Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement
My response to Dr Lodder's discussion items are as follows: We are set up hierarchically. We are both top-down and bottom-up. For top-down: * The state party must exist to affiliate organizations under it (Article IV Sections 3(A) and 3(B)), * We disallow County Parties to create their own membership requirements (Article IV Section 2) * We provide the purpose for the County Party (Article IV Section 1(A)). In both our current model and in previous models of governance, there has also been the bottom-up aspect; previously, the chairs of each directly-affiliated group sat on the committee that chartered that affiliate. Now we have the county chairs who sit on the state party steering committee, and appoint the state executive committee. We already have unilateral termination authority under Article IV Section 5. The requirement to turn over assets upon dissolution is already covered in Article IV Section 5(C). The indemnification clause explicitly states: County Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LPKY, its officers, and affiliates from any claims, liabilities, or legal actions _arising from the actions or inactions of County Party, when LPKY acts within its rights or duties under LPKY Constitution or this agreement. _ That second part of the clause outlines that LPKY must be acting within their own rights and duties. This is standard language in most contracts. I would suggest that county parties that can't get a county convention together probably aren't ready to have a party yet. If they can't handle a convention, then how are they holding an Organizing Convention they couldn't handle, which has the election requirements as a Special Convention (as outlined in the agreement) or an Annual Convention. They could be a County Development Group for a while, perhaps. County coordinators. Organizing conventions are actually slightly more complex, as they require a motion to petition to affiliate as the final item of business. Additionally, county conventions almost never cost money to the affiliate. If there's a conflict of interest between the chair and a potential venue, there are at least 2 other members of the county party committee to handle negotiations. That said, I think this is not a concern. I live in a county of 20,000 people and I live near the smallest county by population (Robertson). Both counties have facilities to hold a meeting; at a minimum, they have a library with a meeting room. The only restriction that this agreement actually adds, beyond what is already in the Constitution, is the requirement in Paragraph 5. Holding multiple meetings prior to spinning up a party is a good idea. Since we are approximately 22 months away from the next scheduled county party elections, it makes little sense to let 3 people just start a county party without giving others who would otherwise be interested have a chance to take part in the organization. We could literally strip out everything except paragraph 5 and everything would stay the same. And Paragraph 5 is meant to prevent a county party cold war driven over desire to control the state steering committee and, in turn, over the state executive committee. Such actions are not real growth, not healthy for the overall organization, and will inevitably create a massive KREF disaster for a future committee to clean up. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 10:48, Robert Lodder wrote:
My discussion points on the draft county affiliate agreement:
Traditionally in a contract, the contract spells out the advantages to each party to the contract as reasons for entering into the contract. Spell these out, if any, in the Whereas portion of the contract.
The agreement establishes a hierarchical relationship where LPKY holds the majority of power and control, while County Parties are subordinate and must adhere to LPKY's rules and decisions. This power imbalance is evident in several aspects of the agreement, which may not align with best practices for organizational justice and fairness in affiliate agreements. The limited autonomy may hinder the ability of County Parties to adapt to local needs and circumstances.
Unilateral Termination: LPKY reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time if the County Party is found to be in violation of its terms. This clause gives LPKY significant power over County Parties, creating operational uncertainty and a potential imbalance of power. Both sides should be able to terminate an unsatisfactory agreement. The contract should spell out the terms by which both parties can exit.
Asset Control: Upon dissolution, all remaining assets of the County Party become the property of LPKY. This provision will discourage County Parties from building financial or material resources, as they do not have long-term control over these assets.
Indemnification Clause: County Parties must indemnify and hold harmless LPKY from any claims or liabilities arising from their actions. This shifts legal and financial risks entirely onto the County Party, even in cases where LPKY's actions may have contributed to the issue. Compliance with complex laws and regulations may be challenging, especially for smaller County Parties without legal expertise.
New or smaller County Parties may face logistical and financial burdens due to the requirement to hold extra Special Conventions if they don't meet certain organizational benchmarks.
The Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky outlines several ethical responsibilities for its members and county parties. These responsibilities aim to ensure financial transparency, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain the integrity of party operations. Members are prohibited from using their official position or office to obtain financial gain or other personal benefits for themselves, any family member, or a business associate. This can be a problem if, for example, a county party chair has a brother who owns the only meeting facility in the county big enough to handle the County Convention. In such instances transparency and prior approval of a transaction by others in the party is better than a blanket prohibition.
In conclusion, while some level of control and standardization is necessary for maintaining consistency across a political party's structure, this agreement appears to create significant disadvantages for County Parties. The terms heavily favor LPKY in terms of control, decision-making authority, and risk allocation. This imbalance may not align with best practices for fairness in organizational affiliate agreements, which typically emphasize transparency, equitable treatment, and stakeholder engagement
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:42 AM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> wrote:
All -
As discussed on the last State Party Executive call, I would like to adopt an affiliate agreement. To date, the primary objection I have heard is related to timings in paragraph 5; that the timelines seem arbitrary, and generally about the timelines not making a lot of sense.
To be able to discuss the motion, we must have a motion. As such, I am making the motion to adopt an updated version, with paragraph 5 revised to read as follows:
_If fewer than 4 publicly-advertised in-person monthly meetings were held in the 183 days preceding an Organizational Convention, and if the next Annual Convention at which officers of County Party will be elected is greater than 274 days from the date of the organizational convention, then County Party agrees to hold a Special Convention between 180 and 210 days after the Organizing Convention, at which all leadership positions are to be re-elected._
Link to document in its entirety: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLZqfrLWElZtB45fp5APZC85mQ7x_8C7lU6glbFd...
As a reminder, links to the mailing lists for committees and the instructions on how email voting works is in our drive, available from the meeting minutes link on the website, here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l5CMoltjBeqqSCOzOWexslpQeAxLY9DbXBIjGPjS...
Debate begins when a person responds to this email with "Second".
-- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
--
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
I support holding our affiliates to the minimum legal standard. If there’s a gap in the rules that would present legal problems we can draw up an agreement for that and give 30 days for ALL affiliates including existing ones to sign it or they can risk losing affiliate status. This agreement would be void after conclusion of next year’s convention. And rules needs to bring a proposal to fix the gaps. We shouldn’t be making rules as an excomm. That’s overstepping our bounds from my point of view. Andrew Roberts Get [1]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________ From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces@lists.lpky.org> on behalf of Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:30 To: Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Cc: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement My response to Dr Lodder's discussion items are as follows: We are set up hierarchically. We are both top-down and bottom-up. For top-down: * The state party must exist to affiliate organizations under it (Article IV Sections 3(A) and 3(B)), * We disallow County Parties to create their own membership requirements (Article IV Section 2) * We provide the purpose for the County Party (Article IV Section 1(A)). In both our current model and in previous models of governance, there has also been the bottom-up aspect; previously, the chairs of each directly-affiliated group sat on the committee that chartered that affiliate. Now we have the county chairs who sit on the state party steering committee, and appoint the state executive committee. We already have unilateral termination authority under Article IV Section 5. The requirement to turn over assets upon dissolution is already covered in Article IV Section 5(C). The indemnification clause explicitly states: County Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LPKY, its officers, and affiliates from any claims, liabilities, or legal actions _arising from the actions or inactions of County Party, when LPKY acts within its rights or duties under LPKY Constitution or this agreement. _ That second part of the clause outlines that LPKY must be acting within their own rights and duties. This is standard language in most contracts. I would suggest that county parties that can't get a county convention together probably aren't ready to have a party yet. If they can't handle a convention, then how are they holding an Organizing Convention they couldn't handle, which has the election requirements as a Special Convention (as outlined in the agreement) or an Annual Convention. They could be a County Development Group for a while, perhaps. County coordinators. Organizing conventions are actually slightly more complex, as they require a motion to petition to affiliate as the final item of business. Additionally, county conventions almost never cost money to the affiliate. If there's a conflict of interest between the chair and a potential venue, there are at least 2 other members of the county party committee to handle negotiations. That said, I think this is not a concern. I live in a county of 20,000 people and I live near the smallest county by population (Robertson). Both counties have facilities to hold a meeting; at a minimum, they have a library with a meeting room. The only restriction that this agreement actually adds, beyond what is already in the Constitution, is the requirement in Paragraph 5. Holding multiple meetings prior to spinning up a party is a good idea. Since we are approximately 22 months away from the next scheduled county party elections, it makes little sense to let 3 people just start a county party without giving others who would otherwise be interested have a chance to take part in the organization. We could literally strip out everything except paragraph 5 and everything would stay the same. And Paragraph 5 is meant to prevent a county party cold war driven over desire to control the state steering committee and, in turn, over the state executive committee. Such actions are not real growth, not healthy for the overall organization, and will inevitably create a massive KREF disaster for a future committee to clean up. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 10:48, Robert Lodder wrote:
My discussion points on the draft county affiliate agreement:
Traditionally in a contract, the contract spells out the advantages to each party to the contract as reasons for entering into the contract. Spell these out, if any, in the Whereas portion of the contract.
