[Lnc-business] Candidate/Campaign Funding

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 21 04:59:32 EDT 2017


	Thanks for your feedback, Tim.

	I think your point about the possibility of a law limiting donations to a certain candidate impacting how much we can give other lower-ranked candidates not subject to the same legal limits is a very good one. I'm thinking to revise the language of the proposal so that ranked-based limits on what we give candidates or campaigns are not affected by donation amounts to a higher-ranking candidate or campaign that are externally reduced due to legal contribution limits. If you have any ideas for specific language on this, please let me know.

	Regarding the other concern you raise, it seems to me that people volunteering to serve on the Evaluation Committees would know the deal going in. Both reports would be considered, even if only one would be adopted (unless the LNC by supermajority vote decided to use elements of both reports). Not every LNC subcommittee's work product ends up being used by the LNC, and sometimes that's even a good thing! Besides which, the committees' reports would be public, so the report not chosen by the LNC could still be used as a reference by other donors and impact their decisions on which candidates or campaigns to fund. Candidates or campaigns might even tout their positive rankings by this committee in fundraising appeals. So I don't think their work would be wasted in any case.

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                        RealReform at earthlink.net
                                (415) 625-FREE
                                  @StarchildSF


On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:20 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:

> Having two large Evaluation Committees, and then totally disregarding one of them is dismissive of volunteers' time.
> 
> Requiring higher-ranked candidates get more funding than lower-ranked candidates could have the unintended consequence of us self-imposing stricter contribution limits on the lower-ranked candidates. For example, if the law limits the top ranked candidate to donations no greater than $1000, then we are limiting ourselves to contribute no more than $1000 to any other candidate.
> 
> Tim Hagan
> 
> 
> From: Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Candidate/Campaign Funding
> 
> 
> 	I'd like to remind everyone that last month I put forward a detailed proposal for a method for the LNC to allocate funding to candidates and campaigns in a manner that would be fair and predictable compared to our current process. Some of the current discussion gives the impression that this has already disappeared down the memory hole.
> 
> 	I've asked Nick for time on the agenda at the August meeting to discuss and debate it, but we don't have to wait until then to do so. 
> 
> 	Unless I inadvertently overlooked any messages, David Demarest, Sam Goldstein, Whitney Bilyeu, and Daniel Hayes were the only ones to respond to the proposal, and Sam posted only a rather dismissive reply which implied that he did not actually read it (Erin Adams was not on the LNC at the time, and so may be seeing it for the first time now). David said he thought it was a good idea, while Daniel and Whitney were more critical. I responded to each reply and to the criticisms raised, some of which appear to have been based on misunderstandings of the proposal, but I haven't seen any further discussion after that. 
> 
> 	So I've copied the proposal again below, and again invite my colleagues to give it a read and say what you like or don't like about it. If the latter, specific suggestions on how it could best be modified to accomplish our objectives would be welcome.
> 
> 	I'll point out again as I did in my reply to Whitney, that if we simply turn over decision-making about which candidates and campaigns to fund to another committee without anything else about the process or lack thereof being significantly changed (e.g. establishing criteria by which candidates and campaigns can expect to be evaluated, establishing a framework to avoid favoritism, etc.), we basically won't have fixed anything except to insulate ourselves as LNC members from any controversy or awkwardness we might face over making decisions on such funding requests.
> 
> Love & Liberty,
> 
>                                   ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                          RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>                                    @StarchildSF
> 
> 
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Starchild wrote:
> 
>> 	As Brett Bittner, Sam Goldstein, Caryn Ann Harlos, Joshua Katz, Patrick McKnight, and (apologies to anyone I'm missing) I think others on the LNC have all noted, and as I've observed myself on multiple previous occasions, we need some kind of consistent method for allocating our limited resources among many worthy candidates and campaigns, instead of just reacting on an ad hoc basis when we get requests for funding, or favoring requests from our own states, regions, or persons with whom we happen to be acquainted.
>> 
>> 	Toward this end, I've taken a stab at creating a detailed proposal for establishing such a funding procedure. The basic idea is to create a multi-layered approach for screening and evaluating candidates and campaigns that  is designed to minimize the role of favoritism and give the LNC a strong yet sufficiently flexible framework within which to periodically allocate funds. 
>> 
>> =============================================
>> 
>> 	At the heart of this proposal is the creation of three separate new LNC sub-committees: An Application Committee, and two Evaluation Committees. Members of each of these three committees would serve for one candidate/campaign funding cycle, and then would be barred from serving on one of the three committees again until another funding cycle had passed. No person would be eligible to serve on more than one of the three committees simultaneously or during the same funding cycle, or to serve on one of the three committees while serving on the LNC.
