[Lnc-business] agenda business items

Joshua Katz planning4liberty at gmail.com
Mon Feb 8 14:01:09 EST 2016 

Hi Kevin.  I feel a bit odd that I get to respond to this in the early
afternoon because work is canceled today.  It makes me feel like a young
kid (I know, I look like one too, thanks in advance for that) to have a
"snow day."  In fact, not only is work canceled, but so is government, in
that my Planning Commission meeting tonight is canceled.  Each day that the
legislature is not in session is one day less when each person is
imperiled.  I kid - mostly...

Anyway, on to your points.

1.  I don't claim to be an expert on websites.  Neither are any of us, so
far as I know.  I think you are the closest, and I don't know if you'd call
yourself an expert.  As I suggested about messaging the other day, that's
only a problem if we, for some odd reason, abandon being a board and,
instead, decide to things we were not elected to do and are not qualified
to do - in this case, web design.  If you tell me the website is no good,
fine, I'll believe you.  Since we don't have a web-developer on staff, I
agree, we should hire a firm to update it.  I think the money is present in
plenty of lines - you could use advertising, or IT, or outreach, or
probably a few others.  (If by some chance you're wrong, presumably a third
party web designer would say "hey, what you have looks good" and collect a
small fee.)

The only parliamentary roadblock I can see is that this matter may be in
the hand of the IT committee.  The remedy to that is a motion to remove it
from their hand.  That motion would, I think, require a 2/3 vote, or a
majority vote of the LNC, or a majority if the deadline for a report was
missed (this might be the case) or a majority if made during a report of
the committee.  I would agree that something seems off if you took your
clients through this process in 2 months and we have not achieved it in 18
or so months.  Perhaps someone from the IT committee can explain what went
wrong.

2.  I agree that this party suffers from a credibility problem, but I do
not think it comes from our Presidential candidates.  It is simply not the
case, in my experience, that any large number of people are rejecting the
LP because of who seeks our nomination.  Sometimes a candidate seeking our
nomination receives a lot of media attention, which could have that effect,
but it's relatively rare.  I think we're locating the problem in the wrong
place.  Think of candidates seeking our nomination as job-seekers.  We
don't judge Microsoft on the basis of who sends applications in when an
opening is advertised.

That aside, I disagree that the LNC has the right or the responsibility to
govern our candidates.  Most of us point to the RNC or DNC interfering in
their nomination processes as examples of what is wrong with those parties,
and I think we're right to do so.  The nomination is made by the
convention, and this board has no right, and hence no obligation, to
interfere with a decision by a higher authority (the delegates).  This is
why, in my view, the bylaws give us no power over nominations.  (The LNC
does have some power after the nomination, but not before.)

What we can control is our own role.  For instance, the chair has given
staff instructions on listing candidates on our website:  to be listed,
candidates must have a website, have filed with the FEC (or refused to do
so), have a photo, meet Constitutional requirements to be President, and
meet LP requirements to be our nominee.  I've previously mentioned my
unease with this specific set of requirements, in particular that failing
to file would be a reason to not list some candidates, while others who
have not filed can still be listed, my point being that this list fails to
be objective enough, in my view.  The LNC could certainly supersede this
and substitute our own requirements for listing.  We could also, as we have
done in the past, simply not list candidates, and not get involved in the
perception that some candidates have our blessing (which is not what we do
when we have requirements, but it appears that way to some).

In fact, to the extent that this is an issue for our credibility, I would
suggest it is such precisely because of the ways we have gotten involved.
Democrats.org does not maintain a listing of candidates; it maintains a
list of Republican candidates.  Here is a small sample of the candidates
seeking the Democratic nomination:  Forrest Gump, Larry Ellis Ealy, Anus
The Goat, Barack Obama Mandela, Vermin Supreme.  GOP.com, on the other
hand, has an article explaining their nomination process, a straw-poll
(with no claim that the list there is exhaustive), and, oddly, a main link
to an attack page on Hillary Clinton.  Here are some Republican candidates:
 Turk Yoleninetimes Fratterson, Adam Leili, Lucy Chimi Lilpup, Donald
Trump.

