[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