[Lnc-business] Completing agenda for the upcoming meeting

[Daniel Wiener]

I am also not happy to learn at this very late date that we will only be
having one (very long) Saturday meeting, after I booked a Sunday night
flight back to California.  I was not able to get a non-stop flight at that
early-evening time, whereas I could easily have gotten a (cheaper) non-stop
flight earlier in the day.  Or I could have gotten a red-eye flight on
Saturday night and saved the cost of a hotel night.

Dan Wiener

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I will be driving to the meeting, so it is no skin off my back if I go
> home earlier.  I expect that others, though, might not be thrilled about
> traveling for a one-day meeting, and likely have booked flights leaving
> later on Sunday in anticipation of meeting.  I do see a logistical issue
> with meeting until 6:30 when we have an event at 7PM, which will not allow
> people time to have dinner.  That could be resolved, I guess, with a
> working dinner.
>
> I do want to point out that, back when the plans for this meeting were
> first sent out, I raised a concern about meeting on Sunday in the office.
> I pointed out at that time that, when I had suggested meeting at the office
> for a previous meeting, I had been told (correctly, as I surmised when I
> looked around the basement) that the LNC, let alone spectators, would not
> fit in the basement.  I suggested at that time that, either we had decided
> we could meet there, in which case we might as well meet there on Saturday
> and Sunday, or we had come to no such decision, in which case it seemed
> rather silly to plan to meet there.  The response I got then, which seemed
> reasonable, was that the idea had been reconsidered (not using the
> parliamentary meaning here) and that the fact of the hotel meeting room
> being available for only one day presented an opportunity to experiment.
> However, if we enjoy having this opportunity to experiment, why are we now
> trying to avoid that very experiment?  If, in fact, meeting in the basement
> is a bad idea and no such experiment is indicated, why didn't we rethink
> this plan and use a different hotel?
>
> It is an entirely separate matter, yet one worth reminding ourselves from
> time to time, that the previous LNC didn't think that having sufficient
> meeting space was a necessary parameter for an office (and that they called
> it a building, and told donors they were buying a building.)
>
> All of the foregoing, of course, would be irrelevant if we legitimately
> had nothing to talk about.  We could hear reports read, do something
> regarding a logo (I hesitate to say finish the selection, since we have
> believed so many times that would happen only to be disappointed,) and
> choose a General Counsel in one day.  However, we are the board of a
> corporation which has been steadily bleeding members, donors, and money.
> If I could afford to be a major donor, and I knew that fact, and then I
> read on this transparent email list that all we need to discuss at our
> meeting is these three things, I can assure you that no money would flow
> from my pocket.  It is the job of a board to provide a strategic vision to
> an organization and to diligently conduct its governance, while staff
> fulfills the management function (except that we make our Chair our CEO as
> well.)  I do not believe we are fulfilling these responsibilities.  I do
> not believe we are effectively governing the affairs of this organization,
> transmitting a successful vision, and translating that vision into
> success.  We strove, at our first meeting, also in Virginia, to provide
> goals and metrics for their achievement.  If the results we see are not
> pleasant, I would suggest that we need to revisit our priorities, design a
> different strategic vision, or find a different way to turn it into
> action.  First, though, we need to identify where the problem is.  I am not
> basing this conclusion on my personal opinion:  as a libertarian, I believe
> in markets, and I see markets speaking to us.  Our members and donors are
> either not inspired by our vision, or not convinced that our governance
> will lead to successful execution.  I think this is more important than
> spending yet more time on our logo, and than ending our meeting early.
>
> Speaking of which, regardless of my own feelings on our logo (to summarize
> - I am not a graphic designer, so I have no real opinion except that I like
> Rosie, and that the model for Rosie recently died in my own state of
> Connecticut) I was disappointed that we did not choose a logo last time.  I
> say this not because I'm in a rush to choose a new logo or to rebrand all
> our materials, but because it did not inspire a feeling in me that we were
