Originally published at LibertyForAll.Net by George Phillies:
Mind you, when you aren’t up to publishing the LNC newsletter regularly, threatening to take it away loses savor as a threat.
A motion now before the LNC, would amend the Policy Manual. In the following quote, Sections 2, 4, and 5 are new as worded. The motion, which has not been widely circulated, takes away fundamental rights of the Sustaining Membership.
For starters, Sustaining Members no longer get to be called “Sustaining Members.” Instead, for most of the Membership Rules they will have an “Association Level” of “Basic.”
For next, the motion makes up in complete violation of the By-Laws the notion of “benefits lapse date,” after which you stop receiving the Newsletter (which, of course, the LNC mostly fails to publish). The claim of the new motion is that when you first give $25 you establish a day and month on which your membership expire, and you cannot extend your membership by giving more money except in response to a membership renewal request.
That is, if you renew your Sustaining Membership by sending in $25 a bit too early, your newsletter subscription will not extend, contrary to every understanding of many years as what it means to be a sustaining member. Unless, of course, the staff gives you special privileges.
The Bylaws actually say ” ‘Sustaining Member’ is any Party member who has given at least $25 to the Party in the prior 12 months, or who is a life member.”
“Prior 12 months” is almost completely unambiguous. Those of you who heard the Judicial Committee debate over the Wrights expulsion will remember there was a disagreement as to whether “12 months” was 365 days or the 12 past named months, but not whether it was “12 months.”
The new Motion would, of course, legitimate the effort to remove Lee Wrights from the LNC, namely, Wrights never received any membership renewal requests.
A reasonable man would propose that support of the following motion is Advocacy of Theft – of your membership rights – and Fraud – publishing public Bylaws that are contradicted by the widely unavailable Policy Manual – in the sense these phrases are meant in the Party Statement of Principles.
And here, folks, is the motion:
“Section 2.05 MEMBERSHIP POLICIES
1) Membership Forms Membership forms produced by the LNC shall include a membership statement that meets the requirements of Article 5, Section 1 of the Party Bylaws. Any new wording for the membership statement shall be subject to the same review process as all other Party Literature.
2) Association Levels The following levels of association are recognized by the Party:
o Basic $25 annual dues payment
o Regular $50 annual dues payment
o Supporting $100 annual dues payment
o Sponsor $250 annual dues payment
o Patron $500 annual dues payment
o Torch Club $1,000 in dues or contributions prior twelve months
o Chairman’s Circle $5,000 in dues or contributions since last convention
3) Life Membership Status A member who contributes at least $1,000 during any twelve-month period shall be granted life membership in the Party.
4) Benefits Non-member contributors shall be provided all benefits provided to member contributors, except for those rights specifically granted only to members or sustaining members by the Party Bylaws or this Policy Manual.
A member or non-member contributor with a future benefits lapse date shall be entitled to the following basic benefits:
o Customized Party membership card, updated annually, identifying the individual’s level of association and lapse date
o Subscription to LP News Those maintaining Torch Club status shall also be entitled to the following benefits:
o Special mailings
o Invitation to the Torch Club event at the convention. Those maintaining Chairman’s Circle status shall also be entitled to the following benefits:
o Special mailings
o Invitation to the Torch Club event at the convention
o Invitation to the Chairman’s Circle event at the convention
o Participation in special conference calls with the Chair Staff shall have the discretion to create and bestow additional benefits.
5) Benefits Lapse Date An individual’s benefits lapse date is independent of the sustaining membership lapse date defined by the Party’s Bylaws.
Individuals making a first contribution shall have a benefits lapse date established one year from the date of receipt. Individuals who remit the required amount of dues in response to a membership renewal request shall have the benefits lapse date extended by one year from the existing lapse date or one year from the date of receipt, whichever is later. Contributions in response to other than a membership renewal appeal shall not as a policy extend the benefits lapse date, however Staff shall have the discretion to extend a contributor’s benefits lapse date up to one year from the last contribution date, if failure to do so would damage donor relations.
Notwithstanding the above, an individual who has contributed an amount sufficient to have qualified for life membership status shall be entitled to lifetime basic benefits.
Section 3.03 AFFILIATE RELATIONS
2) Data Sharing with Affiliates LPHQ will provide all officially recognized state-level affiliates with a list of Constituents residing in the area covered by that affiliate, within the first 5 business days of the month to the affiliate chair, or his designee. Such list shall include the following data elements (where available and applicable):
o A unique ID
o First, Middle and Last Name
o Postal mailing address
o Home and work phone and email address
o County of residency, if that information can be obtained via commonly available sources within reasonable cost
o Join and Expiration Dates
o Donation classification level (basic, life, etc)
o Existence of signed certification
o Sustaining membership status
o Other data elements, at the discretion of LPHQ
The affiliate chair may request that additional people receive copies of the constituent list. LPHQ will establish and publish formal procedures for state chairs to follow in this regard.
The LPHQ will endeavor to provide the list in the file format requested (PDF, Excel, CSV, etc), but is under no obligation to do so, as it cannot guarantee that all file formats will always be available.
Should the LPHQ desire to change the quantity or order of the data elements, it will provide one month’s notice of such change.
The LPHQ makes no further guarantees regarding the format, method of delivery or structure of the data.
All official communications regarding the database export format will be made via the state chairs e-mail list and a moderated database announce e-mail list to be administered by the LNC and that it is the responsibility of the affiliate chair to make sure the appropriate database contacts are on the database announce e-mail list.
i Authorized by Bylaw 5.2.
ii Qualifications for sustaining membership are defined by Bylaw Articles 5.3 and 5.5.”
