[Lnc-business] Other memberships

Sun Jan 12 16:30:22 EST 2020

Ms. Harlos,

So you are advocating for a literacy test for membership?  You need to 
turn in your anarchist card immediately.

---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell

On 2020-01-12 16:02, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> 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. *