[Lnc-business] The Libertarian Party only has 2 full-time staffers?!

Alicia Mattson agmattson at gmail.com
Fri Aug 4 02:46:25 EDT 2017


With an LNC meeting approaching, I'm scanning my emails for loose ends, and
I meant to reply to this.

<DH>I think that probably gave Robert the impression we(COC) wanted him to
sign it THEN.  I did want it signed ASAP after the vote was completed as
December in NOLA starts to get busy and things can shift.  I think it
resulted from my poor communication coupled with that same "thing" that
makes email such a lousy means of deliberating.</DH>

Even if you communicated imprecisely, and the impression was that the COC
wanted it signed immediately, the COC has only been delegated authority
over contracts for national conventions.  This was a contract for an LNC
meeting, and was not under the purview of the COC.  Even if the COC did
have such authority, the COC can be overridden by the LNC, and the LNC had
an ongoing email ballot on the question at the time, so there's no grounds
to argue that the COC's opinion mattered.

-Alicia



On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
wrote:

> Alicia,
>
> I fully agree with your point of us not executing a contract until after
> the vote is completed.  It's been a while but I do recall having an
> "antacid" moment during this.
> Nick had OKed for Robert to sign. I had some emails back and forth with
> Sandy with Helms-Briscoe.  There was one in which she said "she was
> standing by" and I wrote her back to make sure she went ahead and finalized
> the contract TO be signed so that once the vote was done we could sign it.
>   I had mentioned that we had passed the minimum threshold and it was
> pretty much a done deal and to get things ready to sign right away.
>
> I think that probably gave Robert the impression we(COC) wanted him to
> sign it THEN.  I did want it signed ASAP after the vote was completed as
> December in NOLA starts to get busy and things can shift.  I think it
> resulted from my poor communication coupled with that same "thing" that
> makes email such a lousy means of deliberating. That lack of instantaneous
> and contemporaneous communication when one person is talking to another and
> the other person "jumps in" somewhere in the middle and then loses some of
> the context.
>
> In any event as I said, I think it fell on my lack of clarity.  In this
> case it's all good though in the future we need to certainly make sure to
> wait until a vote is completed before fully executing a contract contingent
> on that vote.
>
> On matters of larger sums it requires the chair's signature with counsel's
> review if I am not mistaken so that protects us against a larger ongoing
> potential faux pas.  That said, we do need to be more careful.  I will be
> more diligent in the future.
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 6:24 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I do need to point out that p. 8 of the New Orleans contract shows that we
> executed that contract on 4/27/17.
>
> We approved the date/location for that meeting with email ballot 2017-08,
> which began on 4/21/17 and ended on 5/1/17.  That means the contract was
> signed 4 days prior to the end of the email ballot which authorized it.
>
> That should not have happened.
>
> We would have been up a creek had the votes shifted before the end of the
> email ballot, and the LNC ultimately did not approve the date/location
> motion.  We would have already been legally obligated.
>
> What was the reason for the premature contract execution before it had
> been approved?
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Starchild,
>>
>> If I thought this information would be useful for an upcoming decision,
>> I'd make sure we bumped other things back and moved this forward.
>>
>> Robert has kept a spreadsheet detailing the LNC meeting costs. It's
>> significantly out of date and will take time to update.
>>
>> If I get a sense from a significant number on the LNC that it is
>> important enough for us to stop other work and get that spreadsheet
>> updated, we could certainly do that.
>>
>> Or, if the LNC would be satisfied to get a list of meetings from the past
>> just to get a sense of the costs, Robert has provided that and it's
>> attached.
>>
>> I don't personally see much coming from providing that information
>> urgently, but again, we could certainly get it done if it was a top
>> priority.
>>
>> In general, staff has usually included in our suggestions and research
>> low-cost options like Oklahoma and Alexandria, and the LNC has chosen
>> places that were not the lowest cost options staff has provided. I point
>> that out, because I want to make it clear that, if the costs of LNC
>> meetings is your concern, I don't want our membership or the LNC to think
>> that staff requires expensive meetings. We go with the flow of the LNC. Of
>> the 5 to 10 times I've suggested a specific location for an LNC meeting, I
>> don't think the LNC has taken my suggestion. I don't mind. I've thought
>> most of the places we've had meetings were reasonably decided.
>>
>> I think Robert has shown many of the contracts to you in person when
>> you've visited LPHQ.
>>
>> I believe Robert has offered to email all the contracts to you if you
>> sign the standard Non-Disclosure Agreement. I believe you have so far
>> chosen not to sign the non-disclosure agreement for certain reasons that
>> you're in a better situation to explain than me. It's not a big deal to me
>> personally, just has been our practice related to contracts.
>>
>> I don't think there's anything especially interesting or "secret" in any
>> of the contracts we've had with hotels to have LNC meetings. Payments to
