Massachusetts activist George Phillies recently reported that the LNC has voted to raise basic Libertarian Party renewal dues to $50. Worse than that, according to George, they voted by secret ballot in order to shield those who voted for this unpopular move from blame by the membership. Based on their general approach to party policies however, I think we can take it for granted that California's LNC reps Aaron Starr and M Carling were among those secretly voting to raise our dues. Too bad we don't have a mechanism for a recall election.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
I just got off the phone with people attending the latest LNC meeting in
Oregon. It seems that the LNC voted, effective the start of 2006,
unless they change their minds first, to increase renewal (not new
member) LPUS dues to $50. UMP payments will not be increased.
The vote was I am advised 11-6 to increase dues and 5-12 against raising
UMP payments.
Contrary to common procedure for a board with a constituency, the LNC
voted in a show of hands to conduct these votes by secret ballot, so if
you were wondering how your representative voted, you are going to
continue to wonder.
There will soon be a wide potential gap between the National Party dues
and any state group with initiative.
[And in response to my comment decrying this action]:
It wasn't even a voice vote where LNC members
saw how their neighbors voted. It was a secret ballot vote, to hide
the truth from the membership.
So what would you argue is the ideal dues level? I'd like to hear the
arguments on both sides, and I'm suspicious when you just assume without
argument that raising the dues is a bad idea. (I also wouldn't necessarily
agree that secret ballots by rule-making bodies are always nefarious.)
Brian Holtz
2004 Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley)
http://marketliberal.org
Dear Brian;
I believe the original e-mail was about the fact that having a
secret ballot was approved by a show of hands. And then because of
the secret ballot no one would know how their representative voted
on the dues increase.
A dues increase whether needed or not is beside the point of why the
need for a secret ballot for voting on a dues increase.
Please explain the need for a secret ballot on a dues increase.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Holtz" <brian@h...>
wrote:
So what would you argue is the ideal dues level? I'd like to hear
the
arguments on both sides, and I'm suspicious when you just assume
without
argument that raising the dues is a bad idea. (I also wouldn't
necessarily
agree that secret ballots by rule-making bodies are always
nefarious.)
Brian Holtz
2004 Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley)
http://marketliberal.org
From: Starchild [mailto:sfdreamer@e…]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:53 PM
To: LPSF Discussion List; EBLP Discuss List; LPSM-
Discuss@yahoogroups.com;
lpsc-misc@d...; Bay Area Liberty; Northern California Libertarians;
LPC-Candidates
Subject: [LPSM-Discuss] Libertarian National Committee votes by
secret
ballot to raise dues to $50!
Massachusetts activist George Phillies recently reported
that the LNC
has voted to raise basic Libertarian Party renewal dues to $50.
Worse
Brian,
Here is a message I recently sent as part of a personal email exchange that addresses your question...
Actually I realize that while my comments below do provide arguments as to why this dues increase is a bad idea, they don't answer your question of what the ideal dues level would be. My answer to that is that one can't say what level dues should ideally be set at without considering the nature of the organization. The ideal dues level of the Revolutionary Communist Party, for example, would always be $0, because any money they get is going to be spent on advancing an anti-libertarian agenda!
Right now I'm inclined to believe that the ideal dues level of the Libertarian Party is $25 a year, because that's what we have now, and I haven't seen compelling enough reasons to raise or lower the dues. The LP's leadership at the California and national levels still has many of the wrong priorities for the party, in my opinion, and the correct order of change is for their priorities to improve *before* they get more of LP members' money, not the other way around.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>