[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