Email ballot

[Joe Bishop-Henchman]

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by June 26, 2021 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.

Sponsor: Longstreth, Wendt, Hagan, Sarwark, Ebke, Bishop-Henchman

=============================================

Motion: The Libertarian National Committee hereby suspends Caryn Ann Harlos from her role of Secretary on the LNC for a pattern of repeated unprofessional behavior and conduct unbecoming of a national officer and removes her from all LNC committee appointments per Article 7.5 of the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.

=============================================

THRESHOLD REQUIRED: 2/3 of the entire national committee, excluding Ms Harlos

[Joe Bishop-Henchman]

I vote yes. JBH

[Richard Longstreth]

I vote yes.

Richard Longstreth
At Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
richard.l...@lp.org
931.538.9300

Sent from my Mobile Device

[Laura Ebke]

Yes.

Laura Ebke, PhD
LNC At-Large

Former NE State Senator
laura...@lp.org
Cell: 402-540-6510

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Suspensions must happen at a meeting.  This is out of order.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Everyone will remember we dealt with this with Mr. Vohra. 

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

So Point of Order.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[John Phillips]

Dear colleagues,

I am beyond heartbroken over the mess we have created. I am quite literally sitting in my office crying right now.  I have had friends turn on friends and rumors and attacks and threats physical and otherwise to themselves and to myself.    Some accusations have validity on each side, and some are at best hyperbole and at worst utter fabrications.

I find that i cannot separate myself from this one emotionally.  Mrs Harlos is a dear friend, as is Mr Bishop-Henchman.  I am broken and unable to be objective.

  It pains me not to vote in favor of my friend, and it pains me to admit that there is a measure of accuracy in the complaints that I cannot defend.  

As is only proper when a clear conflict of interest exists, and as I have done before, I must recuse myself from this vote and give way to Mr Bughman as the only honorable course of action.

I hate the tribalism that has taken us to the point. I hate that we have fallen so far.  My spirit is crushed. My bright hopes for this party and this group destroyed.  Forgive me but I cannot take part in this action on either side.

Oh. And take this insane factionalism and shove it. Y.C.F.R.O. with it.

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative
217-412-5973

[Francis Wendt]

Yes

Francis Wendt

LNC Region 1 Representative

---

From: John Phillips <john.p...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 2:46:19 PM
To: Lp <lnc-bu...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: [lnc-business] Re: Email ballot

 

[David Sexton]

If Mr. Nekhaila should defer his vote to me and/or not vote, I vote yes.

It hasn’t been my custom to cast my vote on email ballots, but this is one that, even as an alternate, I wanted to go on the record for. 

This goes well beyond the personality clashes or petty bickering. I vote yes because it has become extremely apparent that the level of professionalism needed in order to conduct the business of the third largest political party in our country can never be achieved so long as Ms Harlos is allowed to serve on this committee. 

Her attempt to pass off calling colleagues “fuckers” and “bitches” as slang should have been enough on its own, however, nothing was done. 

On top of that, the investigation of the recent events in NH were completely botched from the very beginning by her insistence in meddling in it before the Body could decide on the best action forward, going so far as to lash out disrespectfully to anyone trying to persuade her to be patient. Through these actions alone, this should be enough.

But it goes even further than that, because she also has been using her position and information as LP Secretary to monetize her personal YouTube account, effectively achieving financial compensation from her elected role. 

For those reasons, I vote yes.  And I urge the other members of this body, if you want to save any semblances of being a professional organization, please, please vote yes as well. 

David Sexton 

Region 2 Alternate 

On Jun 18, 2021, at 3:34 PM, Richard Longstreth <richard.l...@lp.org> wrote:



[Joshua Smith]

What the absolute hell is going on here? You, this board, have watched actual corruption take place over the last week, and are now going after the people who were steadfast in fighting it? Shame on you. Everyone is watching you. Everyone in this party knows what you are doing. I'd implore you to think about that. 

Unequivocally no to this sham of a motion. You should be ashamed of yourselves. 

Be well,

Joshua 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I continue to raise my point of order.  This is not a new thing - suspensions must take place at a meeting and in the form of a hearing.  I will not be commenting on the issue until my hearing.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[David Valente]

Until Sunan takes her rightful vote, I vote yes to this motion. I agree with Mr Longstreth's assessment especially her continued taunts to censure her and not take those censyres seriously. To flaunt a policy manual that she continuously uses as a cudgel against other members. Also her emolunents off of party resources as part of my long reasoning for this. In the best interests of moving this body, this party forward is without Ms Harlos. 

v/r 

David Valente

Region 5 Alternate

[David Valente]

Apologies, Susan, fat fingers, tiny keyboard

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I was incorrect on the point of order - I withdraw it.