66 responses so far ↓
1 Michael H. Wilson // Sep 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm
George who is requesting this?
Thanks,
MW
2 Aaron Starr // Sep 27, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I suspect the author is confused by the motion.
Anyone who has signed the certification and has contributed $25 in the last twelve months (or qualifies as a life member) will continue to be considered a Sustaining Member. The date a Sustaining Member lapses will continue to be in accordance with our bylaws (see Bylaw Article 5) and will not change as a result of this motion.
This proposal adds a special field “Sustaining membership status” to our database to clearly indicate whether a person holds the status of Sustaining Member. And assuming this motion passes, this information will be provided to state affiliates each month.
Nowhere in our bylaws is it required we provide LP News as a benefit.
Benefits beyond those required in our bylaws are granted to people who are Sustaining Members and even to those who are not Sustaining Members.
For example, someone who has never signed the certification can still get LP News. And someone who remits dues early will (and should) get an additional full year of LP News, not just until their Sustaining Member status lapses.
The motion also gives staff flexibility to grant an extension of benefits under special circumstances – for example, if someone gave $500 for ballot access (rather than for a subscription to LP News) during the tenth month of their LP News subscription. This will require that Staff on a case-by-case basis exercise good judgment, which I’m confident they will.
This proposal is in compliance with our bylaws, honors our donors’ instructions, and gives staff the flexibility to extend benefits to preserve good donor relations.
With the exception of the additional field mentioned above, this motion merely codifies into our policy manual what has been the policy in place since Geoff Neale implemented the Raisers Edge database many years ago.
If this policy was not in place a Sustaining Member who joined January 1, 2009 and remitted a dues renewal payment on October 31, 2009 would only get LP News through October 31, 2010.
The passage of this motion codifies our policy of providing LP News to this member through December 31, 2010 (not just October 31, 2010). In other words, the passage of this motion prevents us from penalizing a member just because he renewed early.
I hope this adds some clarity. I’m happy to answer any other questions people might have on this topic.
3 AnarchoMcCarthyist // Sep 27, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Even though George Phillies is a statist, not an anarchist, I salute him for his continuing efforts to keep the Libertarian Party as small as possible.
4 Big Tent Bozo // Sep 27, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I want a big tent that welcomes everybody, except for George Phillies and a few other undesirables. Them I’d kick out.
5 NewFederalist // Sep 27, 2009 at 7:14 pm
How about those who contribute $25 just to subscribe to LP News? Some of us don’t WANT to be members just subscribers.
6 Aaron Starr // Sep 27, 2009 at 7:18 pm
New Federalist @ 5
Good question. The proposal addresses that:
2.05.4 Benefits
Non-member contributors shall be provided all benefits provided to member contributors, except for those rights specifically granted only to members or sustaining members by the Party Bylaws or this Policy Manual.
7 George Phillies // Sep 27, 2009 at 7:32 pm
In my opinion, if the LNC were run in a competent and honest manner,
“a Sustaining Member who joined January 1, 2009 and remitted a dues renewal payment on October 31, 2009…”
would have their expiration date extended a year from its current expiration date.
Also, if you are a sustaining member, you should be receiving the newsletter whenever it appears. That really should be monthly, as opposed to the situation last year, in which party members who receive their news on the Party from the newsletter did not learn until August who we had nominated in May.
The claim “the bylaws don’t stop us” is the last and most pathetic defense one can imagine of this proposal.
I am sorry to read that the LNC has for some considerable time run its membership records in the deceitful way described. “You renewed early, so we are canceling part of your previous membership” has no relationship to the way honest organizations run in the real world. Clearly we need a new treasurer and national committee, people who are there to build the party and not to find new ways to bilk the loyal dues-paying membership.
@5 If you send $25 and do not sign the oath, you are automatically a non-member subscriber just as you request.
The notion that “sustaining members” are not entitled to the newsletter, on the rare occasions when it is published,
8 George Phillies // Sep 27, 2009 at 7:36 pm
@1
I am advised that votes as of several days ago ran:
Yes — Flood, Karlan, Mattson, Starr
No — Hawkridge, Porter*, Ruwart, Wrights
*alternate. Fox as Regional Rep is described to me as “not voting”.
9 Aaron Starr // Sep 27, 2009 at 8:20 pm
George @ 7
Theoretically, if the LNC wanted to, it could offer LP News only to those who gave $50 per year.
Perhaps you are confused as to the stated purposes of Sustaining Membership.
The concept of “Sustaining Membership” serves only five purposes in our bylaws:
1) Eligibility requirement to serve on the LNC or as our Presidential nominee – Bylaw 5.6.
2) Measuring of region formations (10% rule) (determined 7 months prior to the convention) – Bylaw 8.2.
3) Eligibility to sign a petition to the Judicial Committee – Bylaw 8.11.
4) Apportioning delegate counts by state affiliate (determined 7 months prior to the convention) – Bylaw 11.4.
5) Establishing the top ten (or top five) affiliates for convention committee representation (determined 7 months prior to the convention) – Bylaw 11.7.
That’s it. There are no other rights that inure to an individual member as a result of holding Sustaining Member status.
One can even be a delegate to the convention simply by signing the certification or by being a state affiliate member. No dues are required.
I agree that if someone purchases an annual subscription to LP News, they should get the full year, even if they pay early. That’s what this motion assures. It codifies what we already do and have been doing for many years.
