[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-02: Approve IALP Charter

[Joshua Katz]

In addition to the Secretary's points, I think it is worth noting that the
Assembly has the sole authority to amend the charter, and the Assembly sets
its own rules.  So I'm concerned about the claim that we can simply back
out if things go in a way we don't like.  Anyone can quit an organization
while in good standing, but this charter could be amended by the Assembly
to require annual dues, from the beginning of membership, and to impose a
monetary cost for leaving if dues are not up to date.  Come to think of it,
my statement that organizations can't prevent members from leaving if in
good standing comes from RONR, and I'm not sure if it is in the common
parliamentary law, so I'm not 100% confident about that either.

I'm not an attorney, so I can't say just how enforceable such actions would
be (plus the factor of jurisdiction) but I consider it reason to pause
before agreeing to join an organization with the deficiencies in
organization previously noted.

I also want to address the points made about the founding of the LP.  I
think there is a very large difference between an organization of people,
and an organization of organizations.  I will join a bowling club, or a
party, with open-ended terms, if I feel like it - and I expose myself to
risk in doing so.  That's fine - as an individual there can be no objection
to me taking on risks if I feel like it. However, I believe the board of an
organization, in taking risks with other people's money, and using powers
delegated to it for the purpose of taking good care of the organization
between meetings, should be more cautious than I would be in my own life.
Therefore, I reject the analogy.  Also, I don't think the things we're
asking for - selection of a parliamentary authority, secure knowledge of
our responsibilities - are particularly onerous.

I've already mentioned my allergy to having timelines imposed on us, but
I'll mention it again.  I'm allergic to being asked to approve something on
short notice, with no time to make any real requests for changes.  I once
considered using a dating service, so I booked an appointment and came in
to learn about their services.  I was informed on my arrival that I'd be
expected to sign up - for $3,000 plus mandatory date coaching - that day,
or never again be permitted to ask for membership.  It's a useful sales
technique, I'll give them that.  A few months later, they simply
disappeared.  (For the record, I signed up, and never saw my money again.)
 I don't claim this is identical, just that I since developed an intense
allergy to this sort of presentation.

Joshua Katz

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

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been through this sales pitch before on a previous LNC.  In 2010, Mr.
> Neale gave us a presentation, had a grand plan for a project, promised he
> would do X and Y, said we wouldn't make mistake A like other groups and
> instead would do Z, we'd try to minimize problem B though we couldn't
> eliminate it completely, said if we'd just approve the idea then he could
> get started and if we later didn't think it was going very well we could
> quit.  Almost no risk.  If it doesn't develop as expected, we just pull the
> plug.  Let's just try it and see what happens.
>
> So we authorized creation of the building fund, and it became a political
> nightmare.  X, Y, and Z never happened.  Instead we did nothing but A and
> B, precisely the things that the sales pitch said we shouldn't do.  When
> things didn't progress as expected, pressure was applied to forge ahead,
> and anyone who wanted to stick to the original plan was politically
> attacked.  The idea of pulling the plug was suddenly portrayed as the worst
> idea ever, even though we were originally told it wouldn't be a big deal if
> we needed to.
>
> I'm not just being a stick in the mud about the creation of the IALP.  I
> just want to know what it is that we are joining before we join.
>
> I also think the question of who should be our IALP rep should be taken up
> separately from the idea of joining the IALP.  If this motion were offered
> at an in-person meeting, I would move to divide the question, but email
> ballots don't offer that flexibility.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>
>>
>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by February 19, 2015 at
>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.*
>> *Sponsor:*  Nick Sarwark
>>
>> *Motion:*  The Libertarian National Committee approves the (attached)
>> charter of the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties, seeks
>> admission to the the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties as a
>> founding member, and designates Geoff Neale as our Representative to it.
>>
>>
>> Alicia Mattson
>> LNC Secretary
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150214/ca2f83aa/attachment-0002.html>