<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>I appreciate the variety of voices responding to my questions. And to Mr. Olsen, 6 paragraphs were most certainly welcome :)<br><br></div>I apologize for not being on the call on Monday. Unfortunately work does occasionally take precedent over my extra-curricular activities - political or otherwise. I was also fairly confident the vote would pass and of course it did. So regardless of anyone's position on the matter, here we are.<br><br></div>The gist of what I was getting at was simply to have the cost/benefits explained to me. Mr. Tomaso nailed one simply by citing the overall morale boost that ballot access provides. While perhaps difficult to measure, there is no doubt relevance to the claim. Mr. Olsen, however, adds a tick to the "con" side in that he cites the difficulties with the sustainability of ballot access.<br><br></div>In most any business model one would likely be advised to stray AWAY from something that is unsustainable. It becomes difficult to predict costs, there is always an element of being unsuccessful, and meanwhile there exist goals that actually ARE sustainable should one direct their effort that way.<br><br></div>Perhaps I'm still just too new, but it simply struck me that I could not really weigh the cost/benefits of the financial decision we were about to make in any practical way. I have since been informed of 1 or 2 costs and 1 or 2 benefits, but it still seems the Libertarian party should really be making decisions almost exclusively upon this kind of analysis and having a specifically defined strategy rather than an implied one as Mr. Olsen points out.<br><br></div>Anyway, thank you all for listening and for responding to my questions / concerns. I appreciate your time.<br><br></div>-Kevin Ludlow<br></div>Region 7<br><div><div><div><br> <br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Scott L. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scott73@earthlink.net" target="_blank">scott73@earthlink.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<u></u>
<u></u>
<u></u>
<u></u>
<u></u>
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">I am very glad that
the Regional Representative from <u></u><u></u>Colorado<u></u><u></u>
is asking us to look at and evaluate “</span></font><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">This implied goal, or objective if you prefer, is 50+ state ballot
access for the Libertarian party</span></font><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">.”<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">Unfortunately, now is
not a good time for a full-blown analysis of the issues that the Regional
Representative is asking us to look at.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">We are only 6 months
away from the end of our LNC term, and only 6 months away from the beginning of
the General Election portion of the 4 year Presidential Election Cycle. I
think we have a moral commitment to our members to maximize the number of
states that the <b><span style="font-weight:bold">2016 </span></b>Libertarian
Presidential Nominee is on the ballot, obviously constrained by how much money
we have available to pay for signatures.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">However – the next
LNC <b><span style="font-weight:bold">should </span></b>start discussing the
topic of ballot access at their very first full-weekend meeting of the next LNC
term. That way, they have at least 6 months before they even have to
begin collecting signatures to get a candidate on the ballot for vote test
purposes for the Nov. 2017 elections (VA, NJ, and a couple of others).<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">That being said, I
disagree with the Regional Representative’s statement that “</span></font><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">Since specific strategies and or objectives have not been
established, the vacuum is filled with the implied objective of achieving 50+
state ballot access. While a noble and legitimately political objective,
it suffers from several problems; the most significant of which is the
problem of being unachievable on a permanent, or even semi-permanent, basis .”<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">The Republican and
Democrat Parties have permanent ballot status, because they understand that if
they removed ballot access for the other major party in even one state, that “accomplishment”
could be turned into a nationwide scandal. But until the LP becomes a
major party (1) the Libertarian Party will not have “permanent”
ballot access in any state.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><br>
However, we CAN achieve semi-permanent ballot access in 50 states, or darn
close to that number. To do that, the LNC needs to stop focusing on
October ballot access, and instead focus on December ballot access. That probably
means sacrificing ballot access in a few states BEFORE an election in an
even-numbered year, and using the money saved to lobby or sue for lower vote
tests in states that have ridiculously high vote tests (<u></u>Alabama<u></u>
and <u></u><u></u>Connecticut<u></u><u></u>
come to mind).<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">
Scott Lieberman</span></font><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">1. Defined by
the FEC, for example, as receiving 25% of the vote for President</span></font><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></font></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma"> Lnc-business