To state that the LNC is somehow eliminating rights with this motion is demonstrably false.
Regarding the frequency of LP News, our website and renewal forms promise an annual subscription, but make no mention as to the frequency of the publication. It could be weekly, quarterly, semi-annually, monthly, whatever.
Should additional funds become available, I would certainly want to increase the frequency, as long as it were fiscally prudent to do so.
10 Bryan // Sep 27, 2009 at 9:24 pm
WTF???
I am now a “sustaining member”…call me an associate member…regular member…basic member…or just plain friggin member…Who gives a s#!t???
I became a member (by whatever designation) with the understanding that I was joining a group, and that I subscribed to their stance…and their rules…
If I don’t care for these rules, or their changes, then it is up to me to act to change the situation. Bitching about changes will accomplish nothing.
Considering the current situation, I find it hard to believe that the national wants to lose members, or limit the distribution of their voice, the LP news letter.
George…Give me a f^@king break….
11 George Phillies // Sep 27, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Bryan:
I also find it difficult to believe that a national party run by people in their right minds has a desire to lose members. However, the LNC is doing exactly what you say they ought not do, namely they have limited distribution of LP News this year to three issues…so far. You may remember that LP News once upon a time was monthly.
Similarly, one of the things a sensibly run membership organization that once to retain its members does is make sure it stays in touch with them. That means that so long as someone is a sustaining member, they should be receiving the newsletter.
It turns out that the LNC stopped doing so back in 2002.
@9 I am sure that the parliamentary procedure dimwits near our national committee will assure you that you have the authority to do all sorts of things, like raising the newsletter subscription rate to $50o0. There are a lot of dummies out there, and the ones who say ‘the bylaws don’t say we can’t do that’ are simply contributing to noise pollution.
As a libertarian, I do believe in the general efficacy of the market, and I will not be surprised if the market proves I am right under those $5000 subscription conditions by replacing LNC Inc with a political organization run by grownups that will
MOBILIZE THE LIBERTARIANS!
DO REAL POLITICS!
12 The Last Conservative // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:01 pm
What’s an anarcho-McCarthyist? Neither Joseph or Eugene McCarthy were anarchists.
13 Chuck Moulton // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Codifying procedures is good association management. It’s important to consistently allocate money to budget lines and use accrual basis accounting to be sure enough money is set aside to cover costs for promised benefits.
It seems to me much of this debate centers around how to interpret donor intent in the absence of specific direction. If someone donates $50 for ballot access or for a save the office letter or for a database upgrade project, do they expect all of their money to be applied to that project or do they expect part of their money to extend their LP News subscription?
It would be an easy call if the donor said to apply the donation to an extension or not apply it. Guessing donor intent will anger people no matter which assumption is picked.
I’d suggest avoiding the whole issue by putting a checkbox on all donation forms saying “Apply part of my donation to a LP News extension.” (X the checkbox for yes, leave it blank for no) Callers from the LP office could also be instructed to ask that question.
The policy could either be to deduct a standard $25 for one year extension when checked, or to deduct a pro-rated amount which would bump remaining subscription time up to a year.
14 libertariangirl // Sep 27, 2009 at 10:47 pm
GP_However, the LNC is doing exactly what you say they ought not do, namely they have limited distribution of LP News this year to three issues…so far. You may remember that LP News once upon a time was monthly.
me_ and this is intentional because…??
maybe theres not enuf money to do it every month . Everyones had to cut corners with the economy ya know . Id say political contributions definitely become part of the trimmings when leaning out a personal budget.
and as for trimming the party; while nice , the LP newsletter isnt as vital as a ton of other functions that would take precedence in funding.
Is it possible that that could be part of the reason?? we don’t have as much money therefor cant do enuf of anything or as much as we’d like to.
does it have to be part of some hinkey conspiracy where longtime members are now purposely limiting communications?
am I misunderstanding George? cause that dont sound right.
could it be theres just not enuf freakin money???
15 Marc Montoni // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Starr:
The database already has too many fields. Some overlap as it is. It needs fewer fields, not more. The LP has enough self-inflicted bureaucratic tangles as it is.
You’re kidding, right?
I have an archive of discussion on the LP-Database list where LPHQ specifically said they were taking anyone who had an expiry date more than a year in the future (with some exceptions on a case-by-case basis), and removing the extra months/years on their membership.
I and other state database administrators argued against them doing so at the time, but were were agressively ignored by the leadership.
What kind of revisionist history are you peddling?
Phillies:
I don’t find myself agreeing with Phillies much, but even he has his moments, and this is one of them. The LP’s current antipathy to extending dues for 12-month increments when members ask & pay for it is just plain ignorant marketing.
My family belongs to National Geographic Society. Nifty magazine, and all. But when you pay your dues, within three or four months, they begin sending you reminders to renew. They know that if you’re interested in donating once, you’ll likely do it again if the carrot of extending your membership another year is offered (but then, I guess the fact that they have high-dollar marketing gurus who know how to build a base is an irrelevant educational example for the LP).
In the early nineties, LPHQ — at the recommendation of a million-dollar marketing consultant who was an LP member — built up to a seven-letter renewal letter series, which began six months before expiry. The numbers demonstrated its effectiveness. To my knowledge, never has the LP repeated the retention rate it achieved between 1991-1993. When all the other changes by Seehusen and company were implemented, the state DB administrators were told that the six-letter series was now a four-letter series and it only started the month before expiration month. As I recall for a time it went down to a three or even two-letter series. I don’t know what current practice is.
