Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:09:40 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-govcom] Re: J. Auvenshine Affair To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-govcom@yahoogroups.com
--- 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.
Here's something to think about. Consider the race for Governor of Arizona, and lets say there are three candidates, A, B, and C. On election day let's say there is a 50% voter turnout. 90% of the people who go to the polls actually cast a vote for governor (meaning 45% of the eligible voters actually cast a vote for the office of governor). Of the votes cast, A receives 44.4%, B receives 22.2% and C receives 33.3%. Thus, 20% of the eligible voters actually voted for candidate A, 10% voted for B, and 15% of them voted for C. Candidate A is declared the winner and becomes Governor.
Now think about this: who does Candidate A (now Governor) owe a fiduciary duty to? Is it the 20% of eligible voters who actually voted for him? Is it the 45% of eligible voters who cast any vote for Governor? Is it the 50% of eligible voters who actually showed up at the polls on election day? Or is it 100% of the eligible voters? What reasons can you give for your selection?
The ALP convention is very much like an election day, only the "eligible" voters are the registered Libertarians instead of the population at large, and the election is for a private organization rather than a public office. All registered Libertarians are eligible to show up and vote. A certain percentage of them actually do. 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.
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, 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, 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.
I see this distinction as key. Either the fundamental source of power and the fiduciary duty of the party rests with the registered LBTs (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.
--Jason Auvenshine
------------------------ 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/