[Lnc-business] Other memberships

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr Wendt this would prohibit some freed felons from being members.  That
would be very contrary to our historic position on this.

Further trying membership to voting rights elevates voting in a way that
would be offensive to many members.

And I don’t think it anywhere near majority support that teens cannot be
sustaining members.

If we are trying to avoid babies, it could be to sign and personally
comprehend the pledge.  That’s very simple - is it subjective?  Yes.  But
so are arbitrary age lines.

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 1:04 PM francis.wendt--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Fellow members of the LNC,
>
>
>
> I have sent this proposed amendment to Richard regarding the recent
> membership questions that have arisen. These are my humble thoughts on how
> we can solve these issues, and unburden the LNC from questions like we were
> presented with recently.
>
>
>
> I do want to clarify that this is merely a draft and that I am not
> introducing it for debate here, as I’m sure it will not maintain its
> present form should the Bylaws Committee chose to review it.
>
>
>
> I just wanted to say I have introduced a possible solution, and I would
> encourage others to submit solutions to the Bylaws Committee, as they are
> the body which has authority in this matter.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Francis Wendt
>
> LNC Region 1 Alternate
>
> 406.595.5111
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of
> john.phillips--- via Lnc-business
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 1:34 PM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Cc: john.phillips at lp.org
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Other memberships
>
>
>
> Sorry, should have been more clear - my suggestion was meant to be a
> suggestion to possibly pass to bylaws.
>
>
>
> As for your question, i believe yes they signed for their dependents. At
> least One of which is a pet.
>
>
>
> Ms Mattson was the one who suggested that might not be ok.  Mr Fishman
> confirmed the pets were not listed as members.
>
>
>
> The concern is if they are not to be considered members, do we then refund
> the money for their memberships? Or Do we allow the memberships?
>
>
>
> I really am not trying to create an issue here, just address one that
> arose from debate on the other.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2020 1:24 PM, Tim Hagan via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org> > wrote:
>
> They can be considered Donors (as long as the FEC report properly
> records the source of the contribution), but the Bylaws are clear that
> members are those who signed the certification/pledge. I don't see where
> the Bylaws would allow "dependent" memberships for those incapable of
> certifying that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political
> or social goals.
>
> When gift sustaining memberships are made through www.lp.org/gift <
> http://www.lp.org/gift>  [1],
> e-mails are sent to the recipients asking them if they want to become a
> member with a link to sign the certification.
>
> How did these people sign up their dependents? Did they sign the pledge
> for their dependents?
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
> On 2020-01-10 10:50, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
> > Concerns regarding memberships of children and others who could not sign
> the pledge was brought up in our other discussion.
> >
> > Mr Fishman stated that Dulap was not considered a member.
> >
> > Ms Willis has asked if that means she will be getting a refund for his
> membership.  Others have expressed similar questions regarding dependents.
> >
> > Alicia' s point regarding delegate counts is also well made.
> >
> > I hate to bring such a seemingly silly question, but when looking past
> that the questions of legality and fraud rear their ugly heads making it
> something that should be addressed.
> >
> > Do we have a direction on this?  I previously suggested the possibility
> of a "dependents" membership for such scenarios.
> >
> > John Phillips
> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > Cell 217-412-5973
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.lp.org/gift,
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2020 1:24 PM, Tim Hagan via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org> > wrote:
>
> They can be considered Donors (as long as the FEC report properly
> records the source of the contribution), but the Bylaws are clear that
> members are those who signed the certification/pledge. I don't see where
> the Bylaws would allow "dependent" memberships for those incapable of
> certifying that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political
> or social goals.
>
> When gift sustaining memberships are made through www.lp.org/gift <
> http://www.lp.org/gift>  [1],
> e-mails are sent to the recipients asking them if they want to become a
> member with a link to sign the certification.
>
> How did these people sign up their dependents? Did they sign the pledge
> for their dependents?
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
> On 2020-01-10 10:50, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
> > Concerns regarding memberships of children and others who could not sign
> the pledge was brought up in our other discussion.
> >
> > Mr Fishman stated that Dulap was not considered a member.
> >
> > Ms Willis has asked if that means she will be getting a refund for his
> membership.  Others have expressed similar questions regarding dependents.
> >
> > Alicia' s point regarding delegate counts is also well made.
> >
> > I hate to bring such a seemingly silly question, but when looking past
> that the questions of legality and fraud rear their ugly heads making it
> something that should be addressed.
> >
> > Do we have a direction on this?  I previously suggested the possibility