Does anyone think that the Democratic Party isn't serious because the DNC
doesn't tell Vermin Supreme to get that boot off his head?  The Democratic
Party just doesn't play that game, and perhaps we shouldn't either.  Our
choices are to use objective criteria, list no one, or to list anyone who
wants to be listed.  I don't like the latter, and the former is hard to use
to capture what is meant.  The DNC and RNC, in fact, simply sanction
debates, but do not conduct them themselves.  There are criteria set for
those, and one could reasonably trace them back to the parties for giving
their sanction.  We have an advantage in that we don't sanction debates;
there is one held at the convention, but that is not an LNC production.
This is also probably a good thing.  They use popularity; we are engaged in
two lawsuits challenging the use of popularity as a cut-off for debate
inclusion because debate inclusion is what lets candidates get popular.
We'd be stuck if we had to set criteria for that, too - not because we're
mean, but because we want to give candidates a fair shake without letting
anyone who feels like it get in the way.

If, like the Democrats and Republicans, you don't want the LP judged by who
seeks its nomination, and I think that's fair, in my mind, the solution for
the LNC to be less involved with the selection of a nominee, not more.

Failing that, we could establish, as I said, different rules for being
listed on our site, but we absolutely could not, and should not, set up
rules for who may be nominated.  We could say that they need photos with
ties, for instance - and then someone will come forward with a tie wrapped
around their head.  We could say that their website needs to be
professional, and then we'll have someone submit a link to us for their
assassination services.  Why not, instead, trust the market at least as
much as the Democrats and Republicans do, and trust our candidates to find
our delegates themselves, campaign for themselves, and not feel the need
for the LNC to promote candidates, cull the herd, or involve ourselves in
any way, other than, as Mr. Wiener previously suggested, circulating a
contract and letting delegates know who has signed it prior to the
convention?  That seems perfectly legitimate, as the party has an interest
in making a good agreement and having it done quickly.


Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:

