Thanks, Starchild, for making the contact, and giving us the update.
I'd vote to give him the mailing list. I thought it was disgraceful
that National refused.
Alternatively we could include a note in our newsletter. I'm somewhat
uncomfortable myself giving out our mailing list to anyone, even
someone we strongly support.
Justin
Dear Justin;
While it would be an executice committee decision I believe it could be handled by LPSF including a special one page color circular within the newsletter or as an attachment.
This way you do provide a needed highlighted call for help but with some sensitivity to proprietory material. If it needs a vote I would vote for that instead of handing out the mailing list.
On that note was their a newsletter sent out this year at all??? I vaguely ( ???) remember receiving one(???) but have more been sent this year???
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
"Justin T. Sampson" <justin@...> wrote:
Alternatively we could include a note in our newsletter. I'm somewhat
uncomfortable myself giving out our mailing list to anyone, even
someone we strongly support.
Justin
Just one so far this year. It's available at www.lpsf.org and most
members have received it already in the mail. I'll check to make sure
I didn't miss you.
The newsletter is published *approximately* once every two months, so
another one will be published soon.
Cheers,
Justin
Dear Justin;
Just checked the web site newsletter and nope did not get that one.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
"Justin T. Sampson" <justin@...> wrote:
On that note was their a newsletter sent out this year at all???
I vaguely ( ???) remember receiving one(???) but have more been
sent this year???
Just one so far this year. It's available at www.lpsf.org and most
members have received it already in the mail. I'll check to make sure
I didn't miss you.
The newsletter is published *approximately* once every two months, so
another one will be published soon.
Cheers,
Justin
SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student loan California politics
Now that each county LP organization is in charge of its own mailing
list, I think we need to take steps to modify the properties of the
list. When I first began managing the database for the East Bay LP, we
had specific fields identified where members could request that their
name, address and phone number not be shared with other organizations,
so when we "rented out" our membership list, we could filter out those
who requested this courtesy. There was a "DO NOT CALL" flag and a
"MINIMUM MAIL" flag so we wouldn't bother contacting members who did not
wish to receive solicitations either by phone or by mail.
When the National LP converted the database to the Raiser's Edge
platform (a database customized for fundraising activities) all of these
fields were lost and all member information became fair game for selling
to other organizations. Since the filtering functionality of the
database was lost during this transition, I suspect this might have
something to do with the LNC's decision not to share the list with Mr.
Kubby. Now that they are entirely dependent upon contributions from the
membership, rather than dues, the last thing they want to do is alienate
their support base.
I was quite disturbed by this change and concerned that a "contract" the
LP had made with its members had been broken. It is possible that we
can restore this functionality, but it would require a tremendous effort
on the part of each county to poll its membership and find out who does
not wish their personal information to be shared with other
organizations, no matter how worthy the cause.
Once again, the LP has to re-invent the wheel to restore features lost
in a misguided technological "upgrade". Ron's suggestion sounds like an
acceptable compromise, but since I can't vote on it, I just thought I'd
throw in my two cents.
Terry Floyd
On Behalf Of Ron Getty