[Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit
Wes Benedict
wes.benedict at lp.org
Fri Dec 11 12:13:30 EST 2015
The LNC discussed, debated, and adopted specific goals this term, not
the "implied goals" Mr. Olsen refers to. It was probably before you
joined the LNC. I realize you joined to replace another member that
resigned.
They're in at least one of the minutes here:
http://www.lp.org/leadership/lnc-meeting-archives
You might want to read all of the minutes for this term, because they
have a lot about ballot access in them, as well as other things.
Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
*New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314*
(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
On 12/11/2015 11:59 AM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
> Wes,
>
> No, I definitely did not know that. It seems like it would be the
> case as presumably we would get more efficient with our efforts over
> time, but I've not seen any data to illustrate that point.
>
> In case I've come across poorly, I don't want to seem as if I object
> to the idea or anything like that. I just want to encourage the body
> to have specifically defined strategic goals rather than the "implied
> goals" that Mr. Olsen was referring to. As an advocate of the devil,
> while ballot access may be cheaper, one could still ask what it's end
> goal is. I would argue that getting a single person elected to a
> partisan office would have a far greater impact than simply allowing
> others (who will realistically never win an election) to run for
> office through our ballot access measures. I concede one affects the
> other and am not making a case for either, but just illustrating how
> the strategy could differ if it were defined that way.
>
> For the time being, I'm delighted to see the party working so hard to
> help Oklahoma, am totally behind the effort, and hope that it provides
> the party with a big morale boost and helps boost the party throughout
> the state.
>
> -Kevin Ludlow
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org
> <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>> wrote:
>
> Kevin, did you know that ballot access has gotten easier and
> cheaper, year after year, as a result of our decades of
> sustainable efforts?
>
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> *New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314*
> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <tel:%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232>,
> wes.benedict at lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>
> facebook.com/libertarians <http://facebook.com/libertarians>
> @LPNational
> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>
> On 12/10/2015 10:57 PM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
>> I appreciate the variety of voices responding to my questions.
>> And to Mr. Olsen, 6 paragraphs were most certainly welcome :)
>>
>> I apologize for not being on the call on Monday. Unfortunately
>> work does occasionally take precedent over my extra-curricular
>> activities - political or otherwise. I was also fairly confident
>> the vote would pass and of course it did. So regardless of
>> anyone's position on the matter, here we are.
>>
>> The gist of what I was getting at was simply to have the
>> cost/benefits explained to me. Mr. Tomaso nailed one simply by
>> citing the overall morale boost that ballot access provides.
>> While perhaps difficult to measure, there is no doubt relevance
>> to the claim. Mr. Olsen, however, adds a tick to the "con" side
>> in that he cites the difficulties with the sustainability of
>> ballot access.
>>
>> In most any business model one would likely be advised to stray
>> AWAY from something that is unsustainable. It becomes difficult
>> to predict costs, there is always an element of being
>> unsuccessful, and meanwhile there exist goals that actually ARE
>> sustainable should one direct their effort that way.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm still just too new, but it simply struck me that I
>> could not really weigh the cost/benefits of the financial
>> decision we were about to make in any practical way. I have
>> since been informed of 1 or 2 costs and 1 or 2 benefits, but it
>> still seems the Libertarian party should really be making
>> decisions almost exclusively upon this kind of analysis and
>> having a specifically defined strategy rather than an implied one
>> as Mr. Olsen points out.
>>
>> Anyway, thank you all for listening and for responding to my
>> questions / concerns. I appreciate your time.
>>
>> -Kevin Ludlow
>> Region 7
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Scott L. <scott73 at earthlink.net
>> <mailto:scott73 at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>
>> I am very glad that the Regional Representative from Colorado
>> is asking us to look at and evaluate “This implied goal, or
>> objective if you prefer, is 50+ state ballot access for the
>> Libertarian party.”
