[Lnc-business] Request for co-sponsors regarding membership changes

[Arvin Vohra]

I am happy to cosponsor this. My preference is that the life membership
price not be increased, but if it is, better later than sooner. -Arvin

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Now that the voting period has ended and unofficial tabulations indicate
> that Mark's motion has failed, we need to postpone the effective date of
> the new membership levels for the reasons which Geoff gives below.  I am
> therefore requesting co-sponsors for the following motion:
>
> *Motion to amend Policy Manual Section II.5 MEMBERSHIP POLICIES such that
> the three statements "Until Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Until July 1,
> 2013", and the three statements "Effective Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by
> "Effective July 1, 2013.*
>
> The relevant portion of the Policy Manual (
> https://www.lp.org/files/PolicyManualupdated12NOV2012.pdf) can be found
> starting on page 36.  The effect of this will be to postpone the membership
> changes for six months.  If conditions in three or four months have further
> changed (e.g., if we have a more exact date for relocating our office and
> thus having to reprint our literature) we can consider a new motion to
> either move up or move back the July 1st date by a month or two.
>
> Daniel Wiener
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>wrote:
>
>> I fully concur with Geoff's comments.  I will happily vote for a motion
>> to temporarily defer this change for the reasons Geoff details; that only
>> makes common sense.  But we cannot delay this change endlessly.  Once
>> Mark's motion is defeated, and this LNC body has confirmed the prior
>> decision to proceed with the new membership levels, let's buckle down and
>> implement them on a practical schedule.
>>
>> Dan Wiener
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Geoffrey Neale <liber8or at austin.rr.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I strongly urge each and every one of you to vote no on Mr. Hinkle’s
>>> motion.  If you’ve already voted yes, I urge you to change your vote to no,
>>> for the following reasons:****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> First, there are concerns from many of you regarding PORTIONS of the new
>>> language, but not necessarily the entire new language, that are better
>>> addressed by amendment than deletion.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Second, mail ballots should be targeted at cut-and-dry binary decisions,
>>> which this is most certainly not (to me).****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Third, there are associated costs with this change that are measurable,
>>> but perhaps unavoidable, which I will explain further at a later point in
>>> this email.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> I therefore urge a NO vote on this motion, and if this motion does fail,
>>> then I will immediately propose a motion to defer the implementation date
>>> to July 1, 2012, which I hope everyone will heartily endorse.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> It would have been nice if this had come up in open discussion on the
>>> floor of an LNC meeting, but this obviously was NOT on anyone’s radar last
>>> month.  That’s too bad.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> My reasoning for my recommendation is as follows:****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> The biggest factor I want everyone to consider is the costs.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> We have all heard that the biggest single cost will be website changes,
>>> and many of us find this to be unfathomable.  However, my understanding is
>>> that our current contractual relationship with our website provider is the
>>> source of these costs.  We all know that we have to change our provider,
>>> and we’ve already had some presentations.  I think we need to make the
>>> website changes as soon as possible.  Kicking the new level changes down
>>> the road would effectively  allow us to make the changes (if needed) in a
>>> more cost-effective manner than changing a system we want to get rid of.
>>> Why change the tires on a car we’re sending to the scrap-heap?****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> We also appear to have passed a motion to proceed with purchasing a
>>> building.  If this fails, we still anticipate moving out of the Watergate
>>> building.  This will require us to change EVERY single piece of material we
>>> have, right down to letterhead, business cards, etc.  It just makes good
>>> business sense to me to attempt to coordinate membership level changes to
>>> be introduced (or not) concurrent with a move, so that we only change our
>>> material ONCE.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Overall, I would have voted no on this motion regardless, because I find
>>> the merits of the new levels outweighs the arguments against it.  But when
>>> I consider the longer range planning and costs associated with BOTH the
>>> membership and an address change, I strongly favor deferring the change.
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> For those of you are still inclined to vote to remove this language,
>>> please consider that addressing objections and perceived problems with the
>>> new levels in a less extreme manner, by deferring the implementation, does
>>> not guarantee the success or failure of your attempts to discard this
>>> language.  Instead, it gives the LNC the opportunity of being seen as
>>> giving full and measured consideration to our membership levels.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> I therefore urge each and every one of you to vote no, or change your
>>> vote to no.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Geoffrey Neale****
>>>
>>> Chair, Libertarian Party****
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-discuss mailing list
>>> Lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20121220/5d0afe0c/attachment-0002.html>