Starr:
Things that may be legalistically true aren’t necessarily prudent for the organization, and as such those things should be dismissed from one’s thinking with extreme prejudice.
Personally — and I’ve made this clear before — I think LP membership hasn’t kept up with inflation. Subscriptions to the N/L should be about $40 by now. $25 was set in the early nineties; and $25 then is worth at least $39 today.
In addition, the ability to make decisions in the organization (in the form of having a vote) is sold too cheaply — but I also think that donations-in-kind should count towards the dollar requirement (e.g., donate $dues$ or collect the equivalent dollar value in sigs, or spend a week collecting prospect names at a fair booth, etc). Were the in-kind ability recognized, I’d favor making the price to have a vote raised to about $200. Of course LPN should be included as part of any increased dues.
Had the LNC not engaged in the shady shenanigans towards $50 dues (and then the moronic, so-called zero dues follow-up) in 2006, I doubt the convention would have overruled the decision. Now, for any change in dues, the convention has to agree to it. The people who engineered that fiasco should take that fiasco as a lesson in how not to sell a plan. Subterfuge usually backfires. It’s better to be transparent and offer an honest discussion of your ideas.
That is NOT true. The Seehusen/Neale policy has not changed. Strong evidence that LPHQ does NOT now allow people to extend their memberships by 12 months is the fact that it’s 2009/09 and the latest expiry I see on the Virginia database is 2010/12/20. Before September 2004, when Neale managed the changeover to Raiser’s Edge and started backing down multi-year expiration dates, there were always a dozen or so people on the Virginia list who had expiration dates five or six years into the future.
I am sorry, but if someone pays for their membership to be extended, to refuse to extend it for 12 months is just plain fraud.
Starr:
Once again technically correct but irrelevant, unless one wishes to alienate members.
LPN is a member benefit. As such, the $25 the LP collects from every member should be segregated so that the paper is paid for. It should be monthly. Anyone who think otherwise is simply foolish. Most LP members are “alone”. Just about as “alone” as one can get. We don’t see another Libertarian for days, weeks, months, or years. We don’t see fellow Libertarians on the TV news. We don’t hear LP messages on the radio, or on billboards or the sides of buses. The one thing that we can give our members for minimal cost is a monthly “touch” — with a newsletter. It needs to be a hard-copy one, as well – something they can hold in their hands. A webpage and email messages are nice but they don’t have nearly the reinforcement effect that something in meatspace does. We can’t call everyone every month — but we can send them a small token of our appreciation. Each copy of LPN costs between 5 and 15 cents for printing, and another 10 to 20 cents to mail. The incremental cost is low.
The newsletter need not be big, either — just nicely produced. What Bill Winter used to deliver was excellent. What has been delivered since then — when it has been delivered at all — has been less than inspiring.
16 Bryan // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:11 pm
If this whole thing is about a newsletter, at least at the national level, would it not be more economically sustainable to make the monthly or quarterly newsletter available online in pdf, with only newly interested parties being sent a “hard copy”? And at the same time offer a “hard copy” subscription to those who want to send in an amount to cover the cost of the publication and mailing?
I read the national newsletter as a piece of light reading, as anything noteworthy has already been “published” at the LP site.
A quarterly publication is primarily useful as a handout at various state or local events. So it does serve a purpose, but I don’t see how limiting it’s budget would make or break the LP or the various state and local associates.
17 Bryan // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Marc…If you don’t see fellow Libertarians for days, weeks, months, or years….your not doing a very good job of organizing at the grassroots level…
JMHO
18 Peter Orvetti // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I think it would make more sense to get rid of any hard copy version of LP News — there aren’t many of them these days anyway, though I know LPHQ is trying to fix that — and have a regularly updated website with lots of content available to all. Print materials should be pamphlets focusing on recruitment.
19 Aaron Starr // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Marc @ 15 and Bryan @ 16
While it’s true the incremental cost of sending out one more copy of LP News is reasonably low, the real cost is in the setup of each issue.
The total cost for each issue is around $8,000, which does not include the cost of having staff put it together.
Money continues to be tight.
We are experiencing the typical drop in revenues that takes place after every Presidential election, combined with our being in the worse economy since the Great Depression.
Hopefully, when finances turn around we can add additional issues.
20 Peter Orvetti // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:51 pm
When I worked at LPHQ a decade ago, more than half my time was spent on LP News work. That was a decade ago, in the Bill Winter era, and the paper has not been as significant a publication in a long time. That said, I don’t think it was really a good investment for party members.
21 Michael H. Wilson // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:55 pm
I’m with Marc as far as the news letter goes. We need something to put in people’s hand each month. However, it doesn’t need to be in color and it would make sense to have some sort of arrangement where if there were, more than one member in a household then only one copy would be sent.
How about a family membership program?
22 Aaron Starr // Sep 28, 2009 at 12:09 am
Marc @ 15
The history you cite is before my time as Treasurer and perhaps before I started serving on the LNC in 2004. All I know is that I reviewed an internal Raisers Edge document that detailed how the membership process should work, the actual language of which included the following:
********************************
DRIFT (or Lack Thereof)
Drift is a fundraising phenomenon in which early solicitations for membership renewal lead to the early-renewing member perpetually getting a short year of membership (usually 9 months) and more cash for the organization.
