[Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit

[Kevin Ludlow]

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> 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, 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> 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] *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>https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf
>> <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-drive>
>> 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
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ========================================================
> Kevin Ludlow
> 512-773-3968
> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://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
>
>


-- 
========================================================
Kevin Ludlow
512-773-3968
http://www.kevinludlow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20151211/618c9c55/attachment-0002.html>