Seeking cosponsors: Motion to suspens

[Richard Longstreth]

I hereby move the following with corrected wording per the ruling of the chair:

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 6.7 of the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.

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

Sent from my Mobile Device

[Laura Ebke]

As before, I will co-sponsor. 

Laura Ebke, PhD
LNC At-Large

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

[Valerie Sarwark]

I will co-sponsor.

Valerie

[John Phillips]

Was not part of his ruling that we needed to do it in a meeting? Or did I misread that?

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative
217-412-5973

[Richard Longstreth]

It was the opposite. Email ballot is fine

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

Sent from my Mobile Device

[John Phillips]

If this is moving forward I would suggest either calling a meeting instead or setting it on the agenda for out next scheduled meeting, 1st Sunday of July I believe? Oh that was cancelled. So call a special meeting is my suggestion.

I would also suggest that removing her from other committees be limited. Unsure of all the rule around that, but for example the historical committee has greatly benefitted from her work.

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative
217-412-5973

[Richard Longstreth]

The intent is seats that require get to be an lnc representative.

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

Sent from my Mobile Device

[John Phillips]

And lastly, we have an opportunity to reset here. I have burned my bridges, but the opportunity for everyone to back off, cool off and reset is here.

I understand that despite what people keep thinking these complaints are not new.

I also understand that Mrs Harlos indicated that a censure would not matter to her.

I also know that a large number of member are screaming for peace. Experience says they won't get it, but their wishes is something we need to consider as well.

We've got a year left and this board is already more toxic than the last one.  We can point fingers all day long, but most members don't see it and or don't care, they see it being all of us one way or another.

Having said all that. My position on all this is the same. So do what you will.

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative
217-412-5973

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Let me correct the record,I never said that a censure would not matter.  I said that a specific censure that was baseless would.  Frankly I think everyone one this board absent maybe two people deserves a censure.

   In Liberty, 

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

[Joshua Smith]

Perseverance is not always a virtue Mr. Longstreth. How you can do this again in the face of 5000 member emails asking you not to is laughably absurd. I look forward to your failure. 

Be well,

Joshua 

[Chris Luchini]

Apparently I'm allowed to do this:

I co sponsor the motion, I am only sponsoring, I'm reserving my vote on the substance of this motion. 

 I'm taking a break, I will be offline until Monday. 

Have a less horrible day. 

Chris Luchini

acting Region 1 LNC

[Richard Longstreth]

I believe this has reached nthe require number of sponsors and ask a ballot to be started as quickly as possible.

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

Sent from my Mobile Device

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I’m raising multiple points of order and the Chair has told me he will let me raise them before proceeding with a ballot.

Rushing off with no due process is soooo libertarian.

I promised the chair I’m taking tonight off.  You will get my points of order tomorrow and since I raised them before a ballot is started I’m entitled to a ruling first despite Mr Longstreth’s rush.

--

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Also I have a motion to divide which must be heard first if the motion is not ruled out of order.  

   In Liberty, 

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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Correction, I must be given time to obtain sponsors for a motion to divide as it was not in order to ask before fully sponsored.  See you tomorrow.  Thank you for the Father's Day gift.  Very decorous of you all.

   In Liberty, 

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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Chair, I have three Points of Order I wish to raise.  Please advise if you would like them separately to rule on separately as they involve different issues which do not substantively overlap or whether you would like all three at once.  Please let me know your pleasure.

   In Liberty, 

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

[Ken Moellman]

Please place the points of order in this thread, so we can keep the points of order inside the motion.  And please enumerate them in one email.  I will then dig into each one and reply a response.

Ken

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Chair, if the prior ruling of the chair is based on the Robert-Balche opinion of 2008 that an officer may be removed by motion, I raise the following two points of order, which are separate.

Point of Order 1.  The motion to remove any officer of the LNC is subject to previous notice to the officer in which, in the words of the chair’s opinion, must give “adequate notice for the subject to prepare a defense.”  This motion is out of order on that ground as it does not give adequate notice.

Point of Order 2.  The motion to remove any officer of the LNC is subject to amendment.  The chair, citing the 2008 Robert-Balche opinion, noted “’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].”  Under our current process, a motion brought by electronic mail is not subject to amendment.  The motion is out of order on the ground that it does not present the opportunity to be amended. 

