Request for co-sponsors regarding membership changes
Now that the voting period has ended and unofficial tabulations indicate that Mark's motion has failed, we need to postpone the effective date of the new membership levels for the reasons which Geoff gives below. I am therefore requesting co-sponsors for the following motion: *Motion to amend Policy Manual Section II.5 MEMBERSHIP POLICIES such that the three statements "Until Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Until July 1, 2013", and the three statements "Effective Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Effective July 1, 2013.* The relevant portion of the Policy Manual ( https://www.lp.org/files/PolicyManualupdated12NOV2012.pdf) can be found starting on page 36. The effect of this will be to postpone the membership changes for six months. If conditions in three or four months have further changed (e.g., if we have a more exact date for relocating our office and thus having to reprint our literature) we can consider a new motion to either move up or move back the July 1st date by a month or two. Daniel Wiener On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
I fully concur with Geoff's comments. I will happily vote for a motion to temporarily defer this change for the reasons Geoff details; that only makes common sense. But we cannot delay this change endlessly. Once Mark's motion is defeated, and this LNC body has confirmed the prior decision to proceed with the new membership levels, let's buckle down and implement them on a practical schedule.
Dan Wiener
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Geoffrey Neale <liber8or@austin.rr.com>wrote:
I strongly urge each and every one of you to vote no on Mr. Hinkle’s motion. If you’ve already voted yes, I urge you to change your vote to no, for the following reasons:****
** **
First, there are concerns from many of you regarding PORTIONS of the new language, but not necessarily the entire new language, that are better addressed by amendment than deletion.****
** **
Second, mail ballots should be targeted at cut-and-dry binary decisions, which this is most certainly not (to me).****
****
Third, there are associated costs with this change that are measurable, but perhaps unavoidable, which I will explain further at a later point in this email.****
** **
I therefore urge a NO vote on this motion, and if this motion does fail, then I will immediately propose a motion to defer the implementation date to July 1, 2012, which I hope everyone will heartily endorse.****
** **
It would have been nice if this had come up in open discussion on the floor of an LNC meeting, but this obviously was NOT on anyone’s radar last month. That’s too bad.****
** **
My reasoning for my recommendation is as follows:****
** **
The biggest factor I want everyone to consider is the costs.****
** **
We have all heard that the biggest single cost will be website changes, and many of us find this to be unfathomable. However, my understanding is that our current contractual relationship with our website provider is the source of these costs. We all know that we have to change our provider, and we’ve already had some presentations. I think we need to make the website changes as soon as possible. Kicking the new level changes down the road would effectively allow us to make the changes (if needed) in a more cost-effective manner than changing a system we want to get rid of. Why change the tires on a car we’re sending to the scrap-heap?****
** **
We also appear to have passed a motion to proceed with purchasing a building. If this fails, we still anticipate moving out of the Watergate building. This will require us to change EVERY single piece of material we have, right down to letterhead, business cards, etc. It just makes good business sense to me to attempt to coordinate membership level changes to be introduced (or not) concurrent with a move, so that we only change our material ONCE.****
** **
Overall, I would have voted no on this motion regardless, because I find the merits of the new levels outweighs the arguments against it. But when I consider the longer range planning and costs associated with BOTH the membership and an address change, I strongly favor deferring the change.* ***
** **
For those of you are still inclined to vote to remove this language, please consider that addressing objections and perceived problems with the new levels in a less extreme manner, by deferring the implementation, does not guarantee the success or failure of your attempts to discard this language. Instead, it gives the LNC the opportunity of being seen as giving full and measured consideration to our membership levels.****
** **
I therefore urge each and every one of you to vote no, or change your vote to no.****
** **
Geoffrey Neale****
Chair, Libertarian Party****
_______________________________________________ Lnc-discuss mailing list Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
I am happy to cosponsor this. My preference is that the life membership price not be increased, but if it is, better later than sooner. -Arvin On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Now that the voting period has ended and unofficial tabulations indicate that Mark's motion has failed, we need to postpone the effective date of the new membership levels for the reasons which Geoff gives below. I am therefore requesting co-sponsors for the following motion:
*Motion to amend Policy Manual Section II.5 MEMBERSHIP POLICIES such that the three statements "Until Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Until July 1, 2013", and the three statements "Effective Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Effective July 1, 2013.*
The relevant portion of the Policy Manual ( https://www.lp.org/files/PolicyManualupdated12NOV2012.pdf) can be found starting on page 36. The effect of this will be to postpone the membership changes for six months. If conditions in three or four months have further changed (e.g., if we have a more exact date for relocating our office and thus having to reprint our literature) we can consider a new motion to either move up or move back the July 1st date by a month or two.
