I hereby move the following...

[Steven Nekhaila]

Dear All,

I hereby move the following attached two motions, separated by bold text labeled "Motion A" and "Motion B".

Motion A proceeds the Motion B, which if passed would go into effect 24 hours after the ballot of Motion B expires; Motion B shall begin balloting 24 hours after balloting begins for Motion A by request of the mover.

I support both motions and intended on what some may call a compromise, but what I call for the good of the party.

I do not believe, and I am not alone in this stance, that the misinterpretation of the Non-Aggression Pledge to construe suspension meets our requirements as a party to remove an officer. Furthermore, moving to suspend an officer for "cause", which could be anything, sets a dangerous precedent. I voted against the removal of Arvin Vohra for that very reason, Arvin did not violate the Non-Aggression Pledge. In Florida many years ago we had a predicament where three members were motioned for removal on the grounds of a Non-Aggression Pledge violation, this too I voted against, however I did vote for censure.

We must uphold the sanctity of the Non-Aggression Pledge as David Nolan intended. Some may argue other reasons for removal, however, that is not what was put forward in the bill of particulars. The Non-Aggression Pledge, not to be confused with the Non-Aggression Principle, was specifically adopted to separate the Libertarian Party from violent political actors such as Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kazyinsky, Weather Underground, or similar extremist groups that use force to achieve political or social goals. Violation of these principles actually constitutes removal from the Party.

We must never use the Non-Aggression Pledge against fellow officers, for even though I condemned the Secretary's conduct both publicly and directly on the grounds of impropriety, I do not support removal on the grounds previously moved. Furthermore, I believe a censure with action is most appropriate given the situation, and the rest will be up to the delegates in Reno to decide.

If we were to remove on the grounds of impropriety alone, then there are a handful of officers that must also be removed. If we are to apply the rules fairly, my motions are the best course of action available.

My co-sponsors are as follows: Joshua Smith, Dustin Nanna, Eric Raudsep, and Ken Moellman.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Region 2 Representative

305-393-6412

Libertarain National Committee

Impotentes liberatum defendere non-possunt

Those without power cannot defend freedom

[Susan Hogarth]

I request the Chair rule these motions out of order. They interfere with the Judicial Committee process and timing in a way that undermines that body’s responsibility, and they attempt to revisit a decision of this body that has just recently been made. 

It’s not my place to give advice to the Judicial Committee, but it seems as if they can divide the questions of cause if there is real concern that there is some attempt to undermine a fundamental libertarian principle mixed with the process of ensuring our board can function properly. 

Also, the motions reference behaviors and activities required of the Secretary that I am not sure this body has the authority to dictate. And, equally concerning, these restrictions were either proposed in collaboration with Ms Harlos - in which case that ought to be acknowledged - or without her knowledge - in which case they are absolutely inappropriate. 

Susan Hogarth

Region 5 Representative 

--

Susan Hogarth
919-906-2106
Region 5 Representative

[Joshua Smith]

I second both motions. 

-Joshua 

[Joshua Smith]

Mrs. Howarth, 

The chair of the committee suggested that we come to an agreement. This is a way to rectify the situation with compromises. 

Cheers,

Joshua 

[Ken Moellman]

I am co-sponsoring this motion based upon a request that came from the proceedings of the Judicial Committee; at least one JC member suggested during the meeting on Sunday that a compromise between the parties (within the LNC) would be a preferred outcome to a Judicial Committee ruling.

The second motion by Mr. Nekhaila is one such option, and is similar to the motion that Mr. Nekhaila would have brought forward at the September meeting. I also supported the prior calls for mediation, and believe better communication between the parties would have brought clarity to, and likely resolved, many of the issues cited in the bill of particulars.

I recognize that asking the LNC to rescind is asking a lot, but I hope the members of the LNC would at least consider this action.

Ken Moellman

Libertarian National Committee

Vice Chair

[Steven Nekhaila]

Ms. Hogarth,

Ms. Harlos has agreed to all of the limitations in the motions and has agreed to abide by them if passed.

Your points of order are not well taken as the following points shall elaborate:

Firstly, the motions do not interfere with the Judicial Committee process and timing. In fact, it was Dr. Ruwart, Chair of the Judicial Committee, who twice in the hearing requested this be done. It does not undermine the responsibility of the Judicial Committee since the Judicial Committee is responsible for requesting this in the first place.

Secondly, any LNC member can move to Rescind.  See RONR 35:2, Standard Characteristics 1-6, and 35:3.

Thirdly, before it is broached, RONR 35:6:b and 35:6:c do not apply.  The suspension is not undoable, so 35:6:b does not apply, and the suspension is not at this time an expulsion (and certainly not a resignation) so 35:6:c does not apply.

The Judicial Committee is an independent standing committee, and while their decisions are binding upon the LNC when they are made, in this case, per Article 6, Section 7 of the Bylaws, as evidenced by Mr. Hagan being recruited into interim Secretary duties.  However, the LNC has still functioned properly while Ms. Harlos is under suspension; it has not come to a screeching halt.

Finally, Ms. Hogarth alleges that the LNC may have no authority to dictate the behaviors in the second motion. However, the second motion, which is a Special Rule of Order, crafted that way deliberately. A Special Rule of Order is most definitely in order and can most definitely instruct actions of an officer or LNC member—for a simple example, instructing the Chair to issue a public statement regarding a controversial issue when the Board agrees but the Chair does not. 

