[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-01: Riot Fest

Mon Jun 27 09:01:02 EDT 2016

Joshua,

I think you raise excellent criteria.  And on the budget line, that is
likely a better allocation though I believe AS works too.

To the specfic closing question, I will ask LPCO's Outreach Director but I
believe that line refers to attendees not vendors.  Non profit vendors will
be able to hand out things, that is what they do.  Notice also in that list
is "things for sale" but vendors can sell things.  I will have to go check
that FAQ- what people were prohibited?  Is it something that raises concern?

In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative
(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)

*PS: remember, please sign your emails... the sender information is often
unclear when this goes to the public list, and the members can have a hard
time keeping track of who said what, and they deserve to know.*

On Monday, June 27, 2016, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:

> It was I; I expressed a concern about this opening the door to many
> requests.  I don't think that's an argument, by itself, for not doing it.
> I think it's an argument for being clear about why we are doing it, or not
> doing it, in order to provide guidance for future requests, for which I
> think we should establish a structure other than motions in the LNC.
>
> In that comment, I also raised some questions about what budget to use,
> pondering affiliate support vs. outreach.  It's clear why outreach is
> reasonable, I think.  Affiliate support makes sense to me too - when
> national assists in a project like this, it brings in volunteers and
> attracts attention.  It's a collaboration which strengthens both parties.
> Overall, I'd probably prefer outreach.
>
> I think the Secretary and the gentleman from California both raise
> important points.  In response to both, and mostly agreeing with both, I'd
> say there needs to be some strategic difference to one event vs. another.
> One such point has been raised: out of state vs. in state attendance.  We
> might say that we see strategic advantages in funding events that reserve
> large hotel blocks, partner with hotel chains, or do other things that
> indicate a lot of people travel to the event that we do not see in funding
> events that people do not travel to attend.  I'm not married to that idea,
> either, but it seems one way to differentiate an event that is entirely a
> state thing from one that is a national thing.
> Like the Secretary, I have trouble accepting any idea, if it were
> suggested, that these sorts of events are actually our responsibility and
> the states are subsidizing us.
>
> I have two strong beliefs about the LNC that this question touches upon.
> The first, addressed above and under separate cover, is about providing
> good board governance and staying out of the weeds.  The second is my
> belief that we do our best for all the affiliates when we "Let National Be
> National."  Instead of focusing our efforts on being a sort of
> super-affiliate, I believe in providing our best value-added by doing
> things best done on a national level.  One thing best done on a national
> level is picking and choosing the most important events nation-wide.  No
> affiliate can decide the right allocation of money between an event in NY
> and one in CA, but the national party can, and it can decide which to
> fund.  If donors, as the gentleman from CA says, want to fund events in NY,
> they give to NY, etc.  If they want only to fund the most important events,
> and don't themselves feel like doing the research to figure out where those
> events are located, they might very well give to the national party.
>
> So this sort of thing is, for me, on the edge.  On the one hand, having
> booths at fairs is not something affiliates are incapable of doing and can
> only be done on the national level, nor is it something most efficiently or
> effectively done at the national level.  However, the comparative
> allocation question is, for me, at least something of a case for a national
> outreach role.  Certainly, the last LNC, when it adopted the budget,
> thought it was appropriate to do this sort of thing, since it allocated
> money for outreach, and the affiliates form a partition of the US.
>
> I have some questions about Riot Fest itself, other than those implied by
> the above.  First, the event itself is confusing.  They sell tickets, but
> in the FAQ there is a question that asks "can I have a free ticket?" and
> the answer is just "yes."  There is a long list of prohibited items,
> including some specific people, specific sorts of fruits, and "items
> intended for sale/promotion."  Will we be able to give out handouts to
> promote the party?
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','agmattson at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> I have some questions about this funding request.
>>
>> Looking back at the original message from the CO chair, they indicated
>> the minimum cost was $1000 but with another $100 they could get more
>> volunteer passes.  CO has already put up $800 towards it, and they asked us
>> for $200 or more.  Why is this motion for $600, rather than $200-300 to
>> cover the balance and maybe an optional set of volunteer passes?
>>
>> I share a concern with a past commenter, maybe it was Joshua(?), that
>> this may well open the door to every state party asking us to help fund a
>> booth at their state fair, or whatever.  Rather than just fling money
>> randomly here or there, we should have some sort of larger strategy for the
>> type of outreach we want to do because we have found it to be effective.
>> We can't say yes to all similar requests, so how do we decide which ones to
>> do?  First come first serve until the budget is gone?  Or find demographics
>> that are highly likely to be open to Johnson/Weld as an alternative this
>> year and go to events of interest to those groups?
>>
>> I try to not confuse activity with productivity. What will be the return
>> on our invested money?  What does experience suggest will be the result in
>> terms of new sustaining members?
>>
>> Why do people attend Riot Fest?  Are the attendees in the mood to talk
>> politics?  Or are they just in party mode?
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','agmattson at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 6, 2016 at 11:59:59pm
>>> Pacific time.*
>>> *Co-Sponsors:*  Harlos, Goldstein, Hayes, Bittner
>>>
>>> *Motion:*  Move that the LNC provide $600.00 to LPCO for the Riot Fest
>>> event.  These funds would come from the budget for Affiliate Support.
>>>
>>> -Alicia
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20160627/6fd1ea09/attachment-0002.html>