[Lnc-business] Budget motion
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun Sep 25 01:26:57 EDT 2016
On very limited time this evening - but to address part of it - yes.
Members do expect some of their funds to come back to them when needed with
value added. With all due respect - asking "who doesn't benefit from more
federal office holders" (paraphrase) is an inappropriate question since I
never said any such thing and presents a false dichotomy. That is a
deficiency of email. There isn't the instant feedback and benefit of the
full range of communication.
I am going to poll my region and ask them what their ideas and thoughts
are. I believe there is a fundamentally different perspective at times
that comes from the fact that regionals should be intimately connected with
their states and their chairs - putting my perspective very much
affiliate-oriented. That is a healthy counterbalance I think.
I will address more as I have time. This though seems ripe for an in
person goals meeting. Written discussion disproportionately involves you,
me, and Starchild - and Ken :) who are fobd of writing a great deal while
the rest of the committee doesn't. IOW it needs a true deliberative
meeting.
-Caryn Ann
On Saturday, September 24, 2016, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:
> If national is not going to "be national" and do those things that require
> a national level of organization, then, I think, it makes perfect sense for
> states to have no use for national. Why encourage your members to send
> money to national, if all you get out it is the hope that the money might
> come back, at least partially? That is exactly the reason for my overall
> push - to provide support, for all affiliates and members, in a value-added
> way.
>
> Appointing people to federal office is not, of course, the only use of
> national. There is money in the budget for affiliate support. There is
> money for training. I'm suggesting we do this also. No affiliate is going
> to do this work - not because they lack collective supremacy or because I
> have no use for them and think badly of them and am disconnected from them,
> but because none of them have offices and staff in DC. None of them, by
> definition, are national organizations. How, exactly, is it an act of
> disconnection to offer a service, which all affiliates can benefit from,
> and which I think could enhance our electoral standing and ability to place
> our members in office? Which affiliate will suffer from this party having
> more officeholders?
>
> I don't see what it has to do with my motion, but I'm also not going to
> apologize for thinking that the LP ought to act like a party and get people
> into public office. There are many libertarian organizations doing great
> work, and they don't jump through the regulatory hoops we do. We point to
> Adam Smith and tell people the value of division of labor. I suggest we
> let the party do party things, let boards do board things, and stop trying
> to be all things to all people. We are not the libertarian movement, we
> are a small part of it with particular strengths and weaknesses. Moving
> public policy isn't some magic spell, nor is it intended to work magic.
> I'm not looking for a magic bullet. It's simply an observation that those
> who win elections do a lot more governing than those who lose, that most of
> policy making and politics happens between elections (when, coincidentally,
> less people are watching), and that if you intend to repeal laws, it is
> best to actually get yourself into a position to do so.
>
> Times can change, but relationships still matter, networking still
> matters, and things still happen in politics because of who you know and
> who you can call. What has changed is that people are less likely to go
> out to lunch now with members of other parties. They're more shrunk into
> their boxes, unwilling to acknowledge that problems have solutions that
> require more than party loyalty. I think our politics has suffered from
> this, and I'd suggest that the LP should try to restore some of that
> dialogue - from which we benefit disproportionately at the same time.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carynannharlos at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of directions and rationales for national - yet we leave
>> our affiliates without strong support. The breath of fresh air in that is
>> the work and resources that Andy and affiliate support has provided, I
>> believe this is a misdirected vision. I do not think - as some
>> characterize it - we should be a super affiliate - neither should we be so
>> disconnected and basically a DC machine.
>>
>> Federal candidates come from states. We need to be empowering and
>> supporting these states and not be so disconnected.
>>
>> If we keep having so little interface and use for the affiliates and the
>> proper view of their collective supremacy we shouldn't be surprised when
>> they have little use for national. We are the tail and not the dog. At
>> least that is my view.
>>
>> I don't quite yet have my finger on what I think the solution is but I
>> have made no secret of the fact that I ran partly because I saw a lukewarm,
>> at best, opinion of national - and that needs to change,
>>
>> I am not discounting Joshua's view - but I would like to see the LP be a
>> revolutionary force in trying new ways of dealing and not the same old same
>> old political power structures.
>>
>> Times are changing. DC lunch schmoozing is the old way,
>>
>> And neglecting our educational mandate is a huge mistake. We will not
>> move any policy of we have not tilled the fertile soil and planted
>> libertarian ideas. "Moving public policy in a libertarian direction" has
>> become an invocation in my view that is expected to work magic and little
>> time it seems is spent on what exactly means.
>>
>> Just throwing thoughts out there.
>>
>> On Saturday, September 24, 2016, Patrick McKnight <
>> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com');>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Josh,
>>>
>>> These are two excellent ideas for national to focus on.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Patrick McKnight
>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>
>>> On Sep 25, 2016 12:32 AM, "Joshua Katz" <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Background: Total actual rvenue less actual cost of support and
>>>> fundraising YTD, minus budgeted program expenditures, will be $75,243 if
>>>> the two email ballots on the budget pass. This is money in hand above what
>>>> is budgeted.
>>>>
>>>> I will move to increase the following lines:
>>>> Litigation: add $14,000
>>>> Candidate, Campaign, and Initiatives: add $27,000.
>>>> Create a new line item under program expenditures labeled "Appointments
>>>> and DC Relations" and budget $20,000.
>>>>
>>>> The remainder of actual unbudgeted revenue, and much of any additional
>>>> revenue that comes in this year, should, in my view, be used to pay down
>>>> the mortgage.
>>>>
>>>> Rationale: Litigation is going to go over budget if email motions
>>>> pass. Candidate, Campaign, and Initiatives will go over budget if email
>>>> motions pass.
>>>>
>>>> As you know, I favor "let national be national" and doing more of the
>>>> things that only a national organization of our size can do. Here are two
>>>> of those things: court the DC press corps, and get our members appointed
>>>> to federal offices. There is enough money in media, I think, to make an
>>>> increased push at the press corps. In support of getting our members
>>>> appointed to federal offices, I'd like to see staff build relationships
>>>> with friendly staffers in the Senate. Similarly, we could host luncheons
>>>> at HQ for MoCs and staff. At the same time, what I'd like to do is build a
>>>> database of LP members who seek federal appointed office, are serious about
>>>> making a move if an opportunity arises, and have serious, credible resumes
>>>> for the positions. When offices open up, these relationships will mean
>>>> staff can quickly get an opportunity to place a serious resume in front of
>>>> a staffer working for a Senator on the appropriate committee.
>>>>
>>>> Service in appointed positions will put our members in positions to
>>>> change public policy. It will also put them in a position to run for
>>>> elected office after their service with an additional qualification under
>>>> their belts. Building these relationships and making those appointments
>>>> happen is something only a party with a serious structure and a DC presence
>>>> can do. This is the right thing to do. To make it happen, we need to
>>>> budget for the costs of those lunches, for the staff time to do these
>>>> tasks, and for associated costs.
>>>>
>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org');>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business at hq.lp.org');>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160924/235bf950/attachment.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list