[Lnc-business] Regarding the Doug Craig matter

[Sean O'Toole]

In the case of conventions and convention packages available for 
purchase, It's helpful to think of fixed costs and variable costs. While 
I believe that our bylaws state that a delegate need not purchase a 
convention package to participate on the convention floor, it is also 
not likely that every dollar of each level of convention package goes 
entirely to fund variable costs. I am of the opinion that anything paid 
above and beyond variable cost should count as a donation to the Party.

Sean O'Toole
sean at kingfieldcapital.com
(816) 739-2737

    “It is the job of economists to point out trade-offs; it is the 
job of politicians and planners to deny that trade-offs exist.”
         -William Easterly, 2006
On 28 Apr 2015, at 19:43, Daniel Wiener 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