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

[Wes Benedict]

Per request, I sent a copy of the  contract to Mr. Katz.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
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 2/6/2016 7:26 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:
> 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)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160208/4086215f/attachment-0002.html>