The LNC has a no-drift policy. If a person renews prior to their expiration date, they retain the original month/day of their expiration date and the year alone changes. (Example: Your membership expires 3/15/2005 and you renew 1/1/2005 — Your expiration date remains 3/15 and becomes 3/15/2006. You get the rest of your current year and the next year.)
This situation should lead to 90% of our membership having expiration dates only 15 months or so into the future, with the exception of life members, of course.
However, any member renewing after ANY lapse in membership, will get a completely new expiration date based on the latest gift date of renewal. (Example: Your membership expires on 3/15/2005, but you wait until 4/19/2005 to renew. Your expiration date would become 4/19/2006.)
********************************
We are attempting to elevate this to the Policy Manual.
23 Peter Orvetti // Sep 28, 2009 at 12:18 am
One thing the LP could do is rely more on volunteer writers for LP News. I would be happy to have them publish any of my Liberty For All columns.
24 John Famularo // Sep 28, 2009 at 2:47 am
Aaron Starr wrote,
“I reviewed an internal Raisers Edge document”
The Raisers Edge project was one gigantic boondoggle. None of the stated objectives was achieved. Since its installation, the limitations of RE has driven policy.
25 Marc Montoni // Sep 28, 2009 at 6:44 am
Bryan:
You obviously don’t know me. I was speaking of the LP generally. Yes, the LP is perpetually desperate for more organizing.
Me personally… I’ll bet I have directly created more LP local affiliates than 99.9% of LP members.
Nevertheless, my point remains.
If you can so flippantly dismiss the point, maybe you should consider the fact that LP members are still not numerous enough to be organized at the local level in every county — which is why I so consistently advocate new donor acquisition. Increase our numbers generally and more local affiliates will gell.
26 libertariangirl // Sep 28, 2009 at 7:44 am
MM__Once again technically correct but irrelevant, unless one wishes to alienate members.
me__i dont think Aaron wants to intentionally alienate members. I dont think any of us wish to . His statement simply clarifies they are not breaking any bylaws or failing on a promise.
MM__LPN is a member benefit. As such, the $25 the LP collects from every member should be segregated so that the paper is paid for. It should be monthly. Anyone who think otherwise is simply foolish.
Me__ anyone who doesnt think exactly the same as you on this issue is foolish? that sounds a tad arrogant. ideally every month would be preferable , but theres not enuf money.
i think offering a online option is a good idea. Plus like me , I get 3 at my house. Its unnecessary , a family option is also a good idea.
well that was true until WAYNE ALLEN ROOT , ba-da bump!lol
seriously anyone who has already paid 25 bucks is above the average person, my thoughts are they would seek LP media out like all of us do.
honestly i just flip thru LP news because , and I mean no offense, its usually boring and irrelevant.
I like Orvettis idea of guest writers. It would spice it up , plus take editorial slant away from just a few , making it more well rounded.
if it did come out every month , I GAURANTEE , some would be complaining about the c0ntent , the lay-out , the writers etc. every concievable reason to complain . I would have thought some would be happy it didnt go out often because now the ’side’ they think controls national and LPNews wouldnt have 12 times a year to misrepresent the LP. ( not my opinion , just sayin)
sometimes you cant win for losing
27 libertariangirl // Sep 28, 2009 at 7:45 am
can someone put MM before ‘Most LP members and a me__before ‘well that was true’
28 Melty // Sep 28, 2009 at 8:25 am
I am an LPer about as alone as it gets
29 libertariangirl // Sep 28, 2009 at 10:30 am
where do you live Melty?
30 Melty // Sep 28, 2009 at 10:38 am
deep in da heart o da Korean Peninsula
31 libertariangirl // Sep 28, 2009 at 10:51 am
oh , you are a lonely Libertarian. Does Korea have a libertarian movement?
32 Melty // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:08 am
none to speak of . . . national assembly’s got a few wee parties holding single digit seats, but da Libertarian-like party here ain’t one of em . . . socialist mentality pervades, they should just go socialist full on, they’d be happy
or else encourage immigration and legalize all drugs
the latter would be better for them but they don’t know it
33 libertariangirl // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:10 am
I do believe you ARE the lonliest Libertarian.
that sucks , im sorry . If I didnt have my fellow LPers , Id go nuts for intelligent conversation!
34 Alicia Mattson // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:57 am
George @ 7 and Marc @ 15,
GP) In my opinion, if the LNC were run in a competent and honest manner, “a Sustaining Member who joined January 1, 2009 and remitted a dues renewal payment on October 31, 2009…” would have their expiration date extended a year from its current expiration date. (GP
MM) I don’t find myself agreeing with Phillies much, but even he has his moments, and this is one of them. The LP’s current antipathy to extending dues for 12-month increments when members ask & pay for it is just plain ignorant marketing. (MM
What you seem to be saying would be an outright violation of our bylaws. If someone joins 1/1/09, their Sustaining Membership would lapse on 1/1/10. If they then send another $25 on 10/31/09, to extend their SUSTAINING MEMBERSHIP to 1/1/11 instead of 10/31/10 would violate the bylaws. With no subsequent contributions, mid-December 0f 2010, they would not have contributed $25 within the past 12 months, and thus don’t meet the bylaws requirements for Sustaining Membership, but the above arguments seem to say we should call them Sustaining Members until 1/1/2011 even though they have not contributed $25 within the past 12 months.
I think you’re not distinguishing that there are TWO things in this discussion that can expire: 1) Sustaining Membership, and 2) Benefits that the LNC optionally extends to our active contributors as finances allow.