It is cowardly to not allow me a hearing.  Shame on you all.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Matthew Bughman]

I feel terrible having to make this current vote, as I wish there was a mutually beneficial option to this current vote. But the actions of some have jeopardized the faith and legitimacy of the LNC as a whole. The blatant lack of decorum by Ms. Harlos and her inappropriate involvement in party matters involving the LPNH issue have forced the LNC into a corner and neutered our ability to conduct basic business. Two members of the LNC have already resigned, several elected libertarians have left the party,  as well as several members have left the party .  

To the membership in Region 6 I know that there will be those who will be upset over my vote. Just know I make this vote with region 6 in my heart. I also have the utmost respect for John Phillips and ask that you have the same. 

With that said I vote yes.

[Dustin Nanna]

Is it in order to table this until tempers have stopped flaring?

Dustin Nanna

Region 3 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

740-816-9805

[Francis Wendt]

Email ballots cannot be tabled.

Francis Wendt

LNC Region 1 Representative

---

From: Dustin Nanna <dustin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 4:21:20 PM
To: lnc-bu...@lp.org <lnc-bu...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: [lnc-business] Re: Email ballot

[Joe Bishop-Henchman]

I apologize I did promise to state this explicitly when I did this, but I yield the gavel as I'm now (in) MIA for good 

Further up and further in,

JBH

[Joshua Smith]

I hope you all are watching the public comments and counting noses. You're not on the right side of this. You're literally getting retribution on a whistle-blower who tried her very hardest to expose corruption while you yelled about decorum. 

This is not the Libertarian way. 

[Francis Wendt]

Neither is intimidation Mr. Smith, but that is what you do. It's your party you can cry if you want to.

Francis Wendt

LNC Region 1 Representative

---

From: Joshua Smith <joshua...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 4:36:23 PM

To: lnc-bu...@lp.org <lnc-bu...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: [lnc-business] Re: Email ballot

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

All the indecorum I see.  Hypocrites.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Joshua Smith]

Funny that you see the party members emailing you to ask you not to remove a whistle-blower as "intimidation", but for someone seeking unfounded retribution without cause, it makes sense. 

[Jared Hall]

Colleagues,

I am not be swayed by an appeal to emotion or lies.

The motion to remove the Secretary is not about the LPNH debacle. It is not, as she claims, because she’s a whistleblower.

The motion to remove is because she has created an entirely hostile environment wherein members of the LNC no longer believe that the body can work together. Tacit support and calls for bullying and intimidation techniques fail to uphold core libertarian positions and violate the policy manual. This entire board tiptoes around the Secretary out of fear of getting a lashing. Push back results in abusive behaviors. All of which is unbecoming of an Officer of the Libertarian National Committee.

It is for these reasons that I vote Aye.

-

Jared

R3 Alt

--

Jared Hall
Region 3 Alternate

“For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization.”
-Robert A. Heinlein

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And that is nonsense.  It is entirely for the whistleblowing reasons and most of my accusers have been highly indecorous.

But the biggest problem for you all is that I have no changed.  I am the same person the delegates elected.  They got what they bought and you all on your high horses think you have the right to overturn THEIR decision.  You don't.  It would be different if I changed.  I didn't.  Same as last term, yet you have the absolute gall to think you can just overturn them.  This is appalling, and to do it without a hearing is the utmost of cowardice.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Dustin Nanna]

I abstain. I will not be bullied into joining personal fights and the chairs in my region are deadlocked on this issue. I'm here to move the Party forward, not devolve into circular firing squads.

Dustin Nanna

Region 3 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

740-816-9805

[Robert Pepiton]

Unfortunately Madam Secretary, you do occupy the same body that delegates elected, but your unprofessional behaviour, lack of decorum, and lack of restraint and tact are not the same as the person the delegates elected, not what I imagine the slim margin you won by would want to see in the Secretary of the National party. I admire many things about you, your work ethic, your tenacity and your whit are all admirable qualities, however in recent months your behavior has been egregious, especially the statements you have made about members of the LNC and towards other members of the party. 

