Thanks Eva - I'm going to try to respond to as much of this as I can ... before I waste away. Important here is that people try to create Pros and Cons statements. -- paul
All of these were a lot easier to understand in the redlined format that I published it in before I created this legalistic format. The format that you are reading is what needs to be in place for the convention. When I print them for the convention maybe I will be able to redline them for easier reading. -----Original Message----- From: Eva Kosinski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 7:40 AM To: Paul Tiger Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [lpboulder] LP Convention issues - ballot feedback Bylaws change: Article III Sec I: Con: There's no point in making any kind of a rule if the standing board can just up and waive it. The potential for saying "gee, this one might be a hot topic, lets not tell them when its being voted on" is high; its not a bad board, its just putting temptation in front of human beings. We've whined about D & L's having secret meetings in smoke filled room. Lets not try to emulate them. This one opens lots of ugly pandoran boxes.[|>] [|>] I guess you are saying that we should be informing the membership about BoD meetings? Well we do. It was happening in the newsletter every month, but now the newsletter is only going out quarterly. The LPCO was informing the general membership by mail via the newsletter. The board meetings are also listed on the web site and have been for years. There were problems with the newsletter being the broadcast medium for meetings and whatnot even before going to a quarterly issue, and that was timeliness. Often it would arrive after meetings or events. However the issue of announcements of BoD meetings shouldn't have been one, since the LPCO board has been meeting on the second Tuesday of each month, at 7pm at party HQ for the past year, and I think beyond that. This issue of the wording of Article III, Section 1 of the bylaws appears to me to address something different. Not the announcement of the meetings to the general membership, but to the board members themselves. The whole section addresses the Board of Directors. It's title is Article III - BOARD OF DIRECTORS. What it speaks to is letting board members that haven't been in attendance where and when the next BoD meeting will take place. I could be wrong, but for as long as I've been paying attention to state board business no one has been in the dark about these events. Even when we had members that didn't attend for a period of time, they were always cognizant of time and location. A few times we've had members take part by phone, which is allowed in the bylaws. This wording change makes it clearer that it is Board members that are to be informed, not the general membership. It is simply a cost savings measure. The way it is worded now the board would have to unanimously waive sending out an announcement to all Libertarians in the state by US mail something to announce a meeting. On this board, as I have seen before, we have habitual abstainers; NOTA voters; and absentees. So if we don't waive the announcement, or can't because not everyone is present, then do we send an announcement by US mail to every Tom, Dick, and Sally, or just to the board. The section addresses the board, not the general membership. A simple addition of one word 'Board' clears that up. -- pt Article VIII Sec I: Yes. This should have been true all along. The problem of course, is that we have to confirm with everyone that local affiliates are "political party committees," and that our monies, coming from Libertarians, are to inform them about what's going on in the party, teach them how to support Libertarian candidates, and to be used to help party candidates as allowed by law. What this means is, we should be charging not for membership, but for the newsletter (separate price, not as as a freebie of membership), educational programs (campaigning, speakers, etc with fees to attend) as they come up, and fundraisers ($/plate for candidates and fundraiser expenses). These are traditional sources of income for parties. We need a structure for donations, because the day to day mailings, emails, creation of programs, and newsletters, are important to keeping the organization going. And, if all of the 5,000 or so folks statewide are our members, those costs could be considerable. We cannot afford to provide newsletters, for example, to all members unless they are donating in some way other than just registering with the SOS or CC. I believe a yearly subscription to the newsletter is the way to go. Support your party with a subscription, the side effect of which is you find out what other activities and programs are going on. There are no equivalent "freebies" for registering as a major party member, and they have way more financial resources. We can periodically send out postcards to see if they want to subscribe to the newsletter (and to verify that we have real addresses).[|>] [|>] You've got my vote on this! We need to get members to pay for the services that we provide. It is one of the reasons that I am at odds with national. Not that national doesn't provide services, but that by encouraging that they send their fees to national first we stymie our own growth. Local affiliates and the state board can do a far better job responding to local members than national. When members send $$$ to national (especially new members) they figure that somehow there is a trickle down (Reaganomics) and the lower echelons will get their due. Few understand the UMP and how we get buttkiss for our efforts to recruit new Libertarians. This Bylaw change really is not about who pays and what for; it's about voting rights, and party control. Any person who affiliates themselves with the Libertarian Party by voter registration changes can vote for whomsoever they wish in a general election. They can also vote in our convention elections by being a registered Libertarian. They don't have to pay to be a voting member. BUT - and this is the BIG distinction. Any person not affiliated by voter registration can simply walk through the door at any convention; pay a fee; and vote in whatever manner they wish. They can easily be a registered member of another party! This is exactly why some people change affiliations just before a primary, so they can vote for the weakest candidate in the party that they would normally oppose. Then they switch back to their party, or unaffiliated. By allowing non-Libertarians to pay to play we allow our party to be usurped by those that do not have a vested interest. Look back to the 2002 Leadville convention and tell me that we didn't have exactly this happen. I can tell you by name the people in the room that were members of other parties that paid to come and vote for certain candidates that might have otherwise had little chance at gaining an affirmation as a candidate. THIS SINGLE ISSUE IS THE REASON THAT I TOOK ON A BOARD POSITION. Yeah, I said it and I meant it then as I do now. The LPCO must mature! Letting non-Libertarians manipulate our party must stop. -- pt Article VIII Sec II: I approve having it checked with the secretary of state or county clerk, but I know of a number of cases where the member's registration has been blown off by said entities. Trusting their records may not be wise, even if they have the last word. Con: if their records are wrong, our records are wrong. Pro with caveat: We need to insist on paper verification from the secretary of state or county clerk, or at the very least encourage Libertarians to get some confirmation in writing when they check their registration. If they then send us a copy, we can have ammo to nail the weasels who undo registrations to the wall.