Should regions be held to a tougher standard than the state? (was Re: Model Bylaws for Regions)

As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. Having a set of
model bylaws available at the state level for regions to refer to is
wonderful. Having these bylaws essentially forced on the regions, unless
they go to the hassle of sending their own bylaws to the state (by
registered mail, no less!) and erasing all conflicts (as judged by the
state LP) between their existing bylaws and the state bylaws within 60 days
(i.e. 2 local meetings, for most groups) is not wonderful. It amounts to
another ham-fisted attempt at top-down control.

  When portions of the state party's bylaws are self-contradictory,
or conflict with the national bylaws, this problem is simply left as a
situation for delegates to state conventions, or some state-level
committee, to look into at leisure.

  But our state chair and whoever else came up with this plan would
apply a much tougher standard to the regions. If the ExCom passes this as
written, regions would *not* be allowed to iron out bylaws conflicts at
their leisure. Instead they would face a state-imposed deadline. Clearly if
some regions are not letting members know when local elections are being
held, it is a problem that deserves attention. But addressing this problem
does not require this kind of sweeping ultimatum delivered from on high.

  Ed Teyssier was right -- bylaws stuff is housekeeping. We shouldn't
arbitrarily force it onto the front burner at the expense of spending time
on more important tasks (like actually advancing the cause of liberty in
the real world!) unless there is actual bottom-up demand for change. I've
seen no evidence of such demand here.

  Nothing says more about the top-down nature of this than the fact
that the state would be requiring regions to send registered mail to the
State Secretary, at their expense, yet the state party does not require
itself to use registered mail when sending important items to the regions
-- such as the membership dues checks, which have frequently arrived late.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

At 8:13 PM -0700 5/2/03, Aaron Starr, CPA shared:

Am I missing something? Did we already receive a copy of these
"Model" bylaws? Or are we being asked to adopt a document without
seeing it, much as our Congress adopted the Patriot Act?

As poor as two months' notice of the deadline may be, it's even worse
when we don't even have the "Model" available to us for the full two
months.

In order to meet the July 31 deadline, the LPSF would need three
monthly meetings, at a minimum, to send out written notice to our
membership of the vote on the new bylaws, review the new "Model",
compare it with our existing documents, and vote. And given that we
don't expect a quorum at our May meeting, due to a conflict with our
Mayoral candidate's fundraiser, the two month deadline is too short
for us to make an informed decision. Pretty much the only thing we
can do is send in our current bylaws and hope that they aren't judged
to conflict too badly with the State, because, again, a sixty day
period to resolve the conflicts is too short.

Does this whole "we've ignored this problem for decades but now want
it solved in two months" thing from the State ExCom seem weird to
anybody else?

Rob

- -----Original Message-----