However, you are not the only one who has displayed this behaviour. I hope, at some point this parties national leadership can rise above petty attacks and squabbling and get back to the work at hand.

Your Friend in Liberty,

Robert A. Pepiton II

Assistant Treasurer

Libertarian National Committee

robert....@lp.org

"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual." 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I have not changed Mr. Pepiton, and I am putting this on the record.  I have not counted but there have been about 500 member emails now (I am not great at estimating so that might be the high end) that are being ignored by those voting.  They cannot pretend they are representing the membership and two regionals didn't even bother to consult their region. Corrupt.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

While we are getting real, here is how I see it.  Last night I asked the question that would absolutely prove the corruption of the chair.  I believe he knew he had to resign and he asked his best friend Richard Longstreth to make sure I went out with him.  The timeline is suspicious as hell and the reasons here are flimsy as hell and would justify a censure at best.  And then the utter cowardice in denying me a hearing.  I will have my hearing if necessary with the Judicial Committee.

But no yes vote here can even remotely pretend to be representing the members.  And what I say on my person time is my business.  If it is right to remove me for that, John Phillips is just as bad.  And he has actually dropped the f-bomb on this list, something I have never done.  And the  maker of this motion said he knowingly violated decorum.  This is a naked attempt to remove the mouthy woman who blew the  whistle and I will not let any of you pretend it is something else.  Neither will the delegates.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Steven Nekhaila]

Dear All,

I understand emotions are high, and emotions cloud judgement. Not to say that anyone is voting without reason, but the entire series of events in the past week have left no one unmoved, and I am conscious of that.

With that said, I am not unfamiliar with many votes to remove members, both in the Libertarian Party of Florida, as well as on the Libertarian National Committee. I have always held votes to remove against the Non-Aggression Principle/Pledge, as that is the only time our Party allows the removal of a member.

I believe that Caryn-Ann Harlos has acted out of decorum, and I invite her to step back and think of the Party and those watching and to consider that more messages, more words, and more thoughts do not equate to more support and instead make the board and the Party look weak and unwise.

I could also offer the same advice to us all, including myself.

To those that are upset about Caryn-Ann's decorum, a response to something you do not like to hear will result in hearing more of it, if you don't want to engage with someone then do not do it. That makes you no less free of the same criticism.

Many members have broken decorum, this whole situation is about much more than broken decorum, things that are, in my opinion, much worse than that.

So consider this, the tone is set from the top. If we do not like hundreds of emails, pissed off members, and lost donors, then we must consider our own tone address that first. That is enough to reform.

With that said, Caryn Ann Harlos did not violate the Non-Aggression Principle nor the Pledge, and is not grounds for removal.

I vote Nay.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Region 2 Representative

305-393-6412

Libertarian National Committee

Impotentes defendere liberatum non possunt

Those without power cannot defend freedom

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I want to add that no one will ever believe anything anyone says about optics when you are blatantly ignoring the optics of me asking the question  last night that certainly looks like it exposed the corruption of the chair and then the best friend (or at least top ten) of the chair (his words) tries to take me down with him.

The optics are horrible, but you don't care.  This is petty revenge.  Everyone here has broken decorum.  Everyone (except Laura Ebke).

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Valerie Sarwark]

I vote yes. 

Valerie

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I am raising a new Point of Order.  I have thoroughly reviewed the pertinent sections of RONR and our bylaws.  Our bylaws language falls under 62:16 which requires the appointment of an investigative committee and trial.  

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Joshua Smith]

Then this motion is out of order, and there will need to be a new order made. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And I would also add that even though I am not allowed to vote on this, I am allowed to move to divide.  This is not only targeting me for acts that everyone here has done, it is grossly punitive in trying to remove me from all committees (obviously APRC would automatically be included) in which there is ZERO accusations.  That will raise a point for me on appeal.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Grossly grossly punitive and spiteful.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Ken Moellman]

Assuming I can find this thread in the morning I will address the points of order then.

Goodnight everyone.  

Ken Moellman

Libertarian National Committee

Vice Chair

[Jared Hall]

The bylaws specifically provide for a means of removal of an officer. The appeal relies on 62:16 which states “Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer...can be removed from office as follow:” What is being cited is irrelevant as once again, our bylaws provide otherwise.