[mailto:<a href="mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org</a>] <b><span style="font-weight:bold">On
Behalf Of </span></b>Norm Olsen<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Monday, December 07, 2015
11:50 AM</span></font></p><div><div class="h5"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> <u></u><a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><u></u><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Lnc-business] report
on <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
visit</font></div></div><u></u><u></u><p></p>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">Hello Kevin . . .<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">>></span></font>
why we should be focusing so many efforts on <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>?<font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">I’d like to
take a shot at answering your question. I have been asking similar
questions for five years now. I could write a book in response. But
alas; you ask for a paragraph. And a short one at that. Would I be
unreasonable to supply five or six paragraphs?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">The LNC does not
have a specifically defined strategy; nor does it have a stated set of
objectives. The indisputable result is that it does not have a list of
tactics (i.e. well defined activities) to pursue to achieve any of these
undefined objectives. While attempts have been made, I am unaware of any
meeting that has established such strategies/objectives or any writing in the
bylaws or policy manual that establishes such. (The policy manual lists a
set of “core activities”, but that’s about it.)<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">Nevertheless, the
LNC is not totally rudderless. There exists an implied basic goal and
implied tactics to achieve the implied goal. I became aware of this implied
goal (although I did not immediately recognize the significance of it) at my
very first LNC meeting in November of 2010 in <u></u><u></u>New Orleans<u></u><u></u>. At that meeting, the
following motion was adopted:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d;font-style:italic"><a href="https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf</a></span></font></i><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"> (printed page 17, .pdf page 17):<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font face="Century Schoolbook" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook";color:#1f497d">. . . moved to authorize the Executive Committee to encumber
expenses for ballot access,<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font face="Century Schoolbook" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook";color:#1f497d">notwithstanding the provisions of section 1.05 of the Policy
Manual, for the year 2011.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="1"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">[Section 1.05 of the
Policy Manual is that section which limits Executive Committee encumbrances to
that which has been budgeted.]<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">This motion was
made, seconded, <b><span style="font-weight:bold">and the question called</span></b>
in a time frame of about 35 seconds. It was approved by a 11-1 roll call
vote. This implied goal has been recertified, implicitly, in every budget
resolution pass by the LNC in the last 5 years. The Ballot Access
Petitioning Expense line typically receives 65% to 85% of the budgeted
discretion funds in each year. You participated in the budget discussions
of the 2016 budget where Ballot Access Petitioning Expense was allocated 70% of
the funds available for allocation among the Policy Manual’s “core
activities”.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">This implied goal,
or objective if you prefer, is 50+ state ballot access for the Libertarian
party, with some added emphasis on Presidential elections. On the
surface, this appears to be a noteworthy objective. However, it has been
adopted implicitly rather than explicitly. That is why the question you
asked comes up from time to time. Gaining ballot access in all 50 states
is the primary focus of the LNC, and remains a primary focus in fundraising
efforts. (It’s hard to raise funds to purchase office supplies,
much easier to raise funds for ballot access.) And so, given the improved
chance to gain ballot access in <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>,
even if it is for a single election cycle, it is not surprising that the effort
is getting a large share of our attention and resources. Given that this
has been the primary focus of what the LNC does, and has been doing for at
least two (if not four) decades, it is something we must demonstrate success at
or we begin to lose the respect of our members and donors.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">That answers the
primary question, but the leaves the follow up questions begging for an answer.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">Since specific
strategies and or objectives have not been established, the vacuum is filled
with the implied objective of achieving 50+ state ballot access. While a
noble and legitimately political objective, it suffers from several problems;
the most significant of which is the problem of being unachievable on a
permanent, or even semi-permanent, basis . Thus, the LNC has a single