>> 
>> Application Committee
>> 
>> 	This committee would be composed of up to 51 (but no fewer than 7) persons appointed by the LNC via open ballot ranked choice voting. It would have the following responsibilities:
>> 
>> • Establishing funding cycles (scheduling the periods during which candidates and campaigns could apply for funding, and deadlines for its own subsequent reporting to the Evaluation Committees, and for the Evaluation Committees to report to the LNC). The committee could potentially decide to have one funding cycle per election, or multiple cycles per election.
>> • Designing application forms for candidates and campaigns seeking funding, including each of the "Message" and "Effectiveness" criteria questions listed below (rewording would be allowed as long as essential meaning is preserved), along with any additional criteria it may add to either category at its discretion with the approval of a majority vote of the LNC
>> • Receiving applications for funding from candidates and campaigns during the time window established for that purpose
>> • Researching each candidate and campaign seeking LNC funding and preparing a report on the relative merits of the applicants based on their responses to each of the criteria questions listed below (and any additional questions added by the committee as described above), as well as the committee's own research
>> • Forwarding this report, including the application information provided by the candidates and campaigns themselves, to the two Evaluation Committees as described below
>> 
>> 
>> Candidate/Campaign Evaluation Criteria
>> 
>> 	The two Evaluation Committees would also each be composed of up to 51 (but no fewer than 7) persons appointed by the LNC via open ballot ranked choice voting. Each Evaluation Committee would, working separately and having no contact with members of the other Evaluation Committee, generate rankings of each candidate or campaign. These rankings would be largely based on committee members' evaluations of how candidates and campaigns measure up to each other on the basis of two broad categories of questions, lumped under the headings "Message" and "Effectiveness" for want of better terms:
>> 
>> (1) Message – This category will consider (as applicable depending on whether applicant is a candidate or campaign) the following questions and any additional questions in a similar vein that the Application Committee may add:
>> • Has the candidate signed the Libertarian Party's membership pledge?
>> • What are the candidate's detailed results and overall score on the "official" Nolan Chart used by the Advocates for Self Government (currently online at http://www.self-gov.org/ )?
>> • What are the candidate's detailed results and overall score on the more detailed Nolan Chart based "Quiz2D" quiz (currently online at http://www.quiz2d.com/ )?
>> • What are the candidate's detailed results and overall score on the more detailed Nolan Chart based "NolanChart.com" quiz (currently online at https://www.nolanchart.com/survey-php )?
>> • Does any of the candidate's or campaign's message conflict with the Non-Aggression Principle?
>> • Does any of the candidate's or campaign's message conflict with the Libertarian Party's platform?
>> • What specific actions or reforms does the candidate or campaign promise to take or enact?
>> • Does the candidate (or do the backers of the campaign) have a history in the Libertarian Party or the freedom movement, and if so what is that history?
>> • Is there anything in the message, history, or personal character of the candidate (or the campaign backers) that is at odds with the Non-Aggression Principle or the Libertarian Party platform?
>> • If the candidate is a current or former office-holder, what pro-freedom and/or anti-freedom votes did s/he cast while in office?
>> • Of the annual salary that the candidate would be paid if elected to the office s/he is seeking, what percentage, if any, does s/he pledge to return to the taxpayers or donate to the freedom movement per year if elected?
>> 
>> (2) Effectiveness – This category will consider the following questions and any additional questions in a similar vein that the Application Committee may add:
>> • How good a public speaker is the candidate?
>> • What obstacles stand in the way of the candidate getting elected (e.g. does s/he face two cartel party opponents, an entrenched incumbent, significant hurdles such as "top two" system or straight-ticket voting, etc.)?
>> • How is the candidate or ballot measure polling?
>> • What measurable positive results would accrue to the Libertarian Party if the candidate or campaign fell short of ballot box victory but achieved some lesser threshold(s), and how likely is it that the threshold(s) will be met?
>> • How willing is the candidate or campaign to cooperate with and seek to assist the Libertarian Party and its state affiliate party (and local party organization, if applicable) in his or her area, to the extent allowed by law?
>> • What positive but relatively non-measurable results is the candidate or campaign likely to achieve?
>> • Does the candidate or campaign have a website or sites, and how good is it (or are they)?
>> • How much money has the candidate or campaign already spent, and on what were the funds spent?
>> • How much money does the candidate or campaign have at the time of application (minus any debts or obligations)?
>> • How much money does the candidate or campaign plan to raise and spend?
>> • How realistic are the candidate or campaign's fundraising plans?
