[Lnc-business] Motion to Amend the Ballot Access Budget

Wed Aug 31 09:16:37 EDT 2016

Assuming that by Operations Committee is meant Executive Committee, yes,
the EC encumbers additional funds for particular states, but the EC cannot
amend the budget to do so.  The encumbrances are done from the existing
pile of money budgeted to ballot access.  Similarly, at the last meeting,
the LNC authorized the chair to encumber up to $50,000, but obviously not
to amend the budget.  This was in the recognition that things happen
quickly, particularly with 5 states trying to finish on the same date.  I'd
also point out that, with multiple drives going on, it is relatively easy
to measure each drive against its encumbrance, and to measure encumbrance
increases against a given cap, but much harder to measure actual
expenditures against the budget line.  There's likely to be more time lag
in that.

Of course it isn't optimal to amend the budget after spending the money.
However, deadlines do not respect our timeline.  Even when deadlines aren't
looming, every day things get delayed in a state drives up the eventual
cost.  Then there are logistical realities - we can't pause paying people
who are working.  We hire people on performance-based contracts.  We put in
caps, but we can't assume everyone will hit their caps - making that
assumption can lead to falling short.  As a result, the total of caps*cost
will exceed what we plan to spend.  If an overrun occurs, we'll be in a
position where we're contractually obligated to pay more than is budgeted,
or else in a position where we pay in one state but will have to go
overbudget to spend in other states.

Is the way we do things optimal?  Probably not.  In Connecticut, where we
did have an overrun, there are certainly ways we could have improved.
There are things we can change, and then there are things that, although
they don't make any sense, would be very hard for us to change - although
we should try - because they reflect the petitioning industry, the
economics of which make very little sense to me.  I will have suggestions
once this cycle ends, which I will present to the committee, and possibly
to the LNC.  I think it is important that we build institutional knowledge
in this regard.  I don't claim much significant knowledge, but I do claim
that my recent experience contains some lessons - which will inform not
only my report, by the way, but the larger project of LNC action to improve
this process.  I know and understand a lot more about this than I did a few
months ago.

Regarding the Ballot Access Committee, I think one thing the LNC should
look at is defining its precise role.  There are parts of ballot access
that can be done by committee, and parts that probably can't.  I don't
think we've ever been sufficiently clear about what we expect from the
committee - do we want research and recommendations in general?  Research
and recommendations state by state?  Operational control?  In any event,
while I agree with the idea of having the committee allocate spending among
the drives, the idea was proposed, at least partially, at the last LNC
meeting, and an amendment was adopted that, instead, gave the chair the
above-mentioned authorization.  As a result, we largely keep spending
questions within the EC and the chair, with the ballot access committee
making recommendations but not having binding authority.  As such, I see it
as perfectly appropriate for the chair to make such a request, and it
doesn't make sense to me to say that such requests should come through that
committee.

I do agree about the campaign.  Ideally, I'd like to see more
responsibility for ballot access transferred to future campaigns, but that
is a large-scale project.  For now, follow-through on the commitments made
is important.

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

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Good question, Sam.
>
> Also, we have a Ballot Access Committee. That subcommittee should be
> overseeing ballot access matters, and I would be more comfortable with the
> request coming from them. Is the chair speaking in his role as an ex
> officio member of that committee?
>
> I'm also wondering, as a practical matter, what specifically will happen
> if this motion is not approved?
> Ballot access is crucial, obviously, but we should not be receiving
> requests for funding *after* the money has already been spent! Isn't that
> why we have an Operations Committee – to approve things like extra funds on
> short notice? Did the Ballot Access Committee request more money from the
> Operations Committee in a timely fashion? If not, why not? Were they kept
> out of the loop?
>
> Love & Liberty,
>                                   ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                                (415) 625-FREE
>
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2016, at 4:40 PM, Sam Goldstein wrote:
>
> http://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.com/2016/05/johnson-
> pledges-150k-volunteers-to_11.html
>
> 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 Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Do we know the total amount contributed to this effort by the Johnson
>> Campaign against their
>> pledge of $150,000?
>>
>> 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 Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> The good news is that we are still on track to have our Presidential
>>> candidate on all 50 state ballots and the District of Columbia.  The
>>> bad news is that it cost more than we had anticipated at our July
>>> meeting.  At that meeting the Ballot Access budget was increased to
>>> $340,000.  We have presently spent approximately $381,000 on ballot
>>> access, which exceeds our budgetary authority as well as the 10%
>>> overage allowed by the policy manual.
>>>
>>> There are petitioners who are working at present in Kentucky, which is
>>> the last state with an active petition drive.  It is my intent to
>>> continue to pay the petitioners while this email ballot is pending.
>>> My apologies for not requesting this budget increase earlier, things
>>> moved very quickly with NY/OH/CT/NH/DC all going at the same time.
>>>
>>> I would like to request an email ballot for a motion to increase the
>>> ballot access budget to $390,000.
>>>
>>> Yours truly,
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.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/20160831/a7628821/attachment-0002.html>