overpowering objective which is absorbs most all of its resources to achieve,
and continued consumption of these resources to maintain to the degree
achieved. In other words, a pleasant way of saying an enormous,
perpetual, drain on resources which precludes most all other possible uses of
financial resources.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">I have been
suggesting for some time now that expending most all of our discretionary funds
on ballot access petitioning may not be the best use of the financial resources
entrusted to us by our members and donors. For that, I have been
unofficially dubbed the “nattering nabob of negativity” of the
Libertarian Party. However, things are looking up. Thanks to
efforts of the Chair and Executive Director, the 2016 budget includes $45,000
for Affiliate Support, up 4,500% from where it was in 2014. Our Affiliate
Support Specialist contractor appears to have made more progress in just three
months than the LNC has in the previous six years (since the formation of the
Affiliate Support Committee). I look forward to the time when the
“core activities” other than the Ballot Access Petitioning activity
are allotted equivalent amounts of the financial resources entrusted to
us. At that time, the primary question and the follow up questions will
both, hopefully, be moot.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">We have ballot
access in 28 states; and ballot access is reasonable (e.g. ~1,000 signatures)
in another 10 states. The low hanging fruit in the ballot access arena
has been picked. It’s time to start producing political success in
the 38 states where we have ballot access or can reasonable obtain such.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">Norm<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">--<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">Norman T Olsen<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">Regional Representative,
Region 1<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">Libertarian National
Committee<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">7931 South Broadway,
PMB 102<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u><u></u><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">Littleton</span></font><u></u><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">,
<u></u>CO<u></u> <u></u>80122-2710<u></u></span></font><u></u><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><a href="tel:303-263-4995" value="+13032634995" target="_blank">303-263-4995</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma"> Lnc-business
[mailto:<a href="mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org</a>] <b><span style="font-weight:bold">On
Behalf Of </span></b>Kevin Ludlow<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, December 02, 2015
2:21 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> <u></u><a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><u></u><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Lnc-business] report
on <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
visit<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div></div><div><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Wes,<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Thank you for this
update. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I would like to make a
request of the LNC body. Is there a member that could, in a short
paragraph or less, explain why we should be focusing so many efforts on <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>? As the
Region-7 rep I find myself in an interesting position with this issue. On
the one hand I am biased to see <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
get additional resources, but on the other hand I am a practical business
person who sees numerous flaws with pouring money into this.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Do we want ballot access
across the country? Of course! This doesn't even need to be
discussed. But at what cost are we willing to attain that goal?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">What is the actual
downside of us losing <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
ballot access? I don't fully understand the loss would affects others
running in the state, but even if it entirely prevented their own candidacy,
how much do we lose with that? This isn't meant to be antagonistic, but
rather something the LNC should be tasked with carefully analyzing. There
was a lot of conversation that it hurts our brand in <u></u>Oklahoma<u></u>
(a similar argument was used in <u></u><u></u>Oregon<u></u><u></u>).
No doubt this is true, but in <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
specifically, by how much does it hurt us? Do we raise an exorbitant
amount of money in OK each year that we might not see in 2016 if we cut our
losses? <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I will refer back to a
point I've made before. Would any of you personally spend tends of
thousands of dollars of your own money on this cause? I remain extremely
frustrated we couldn't even get our own body to commit to $50 / month as top
representatives of the Libertarian Party and yet here we are cavalierly about
to discuss whether to spend $10s of thousands of additional dollars on a cause
which by all accounts we simply may not succeed in. I feel very strongly
this is the kind of difficult decision the LNC **should** have to make and it
strikes me that we haven't really analyzed the cost/benefits of it.
