[Lnc-business] April LNC Meeting location

Mon Jan 16 10:39:39 EST 2017

Where did Houston rank on the list for April once you got the bids back?

On Jan 16, 2017 9:38 AM, "Robert Kraus" <robert.kraus at lp.org> wrote:

> As an FYI I have an agreement for Pittsburg and will send info on
> reserving rooms by end of this week. I have also already notified other
> properties that we no longer need them to hold rooms.
>
> Gun shot approach (multiple cities) usually not the best way to get
> offers. In this case the Chair helped by narrowing the field which allowed
> me to go back and get very much improved bids.
>
> The April meeting is early enough in the process to get feedback from you
> all on cities to consider. I can then get bids based on those cities (and I
> hope DC is included as we may have an opportunity for some "free" or almost
> free space compliments of a member in NoVa).
>
> I can then proceed to get bids on the cities you all finalize and then
> send a spreadsheet of the best options to you all for approval voting.
>
> Live Free!
>
> Robert
>
> Robert S. Kraus - Dir of Operations
> Operations at LP.org
> Libertarian National Committee
> Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231
>
> Join today: https://www.lp.org/membership
> LP FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/libertarians
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
> Nicholas Sarwark
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 9:58 AM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] April LNC Meeting location
>
> Dear David,
>
> I'm fine with an approval vote on meeting locations based on the cost
> and other logistical information Robert gathered.  I'm not sure if
> that could be done in a reasonable time with the options that Robert
> researched for the April meeting, but I'm happy to use that procedure
> for the second LNC meeting this year.
>
> Taking the decision on this meeting location was done because I did
> not get any sense of clear consensus from the LNC when asking people
> which locations they preferred.  In retrospect, asking for an approval
> vote on the 3-5 best options may have worked better, assuming such a
> vote could be done in a shorter timeframe than our typical 10-day
> email vote.
>
> -Nick
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:18 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170116/314180e1/attachment-0002.html>