[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-08: Budget Meeting
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Tue May 2 19:33:56 EDT 2017
I actually do disagree. I might prefer nudist meetings. I do not think my
minority preference should be given equal weight. Conducive meetings
simply don't work that way.
We have spoken hours on this and it is simply an area we disagree on.
I would suggest that for the next meeting you might want to come with a
proposal in hand that answers questions and concerns. I don't believe much
in talking about my pet issues (we all have them), I believe in doing. I
care about Party history. So I did something. This is a big concern of
yours.... prove that it is better by doing the organizing for the next
one. It might help. Debating so far isn't changing any minds.
If this were a big concern of mine, I would be setting out with proposals
and plans to prove them. The entire LNC gets a larger discount on room
blocks than they pay on the room. Seeing how we pay our own way, again, I
don't find it an unreasonable tradeoff and while there is no such thing as
perfect safety, not many women (50% of the population) who travel alone are
going to feel safe and secure with the type of scenario you are proposing.
Hotels provide a layer of safety that rightly or wrongly is a large factor.
Last meeting a certain member had promised to come that caused me concern.
It turned out not to happen but if we were simply meeting at the local
Arby's or whatever, I would not have come nor would it have been
responsible to our members.
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann,
>
> There's truth to the saying you get what you pay for, but there's at least
> equal truth to the observation that it pays to shop around. I'll quote here
> part of what I said in my response to Tim:
>
> *...a logical approach would be to let local Libertarians in New Orleans
> know of our interest to hold a meeting there in a space with the
> characteristics you mention, and give them a little while to see what they
> come up with. I think this should be standard operating procedure whenever
> we identify dates for an upcoming meeting and a city in which we wish to
> meet.*
>
>
> I agree that the cost to individual members to get to a meeting location
> (via Uber, etc.) is a relevant consideration when deciding where to meet,
> but I don't think it ought to take precedence over saving the party itself
> (and by extension all the members who donated that money) hundreds of
> dollars.
>
> *Are* expensive hotel meeting rooms conducive to the most number of
> people? I don't know that to be the case. A survey of the membership on
> whether they want the LNC spending money on such things or not could be
> instructive. It's also possible what you say may be true of our current
> membership, but untrue of a broader cross-section of the public to which we
> haven't appealed as much because practices such as holding all our
> conventions in upscale hotels have failed to attract them to us as
> different practices might have done. Safety and liability? The truth is
> we'll *never* have absolute certainty when it comes to the surroundings,
> including in hotels; seeking watertight *guarantees* of safety or
> whatever sounds like the mistake that statists make when they insist that
> there *must* be a government welfare safety net, *must* be the kind of
> public safety guarantees that only an aggressive State can provide (even if
> they are largely illusory), etc. – that any marginally lower level of
> assurance just won't do.
>
> But even if we were to assume (without having conducted any surveys) that
> most LP members are fine with the LNC spending $1000 of the party's money
> on catered food/beverage in order to meet in a hotel, and that expensive
> hotel meeting rooms are always the first choice of the largest number of
> potential attendees, this would not suggest to me that we should
> accommodate the majority's preferences 100% of the time. If as you suggest
> it boils down to a utilitarian decision (rather than a matter of principle
> in not wasting our resources, as I see it), it still seems to me that
> fairness, common sense, and the principle of proportional representation
> that Libertarians have often embraced in terms of elections dictate that we
> should also accommodate the minority view (if it *is* the minority view!)
> for some percentage of our meetings. Do you disagree?
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> (415) 625-FREE
> @StarchildSF
>
>
> On May 2, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> Starchild,
>
> ==Who said anything about a *dank* basement?==
>
> It was an example. There is a truth to the saying you get what you pay
> for.
>
> == I suspect that a comfortable place with sufficient space could be
> found for much less than $1000 in obligations, if not free.==
>
> To suitably address our needs? I doubt it. Possible? Perhaps. But I do
> know that I have limited time and I am not going to volunteer to find it
> nor supervise or followup on people to do it. We would likely spend more
> than that in pursuing it. If an option easily pops up, I want to go for
> it, but I know from just trying to find accomodations for our state board
> in its meetings, it is easier said than done. And there are other
> considerations such as ease to hotel. We already pay our own way, I do not
> feel it is unreasonable for the Party to consider not making us have to
> Uber or pay even more to another site. I find this a small price to pay
> for what we are guaranteed to get (and have legal recourse if we don't). I
> would like to see the affiliates more involved but that is another story.
>
> When it comes to groups, particularly mixed groups, it is actually a
> utilitarian decision. A professional clean spacious hotel meeting space is
> most conducive to the most number of people. Yes, it is always cold for me
> everywhere so I plan accordingly. I also have diet issues and sometimes
> not to my liking but it is generally conducive to the most number of people.