>>
>> Unfortunately, now is not a good time for a full-blown
>> analysis of the issues that the Regional Representative is
>> asking us to look at.
>>
>> We are only 6 months away from the end of our LNC term, and
>> only 6 months away from the beginning of the General Election
>> portion of the 4 year Presidential Election Cycle. I think
>> we have a moral commitment to our members to maximize the
>> number of states that the *2016 *Libertarian Presidential
>> Nominee is on the ballot, obviously constrained by how much
>> money we have available to pay for signatures.
>>
>> However – the next LNC *should *start discussing the topic of
>> ballot access at their very first full-weekend meeting of the
>> next LNC term. That way, they have at least 6 months before
>> they even have to begin collecting signatures to get a
>> candidate on the ballot for vote test purposes for the Nov.
>> 2017 elections (VA, NJ, and a couple of others).
>>
>> That being said, I disagree with the Regional
>> Representative’s statement that “Since specific strategies
>> and or objectives have not been established, the vacuum is
>> filled with the implied objective of achieving 50+ state
>> ballot access. While a noble and legitimately political
>> objective, it suffers from several problems; the most
>> significant of which is the problem of being unachievable on
>> a permanent, or even semi-permanent, basis .”
>>
>> The Republican and Democrat Parties have permanent ballot
>> status, because they understand that if they removed ballot
>> access for the other major party in even one state, that
>> “accomplishment” could be turned into a nationwide scandal.
>> But until the LP becomes a major party (1) the Libertarian
>> Party will not have “permanent” ballot access in any state.
>>
>>
>> However, we CAN achieve semi-permanent ballot access in 50
>> states, or darn close to that number. To do that, the LNC
>> needs to stop focusing on October ballot access, and instead
>> focus on December ballot access. That probably means
>> sacrificing ballot access in a few states BEFORE an election
>> in an even-numbered year, and using the money saved to lobby
>> or sue for lower vote tests in states that have ridiculously
>> high vote tests (Alabama and Connecticut come to mind).
>>
>> Scott Lieberman
>>
>> 1. Defined by the FEC, for example, as receiving 25% of the
>> vote for President
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>> <mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Norm
>> Olsen
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2015 11:50 AM
>>
>>
>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit
>>
>> Hello Kevin . . .
>>
>> >> why we should be focusing so many efforts on Oklahoma?
>>
>> I’d like to take a shot at answering your question. I have
>> been asking similar questions for five years now. I could
>> write a book in response. But alas; you ask for a
>> paragraph. And a short one at that. Would I be unreasonable
>> to supply five or six paragraphs?
>>
>> The LNC does not have a specifically defined strategy; nor
>> does it have a stated set of objectives. The indisputable
>> result is that it does not have a list of tactics (i.e. well
>> defined activities) to pursue to achieve any of these
>> undefined objectives. While attempts have been made, I am
>> unaware of any meeting that has established such
>> strategies/objectives or any writing in the bylaws or policy
>> manual that establishes such. (The policy manual lists a set
>> of “core activities”, but that’s about it.)
>>
>> Nevertheless, the LNC is not totally rudderless. There
>> exists an implied basic goal and implied tactics to achieve
>> the implied goal. I became aware of this implied goal
>> (although I did not immediately recognize the significance of
>> it) at my very first LNC meeting in November of 2010 in New
>> Orleans. At that meeting, the following motion was adopted:
>>
>> /https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf/(printed
>> page 17, .pdf page 17):
>>
>> . . . moved to authorize the Executive Committee to encumber
>> expenses for ballot access,
>>
>> notwithstanding the provisions of section 1.05 of the Policy
>> Manual, for the year 2011.
>>
>> [Section 1.05 of the Policy Manual is that section which
>> limits Executive Committee encumbrances to that which has
>> been budgeted.]