Separate and apart from the above two Points of Order, I additionally raise this:

Point of Order 3:  This motion continues to be technically deficient as it asks for both suspension from office and removal from committees as both being governed under Bylaws Article 6.7 yet that Article has nothing to do with removal from committees.  I would also note that my role is listed incorrectly as I am both Secretary of the LNC and of the National Libertarian Party.

I also note that the 2008 opinion is from a different set of bylaws, and an edition of RONR two editions ago in which the pertinent sections have undergone a LOT of revision.  Further, that opinion neglected an entire line of argument which was in the opinion previously submitted.  If I need to appeal, I can explicate all of that, but that is not procedurally appropriate at this time.

There is something I want to say to the body.  I am pressing this issue of due process so hard because I firmly believe that even IF someone believes our bylaws and RONR don't require it (I disagree) our PRINCIPLES demand that we CHOOSE to give it.  Nowhere do our bylaws or RONR say it MUST be refused.  I believe we are violating the Statement of Principles here.  And this will set a precedent for the future.  Maybe even for one of you.  I have been told that this "delay" is making people turn against me.  On that point, I can't care.  This is a fundamental principle to me, and fundamental principle is not up for a vote.  I believe that anyone who votes yes without due process is violating our fundamental principles.  I obviously disagree with the charges as well but that is a separate issue.  Even if I believed that the charges were valid, if I were in your position, I would never vote affirmatively on anything that denied due process.  I would abstain.  I do obviously believe the charges are wrong, and beyond that vindictive and attempting to destroy my entire body of work, including my historical work, and that cuts me to the heart in a way you cannot imagine.  If anyone intended to wound me more than I have ever been in my life, you succeeded.  This overkill is not unconscionable.  Even minus that, I would disagree, but that is just salt on the wound.  And I cannot believe that each of you does not see this, nor do I believe that each of you does not see the terrible optics.  I firmly believe I am a whistleblower.  As does a large majority of the type of people who actually come to conventions.  You may not agree that I am.  But anyone can see these optics are horrible and look far worse than any alleged indecorum.  

I am traveling.  I have a right to appeal if necessary if any or all of the points of order are not sustained.  And since raised before a ballot started, I have the right to have them dealt with first.

   In Liberty, 

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

[Richard Longstreth]

As these were raised and debated before a ruling made, I would like to answer each.

1) Email ballots are allowed to be used in place of meetings. An email ballot gives notice and allows debate to occur while the ballot it ope in this case, the subject has been public since Friday and a precious ballot invalidated where this concern was not presented. To continue to try and push this vote out is dilatory at best. Notice has been supplied and the initial hearing, defense by email (as opposed to a meeting) meets the requirements. Further, our rules do not explicitly state a period of notice is required. That is simply not the case. A best practice, perhaps, but not a violation of order.

Further, our rules allow for appeal twice. Once to the JC after this body decides and then to the full body. This is the first step in several and was down exactly according to our bylaws.

2) The proposed amendment is debate able while the ballot is open per our procedures. Further, it is amendable as well although all action would have to be handled by email. This is the forum that is authorized to handle business between meetings and while we have been discouraged by the current Secretary from doing so, amending is possible, but may be cumbersome. Again not a violation of order.

3) if a call for division is in place that is fine but as the author, I will tell you that the intent was to remove from any committees that require an LNC member because, if the first part passes, the second part should happen automatically. If the chair disagrees, I believe just striking the removal.from committee bit would still be agreeable.

On my own, I want to add that interrupting a ballot is, in itself, a violation of order. Grace should be considered because of the email ballot situation, however the last ballot had been ongoing for two days. Despite an acknowledgement right off the bat that a Scrivener's Error had been made. All sponsors were notified on this list without any objection to continuing. I understand the technical argument. That's why I didn't try to appeal the ruling and just started over. If these new points further delay the ballot, then the will of not only the original sponsors but also of the majority of this committee is being ignored and invalidated. 9 people wanted to move this through where 5 had not yet voted. The citation was incorrect, but the process is exactly, and I mean exactly, the same.