Rather we relying upon the notion of: "we believe in ourselves so let's
pour more money into this." ...a la every government pep-talk ever.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I will also concede that
I fully appreciate and understand the position the party (specifically the
Chair) is in for having raised certain monies specifically tied to us making
this effort. I do get that. But I'm merely wanting us to consider
how much more useful that money could possibly be in other areas. Are we
not a political party? Could we not politick donors into understanding
WHY the money they donated was ultimately moved to a different state
cause? Since everyone is a philosopher here, there is very basic
Aristotelian logic at play here regarding donation distribution. In the
famed question, "There is a surplus of flutes, to whom do they go?",
they go to the flutists as those are the only people who can use them. My
point being that there is simply no sense in us pouring money into a cause we
cannot win when that money could be given to states/people who can actually
improve the overall results of our Party - rather than MAYBE catch us up to the
status quo.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">So to conclude, I am in
no way saying we SHOULD cut our losses. But I would really like somebody
to quantify for me specifically what we lose (objectively) if we don't chase
this goal. Or for that matter if we chase it and fail. I am asking
that because I believe the "goal" right now is far too broad; of
course we all want ballot access. I want to know if what we would lose is
tolerable to the body. That question seems far more relevant in the
decision process.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Please feel free to email/call/text me any time of day at <a href="tel:512-773-3968" value="+15127733968" target="_blank">512-773-3968</a>
with any questions / comments.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Thank you much for your time.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Kevin Ludlow<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Region 7 <br>
<a href="tel:512-773-3968" value="+15127733968" target="_blank">512-773-3968</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div></div><div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" color="black" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Wes Benedict <<a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org" target="_blank">wes.benedict@lp.org</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> I went to <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u> for two
reasons: first, to help with the petition drive, but second, to get a closer
look so I could decide if I thought we should just shut it down. We are
spending about $2,500 a week there, and we're about to double that rate, so if
we are going to cut our losses and end it, the sooner the better.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">My bottom line
report to the LNC executive committee is that I'm confident we can ramp up our
signature collection rate enough to finish the drive before the March 1
deadline, but we are going to have to exceed the $65,000 budget for <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u> by $15,000 to
$25,000 to finish the drive.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I'm recommending
we try to finish the drive, but it wouldn't be so unreasonable to end it now if
that's what you decide to do. Things have gone worse than we had originally
planned. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">We initially hoped
that we could do this drive for $2 per signature and that we could finish it by
early fall. Recent petition drives in places like <u></u><u></u>Arkansas<u></u><u></u> have gone well, and with stories of
petitioners fighting over turf and demanding the opportunity to work for us in
some places, it seemed like we might actually be exceeding the market rate for
signatures in some cases.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">But things have
been harder than expected in <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>.
On October 27, we raised the rate in <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
from $2 to $2.50 per signature, and even at that higher rate, finding enough
people to work has been a challenge. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Before we started
the <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
drive, stalwart libertarian petitioner Andy Jacobs warned us that petition
drives for initiatives in other states in the fall would be competing with us
for workers and would drive up our costs, so we needed to get it done over the
summer. Unfortunately, we didn't start until the end of the summer. And
while Andy did good work for us in <u></u>Oklahoma<u></u>
for several weeks, he, as well as other petitioners, have indeed left <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u> for the higher
paying non-Libertarian Party Petition work in other states that he warned us
about. Although Andy is out of <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
now, he does continue to stay interested in our progress and has been generous
with suggestions for improvement. I'm sure he'd be happy to share his thoughts
on our <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
effort with any of you directly if you reach out to him. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">One suggestion
from Andy is that we should pay more to entice petitioners back and possibly
even pay $5 per signature for door to door petitioning. Our petitioners have
had hard times finding good locations with lots of the kind of foot traffic
that makes for productive petitioning. Door-to-door petitioning can give very
high validity signatures, so the $5/signature rate for 100% validity is not so
far off from $2.50 per signature for around 65% validity. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">In hind sight, I
wish we had started this drive earlier. But I don't think right now we need to
offer a higher pay rate (not that we could afford it, anyway). Instead, we need
to focus on recruiting more petitioners, and we are already seeing success from
that. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Projections I've
sent to Bill Redpath and Nick Sarwark show that with the new workers we've
already recruited, we will likely finish the drive on time. But we also have
several more petitioners saying they will probably be here soon to help, and if
just a couple of those pan out, we could finish in January. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I've heard lots of
complaints from petitioners that it's been very hard to find good locations in <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u> to collect
signatures. Petitioners have told us the grocery stores won't let them
petition, public places like universities and festival grounds have been
hostile, and the Oklahoma Driver's licensing places are too numerous to have
significant people at any single location. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">My uncle lives in <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma City<u></u><u></u>. I visited
him Saturday night briefly and was surprised when he told me he had seen
petitioners lately at the grocery and post office and he assumed they were
ours. I asked him exactly which locations because I wondered about the
conflicting reports. He specified by name the Crest grocery, Buy For Less
grocery, and post office near his home. I had hoped to find time to visit those
stores myself to ask why they might be letting petitioners for other efforts
work there but not libertarians (assuming that was the case). <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I didn't find time
for that, but LPOK vice chair Tina Kelly has since told me that even she had
been personally told by those chains she couldn't petition there, only to find
out later that one of the petitioners she recruited somehow did get permission at
a location of both chains. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I think some of
our stalwart petitioners like Andy are used to finding locations where they
occasionally hit the jackpot and collect over 500 signatures on a single day.