The agreement establishes a hierarchical relationship where LPKY holds the majority of power and control, while County Parties are subordinate and must adhere to LPKY's rules and decisions. This power imbalance is evident in several aspects of the agreement, which may not align with best practices for organizational justice and fairness in affiliate agreements. The limited autonomy may hinder the ability of County Parties to adapt to local needs and circumstances.
Unilateral Termination: LPKY reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time if the County Party is found to be in violation of its terms. This clause gives LPKY significant power over County Parties, creating operational uncertainty and a potential imbalance of power. Both sides should be able to terminate an unsatisfactory agreement. The contract should spell out the terms by which both parties can exit.
Asset Control: Upon dissolution, all remaining assets of the County Party become the property of LPKY. This provision will discourage County Parties from building financial or material resources, as they do not have long-term control over these assets.
Indemnification Clause: County Parties must indemnify and hold harmless LPKY from any claims or liabilities arising from their actions. This shifts legal and financial risks entirely onto the County Party, even in cases where LPKY's actions may have contributed to the issue. Compliance with complex laws and regulations may be challenging, especially for smaller County Parties without legal expertise.
New or smaller County Parties may face logistical and financial burdens due to the requirement to hold extra Special Conventions if they don't meet certain organizational benchmarks.
The Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky outlines several ethical responsibilities for its members and county parties. These responsibilities aim to ensure financial transparency, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain the integrity of party operations. Members are prohibited from using their official position or office to obtain financial gain or other personal benefits for themselves, any family member, or a business associate. This can be a problem if, for example, a county party chair has a brother who owns the only meeting facility in the county big enough to handle the County Convention. In such instances transparency and prior approval of a transaction by others in the party is better than a blanket prohibition.
In conclusion, while some level of control and standardization is necessary for maintaining consistency across a political party's structure, this agreement appears to create significant disadvantages for County Parties. The terms heavily favor LPKY in terms of control, decision-making authority, and risk allocation. This imbalance may not align with best practices for fairness in organizational affiliate agreements, which typically emphasize transparency, equitable treatment, and stakeholder engagement
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:42 AM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> wrote:
All -
As discussed on the last State Party Executive call, I would like to adopt an affiliate agreement. To date, the primary objection I have heard is related to timings in paragraph 5; that the timelines seem arbitrary, and generally about the timelines not making a lot of sense.
To be able to discuss the motion, we must have a motion. As such, I am making the motion to adopt an updated version, with paragraph 5 revised to read as follows:
_If fewer than 4 publicly-advertised in-person monthly meetings were held in the 183 days preceding an Organizational Convention, and if the next Annual Convention at which officers of County Party will be elected is greater than 274 days from the date of the organizational convention, then County Party agrees to hold a Special Convention between 180 and 210 days after the Organizing Convention, at which all leadership positions are to be re-elected._
Link to document in its entirety:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLZqfrLWElZtB45fp5APZC85mQ7x_8C7lU6 glbFdgcg/edit?tab=t.0
As a reminder, links to the mailing lists for committees and the instructions on how email voting works is in our drive, available
from
the meeting minutes link on the website, here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l5CMoltjBeqqSCOzOWexslpQeAxLY9DbXBI jGPjSyTA/edit?tab=t.0
Debate begins when a person responds to this email with "Second".
-- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
--
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm References 1. https://aka.ms/o0ukef
While we have a constitutional requirement to allow a county party to hold an organizing convention, we also have the authority to accept or reject county parties. This agreement is simply codifying that they would be accepted on the condition they agree to (1) hold 4 in-person meetings across 6 months, prior to organizing convention; or (B) allow others to participate in special convention to (re-)elect leadership after a few months, since there isn't otherwise an opportunity to provide other members and potential members with the information to make an informed choice or perhaps even participate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 11:36, Andrew Roberts wrote:
I support holding our affiliates to the minimum legal standard. If there's a gap in the rules that would present legal problems we can draw up an agreement for that and give 30 days for ALL affiliates including existing ones to sign it or they can risk losing affiliate status. This agreement would be void after conclusion of next year's convention. And rules needs to bring a proposal to fix the gaps. We shouldn't be making rules as an excomm. That's overstepping our bounds from my point of view.
Andrew Roberts
Get Outlook for iOS [1]
-------------------------
From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces@lists.lpky.org> on behalf of Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:30 To: Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Cc: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement
My response to Dr Lodder's discussion items are as follows:
We are set up hierarchically. We are both top-down and bottom-up. For top-down:
* The state party must exist to affiliate organizations under it (Article IV Sections 3(A) and 3(B)), * We disallow County Parties to create their own membership requirements (Article IV Section 2) * We provide the purpose for the County Party (Article IV Section 1(A)).
In both our current model and in previous models of governance, there has also been the bottom-up aspect; previously, the chairs of each directly-affiliated group sat on the committee that chartered that affiliate. Now we have the county chairs who sit on the state party steering committee, and appoint the state executive committee.
We already have unilateral termination authority under Article IV Section 5.
The requirement to turn over assets upon dissolution is already covered in Article IV Section 5(C).
The indemnification clause explicitly states: County Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LPKY, its officers, and affiliates from any claims, liabilities, or legal actions _arising from the actions or inactions of County Party, when LPKY acts within its rights or duties under LPKY Constitution or this agreement. _ That second part of the clause outlines that LPKY must be acting within their own rights and duties. This is standard language in most contracts.
I would suggest that county parties that can't get a county convention together probably aren't ready to have a party yet. If they can't handle a convention, then how are they holding an Organizing Convention they couldn't handle, which has the election requirements as a Special Convention (as outlined in the agreement) or an Annual Convention. They could be a County Development Group for a while, perhaps. County coordinators. Organizing conventions are actually slightly more complex, as they require a motion to petition to affiliate as the final item of business.
Additionally, county conventions almost never cost money to the affiliate.
If there's a conflict of interest between the chair and a potential venue, there are at least 2 other members of the county party committee to handle negotiations. That said, I think this is not a concern. I live in a county of 20,000 people and I live near the smallest county by population (Robertson). Both counties have facilities to hold a meeting; at a minimum, they have a library with a meeting room.
The only restriction that this agreement actually adds, beyond what is already in the Constitution, is the requirement in Paragraph 5. Holding multiple meetings prior to spinning up a party is a good idea. Since we are approximately 22 months away from the next scheduled county party elections, it makes little sense to let 3 people just start a county party without giving others who would otherwise be interested have a chance to take part in the organization.
