[Lnc-business] LP National's dilemma Re: DenverPost Voter's Guide contact information

[Scott L.]

If the National LP wants to be a REAL political party, then it needs to
enforce minimum standards for all of its affiliates.  That doesn't mean
micromanaging candidate selection, but it does mean that ALL state
affiliates perform the basic functions of a 

State-level political party.


Just as an example, I don't see how REQUIRING all of our affiliates to be at
least moderately competent at accomplishing the tasks on this list would be
considered infringing on their autonomy:

 

 
http://web.archive.org/web/20020813051709/www.lp.org/services/s99/ten.html

 

 

Again - the multi-state officer manager suggestion I made earlier today
would be entirely implemented by voluntary agreements between state
affiliates, so the National Bylaws are not relevant to it.

 

      Scott Lieberman

 

  _____  

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
Joshua Katz
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 2:07 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] LP National's dilemma Re: DenverPost Voter's
Guide contact information

 

I would not be opposed to an affiliate agreement, depending on the terms. If
nothing else, it would mean not having dilemmas like this one, and the fear
that states view listing their candidates, information they provide to us,
with media outlets, as infringing on their autonomy. The solution when a
large group doesn't agree on what terms mean is to set those terms out in
writing. 

However, I don't see how to have one without changing the bylaws. I'd want
to be very careful about the wording of that revision. It should not just
remove the autonomy statement. I'd favor adding a clause allowing for an
agreement, but not requiring one. 

Joshua Katz 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20141001/770d0a31/attachment-0002.html>