[Lnc-business] Regarding the Doug Craig matter

[Sam Goldstein]

Dan,

I think this problem is in need of a bylaws fix to clarify or to replace
the word "gift".  I will bring it to the
Bylaws Committee's attention during our deliberations.  I don't think a
quick vote to override the Chair's
ruling is adequate for this problem.

Sam

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> I will co-sponsor both of Alicia's email ballots.
>
> I had to take a few hours to mull over this question.  The Chair's ruling
> is plausible but not ultimately persuasive for me.  If we set the precedent
> that buying a convention package counts as sustaining membership dues,
> where do we draw the line?  Logically, any transfer of funds to the LP in
> excess of $25 would then have to similarly qualify.
>
> Suppose someone who was briefly a member ten years ago (and hence signed
> the pledge) should now decide to buy a T-shirt or some books from the LP
> for more than $25.  Do we automatically categorize that person as a
> sustaining member?  Even if that wasn't the person's intent, and indeed the
> person had no knowledge or desire for that to happen?  Does this become an
> additional burden on staff, to have to check up on every sale to see if it
> has a membership impact?
>
> I'm afraid that the Chair's ruling will just muddy the waters rather than
> clear them up.  I much prefer a bright line standard which says that a
> purchase is just a purchase, and a sustaining membership requires a $25
> donation which specifically identifies it as being for that purpose.  I
> think that is arguably more in line with both the literal wording (i.e.,
> "given" refers to a gift rather than a purchase) and the underlying intent
> of Bylaws Article 5.3.
>
> All that being said, I will happily vote for Doug Craig to fill the LNC
> vacancy, and thus resolve any question as to whether his vote should be
> excluded on a technicality.  This is also an excellent opportunity for all
> the LNC members to quickly vote on these email ballots, and thus conclude
> them well before the normal 10-day deadline.  The LNC should be able to act
> much quicker than it traditionally has, so let's prove we can do so!
>
> Dan Wiener
>
>
>
> --
> *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
> guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
> compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
> this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
> the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
> experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
> disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
> to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
> doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
> -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150428/e09a776e/attachment-0002.html>