The LNC has hired a parliamentarian to help in its seemingly neverending quest to remove At-Large Representative Angela Keaton. The report in question (see below) states that there is no provision in the Bylaws for removing an LNC member, as there is only a provision for suspending LNC members. Then, it makes the leap of logic that a suspension (which is by definition temporary) will turn into a removal (which is by definition permanent) should Angela not appeal to the Judiciary Committee, or should her appeal be denied.
That is incorrect. If there is no provision for removing an LNC member in the Bylaws, then she cannot be removed. She can only be suspended. Furthermore, a loss at the Judicial Committee level would mean only that the suspension had been upheld, and not that she had been removed.
While this may seem like nitpicking, since the term of suspension could technically be for the rest of her LNC term, it is not. There is a huge difference between a suspension and a removal. It is the difference between being suspended from school for three days, and being expelled from school. It is the difference between showing up at work drunk and being told to go home and sleep it off without pay, and being fired for it. There are many real-world examples of the significant difference between suspension and removal.
In this case, there is yet another significant difference, and that is whether someone else will be permanently appointed to her position on the LNC, and whether that person would change the balance of power on the LNC.
The report also states that the LNC needs 12 votes to suspend her. Are there enough LNC members willing to vote against her for her to actually be suspended? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Here is the document. opinion-removal-lnc-at-large-1