[Lnc-business] April LNC Meeting location

Sat Jan 7 11:33:49 EST 2017

I agree with you David.  I would co-sponsor but I have no time to wordsmith
unfortunately.

The self-funded sacrificial travel costs of over 15 persons (and what
affiliates have been neglected) should be considered.

Two on the east side is not fair.  Perhaps the Region 1 alternate could
come this time if we didn't require across the country travel?  Alternates
closer can attend easily now two meetings giving those regions two voices-
due to distance - Region 1 is at a disadvantage.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:19 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> I have absolutely no concerns about Nick's and Robert's abilities to make a
>
> wise decision (or recommendation) on the meeting location. I also
> understand
>
> the need for a reasonably prompt location decision so we can get on with
>
> travel and lodging arrangements. However, in addition to Starchild's
>
> legitimate transparency concerns on proposal specifics, this top-down
>
> approach makes a mockery of asking LNC members where they would like to
> hold
>
> meetings. It suggests that meeting location criteria are driven primarily
> by
>
> LNC staff preferences and travel costs paid from the LNC budget rather than
>
> LNC member preferences and self-funded travel expenses. Further, I strongly
>
> suspect that some LNC member location suggestions were expediently ignored
>
> because no 2020/22 convention cost and suitability information had been
>
> gathered for those locations.
>
>
>
> I would add that the essence of Libertarianism is to empower our leaders to
>
> lead by example rather than the expediency of exercising authority. That is
>
> not Nick's fault. We LNC members are to blame if we cave in to the
>
> temptation to default our responsibilities to Nick when not appropriate and
>
> put Nick in a lose-lose dilemma. Nick handles it well but it is unfair to
>
> both Nick and the full complement of LNC members. I would agree that the
>
> meeting location is not a high-priority issue. Nevertheless, it presents an
>
> excellent opportunity to set an example by empowering LNC members to select
>
> meeting locations. Or we can call this discussion nitpicking and continue
>
> our top-down failings that fly in the face of our criticisms of the broken
>
> two-party system.
>
>
>
> I offer the following motion:
>
>
>
> "Hold a simple LNC email write-in approval vote to narrow down our personal
>
> meeting location preferences followed by a second simple approval vote on
>
> the top 3 to 5 choices considering the astute finance and logistics
>
> recommendations by Robert and Nick."
>
>
>
> Robert and Nick, thank you for your location research diligence, wise
>
> recommendations and ability to shoulder our defaulted responsibilities. The
>
> above motion could be simplified to one approval email vote if sufficient
>
> location cost and site suitability details and recommendations were
>
> available. Any interest in co-sponsoring this motion? If so, who would like
>
> to wordsmith this motion into the proper language? Or, do we want to move
> on
>
> to more critical LNC issues and address the meeting location selection
>
> method at a more convenient time?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> Region 6 LNC Representative
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
>
> Starchild
>
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 7:52 PM
>
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] April LNC Meeting location
>
>
>
>
>
>         So what IS the proposal, Nick? May we see the full terms? You
>
> present this as if a decision has already been made. Isn't it up to the
> full
>
> LNC to decide where to meet? To be clear, I have no pre-existing objection
>
> to Pittsburgh or preference for another location. I am simply concerned
>
> about process.
>
>
>
>         Has any effort been made to use official communications (email,
>
> direct mail, website, LP News, Facebook, etc.) to let our membership know
>
> that we're looking for free or low-cost venues suitable for an LNC meeting?
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>                                    ((( starchild ))) At-Large
>
> Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
>                                 (415) 625-FREE
>
>                                   @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Nicholas Sarwark wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear All,
>
> >
>
> > Robert Kraus has done some excellent work getting proposals from
>
> > numerous locations around the country, some that would be suitable for
>
> > a potential 2020/22 convention, others not.  Based on a combination of
>
> > overall cost, accessibility, site suitability, and having a meeting
>
> > where we haven't lately, it came down to Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, or
>
> > Oklahoma City.
>
> >
>
> > Of the three, Pittsburgh had the best overall proposal, so I intend to
>
> > have Robert negotiate a contract for the April meeting to be held in
>
> > Pittsburgh at the Wyndham Grand Pittsburgh.  Indianapolis was overly
>
> > costly on the venue side and Oklahoma City overly costly on the travel
>
> > side.
>
> >
>
> > Don't purchase tickets or make reservations until Robert has final
>
> > details.  Also, there will likely be a hotel/meeting space tour,
>
> > either on Friday prior to the meeting or on Saturday or Sunday after
>
> > the meeting.
>
> >
>
> > Yours in liberty,
>
> > 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/20170107/25955a9c/attachment-0002.html>