We could literally strip out everything except paragraph 5 and everything would stay the same. And Paragraph 5 is meant to prevent a county party cold war driven over desire to control the state steering committee and, in turn, over the state executive committee. Such actions are not real growth, not healthy for the overall organization, and will inevitably create a massive KREF disaster for a future committee to clean up.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-03-05 10:48, Robert Lodder wrote:
My discussion points on the draft county affiliate agreement:
Traditionally in a contract, the contract spells out the advantages to each party to the contract as reasons for entering into the contract. Spell these out, if any, in the Whereas portion of the contract.
The agreement establishes a hierarchical relationship where LPKY holds the majority of power and control, while County Parties are subordinate and must adhere to LPKY's rules and decisions. This power imbalance is evident in several aspects of the agreement, which may not align with best practices for organizational justice and fairness in affiliate agreements. The limited autonomy may hinder the ability of County Parties to adapt to local needs and circumstances.
Unilateral Termination: LPKY reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time if the County Party is found to be in violation of its terms. This clause gives LPKY significant power over County Parties, creating operational uncertainty and a potential imbalance of power. Both sides should be able to terminate an unsatisfactory agreement. The contract should spell out the terms by which both parties can exit.
Asset Control: Upon dissolution, all remaining assets of the County Party become the property of LPKY. This provision will discourage County Parties from building financial or material resources, as they do not have long-term control over these assets.
Indemnification Clause: County Parties must indemnify and hold harmless LPKY from any claims or liabilities arising from their actions. This shifts legal and financial risks entirely onto the County Party, even in cases where LPKY's actions may have contributed to the issue. Compliance with complex laws and regulations may be challenging, especially for smaller County Parties without legal expertise.
New or smaller County Parties may face logistical and financial burdens due to the requirement to hold extra Special Conventions if they don't meet certain organizational benchmarks.
The Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky outlines several ethical responsibilities for its members and county parties. These responsibilities aim to ensure financial transparency, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain the integrity of party operations. Members are prohibited from using their official position or office to obtain financial gain or other personal benefits for themselves, any family member, or a business associate. This can be a problem if, for example, a county party chair has a brother who owns the only meeting facility in the county big enough to handle the County Convention. In such instances transparency and prior approval of a transaction by others in the party is better than a blanket prohibition.
In conclusion, while some level of control and standardization is necessary for maintaining consistency across a political party's structure, this agreement appears to create significant disadvantages for County Parties. The terms heavily favor LPKY in terms of control, decision-making authority, and risk allocation. This imbalance may not align with best practices for fairness in organizational affiliate agreements, which typically emphasize transparency, equitable treatment, and stakeholder engagement
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:42 AM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> wrote:
All -
As discussed on the last State Party Executive call, I would like to adopt an affiliate agreement. To date, the primary objection I have heard is related to timings in paragraph 5; that the timelines seem arbitrary, and generally about the timelines not making a lot of sense.
To be able to discuss the motion, we must have a motion. As such, I am making the motion to adopt an updated version, with paragraph 5 revised to read as follows:
_If fewer than 4 publicly-advertised in-person monthly meetings were held in the 183 days preceding an Organizational Convention, and if the next Annual Convention at which officers of County Party will be elected is greater than 274 days from the date of the organizational convention, then County Party agrees to hold a Special Convention between 180 and 210 days after the Organizing Convention, at which all leadership positions are to be re-elected._
Link to document in its entirety: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLZqfrLWElZtB45fp5APZC85mQ7x_8C7lU6glbFd...
As a reminder, links to the mailing lists for committees and the instructions on how email voting works is in our drive, available from the meeting minutes link on the website, here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l5CMoltjBeqqSCOzOWexslpQeAxLY9DbXBIjGPjS...
Debate begins when a person responds to this email with "Second".
-- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
--
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
Links: ------ [1] https://aka.ms/o0ukef
So playing this out in my head, you’re not involved with the party enough or at all to be engaged currently but then in 6 months you’re ready to displace the leadership that went to the effort of organizing the county? I’m having a hard time seeing the benefit in that. Getting in the business of rejecting counties that haven’t broken the law is a red line for me. That is very damaging to the party long term. We’ve seen this play out at national and there are no winners. It’s a resource drain and motivation killer. Andrew Roberts Get [1]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________ From: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:42 To: Andrew Roberts <andrew.roberts@lpky.org> Cc: lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org>; Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement While we have a constitutional requirement to allow a county party to hold an organizing convention, we also have the authority to accept or reject county parties. This agreement is simply codifying that they would be accepted on the condition they agree to (1) hold 4 in-person meetings across 6 months, prior to organizing convention; or (B) allow others to participate in special convention to (re-)elect leadership after a few months, since there isn't otherwise an opportunity to provide other members and potential members with the information to make an informed choice or perhaps even participate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 11:36, Andrew Roberts wrote: I support holding our affiliates to the minimum legal standard. If there's a gap in the rules that would present legal problems we can draw up an agreement for that and give 30 days for ALL affiliates including existing ones to sign it or they can risk losing affiliate status. This agreement would be void after conclusion of next year's convention. And rules needs to bring a proposal to fix the gaps. We shouldn't be making rules as an excomm. That's overstepping our bounds from my point of view. Andrew Roberts Get [2]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________ From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces@lists.lpky.org> on behalf of Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:30 To: Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Cc: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement My response to Dr Lodder's discussion items are as follows: We are set up hierarchically. We are both top-down and bottom-up. For top-down: * The state party must exist to affiliate organizations under it (Article IV Sections 3(A) and 3(B)), * We disallow County Parties to create their own membership requirements (Article IV Section 2) * We provide the purpose for the County Party (Article IV Section 1(A)). In both our current model and in previous models of governance, there has also been the bottom-up aspect; previously, the chairs of each directly-affiliated group sat on the committee that chartered that affiliate. Now we have the county chairs who sit on the state party steering committee, and appoint the state executive committee. We already have unilateral termination authority under Article IV Section 5. The requirement to turn over assets upon dissolution is already covered in Article IV Section 5(C). The indemnification clause explicitly states: County Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LPKY, its officers, and affiliates from any claims, liabilities, or legal actions _arising from the actions or inactions of County Party, when LPKY acts within its rights or duties under LPKY Constitution or this agreement. _ That second part of the clause outlines that LPKY must be acting within their own rights and duties. This is standard language in most contracts. I would suggest that county parties that can't get a county convention together probably aren't ready to have a party yet. If they can't handle a convention, then how are they holding an Organizing Convention they couldn't handle, which has the election requirements as a Special Convention (as outlined in the agreement) or an Annual Convention. They could be a County Development Group for a while, perhaps. County coordinators. Organizing conventions are actually slightly more complex, as they require a motion to petition to affiliate as the final item of business. Additionally, county conventions almost never cost money to the affiliate. If there's a conflict of interest between the chair and a potential venue, there are at least 2 other members of the county party committee to handle negotiations. That said, I think this is not a concern. I live in a county of 20,000 people and I live near the smallest county by population (Robertson). Both counties have facilities to hold a meeting; at a minimum, they have a library with a meeting room. The only restriction that this agreement actually adds, beyond what is already in the Constitution, is the requirement in Paragraph 5. Holding multiple meetings prior to spinning up a party is a good idea. Since we are approximately 22 months away from the next scheduled county party elections, it makes little sense to let 3 people just start a county party without giving others who would otherwise be interested have a chance to take part in the organization. We could literally strip out everything except paragraph 5 and everything would stay the same. And Paragraph 5 is meant to prevent a county party cold war driven over desire to control the state steering committee and, in turn, over the state executive committee. Such actions are not real growth, not healthy for the overall organization, and will inevitably create a massive KREF disaster for a future committee to clean up. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 10:48, Robert Lodder wrote:
My discussion points on the draft county affiliate agreement:
Traditionally in a contract, the contract spells out the advantages to each party to the contract as reasons for entering into the contract. Spell these out, if any, in the Whereas portion of the contract.