These delay tactics are somewhat dilatory. I want things done correctly but the arguments made are grasping at straws to further delay the ballot. They are not being made in the name of good order.

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

Sent from my Mobile Device

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

These are made with the assistance of a world-renowned parliamentarian.  To give you some insight, he was part of the process that ousted Trent Lott.  I understand you want to get going but please do not besmirch my professional parliamentarian.  It is unworthy.  

   In Liberty, 

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

[Richard Longstreth]

That is fair and since his name nor assessment never crossed.my keyboard, clearing I was not doing what you just suggested. You formed your arguments without hearing the ruling first as did I. Both of us are wrong there.

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

Sent from my Mobile Device

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Fair enough.  I thought you realized that those points of order were not written by me.  They are not in my style of language at all.  The last few paragraphs are.  So to be clear the first two points of order were written by my parliamentarian.  The third one by me since he was not familiar with the precedent set over the past few weeks though I did consult with him on the wording.  He is a close colleague of the RONR authors and a widely published parliamentary author.  

For whatever it means or doesn't mean, I do think it speaks to the justice of my case that such a man volunteered to handle my case pro bono.  Every person may give whatever weight to that that they wish, including no weight at all.

   In Liberty, 

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

[Valerie Sarwark]

Mr. Acting Chair,

The secretary is engaging in debate about the merits of the motion before the ballot has started. Please start the ballot, as it has sufficient sponsors.

Thank you,

Valerie

[Susan Hogarth]

I support Ms Harlos in this. We have issues that need to be resolved, but I am almost never an advocate of rushing business, as that almost always leads to greater problems. 

- Susan Hogarth

Region 5 Representative 

--

Susan Hogarth
919-906-2106
Region 5 Representative

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Raising points of order with sufficient support for the chair to understand the issue is not debate.

Thank you Ms Hogarth.

[John Phillips]

I agree with mrs hogarth and mrs Harlos.

We often debate motions in the proposal thread anyway.

John Phillips
Region 6 Representative
217-412-5973

[Erin Adams]

Im of the opinion that orderly debate IS permissible as this should run as similarly to an in person vote as possible.

If someone can show me per roberts that I am incorrect here Ill own being wrong but my reading of Roberts leads me to this conclusion

Erin Adams Region 7 Alternate

[Ken Moellman]

I am cozying up with my copy of RONR for a long night as we speak.

The necessary co-sponsors are there, but the points of order have been raised before the ballot was started. 

In a regular meeting, the points of order would take precedent over beginning a vote. I think it makes sense to sort these out first prior to opening the ballot. 

While I cannot require such a thing, I would ask that the committee consider not using email ballots for substantive business that is likely to be controversial.  Dealing with points of order is more difficult in this format.

Ken

[Richard Longstreth]

Mr Chair.

This ballot was started on Friday and allowed to continue for two days before being ruled out of order despite the majority of us voting on it. We took your notes, which allowed the ballot except for the technical deficiency, and adjusted. You noted that everything else was allowed including email ballot on this. You advised otherwise but here we are.

The sponsors decided not to appeal and instead reintroduce as another email ballot. This ballot received the threshold required to start a ballot over 24 hours ago and there is still not a ballot. The Secretary delaying the start to a ballot so she can pull together new points of order is absurd. You hearing them and even further delaying the ballot is absurd. Especially considering she has no right to vote in this measure according to our rules. You are now hearing those points because she artificially delayed starting it, nothing more. You have already ruled on the ballot's legitimacy!

I would also add that the last ballot was allowed to continue for TWO FULL DAYS while you considered the points raised, understanding given the circumstances. That ballot, however was invalidated after 11 out of 16 people had voted and the one raising points of order was not even allowed to vote. It was invalidated mid stream based on objections only from her, a non-voting member.

Let us vote on this and get it over with, I implore you!

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

Sent from my Mobile Device

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I’m accorded ALL rights other than voting.  Including amendment and debate.

[Ken Moellman]

Due to the substance of this particular motion, I am being extra thorough. My apologies for the delay. I am hoping to have the remaining information necessary and make a ruling later today.

