[Lnc-business] Event funding

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Absolutely agree on every count.

and I do expect that more requests will come in, and that are there more
requests that should be considered

and it is back before the LNC precisely because there is no apparatus in
place.  Wes did not want to unilaterally make this decision and Nick also
has a potential conflict due to his prior ties with Colorado.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm using a different subject because this isn't about the merits of the
> motion to support a booth at RiotFest.  Rather, these are questions that I
> see as arising from that motion.
>
> My first question would be - if we do this (and on the merits it strikes
> me as something worth doing) we'll be asked to fund a number of such
> events.  It seems to me that, as a matter of board governance, we should
> come up with an overall strategy that informs such decisions.  If we can
> clarify the purpose of the LNC putting money and personnel into a booth at
> an event such as this, it may guide future decisions.
>
> Which leads me to my next question - while no other apparatus exists for
> this at the moment, this doesn't look to me like the kind of question that
> needs to come before a national board.  I would suggest that, since I do
> expect these requests to continue coming if we fund this one, we build some
> intervening structures, or make use of ones that exist (maybe affiliate
> support?), empower them within a budget (outreach?  affiliate support?  a
> new line?), and give instructions based on my first question above.
>
> Next - I have to admit that I am uncomfortable with a board motion
> specifying that a particular employee be sent to a particular place with a
> particular task.  That looks far too much like a management task to me, and
> I see a lot of potential for conflict if the board gets in the habit of
> doing that sort of thing.  It creates uncertainty for management if we
> swoop in and start moving staff members around.  Rather, I'd like to see a
> broad directive to staff to support these endeavors in such ways, and leave
> prioritization and decisions about who to send where up to management and,
> at times, the chair.  I think this, also, feeds back into my main point
> about board governance vs. management.
>
> So I suppose what I am suggesting is that, in addition to whatever we
> decide to do on RiotFest, the LNC adopt a strategy, explicitly, regarding
> this sort of endeavor (we can define "this sort" as broadly as we think
> useful) and our strategic reasons for getting involved, of the sort that
> can inform an empowered committee and staff, rather than face the potential
> of the national board sorting through these sorts of requests - and, let's
> not forget, it's possible that there will be strategically useful events
> for which no request is made, but a committee established for that purpose
> might find them and suggest to the affiliate that a presence should be
> established there, and that funding will be available.
>
> 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
(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160623/81379a5e/attachment-0002.html>