Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Charter Committee - 2013 Regional Expansion Summary

Charter Committee - 2013 Regional Expansion Summary

|Views: 1,352|Likes:
Published by replibertycaucus
This report shows the new regions adopted to fulfill the bylaws amendment that was passed at the 2013 biennial convention.
This report shows the new regions adopted to fulfill the bylaws amendment that was passed at the 2013 biennial convention.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: replibertycaucus on May 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





2013 Regional Expansion Report
Charter CommitteeMay 22, 2013
Charter Committee
 Director/Chairman:Ed Lopez, National Vice ChairmanMembers:Earl Bandy, Western Regional Director Vic Berardelli, Northeast Regional Director Travis Bowden, Southern Regional DirectorLaura Ebke, Midwest Regional Director
 The committee submitted two proposals to the national board for our regional expansion (proposals 20 and21) but the committee recommended that the national board select 20 over 21 because it spread theresponsibility over states and territories per region most equitably, to approximately seven per region. Therecommendation was based on the feedback of the current regional directors. Ultimately the board opted foran amended version of proposal 21, resulting in the creation of a 22
plan, largely an amended version of the21
Selection Process
 Several factors were considered
Input from the Regional Directors, based on the feedback they have received over the last few monthsfrom their states
Input from individual RLC members
General cultural elements
State size
Charter state strength
States that are about to charter or face the prospect of being de-chartered (there
s greater fluidity to thisfactor than anticipated)
Practicality of shared membership in a region
 Territories and the District of Columbia were not given the exact same weight of consideration due to sizeand jurisdictional nature but were accounted for in the process, i.e., if one region ended up with eightjurisdictions (states and territories) on account of having two territories, the committee did not considerthis an overwhelming disadvantage over a region without territories or with just one territory.No one single factor was given greater weight than the others except the amount of states allocated to eachregion: including territories and the District of Columbia, an effort was made to assign roughly seven states andterritorial jurisdictions to each of the new eight regional director seats. It was concluded, in this process, thatthere is no one regional distribution that treats all the factors above equally 
the national board, in this sense,must weight which factors to prioritize at any given time when drawing and re-drawing regional lines.
Previous Regions
 As of the national board
s vote on Saturday, May 19
, 2013, the regions were divided as follows:
Eastern Region
:Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
Southern Region
: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.
Midwest Region
:Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, SouthDakota, and Wisconsin.
 Western Region
: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and Guam.For reasons that are not clear, the previous regions did not include American Samoa and the Northern MarianaIslands.Over the last two years, regional directors and some states had expressed a strong desire to redistribute theregions. The national board of directors generally felt our state support efforts could improve with a largernumber of regional directors, each focused on a smaller number of jurisdictions. One particular concern, which was addressed in the two proposals submitted to the board of directors was to separate states in the NortheastRegion
specifically, to ensure West Virginia was in a separate region. Several configurations were considered,including one that separated New England into a region of its own, but in the many proposals drafted, the only combination of states that worked, considering many of the factors listed above, was one wherein New England and New York were included in the same region, while West Virginia was included in a new, Atlanticregion. Ultimately, the committee felt the most logical distribution for an Atlantic region would requirePennsylvania and Maryland to be a part of it. Once a region includes Maryland, it inevitably must include theDistrict of Columbia, and potentially, Delaware. It is unlikely, moving forward, that Virginia and West Virginia will ever end up in separate regions
most configurations considered kept the two states together.
Detailed Proposal Information
Out of proposals 20 and 21 (attached) Proposal 21 was chosen by the board. It was subdivided into thefollowing regions:
Northeast Region Atlantic RegionSoutheast RegionCentral RegionGreat Plains RegionSouth Central RegionUpper West RegionLower West Region
(Please refer to Map 21 for a detailed lists of states per region).Originally the committee advocated for a regional redistribution wherein the Rocky Mountain and the Pacificstates would be separated into two new regions (please refer to map 20). After feedback from state chapterleaders and further regional director discussion, an alternate map was developed: splitting the Western part of the United States into an upper and lower half, each spanning the combined northern and southern sections of the Pacific and Rocky Mountain areas and resulting in
Upper West
Lower West
 The principal concern this second plan (proposal 21) meant to address was California
s desire (expressed by  Western Regional Director Earl Bandy on its behalf) to remain separate from Washington (state). This waslargely due to concerns over the inclusion of two states with large membership figures in one region,particularly given their relative proximity. The committee empathized with the perceived need for this division but at the same time considered thatCalifornia
s membership is proportionally low and its geographic stretch limiting in terms of regionaldistribution options.For this reason, the committee did not feel proposal 21, which features the
Upper West
Lower West
 divisions, would address improvements in a regional director
s capacity to serve as efficiently as proposal 20:the
s view was that California could benefit from Washington
current strength, potentially emancipating a regional director to focus on developing membership in California and other western states tobe more commensurate with Washington
s. The committee also took into account the fluidity of membershipin other states, where the wax and wane of memberships has proven somewhat unpredictable, e.g., MA, DE,NH, and ND, among others, i.e., membership didn
t seem to be a strong enough factor in considering whetherCalifornia and Washington should be in the same region.California's RLC membership is roughly 0.0024% of the total Republican registration for the state. Washington's is 0.0194% of eligible voters who
cast a vote for the Republican presidential candidate 
in their state'spresidential election (there's no party registration in Washington, which means that the percentage would behigher if the state did have party registration). The case for "two strong chapters" co-existing (or not) in a region might not be all that clear-cut. Ultimately, we want
strong chapters
to be abundant in all of our regions regardless.Nonetheless, the committee responded to the concerns aired by western RLC members and developed analternate proposal (21) as described above.
 Amended and Adopted Plan
 The national board embraced proposal 21, largely on account of the many reasons this proposal was developedat the committee level to begin with. The board was asked to consider an important amendment, however: thestates of Wyoming and Colorado, which have often collaborated in political efforts on account of the sharedFront Range Urban Corridor, demonstrated a preference, as articulated by Regional Director Earl Bandy, toremain in the same region. Given their frequent though not common inclusion in the Great Plains states, theboard agreed to move the two states into the Great Plains region. This change seemed to satisfy each thepotential Upper and Lower West states. As a result, each the Upper and Lower West regions became somewhatsmaller, meriting the more proper nomenclature of 
regions.Effective the evening of Sunday the 19
, 2013, the national board made the new region distribution official(proposal 22) and a call for nominations for the next Regional Director elections was released to the generalmembership.In Liberty,Ed LopezNational Vice Chairman

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->