[Lnc-business] LP National's dilemma Re: DenverPost Voter's Guide contact information

[Joshua Katz]

I would not be opposed to an affiliate agreement, depending on the terms.
If nothing else, it would mean not having dilemmas like this one, and the
fear that states view listing their candidates, information they provide to
us, with media outlets, as infringing on their autonomy. The solution when
a large group doesn't agree on what terms mean is to set those terms out in
writing.

However, I don't see how to have one without changing the bylaws. I'd want
to be very careful about the wording of that revision. It should not just
remove the autonomy statement. I'd favor adding a clause allowing for an
agreement, but not requiring one.

Joshua Katz
On Oct 1, 2014 4:42 PM, "Scott L." <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> Some might construe this idea as off-topic, but I don’t think it is.
>
>
>
> This has probably been implemented before, but since we are again facing
> the problem of non-responsive state-affiliates, perhaps this would work:
>
>
>
> Most state affiliates do not have enough money to hire anyone full-time,
> or perhaps even part-time.  However, in unity there is strength.
>
>
>
> I did a *very, very rough* back of the envelope calculation, and came up
> with a figure of $10 per *National* LP member per year to have a full
> time employee whose sole job would be to act as a remote office-manager for
> the 30 smallest state affiliates.  I understand that due to FEC regulations
> this would probably have to be organized by the states, and that state LP
> membership is likely to be a smaller number than National LP membership in
> a given state.  I am hoping that we have enough fund-raising expertise in
> our party to teach our affiliates to be able to raise this amount of money
> for that purpose.
>
>
>
> This full-time employee would essentially be working full-time for 1 ½
> weeks each year for each state that they were working for.  The 30 smallest
> state affiliates all have fewer than 200 National LP members, so my guess
> is that 1.5 weeks per year is enough time to keep up the state’s database,
> make sure the web site is kept up to date with logistical content (contact
> info, event info, etc), and answer the phone for that affiliate.  I assume
> the next largest 15 states could hire another employee to perform a similar
> function, and I assume there are 5 states that can take care of these
> functions on their own.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the National LP’s contract with affiliates should include a
> provision that affiliates must have a live person available to answer the
> phone from 8am until 8pm local time (phone trees would be permissible for
> this purpose), and that this office manager would fill that requirement.
>
>
>
> So – when a media call came in for a given state, this employee would call
> each person on the list in a given state until they reached someone.  This
> might require enabling the Chair, Vice-Chair, and one other person the
> authority to answer media inquires, but that would help guarantee that
> media inquires would be answered by an in-state LP official.  Of course,
> you don’t need an employee to have a phone tree, but I would guess that it
> is always better for the media person to be able to initially reach a live
> person within one minute.
>
>
>
> Obviously the goal is to grow all of our affiliates to the point that all
> of them can afford to have at least one full-time employee, but the above
> suggestion is the first step towards that goal.
>
>
>
> Volunteers are great, but if you absolutely, positively do not want stuff
> to fall thru the cracks, you need to pay someone to get that kind of
> service year in and year out.
>
>
>
>    Scott Lieberman
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Norm Olsen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 01, 2014 12:07 PM
> *To:* 'Wes Benedict'
> *Cc:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] [Statechairs] LP National's dilemma Re:
> DenverPost Voter's Guide contact information
>
>
>
> Hello Wes . . .
>
>
>
> With regard to your message:
>
>
>
> 1>     National is capable of supporting a full time staff of 6(?).
> State Chairs and other affiliate officers  are all volunteers.
>
> 2>     Maybe two or three affiliates have a full (or even part time)
> employee which is not a volunteer.
>
> 3>     National should respond to all reasonable requests in this very
> busy time of year in a reasonable manner.
>
> 4>     Affiliates where the requested information is not easily
> accessible to media are in no position to complain.
>
> 5>     The judgment of the Executive Director and the Political Director
> should be trusted.
>
> 6>     More frequent contact between national and the affiliates would
> establish some report and thus reduce substantially this type of paranoia
> which is hurting us.
>
> 7>     Yes, staff has a lot to do, but general elections only occur once
> every two years.
>
>
>
> Norm
>
> --
>
> Norman T Olsen
>
> Regional Representative, Region I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Statechairs [mailto:statechairs-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Wes
> Benedict
> *Sent:* Monday, September 29, 2014 2:56 PM
> *To:* Chuck Plunkett; statechairs at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* [Statechairs] LP National's dilemma Re: Denver Post Voter's
> Guide contact information
>
>
>
> Perhaps you can imagine the dilemma we face at LP National. Do we help
> expedite coverage for our candidates in a quick efficient way, or put
> another thing on the plate of the state chair, or engage in a sometimes
> time-consuming cumbersome permission process with the state chair?
>
> It's quick and easy for us to make a list and send it to a reporter. It's
> even quicker simply to forward a note like this to a state chair. It's time
> consuming to contact the state chair, wait for a response for hours or
> days, then decide what to do if a response is not forthcoming.
>
> Based on participation rates on recent IT Committee surveys, LP News
> affiliate submissions, and responses to requests for updates to things like
> State Chair contact lists, I think most state chairs are quite busy and
> don't have time to respond to lots of things like this.
>
> I don't think sending a list of contacts to a reporter violates state
> affiliate autonomy. I think telling a state affiliate they are required to
> send a list to a reporter DOES violate state affiliate autonomy.
>
> In this particular case for Colorado and the alleged Denver Post contact,
> I'm going to pass the buck and ask our political director Carla Howell to
> use her best judgement (meaning to judge whether or not the contact is
> legit and is a legit and important enough media outlet to warrant a list,
> is it important enough for us to send a list, should the state chair be
> contacted first for permission, etc.)
>
> I've heard from one person "it's easier to ask forgiveness than
> permission" and also "don't talk to any media in my state."
>
> LP Colorado, please speak up if you have an opinion on this in the mean
> time. I know some states are quick to respond and some almost never
> respond. Thanks,
>
>   Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20141001/f4944e21/attachment-0002.html>