The agreement establishes a hierarchical relationship where LPKY holds the majority of power and control, while County Parties are subordinate and must adhere to LPKY's rules and decisions. This power imbalance is evident in several aspects of the agreement, which may not align with best practices for organizational justice and fairness in affiliate agreements. The limited autonomy may hinder the ability of County Parties to adapt to local needs and circumstances.
Unilateral Termination: LPKY reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time if the County Party is found to be in violation of its terms. This clause gives LPKY significant power over County Parties, creating operational uncertainty and a potential imbalance of power. Both sides should be able to terminate an unsatisfactory agreement. The contract should spell out the terms by which both parties can exit.
Asset Control: Upon dissolution, all remaining assets of the County Party become the property of LPKY. This provision will discourage County Parties from building financial or material resources, as they do not have long-term control over these assets.
Indemnification Clause: County Parties must indemnify and hold harmless LPKY from any claims or liabilities arising from their actions. This shifts legal and financial risks entirely onto the County Party, even in cases where LPKY's actions may have contributed to the issue. Compliance with complex laws and regulations may be challenging, especially for smaller County Parties without legal expertise.
New or smaller County Parties may face logistical and financial burdens due to the requirement to hold extra Special Conventions if they don't meet certain organizational benchmarks.
The Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky outlines several ethical responsibilities for its members and county parties. These responsibilities aim to ensure financial transparency, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain the integrity of party operations. Members are prohibited from using their official position or office to obtain financial gain or other personal benefits for themselves, any family member, or a business associate. This can be a problem if, for example, a county party chair has a brother who owns the only meeting facility in the county big enough to handle the County Convention. In such instances transparency and prior approval of a transaction by others in the party is better than a blanket prohibition.
In conclusion, while some level of control and standardization is necessary for maintaining consistency across a political party's structure, this agreement appears to create significant disadvantages for County Parties. The terms heavily favor LPKY in terms of control, decision-making authority, and risk allocation. This imbalance may not align with best practices for fairness in organizational affiliate agreements, which typically emphasize transparency, equitable treatment, and stakeholder engagement
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:42 AM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> wrote:
All -
As discussed on the last State Party Executive call, I would like to adopt an affiliate agreement. To date, the primary objection I have heard is related to timings in paragraph 5; that the timelines seem arbitrary, and generally about the timelines not making a lot of sense.
To be able to discuss the motion, we must have a motion. As such, I am making the motion to adopt an updated version, with paragraph 5 revised to read as follows:
_If fewer than 4 publicly-advertised in-person monthly meetings were held in the 183 days preceding an Organizational Convention, and if the next Annual Convention at which officers of County Party will be elected is greater than 274 days from the date of the organizational convention, then County Party agrees to hold a Special Convention between 180 and 210 days after the Organizing Convention, at which all leadership positions are to be re-elected._
Link to document in its entirety:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLZqfrLWElZtB45fp5APZC85mQ7x_8C7lU6 glbFdgcg/edit?tab=t.0
As a reminder, links to the mailing lists for committees and the instructions on how email voting works is in our drive, available
from
the meeting minutes link on the website, here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l5CMoltjBeqqSCOzOWexslpQeAxLY9DbXBI jGPjSyTA/edit?tab=t.0
Debate begins when a person responds to this email with "Second".
-- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
--
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm References 1. https://aka.ms/o0ukef 2. https://aka.ms/o0ukef
I think spinning up counties for the sake of controlling the state party is an improper motivation to begin with. As to current leadership vs other members, there are people who would be involved, were it not for other factors. Some are within our control, and some are not. Simply setting up a meeting isn't a qualification for leadership, IMO. It could just mean that some people are beating others to the punch, for whatever reason (again, see my first statement above). IMO real county parties should be people who are running events at county fairs, walking in parades, being at government meetings, etc; building a base of support for candidates to run and win. If it is just a social club and/or an organization built around retaining control, it's not a real party. In the latter case, it is simply a puppet. On Mar 5, 2025 11:50, Andrew Roberts <andrew.roberts@lpky.org> wrote: So playing this out in my head, you’re not involved with the party enough or at all to be engaged currently but then in 6 months you’re ready to displace the leadership that went to the effort of organizing the county? I’m having a hard time seeing the benefit in that. Getting in the business of rejecting counties that haven’t broken the law is a red line for me. That is very damaging to the party long term. We’ve seen this play out at national and there are no winners. It’s a resource drain and motivation killer. Andrew Roberts Get [1]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________ From: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:42 To: Andrew Roberts <andrew.roberts@lpky.org> Cc: lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org>; Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement While we have a constitutional requirement to allow a county party to hold an organizing convention, we also have the authority to accept or reject county parties. This agreement is simply codifying that they would be accepted on the condition they agree to (1) hold 4 in-person meetings across 6 months, prior to organizing convention; or (B) allow others to participate in special convention to (re-)elect leadership after a few months, since there isn't otherwise an opportunity to provide other members and potential members with the information to make an informed choice or perhaps even participate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 11:36, Andrew Roberts wrote: I support holding our affiliates to the minimum legal standard. If there's a gap in the rules that would present legal problems we can draw up an agreement for that and give 30 days for ALL affiliates including existing ones to sign it or they can risk losing affiliate status. This agreement would be void after conclusion of next year's convention. And rules needs to bring a proposal to fix the gaps. We shouldn't be making rules as an excomm. That's overstepping our bounds from my point of view. Andrew Roberts Get [2]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________ From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces@lists.lpky.org> on behalf of Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:30 To: Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Cc: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement My response to Dr Lodder's discussion items are as follows: We are set up hierarchically. We are both top-down and bottom-up. For top-down: * The state party must exist to affiliate organizations under it (Article IV Sections 3(A) and 3(B)), * We disallow County Parties to create their own membership requirements (Article IV Section 2) * We provide the purpose for the County Party (Article IV Section 1(A)). In both our current model and in previous models of governance, there has also been the bottom-up aspect; previously, the chairs of each directly-affiliated group sat on the committee that chartered that affiliate. Now we have the county chairs who sit on the state party steering committee, and appoint the state executive committee. We already have unilateral termination authority under Article IV Section 5. The requirement to turn over assets upon dissolution is already covered in Article IV Section 5(C). The indemnification clause explicitly states: County Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LPKY, its officers, and affiliates from any claims, liabilities, or legal actions _arising from the actions or inactions of County Party, when LPKY acts within its rights or duties under LPKY Constitution or this agreement. _ That second part of the clause outlines that LPKY must be acting within their own rights and duties. This is standard language in most contracts. I would suggest that county parties that can't get a county convention together probably aren't ready to have a party yet. If they can't handle a convention, then how are they holding an Organizing Convention they couldn't handle, which has the election requirements as a Special Convention (as outlined in the agreement) or an Annual Convention. They could be a County Development Group for a while, perhaps. County coordinators. Organizing conventions are actually slightly more complex, as they require a motion to petition to affiliate as the final item of business. Additionally, county conventions almost never cost money to the affiliate. If there's a conflict of interest between the chair and a potential venue, there are at least 2 other members of the county party committee to handle negotiations. That said, I think this is not a concern. I live in a county of 20,000 people and I live near the smallest county by population (Robertson). Both counties have facilities to hold a meeting; at a minimum, they have a library with a meeting room. The only restriction that this agreement actually adds, beyond what is already in the Constitution, is the requirement in Paragraph 5. Holding multiple meetings prior to spinning up a party is a good idea. Since we are approximately 22 months away from the next scheduled county party elections, it makes little sense to let 3 people just start a county party without giving others who would otherwise be interested have a chance to take part in the organization. We could literally strip out everything except paragraph 5 and everything would stay the same. And Paragraph 5 is meant to prevent a county party cold war driven over desire to control the state steering committee and, in turn, over the state executive committee. Such actions are not real growth, not healthy for the overall organization, and will inevitably create a massive KREF disaster for a future committee to clean up. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 10:48, Robert Lodder wrote:
My discussion points on the draft county affiliate agreement:
Traditionally in a contract, the contract spells out the advantages to each party to the contract as reasons for entering into the contract. Spell these out, if any, in the Whereas portion of the contract.
