4 Representive Move to censure LNC Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated comments made on social media that are inflammatory and destructive to the building of a competent political entity whose primary function is to draw people to libertarian ideas and to elect Libertarian candidates to office. Jeff Hewitt LNC Region 4 Representive

10 22