We need to update our bylaws (LNC Disrupts Oregon State Convention)

Danger, Will Robinson. Danger! Danger!

The Republicans who have infiltrated the LNC are out to kill any LP that
actively embraces the personal freedoms part of our platform, and doesn't
just restrict itself to economic freedom. And they're using parliamentary
procedure as a weapon, as illustrated in the forwarded message below.
Today, they effectively killed the LP of Oregon. San Francisco is an
obvious bulwark against their efforts to make the LP more socially
conservative, and I think we should understand that we're a potential target
-- whether of disaffiliation by the state party (for having non-compliant
bylaws) or of them intervening in our own meetings as they did in Oregon.
We need to defend ourselves.

To that end, I'd like to propose a replacement of our current bylaws with a
very stripped-down version that reverts to the public-domain version of
Robert's Rules of Order (the 1915 Fourth Edition, for which the copyright
has expired, so it's available freely online at http://www.rulesonline.com/ and
elsewhere in electronic form) when the bylaws are silent, but which
specifically has an escape clause that allows any provision of the bylaws
(except the statement "In the event of any conflict or ambiguity arising
between the constitution and bylaws adopted hereunder and the constitution
of the Libertarian Party of California, the latter shall prevail.") or
Robert's Rules to be suspended by a 7/8 vote the members present. If LP
Oregon had included such a provision, their convention attendees surely
would have voted near-unanimously (minus M Carling, of course) to not waste
their weekend, by waiving the quorum requirement of 50% of dues-paying
members, which I'm sure you all realize is a quorum requirement that no LP,
whether national, state, or local, would ever be able to meet, thereby
paralyzing them.

Oddly, our current bylaws (as revised in 2004) make no mention of a
requirement of notice for amendments. The only amendment language is:

"Decisions made by the LPSF at general meetings shall be made on the basis
of a majority of those voting members present. The exceptions are voting to
amend this document or to impeach an officer, actions which require a
two-thirds majority vote of those voting members present."

Similarly, the state party bylaws (
http://ca.lp.org/files/2010/03/Bylaws2010-2011.pdf ) make no requirement of
prior notice for county committees to amend their bylaws (though there is a
30-60 day notice requirement for officer elections).

So, as a courtesy (since nothing appears to require it), I'd like to notify
our Activists list that I plan to bring a set of bylaws amendments to our
December 11 meeting. I'm happy to work on these amendments with anyone who
is interested in helping.. I can set up a shared document in
http://docs.lpsf.org where anyone volunteering to help can collaborate on a
live document.

Marcy, if you could please state my intentions in this regard in your report
at the November meeting, where I regret that I will be absent, I would very
much appreciate it

Rob

Hi Rob,

Yes, I will definitely put this subject on the agenda. We do need to update our bylaws. However, I am having a bit of trouble visualizing how the LP can tell any of the state parties what to do, unless the specific individuals that attend the meeting are dues-paying members of the state party in question. The way I see it, either pay up or shut up!!

We will miss you at the meeting. Have a good time at your brother's party.

Marcy

Apparently M Carling is a member of LPO, according to his post on IPR. He's
apparently a member of pretty much every state party that doesn't have a
residency requirement. Certainly at least a member in California, New York,
and Oregon, that I'm aware of. Probably more.

But as for the "threat" that the LNC can pose to state parties, they can
disaffiliate a state party for cause and appoint a new state affiliate (I've
heard the prediction that Adam and Christiana Mayer will be heading that new
affiliate, and Christiana just admitted on her FB page volunteering lots of
time for the GOP this election).

I'm officially done with live-and-let-live. This is a political party. We
seriously need to weed out those who are consistent activists for other
parties -- at least weed them out of our leadership if not the party
altogether. The occasional cross-party individual endorsement is no big
deal, but when LP leaders are giving more hours to GOP efforts than to LP
efforts, the Party is clearly broken.

Rob

Oh, so we are affiliates of the National Party? Huumm, what have they done for us lately? Well, I am even not OK at all with occasional cross-party endorsements, especially if we have a candidate of our own running for the spot. However, I still believe that whether the LPSF survives or not will have more to do on how much effort each one of us makes in growing the party, than on any nefarious move by the LNC.

Marcy