The agreement establishes a hierarchical relationship where LPKY holds the majority of power and control, while County Parties are subordinate and must adhere to LPKY's rules and decisions. This power imbalance is evident in several aspects of the agreement, which may not align with best practices for organizational justice and fairness in affiliate agreements. The limited autonomy may hinder the ability of County Parties to adapt to local needs and circumstances.
Unilateral Termination: LPKY reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time if the County Party is found to be in violation of its terms. This clause gives LPKY significant power over County Parties, creating operational uncertainty and a potential imbalance of power. Both sides should be able to terminate an unsatisfactory agreement. The contract should spell out the terms by which both parties can exit.
Asset Control: Upon dissolution, all remaining assets of the County Party become the property of LPKY. This provision will discourage County Parties from building financial or material resources, as they do not have long-term control over these assets.
Indemnification Clause: County Parties must indemnify and hold harmless LPKY from any claims or liabilities arising from their actions. This shifts legal and financial risks entirely onto the County Party, even in cases where LPKY's actions may have contributed to the issue. Compliance with complex laws and regulations may be challenging, especially for smaller County Parties without legal expertise.
New or smaller County Parties may face logistical and financial burdens due to the requirement to hold extra Special Conventions if they don't meet certain organizational benchmarks.
The Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky outlines several ethical responsibilities for its members and county parties. These responsibilities aim to ensure financial transparency, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain the integrity of party operations. Members are prohibited from using their official position or office to obtain financial gain or other personal benefits for themselves, any family member, or a business associate. This can be a problem if, for example, a county party chair has a brother who owns the only meeting facility in the county big enough to handle the County Convention. In such instances transparency and prior approval of a transaction by others in the party is better than a blanket prohibition.
In conclusion, while some level of control and standardization is necessary for maintaining consistency across a political party's structure, this agreement appears to create significant disadvantages for County Parties. The terms heavily favor LPKY in terms of control, decision-making authority, and risk allocation. This imbalance may not align with best practices for fairness in organizational affiliate agreements, which typically emphasize transparency, equitable treatment, and stakeholder engagement
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:42 AM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> wrote:
All -
As discussed on the last State Party Executive call, I would like to adopt an affiliate agreement. To date, the primary objection I have heard is related to timings in paragraph 5; that the timelines seem arbitrary, and generally about the timelines not making a lot of sense.
To be able to discuss the motion, we must have a motion. As such, I am making the motion to adopt an updated version, with paragraph 5 revised to read as follows:
_If fewer than 4 publicly-advertised in-person monthly meetings were held in the 183 days preceding an Organizational Convention, and if the next Annual Convention at which officers of County Party will be elected is greater than 274 days from the date of the organizational convention, then County Party agrees to hold a Special Convention between 180 and 210 days after the Organizing Convention, at which all leadership positions are to be re-elected._
Link to document in its entirety:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLZqfrLWElZtB45fp5APZC85mQ7x_8C7lU6 glbFdgcg/edit?tab=t.0
As a reminder, links to the mailing lists for committees and the instructions on how email voting works is in our drive, available
from
the meeting minutes link on the website, here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l5CMoltjBeqqSCOzOWexslpQeAxLY9DbXBI jGPjSyTA/edit?tab=t.0
Debate begins when a person responds to this email with "Second".
-- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
--
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm References 1. https://aka.ms/o0ukef 2. https://aka.ms/o0ukef
To make this simpler, I'm moving to amend. Strike all but 5th paragraph. They were all redundant with the constitution but seemed to cause confusion. Amend 5th paragraph to read as follow: Permit any group that holds an organizing convention, but does not conduct at least 4 public and advertised meetings held in a public location in the past 6 months, probationary status as a "county development group". Such status permits the use of the party's name until the next annual convention of that county. Annual notice of that party annual convention shall include and advertise elections of all members of the executive committee. After the completion of that county party annual convention and the election of executive committee members by majority vote at that annual convention, county party status would be granted. On Mar 5, 2025 12:22, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote: I think spinning up counties for the sake of controlling the state party is an improper motivation to begin with. As to current leadership vs other members, there are people who would be involved, were it not for other factors. Some are within our control, and some are not. Simply setting up a meeting isn't a qualification for leadership, IMO. It could just mean that some people are beating others to the punch, for whatever reason (again, see my first statement above). IMO real county parties should be people who are running events at county fairs, walking in parades, being at government meetings, etc; building a base of support for candidates to run and win. If it is just a social club and/or an organization built around retaining control, it's not a real party. In the latter case, it is simply a puppet. On Mar 5, 2025 11:50, Andrew Roberts <andrew.roberts@lpky.org> wrote: So playing this out in my head, you’re not involved with the party enough or at all to be engaged currently but then in 6 months you’re ready to displace the leadership that went to the effort of organizing the county? I’m having a hard time seeing the benefit in that. Getting in the business of rejecting counties that haven’t broken the law is a red line for me. That is very damaging to the party long term. We’ve seen this play out at national and there are no winners. It’s a resource drain and motivation killer. Andrew Roberts Get [1]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________ From: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:42 To: Andrew Roberts <andrew.roberts@lpky.org> Cc: lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org>; Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement While we have a constitutional requirement to allow a county party to hold an organizing convention, we also have the authority to accept or reject county parties. This agreement is simply codifying that they would be accepted on the condition they agree to (1) hold 4 in-person meetings across 6 months, prior to organizing convention; or (B) allow others to participate in special convention to (re-)elect leadership after a few months, since there isn't otherwise an opportunity to provide other members and potential members with the information to make an informed choice or perhaps even participate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 11:36, Andrew Roberts wrote: I support holding our affiliates to the minimum legal standard. If there's a gap in the rules that would present legal problems we can draw up an agreement for that and give 30 days for ALL affiliates including existing ones to sign it or they can risk losing affiliate status. This agreement would be void after conclusion of next year's convention. And rules needs to bring a proposal to fix the gaps. We shouldn't be making rules as an excomm. That's overstepping our bounds from my point of view. Andrew Roberts Get [2]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________ From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces@lists.lpky.org> on behalf of Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:30 To: Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Cc: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement My response to Dr Lodder's discussion items are as follows: We are set up hierarchically. We are both top-down and bottom-up. For top-down: * The state party must exist to affiliate organizations under it (Article IV Sections 3(A) and 3(B)), * We disallow County Parties to create their own membership requirements (Article IV Section 2) * We provide the purpose for the County Party (Article IV Section 1(A)). In both our current model and in previous models of governance, there has also been the bottom-up aspect; previously, the chairs of each directly-affiliated group sat on the committee that chartered that affiliate. Now we have the county chairs who sit on the state party steering committee, and appoint the state executive committee. We already have unilateral termination authority under Article IV Section 5. The requirement to turn over assets upon dissolution is already covered in Article IV Section 5(C). The indemnification clause explicitly states: County Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LPKY, its officers, and affiliates from any claims, liabilities, or legal actions _arising from the actions or inactions of County Party, when LPKY acts within its rights or duties under LPKY Constitution or this agreement. _ That second part of the clause outlines that LPKY must be acting within their own rights and duties. This is standard language in most contracts. I would suggest that county parties that can't get a county convention together probably aren't ready to have a party yet. If they can't handle a convention, then how are they holding an Organizing Convention they couldn't handle, which has the election requirements as a Special Convention (as outlined in the agreement) or an Annual Convention. They could be a County Development Group for a while, perhaps. County coordinators. Organizing conventions are actually slightly more complex, as they require a motion to petition to affiliate as the final item of business. Additionally, county conventions almost never cost money to the affiliate. If there's a conflict of interest between the chair and a potential venue, there are at least 2 other members of the county party committee to handle negotiations. That said, I think this is not a concern. I live in a county of 20,000 people and I live near the smallest county by population (Robertson). Both counties have facilities to hold a meeting; at a minimum, they have a library with a meeting room. The only restriction that this agreement actually adds, beyond what is already in the Constitution, is the requirement in Paragraph 5. Holding multiple meetings prior to spinning up a party is a good idea. Since we are approximately 22 months away from the next scheduled county party elections, it makes little sense to let 3 people just start a county party without giving others who would otherwise be interested have a chance to take part in the organization. We could literally strip out everything except paragraph 5 and everything would stay the same. And Paragraph 5 is meant to prevent a county party cold war driven over desire to control the state steering committee and, in turn, over the state executive committee. Such actions are not real growth, not healthy for the overall organization, and will inevitably create a massive KREF disaster for a future committee to clean up. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 10:48, Robert Lodder wrote:
My discussion points on the draft county affiliate agreement:
Traditionally in a contract, the contract spells out the advantages to each party to the contract as reasons for entering into the contract. Spell these out, if any, in the Whereas portion of the contract.