In short, both motions are completely in order, have been co-sponsored, and should be voted on.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

[Steven Nekhaila]

I’d also like to point out that these limitations were proposed by me, I merely asked Ms. Harlos if she would be amenable for them to work and would not oppose. She said it was “harsh” but would abide. I did not give her the keys to build her own prison, so to speak, and the very fact that it was seen as harsh tells me that the motion applies the appropriate level of corrective action.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

---

From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 10:52:56 PM
To: lnc-bu...@lp.org <lnc-bu...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: [lnc-business] I hereby move the following...

 

[Chris Luchini]

This compromise motion, as far as I can tell, was never actually broached to any members that voted for the suspension of the secretary.

So how is it a compromise if none of the people that voted for suspension were consulted?

As an additional point of information I would like to know if any member of the judicial committee was involved in crafting this "compromise".

I do have an idea for a compromise solution that would be acceptable to the people that voted for the suspension. Interest party should contact me privately. 

[Steven Nekhaila]

Mr. Luchini,

No members of the Judicial Committee were involved in the development of this motion. The JC remains independent and separate from this action.

After much deliberation, I present this offer as a final opportunity to make such a decision before the JC comes to a conclusion. I believe the ball should rest in the LNC’s court. 

It is entirely up to the body to make whatever decision it chooses, consider it an open invitation through a previously locked door that may seem more appealing than other options.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

---

From: Chris Luchini <chris....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 11:58:55 PM
To: lnc-business <lnc-bu...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: [lnc-business] I hereby move the following...

[Rich Bowen]

I will advocate for the advancement of and discussion of these motions.  I would also like to hear more about Mr. Luchini's ideas for a compromise solution.  

I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Ruwart's opinion on finding a compromise.  A solution from within is better for the party as a whole than a JC decision.  Any decision by the JC is likely to recommence the party fracture.  Let's show membership we're above all that.

It's worth investing some effort, some time, and some goodwill to find understanding and agreement.

Rich

Rich Bowen

Libertarian National Committee

Region 8 Representative (NJ/NY/CT/RI/MA/VT/NH/ME)

Audit Committee Member

Convention Oversight Committee Member

Chair's Advisory Budget & Operations Committee Member

[Steven Nekhaila]

Hello folks,

What is the status of these ballots?

Can the Chair or Secretary chime in and give us an update?

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

[Laura Ebke]

Are we waiting for a ruling of the Chair? (see Ms. Hogarth's request)

Laura Ebke, PhD
LNC At-Large

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

[Steven Nekhaila]

Thank you Tim,

I appreciate you getting back to me. Safe travels.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

[Steven Nekhaila]

Dear All,

I hereby move the following attached two motions, separated by bold text labeled "Motion A" and "Motion B".

Motion A proceeds the Motion B, which if passed would go into effect 24 hours after the ballot of Motion B expires; Motion B shall begin balloting 24 hours after balloting begins for Motion A by request of the mover.

I am currently seeking co-sponsors, please explicitly state whether you support one or both motions.

[Susan Hogarth]

Steven,

Can you explain how these changes address the Chair’s ruling that “Them being tethered is problematic and unruly.”?

SH

[Ken Moellman]

I co-sponsor both. 

My support for the first is contingent on the second passing. Since the thresholds are the same, could we merge them together?

Ken Moellman

Libertarian National Committee

Vice Chair

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 3:28 PM Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org> wrote:

[Erin Adams]

I would ask for a ruling of the chair as to whether or not the thresholds are indeed the same. I believe the second motion labeled as B requires a two-thirds majority as it's a suspension of the rules

Erin Adams region 7 Representative

[Joshua Smith]

I will also Co-sponsor both. 

Cheers,

Joshua 

[Steven Nekhaila]

Ms Hogarth, I do not understand the question,

These motions were ruled out of order because there was a question of whether or not they were properly sponsored.

Otherwise I don't see the issue with them being presented jointly. Because the first motion is intended to be voted on before the second motion as I do not want them running concurrently since the first motion would require a majority vote and the second would require a two thirds vote and since the second motion is contingent on the first passing for it to be relevant I feel that it is the most appropriate to do them one before the other.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

[Susan Hogarth]

The Chair can perhaps rule on whether this series of motions corrects the defects she saw in the previous ones. 

S. 

[Whitney Bilyeu]

Motion B would need 2/3 of votes cast, as it is adopting or amending a special rule of order.

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 3:16 PM Erin Adams <erin....@lp.org> wrote:

Whitney Bilyeu
LNC | Chair
LP.org
   

[Ken Moellman]

Ok. That's unfortunate but I pledge to support both, and if necessary I'm reiterating my co-sponsorship of both.  I would encourage my colleagues who plan to support the first motion to pledge to support the second if the first passes. 

Ken

[Steven Nekhaila]

I pledge on supporting the second motion and invite the rest of the board to do the same.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

[Dustin Nanna]

I cosponsor and support both

Dustin Nanna

Region 3 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

740-816-9805

[Rich Bowen]

I will co-sponsor both.

Rich

--