[Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement
bethany.extine at lpky.org
bethany.extine at lpky.org
Wed Mar 5 17:14:42 EST 2025
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 at 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 at 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 at lpky.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:42
> To: Andrew Roberts <andrew.roberts at lpky.org>
> Cc: lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org>; Robert
> Lodder <rlodder at 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 at lists.lpky.org> on behalf of
> Ken
> Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:30
> To: Robert Lodder <rlodder at biospherics.net>
> Cc: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>; lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org
> <lpk-execomm at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.lpky.org
> http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
More information about the Lpk-execomm
mailing list