M,
This unanimous consent requirement (bylaw citation, please?) shouldn't
simply be eliminated in this case or that case -- it should be tossed
out altogether. I wasn't aware of any such requirement existing, and if
it does exist, I think it is not generally being followed. Again, the
LPC should not be telling county parties who they may and may not allow
to speak at local meetings, period. Voting is another matter.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
``
On Friday, September 23, 2005, at 07:09 PM, M Carling wrote:
> I apologize if I was unclear. Certainly, county parties can let a
> non-member speak in debate. However, it requires unanimous consent to
> do so which, in my experience, is usually but not always granted i.e.
> typically no one objects. What I propose is eliminating the unanimous
> consent requirement in the case of Associate Members. Speaking in
> debate would become a right of Associate Membership, rather than a
> privilege. We would probably word it such that a Basic Member wishing
> to speak must be recognized before an Associate Member.
>
> M Carling
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2005, at 14:18, Starchild wrote:
>
>> I'll bet current practice is that pretty much anyone who shows up
>> to most county meetings can speak, which makes a lot of sense given
>> the size of most groups and the fact that they want people to come to
>> meetings (and possibly become members). The LPC should not be telling
>> county parties who they may and may not allow to speak at local
>> meetings, period.
>>
>> For liberty,
>> <<< Starchild >>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, September 23, 2005, at 09:37 AM, M Carling wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's a good question. It's something that we've been thinking
>>> about since the LNC voted to end UMP.
>>>
>>> The LPC Bylaws provide for Associate Membership. Per the bylaws,
>>> Associate Members do not have voting rights. Other than that, the
>>> LPC Executive Committee can define the dues and benefits associated
>>> with Associate Membership.
>>>
>>> I've been working on a proposal for the November ExCom meeting to
>>> establish lower dues ($10 or $20 per year) for Associate Members.
>>> Per a recent change to the Bylaws, that would be split 60/40 with the
>>> county parties like dues for regular membership. I'm planning to
>>> propose that a valid email address be a condition of Associate
>>> Membership and that California Freedom (which currently costs $10/
>>> year per person) would be sent only electronically (no paper version
>>> at that price).
>>>
>>> I've also been considering proposing a Bylaws change that would
>>> permit county parties, if they so chose, to make provision in their
>>> own bylaws that Associate Members could have debating rights within
>>> the county party. In other words, county parties could choose to let
>>> Associate Members speak in favor or against a motion but not vote on
>>> it. (The status quo is that unanimous consent of the body would be
>>> required to let an Associate Member speak.)
>>>
>>> This has been on the back burner because our next meeting is still
>>> eight weeks away and we have been deluged with pressing business.
>>> However, since Roberto Liebman has raised the question, I would
>>> appreciate any feedback on the idea.
>>>
>>> M Carling
>>> Chairman, LPC Member Acquisition Cmte
>>> Chairman, LPC Bylaws Cmte
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 23, 2005, at 8:33, Daniel Wiener wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm forwarding Roberto's email below.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Wiener
>>>> CA_Secretary@LibertarianParty.info
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Roberto Leibman" <roberto@leibman.net>
>>>> To: <countyofficers@ca.lp.org>; "Michael Murphy"
>>>> <mmurphy@smallbusinessman.com>; "Robert Page" <rpagemg@netscape.net>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:51 PM
>>>> Subject: Discounted (or subsidized) memberships for younger
>>>> libertarians
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if there's any legal or other ramifications to the
>>>>> following...
>>>>>
>>>>> We are recruiting tons of high school (mostly senior) students
>>>>> through our
>>>>> outreach programs. Students are notoriously low on cash but also
>>>>> notoriously high on energy, commitment, passion and time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has the LPC considered having a discounted membership price for
>>>>> that
>>>>> particular age group? What we loose in revenues we win in
>>>>> volunteerism,
>>>>> good will and on the long run these same students are more likely
>>>>> to stay
>>>>> with the party as members. The disadvantage to the local
>>>>> organizations is
>>>>> that these kids are not likely to remain in our county if they go
>>>>> to
>>>>> college, but it's obviously a good thing for the LP as a whole.
>>>>>
>>>>> If "youth" memberships aren't on the table any time soon, do you
>>>>> know if
>>>>> there's any problem with the county party subsidizing their
>>>>> membership? We
>>>>> have some extra cash (not much, but enough that a few memberships
>>>>> won't
>>>>> affect us), and if we only have to give our 40% (or I'm confused,
>>>>> is it
>>>>> 60%?) to the LPC these might be awsome recruiting tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roberto Leibman
>>>>> Chair, Placer County Libertarian Party
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Executive-Committee mailing list
>>>> Executive-Committee@ca.lp.org
>>>> [http://ca.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/executive-committee_ca.lp.org](http://ca.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/executive-committee_ca.lp.org)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Countyofficers mailing list
>>> Countyofficers@ca.lp.org
>>> [http://ca.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/countyofficers_ca.lp.org](http://ca.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/countyofficers_ca.lp.org)
>>>
>>
>