[Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit

[Tim Hagan]

Goals were set at the September 2014 LNC meeting. You are correct that we need a system to remind us or have easily accessible items like goals.
DISCUSSION OF LNC GOALS FOR 2014 AND THE 2014-2016 TERM 

Following a relatively informal discussion of potential goals, Mr. McMahon moved that the LNC adopt the following 6 goals for this term:

1.  1000 candidates in 2016 
2.  Take action to see that each state has an operational affiliate by June 1, 2015
3.  300 candidates by 2016 trained in “Who’s Driving” or something equivalent 
4.  Updated issue-based outreach literature 
5.  38-state, party-status ballot access as of December 1, 2016 
6.  200 elected Libertarian officials in December, 2016 

The motion was adopted without objection. 

Tim Hagan

      From: Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com>
 To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org 
 Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 9:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit
   
Fair enough.  Thanks for pointing me to that.  I will read over all of those minutes.

Provided what you're pointing me to answers that question then perhaps what we lack is simply documentation organizing these strategies.  I know we have some reports being generated, but a simple mechanism to steer ourselves seems like it would be of value rather than having to sift through minutes.  Still, I'm happy to do it and perhaps will propose a better system at our next LNC meeting.

Thanks again.
Kevin

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:

 

 The LNC discussed, debated, and adopted specific goals this term, not the "implied goals" Mr. Olsen refers to. It was probably before you joined the LNC. I realize you joined to replace another member that resigned. 
 
 They're in at least one of the minutes here: http://www.lp.org/leadership/lnc-meeting-archives
 
 You might want to read all of the minutes for this term, because they have a lot about ballot access in them, as well as other things. 
 
 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 12/11/2015 11:59 AM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
  
     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  (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 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 list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
 
 
    
 _______________________________________________
 Lnc-business mailing list
 Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
 http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
 
 
  
 
 
 -- 
     ========================================================
 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
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
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 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/c8976416/attachment-0002.html>