>> hotels can be found in detail on the FEC website.
>>
>> I think sometimes vendors offer "discounts" and sometimes put in their
>> contracts terms requesting confidentiality, but I'm not going to go through
>> and dig up a bunch of contracts to see for myself unless I get a sense from
>> the LNC that that is what they want staff to spend time on.
>>
>> If the LNC could pass a motion requesting staff to provide all the LNC
>> meeting contracts to Starchild and other LNC members without requiring an
>> NDA, I'd feel more comfortable stopping other work and doing that, and not
>> requiring an NDA.
>>
>> We did not find the word "Confidential" in the upcoming LNC meeting in
>> Kansas City and New Orleans. Those contract are attached.
>>
>>
>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
>> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>
>>
>> On 7/13/2017 10:03 AM, Aaron Starr wrote:
>>
>>> "Do you agree with Alicia and I that the LNC should be provided with
>>> data on
>>> our meeting costs as I've been requesting? Going forward, I would like to
>>> see those costs disclosed upfront, before a meeting site is selected,
>>> and I
>>> would also like to see the our past costs for each meeting this term,
>>> within
>>> some reasonable frame of time."
>>>
>>> While I am not personally fixated on the costs of meetings, I do believe
>>> that it is perfectly reasonable for a member of this committee to request
>>> past data on our meeting costs and copies of contracts. That information
>>> was
>>> requested on June 6 and should have been provided by now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Starr
>>> (805) 583-3308 Home
>>> (805) 404-8693 Mobile
>>> starrcpa at gmail.com
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Starchild
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 1:22 AM
>>> To: Nick Sarwark
>>> Cc: Libertarian National Committee list
>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] The Libertarian Party only has 2 full-time
>>> staffers?!
>>>
>>>
>>>         Thanks Nick. So I guess the question remains, who is answering
>>> the
>>> phones and handling routine office tasks? Austin Petersen says that
>>> during
>>> his time in the office, he developed a strong intern program. If so, I'm
>>> wondering what happened to that program. Do we have any written records
>>> of
>>> it, and if so, can those records be sent to the LNC?
>>>
>>>         My understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - is that we don't
>>> currently have any interns, but if we have names and contact info of past
>>> interns, I'd volunteer to call them and ask about their experience
>>> working
>>> as interns for the LP. That could help us rebuild a program and start
>>> getting more bodies in the office getting stuff done, including routine
>>> tasks.
>>>
>>>         Do you agree with Alicia and I that the LNC should be provided
>>> with
>>> data on our meeting costs as I've been requesting? Going forward, I would
>>> like to see those costs disclosed upfront, before a meeting site is
>>> selected, and I would also like to see the our past costs for each
>>> meeting
>>> this term, within some reasonable frame of time. Do you have any
>>> objection
>>> to this, and if not, what time frames seem reasonable to you?
>>>
>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>
>>>                                     ((( starchild ))) At-Large
>>> Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>                           RealReform at earthlink.net
>>>                                   (415) 625-FREE
>>>                                     @StarchildSF
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 9:08 PM, Nicholas Sarwark wrote:
>>>
>>> Starchild,
>>>>
>>>> At present, the LNC has Wes Benedict, Eric Dixon, and Robert Kraus
>>>> full-time and based out of the Alexandria office. My understanding is
>>>> that Nick Dunbar and Mat Thexton are also based out of that office,
>>>> though not full-time.  We also have a number of contractors working
>>>> remotely, including Andy Burns, Lauren Daugherty, Jess Mears, Denise
>>>> Luckey, Bob Johnston, and Elizabeth Brierly.
>>>>
>>>> Wes and I are in the midst of interviewing candidates for Press
>>>> Secretary, which is anticipated to be full-time, and will be moving on
>>>> to interviewing candidates for a Candidate Support Specialist shortly.
>>>>
>>>> Yours in liberty,
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Alicia. Coupled with the Convention Oversight Committee
>>>>> experience you mention, this does raise questions. But beyond the
>>>>> issue of getting the requested information, I was honestly shocked to
>>>>> hear that only Wes and Robert are usually in the office full time. If
>>>>> their time is valuable enough to justify what we're paying them,
>>>>> surely we should not be having them routinely spend that time on
>>>>> tasks that lower-paid staffers, or volunteers, could be handling.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to hear what Nick Sarwark as chair thinks about both the
>>>>> data request compliance and how staff hours are apparently being
>>>>>
>>>> allocated.
>>>
>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>>
>>>>>                                     ((( starchild ))) At-Large
>>>>> Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>                           RealReform at earthlink.net
>>>>>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>>>>>                                     @StarchildSF
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Starchild,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a lot of disagreements with your other ideas about how we