The agreement establishes a hierarchical relationship where LPKY holds the majority of power and control, while County Parties are subordinate and must adhere to LPKY's rules and decisions. This power imbalance is evident in several aspects of the agreement, which may not align with best practices for organizational justice and fairness in affiliate agreements. The limited autonomy may hinder the ability of County Parties to adapt to local needs and circumstances.
Unilateral Termination: LPKY reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time if the County Party is found to be in violation of its terms. This clause gives LPKY significant power over County Parties, creating operational uncertainty and a potential imbalance of power. Both sides should be able to terminate an unsatisfactory agreement. The contract should spell out the terms by which both parties can exit.
Asset Control: Upon dissolution, all remaining assets of the County Party become the property of LPKY. This provision will discourage County Parties from building financial or material resources, as they do not have long-term control over these assets.
Indemnification Clause: County Parties must indemnify and hold harmless LPKY from any claims or liabilities arising from their actions. This shifts legal and financial risks entirely onto the County Party, even in cases where LPKY's actions may have contributed to the issue. Compliance with complex laws and regulations may be challenging, especially for smaller County Parties without legal expertise.
New or smaller County Parties may face logistical and financial burdens due to the requirement to hold extra Special Conventions if they don't meet certain organizational benchmarks.
The Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky outlines several ethical responsibilities for its members and county parties. These responsibilities aim to ensure financial transparency, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain the integrity of party operations. Members are prohibited from using their official position or office to obtain financial gain or other personal benefits for themselves, any family member, or a business associate. This can be a problem if, for example, a county party chair has a brother who owns the only meeting facility in the county big enough to handle the County Convention. In such instances transparency and prior approval of a transaction by others in the party is better than a blanket prohibition.
In conclusion, while some level of control and standardization is necessary for maintaining consistency across a political party's structure, this agreement appears to create significant disadvantages for County Parties. The terms heavily favor LPKY in terms of control, decision-making authority, and risk allocation. This imbalance may not align with best practices for fairness in organizational affiliate agreements, which typically emphasize transparency, equitable treatment, and stakeholder engagement
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:42 AM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> wrote:
All -
As discussed on the last State Party Executive call, I would like to adopt an affiliate agreement. To date, the primary objection I have heard is related to timings in paragraph 5; that the timelines seem arbitrary, and generally about the timelines not making a lot of sense.
To be able to discuss the motion, we must have a motion. As such, I am making the motion to adopt an updated version, with paragraph 5 revised to read as follows:
_If fewer than 4 publicly-advertised in-person monthly meetings were held in the 183 days preceding an Organizational Convention, and if the next Annual Convention at which officers of County Party will be elected is greater than 274 days from the date of the organizational convention, then County Party agrees to hold a Special Convention between 180 and 210 days after the Organizing Convention, at which all leadership positions are to be re-elected._
Link to document in its entirety:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLZqfrLWElZtB45fp5APZC85mQ7x_8C7lU6 glbFdgcg/edit?tab=t.0
As a reminder, links to the mailing lists for committees and the instructions on how email voting works is in our drive, available
from
the meeting minutes link on the website, here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l5CMoltjBeqqSCOzOWexslpQeAxLY9DbXBI jGPjSyTA/edit?tab=t.0
Debate begins when a person responds to this email with "Second".
-- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
--
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm References 1. https://aka.ms/o0ukef 2. https://aka.ms/o0ukef
Seconded. On 2025-03-05 15:28, Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm wrote:
To make this simpler, I'm moving to amend. Strike all but 5th paragraph. They were all redundant with the constitution but seemed to cause confusion. Amend 5th paragraph to read as follow: Permit any group that holds an organizing convention, but does not conduct at least 4 public and advertised meetings held in a public location in the past 6 months, probationary status as a "county development group". Such status permits the use of the party's name until the next annual convention of that county. Annual notice of that party annual convention shall include and advertise elections of all members of the executive committee. After the completion of that county party annual convention and the election of executive committee members by majority vote at that annual convention, county party status would be granted.
On Mar 5, 2025 12:22, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:
I think spinning up counties for the sake of controlling the state party is an improper motivation to begin with. As to current leadership vs other members, there are people who would be involved, were it not for other factors. Some are within our control, and some are not. Simply setting up a meeting isn't a qualification for leadership, IMO. It could just mean that some people are beating others to the punch, for whatever reason (again, see my first statement above). IMO real county parties should be people who are running events at county fairs, walking in parades, being at government meetings, etc; building a base of support for candidates to run and win. If it is just a social club and/or an organization built around retaining control, it's not a real party. In the latter case, it is simply a puppet. On Mar 5, 2025 11:50, Andrew Roberts <andrew.roberts@lpky.org> wrote:
So playing this out in my head, you’re not involved with the party enough or at all to be engaged currently but then in 6 months you’re ready to displace the leadership that went to the effort of organizing the county? I’m having a hard time seeing the benefit in that. Getting in the business of rejecting counties that haven’t broken the law is a red line for me. That is very damaging to the party long term. We’ve seen this play out at national and there are no winners. It’s a resource drain and motivation killer. Andrew Roberts Get [1]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:42 To: Andrew Roberts <andrew.roberts@lpky.org> Cc: lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org>; Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement
While we have a constitutional requirement to allow a county party to hold an organizing convention, we also have the authority to accept or reject county parties.
This agreement is simply codifying that they would be accepted on the condition they agree to (1) hold 4 in-person meetings across 6 months, prior to organizing convention; or (B) allow others to participate in special convention to (re-)elect leadership after a few months, since there isn't otherwise an opportunity to provide other members and potential members with the information to make an informed choice or perhaps even participate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-03-05 11:36, Andrew Roberts wrote:
I support holding our affiliates to the minimum legal standard. If there's a gap in the rules that would present legal problems we can draw up an agreement for that and give 30 days for ALL affiliates including existing ones to sign it or they can risk losing affiliate status. This agreement would be void after conclusion of next year's convention. And rules needs to bring a proposal to fix the gaps. We shouldn't be making rules as an excomm. That's overstepping our bounds from my point of view.