Note the portion of the Policy Manual which would read, “5) Benefits Lapse Date An individual’s benefits lapse date is independent of the sustaining membership lapse date defined by the Party’s Bylaws.”
When you read this motion, and you see reference to a lapse date, take note of the words before it, whether it talking about a Benefits Lapse or a Sustaining Membership Lapse. Absolutely nothing in this policy does (or could) shorten the time frame during which one has Sustaining Membership rights.
What this Policy Manual addition spells out is the distinction between the two, that though the bylaws define when Sustaining Membership expires, the LNC policy is to treat their contributor benefits (primarily LP News) as a subscription, and extend it in the 12-month increments as a magazine subscription would, exactly as your comments seem to advocate. It means that if someone renews 3 months before their Sustaining Membership expires, at that point they have 12 months of future Sustaining Membership, but will still get a full-year LP News subscription extension giving them 15 months before their Benefits Lapse Date.
If we don’t treat them separately, and the Sustaining Membership and Benefits lapse at the same time, the 10/31/09 $25 contribution only extends their Benefits to 10/31/10 rather than 1/1/11. They’re going to lose time from their LP News subscription (not get a full 2 years of LP News for two separate $25 contributions) if they renew their Sustaining Membership 3 months early.
Marc, the Lapse Date field in the database dumps you get each month is NOT the date at which their Sustaining Membership lapses. It is their Benefits Lapse Date. The fact that your data file already has expiration dates in December of 2010 demonstrates that. As it is not yet December 2009, no one has yet donated $25+ in December 2009 for us to know that they would meet the bylaws definition of Sustaining Membership in December of 2010. That data demonstrates that this has been the policy before now, and we’re just finally putting it in writing in our Policy Manual.
Continuing our current policy of two separate lapse dates (one for Benefits, one for Sustaining Membership) extends benefits in precisely the way you seem to wish, while respecting the bylaws definition for Sustaining Membership. It can give you extended Benefits even beyond your Sustaining Membership Lapse Date.
The current monthly database dumps don’t really give states a way to know if someone is a Sustaining Member as of that date. It tells when they last gave a contribution, but not the contribution amount, so it could have been $5 which wouldn’t by itself be sufficient for Sustaining Membership, or it could have been $500. The data dump contains a range indicator for the single contribution returned with the last renewal request, categorizing it in one of the Association Levels referenced in this motion, but that may not have been the contribution referenced by the Last Gift Date field. The data dumps tell when someone’s LP News subscription will end by giving a Benefits Lapse Date, though the field name doesn’t contain the word “Benefits”. This motion would give the states an additional field to clearly tell them who is and isn’t a Sustaining Member according to the bylaws definition. For those state affiliates who use my membership management software, if this motion passes, I’ll need to send you a software update to accommodate the new field.
35 Michael H. Wilson // Sep 28, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Sounds like the bylaws need to be clearer as well as related materials.
36 libertariangirl // Sep 28, 2009 at 12:16 pm
bylaws are always a work in progress at every level of LP leadership.
37 Brian Holtz // Sep 28, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Alicia, thanks for clarifying. I hope the Bylaws Committee will propose a fix so that a contribution that counts toward Sustaining membership will be considered to extend that membership instead of just restarting it.
38 paulie // Sep 28, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Yes, please do.
39 Michael Seebeck // Sep 28, 2009 at 1:58 pm
The fundamental problem, and hence the confusion, in this motion is the lack of definition and mixing of terms, most specifically “association” and “membership” and the attached benefits. This is what happens when they propose this stuff–they get so axle-wrapped in minutiae that they forget how to do it correctly. So they trot out bylaws spin instead of fixing the problem.
However, since Mattson got waxed on Bylaws that last time she tried to quote them (ala l’Affaire Wrights, by me et al.), perhaps the proposers of this ought to find a better spokesperson.
Recall the motion and clean it up so it makes sense.
If you want to extend to non-member contributors, then, dammit, say it that way.
Membership benefits should be completely coincidental to term of membership. Say it that way, too.
IOW, something like this:
1. Define membership and member
2. Define contributor and contribution
3. Define associate.
4. Define the benefits, bullet point by bullet point, for members and contributors and associates, in separate lists.
5. Member benefits are in full effect fro the term of the membership. Membership renewals before the membership term is expired shall extend the membership for the appropriate term matching the renewal.
6. Associate or contributor benefits are in effect as budgets and other factors allow.
None of this other gobbledygook.
Any questions?
40 Thomas L. Knapp // Sep 28, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“If someone joins 1/1/09, their Sustaining Membership would lapse on 1/1/10.”
Not according to the bylaws. According to the bylaws, their sustaining membership would lapse on 1/31/10.
41 AnarchoMcCarthyist // Sep 28, 2009 at 3:05 pm
“What’s an anarcho-McCarthyist? Neither Joseph or Eugene McCarthy were anarchists.”
Thanks, I’m glad you asked.
Even though Joe McCarthy was actually a statist, not an anarchist, he had a knack and indeed zeal for rooting out infiltrators and fifth columnists that many of us in the Small Tent Anarchist faction of the Libertarian Party admire. Like Joe McCarthy, I hold in my pocket a list of traitors; and I think the burden of proof should always be on people that they are real libertarians — just as ol’ Joe believed that people ought to prove that they are real Americans.
No less than Murray Rothbard saw a kindred spirit in Sen. Joe McCarthy:
Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled “The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism.” To Rockwell, the LP was a “party of the stoned,” a halfway house for libertines that had to be “de-loused.” To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. “State-enforced segregation,” Rockwell wrote, “was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one’s own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse.”
