Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:21:32 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-govcom] Re: J. Auvenshine Affair To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
Bob,
Certainly the convention is a very important way for the registered LBTs to express their wishes, just like election day is a very important way for the voters in general to express their wishes. It is not nor should it be the ONLY way.
So let me put it succintly this way: I have been contacted by many registered LBTs who have expressed their interest in seeing the litigation emanating from ALP, Inc. put to a stop. I also believe that putting a stop to the litigation is in my own interests. As part of an attempt to accomplish that goal within the bounds of principle, I sought and was elected to an officer position in ALP, Inc. Now it's up to the GovCom to decide if what I did was _really_ within the bounds of principle and in the best interests of the registered LBTs or not. To make that decision the GovCom will presumably use all of the evidence available: the ALP bylaws, convention resolutions, definitions, Roberts rules, state law, their own communications with LBTs, their own beliefs about my intentions, etc. Just like that judge in my example of speeding 45 in a 40 would decide whether or not I was really justified in the speed that I traveled.
It seems to me like you would argue that since the legislature passed a law that said no one should go faster than the speed limit, the judge must throw the book at me no matter what the circumstances surrounding the infraction. Otherwise, "he's thwarting the intention of the legislature." I would argue that's why we have judges, juries, and GovComs: to apply the law to real circumstances as they occur.
All I'm trying to say is that my conscience is clear. I believe my action was justified because I acted within the bounds of principle, in the direction of the best interests of the registered LBTs as I honestly perceive them to be. If you disagree, all you have to do is vote in favor of termination.
--Jason Auvenshine
--- In lpaz-govcom@y..., "Robert Anderson" <randerson22@h...> wrote: >
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <auvenj@m...>
> To: <lpaz-govcom@y...>
> 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/