> All:
>
> I'm going to guess that I lack the ability to craft these motions in a way
> that will satisfy the nuances of our process.  I don't think this makes
> them any less relevant or necessary; I think it just illustrates that I'm
> not as good at politics as many of you are.  So with that, I would like to
> ask for some help - publicly in this discussion thread - about how we can
> address these.
>
> 1) Our website is a joke.  I mean a real, horrible, laughable, "maybe it's
> 1996 and the www portion of the internet has just been unleashed" joke.
> It's got ridiculous internal ads all over it.  It's terribly organized.  It
> uses bad images.  It has an outdated font, not great font colors, and
> antiquated font-spacing and sizing.  It barely functions on mobile
> devices.  It's full of information it doesn't need to have.  It conveys
> that we're not a serious organization.
>
> As I mentioned to some of you in previous months when discussing this, I
> just took two non-profits I work with from start to finish with new
> websites.  I facilitated the conversations with multiple 3rd party vendors,
> selected one within days, created the deadlines for them, and then worked
> as the point of contact to ensure they were built, tested, and rolled out.
> Both of these from start to finish took less than 2 months.  One was
> $15,000, the other was about $12,000.  We have we not been able to do that
> in 24 months?
>
> This can be done and it should be done.  It is incredibly simple.  We
> could pay for it with so many different budget strategies I don't even know
> where to begin.  How can we accomplish this?  How would THIS body like to
> put it on the agenda?
>
> If the solution is to spend more time talking about the details then I'm
> not interested and I'll just proceed with my original motion.  We are
> supposed to be a high-level governing body.  How do we allocate $20k and
> give this to a 3rd party to have it built?
>
> 2) It's bad enough that we are excluded from most media discussion.  I
> commended Nick on his on-camera interview a few weeks back.  It was great.
> Unfortunately such interviews only happen once in a Blue Moon.  My point
> being that we are not taken seriously.  We are neither seen as a threat to
> other parties nor much of an beacon to voters angry with the two parties.
>
> Derrick Michael Reid appears to be dressed in a union soldier costume on
> his website.  ...which is only slightly better than if he appeared to be
> dressed as a confederate soldier.  Ms. Sterling's headshot isn't even a
> real proportion.  It's actually stretched tall on our site and on her own
> website.
>
> I really have no idea what the language needs to be to correct this kind
> of behavior, but I firmly believe that the LNC has both the right and the
> responsibility to govern our candidates.  They serve to provide an
> impression of our party.  Most of my friends are not Libertarians (few are
> very politically engaged at all).  When they see many of our candidates,
> they actually laugh out loud.  I hear this commonly from people.  Yes it's
> anecdotal, but this is a subjective matter and therefore relevant.  I
> cannot imagine any of you can take some of these candidates seriously.
> This presents a even worse PR problem for the LP than it already has.
>
> I realize everyone is paranoid that creating rules will allow us to remove
> people who are unpopular (Austin Peterson for example) which is not at all
> my intent.  So you guys tell me, from the point of view of living in the
> real world, the one that has newspapers, and media stories, and where PR
> matters and people think with their emotions and don't philosophize all
> day, how do we fix these two specific problems that I listed and ensure
> that this body has a process in place for addressing it in the future?
>
> I would be happy with the LNC making a motion directing Ms. Sterling to
> provide a proper headshot and to Mr. Reid altering the content of his
> website consistent with the professionalism that we should be pushing for.
>
> Am I really the only person on our board who has a problem with these
> things?
>
> Thanks very much.
> Kevin Ludlow
> Region 7 Rep
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Happy to do that, Sam.
>>
>> Is the intent to provide the specific motion to the group? I thought all
>> I was asking for was time on the agenda thus allowing me time to present a
>> Motion at the meeting.
>>
>> If I need to or it is strongly suggested that I provide motions then I
>> can do so now.  I figured they would get amended anyways in session so the
>> broad idea would suffice.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 8, 2016, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin,
>>>
>>> You might want to develop your ideas into formal motions to give the
>>> committee a basis of discussion in
>>> your time allotments rather than just opened ended ramblings.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perfect.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks guys.  I'd like to have the following two items put on the
>>>> agenda:
>>>>
>>>> 1) I would like 30 minutes to discuss allocating $20,000 for the
>>>> purpose hiring an outside software firm to redesign and launch the
>>>> lp.org website.  I would note that if we took action on this on
>>>> February 20th, a fully functional site could be in place 4-6 weeks before
>>>> the National Convention.
>>>>
>>>> 2) I would like 20 minutes to discuss creating stricter standards for
>>>> our presidential candidates.  Namely, I would like to make it a requirement
>>>> that our candidates submit a professional headshot, bio, and website before
>>>> being permitted to be considered a nominee of the Libertarian Party.  I
>>>> would also like to introduce a motion whereby the LNC can vote in 2/3rd
>>>> majority to remove any candidate from the nomination process based upon
>>>> subjective criteria including, but not limited to, their professional
>>>> demeanor, their headshot, and/or their candidate website (or lack thereof
>>>> one). (and yes, I'm referring to the absurdity that is Totaliarian
>>>> Democracy, although Ms. Sterling isn't doing us any favors either).
>>>>
>>>> That's all.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Sam Goldstein <
>>>> goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But be aware that motions submitted in advance have different
>>>>> rules/priorities than motions submitted
>>>>> without prior notice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you (or any other LNC member) would like items added to the agenda,
>>>>>> just send me an email with the topic and the time requested.  It is
>>>>>> often advisable to send a motion out ahead of time to the LNC Business
>>>>>> list so people have time to consider it before the meeting, but it's
>>>>>> also in order to make a motion at the meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > Mr. Chair,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Could you (or staff) let me know when would be the appropriate time
>>>>>> for me
>>>>>> > to request items on our upcoming Phoenix agenda.  I have a few
>>>>>> topics that I
>>>>>> > would like to have come up for discussion and potentially a vote.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Do I need to have motions distributed in advance of the meeting or
>>>>>> can I
>>>>>> > present these in Phoenix?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Thanks very much!
>>>>>> > Kevin
>>>>>> > LNC Region 7 Rep
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > ========================================================
>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ========================================================
>> Kevin Ludlow
>> 512-773-3968
>> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ========================================================
> 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/20160208/9b038d4c/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list