The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement.” Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks,” which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.” — Reason Magazine.
42 Aaron Starr // Sep 28, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Tom Knapp @ 40
I always thought it odd how some would state that months means calendar months in our bylaws. If that was the intention, we would have written the bylaw as follows (I insert the word calendar):
Article 5.3. “Sustaining member” is any Party member who has given at least $25 to the Party in the prior twelve [calendar] months, or who is a life member.
The odd conclusion one would be forced to draw is that you don’t become a sustaining member the day you join, only at the beginning of the next month.
For example, if someone first gives a donation on 1/1/2009, you would have to argue that they do not become a member until 2/1/2009. After all, during the entire month of January a person hasn’t given during the prior twelve [calendar] months.
43 Aaron Starr // Sep 28, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Tom @ 40
Another example or two to back up my point.
We have places in our bylaws where we specifically state “the last day of the sixth month prior to a regular convention” to make it clear that we are speaking of a calendar month.
We have other bylaws language that states: “A list of the names and addresses of all delegates and alternates chosen by each affiliate party shall be sent to the Credentials Committee no later than one month prior to start of the first general session of the Regular Convention. Amendments to such lists may be made by the affiliate parties and submitted to the Credentials Committee until the close of the Credentials Committee meeting preceding the Convention.”
If the convention starts on July 1, the deadline for “one month prior” isn’t June 30, it’s June 1.
Or consider the real world example where you buy an annual insurance policy. If you purchase an annual automobile insurance policy on October 14 and got into an accident on October 28 would anyone assert that they weren’t covered until November 1 in the case of a twelve-month policy or next January 1 in the case of an annual policy?
44 Aaron Starr // Sep 28, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Michael @ 39
I’m sympathetic to what you are saying, but both “member” and “sustaining member” are already defined in the bylaws, so you need to avoid having a policy that risks defining these terms differently. Hence, the use of the word association to describe both member and non-member levels dues.
45 Thomas L. Knapp // Sep 28, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Aaron,
You say your examples “back up your point.” In point of fact, they militate against your point.
You offer several examples of the bylaws explicitly stating “the xth day of the yth month.”
But with respect to the bylaws, they don’t. They simply say that “‘Sustaining member’ is any Party member who has given at least $25 to the Party in the prior twelve months, or who is a life member.”
If the delegates had intended for the bylaws to refer to a particular date, then they presumably would have used the same language they use everywhere else in the bylaws to refer to a particular date. They didn’t.
A good guide for bylaws interpretation is to start from the assumption that any particular provision means what it says rather than whatever you happen to want it to mean.
46 Aaron Starr // Sep 28, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Tom @ 45
If someone signs the certification and first donates $25 on 1/1/2009 when do they first become recognized as a Sustaining Member?
47 Michael Seebeck // Sep 28, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Aaron @44: Then you better define “associate” properly, and amend the motion to make the terms in the motion consistent with the Bylaws (WTF is a “Basic” member, anyway, vs. a “sustaining” member?)
As for #46, well, that kinda got decided by the JudComm in the Wrights ruling, didn’t it? Still beating that dead horse isn’t gonna bring it back to life. If they donate and sign on 1/1/09 or on 1/31/09 they are sustaining members as of 1/09 per the Bylaws, period.
48 Aaron Starr // Sep 28, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Michael @47
No one is infallible, not the Supreme Court and not even the JC.
Logically, if in order to be a sustaining member, you must have donated $25 during the last twelve calendar months, if you first gave on January 1, 2009 how can you be a member on January 15, 2009?
By the way, I didn’t bring up this subject.
49 Aaron Starr // Sep 28, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Michael @ 47
It’s not a basic member. It’s a basic level of association. Think of it as a contribution level. It applies whether someone is a “Member” or not.
“Member” is defined by the bylaws as someone who has signed the certification.
“Sustaining Member” is defined by the bylaws as a “Member” who has donated at least $25 during the prior twelve months (or who is a Life Member).
50 Thomas L. Knapp // Sep 28, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Aaron,
You write:
“If someone signs the certification and first donates $25 on 1/1/2009 when do they first become recognized as a Sustaining Member?”
As soon as LPHQ notices that they’ve signed the certification and made the payment. And they’ll remain a sustaining member until such time as they’ve not donated $25 in, i.e. during one of, the twelve months prior.
If the delegates had intended to say “sustaining membership shall expire one year from the day the pledge certification and dues payment are received,” that’s exactly what they would have said.
51 Marc Montoni // Sep 28, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Starr:
I had the print shop that does our Virginia Liberty tabloid give me an estimate for doing LPNews a couple of years ago, because an LP staffer said they were having trouble getting it done reasonably.
My printer said: “a monthly tabloid with up to four pages of process color, 15,000 copies. We would provide graphic design services. Our price for that job would be $1,795.30. That figure includes an estimate of $720 for graphics work but I doubt it would take an hour per page which is what I have in that figure.”
In other words, the LP would supply the text and photos and the printer would get it all in printshape.
The postage, assuming each paper would be mailed for about 25 cents postage (should be quite a bit less), would be $3,750 at 15,000. So about $5500.
What are the current layout/printing and postage costs?
A modest drop in fundraising is to be expected after a presidential year; however, the chronic declines in fundraising (among many other metrics) that the LP has experienced over the last decade have little to do with the post-P doldrums. They have much more to do with the fact that fundraising talent has been summarily shooed away from the LP and proven good marketing tactics have been discarded.
