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

[Joshua Katz]

What will be done in case of breach?  It seems the correct answer would be
disaffiliation, and I'm not convinced that such action would withstand a JC
appeal.

Now, I'd agree with the argument here if these were new affiliates, but we
already have affiliates in existence, so I'm not sure how it's a voluntary
agreement, given that we'd, presumably, require all affiliate to agree to
it or risk disaffiliation - a disaffiliation that I don't see a
justification for in the bylaws.  I am convinced regarding brand-new
affiliates, though, that they can be asked to sign an agreement in order to
gain affiliate status.

Just my 2 cents.

Joshua Katz

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Evan McMahon <indyliberty at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141002/53b5b874/attachment-0002.html>