Daniel Wiener
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu>wrote:
I fully concur with Geoff's comments. I will happily vote for a motion to temporarily defer this change for the reasons Geoff details; that only makes common sense. But we cannot delay this change endlessly. Once Mark's motion is defeated, and this LNC body has confirmed the prior decision to proceed with the new membership levels, let's buckle down and implement them on a practical schedule.
Dan Wiener
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Geoffrey Neale <liber8or@austin.rr.com>wrote:
I strongly urge each and every one of you to vote no on Mr. Hinkle’s motion. If you’ve already voted yes, I urge you to change your vote to no, for the following reasons:****
** **
First, there are concerns from many of you regarding PORTIONS of the new language, but not necessarily the entire new language, that are better addressed by amendment than deletion.****
** **
Second, mail ballots should be targeted at cut-and-dry binary decisions, which this is most certainly not (to me).****
****
Third, there are associated costs with this change that are measurable, but perhaps unavoidable, which I will explain further at a later point in this email.****
** **
I therefore urge a NO vote on this motion, and if this motion does fail, then I will immediately propose a motion to defer the implementation date to July 1, 2012, which I hope everyone will heartily endorse.****
** **
It would have been nice if this had come up in open discussion on the floor of an LNC meeting, but this obviously was NOT on anyone’s radar last month. That’s too bad.****
** **
My reasoning for my recommendation is as follows:****
** **
The biggest factor I want everyone to consider is the costs.****
** **
We have all heard that the biggest single cost will be website changes, and many of us find this to be unfathomable. However, my understanding is that our current contractual relationship with our website provider is the source of these costs. We all know that we have to change our provider, and we’ve already had some presentations. I think we need to make the website changes as soon as possible. Kicking the new level changes down the road would effectively allow us to make the changes (if needed) in a more cost-effective manner than changing a system we want to get rid of. Why change the tires on a car we’re sending to the scrap-heap?****
** **
We also appear to have passed a motion to proceed with purchasing a building. If this fails, we still anticipate moving out of the Watergate building. This will require us to change EVERY single piece of material we have, right down to letterhead, business cards, etc. It just makes good business sense to me to attempt to coordinate membership level changes to be introduced (or not) concurrent with a move, so that we only change our material ONCE.****
** **
Overall, I would have voted no on this motion regardless, because I find the merits of the new levels outweighs the arguments against it. But when I consider the longer range planning and costs associated with BOTH the membership and an address change, I strongly favor deferring the change. ****
** **
For those of you are still inclined to vote to remove this language, please consider that addressing objections and perceived problems with the new levels in a less extreme manner, by deferring the implementation, does not guarantee the success or failure of your attempts to discard this language. Instead, it gives the LNC the opportunity of being seen as giving full and measured consideration to our membership levels.****
** **
I therefore urge each and every one of you to vote no, or change your vote to no.****
** **
Geoffrey Neale****
Chair, Libertarian Party****
_______________________________________________ Lnc-discuss mailing list Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I will be a co-sponsor as well. Like Arvin, I am supporting this motion only to stop an increase in the price of a life membership and accompanying changes from taking place January 1, not because I agree with having them take place in July. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Dec 20, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
I am happy to cosponsor this. My preference is that the life membership price not be increased, but if it is, better later than sooner. -Arvin
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> wrote: Now that the voting period has ended and unofficial tabulations indicate that Mark's motion has failed, we need to postpone the effective date of the new membership levels for the reasons which Geoff gives below. I am therefore requesting co-sponsors for the following motion:
Motion to amend Policy Manual Section II.5 MEMBERSHIP POLICIES such that the three statements "Until Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Until July 1, 2013", and the three statements "Effective Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Effective July 1, 2013.