Andrew Roberts
Get [2]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________
From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces@lists.lpky.org> on behalf of Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:30 To: Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Cc: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement
My response to Dr Lodder's discussion items are as follows: We are set up hierarchically. We are both top-down and bottom-up. For top-down: * The state party must exist to affiliate organizations under it (Article IV Sections 3(A) and 3(B)), * We disallow County Parties to create their own membership requirements (Article IV Section 2) * We provide the purpose for the County Party (Article IV Section 1(A)). In both our current model and in previous models of governance, there has also been the bottom-up aspect; previously, the chairs of each directly-affiliated group sat on the committee that chartered that affiliate. Now we have the county chairs who sit on the state party steering committee, and appoint the state executive committee. We already have unilateral termination authority under Article IV Section 5. The requirement to turn over assets upon dissolution is already covered in Article IV Section 5(C). The indemnification clause explicitly states: County Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LPKY, its officers, and affiliates from any claims, liabilities, or legal actions _arising from the actions or inactions of County Party, when LPKY acts within its rights or duties under LPKY Constitution or this agreement. _ That second part of the clause outlines that LPKY must be acting within their own rights and duties. This is standard language in most contracts. I would suggest that county parties that can't get a county convention together probably aren't ready to have a party yet. If they can't handle a convention, then how are they holding an Organizing Convention they couldn't handle, which has the election requirements as a Special Convention (as outlined in the agreement) or an Annual Convention. They could be a County Development Group for a while, perhaps. County coordinators. Organizing conventions are actually slightly more complex, as they require a motion to petition to affiliate as the final item of business. Additionally, county conventions almost never cost money to the affiliate. If there's a conflict of interest between the chair and a potential venue, there are at least 2 other members of the county party committee to handle negotiations. That said, I think this is not a concern. I live in a county of 20,000 people and I live near the smallest county by population (Robertson). Both counties have facilities to hold a meeting; at a minimum, they have a library with a meeting room. The only restriction that this agreement actually adds, beyond what is already in the Constitution, is the requirement in Paragraph 5. Holding multiple meetings prior to spinning up a party is a good idea. Since we are approximately 22 months away from the next scheduled county party elections, it makes little sense to let 3 people just start a county party without giving others who would otherwise be interested have a chance to take part in the organization. We could literally strip out everything except paragraph 5 and everything would stay the same. And Paragraph 5 is meant to prevent a county party cold war driven over desire to control the state steering committee and, in turn, over the state executive committee. Such actions are not real growth, not healthy for the overall organization, and will inevitably create a massive KREF disaster for a future committee to clean up. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 10:48, Robert Lodder wrote:
My discussion points on the draft county affiliate agreement:
Traditionally in a contract, the contract spells out the advantages to each party to the contract as reasons for entering into the contract. Spell these out, if any, in the Whereas portion of the contract.
The agreement establishes a hierarchical relationship where LPKY holds the majority of power and control, while County Parties are subordinate and must adhere to LPKY's rules and decisions. This power imbalance is evident in several aspects of the agreement, which may not align with best practices for organizational justice and fairness in affiliate agreements. The limited autonomy may hinder the ability of County Parties to adapt to local needs and circumstances.
Unilateral Termination: LPKY reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time if the County Party is found to be in violation of its terms. This clause gives LPKY significant power over County Parties, creating operational uncertainty and a potential imbalance of power. Both sides should be able to terminate an unsatisfactory agreement. The contract should spell out the terms by which both parties can exit.
Asset Control: Upon dissolution, all remaining assets of the County Party become the property of LPKY. This provision will discourage County Parties from building financial or material resources, as they do not have long-term control over these assets.
Indemnification Clause: County Parties must indemnify and hold harmless LPKY from any claims or liabilities arising from their actions. This shifts legal and financial risks entirely onto the County Party, even in cases where LPKY's actions may have contributed to the issue. Compliance with complex laws and regulations may be challenging, especially for smaller County Parties without legal expertise.
New or smaller County Parties may face logistical and financial burdens due to the requirement to hold extra Special Conventions if they don't meet certain organizational benchmarks.
The Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky outlines several ethical responsibilities for its members and county parties. These responsibilities aim to ensure financial transparency, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain the integrity of party operations. Members are prohibited from using their official position or office to obtain financial gain or other personal benefits for themselves, any family member, or a business associate. This can be a problem if, for example, a county party chair has a brother who owns the only meeting facility in the county big enough to handle the County Convention. In such instances transparency and prior approval of a transaction by others in the party is better than a blanket prohibition.
In conclusion, while some level of control and standardization is necessary for maintaining consistency across a political party's structure, this agreement appears to create significant disadvantages for County Parties. The terms heavily favor LPKY in terms of control, decision-making authority, and risk allocation. This imbalance may not align with best practices for fairness in organizational affiliate agreements, which typically emphasize transparency, equitable treatment, and stakeholder engagement
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:42 AM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> wrote:
All -
As discussed on the last State Party Executive call, I would like to adopt an affiliate agreement. To date, the primary objection I have heard is related to timings in paragraph 5; that the timelines seem arbitrary, and generally about the timelines not making a lot of sense.
To be able to discuss the motion, we must have a motion. As such, I am making the motion to adopt an updated version, with paragraph 5 revised to read as follows:
_If fewer than 4 publicly-advertised in-person monthly meetings were held in the 183 days preceding an Organizational Convention, and if the next Annual Convention at which officers of County Party will be elected is greater than 274 days from the date of the organizational convention, then County Party agrees to hold a Special Convention between 180 and 210 days after the Organizing Convention, at which all leadership positions are to be re-elected._
Link to document in its entirety:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLZqfrLWElZtB45fp5APZC85mQ7x_8C7lU6 glbFdgcg/edit?tab=t.0
As a reminder, links to the mailing lists for committees and the instructions on how email voting works is in our drive, available
from
the meeting minutes link on the website, here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l5CMoltjBeqqSCOzOWexslpQeAxLY9DbXBI jGPjSyTA/edit?tab=t.0
Debate begins when a person responds to this email with "Second".
-- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
--
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
References
1. https://aka.ms/o0ukef 2. https://aka.ms/o0ukef _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
All -- It has been over 1 business day without discussion and the motion to amend moves to a vote. However, there is a request to continue this discussion at an phone meeting. Therefore, I would ask that all further business on this stops, and we move this business to a meeting held specifically for this item, and only this item will be on the agenda. The meeting is now posted to the website and located here: https://lpky.org/event/lpky-state-executive-committee-meeting-2025-03/ --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 17:14, bethany.extine--- via Lpk-execomm wrote:
Seconded.
On 2025-03-05 15:28, Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm wrote:
To make this simpler, I'm moving to amend. Strike all but 5th paragraph. They were all redundant with the constitution but seemed to cause confusion. Amend 5th paragraph to read as follow: Permit any group that holds an organizing convention, but does not conduct at least 4 public and advertised meetings held in a public location in the past 6 months, probationary status as a "county development group". Such status permits the use of the party's name until the next annual convention of that county. Annual notice of that party annual convention shall include and advertise elections of all members of the executive committee. After the completion of that county party annual convention and the election of executive committee members by majority vote at that annual convention, county party status would be granted.
