[Lnc-business] The Libertarian Party has approx 8 "full-time"* staffers + approx 3 part-time
Wes Benedict
wes.benedict at lp.org
Fri Aug 4 10:26:42 EDT 2017
Just updating the subject on this interesting discussion thread.
To clarify, briefly, there were only two full-time staffers located on
site at LPHQ. Currently, we're at 3 full-time plus two-halves (not
exactly split down the middle) located at LPHQ. The others work off-site.
When Robert's at the office by himself, answering the phone, door, and
doing routine work gets a bit overwhelming. It doesn't happen too often.
Thanks,
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 8/4/2017 2:46 AM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <tel:%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232>, wes.benedict at lp.org
>> <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>
>> facebook.com/libertarians <http://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 <tel:%28805%29%20583-3308> Home
>> (805) 404-8693 <tel:%28805%29%20404-8693> Mobile
>> starrcpa at gmail.com <mailto:starrcpa at gmail.com>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>> <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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net>
>> (415) 625-FREE
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_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/20170804/524f04e9/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list