[Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit
Wes Benedict
wes.benedict at lp.org
Fri Dec 11 11:24:08 EST 2015
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, wes.benedict at lp.org
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
> 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/20151211/41f527df/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list