>>
>> This motion was made, seconded, *and the question called* in
>> a time frame of about 35 seconds. It was approved by a 11-1
>> roll call vote. This implied goal has been recertified,
>> implicitly, in every budget resolution pass by the LNC in the
>> last 5 years. The Ballot Access Petitioning Expense line
>> typically receives 65% to 85% of the budgeted discretion
>> funds in each year. You participated in the budget
>> discussions of the 2016 budget where Ballot Access
>> Petitioning Expense was allocated 70% of the funds available
>> for allocation among the Policy Manual’s “core activities”.
>>
>> This implied goal, or objective if you prefer, is 50+ state
>> ballot access for the Libertarian party, with some added
>> emphasis on Presidential elections. On the surface, this
>> appears to be a noteworthy objective. However, it has been
>> adopted implicitly rather than explicitly. That is why the
>> question you asked comes up from time to time. Gaining
>> ballot access in all 50 states is the primary focus of the
>> LNC, and remains a primary focus in fundraising efforts.
>> (It’s hard to raise funds to purchase office supplies, much
>> easier to raise funds for ballot access.) And so, given the
>> improved chance to gain ballot access in Oklahoma, even if it
>> is for a single election cycle, it is not surprising that the
>> effort is getting a large share of our attention and
>> resources. Given that this has been the primary focus of
>> what the LNC does, and has been doing for at least two (if
>> not four) decades, it is something we must demonstrate
>> success at or we begin to lose the respect of our members and
>> donors.
>>
>> That answers the primary question, but the leaves the follow
>> up questions begging for an answer.
>>
>> Since specific strategies and or objectives have not been
>> established, the vacuum is filled with the implied objective
>> of achieving 50+ state ballot access. While a noble and
>> legitimately political objective, it suffers from several
>> problems; the most significant of which is the problem of
>> being unachievable on a permanent, or even semi-permanent,
>> basis . Thus, the LNC has a single overpowering objective
>> which is absorbs most all of its resources to achieve, and
>> continued consumption of these resources to maintain to the
>> degree achieved. In other words, a pleasant way of saying an
>> enormous, perpetual, drain on resources which precludes most
>> all other possible uses of financial resources.
>>
>> I have been suggesting for some time now that expending most
>> all of our discretionary funds on ballot access petitioning
>> may not be the best use of the financial resources entrusted
>> to us by our members and donors. For that, I have been
>> unofficially dubbed the “nattering nabob of negativity” of
>> the Libertarian Party. However, things are looking up.
>> Thanks to efforts of the Chair and Executive Director, the
>> 2016 budget includes $45,000 for Affiliate Support, up 4,500%
>> from where it was in 2014. Our Affiliate Support Specialist
>> contractor appears to have made more progress in just three
>> months than the LNC has in the previous six years (since the
>> formation of the Affiliate Support Committee). I look
>> forward to the time when the “core activities” other than the
>> Ballot Access Petitioning activity are allotted equivalent
>> amounts of the financial resources entrusted to us. At that
>> time, the primary question and the follow up questions will
>> both, hopefully, be moot.
>>
>> We have ballot access in 28 states; and ballot access is
>> reasonable (e.g. ~1,000 signatures) in another 10 states.
>> The low hanging fruit in the ballot access arena has been
>> picked. It’s time to start producing political success in the
>> 38 states where we have ballot access or can reasonable
>> obtain such.
>>
>> Norm
>>
>> --
>>
>> Norman T Olsen
>>
>> Regional Representative, Region 1
>>
>> Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> 7931 South Broadway, PMB 102
>>
>> Littleton, CO 80122-2710
>>
>> 303-263-4995 <tel:303-263-4995>
>>
>> *From:*Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>> <mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kevin
>> Ludlow
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:21 PM
>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit
>>
>> Wes,
>>
>> Thank you for this update.
>>
>> I would like to make a request of the LNC body. Is there a
>> member that could, in a short paragraph or less, explain why
>> we should be focusing so many efforts on Oklahoma? As the
>> Region-7 rep I find myself in an interesting position with
>> this issue. On the one hand I am biased to see Oklahoma get
>> additional resources, but on the other hand I am a practical
>> business person who sees numerous flaws with pouring money
>> into this.