Thank you

Jared

R3 Alt 

[Jared Hall]

*The Point of Order*

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

You are incorrect.  There is something very technical here in the wording of our terms of office, and RONR provides for that, since we serve AND until our successors are elected in essence, I am entitled to a trial.

It is really sad how many want to deny me that.  I would NEVER EVER do that to any of you.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

This is why Arvin was entitled to a meeting. He waived a trial.  Both RONR and our past custom both are in my favour.

Shame on Libertarians eager to deny due process.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[John Phillips]

I am 100% in favor of all due process. I am not bylaws knowledgeable enough to argue one side or the other of this, and all of the different references make it difficult for me to translate.

As such I also ask for a ruling, perhaps some input from Mr Brown or Mr Hall.

If Mrs Harlos is entitled to such under our bylaws it would be an egregious miscarriage of justice to deny it.

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative
217-412-5973

[Joshua Smith]

In my time on various boards in this party, throughout three states, I have never seen a motion to remove without notice or trial. Never. 

I think precedent and the bylaws/RONR are all on Caryn Ann's side. You're free to defer to Mr. Brown, but I would bet my life he tells you the same. 

This motion is out of order. Make another motion, or prove that it's not. 

Cheers,

Joshua 

[Joshua Smith]

Or, you know, do the honorable thing and rescind it. 

Just a thought. 

[Tim Hagan]

I vote yes.

Tim Hagan

Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

[Joshua Smith]

There has been several points of order, and a motion to divide. 

[Susan Hogarth]

Yes

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:32 PM Joe Bishop-Henchman <joe.bisho...@lp.org> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by June 26, 2021 at 11:59:59 pm Pacific time.

Sponsor: Longstreth, Wendt, Hagan, Sarwark, Ebke, Bishop-Henchman

=============================================

Motion: The Libertarian National Committee hereby suspends Caryn Ann Harlos from her role of Secretary on the LNC for a pattern of repeated unprofessional behavior and conduct unbecoming of a national officer and removes her from all LNC committee appointments per Article 7.5 of the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.

=============================================

THRESHOLD REQUIRED: 2/3 of the entire national committee, excluding Ms Harlos

--

Susan Hogarth
919-906-2106
Region 5 Representative

[David Valente]

Removal without notice or a hearing is not unheard of in LP circles, ask Jackie Perry. We often create the cudgel with which we are eventually beaten. 

v/r

David Valente

Region 5 Alternate

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Jackie Perry was fully entitled to a trial.  I want to clarify Mr. Valente, are you claiming I don't deserve due process?  I don't want to misunderstand an allegory.  

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Laura Ebke]

Mr. Smith,

I see some points of order--could you point me to the motion to divide, please?

Laura

Laura Ebke, PhD
LNC At-Large

Former NE State Senator
laura...@lp.org
Cell: 402-540-6510

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I started it above and I’ll state it again .  Zero evidence has been given against my committee work.  This is the most vindictive act possible.  I move to divide committee positions except those requiring LNC membership from others.

The two are separate however.

This is unheard of.

--

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I’m retaining a professional parliamentarian for my case here.

A Libertarian should never have to do that to merely get due process.  

[John Phillips]

That division does seem fair to me. I'm not sure I caught the full implications of that phrasing.

I understand Mr Moellman is working through this thread with Mr Brown today, so hopefully some answers will be given soon.

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative
217-412-5973

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And I hope to have a letter from my retained parliamentarian 

[Jared Hall]

Colleagues,

Our bylaws state the following: 

“Article 6 Section 7

The National Committee may, for cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee. The suspended officer may challenge the suspension by an appeal in writing to the Judicial Committee within seven days of receipt of notice of suspension. Failure to appeal within seven days shall confirm the suspension and bar any later challenge or appeal. The Judicial Committee shall set a date for hearing the appeal between 20 and 40 days of receipt of the appeal and shall notify all interested persons, which persons shall have the right to appear and present evidence and argument. At the hearing the burden of persuasion shall rest upon the appellant. The Judicial Committee shall either affirm the National Committee's suspension of the officer or order the officer's reinstatement within 30 days of the hearing. Failure of the Judicial Committee to rule within 30 days shall constitute an affirmation of the National Committee's suspension of the officer. At such time as the suspension is final, the office in question shall be deemed vacant.”

Procedurally, the motion is made, there is a vote, assuming removal there is then an appeal, and during the appellation process is when there is a hearing. The bylaws lay out the grounds for our due process.

