There are five new motions from the Rules Committee at the 2018 Annual Convention. I’m planning on reviewing and posting on these motions as part of my review of the 2018 Annual Convention Agenda. All of these blog posts will be tagged LPF2018, so if you want to look at my thoughts on the other motions, just click on the LPF2018 tag on the right side of the page or the bottom of this post.
Title: Motion to amend By-Laws Article I, Section 4 and 5
Text: Motion to amend the LPF Bylaws Article I, adding a new Section 4 and Section 5
Section 4. The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary, and Treasurer positions of LPF county affiliates shall at all times be LPF members and LPF registered voters. No affiliate officer positions may be combined except those of Secretary and Treasurer, and all four officer positions must be filled prior to affiliation and in a timely manner when vacancies occur. Affiliates must report officer positions compliant with these provisions to the Secretary of LPF upon affiliation application, and upon subsequent request from the Secretary of LPF for record-keeping and affiliation renewal purposes. No affiliate’s rules shall restrict or abridge the rights of persons who are both LPF members and LPF voters to participate meaningfully in party business.
Section 5. The LPF Rules Committee shall be the final arbiter of any disputes or conflicts of Section 4.
A minor complaint: This motion, like all the new motions from the Rules Committee, have crap titles. Couldn’t the motion be titled with some sort of explanation of what they’re trying to do?
Now for the actual meat of the motion. This motion adds a requirement to the County Affiliates that their officers must by LPF members and LPF registered voters. It also requires that affiliate officers follow state law, which allows the Secretary and Treasurer to be held by the same individual, but no other officer positions may be combined.
I have to say that I have some reluctance with this motion. I’m not thrilled with the state party telling the county affiliates who they can or can’t elect as officers. On the other hand, these restrictions seem reasonable, and the allowable combination of Secretary and Treasurer and no others is in state law.
I think my biggest problem is with the requirement that all affiliate officers be members of the LPF. The specific issue I have is the separation of LPF member and LPF voter. As I’ve stated elsewhere, I’m a supporter of a much more open definition of what an LPF member is. This more open definition would mean that all LPF voters would be LPF members. The only restriction I was putting in would be that officers and committee chairs would also be required to sign the non-aggression oath that we’ve got in the Constitution. The question is whether we should also require that affiliate officers also sign the non-aggression oath.
I’m not going to make this the hill I die on. I think it needs to be addressed as part of a different motion on membership. So, for the mean time, this is a very reluctant “no” for me. I don’t think it needs to be done; state law already exists. We’ll survive without this change.