>> • How much time does the candidate plan to spend campaigning?
>> • What kind of campaign team does the candidate or campaign have?
>> • What press or other positive mentions has the candidate or campaign received?
>> • What endorsements has the candidate or campaign received?
>> • How does the candidate or campaign plan to spend any funds granted by the LNC?
>> 
>> 
>> Candidate/Campaign Evaluation Process
>> 
>> 	Each of the Evaluation Committees would prepare, within the time frame established by the Application Committee, a report to the LNC. These reports would give each candidate or campaign seeking funding three rankings – one for Message criteria, one for Effectiveness criteria, and an overall ranking based on an average of the other two rankings. It would be up to each Evaluation Committee to decide how much additional material to include in its report to the LNC explaining or justifying its rankings. 
>> 
>> 	These numbered rankings would be based on the total number of funding applications. For instance, if there were 120 candidates or campaigns applying for funding in a given cycle, each Evaluation Committee member would assign each of them a whole number ranking between 0 and 121 for each of the two broad categories of "Message" and "Effectiveness", with a lower number indicating a better ranking. The "Message" and "Effectiveness" rankings assigned by individual committee members would then be added together and divided by the number of committee members ranking them, to give each candidate an overall ranking. Multiple candidates or campaigns might receive the same overall ranking, in which case the total number of different integers assigned to the candidates and campaigns might be fewer than 120 (i.e. there might be lots of 2-way, 3-way, or even 10-way or 20-way ties).
>> 
>> 	Committee rankings for Message and Effectiveness criteria would be based on each committee member submitting his or her personal ranking list, with the averages of those rankings then compiled to generate the overall rankings which would appear in the committee's report.
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> As an example of how rankings would be calculated, here is a simple hypothetical in which an Evaluation Committee has only 3 members (in reality each would have at least 7 members), and only 4 candidates and 1 campaign have applied for funding:
>> 
>> Committee member 1 ranks the applicants as follows:
>> Message Rankings:             Effectiveness Rankings:
>> 1. Candidate D                      1. Campaign A
>> 2. Candidate A                      2. Candidate C
>> 3. Candidate B (tie)              3. Candidate A
>> 3. Candidate C (tie)              4. Candidate D
>> 4. Campaign A                      5. Candidate B
>> 
>> Committee member 2 ranks the applicants as follows:
>> Message Rankings:             Effectiveness Rankings:
>> 1. Campaign A                      1. Candidate C
>> 2. Candidate A                      2. Campaign A
>> 3. Candidate D                      3. Candidate A
>> 4. Candidate C                      4. Candidate D
>> 5. Candidate B                      5. Candidate B
>> 
>> Committee member 3 ranks the applicants as follows:
>> Message Rankings:             Effectiveness Rankings:
>> 1. Candidate D                      1. Campaign A (tie)
>> 2. Candidate A                      1. Candidate C (tie)
>> 3. Candidate B                      1. Candidate A (tie)
>> 4. Candidate C (tie)              2. Candidate D
>> 4. Campaign A (tie)              3. Candidate B
>> 
>> These individual member rankings would generate the following rankings for the Evaluation Committee as a whole (raw scores listed here for ease in understanding how overall rankings would be calculated):
>> Message Rankings (raw score):              Effectiveness Rankings:
>> 1. Candidate D (1.66)                                1. Campaign A (tie - 1.33)
>> 2. Candidate A (2)                                      1. Candidate C (tie - 1.33)
>> 3. Campaign A (3)                                      2. Candidate A (1.66)
>> 4. Candidate B (tie - 3.66)                        3. Candidate D (3.33)
>> 5. Candidate C (tie - 3.66)                        4. Candidate B (4.33)
>> 
>> The committee Message and Effectiveness rankings listed above would generate the following overall rankings for the Evaluation Committee's report to the LNC:
>> Overall Rankings
>> 1. Candidate A (1.665)
>> 2. Campaign A (2.165)
>> 3. Candidate C (2.495 – tie)
>> 3. Candidate D (2.495 – tie)
>> 4. Candidate B (3.995)
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 	So far I have not described the difference between the two Evaluation Committees. Here is how they would differ:
>> 
>> "All-Seeing" Evaluation Committee
>> 
>> 	This Evaluation Committee would receive from the Application Committee the complete version of that committee's report with names and locations of candidates and campaigns, and would also be free to conduct its own independent research as desired. Candidates and campaigns would be welcome to present additional information to the committee and lobby its members. All-Seeing Evaluation Committee members would be barred from voting on the ratings of candidates or campaigns from their own states, or with which they had any family ties or financial relationships (past or present). Committee members would be expected to thoroughly discuss and debate the relative merits of the candidates and campaigns, following which each member would submit his or her ranking of the candidates and campaigns seeking funding that cycle, which could be either independently prepared by the member himself or herself, or prepared by someone else and adopted by the committee member as his or her recommendations.
