[Lnc-business] Membership Recruitment

[Daniel Hayes]

Well Caryn Ann,

We will have an official presence from the NAP at our convention.  Get ready to get your RONR on.

D

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 9, 2018, at 9:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> 
>   Thank you Joshua.
> 
>   You must admit though we excel at finding ways to put a wet rag on
>   everything.  In your first part you nailed it.
> 
>   In second part I believe we all have an implied duty to grow the party
>   within our talents.  My talent is to make those damn t-shirts
>   irresistible.
> 
>   The topping on the pie would be if we could throw RONR into the mix.
> 
>   On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:49 PM Joshua Katz
>   <[1]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>        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][2]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][3]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:[4]daniel.hayes at lp.org
>        2. mailto:[5]justin.odonnell at lp.org
> 
>   --
> 
>   --
>   In Liberty,
>   Caryn Ann Harlos
>   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
>   - [6]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>   Communications Director, [7]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>   We defend your rights
>   And oppose the use of force
>   Taxation is theft
> 
> References
> 
>   1. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>   2. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
>   3. mailto:justin.odonnell at lp.org
>   4. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
>   5. mailto:justin.odonnell at lp.org
>   6. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>   7. http://www.lpcolorado.org/