[Lnc-business] Event funding

[Sam Goldstein]

I believe that efforts of this nature properly fall under the purview of
the Affiliate Support Committee, which has a budget and could implement a
mechanism for evaluating and implementing requests from state parties for
event support.  The LNC does not have time nor does it need to micro-mange
to the point of approving funding at this level.

I agree with Mr. Katz that the LNC should not involve itself in assigning
staff to certain functions and/or events.  That is the job of the Chair and
the ED.

Thanks and

Live Free,



Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
Member at Large
8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
Indianapolis IN 46260
317-850-0726 Phone
317-582-1773 Fax

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:36 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160624/6c024c22/attachment-0002.html>