Jared

R3 Alt

--

[David Valente]

When we do things for expediency sake, to avoid the proper process we should not be surprised when it happens elsewhere and especially to ourselves.

I do not believe you are being denied due process. Should this vote succeed, you will get your due process before the JC should you appeal. The board action is an indictment, the JC is where you get your due process and trial. I know we will not agree on this and that is fine. 

Should you survive this vote or in the JC, my sincere hope is that you take the criticisms of your actions to heart and be better. If you do not, again it is my hope you take the criticisms of your actions to heart and be better. I promise to you that I am trying to be better. I apologize for the harsh words I have used over this issue to you. I will be better. 

v/r

David Valente

Region 5 Alternate

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

My letter from my retained professional mult-published parliamentarian us coming tomorrow.

It shocks first how do easily due process ignored by Libertarians.  I could argue a violation of our Statement of Principles.

It shocks me that initial review and appellate view is not understood to be two different things.

But decorum wise which everyone here has broken and is continuing to break, these two members are breaking in to interrupt a point of order that is being concerned that doesn’t involve them and they should be called to order.

If you have anything to apologize for Mr Valente and you do you should sponsor you own removal motion.  

--

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

The "charges" mentioned legal liability.  This perceived retaliation against a whistleblower opens up far more than you can imagine and everyone involved if it goes that route (and I have made no decisions since the loving arms of Federal Law are not loving but far more so than the Libertarians here hungry to deny due process are).  No Federal Judge will believe the decorum changes with the myriad proof I have of men behaving similarly and the oh so indecorous "fucks" in so many of our recorded meetings.

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Think long and hard about what YOU are going to the Party here.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Is this legitimate?  Do you think the chair had clean hands voting and starting this ballot?  Are you all calling me a bigot?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Does Richard Longstreth who is best friends with the chair have clean hands considering this?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

An appropriate email from member 

Contact LNC members:   Contact all LNC members Your Information Subject   We need to stop escalating tensions. Stop the CAH vote State   New Hampshire Name   Brian Shields Email   REDACTED Address   United States Map It Message   Please. We need to stop the vote to remove Caryn Ann Harlos. Look. Everything got out of hand. I was in on the LPNH plot and I didn’t want any of this to happen. Good people are quitting. Good lifelong activists are leaving. I am not a fan of Caryn Ann, I was gleeful when the motion was brought but I urge you all to stop.  Please stop escalating tensions. Make it stop. Caryn Ann made mistakes. I made mistakes. You made mistakes. We all said and did things we regret. For the love of the party we dedicate our lives to please don’t dig the wound deeper.  Forgive each other. Let’s call a truce and let’s collect our thoughts and let move forward together. No more. Please. End this.  Caryn Ann, they’re right. You did some egregious things. So did I.I regret it seeing that this is what the party has come to. I forgive you for anything you’ve said about me and my participation in the LPNH plot. It got heated. Emotions rocked us to the core.  Let’s move on. Please, Mr Longstreth, withdraw your motion. Please, members of the LNC, switch your vote to Abstain.  Let’s move forward together. A stronger party. For the good of us all.  Thank you.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I asked the rest of the committee to meet informally with Mr Shields tonight.

I plan on doing so no matter what if he is willing.  On obviously a nonmonetized platform.  It will only be made public if Mr Shields agrees

[John Phillips]

A lawyer from region 6 watching the list proffered this opinion and asked it be included. I make no statement on its accuracy, I am not a lawyer either.

-

The claim that preliminary research into Sarbanes Oxley convinces Mrs Harlos that her removal is a violation of the SOX whistleblower provision (where she admits she is not a lawyer) is mistaken.

I am an attorney. And I have litigated SOX whistleblower claims through trial.

Given the facts surrounding her potential removal, and the fact that she’s not an employee, it’s not a violation.

-

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative
217-412-5973

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you.  I am not an attorney.  AT ALL.  However, I have spoken to another who said it would be novel but court's on appeal make law all the time. And the national association of public policy and nonprofits has a section that disgrees.