Ken Moellman

Libertarian National Committee

Vice Chair

[Joshua Smith]

Mr. Longstreth, I also raised points of order on the last ballot, and supported a motion to divide. I support the points of order her and the motion to divide once again. Seems the chair has ruled that the points of order can be taken up now instead of having two days of voting before again possibly calling this motion out of order. 

You'll be ok. It's not the end of the world. 

Be well,

Joshua 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you Mr Chair.  

[Ken Moellman]

All -

I understand the will of the sponsors and as a servant of this board, I wish to comply with those wishes.

I also have a fiduciary responsibility to the members of our organization, and as such I have spent the last couple of days collecting information from multiple parliamentarians and from our own legal counsel, who have concerns.  

That is the conflict that I have been dealing with trying to rectify.

Here is my ruling and proposed solution:

1. I am ruling this email ballot out of order, based upon the information provided to me by several parliamentarians and the recommendations provided by our legal counsel.  There is no opportunity to amend the proposed disciplinary action (impose a lesser penalty) in an email ballot, and no specific evidence has been provided along with this motion/action.  As an example, the special meeting held for the Vohra case in 2018 saw suspension fail, and censure succeed.

2. Based on my conversations with parliamentarians and legal counsel, I am suggesting to those who wish for this to go forward to sponsor a special meeting, with a specific charge or set of charges that include evidence. Including specific allegations and/or evidence permits the accused to have substance from which to build a case to defend themselves.  The amount of time required for notice would depend on the number of charges brought, and the complexity of the charges.  The more numerous and/or complicated the charges that are brought forth, the more time would be required for the accused to be permitted to prepare and put on their defense. Both parliamentarians and legal counsel suggest including specific allegations with the actual charges. In other words, one specific items outlined in one charge requires less time to prepare a defense than multiple charges with multiple cross-referenced items.

If the members of this body want to bring 1 specific charge, I would suggest that a special meeting to discuss that one specific, outlined charge would be in order with only 5 days' notice, per our precedent from 2018. I would prefer more, as would our parliamentarian; but I would rule this in order.  If there are to be multiple charges, add an additional 5 days for each charge.  If there are more than 6 charges, 30 days' notice would suffice for however many charges are brought.  

Further, I would suggest creating a separate sentence in the motion for each action the movers want to take, as to avoid ambiguity.

There have been a number of people who have suggested that our first step of the removal process is just an indictment, and that the actual trial is held with the Judicial Committee.  However, the shift of the burden of proof "shall rest upon the appellant", per our bylaws, is problematic for considering the JC process as a trial rather than as an appeal.

I am hopeful that this clears everything up.  If there are ANY questions about this prior to further action on this item, PLEASE contact me. I have the notes from our counsel on-hand, and our parliamentarian on speed dial.  I would like to dispense with this item sooner rather than later, one way or the other, so we can move on to other business.

Ken Moellman

Libertarian National Committee

Vice Chair

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I have retained an attorney and so as not to blind side anyone, if there is a charge with SPECIFIC crimes - not just broad allegations, I will be once again raising a point of order.  He asked me for the complete list of official communications (or if people are going there - which will blow up the party) my personal life that are the evidence.  I cannot prepare a defense without evidence.

I thank the chair for his hard work.  My attorney will be present for all hearings.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr Chair outside this - the impression seems to be that LNC counsel advised you.  Is that the case? 

[Richard Longstreth]

Mr Chair, 

I have spoken with a significant portion of this board and I believe it is fair to say that the motion has been soundly defeated and we will not be appealing your decision even where we do not fully agree. 

For the good of the Party we must all try to move on from here and work together. Thank you for your diligence in this matter and keeping lines of communication open.

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

Sent from my Mobile Device

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you Mr Longstreth.

As a gesture of good faith, I am deleting that one post you asked me about since no more Party funds will be expended and the question is now mute.  If there’s others reach out to me directly or through the chair.

[Ken Moellman]

Mr. Longstreth,

I understand. I hope it is understood that I never meant to deter the will of the members of this board. If there are issues of this nature in the future, please feel free to contact me directly and I will assist in forming motions. I take this position seriously and just want to make sure we do everything correctly. 

Ken Moellman

Libertarian National Committee

Vice Chair