[Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] E-MAIL BALLOT: Hinkle motion to purchase a building

[Starchild]

	Mark, thanks for the clarification. 

	However, I vote no. 

	Buying a building is too important a decision for the Libertarian Party to put in the hands of a small subset of the Libertarian National Committee rather than the entire body. Especially when neither the already adopted motion nor your proposed motion does anything to guarantee that the building search criteria will prioritize important concerns that have been voiced by members of the LNC, including being located in Arlington near Metro lines and closer to other libertarian groups rather than in Alexandria, having good visibility and accessibility, and getting a space that can readily function as a Libertarian community center and not just feel like the private territory of staff. 

	If the building search process is open and transparent, and nobody tries to ram anything down our throats that just ignores these and other concerns that LP members may have, I think we should be able to reach a 2/3rds consensus to buy the right property.

Love & Liberty,
                                   ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee


On Jan 15, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Mark Hinkle wrote:

> Paulie,
> 
> It is my intention that the LNC EC's make the final decision as to what specific property to purchase.
> 
> As we've seen before, if left up to the entire LNC, the decision won't be made.
> 
> If we have to get 2/3's of the entire LNC to agree on a specific building, with very specific requirements from 17 or 18 people, it just won't happen.
> 
> Then we're back to the same situation that we were in back in December of 2011.
> 
> Also, as we've said many many times, buildings come on the market and off the market with great regularity.
> 
> By the time a ballot is formulated, distributed, and voted upon, the property in question could be off the market.
> 
> Then we have to start the process all over again.  And in the mean time, we're shelling out $11,148 per month for the Watergate lease.
> 
> Every month we delay moving out of the Watergate, is costing the LP $4-5K that we didn't need to spend.
> 
> The LNC EC, on the other hand, can meet via tele-conference and make a decision while a property is still on the market.
> 
> Please note that the failure of the last LNC to purchase the building at 1428 Duke Street has already cost the LP over $200,000 in additional expenses and lost revenue.
> 
> And then there's the lost credibility with our donors.  I don't even know how to quantify that cost to the LP, but I suspect it's huge.
> 
> I urge a yes vote on my motion so we can go back to the donors that gave or pledged $227K towards the building fund and let them know "yes we can".
> 
> Yours in liberty..................Mark Hinkle,
> LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair
> "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
>                                             - Samuel Adams
> 
> On 1/14/2013 9:02 PM, travellingcircus at gmail.com wrote:
>>  
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:53 PM, James Lark <jwl3s at virginia.edu> wrote:
>>  
>>> The final decision on what property to buy shall be ratified by the LNC's Executive Committee by a majority vote once the above conditions are met. 
>> 
>> 
>> A question about the word ratified here. Does this mean that the full LNC will or will not get to help make this decision, or is this motion neutral on that subject? Would a separate motion to address that question be in order? 
>> 
>> Paulie 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-discuss mailing list
> Lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20130115/f7b5a992/attachment-0002.html>