<div dir="ltr">What will be done in case of breach? It seems the correct answer would be disaffiliation, and I'm not convinced that such action would withstand a JC appeal. <div><br></div><div>Now, I'd agree with the argument here if these were new affiliates, but we already have affiliates in existence, so I'm not sure how it's a voluntary agreement, given that we'd, presumably, require all affiliate to agree to it or risk disaffiliation - a disaffiliation that I don't see a justification for in the bylaws. I am convinced regarding brand-new affiliates, though, that they can be asked to sign an agreement in order to gain affiliate status. </div><div><br></div><div>Just my 2 cents. </div><div><br></div><div>Joshua Katz</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div>Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)</div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Evan McMahon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:indyliberty@gmail.com" target="_blank">indyliberty@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">I don't care to dwell too much on this, but here is my answer to a bylaws change. </p>
<p dir="ltr">It's not needed. If it's a voluntary agreement outlining the responsibilities of both National and the affiliate... then the autonomy and authority of the affiliate remains intact. There would need to be a cancellation clause for both National and the affiliate. </p>
<p dir="ltr">This is not the same as an official affiliation or dis-affiliation. Just a service level agreement.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I believe this document should be drafted by LSLA with heavy input from National's staff.</p>
<p dir="ltr">In Liberty,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Evan McMahon<br>
At-Large Representative<br>
Libertarian National Committee</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="mailto:evan.mcmahon@lp.org" target="_blank">evan.mcmahon@lp.org</a></p><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 1, 2014 9:00 PM, "Joshua Katz" <<a href="mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com" target="_blank">planning4liberty@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">I meant the requirement that the phone be answered, which the management plan was one way of doing. I don't see how making specific operational requirements doesn't violate autonomy, although, as I said, I'm not against changing the bylaws for that purpose. If you can show me how it isn't needed, so much the better, but I'm not seeing it at the moment. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Joshua Katz </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 1, 2014 5:20 PM, "Scott L." <<a href="mailto:scott73@earthlink.net" target="_blank">scott73@earthlink.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="blue">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">If the National LP
wants to be a REAL political party, then it needs to enforce minimum standards for
all of its affiliates. That doesn’t mean micromanaging candidate selection,
but it does mean that ALL state affiliates perform the basic functions of a <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">State-level political
party.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><br>
Just as an example, I don’t see how REQUIRING all of our affiliates to be at
least moderately competent at accomplishing the tasks on this list would be
considered infringing on their autonomy:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20020813051709/www.lp.org/services/s99/ten.html" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/20020813051709/www.lp.org/services/s99/ten.html</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">Again – the
multi-state officer manager suggestion I made earlier today would be entirely implemented
by voluntary agreements between state affiliates, so the National Bylaws are
not relevant to it.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> Scott Lieberman<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></font></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font face="Tahoma"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><font face="Tahoma"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma"> Lnc-business
[mailto:<a href="mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org</a>] <b><span style="font-weight:bold">On
Behalf Of </span></b>Joshua Katz<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, October 01, 2014
2:07 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Lnc-business] LP
National's dilemma Re: DenverPost Voter's Guide contact information</span></font><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I would
not be opposed to an affiliate agreement, depending on the terms. If nothing
else, it would mean not having dilemmas like this one, and the fear that states
view listing their candidates, information they provide to us, with media
outlets, as infringing on their autonomy. The solution when a large group
doesn't agree on what terms mean is to set those terms out in writing. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">However,
I don't see how to have one without changing the bylaws. I'd want to be very
careful about the wording of that revision. It should not just remove the
autonomy statement. I'd favor adding a clause allowing for an agreement, but
not requiring one. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Joshua Katz
</span></font><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>