> of a "dependents" membership for such scenarios.
> >
> > John Phillips
> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > Cell 217-412-5973
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.lp.org/gift,
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2020 1:24 PM, Tim Hagan via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org> > wrote:
>
> They can be considered Donors (as long as the FEC report properly
> records the source of the contribution), but the Bylaws are clear that
> members are those who signed the certification/pledge. I don't see where
> the Bylaws would allow "dependent" memberships for those incapable of
> certifying that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political
> or social goals.
>
> When gift sustaining memberships are made through www.lp.org/gift <
> http://www.lp.org/gift>  [1],
> e-mails are sent to the recipients asking them if they want to become a
> member with a link to sign the certification.
>
> How did these people sign up their dependents? Did they sign the pledge
> for their dependents?
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
> On 2020-01-10 10:50, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
> > Concerns regarding memberships of children and others who could not sign
> the pledge was brought up in our other discussion.
> >
> > Mr Fishman stated that Dulap was not considered a member.
> >
> > Ms Willis has asked if that means she will be getting a refund for his
> membership.  Others have expressed similar questions regarding dependents.
> >
> > Alicia' s point regarding delegate counts is also well made.
> >
> > I hate to bring such a seemingly silly question, but when looking past
> that the questions of legality and fraud rear their ugly heads making it
> something that should be addressed.
> >
> > Do we have a direction on this?  I previously suggested the possibility
> of a "dependents" membership for such scenarios.
> >
> > John Phillips
> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > Cell 217-412-5973
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.lp.org/gift,
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2020 1:24 PM, Tim Hagan via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org> > wrote:
>
> They can be considered Donors (as long as the FEC report properly
> records the source of the contribution), but the Bylaws are clear that
> members are those who signed the certification/pledge. I don't see where
> the Bylaws would allow "dependent" memberships for those incapable of
> certifying that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political
> or social goals.
>
> When gift sustaining memberships are made through www.lp.org/gift <
> http://www.lp.org/gift>  [1],
> e-mails are sent to the recipients asking them if they want to become a
> member with a link to sign the certification.
>
> How did these people sign up their dependents? Did they sign the pledge
> for their dependents?
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
> On 2020-01-10 10:50, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
> > Concerns regarding memberships of children and others who could not sign
> the pledge was brought up in our other discussion.
> >
> > Mr Fishman stated that Dulap was not considered a member.
> >
> > Ms Willis has asked if that means she will be getting a refund for his
> membership.  Others have expressed similar questions regarding dependents.
> >
> > Alicia' s point regarding delegate counts is also well made.
> >
> > I hate to bring such a seemingly silly question, but when looking past
> that the questions of legality and fraud rear their ugly heads making it
> something that should be addressed.
> >
> > Do we have a direction on this?  I previously suggested the possibility
> of a "dependents" membership for such scenarios.
> >
> > John Phillips
> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > Cell 217-412-5973
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.lp.org/gift,
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2020 1:24 PM, Tim Hagan via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org> > wrote:
>
> They can be considered Donors (as long as the FEC report properly
> records the source of the contribution), but the Bylaws are clear that
> members are those who signed the certification/pledge. I don't see where
> the Bylaws would allow "dependent" memberships for those incapable of
> certifying that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political
> or social goals.
>
> When gift sustaining memberships are made through www.lp.org/gift <
> http://www.lp.org/gift>  [1],
> e-mails are sent to the recipients asking them if they want to become a
> member with a link to sign the certification.
>
> How did these people sign up their dependents? Did they sign the pledge
> for their dependents?
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
> On 2020-01-10 10:50, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
>
> > Concerns regarding memberships of children and others who could not sign
> the pledge was brought up in our other discussion.
> >
> > Mr Fishman stated that Dulap was not considered a member.
> >
> > Ms Willis has asked if that means she will be getting a refund for his
> membership.  Others have expressed similar questions regarding dependents.
> >
> > Alicia' s point regarding delegate counts is also well made.
> >
> > I hate to bring such a seemingly silly question, but when looking past
> that the questions of legality and fraud rear their ugly heads making it
> something that should be addressed.
> >
> > Do we have a direction on this?  I previously suggested the possibility
> of a "dependents" membership for such scenarios.
> >
> > John Phillips
> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > Cell 217-412-5973
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.lp.org/gift,
>
>
>
> --

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *