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

[Evan McMahon]

I don't care to dwell too much on this, but here is my answer to a bylaws
change.

It's not needed. If it's a voluntary agreement outlining the
responsibilities of both National and the affiliate... then the autonomy
and authority of the affiliate remains intact. There would need to be a
cancellation clause for both National and the affiliate.

This is not the same as an official affiliation or dis-affiliation. Just a
service level agreement.

I believe this document should be drafted by LSLA with heavy input from
National's staff.

In Liberty,

Evan McMahon
At-Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee

evan.mcmahon at lp.org
On Oct 1, 2014 9:00 PM, "Joshua Katz" <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141002/2af7af47/attachment-0002.html>