>> 
>> 
>> "Blind" Evaluation Committee
>> 
>> 	This Evaluation Committee would receive from the Application Committee a version of its report with all candidate and campaign names and locations redacted. If a member of this committee recognized a candidate or campaign from the description given, s/he would be required to recuse him/herself from rating that candidate or campaign. Contact between candidates or campaign applicants and members of the Blind Evaluation Committee would be prohibited, and committee members expected to try to avoid learning about Libertarian candidates or campaigns applying for funding during their terms on the committee (kind of like how jurors are typically instructed not to independently research the court cases on which they are called to serve). Members of the Blind Evaluation Committee would not discuss their proposed rankings with other members of their committee. Each committee member would instead submit his or her own rankings to the committee chair without any committee discussion or other outside input other than the redacted report of the Application Committee.
>> 
>> 
>> Role of the LNC
>> 
>> 	Upon receiving the reports of the Evaluation Committees, the LNC would have the choice of which Evaluation Committee's rankings to adopt. That committee's overall ranking order would then be binding upon the LNC in the following manner: The LNC would retain complete freedom to decide the overall amount of money to disburse for that funding cycle, but would be required to allocate more funds to the candidate or campaign assigned the best ranking by the Evaluation Committee whose rankings it adopted than to the candidate or campaign with the next best ranking, and so on. In any cases of ties, each equally ranked candidate or campaign would be required to receive the same amount of funding. For some candidates or campaigns (or hypothetically even all candidates/campaigns), the amount allocated could be $0, so long as no candidate with a poorer ranking received any funding that cycle either.
>> 
>> 	The LNC would also, with a 3/4 supermajority vote, retain the option to adopt neither Evaluation Committee's ratings. In this case, the LNC would instead allocate funding among the applicants by some different method of its own devising, e.g. a combination of various parts of the two Evaluation Committees' recommendations, or it could totally ignore the Evaluation Committee's reports and adopt its own priorities on which candidates/campaigns to fund (if any), based on LNC members' own preferences and judgments (i.e. the way we do it now).
>> 
>> 	Along with appointing the members of each of the three committees described above, the LNC would also appoint chairs pro tem for each of the three committees, who would serve until the respective committees chose their own chairs. A chair pro tem would be ineligible to become the permanent committee chair that cycle; his/her primary function would be to organize and preside over the committee's election of a permanent chair for that funding cycle. 
>> 
>> 
>> =============================================
>> 
>> 	The major downside of this proposal as I see it is that it involves a lot more overall time and work than the current system. Another downside is that some candidates or campaigns could be embarrassed or offended by the rankings they receive, or decline to seek funds in order to avoid the possibility of such embarrassment. The upsides are that it would mean LP candidates and campaigns seeking funding being vetted in a much more thorough and organized manner, make the funding process (though not necessarily the outcomes) more regular and predictable, go some way toward minimizing favoritism and subjectivity from the process, and by generating two independent sets of recommendations on which to base funding decisions, probably make it somewhat easier for LNC members to feel comfortable in making those decisions.
>> 
>> 	The large upper number of 51 members for each committee (chosen more or less randomly based on the LP having 51 state affiliates) is intended to enable us to take advantage of the "wisdom of crowds", and in the cases of the Application and "All-Seeing" Evaluation Committees, ensure there are plenty of members to do candidate research (hopefully we will have lots of candidates and lots of funds to hand out!), but the LNC would not be required to appoint that many members of the new committees if it did not wish to do so.
>> 
>> 	Since this proposal is somewhat complex and the issue is one that has defied easy solution (and thus it's quite likely there are things I've overlooked!), I'd like to give fellow LNC members and anyone else reading this on the reflector list or elsewhere some time to review it and propose changes and discuss it in person at our August LNC meeting (1 hour of time is requested). I'm hereby giving notice to have the language as currently written be considered as a motion with advance notice for the meeting, pending any possible changes. But in the meantime, please feel free to discuss!
>> 
>> Love & Liberty,
>> 
>>                                     ((( starchild )))
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>                          RealReform at earthlink.net
>>                                   (415) 625-FREE
>>                                     @StarchildSF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:24 PM, David Demarest wrote:
> 
>> Sam,
>>  
>> I suggest that the motion include a committee selection method (appointed and/or volunteer). Since this will obviously be an important committee of interest to us all, I suggest that the motion specify a minimum of three LNC members and two non-LNC members [substitute your own numbers].
