[Lnc-business] Membership Recruitment

[Joshua Katz]

As usual, I'm not going to make an effort to read this entire thread
carefully (look away from email for one day...).  As is also common, I
disagree with everyone.

First, on the question posed.  It seems to me that people who sign up for
memberships receive certain items - this is a decision made by staff,
equally applicable to all (new) members, within the discretion the board
has given to staff in the budget.  How they get the items doesn't seem to
me to be an item of concern, nor does it raise, in my opinion, the issues
raised by paying for travel.  I have no objection, even if the LNC member
is running for a position on the next LNC - because my primary objection to
travel costs was that the transaction was with an LNC member (and not
available to all LNC members), not the potential for the LNC member to seek
another position.  Here we have an expenditure that would take place
without the LNC member anyway - that is, the giving of an item to the new
member - and so it doesn't raise my concerns.

Second, on the 'obligation' to sign up new members, which everyone replying
to this email seems to agree exists.  I have no objection to saying LNC
members should help recruit members (although also noting that other LNC
members do other things, such as gather thousands of volunteer signatures,
run petition drives, etc.).  But I do not agree that it's specially implied
by serving on the LNC, at least directly.  Boards are tasked with general
oversight and governance of an organization, and unless the organization's
rules say otherwise, there's no duty on individual members to do anything -
Microsoft probably doesn't expect its board members, in their individual
capacity, to go around encouraging people to buy Windows (although it
certainly doesn't mind if they do, and those who do should get the product,
and I don't think anyone would care if a board member, for some reason, had
a small supply of CD-roms in their garage and sold them to customers with
the money going to the company).  I don't see anything in our rules
establishing such an expectation.  Therefore, I conclude that LNC members
have the same expectation to sign up new members as anyone else in the
party does, as well as any expectation any particular member takes on, but
nothing more.



Joshua A. Katz


On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:

> Mr, O’Donnell,
>
> I agree with your point.  Please sign your posts, rookie. Don’t get the
> list readers mad at you.  It can be hard to tell on the reflector list who
> made a post if it’s not signed I think.
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 9, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Justin O'Donnell <justin.odonnell at lp.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >   From my understanding, there isnt a matter of opportunity to the
> >   members of the LNC, but rather an implied duty to grow memberships, and
> >   provide representation of the National Party at state conventions.
> >   I have spoken with the NH state chair, and his concern in hearing of
> >   this debate we are having, is that He invited Ms. Harlos to the LPNH
> >   Convention with the specific intent to conduct her usual membership
> >   drive activities.
> >   Rather than arguing about who is doing it, perhaps we should be
> >   focusing on why more of us are not.
> >   I applaud the idea of the Vice Chair candidates coming together to do
> >   so on their own, and would love to see MORE targeted outreach to state
> >   party members to join national, as well as the inverse in encouraging
> >   national members who are not members of their state parties to become
> >   so as well.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
   As usual, I'm not going to make an effort to read this entire thread
   carefully (look away from email for one day...).  As is also common, I
   disagree with everyone.
   First, on the question posed.  It seems to me that people who sign up
   for memberships receive certain items - this is a decision made by
   staff, equally applicable to all (new) members, within the discretion
   the board has given to staff in the budget.  How they get the items
   doesn't seem to me to be an item of concern, nor does it raise, in my
   opinion, the issues raised by paying for travel.  I have no objection,
   even if the LNC member is running for a position on the next LNC -
   because my primary objection to travel costs was that the transaction
   was with an LNC member (and not available to all LNC members), not the
   potential for the LNC member to seek another position.  Here we have an
   expenditure that would take place without the LNC member anyway - that
   is, the giving of an item to the new member - and so it doesn't raise
   my concerns.
   Second, on the 'obligation' to sign up new members, which everyone
   replying to this email seems to agree exists.  I have no objection to
   saying LNC members should help recruit members (although also noting
   that other LNC members do other things, such as gather thousands of
   volunteer signatures, run petition drives, etc.).  But I do not agree
   that it's specially implied by serving on the LNC, at least directly.
   Boards are tasked with general oversight and governance of an
   organization, and unless the organization's rules say otherwise,
   there's no duty on individual members to do anything - Microsoft
   probably doesn't expect its board members, in their individual
   capacity, to go around encouraging people to buy Windows (although it
   certainly doesn't mind if they do, and those who do should get the
   product, and I don't think anyone would care if a board member, for
   some reason, had a small supply of CD-roms in their garage and sold
   them to customers with the money going to the company).  I don't see
   anything in our rules establishing such an expectation.  Therefore, I
   conclude that LNC members have the same expectation to sign up new
   members as anyone else in the party does, as well as any expectation
   any particular member takes on, but nothing more.

   Joshua A. Katz
   On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Daniel Hayes <[1]daniel.hayes at lp.org>
   wrote:

     Mr, O’Donnell,
     I agree with your point.  Please sign your posts, rookie. Don’t get
     the list readers mad at you.  It can be hard to tell on the
     reflector list who made a post if it’s not signed I think.
     Daniel Hayes
     LNC At Large Member
     Sent from my iPhone

   > On Mar 9, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Justin O'Donnell
   <[2]justin.odonnell at lp.org> wrote:
   >
   >   From my understanding, there isnt a matter of opportunity to the
   >   members of the LNC, but rather an implied duty to grow memberships,
   and
   >   provide representation of the National Party at state conventions.
   >   I have spoken with the NH state chair, and his concern in hearing
   of
   >   this debate we are having, is that He invited Ms. Harlos to the
   LPNH
   >   Convention with the specific intent to conduct her usual membership
   >   drive activities.
   >   Rather than arguing about who is doing it, perhaps we should be
   >   focusing on why more of us are not.
   >   I applaud the idea of the Vice Chair candidates coming together to
   do
   >   so on their own, and would love to see MORE targeted outreach to
   state
   >   party members to join national, as well as the inverse in
   encouraging
   >   national members who are not members of their state parties to
   become
   >   so as well.

References

   1. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
   2. mailto:justin.odonnell at lp.org