Proposal U- Affiliate Parties workshopping thread

[Secretary LNC]

ARTICLE 5: AFFILIATE PARTIES

[...]

2. The National Committee shall charter state-level affiliate parties from any qualifying organization requesting such status in each state, territory, and the District of Columbia (hereinafter, state). Organizations which wish to become state-level affiliate parties shall apply for such status on a standard petition form as adopted by the National Committee, which petition shall be signed by no fewer than ten sustaining members of the Party residing in the appropriate state. Affiliate party status shall be granted only to those organizations which adopt the Statement of Principles and file a provide copy copies of their constitution and/or bylaws as adopted and later amended with the Party Secretary.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION

ARTICLE 5: AFFILIATE PARTIES

 

[...]

 

2.  The National Committee shall charter no more than one state-level affiliate party parties from any qualifying organization requesting such status in each state, territory, and the District of Columbia (hereinafter, jurisdiction state). An O organizations that which wishes to become an state-level affiliate party ies shall apply for such status on a standard petition form as adopted by the National Committee, which petition shall be signed by no fewer than ten sustaining members of the Party residing in the appropriate jurisdiction state. Affiliate party status shall be granted only to an those organizations  that which adopts the Statement of Principles and file a provides a copy of its their constitution and/or bylaws as adopted and later amended with the Party Secretary.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Secretary LNC]

My view is as stated in debate, I believe the original language accomplishes the narrow issue.  I understand there is some concerns about constitution and/or bylaws, but that is not a real problem.  We can't cover all bases.  Yes some parties are incorporation, but many don't keep that up.  It is to keep the national party generally up to do date on what the required governing documents of an affiliate say.  The rest is not required.  And if we are going to get into what is higher than constitution and bylaws - well state law is.  Do they have to file copies of all statutes that effect them and resend them as the legislature changes them?  The nonprofit code if they are incorporated?  We are getting far too far into nazel-gazing IMHO.

There are some proposals that should take a lot of time.  This is not one of them, in my personal opinion.  YMMV.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

[Mike Seebeck]

I see only one potential problem, which the lack of explicit language about the idea of a new jurisdictional affiliate replacing a current affiliate without a disaffiliation. As worded, if a petitioning group meets the criteria, there is silence on the option to approve or not.

Or maybe I'm just overthinking it.

--
Committee members, download the Proposal Form here: https://tinyurl.com/2024Bylaws-SubmissionForm
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bylaws Committee 2024" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bylaws-committee...@lp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WnVeHGBG_6Ljm04wPOVhzosOz-V_Hpcd6dvv%3DxQb2EGUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I'm not sure I understand.  I think a replacement without a disaffiliation vote is a violation of the bylaws.  

1.  There can be only one state level affiliate

(And btw I oppose the language change to jurisdictional because we are also in the middle of litigation in which state-level is used as a term of bylaws art and this will cause unnecessary mid-case confusion and money)

2.  Once there is an affiliate, they can only be disaffiliated the way the bylaws say

3.  Ergo they still exist and the LNC would be violating the "only one" bylaw 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4Rm1ArTGhJtqSJjNEYmS4YWg7JkCXoMQJb_0s%2BZuqVauQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Seebeck]

Yeah, but that's the point, it can be interpreted that a constructive disaffiliation can be done by chartering a new affiliate without a formal disaffiliation vote.  That needs to be avoided.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3DSnaNG-8YpNiLophZniW_A55TrmNbW7Ehu-Qf9Jn0m9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

Then it's appealable.  I don't want to give additional complications in situations like MI where we simply recognized the right affiliate but the others claim it's them.  If that argument can be made by some new bylaws proposal we just end up with no affiliate and screw our ballot access. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGasu4R2Oei4yW1hp2%3DfCc56GyB6COF46%2B-FDUAx5EkJasMCaA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Based on the discussion from the last meeting, am planning on submitting a second substitute that keeps the "state-level" language, does not replace state with "jurisdiction," and replaces the first and last "shall" with "may".

Also noticed this first sentence in Section 3: " 3. There shall be no more than one state-level affiliate party in any one state."

Should that sentence be deleted in favor of the "no more than one" language in the first substitute?

In liberty,

Rob Latham

--

[Rob Latham]

Because of Article 10.6.b. am thinking "rules" should be added. 

So make it "constitution, bylaws and/or rules".

Would prefer to replace the occurrences of "constitution" or "bylaws" (5.3 and 10.2.b.) and "rules" (10.6.b.)) with the more generic "organizational documents" discussed during our last meeting, but perhaps this is not the convention to attempt that.

In liberty,

Rob Latham

--

Committee members, download the Proposal Form here: https://tinyurl.com/2024Bylaws-SubmissionForm
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bylaws Committee 2024" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bylaws-committee...@lp.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9WnsHJQJRMZ8GByxjLRUHgEx9MVyA6P1rQuL_4O64NEK3A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I don't think may is correct at least in the first instance.  The LNC is directed to affiliate state level affiliates.  It is a mandate not a suggestion.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGmhr7PqdN3U-H9%2BEEWTTVtC%2Bn%3Dt8fnbmkxf8DzYRvt49g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

We don't need their "rules."  They can change meeting to meeting.  And in one state the bylaws are called "rules" per state law, but as RONR states, it is the character of a document, not the name, that determines what it is.  I do not wish to create a brand new duty.  And there is no way in hell every state is going to send rules (nor do I want them as current Secretary, and I doubt any successor would either) flooding my inbox.  Creating a bylaw that people will flout even more than they do now is creating more problems.  I just want to clarify it is a continuing duty, not create more duties.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKG%3D%2BShChw-%2BjT_VQdUGZNX4a0msd66Q8-NTEGK5ndcuMNQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

In combination with the "no more than one" language, either existing or as proposed, that somewhat alleviates my "any takers" concern with the first "shall".

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3D-n%2BBZOi7r4hFZgAFd1Y-WW4EdE-MvBKeGK3gkSymSXg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Secretary LNC]

I need to look at the second one, not at my main computer atm.

___________________________________________________

In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos

LNC Secretary and LP Historical Preservation Committee Chair ~ 561.523.2250

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAOKuKGnpWHN1jHBHNT7JcG3x-5%2BdxhOg_n_bsciipwcU1FAHEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Latham]

Ah ... and in context, "rules" go to the Credentials Committee per 10.6.b.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/d/msgid/bylaws-committee-2024/CAGiA9W%3Ds6HDTSC%3DrWhV91Y%3D_RNF%2B90qve4hEeucfYo9-UFUOnw%40mail.gmail.com.