<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Wes,<br><br></div>No, I definitely did not know that. It seems like it would be the case as presumably we would get more efficient with our efforts over time, but I've not seen any data to illustrate that point.<br><br></div>In case I've come across poorly, I don't want to seem as if I object to the idea or anything like that. I just want to encourage the body to have specifically defined strategic goals rather than the "implied goals" that Mr. Olsen was referring to. As an advocate of the devil, while ballot access may be cheaper, one could still ask what it's end goal is. I would argue that getting a single person elected to a partisan office would have a far greater impact than simply allowing others (who will realistically never win an election) to run for office through our ballot access measures. I concede one affects the other and am not making a case for either, but just illustrating how the strategy could differ if it were defined that way.<br><br></div>For the time being, I'm delighted to see the party working so hard to help Oklahoma, am totally behind the effort, and hope that it provides the party with a big morale boost and helps boost the party throughout the state.<br><br></div>-Kevin Ludlow<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Wes Benedict <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org" target="_blank">wes.benedict@lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Kevin, did you know that ballot access has gotten easier and
cheaper, year after year, as a result of our decades of sustainable
efforts?<br>
<br>
<div>Wes Benedict, Executive Director<br>
<small><small>Libertarian National Committee, Inc.<span class=""><br>
<b>New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314</b><br>
<a href="tel:%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232" value="+12023330008" target="_blank">(202) 333-0008 ext. 232</a>, <a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org" target="_blank">wes.benedict@lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://facebook.com/libertarians" target="_blank">facebook.com/libertarians</a> @LPNational<br>
Join the Libertarian Party at: <a href="http://lp.org/membership" target="_blank">http://lp.org/membership</a></span></small></small><br>
<br>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div>On 12/10/2015 10:57 PM, Kevin Ludlow
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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">
<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"> </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 Colorado
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">.”</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </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.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </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.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </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).</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </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 .”</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </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.</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 (Alabama
and Connecticut
come to mind).</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </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"></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </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"></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana" color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> </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><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b>
<a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [Lnc-business] report
on Oklahoma
visit</font></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </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 . . .</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></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
Oklahoma?<font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"></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></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?</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></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.)</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></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
New Orleans. At that meeting, the
following motion was adopted:</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></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"></a><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):</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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font face="Century
Schoolbook" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span>. . . moved to
authorize the Executive Committee to encumber
expenses for ballot access,</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font face="Century
Schoolbook" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span>notwithstanding
the provisions of section 1.05 of the Policy
Manual, for the year 2011.</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></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.]</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></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”.</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></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 Oklahoma,
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.</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></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.</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></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.</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></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.</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></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.</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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">Norm</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></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</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</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</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</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">Littleton</span></font><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">,
CO 80122-2710</span></font><font face="Calibri" color="#1f497d" size="2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d"></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></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></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>
<a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [Lnc-business] report
on Oklahoma
visit</span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New
Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<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,</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. </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 Oklahoma?
As the
Region-7 rep I find myself
in an interesting position
with this issue. On
the one hand I am biased to
see Oklahoma
get additional resources,
but on the other hand I am a
practical business
person who sees numerous
flaws with pouring money
into this.</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?</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 Oklahoma
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 Oklahoma
(a similar argument was used in
Oregon).
No doubt this is true, but in
Oklahoma
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? </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.</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.</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.</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.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </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.</span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times
New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Kevin
Ludlow</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></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"> </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"> </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</span></font></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"> </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:</span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> I went to
Oklahoma 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.</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 Oklahoma
by $15,000 to
$25,000 to finish the drive.</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. </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 Arkansas 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.</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 Oklahoma.
On October 27, we raised the rate in
Oklahoma
from $2 to $2.50 per signature, and even
at that higher rate, finding enough
people to work has been a challenge. </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Before we
started
the Oklahoma
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
Oklahoma
for several weeks, he, as well as other
petitioners, have indeed left Oklahoma
for the higher
paying non-Libertarian Party Petition
work in other states that he warned us
about. Although Andy is out of Oklahoma
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 Oklahoma
effort with any of you directly if you
reach out to him. </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. </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. </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. </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
Oklahoma 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. </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">My uncle lives
in Oklahoma City. 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). </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. </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. </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. </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. </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 Oklahoma
registered voter database online in a
searchable format to assist with
validity
checking. That will be hugely helpful. </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 Oklahoma 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. </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. </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.</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.)</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. </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 Oklahoma
now might have.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">A Libertarian
from
Austin, Texas,
Michael Chastain, donated $4,000 last
week to help the Oklahoma petition
drive. That’s in
addition to the five thousand or so we
raised online recently: </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"></a><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></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I rushed out to
Oklahoma 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).</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. </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.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">cc'ing Richard
Winger.</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> </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"> </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" target="_blank">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>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>========================================================<br>
Kevin Ludlow<br>
<a href="tel:512-773-3968" value="+15127733968" target="_blank">512-773-3968</a><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>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</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>