On Mar 5, 2025 12:22, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:
I think spinning up counties for the sake of controlling the state party is an improper motivation to begin with. As to current leadership vs other members, there are people who would be involved, were it not for other factors. Some are within our control, and some are not. Simply setting up a meeting isn't a qualification for leadership, IMO. It could just mean that some people are beating others to the punch, for whatever reason (again, see my first statement above). IMO real county parties should be people who are running events at county fairs, walking in parades, being at government meetings, etc; building a base of support for candidates to run and win. If it is just a social club and/or an organization built around retaining control, it's not a real party. In the latter case, it is simply a puppet. On Mar 5, 2025 11:50, Andrew Roberts <andrew.roberts@lpky.org> wrote:
So playing this out in my head, you’re not involved with the party enough or at all to be engaged currently but then in 6 months you’re ready to displace the leadership that went to the effort of organizing the county? I’m having a hard time seeing the benefit in that. Getting in the business of rejecting counties that haven’t broken the law is a red line for me. That is very damaging to the party long term. We’ve seen this play out at national and there are no winners. It’s a resource drain and motivation killer. Andrew Roberts Get [1]Outlook for iOS
__________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:42 To: Andrew Roberts <andrew.roberts@lpky.org> Cc: lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org>; Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement
While we have a constitutional requirement to allow a county party to hold an organizing convention, we also have the authority to accept or reject county parties.
This agreement is simply codifying that they would be accepted on the condition they agree to (1) hold 4 in-person meetings across 6 months, prior to organizing convention; or (B) allow others to participate in special convention to (re-)elect leadership after a few months, since there isn't otherwise an opportunity to provide other members and potential members with the information to make an informed choice or perhaps even participate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-03-05 11:36, Andrew Roberts wrote:
I support holding our affiliates to the minimum legal standard. If there's a gap in the rules that would present legal problems we can draw up an agreement for that and give 30 days for ALL affiliates including existing ones to sign it or they can risk losing affiliate status. This agreement would be void after conclusion of next year's convention. And rules needs to bring a proposal to fix the gaps. We shouldn't be making rules as an excomm. That's overstepping our bounds from my point of view.
Andrew Roberts
Get [2]Outlook for iOS
__________________________________________________________________
From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces@lists.lpky.org> on behalf of Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:30 To: Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net> Cc: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement
My response to Dr Lodder's discussion items are as follows: We are set up hierarchically. We are both top-down and bottom-up. For top-down: * The state party must exist to affiliate organizations under it (Article IV Sections 3(A) and 3(B)), * We disallow County Parties to create their own membership requirements (Article IV Section 2) * We provide the purpose for the County Party (Article IV Section 1(A)). In both our current model and in previous models of governance, there has also been the bottom-up aspect; previously, the chairs of each directly-affiliated group sat on the committee that chartered that affiliate. Now we have the county chairs who sit on the state party steering committee, and appoint the state executive committee. We already have unilateral termination authority under Article IV Section 5. The requirement to turn over assets upon dissolution is already covered in Article IV Section 5(C). The indemnification clause explicitly states: County Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LPKY, its officers, and affiliates from any claims, liabilities, or legal actions _arising from the actions or inactions of County Party, when LPKY acts within its rights or duties under LPKY Constitution or this agreement. _ That second part of the clause outlines that LPKY must be acting within their own rights and duties. This is standard language in most contracts. I would suggest that county parties that can't get a county convention together probably aren't ready to have a party yet. If they can't handle a convention, then how are they holding an Organizing Convention they couldn't handle, which has the election requirements as a Special Convention (as outlined in the agreement) or an Annual Convention. They could be a County Development Group for a while, perhaps. County coordinators. Organizing conventions are actually slightly more complex, as they require a motion to petition to affiliate as the final item of business. Additionally, county conventions almost never cost money to the affiliate. If there's a conflict of interest between the chair and a potential venue, there are at least 2 other members of the county party committee to handle negotiations. That said, I think this is not a concern. I live in a county of 20,000 people and I live near the smallest county by population (Robertson). Both counties have facilities to hold a meeting; at a minimum, they have a library with a meeting room. The only restriction that this agreement actually adds, beyond what is already in the Constitution, is the requirement in Paragraph 5. Holding multiple meetings prior to spinning up a party is a good idea. Since we are approximately 22 months away from the next scheduled county party elections, it makes little sense to let 3 people just start a county party without giving others who would otherwise be interested have a chance to take part in the organization. We could literally strip out everything except paragraph 5 and everything would stay the same. And Paragraph 5 is meant to prevent a county party cold war driven over desire to control the state steering committee and, in turn, over the state executive committee. Such actions are not real growth, not healthy for the overall organization, and will inevitably create a massive KREF disaster for a future committee to clean up. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-03-05 10:48, Robert Lodder wrote:
My discussion points on the draft county affiliate agreement:
Traditionally in a contract, the contract spells out the advantages to each party to the contract as reasons for entering into the contract. Spell these out, if any, in the Whereas portion of the contract.
The agreement establishes a hierarchical relationship where LPKY holds the majority of power and control, while County Parties are subordinate and must adhere to LPKY's rules and decisions. This power imbalance is evident in several aspects of the agreement, which may not align with best practices for organizational justice and fairness in affiliate agreements. The limited autonomy may hinder the ability of County Parties to adapt to local needs and circumstances.
Unilateral Termination: LPKY reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time if the County Party is found to be in violation of its terms. This clause gives LPKY significant power over County Parties, creating operational uncertainty and a potential imbalance of power. Both sides should be able to terminate an unsatisfactory agreement. The contract should spell out the terms by which both parties can exit.
Asset Control: Upon dissolution, all remaining assets of the County Party become the property of LPKY. This provision will discourage County Parties from building financial or material resources, as they do not have long-term control over these assets.
Indemnification Clause: County Parties must indemnify and hold harmless LPKY from any claims or liabilities arising from their actions. This shifts legal and financial risks entirely onto the County Party, even in cases where LPKY's actions may have contributed to the issue. Compliance with complex laws and regulations may be challenging, especially for smaller County Parties without legal expertise.
New or smaller County Parties may face logistical and financial burdens due to the requirement to hold extra Special Conventions if they don't meet certain organizational benchmarks.
The Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky outlines several ethical responsibilities for its members and county parties. These responsibilities aim to ensure financial transparency, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain the integrity of party operations. Members are prohibited from using their official position or office to obtain financial gain or other personal benefits for themselves, any family member, or a business associate. This can be a problem if, for example, a county party chair has a brother who owns the only meeting facility in the county big enough to handle the County Convention. In such instances transparency and prior approval of a transaction by others in the party is better than a blanket prohibition.
In conclusion, while some level of control and standardization is necessary for maintaining consistency across a political party's structure, this agreement appears to create significant disadvantages for County Parties. The terms heavily favor LPKY in terms of control, decision-making authority, and risk allocation. This imbalance may not align with best practices for fairness in organizational affiliate agreements, which typically emphasize transparency, equitable treatment, and stakeholder engagement
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:42 AM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> wrote:
All -
As discussed on the last State Party Executive call, I would like to adopt an affiliate agreement. To date, the primary objection I have heard is related to timings in paragraph 5; that the timelines seem arbitrary, and generally about the timelines not making a lot of sense.
To be able to discuss the motion, we must have a motion. As such, I am making the motion to adopt an updated version, with paragraph 5 revised to read as follows:
_If fewer than 4 publicly-advertised in-person monthly meetings were held in the 183 days preceding an Organizational Convention, and if the next Annual Convention at which officers of County Party will be elected is greater than 274 days from the date of the organizational convention, then County Party agrees to hold a Special Convention between 180 and 210 days after the Organizing Convention, at which all leadership positions are to be re-elected._
Link to document in its entirety:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLZqfrLWElZtB45fp5APZC85mQ7x_8C7lU6 glbFdgcg/edit?tab=t.0
As a reminder, links to the mailing lists for committees and the instructions on how email voting works is in our drive,
available from
the meeting minutes link on the website, here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l5CMoltjBeqqSCOzOWexslpQeAxLY9DbXBI jGPjSyTA/edit?tab=t.0
Debate begins when a person responds to this email with
"Second".
-- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
--
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
References
1. https://aka.ms/o0ukef 2. https://aka.ms/o0ukef _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
participants (3)
-
Andrew Roberts -
bethany.extine＠lpky.org -
Ken Moellman