I have no attorney on this.  I am making ZERO THREATS (unlike our former chair who is an attorney and who did threaten me something you (save few) shamefully ignored while someone was somehow forcing you to watch my personal content - and now only Mr. Hagan has asked me about the 2016 assault).  I do not think however, you guys can act like you are not pontentially putting the party at risk.  And since some of you are so found of the term "kangeroo court" - read the professional parliamentarian and look in the mirror each and every one of you.  That is what you are trying to do to ME.  Because you have no idea what you are doing.  Clearly.  For Libertarians to do this is far more a violation of the Statement of Principles IF it continues in this manner than any fever dream you have against NH.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Joshua Smith]

I am so disgusted with this board. The blatant retaliation and snide remarks towards a Secretary who has done her job better than any of us could because she was seeking truth and justice in something our prior Chair flung us in to without our permission is classless, childish, and cowardly. 

I am removing my no vote until the points of order and motion to divide are properly taken up, or until there is no more time to vote. 

You can all wait, and this process can be done right. 

Be well,

Joshua 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I want to note that we now have precedent set by our former chair to invalidate technically deficient ballots.  This one certainly is but it is actually factually wrong.  The correct ending date is the 25th.  I ask the Vice-Chair to review in addition to my prior point of order.  I am only making this in accordance with the prior precedent which the members of this body felt was in order.  Putting the ending date wrong can be very serious.  Mr. Smith for instance indicated he wished to wait until the last day.  If he calendared the 26th he would have missed the deadline.

I was asked for a tally sheet which is also required.  On that I am a bit more understanding of the technical deficiencies as the former chair did not have access to the sheet but nor did he ask for it.  In the complete file reorganization I have done for this Party, it will be placed where the ED can give access to anyone who may need it.

Here is the link:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JcPiKpaypOO5v-sChhApYXK0QrZlMbhOyAwFbflEAck/edit#gid=1408971854

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I am attaching the opinions and resume of my professionally retained Parliamentarian whom Mr. Brown will attest has impeccable credentials.  I await the ruling of the Acting Chair.  I will note the irony that the deficiencies here are very similar to the deficiencies that others here denying me due process have pointed out in the Jackie Perry expulsion.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Ken Moellman]

I ask that the members of this committee read this message in its entirety prior to taking further action on the matter.

I am ruling this ballot out of order for substantive technical flaws.  This ruling is consistent with recent rulings on email ballots with technical errors.  As such, the related points of order are moot.

The ballot cites an inapplicable section of our bylaws.  Article 7 Section 5 applies to at-large representatives, and not officers of the party which are covered in Article 6.

The ballot was also posted with an improper closing time.


There have been several other important questions and points of order in this thread, and to preemptively avoid having to rehash those questions later and avoiding additional parliamentary delays in expressing the will of this body, I am providing my ruling on those questions now.

To the question of resignations during an email ballot, when each member of the LNC casts a vote, they do so as the representative of a particular office or position. Our own practices reflect this, as a Region Alternate can cast a vote on behalf of a region, and the main Representative can override that vote for the region.  Even when the resignation happens while the vote is still open, the process of voting has already begun, and a cast vote is a cast vote.  Therefore a vote cast by a member who has resigned would be counted. If a vacancy is filled while a ballot is still open, the vote cast on behalf of that position may be changed by the person now occupying the position.

To the question of whether an investigative committee and/or trial are required as described under RONR, because of the significant consequence a great amount of analysis has been completed in the past two days.  It is my ruling that an investigative committee and/or trial, as described in RONR, are not required.

I have reviewed the parliamentary opinion provided by Jonathan M Jacobs through Ms Harlos.  

I have also reviewed the attached parliamentary opinion from Henry Robert and Thomas J “Burke” Balch, authors of RONR, that was requested by former LNC Chair Bill Redpath in 2008 regarding our removal process.

These three gentlemen are well respected within the parliamentary community, and their opinions carry significant weight in attempting to dissect our expulsion process.

I have also consulted Richard Brown, a registered parliamentarian who has been our parliamentarian at our most recent National Conventions, who is both not a member of our party and who is familiar with our organization and its rules.

Based on the information available at this time, and in reviewing our bylaws and the two opinions, and in agreement with our parliamentarian Richard Brown, I strongly suggest that any motion for removal of a member of the LNC be handled at a noticed meeting of the LNC, rather than by email ballot, with adequate notice for the subject to prepare a defense.  


The analysis follows:

There are two general schools of thought around the interaction of bylaws and RONR. One school of thought, as presented by Mr Jacobs, suggests a “blending” of bylaws and RONR. The other school of thought, as presented by Robert and Balch, says any mention of a disciplinary and removal process in the bylaws overrides any outlined process in RONR.