I would think that with Wes Benedict in the house, raising money will finally get priority again. I have high hopes that he can migrate what he did in TX to DC, but we’ll see.
52 Marc Montoni // Sep 28, 2009 at 7:34 pm
By the way, that was for a 12-page tabloid.
53 Aaron Starr // Sep 28, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Thomas @ 50
Okay, just so I’m clear on your thought process here.
Article 5.3 reads: “Sustaining member” is any Party member who has given at least $25 to the Party in the prior twelve months, or who is a life member.
You’re saying that if someone first joins on January 1, 2009, he would be a sustaining member from that date through January 31, 2010, a period spanning thirteen months.
Is that correct?
54 libertariangirl // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:01 pm
this whole thread is irritating. I dont even have the patience to read and try and understand opposing sides .
Semantic Man where are you when we need you??!!
55 mdh // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I dunno where semantic man went. I am just anarchist man.
56 Aaron Starr // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Marc,
I’m looking at roughly $2,000 for the printing, $2,000 for the writing of stories (contracted out) and I believe some layout is included with that figure, and roughly $4,000 for the postage and mailhouse charges.
If there is a way to save money, I’m interested.
Would you give Robert Kraus a call at LPHQ and go over your figures with him and confirm mine. I have a much easier time seeing the accounting entries from the west coast than the actual bills.
Thanks.
57 Thomas L. Knapp // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Aaron,
You write:
“You’re saying …”
No, I’m not. The bylaws are.
58 Aaron Starr // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Tom @ 57
Okay, just to continue with your thought process here. Replace the words “prior twelve months” with “prior year.”
Article 5.3 would then read: “Sustaining member” is any Party member who has given at least $25 to the Party in the prior year, or who is a life member.
Under that scenario, if someone first joins on January 1, 2009, would he would be a sustaining member from that date through December 31, 2010, a period spanning two years?
59 Michael H. Wilson // Sep 29, 2009 at 7:53 am
The way this is going I think I’ll keep my money to myself.
60 Michael H. Wilson // Sep 29, 2009 at 8:58 am
@ 56 Aaron writes; “I’m looking at roughly $2,000 for the printing, $2,000 for the writing of stories (contracted out) and I believe some layout is included with that figure, and roughly $4,000 for the postage and mailhouse charges.”
Aaron could we not ask the membership to write for the news letter and save a bunch of those dollars? Again I’ll go back to suggest that we use an open source system to do the work. We need a big notice in the paper asking for copy.
Secondly I edit the state news letter and we send two copies to national every other month when we publish. If there is something in our news letter that the office can use then please do so. We try to have at least one and sometimes two articles on issues in each issue so go for it and use our stuff as well.
MW
61 Michael H. Wilson // Sep 29, 2009 at 9:00 am
Hope that is clear. I’m suggest that we ask for copy and save the $2000 for writing stories.
62 paulie // Sep 29, 2009 at 3:53 pm
As long as folks are insisting on arguing about silly things, I may as well chime in. This is an admitted failing of mine since the smart thing to do would be to let it die.
I am on record on the petition that Lee Wrights should not have been removed for the LNC due to accidentally missing his dues renewal by a few days (especially when he was not notified by email or phone), having someone else pay it for him, etc. Regardless of technicalities, it seemed to me that the will of the convention delegates should not have been overruled without following the process for removal for cause.
At the same time, I have to agree with Mr. Starr that a plain common sense reading of “last twelve months” means the last 365 days unless it was a leap year. Sorry if that somehow retroactively hurts the way the Wrights removal attempt will be reargued for the future, but I gotta call ‘em as I see ‘em.
Technicalities and language can always be gamed, but in the end, we all have better things to do and I believe the right thing is to avoid the gaming and the abuse of technicalities on all sides, and to move forward and try to work together productively and try to make a difference on many issues where we do agree.
If one side wants to play games and get wrapped around procedural axes, it only validates and encourages the so called other side to do more of the same. Someone needs to say enough is enough. I will do my best to refrain from followup comments on this.
63 libertariangirl // Sep 29, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Word to the P!
64 Gene Trosper // Sep 29, 2009 at 5:50 pm
These newsletters are a drain on resources. Alternatives need to be worked on now, instead of grasping at a medium (dead tree media) out of nostalgia or because a few stubbornly want their newsletter printed and in their grubby hands. It’s a new day and a new pardigm. The LP was once the leader in terms of political presence on the Internet, it’s time for it to break out of the old way of doing things and stike out with something innovative.
65 Gene Trosper // Sep 29, 2009 at 5:51 pm
“strike out with something innovative”, rather. *slaps forehead*
66 George Phillies // Sep 29, 2009 at 6:38 pm
For those of you who are curious, the LNC passed — barely — the vote to screw over the sustaining members, or perhaps to continue doing so if they have already been doing so.
The vote was
For
Michael Jingozian
Bob Sullentrup
Aaron Starr
Michael Colley
Alicia Mattson
Mark Hinkle
Rebecca Sink-Burris
Stewart Flood
Dan Karlan
Against
Pat Dixon
Lee Wrights
Mary Ruwart
Tony Ryan
James Lark
Jake Porter
Rachel Hawkridge
Abstain — Bill Redpath
If you want a functional National Party, start with those 9 for votes, and use the National Convention, etc. to give them a chance to work for liberty not near our national committee.
Leave a Comment