>
> I just don't find it unreasonable a price for a large room, with the
> technology we may need, with the conference table we need, with the space
> we need, and that people will feel comfortable going to in general,
> particularly alone. Perhaps I am sensitive to the issue that some female
> members (and perhaps male members too, I can only speak from what I know)
> are leary about other environments. A hotel is safe, professional, and
> functional. (there are also legal liability considerations that I really
> don't care to get into but if we are inviting people to a meeting, and we
> are not absolutely certain of the surroundings etc we could incur
> liability). A hotel conference room is a good safe bet. Overall, after
> taking into consideration time factors as well (time is money), I don't
> find it unreasonable.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Caryn Ann,
>>
>> Who said anything about a *dank* basement? I suspect that a comfortable
>> place with sufficient space could be found for much less than $1000 in
>> obligations, if not free. If food were unavailable for purchase on the
>> premises, delivery is generally an option. Hotel meeting rooms do *not*
>> make it certain that people can attend comfortably or that they are able to
>> eat comfortably. There are other types of discomfort you may not be
>> considering, for instance the discomfort of being in a sterile atmosphere
>> lacking fresh air or one where you feel party funds are being wasted on
>> inappropriate overpriced extras. Nor are more basic types of physical
>> discomfort necessarily eliminated. During our last meeting I had to call
>> the hotel staff multiple times to ask that the air condition be turned down
>> because it was too cold (I saw you putting your blanket or wrap over
>> yourself, so I know it wasn't just me). They took away beverages that the
>> party presumably paid for – I still don't know how much, because as far as
>> I know Robert has yet to supply the breakdown of the costs for the meeting,
>> as requested and as he told me at the meeting he would – when I and others
>> still wanted to use them (e.g. hot water for tea). Pre-set catered food
>> menus often put people with dietary considerations on the short end of the
>> stick. I've experienced more than once not being able to eat a full,
>> balanced meal, or having to make special requests of hotel staff, because
>> the menu was planned around an omnivorous diet that assumed people would
>> want meat/dairy.
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>> ((( starchild )))
>>
>> P.S. – On a side note, the signers of the Declaration of Independence
>> were not yet on the literal field of battle either.
>>
>>
>> On May 2, 2017, at 6:02 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> Starchild, I care not for the food etc but disagree on the image. We are
>> not yet fortunately on the literal field of battle and meeting in a
>> comfortable place with plenty of room is necessary for the most efficient
>> use of our time and energies. We are not robots where that does not
>> matter. I know that my mind and body are not of such that say a dank
>> basement would work as well.
>>
>> Further these spaces makes it certain that members can attend comfortably
>> and they also are able to eat.
>>
>> I don't find it unreasonable for what we get IOW.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:02 AM Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2017, at 7:56 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>> Starchild,
>>>
>>> There is a $1,000 F&B(catering) requirement associated with the use of
>>> the room. Nick had said a working lunch was probable for the budget
>>> meeting and I passed the specs as per consultation with Robert on to our
>>> HelmsBriscoe rep who coordinated it with the Hyatt.
>>>
>>> Daniel Hayes
>>> LNC At Large Member
>>> Convention Oversight Committee Vice-Chair
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming Daniel Hayes is correct, and I have no reason to doubt him, *meeting
>>> at this location would cost the party $1000 in food and beverage purchase
>>> obligations to the hotel.*
>>>
>>> Certainly I accept any person's choice in spending his or her
>>> *individual* funds in any way that s/he chooses, and I am, for better
>>> or more likely for worse, probably as guilty as many libertarians of
>>> putting resources toward my own sensual gratification which I could put
>>> toward advancing the freedom movement. But regardless of our individual
>>> preferences or habits in this regard, as representatives of the members of
>>> the Libertarian Party I think we owe it to our members to spend the
>>> *collective* resources they have entrusted to us on advancing the cause
>>> of freedom.
>>>
>>> If there were some reason why expensive hotel rooms were truly necessary
>>> in order for us to meet, I would by all means support using party money to
>>> pay for those rooms, but they are *not* necessary. *There are plenty of
>>> places where we can reasonably meet and incur $0 in financial obligations
>>> instead of $1000. *
>>>
>>> Some have made an "image" argument – that we need to spend money to meet
>>> in upscale locations in order to look "serious" or "professional" or
>>> what-not. I do not think this makes us look serious about fighting for
>>> freedom. When the signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence pledged
>>> their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor", that wasn't just trying to look
>>> serious, it was *being* serious. I won't say they were being
>>> "professional"; it seems almost insulting to the memory of those who led
>>> that previous struggle for American independence to use the term in
>>> relation to their efforts. Is the struggle we are now engaged in any less
>>> important and critical for the future?
>>>
>>> I believe the path to freedom lies through manifesting as agents of
>>> change, not by emulating the well-heeled organizations that characterize
>>> the political establishment – *doing things that make us look more like
>>> an establishment organization or the party of the wealthy are
>>> contra-indicated.* They drive away our natural supporters who, for good
>>> reasons, mistrust and oppose that establishment. If it walks like a duck...
>>>
>>> But even more than how it looks, is what it is. Former vice-president
>>> Joe Biden has said many dumb things, but I've heard him credited with
>>> saying at least one wise thing. He reportedly said, don't tell me what your
>>> values are – show me your budget, and I'll tell you what your values are.
>>> Are you comfortable with what spending party money on hotel-catered
>>> food for meetings of party leaders when it isn't necessary tells people
>>> about our values? I am not.
>>>
>>> * I vote no*, and encourage my fellow National Committee members to
>>> vote this down and *instead* *get behind a motion to meet at a
>>> different location in New Orleans that would not incur such an
>>> unjustifiable expense*.
>>>
>>> Love & Liberty,
>>> ((( starchild )))
>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>> (415) 625-FREE
>>> @StarchildSF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 1, 2017, at 9:37 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>>
>>> I vote yes.
>>>
>>> -Alicia
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 1, 2017 at 11:59:59pm
>>>> Pacific time.*
>>>> *Co-Sponsors:* Hayes, Harlos, Goldstein, Bilyeu, Redpath
>>>>
>>>> *Motion:* The 2017 LNC budget meeting shall be held at the New
>>>> Orleans Hyatt Regency on December 9th and 10th, 2017.
>>>>
>>>> -Alicia
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> *We defend your rights*
>> *And oppose the use of force*
>> *Taxation is theft*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170502/24f4143c/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list