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

[Joshua Katz]

I meant the requirement that the phone be answered, which the management
plan was one way of doing. I don't see how making specific operational
requirements doesn't violate autonomy, although, as I said, I'm not against
changing the bylaws for that purpose. If you can show me how it isn't
needed, so much the better, but I'm not seeing it at the moment.

Joshua Katz
On Oct 1, 2014 5:20 PM, "Scott L." <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141001/efb972d8/attachment-0002.html>