[Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit

[Scott L.]

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] On Behalf Of Norm
Olsen
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:50 AM
To: 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

 

From: Lnc-business [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
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 with
any questions / comments.

 

Thank you much for your time.

Kevin Ludlow

Region 7 
512-773-3968

 

 

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

 

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Wes Benedict <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-driv
e

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. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20151207/db41e9f1/attachment-0002.html>