[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-08: Budget Meeting
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Tue May 2 20:08:28 EDT 2017
Actually Starchild you don't know my preferences vis a vis a nudist
meeting.
You may not understand why the safety thing is a thing (or you might find
it unreasonable) but I just did an informal discussion amongst other female
party members and they felt quite strongly the same way.
I have a lot of work to do, we are not going to change each other's minds,
so I am going to leave off here.
-Caryn Ann
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I wasn't suggesting that minority preferences should be given *equal*
> weight, Caryn Ann. And of course in reality you *don't* prefer nudist
> meetings, and nobody is suggesting the LNC should meet in the nude, lol! In
> the case of such extreme and unlikely hypotheticals, perhaps you're right
> that a majority whose feelings were strong enough *should* be able to
> enforce their preferences all the time – but if they feel that strongly,
> they should also be prepared to pay any associated expenses themselves in
> cases where a proportional approach would otherwise have accommodated the
> minority's preferences, instead of requiring the minority to further
> subsidize preferences with which they disagree.
>
> I'm not really sure why you'd logically feel any safer from someone by
> whom you felt threatened in a hotel meeting room than in an Arby's – in
> either case somebody can readily walk in off the street, and when seconds
> count I expect hotel security would be just minutes away! – but it may not
> be worth getting into the particulars.
>
> Calling my concerns a "pet issue" sounds dismissive. Raising a concern is
> not mutually exclusive with doing something. I've in fact suggested a
> general plan of action in my response to Tim that I quoted below. Do I have
> to print it out and put it in a binder and request time on the agenda for
> it at a meeting in order to satisfy you? Why insist that I personally find
> a location, instead of using local activists on the ground, unless it's
> just about having an excuse not to support reform? If we are discussing
> meeting in San Francisco where I live, I will certainly attempt to find a
> free space here. Otherwise, I think it makes sense to rely on locals who
> know their areas best. I haven't heard any arguments why it *shouldn't*
> be our standard procedure to solicit proposals for cost-free meeting
> locations from our members on the dates when we've decided we want to meet,
> in the cities where we want to meet.
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> (415) 625-FREE
> @StarchildSF
>
>
> On May 2, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> 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*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170502/76e22bfe/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list