>>
>> Do we want ballot access across the country? Of course!
>> This doesn't even need to be discussed. But at what cost are
>> we willing to attain that goal?
>>
>> What is the actual downside of us losing Oklahoma ballot
>> access? I don't fully understand the loss would affects
>> others running in the state, but even if it entirely
>> prevented their own candidacy, how much do we lose with
>> that? This isn't meant to be antagonistic, but rather
>> something the LNC should be tasked with carefully analyzing.
>> There was a lot of conversation that it hurts our brand in
>> Oklahoma (a similar argument was used in Oregon). No doubt
>> this is true, but in Oklahoma specifically, by how much does
>> it hurt us? Do we raise an exorbitant amount of money in OK
>> each year that we might not see in 2016 if we cut our losses?
>>
>> I will refer back to a point I've made before. Would any of
>> you personally spend tends of thousands of dollars of your
>> own money on this cause? I remain extremely frustrated we
>> couldn't even get our own body to commit to $50 / month as
>> top representatives of the Libertarian Party and yet here we
>> are cavalierly about to discuss whether to spend $10s of
>> thousands of additional dollars on a cause which by all
>> accounts we simply may not succeed in. I feel very strongly
>> this is the kind of difficult decision the LNC **should**
>> have to make and it strikes me that we haven't really
>> analyzed the cost/benefits of it. Rather we relying upon the
>> notion of: "we believe in ourselves so let's pour more money
>> into this." ...a la every government pep-talk ever.
>>
>> I will also concede that I fully appreciate and understand
>> the position the party (specifically the Chair) is in for
>> having raised certain monies specifically tied to us making
>> this effort. I do get that. But I'm merely wanting us to
>> consider how much more useful that money could possibly be in
>> other areas. Are we not a political party? Could we not
>> politick donors into understanding WHY the money they donated
>> was ultimately moved to a different state cause? Since
>> everyone is a philosopher here, there is very basic
>> Aristotelian logic at play here regarding donation
>> distribution. In the famed question, "There is a surplus of
>> flutes, to whom do they go?", they go to the flutists as
>> those are the only people who can use them. My point being
>> that there is simply no sense in us pouring money into a
>> cause we cannot win when that money could be given to
>> states/people who can actually improve the overall results of
>> our Party - rather than MAYBE catch us up to the status quo.
>>
>> So to conclude, I am in no way saying we SHOULD cut our
>> losses. But I would really like somebody to quantify for me
>> specifically what we lose (objectively) if we don't chase
>> this goal. Or for that matter if we chase it and fail. I am
>> asking that because I believe the "goal" right now is far too
>> broad; of course we all want ballot access. I want to know
>> if what we would lose is tolerable to the body. That
>> question seems far more relevant in the decision process.
>>
>> Please feel free to email/call/text me any time of day at
>> 512-773-3968 <tel:512-773-3968> with any questions / comments.
>>
>> Thank you much for your time.
>>
>> Kevin Ludlow
>>
>> Region 7
>> 512-773-3968 <tel:512-773-3968>
>>
>> BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Wes Benedict
>> <wes.benedict at lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I went to Oklahoma for two reasons: first, to help with the
>> petition drive, but second, to get a closer look so I could
>> decide if I thought we should just shut it down. We are
>> spending about $2,500 a week there, and we're about to double
>> that rate, so if we are going to cut our losses and end it,
>> the sooner the better.
>>
>> My bottom line report to the LNC executive committee is that
>> I'm confident we can ramp up our signature collection rate
>> enough to finish the drive before the March 1 deadline, but
>> we are going to have to exceed the $65,000 budget for
>> Oklahoma by $15,000 to $25,000 to finish the drive.