> successfully leading.  We had reached out quite a bit to our members at
> that point, from the time of soliciting suggestions to the time of  seeking
> opinions prior to our in-person meeting in Phoenix, and I felt (as I said
> on that call) that it was time for the leaders to lead and make a
> decision.  Going back to the members was, in my opinion, a mistake - a very
> small one, but an example of us, as a board, being too nice, too
> solicitous, too afraid of overstepping or doing something wrong.  If the
> first Libertarian-controlled Congress is in office when a meteor is heading
> towards the Earth, I hope that Congress will not fail to act because it
> needs to consult, yet again, with constituents, thus wiping out all chance
> for future freedom along with all chance for human life.  I hope that the
> first Libertarian Congress will not be responsible for an apocalypse of any
> kind, whether zombies are included or not.
>
> Now, hemorrhaging supporters and members would be serious at any time, but
> it is, in my opinion, far more serious at the present moment.  I will
> enumerate the things that make it more concerning now than it would be at
> other times.  First, every major poll shows, when not inflamed by the
> passion of the moment (such as the call for regulations on fireworks
> because someone set one off on his head, or the passage of any law with a
> child's name in it) that the American public is veering more libertarian.
> I do not regard libertarianism as a binary, and even if I did, it would
> probably be false to say that more libertarians now exist, but there are
> more libertarian feelings roaming around looking for hosts.  The American
> people are uncharacteristically angry - at large corporations that spend
> their bailout money designing weapons for unprovoked wars of aggression, at
> a government that insists on inserting its blue-shirted, latex-gloved hand
> into their bedroom, their bakery, their bathroom, their wallet, and their
> healthcare, at being coerced to purchase products then being taxed on the
> subsidy provided to enable them to do so - and most of all, at the
> Republicans and the Democrats.  John McCain quipped that there are only two
> groups in politics that are unpopular - the Republicans and the Democrats.
> This is the moment, the opportunity - and yet we are shrinking.  This means
> we are not falling because we are getting swept under in a tide of
> unpopularity - it is our organization specifically that is faltering.
>
> Second, we are heading into a Presidential year.  We did not budget a
> surplus this year to provide for that Presidential year.  If we were to
> fall below budget, this would be doubly troubling.  It is true that we are
> equipped with our best-ever starting ballot access - but that makes it all
> the more embarrassing if we do not achieve a good amount of ballot access
> in December.
>
> So what needs to be discussed?  I would suggest:
> 1.  A simplified strategic vision, with metrics
> 2.  Finding the hole
> 3.  How to plug it
> 4.  A serious talk about our goals for ballot access and how best to
> achieve them - one that is not mired in "more is better."
> 5.  Optimal staffing levels
>
> I applaud the Chair, by the way, for making calls and encouraging us to do
> the same.  My next email will be to Mr. Benedict on that topic.  I do hope
> that we can come up with a better plan to reassure our donors, bring back
> donors and members, and display our successful vision than making a point
> of asking for money more.  Certainly, it is good to ask, and we should be
> asking more than we currently are - but we also need to provide more
> reasons to say yes, in my view.
>
> Joshua Katz
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I should be sending the proposed agenda out to the list tonight.  If you
>> have agenda items you would like added, please email the list or myself
>> directly.
>>
>> The major items other than reports that I anticipate for the agenda are:
>>
>> - Final logo selection
>> - Selection of a new General Counsel
>>
>> Due to our not having the meeting room at the hotel on Sunday, I have
>> been asked to try to complete the business by the end of the Saturday
>> session.  Suggestions include starting at 8:30 am, having a working lunch,
>> and adjourning as late as 6:30 pm.  I'm open to any or all of these ideas,
>> but will defer to the body if anyone has strong objections.
>>
>> Also, please get your reports to the Secretary and Mr. Kraus if you would
>> like them to be included in the binder.
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> 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
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>


-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150707/1333382b/attachment-0002.html>