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

Mon Jun 27 09:04:46 EDT 2016

Donald Trump, Justin Bieber, and CM Punk.  I don't think the LPCO would use
any of them at their booth, so it shouldn't be a problem.

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

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
>> 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>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160627/6a597dfc/attachment-0002.html>