>>
>> I'm recommending we try to finish the drive, but it wouldn't
>> be so unreasonable to end it now if that's what you decide to
>> do. Things have gone worse than we had originally planned.
>>
>> We initially hoped that we could do this drive for $2 per
>> signature and that we could finish it by early fall. Recent
>> petition drives in places like Arkansas have gone well, and
>> with stories of petitioners fighting over turf and demanding
>> the opportunity to work for us in some places, it seemed like
>> we might actually be exceeding the market rate for signatures
>> in some cases.
>>
>> But things have been harder than expected in Oklahoma. On
>> October 27, we raised the rate in Oklahoma from $2 to $2.50
>> per signature, and even at that higher rate, finding enough
>> people to work has been a challenge.
>>
>> Before we started the Oklahoma drive, stalwart libertarian
>> petitioner Andy Jacobs warned us that petition drives for
>> initiatives in other states in the fall would be competing
>> with us for workers and would drive up our costs, so we
>> needed to get it done over the summer. Unfortunately, we
>> didn't start until the end of the summer. And while Andy did
>> good work for us in Oklahoma for several weeks, he, as well
>> as other petitioners, have indeed left Oklahoma for the
>> higher paying non-Libertarian Party Petition work in other
>> states that he warned us about. Although Andy is out of
>> Oklahoma now, he does continue to stay interested in our
>> progress and has been generous with suggestions for
>> improvement. I'm sure he'd be happy to share his thoughts on
>> our Oklahoma effort with any of you directly if you reach out
>> to him.
>>
>> One suggestion from Andy is that we should pay more to entice
>> petitioners back and possibly even pay $5 per signature for
>> door to door petitioning. Our petitioners have had hard times
>> finding good locations with lots of the kind of foot traffic
>> that makes for productive petitioning. Door-to-door
>> petitioning can give very high validity signatures, so the
>> $5/signature rate for 100% validity is not so far off from
>> $2.50 per signature for around 65% validity.
>>
>> In hind sight, I wish we had started this drive earlier. But
>> I don't think right now we need to offer a higher pay rate
>> (not that we could afford it, anyway). Instead, we need to
>> focus on recruiting more petitioners, and we are already
>> seeing success from that.
>>
>> Projections I've sent to Bill Redpath and Nick Sarwark show
>> that with the new workers we've already recruited, we will
>> likely finish the drive on time. But we also have several
>> more petitioners saying they will probably be here soon to
>> help, and if just a couple of those pan out, we could finish
>> in January.
>>
>> I've heard lots of complaints from petitioners that it's been
>> very hard to find good locations in Oklahoma to collect
>> signatures. Petitioners have told us the grocery stores won't
>> let them petition, public places like universities and
>> festival grounds have been hostile, and the Oklahoma Driver's
>> licensing places are too numerous to have significant people
>> at any single location.
>>
>> My uncle lives in Oklahoma City. I visited him Saturday night
>> briefly and was surprised when he told me he had seen
>> petitioners lately at the grocery and post office and he
>> assumed they were ours. I asked him exactly which locations
>> because I wondered about the conflicting reports. He
>> specified by name the Crest grocery, Buy For Less grocery,
>> and post office near his home. I had hoped to find time to
>> visit those stores myself to ask why they might be letting
>> petitioners for other efforts work there but not libertarians
>> (assuming that was the case).
>>
>> I didn't find time for that, but LPOK vice chair Tina Kelly
>> has since told me that even she had been personally told by
>> those chains she couldn't petition there, only to find out
>> later that one of the petitioners she recruited somehow did
>> get permission at a location of both chains.
>>
>> I think some of our stalwart petitioners like Andy are used
>> to finding locations where they occasionally hit the jackpot
>> and collect over 500 signatures on a single day. That makes
>> up for the more common slow days. Petitioners who come from
>> out of town usually have transportation and motel expenses
>> they pay out of pocket. Locals don't have the travel overhead
>> and we are getting a few locals working. They may be slower
>> than someone like Andy, but they can go slower and still make
>> the economics work. Locals can spend more time asking for
>> permission at more places and can afford to get chased away
>> from more locations.