>>>>> should find meeting locations and what arrangements are workable.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I do agree with you that it should not take so long to
>>>>> provide the LNC with basic data about the routine costs of our
>>>>> meetings, and provide copies of the meeting space contracts showing
>>>>> which of those expenses are required performance.  You've been asking
>>>>> for some time, and it's not that large of a data request.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently, the Convention Oversight Committee was not in agreement
>>>>> about whether to again use an outside professional to assist with the
>>>>> 2020 site search, or whether to do it in-house with Robert Kraus as the
>>>>>
>>>> point person.
>>>
>>>> When the issue of asking a staff member to take on such a
>>>>> time-consuming job was discussed, the COC was told that when Wes
>>>>> tells the LNC that staff is overloaded, that characterization does
>>>>> not necessarily include Robert Kraus, and he was willing and able to
>>>>> add such a large project to his plate.  If that's the case, then I
>>>>> don't see why there isn't time to fulfill this data request of yours
>>>>> in a
>>>>>
>>>> more timely manner.
>>>
>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I just haven't been paying attention. That's what LP
>>>>>> operations manager Robert Kraus suggested when I spoke with him
>>>>>> today and expressed surprise at his statement that he and Wes
>>>>>> Benedict are the only paid staff working full time at our office. He
>>>>>> said that if I'd read the report Wes presented at the last LNC
>>>>>> meeting,
>>>>>>
>>>>> I would have been aware of the situation.
>>>
>>>> Robert told me this by way of explaining why he has not yet sent the
>>>>>> LNC the details of how much we are paying for hotel meeting space,
>>>>>> food and beverage obligations, staff airline flights, shipping
>>>>>> costs, etc., in connection with LNC meetings. At the last LNC
>>>>>> meeting in Pittsburgh in April, he told me in response to my asking
>>>>>> him for this information that he would send it within a week or so.
>>>>>> When I spoke with him today, he said that if I wanted him to stop
>>>>>> what he was doing and send the information now, he would have to
>>>>>> stop working on updating donor information to help us raise money,
>>>>>> because he was the only person in the office right now. When I asked
>>>>>> whether he could get us the meeting information prior to the next
>>>>>> LNC meeting on August 19 (over 2 months from now, and 4 months from
>>>>>> when
>>>>>>
>>>>> he originally said he'd provide it), his response was "possibly".
>>>
>>>> We have 11 people listed on our staff page
>>>>>> (https://www.lp.org/staff/), not even counting individuals like our
>>>>>> legal counsel and our FEC consultant who are kind of "on call", and
>>>>>> although political director Carla Howell's contract wasn't renewed,
>>>>>> the chair recently proposed adding an additional lower-level
>>>>>> staffer. With that many folks on the roster, I don't understand why
>>>>>> the two highest-paid individuals on staff are the only ones who are
>>>>>> being paid full-time salaries and asked to staff the office largely
>>>>>> by themselves. If this is true, it means that our highest-paid
>>>>>> staffers are likely spending a significant part of their time doing
>>>>>> routine office tasks like answering phone calls which could be handled
>>>>>>
>>>>> by lower-paid staffers or even by volunteers.
>>>
>>>> Robert did say he agreed with me that staff should not be asked to
>>>>>> monitor or be involved in the party's social media outreach, which
>>>>>> would potentially take a lot of their time away from other tasks. I
>>>>>> also suggested that volunteers, instead of staff, could be the ones
>>>>>> to research LNC meeting locations and present options to the LNC.
>>>>>> Local activists in the cities where we're considering holding
>>>>>> meetings would be the logical people to do this. If we don't have
>>>>>> any local activists in a particular area able to help us find free
>>>>>> or low-cost meeting venues there and help with details such as
>>>>>> coordinating local transportation and folks able to host out-of-town
>>>>>> visitors, it would beg the question of why we are meeting in that
>>>>>> location instead of somewhere there is an active local Libertarian
>>>>>> organization that can support us and which we in turn can support by
>>>>>> seeking to arrange to have visiting LNC members make press
>>>>>> appearances,
>>>>>>
>>>>> attend local campaign events, do fundraising, etc., while in town.
>>>
>>>> But if what Robert says is correct, it seems to me that we are not
>>>>>> running our office efficiently. It also seems to me that LNC members
>>>>>> being made to wait months and months after an LNC meeting to see
>>>>>> what the actual expenses were for that meeting is unreasonable.
>>>>>> Actually, we should be seeing such expenses listed before each
>>>>>> meeting, since expenses like hotel meeting space fees, food and
>>>>>> beverage obligations, staff airline flights, and shipping costs are
>>>>>> in most cases known in advance. And we should be seeing estimates of
>>>>>> these costs prior to even making a decision on where to meet, since
>>>>>> such
>>>>>>
>>>>> costs ought to factor into our decisions.
>>>
>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                                      ((( starchild ))) At-Large
>>>>>> Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>                           RealReform at earthlink.net
>>>>>>                                   (415) 625-FREE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170803/7a45c3cc/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list