As such, the Jacobs opinion outlines that he believes notice and a full trial would be necessary, because our bylaws do not override the provisions of RONR requiring such, and instead only amend (or re-iterate) the threshold for removal, followed by an additional appellate procedure outside the scope of RONR.

By contrast, the Robert and Balch opinion validates our process as outlined in the bylaws as an acceptable process for removal of officers and states affirmatively that an investigative committee and trial are not required. However, a critical part of usual meeting procedure is missing from the email ballot process:

“As with any other main motion, a motion to suspend a member-at-large is debatable under the usual rules for debate and is amendable (for example, so as to substitute a lesser penalty such as a reprimand).”
[emphasis added]

A footnote beginning at the bottom of page 2 of the Robert and Balch opinion notes that our email ballot process provided for fifteen (15) days for email ballots in the past, and seems to implicitly suggest that the 15-day period would suffice for debate through email while that ballot is on-going.  However, this was not explicitly stated as such.

As an important note; since that opinion was authored, the time allotted for email ballots has been reduced from fifteen (15) days to seven (7) days, which may be a factor.

There is no practical opportunity to amend a motion within an email ballot which we have recently seen with technical errors on ballots, due to co-sponsorship limitations. Without the ability to amend an email ballot, there is no opportunity to impose a lesser penalty than the penalty proposed in the initial motion.

Ken Moellman

Libertarian National Committee

Vice Chair

[Susan Hogarth]

Thank you, Ken. It’s good to have clarity. 

Susan Hogarth

Region 5 Representative 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I am sure my parliamentarian will have a response but as there is no live motion I am asking the Acting Chair for guidance, do I need to appeal your ruling now or can I raise it if and when the issue is re-raised?  I obviously disagree with the opinion but it is well-written and researched, and will obviously be part of any Judicial Committee appeal.  I am putting the LNC on notice that I have retained counsel for any Judicial Committee appeal (and I most certainly will appeal if it comes to that) and will have counsel with me at any LNC meeting on the topic.  I remind the LNC that LNC retained counsel represents all of us as the LNC and cannot be used to assist the LNC in this.

I await the direction of the chair as to my appeal rights, and I have more information that was given to me (and will be given to any investigators by the source who is already preparing their statement for any investigator) that shows this issue of NH is a conspiracy far deeper than any of us thought - or at least than I thought.  I will share this with the Vice-Chair today with proof.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I thank the Vice-Chair for his time as well.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[John Phillips]

Thank you for all the time you spent on this Ken.

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative
217-412-5973

[Joshua Smith]

Be well.  

*chef's kiss"

-Joshua 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Acting Chair, what are our donors now paying for the parliamentary services this vendetta is requiring?  I wonder if the donors think this good stewardship.  I would like to know what the bill is so far and what the anticipated legal costs will be for a JC hearing.  

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250

[Tara DeSisto]

Donors are very concerned for our candidates. 

-Tara

On Jun 20, 2021, at 4:04 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <secr...@lp.org> wrote:



<image_6483441.JPG>

--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lnc-business...@lp.org.

[Tara DeSisto]

Donors are very concerned about our elected officials. 

-Tara

On Jun 20, 2021, at 4:09 PM, Tara DeSisto <ta...@lphq.org> wrote:

Donors are very concerned for our candidates. 

[Tara DeSisto]

Donors are very concerned about our brand. 

-Tara

On Jun 20, 2021, at 4:09 PM, Tara DeSisto <ta...@lphq.org> wrote:

Donors are very concerned for our candidates. 

[Steven Nekhaila]

Caryn Ann Harlos,

I would ask that you do not try to leverage “the donors” into this conversation, because its this continuation of dialogue that is doing the most damage. I understand the position that you are in, but every word that is added to this list that isn’t succinctly a part of actual business, and there are many, is not good for the Party. Also the donors aren’t a collective, however, I relay Tara’s words that donors are concerned about the Party, much more than they care about us as individuals.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

---

From: lnc-bu...@lp.org <lnc-bu...@lp.org> on behalf of Tara DeSisto <ta...@lphq.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2021 4:12:03 PM
To: lnc-bu...@lp.org <lnc-bu...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: [lnc-business] Email ballot

 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I had donors ask me to ask this.  But it is the only time I will mention it here as the asks of a few donors to me don't justify more than one ask.

   In Liberty, 

LNC Secretary | secr...@lp.org | 561.523.2250