[Lnc-business] Starchild's email re: ballot access

[Joshua Katz]

I am sure you all have received Starchild's email, which contained
forwarded emails by Mr. Riemers, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Benedict, which was
sent this morning.  Rather than hitting "reply all" there, I thought it
would be best to reply via the business list.

Beginning from the top:  First of all, it is not true that a single
individual is making unilateral decisions on ballot access.  Ultimately,
all action is taken by this board or its EC.  I would favor having more
empowered committees with independent powers of action, but it's not what
we have at the moment.  Instead, we have people and committees reporting to
the board.  Following the allocation of money by the board, staff expends
that money in keeping with the Policy Manual provisions.

Regarding contracts:  LNC members do not need to guess at their contents;
board members have the right to inspect corporate records after signing a
non-disclosure agreement.  Mr. Jacobs says that Mr. Tuttle received an
advance, but points only to a cash-basis report; for all I know, that
payment is a delayed payment for some past activity.  Mr. Tuttle, via Mr.
Riemers, denies receiving an advance.  I will separately request from staff
a copy of this contract but, in keeping with the NDA, I will not discuss
its provisions publicly.  I do not agree that they should be public.  It
disadvantages both the party (which is harmed in its negotiation position)
and staff/contractors (who suffer a loss of privacy) to make such things
public in the broad sense.

A lot of ink seems, to me, to be spilled in response to misunderstandings
of what a board ought to do.  A board is not management; a board provides
governance.  I can certainly understand why there is misunderstanding on
this point; the LNC micromanages and often fails to provide governance for
the party.  The response is not to conclude that this is what the board
should do, but rather, in my view, for the LNC to stop doing that and to
start governing.  I provided an example of this the other day regarding
messaging.  A better board governance model would, I think, make for a far
more effective party and LNC.  Instead, we adopt goals, drag them out every
once in a while, but, by and large, fail to adopt policies related to our
goals, fail to establish mechanisms to see our goals carried out, and fail
to tie accountability and reviews to our goals.  I would like to see us do
a better job of creating a joint vision, transmitting that vision to those
who look to us for leadership, and establishing procedures and structures
to support our vision.

One thing the board did do was form a ballot access committee.  I note that
forming such a committee most certainly does not mean that individuals
cannot come to the LNC with proposals; we didn't establish any rules about
automatic referral of matters to this committee.  It does mean that we as a
board expressed a desire to have a small group work together to research
questions related to ballot access and to present their recommendations to
the board.  That doesn't stop anyone from also presenting recommendations.
I have expressed an interest in, from a strategic point of view (I claim no
special knowledge or expertise in tactics), reviewing the way we view
ballot access, its role in our priority structure, and the way we make
decisions about it.  These are questions that this committee may well
consider, although it hasn't been instructed to do so.  I will ask at the
next meeting, then, the means by which this committee operates and what it
does consider.  In fact, the Policy Manual directs all committees formed by
the LNC to report their meetings and attendance at each meeting.

Ballot access is the single largest item in our budget.  Much of our
activity as a board relates to allocating money to it, primarily because
Mr. Redpath invests the time and effort to determine what should be done
and to present it to the board.  I know I am very grateful that he does
so.  Part of governing this party is handling ballot access properly, not
just in terms of how much money is spent where, but in terms of governing
and overseeing the ways it is carried out.  This board should not be
designing tactical models for achieving ballot access in particular states;
we are not chosen for any specific expertise in doing so (although some of
our members have a lot of expertise), and doing so is not the job of a
board.  Doing so would, in fact, prevent us from doing our job - if we
designed the plan ourselves, we would be in a poor decision to review it.
What we ought to be doing is setting clearer objectives - it seems we want
50 state ballot access, but how much do we want it?  What will we give up
for it?  How do we wish, as a board, for agreements to be structured?  What
should be the overall strategy when fundraising for these activities?  As I
said about messaging - give staff overall strategic direction, let them
figure out how best to achieve the goals we set out (that's why we hire
people, after all), and review whether or not our objectives were met, and
if not, why not.  It is incorrect to believe that the LNC ought to be
setting out each detail of how a drive in South Dakota works; it is also
incorrect to allocate the money and ignore what happens next.

I would disagree with the idea of creating a parallel structure within the
party for ballot access.  Not only would this create massive
inefficiencies, I don't understand how it would work.  Do we imagine that
targeted donations for ballot access entirely fund that activity, allowing
that part of the party to have its own funding mechanism (this is not the
case, and I think, unlikely to be the case in the near future) or would the
LNC budget money to this alternate structure and lose the ability to
exercise oversight?  It makes no sense to me to invent ways for the party
to do a poorer job of allocating resources to needs.

Furthermore, such a proposal takes us further from the question of
determining how scarce resources are to be divided between different goals,
not closer.

I agree with Mr. Riemers that our ballot access efforts need to be better
organized, in the governance sense.  I do not know, or pretend to know, the
best tactics for winning ballot access, and I think this board is wise to
leave such questions to those who do.  The board must deal with matters of
resource allocation, determining priorities, and oversight of the
contractual relationships entered into in pursuit of ballot access.  Part
of the way it deals with these is by setting up appropriate structures,
such as the Ballot Access Committee, peopled by those who do know best on
these topics.  I would hope that this committee will take up these matters
and make recommendations; I would prefer if the committee were empowered to
exercise oversight directly on contracts and arrangements.  I would also
note that the LNC can direct the committee to take up these questions and
recommend procedures.

Here, then, is my vision:  A board which limits itself to proper board
functions, and does them well, not pretending to knowledge it lacks, but
taking advantage of knowledge held by its members and by party members at
large through strong, empowered committees.  A board willing to tackle hard
questions without being terrified of offending one another, so that
important points can be raised and the best decision reached.  Conversely,
a board willing to tackle hard questions without making it personal.  A
board exercising a strong oversight and accountability function, but not
trying to direct and plan every activity engaged in by the party, staff,
and committees.

Such an arrangement would give us a stronger LNC, one which does not waste
time on triviality but which, instead, addresses critical issues relevant
to governing the party, financial oversight, and measuring progress towards
our strategic goals.  It would let us devote more of our time, as a group,
to winning elections than to reinventing wheels.  I would also like to see
a party that prioritizes moving policy in a liberty direction by electing
officials to public office over scoring points on ourselves; a leaner, more
effective board providing good oversight and accountability can help us get
there.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160206/94fb80eb/attachment-0001.html>