The relevant portion of the Policy Manual (https://www.lp.org/files/PolicyManualupdated12NOV2012.pdf) can be found starting on page 36. The effect of this will be to postpone the membership changes for six months. If conditions in three or four months have further changed (e.g., if we have a more exact date for relocating our office and thus having to reprint our literature) we can consider a new motion to either move up or move back the July 1st date by a month or two.
Daniel Wiener
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> wrote: I fully concur with Geoff's comments. I will happily vote for a motion to temporarily defer this change for the reasons Geoff details; that only makes common sense. But we cannot delay this change endlessly. Once Mark's motion is defeated, and this LNC body has confirmed the prior decision to proceed with the new membership levels, let's buckle down and implement them on a practical schedule.
Dan Wiener
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Geoffrey Neale <liber8or@austin.rr.com> wrote:
I strongly urge each and every one of you to vote no on Mr. Hinkle’s motion. If you’ve already voted yes, I urge you to change your vote to no, for the following reasons:
First, there are concerns from many of you regarding PORTIONS of the new language, but not necessarily the entire new language, that are better addressed by amendment than deletion.
Second, mail ballots should be targeted at cut-and-dry binary decisions, which this is most certainly not (to me).
Third, there are associated costs with this change that are measurable, but perhaps unavoidable, which I will explain further at a later point in this email.
I therefore urge a NO vote on this motion, and if this motion does fail, then I will immediately propose a motion to defer the implementation date to July 1, 2012, which I hope everyone will heartily endorse.
It would have been nice if this had come up in open discussion on the floor of an LNC meeting, but this obviously was NOT on anyone’s radar last month. That’s too bad.
My reasoning for my recommendation is as follows:
The biggest factor I want everyone to consider is the costs.
We have all heard that the biggest single cost will be website changes, and many of us find this to be unfathomable. However, my understanding is that our current contractual relationship with our website provider is the source of these costs. We all know that we have to change our provider, and we’ve already had some presentations. I think we need to make the website changes as soon as possible. Kicking the new level changes down the road would effectively allow us to make the changes (if needed) in a more cost-effective manner than changing a system we want to get rid of. Why change the tires on a car we’re sending to the scrap-heap?
We also appear to have passed a motion to proceed with purchasing a building. If this fails, we still anticipate moving out of the Watergate building. This will require us to change EVERY single piece of material we have, right down to letterhead, business cards, etc. It just makes good business sense to me to attempt to coordinate membership level changes to be introduced (or not) concurrent with a move, so that we only change our material ONCE.
Overall, I would have voted no on this motion regardless, because I find the merits of the new levels outweighs the arguments against it. But when I consider the longer range planning and costs associated with BOTH the membership and an address change, I strongly favor deferring the change.
For those of you are still inclined to vote to remove this language, please consider that addressing objections and perceived problems with the new levels in a less extreme manner, by deferring the implementation, does not guarantee the success or failure of your attempts to discard this language. Instead, it gives the LNC the opportunity of being seen as giving full and measured consideration to our membership levels.
I therefore urge each and every one of you to vote no, or change your vote to no.
Geoffrey Neale
Chair, Libertarian Party
Lnc-discuss mailing list Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
I vote yes on the motion to delay the life membership price hike. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Dec 20, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Starchild wrote:
I will be a co-sponsor as well. Like Arvin, I am supporting this motion only to stop an increase in the price of a life membership and accompanying changes from taking place January 1, not because I agree with having them take place in July.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Dec 20, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
I am happy to cosponsor this. My preference is that the life membership price not be increased, but if it is, better later than sooner. -Arvin
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> wrote: Now that the voting period has ended and unofficial tabulations indicate that Mark's motion has failed, we need to postpone the effective date of the new membership levels for the reasons which Geoff gives below. I am therefore requesting co-sponsors for the following motion:
Motion to amend Policy Manual Section II.5 MEMBERSHIP POLICIES such that the three statements "Until Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Until July 1, 2013", and the three statements "Effective Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Effective July 1, 2013.