>>
>> I personally saw the entire batch of petition forms. That was
>> reassuring. In fact I pulled an all-nighter Monday and
>> scanned all 2,000 sheets in case we need help remotely with
>> validation, and because while often hearing anecdotes of
>> certain petitioners routinely getting better validity than
>> others, I wanted the opportunity to see for myself.
>>
>> LP vice chair Tina Kelly has been indispensable to this
>> drive. Petitioners turn in signatures to her, she gives us
>> the counts, we wire funds, she writes checks, and pays the
>> petitioners. She also visits with the elections authorities
>> to find out important rules and procedures for our petition
>> drive. She has worked to get cooperation from a couple
>> single-issue groups doing ballot initiatives. Although
>> results from those cooperation efforts have been lower than
>> hoped, we’ve gotten a couple thousand signatures from the
>> cooperation.
>>
>> Tina's son recently put the Oklahoma registered voter
>> database online in a searchable format to assist with
>> validity checking. That will be hugely helpful.
>>
>> While Tina has done lots of work, it's hard for one person to
>> do all that she does plus respond to all the complaints from
>> current petitioners and inquiries from prospective
>> petitioners, not to mention answering frequent questions
>> about progress from Bill Redpath and me. We recently decided
>> to have Paul Frankel help with some of the local management
>> assistance. I had gone to Oklahoma with the expectation that
>> I might recommend removing Paul to save money, but right now
>> I think we should keep him at least for a month to make sure
>> new petitioners have someone they can reach quickly any time
>> of day. Later we can reevaluate the cost of having him there.
>>
>> Tina invited me and the LPOK officers and activists to a
>> nice restaurant Tuesday night. I asked who would be a
>> candidate if we got ballot access. Out of about ten people,
>> at least 3 indicated interest, including one who was against
>> attempting this daunting petition drive originally (because
>> it’s so much work), but would run if we made it.
>>
>> I told the prospect who might be interested in US Senate I'd
>> give $200 towards the $1,000 filing fee if he runs in 2016,
>> and someone else quickly offered another $200. I think we’ll
>> get several people to run for office in addition to having
>> our candidate for President on the ballot if we get ballot
>> access.
>>
>> (My plane, where I'm writing most of this note, just landed
>> in DC. Final thoughts below from the office.)
>>
>> I’m not counting on legal help to make a difference in time
>> for us. However, if our counsel or the Oklahoma ACLU is
>> successful in time, of course that might make things easier.
>>
>> I’m also mindful of keeping alive the dream for 50 state
>> ballot access, and the negative impact giving up in Oklahoma
>> now might have.
>>
>> A Libertarian from Austin, Texas, Michael Chastain, donated
>> $4,000 last week to help the Oklahoma petition drive. That’s
>> in addition to the five thousand or so we raised online
>> recently:
>>
>> http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/serious-help-needed-for-oklahoma-petition-drive
>>
>> I rushed out to Oklahoma Saturday partly so I could be back
>> in the office Wednesday to meet Mr. Chastain in person (he
>> was visiting the D.C. area and was interested in visiting the
>> headquarters today--Wednesday).
>>
>> I’ll have more good news about support from Mr. Chastain soon.
>>
>> The LNC-EC is schedule to meet Monday 12/7/2015, to decide
>> whether or not to continue the LPOK drive. I’m sending this
>> info to all of you know in case you’d like more information
>> before that meeting.
>>
>> cc'ing Richard Winger.
>>
>> --
>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ========================================================
>> Kevin Ludlow
>> 512-773-3968 <tel:512-773-3968>
>> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> ========================================================
> Kevin Ludlow
> 512-773-3968
> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151211/7e11881c/attachment.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list