[Lpk-execomm] MOTION: Adopt Affiliiate Agreement

Ken Moellman ken.moellman at lpky.org
Fri Mar 7 11:18:02 EST 2025


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 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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