Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:49:12 -0700
From: randerson22@home.com ("Robert Anderson")
Subject: Re: [lpaz-govcom] Re: J. Auvenshine Affair
To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <auvenj@mailcity.com>
To: <lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 5:09 PM
Subject: [lpaz-govcom] Re: J. Auvenshine Affair
> --- In lpaz-govcom@y..., "Robert Anderson" <randerson22@h...> wrote:
> > > Since you are no longer a GovCom member, you don't owe a fiduciary
> > > duty to anyone. But if you were a member, whose interests DO you
> > > think you'd owe a fiduciary duty to, if not the registered LBT's?
> >
> > To the people that showed up at the convention and voted. And for
> the bylaws
> > and constitution that was entrusted to us to protect.
>
> Bob,
>
> BINGO! Thank you for finally stating this directly. Now we're
> getting somewhere; this is more important than it may seem at first
> glance.
>
It's all I've been saying!
> I contend that this doesn't change the fact that the source
> population (registered LBTs) is owed the fiduciary duty by those
> elected, rather than just those who show up and vote.
I would have to agree with you. But the duty to these voters are expressed
to the Govcom by those that choose to show up. We are obligated to take the
marching orders from what ever number of people that show up at the
convention as the will of the whole. If there are those that want to have a
say in the party they just need to show up.
>
> The bylaws are not explicit about this matter, but they give
> substantial support for my view by defining all registered LBTs
> as "members" of the party. It is common and customary that when a
> governing body is elected for a private organization, it is the
> members of that organization to which the fiduciary responsibility is
> owed.
>
> If it was really intended that the fiduciary duty apply only to those
> who actually show up at the convention,
And how else do you think the Govcom should determine the will of the party
if not through the mechanism that this political party has chosen for itself
to use. That mechanism being the convention.
>my suggestion for the future
> would be that we drop the "member" / "member-of-record" designation,
> define "member" as "member-of-record" is currently defined, and
> create an eligibility requirement that all members must be registered
> LBTs. This would make it clear and unambiguous that the fiduciary
> duty is to the convention,
The convention "IS" the mechanism that the LBT"s have for giving instruction
to the Govcom. Therefore the duty to the rank and file LBT is being met.
>and not to the registered LBTs.
> Registered LBTs would only have a right to representation if they
> become a "member" by going to a convention or sending in dues.
Paul has spoken to that Idea and it may have some merit. His Idea had more
to do with party work and such but the idea is the same.
>
> I see this distinction as key. Either the fundamental source of
> power and the fiduciary duty of the party rests with the registered
> LBTs
And it does, through the representation at the convention.
> (within the bounds of principle, as I said to Ernie), OR the
> registered LBTs are simply a resource to be used for the benefit of
> those who run the party (ie for ballot status, votes, funds, etc.)
> My contention is that the former is BOTH best supported by the
> current bylaws, AND is also more desirable than the latter.
Without a doubt. that is what this whole thing is all about.
Bob
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/JwNVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpaz-govcom-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/