That makes up for the more common slow days. Petitioners who come from out of
town usually have transportation and motel expenses they pay out of pocket.
Locals don't have the travel overhead and we are getting a few locals working.
They may be slower than someone like Andy, but they can go slower and still make
the economics work. Locals can spend more time asking for permission at more
places and can afford to get chased away from more locations. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I personally saw
the entire batch of petition forms. That was reassuring. In fact I pulled an
all-nighter Monday and scanned all 2,000 sheets in case we need help remotely
with validation, and because while often hearing anecdotes of certain
petitioners routinely getting better validity than others, I wanted the
opportunity to see for myself. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">LP vice chair Tina
Kelly has been indispensable to this drive. Petitioners turn in signatures to
her, she gives us the counts, we wire funds, she writes checks, and pays the
petitioners. She also visits with the elections authorities to find out
important rules and procedures for our petition drive. She has worked to get
cooperation from a couple single-issue groups doing ballot initiatives.
Although results from those cooperation efforts have been lower than hoped,
we’ve gotten a couple thousand signatures from the cooperation. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Tina's son
recently put the <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
registered voter database online in a searchable format to assist with validity
checking. That will be hugely helpful. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">While Tina has
done lots of work, it's hard for one person to do all that she does plus
respond to all the complaints from current petitioners and inquiries from
prospective petitioners, not to mention answering frequent questions about
progress from Bill Redpath and me. We recently decided to have Paul Frankel
help with some of the local management assistance. I had gone to <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u> with the
expectation that I might recommend removing Paul to save money, but right now I
think we should keep him at least for a month to make sure new petitioners have
someone they can reach quickly any time of day. Later we can reevaluate the
cost of having him there. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Tina invited
me and the LPOK officers and activists to a nice restaurant Tuesday night. I
asked who would be a candidate if we got ballot access. Out of about ten
people, at least 3 indicated interest, including one who was against attempting
this daunting petition drive originally (because it’s so much work), but
would run if we made it. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I told the
prospect who might be interested in US Senate I'd give $200 towards the $1,000
filing fee if he runs in 2016, and someone else quickly offered another $200. I
think we’ll get several people to run for office in addition to having
our candidate for President on the ballot if we get ballot access.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">(My plane, where
I'm writing most of this note, just landed in DC. Final thoughts below from the
office.)<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I’m not
counting on legal help to make a difference in time for us. However, if our
counsel or the Oklahoma ACLU is successful in time, of course that might make
things easier. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I’m also
mindful of keeping alive the dream for 50 state ballot access, and the negative
impact giving up in <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
now might have.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">A Libertarian from
<u></u>Austin<u></u>, <u></u>Texas<u></u>,
Michael Chastain, donated $4,000 last week to help the <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u> petition drive. That’s in
addition to the five thousand or so we raised online recently: <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><a href="http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/serious-help-needed-for-oklahoma-petition-drive" target="_blank">http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/serious-help-needed-for-oklahoma-petition-drive</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I rushed out to <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u> Saturday partly
so I could be back in the office Wednesday to meet Mr. Chastain in person (he
was visiting the D.C. area and was interested in visiting the headquarters
today--Wednesday).<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I’ll have
more good news about support from Mr. Chastain soon. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The LNC-EC is
schedule to meet Monday 12/7/2015, to decide whether or not to continue the
LPOK drive. I’m sending this info to all of you know in case you’d
like more information before that meeting.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">cc'ing Richard
Winger.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- <br>
Wes Benedict, Executive Director<br>
</span></font><font size="1"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Libertarian National
Committee, Inc.</span></font> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>========================================================<br>Kevin Ludlow<br>512-773-3968<br></div><div><a href="http://www.kevinludlow.com" target="_blank">http://www.kevinludlow.com</a><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>