This proposed agenda item-that State Com for 15 minutes discuss setting up a system of formal communication between the GRP and the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts (LPMA)-- is the result of a consensus between members of AdCom and CDLC (via email) that the matter be discussed by State Com on 10/15. This is all the result of a communication (private Facebook message) that Ian Jackson & I received from Dan Fishman, LPMA Political Director last week. Since the 2016 election, the LPMA has been an official political party in Massachusetts. Daniel in his message told Ian & I about LPMA plans to run statewide candidates in 2018 and also inquired about the GRP's plans. AdCom and CDLC members then discussed this matter over email for several days, and reached a consensus that State Com should for 15 minutes on 10/15 discuss the matter of possible GRP regular communication with the LPMA.
As far as a framework for the State Com discussion, I suggested that our State Com discussion goals be to reach consensus in regard to the following questions (there were no concerns stated about this proposed framework by AdCom/CDLC members over email.):
FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION:
As far as a framework for the State Com discussion, I suggested that our State Com discussion goals be to reach consensus in regard to the following questions (there were no concerns stated about this proposed framework by AdCom/CDLC members over email.):
FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION:
1) Does the GRP want to delegate a person to be our liaison to the LPMA? If so, who should that person be? What body in the GRP would the liaison report to?
2) If we do create the liaison position, what are the chief areas of interest the GRP sees as fit to discuss with the LPMA?
a) Administrative: IRV? Fighting Unfair Ballot Access Policy? Joint call for Debates?
b) Substantive: Peace? Civil Liberties?
c) Candidates (including what information about our candidate plans we should discuss and what to keep confidential, and whether we are interested in joint candidate forums)?
I also wanted to state that in proposing this agenda item. I am in no way by suggesting endorsing any position of the LPMA. I just think that the GRP should respond to Dan Fishman's communication and be in a position to communicate with all MA political parties, whether or not their platform is friendly to us or not.
2) If we do create the liaison position, what are the chief areas of interest the GRP sees as fit to discuss with the LPMA?
a) Administrative: IRV? Fighting Unfair Ballot Access Policy? Joint call for Debates?
b) Substantive: Peace? Civil Liberties?
c) Candidates (including what information about our candidate plans we should discuss and what to keep confidential, and whether we are interested in joint candidate forums)?
I also wanted to state that in proposing this agenda item. I am in no way by suggesting endorsing any position of the LPMA. I just think that the GRP should respond to Dan Fishman's communication and be in a position to communicate with all MA political parties, whether or not their platform is friendly to us or not.
Do you like this suggestion?
Showing 1 reaction
Sign in with
Facebook