>>  
>> Thoughts?
>>  
>> ~David
>>  
>> 2018 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention
>>  
>> Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less
>>  
>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>> LSLA Vice-Chair
>> LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
>> Cell:      402-981-6469
>> Home: 402-493-0873
>>  
>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Sam Goldstein
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:28 PM
>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-16: Joe Buchman Donation
>>  
>> Yes, I'm working on a motion to create a Candidate Support Committee to be tasked with first
>> developing a set of guidelines (subject to LNC approval) for LNC contributions to individual 
>> candidates other than POTUS.  Once the guidelines are approved the committee will submit
>> a proposed budget as a new line item for the 2018 LNC Budget then will administer the distribution
>> of funds.  The Committee might also be tasked with supporting  the new Candidate Support Specialist
>> position, if we so choose.
>>  
>> Any ideas about motion formulation will be appreciated.
>>  
>> Live Free,
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 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, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Our colleague from Indiana has told us he plans to introduce a motion in August. 
>> 
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>  
>>  
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
>> What committee would be charged with coming up with these guidelines?  Another committee?   I'm pretty busy so I don't think I want to commit to direct action on another committee.  But as a former campaign manager, and former candidate, I would like to give some suggested guidelines or watermarks.  
>>  
>> ken
>>  
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:42 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>> I hope I am proved wrong but it looks like we have a vicious circle – Continuing ‘No’ votes on candidate support motions until we develop guidelines and no appointees or volunteers so far to develop guidelines.
>>  
>> Am I missing something here?
>>  
>> I am sure there are more qualified LNC and LP members but I will volunteer to be part of an effort to develop candidate support guidelines. We will need a strong leader to meet this challenge. Is this a matter of Nick either appointing a committee leader and supporting committee members or soliciting volunteers? I suggest that both LNC and non-LNC members be part of this initiative. Any other volunteers? Might be a good opportunity for new or aspiring LNC members.
>>  
>> Thoughts?
>>  
>> ~David
>>  
>> 2018 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention
>>  
>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>> LSLA Vice-Chair
>> LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
>> Cell:      402-981-6469
>> Home: 402-493-0873
>>  
>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Brett Bittner
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 6:47 PM
>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-16: Joe Buchman Donation
>>  
>> TL; DR - I vote nay on email ballot 2017-16.
>>  
>> My thoughts: I find myself in the same situation as I did when the Wicks motion was presented. At that time, promises to come up with a procedure we made (and we even delayed considering a request from Senator Ebke for that procedure to be in place), yet action has yet to materialize. I believe that our first duty is to win elections, and without a process to vet funding requests, we are ill-equipped to determine which campaigns should receive our limited funds. 
>>  
>> As both Arvin and Sam have outlined my concerns, I don't feel the need to reiterate them. 
>>  
>> I appreciate Dr. Buchman's many years of service to the Party and as an activist, and I think very highly of him. I also enjoyed seeing his debate performance online, and I think he did a tremendous job of offering a different perspective in that debate. 
>>  
>> Unfortunately, I believe that we will never create a process for these type of requests if we continue to fulfill them in the ad hoc manner from our limited funds. As such, I must cast a nay vote. I will continue to do so for all candidate funding requests until we've established a process to vet such requests. 
>>  
>> Brett C. Bittner 
>>  
>> Region 3 Representative 
>> Libertarian National Committee 
>>  
>> brett.bittner at lp.org 
>> 317.537.8344 
>> **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.
>>  
>> On Jul 17, 2017 07:17, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I vote no.
>>  
>> Patrick McKnight
>> Region 8 Rep
>>  
>> On Jul 17, 2017 12:07 AM, "James Lark" <jwl3s at eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues:
>> 
>>     I hope all is well with you.  I am writing in my capacity as Region 5 representative to vote "nay" on the motion.
>> 
>>     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.
>> 
>>     Take care,
>>     Jim
>> 
>>     James W. Lark, III
>>     Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering
>>     Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society
>>     Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics
>>     University of Virginia
>> 
>>     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
>>     University of Virginia
>> 
>>     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>> -----
>> On 7/15/2017 4:15 AM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>> 
>> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 25, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>>  
>> Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Bilyeu, Demarest, Starchild
>> 
>> Motion:  for the LNC to contribute $5,000 to support the Congressional campaign of Joe Buchman (Utah)
>> -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
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>  
>> <Untitled attachment 01334.txt>_______________________________________________
>> 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/20170721/d33accab/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list