The relevant portion of the Policy Manual (https://www.lp.org/files/PolicyManualupdated12NOV2012.pdf) can be found starting on page 36. The effect of this will be to postpone the membership changes for six months. If conditions in three or four months have further changed (e.g., if we have a more exact date for relocating our office and thus having to reprint our literature) we can consider a new motion to either move up or move back the July 1st date by a month or two.
Daniel Wiener
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> wrote: I fully concur with Geoff's comments. I will happily vote for a motion to temporarily defer this change for the reasons Geoff details; that only makes common sense. But we cannot delay this change endlessly. Once Mark's motion is defeated, and this LNC body has confirmed the prior decision to proceed with the new membership levels, let's buckle down and implement them on a practical schedule.
Dan Wiener
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Geoffrey Neale <liber8or@austin.rr.com> wrote:
I strongly urge each and every one of you to vote no on Mr. Hinkle’s motion. If you’ve already voted yes, I urge you to change your vote to no, for the following reasons:
First, there are concerns from many of you regarding PORTIONS of the new language, but not necessarily the entire new language, that are better addressed by amendment than deletion.
Second, mail ballots should be targeted at cut-and-dry binary decisions, which this is most certainly not (to me).
Third, there are associated costs with this change that are measurable, but perhaps unavoidable, which I will explain further at a later point in this email.
I therefore urge a NO vote on this motion, and if this motion does fail, then I will immediately propose a motion to defer the implementation date to July 1, 2012, which I hope everyone will heartily endorse.
It would have been nice if this had come up in open discussion on the floor of an LNC meeting, but this obviously was NOT on anyone’s radar last month. That’s too bad.
My reasoning for my recommendation is as follows:
The biggest factor I want everyone to consider is the costs.
We have all heard that the biggest single cost will be website changes, and many of us find this to be unfathomable. However, my understanding is that our current contractual relationship with our website provider is the source of these costs. We all know that we have to change our provider, and we’ve already had some presentations. I think we need to make the website changes as soon as possible. Kicking the new level changes down the road would effectively allow us to make the changes (if needed) in a more cost-effective manner than changing a system we want to get rid of. Why change the tires on a car we’re sending to the scrap-heap?
We also appear to have passed a motion to proceed with purchasing a building. If this fails, we still anticipate moving out of the Watergate building. This will require us to change EVERY single piece of material we have, right down to letterhead, business cards, etc. It just makes good business sense to me to attempt to coordinate membership level changes to be introduced (or not) concurrent with a move, so that we only change our material ONCE.
Overall, I would have voted no on this motion regardless, because I find the merits of the new levels outweighs the arguments against it. But when I consider the longer range planning and costs associated with BOTH the membership and an address change, I strongly favor deferring the change.
For those of you are still inclined to vote to remove this language, please consider that addressing objections and perceived problems with the new levels in a less extreme manner, by deferring the implementation, does not guarantee the success or failure of your attempts to discard this language. Instead, it gives the LNC the opportunity of being seen as giving full and measured consideration to our membership levels.
I therefore urge each and every one of you to vote no, or change your vote to no.
Geoffrey Neale
Chair, Libertarian Party
Lnc-discuss mailing list Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I will sponsor it - now all we need is for the Secretary to make it official. Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> Sender: "Lnc-business" <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:39:07 To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Reply-To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: [Lnc-business] Request for co-sponsors regarding membership changes _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
My assumption is that you want Daniel's language. If this is not correct....well, oh well. R On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:54 PM, <liber8or@austin.rr.com> wrote:
I will sponsor it - now all we need is for the Secretary to make it official.
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> Sender: "Lnc-business" <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:39:07 To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Reply-To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: [Lnc-business] Request for co-sponsors regarding membership changes
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
participants (5)
-
Arvin Vohra -
Daniel Wiener -
liber8or＠austin.rr.com -
Ruth Bennett -
Starchild