[|>] [|>] We have a problem here, and it isn't one we can solve in our bylaws or constitution. The problem is multi-fold. First we know that clerks and the SoS have had lousy record keeping. Second we have federal HAVA and then state HAVA. The Help America Vote Act that has brought us a myriad of technical nightmares concerning balloting devices has also brought us centralized accountability for voter registration info. I should say non-accountability, because that's what we've got. Clerks still have the ability to gather registration information, but in all 50 states the last word is the SoS of each state. The fed has left it up to the individual states as how to best deal with the gathering of info (or purges). In CO our SoS has decided to go with Sequoia's software which here in Boulder County we already know to be highly suspect. Shit happens in this software that is inexplicable. It is difficult to use and goes to hell in a handbasket like most WinBlows software does for no particular reason. After spending months working on this system I truly believe that the crap that happens with affiliations is far more likely a 'computer error' than human error or misanthropic behavior. So why would I propose such a change? Simply because we have better records, or moreover because we have people that are far more dedicated to seeing that our membership are actually registered with our party. Over the past year I've been involved in both the databasing effort that our party makes, and in the effort that the state and counties make. We've been pretty good at keeping track of our membership, and as Bo and a few others can attest to, there are times when the SoS has provided information that we merged with our own information to result in better records. We've been able to find members who's affiliation changed without their knowledge, and we've been able to grow our records of who is a party member by discovery of state and county data. To the best of my knowledge there's never been a time when we could get something on paper from the state that countered what we received or compiled from computer data. Asking members to prove their membership by providing something on paper that we already have or can much more easily get hold of is lunacy. Let's not make Libertarians work to do what is clearly our job. We have a board position that addresses this issue. Denying that we can and should take charge of record keeping will send a poor message to newcomers. We're telling them that they can't be Libertarians unless they keep track. We're telling them that our party is being walked on, because we let it happen. -- pt Article VIII Sec III: Con: Membership in other organizations language MUST clearly state they cannot be members of another political party. Although this is clear from the previous membership language, putting it here for emphasis makes it unambiguous.[|>] [|>] Well nothing here changes that. Article VIII, Section 1 clearly states: "Membership in the Party occurs when an applicant registers as a Libertarian voter in the state of Colorado." There's nothing about Section 3 that re-addresses what was said in Article 1, and it is not meant to. One of my concerns about our governing documents is that they be clear and concise. Restating existing rules doesn't help that effort. If we follow a tact were we re-state things repeatedly in different ways we will begin to mirror our wondrous legislature. Soon we will have a body of rules and regulations that can be interpreted in any number of ways - directly corresponding to the number of times we say the same things differently. --pt A Pro for this one is that the only way one can make a difference in some of these other organizations is to be there and fight for a more Libertarian view within the organization. I belong to a women's political organization often looking for legislation to ensure women are not discriminated against. I argue on a regular basis that there are other ways to fight that battle besides asking government to do it for you. More members agree with me every year.[|>] [|>] Yes. The kiss method. Con: Taking the "purist" path means less communication wtih other everyone, and less opportunity to make others more aware of the side effects of being statist. If you are a Libertarian, you are talking about Libertarian issues all the time anyway. Why restrict who you talk to? By the way, I'd also like to encourage the abandonment of the concept of big and little L Libertarians. In my mind, in the current hostile environment (to freedom) anyone who signs up as a Libertarian is automatically an activist, plus if we are going to be a real party, all members must be treated the same, even when they don't always agree (individual freedom, right?).[|>] [|>] BRAVO! We have many Libertarian friends in other parties. It used to be (in my view) the Republicans. But that's changed. In my Pro I mentioned some of the organizations that support libertarian ideals, but are not generally thought of as true (big L) Libertarians. In our state, Republicans are well known for expressing libertarianism. By telling them and members of our own party that we must fight them or deny that they are libertarian minded is a fault that we must overcome. Many people in our party have high regard for the Independence Institute: which was started by a Republican, and is currently run by one. In the same breath many of those thinking that the I2I is a great outfit, will slam Sen. John Andrews or Jon Caldara for being Republicans. Working with these people can be very difficult when they know that they will be gutted in public by our members who say they are small L. [|>] --pt -Eva -- Eva Kosinski A Slice of Time 1301 Jackson Ct Louisville, CO 80027-1634 303-666-5872 (home), 303-817-9653 (cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/JdSolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> lpboulder email list: Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Questions: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpboulder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
