[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-10: EPCC and Contract Review

[Roland Riemers]

I thank everyone for their information, and there are good points on both sides.  I have no ax to grind either way; I hate lots of regulations, second guessing administrators, and nitpicking;  but generally feel the purposed change is acceptable and would place little or no real burden on the operation of the party, and therefore vote a very soft yes.  A soft yes meaning if it ever does become an unreasonable burden to the operation of the party, I would no longer support it.  But our strength is not in any one person, or EPCC or LNC, or rule book,  but in each person making rational and reasonable decisions that advance the interests of our party.
Roland Riemers ND
      From: Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org>
 To: "lnc-business at hq.lp.org" <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:46 AM
 Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-10: EPCC and Contract Review
   
This proposal will make the process of negotiating director-level
contracts longer and more difficult.

There is a static waiting period of at least ten days from the
agreement between the Chair and the prospective employee and the
ratification of that agreement by the EPCC or at least 9 LNC members.
Members of the EPCC and the LNC who do not negotiate contracts or
conduct interviews are provided substantially more power to block a
contract negotiated by the Chair and a prospective employee.  Blocking
a contract based on provisions that are disapproved of is an easy way
to stop a hire without having the votes to actually say no to the
person.

A key to any negotiation is to negotiate with the decision maker.  The
decision maker on the employee side of a contract negotiation is
always the employee.  This proposal makes the decision maker on the
employer side the Chair, the EPCC, and any plurality of LNC members
that would prevent a 9-person vote, along with a 10-day waiting
period.  There are some candidates for employment who may not be
willing to negotiate on those terms.  If this is adopted, we won't
know who they are, because they won't submit themselves as candidates.

We already pay our top staff less than other organizations in the
libertarian movement as well as subject them to more criticism and
attacks than other organizations in the libertarian movement.  Adding
a hiring process by multiple committees into that mix will not be
helpful to attracting and retaining the best people.

If you would like to make it easier for the LNC to block particular
director-level hires or particular contracts, and you think that that
change would make the Libertarian Party more effective, you should
vote for this proposal.

I vote no.

-Nick

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2015 at 11:59:59pm
> Pacific time.
>
> Sponsor:  Mattson, Kirkland, Goldstein, Riemers
>
> Motion:  amend the Policy Manual by inserting and striking out text as
> specified in the attached PDF
>
> 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


>

_______________________________________________
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/20151022/000a4cd7/attachment-0002.html>