[Lnc-business] Hubbub email chain length for 134-member LNC
david.demarest at lp.org
david.demarest at lp.org
Mon Jan 15 01:21:24 EST 2018
Actually, Elizabeth, the current bylaws committee approved proposal
provides for 130 state representatives and an expanded executive
committee of 11. The expanded number of At Large representatives from 5
to 7 would be selected not by convention delegates but by the LNC. I am
part of the minority that opposed the proposed change. I am in favor of
better representation for states via established guidelines for regional
reps and alternates that Caryn Ann and I have lobbied for.
Thank you for suggesting some logistical considerations, specifically
posting rules, the likes of which were notably glossed over by the
approving committee majority. In practice, however, posting rules may
cause more problems than they would solve. Your approach in the email
below of voluntary ostracism would probably be more effective. However,
I take it your anti-Arvin diatribes and other frequent contributions
evidently do not count as ramblings that you snidely referenced.
My concern is the logistics of face-to-face meetings for such a large
LNC that would likely diminish face-to-face meetings to once a year with
the obvious result of more concentration in the executive committee and
less representation of states. Electronic meetings would be totally
impossible.
I believe that the logistical difficulties of a large LNC would
inevitably result in more concentration of power in the executive
committee and reduced representation of states not to mention the fact
that the election of expanded number of 7 At Large representatives would
be taken away from the convention delegates to be replaced by their
election by the LNC (and from the LNC?). That is a concentration of
power move if I ever saw one. I heard what you said about state
representation but is disenfranchisement of convention delegates and
states what you really want?
Fortunately, this impractical proposal as it currently stands is
unlikely to pass muster with convention delegates but we shall see. The
current system is admittedly not perfect but it works reasonably well
logistically and improvements are possible without changing the size.
The proposed expansion appears to me to be a solution looking for a
problem.
Thoughts?
~David Pratt Demarest
On 2018-01-14 23:25, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
> I think expanding to one representative per state, for a total of 100
> members, would be a plus. (I know that's not what the bylaws people
> want.)
>
> Because, it would be easier to get feedback from the members. The
> actual people we represent.
>
> Then some posting rules could be in place, such as no burdening the
> rest of the LNC with personal rambles and dreams.
>
>
>
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
>
>
> On 2018-01-15 00:17, david.demarest at lp.org wrote:
>
>> Can you imagine the length of this bruhaha email chain if the bylaws
>> committee proposal to expand the the LNC to 134 members was already in
>> place. It boggles the imagination.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list