<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Century Schoolbook";
panose-1:2 4 6 4 5 5 5 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New\000D\000A";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times\000D\000A";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:TT20BDo00;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Goals for the LNC 2014-2016 term were adopted at the September 2014 LNC meeting in Alexandria. The adopted goals (page 14 of the minutes) are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:TT20BDo00;color:windowtext'>1. 1000 candidates in 2016<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:TT20BDo00;color:windowtext'>2. Take action to see that each state has an operational affiliate by June 1, 2015<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:TT20BDo00;color:windowtext'>3. 300 candidates by 2016 trained in “Who’s Driving” or something equivalent<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:TT20BDo00;color:windowtext'>4. Updated issue-based outreach literature<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:TT20BDo00;color:windowtext'>5. 38-state, party-status ballot access as of December 1, 2016<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:TT20BDo00;color:windowtext'>6. 200 elected Libertarian officials in December, 2016<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:TT20BDo00;color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>With regard to these goals in the context of the current discussion, I make two points.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>First, the only goal related to ballot access specifically specifies the date December, 2016. Thus the goal is to have 38 state ballot access AFTER the 2016 election cycle is complete. I’m sure the proponents of this goal had in mind the achievement of necessary general election votes to achieve or maintain ballot access in those states where the threshold is reachable and where such electoral success precludes additional petitioning for the 2018 election. This goal has little or nothing to do with the implied goal of 50+ state ballot access for 2016. The 50+ implied goal remains very much implied in my mind. I suggest that at the level of 38, this goal is unachievable. Nevertheless, improving from the current level of 28, to something like 30, is a goal which could be achieved and I would fully support actions, strategies, legal action, and lobbying to achieve that goal. Clearly, reaching such a goal would require choosing the states in which these activities would be undertaken. Perhaps, that is the major obstacle to setting such a goal.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Second, actions taken by the LNC with regard to achieving these goals has been minimal. With regard to allocation of resources, activities, and overall consideration, the implied goal dominates.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I support the decision of the Executive Committee to remain committed to the implied goal despite the fact that it is implied.</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> Our ability to succeed at objectives to which we allocate significant resources is hugely important to the future existence and growth of the party, regardless as to how or why those resources were allocated. However, I will continue my efforts to have specific explicitly defined goals and the development of plans and strategies to achieve those goals. Given the opportunity, I would vote against an explicit goal of 50+ state ballot access. That implies a strategy of building the party from the top down which I consider ineffective. However, should the goal of 50+ state ballot access be explicitly adopted, I would support efforts to achieve that goal and assist in developing the plans an activities necessary to achieve that goal.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Norm<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>--<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Norman T Olsen<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regional Representative, Region 1<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Libertarian National Committee<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>7931 South Broadway, PMB 102<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Littleton, CO 80122-2710<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>303-263-4995<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Wes Benedict<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 11, 2015 10:14 AM<br><b>To:</b> lnc-business@hq.lp.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>The LNC discussed, debated, and adopted specific goals this term, not the "implied goals" Mr. Olsen refers to. It was probably before you joined the LNC. I realize you joined to replace another member that resigned. <br><br>They're in at least one of the minutes here: <a href="http://www.lp.org/leadership/lnc-meeting-archives">http://www.lp.org/leadership/lnc-meeting-archives</a><br><br>You might want to read all of the minutes for this term, because they have a lot about ballot access in them, as well as other things. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Wes Benedict, Executive Director<br><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Libertarian National Committee, Inc.<br><b>New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314</b><br>(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, <a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org">wes.benedict@lp.org</a><br>facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational<br>Join the Libertarian Party at: <a href="http://lp.org/membership">http://lp.org/membership</a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 12/11/2015 11:59 AM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Wes,<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-Kevin Ludlow<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Wes Benedict <<a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org" target="_blank">wes.benedict@lp.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Kevin, did you know that ballot access has gotten easier and cheaper, year after year, as a result of our decades of sustainable efforts?<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Wes Benedict, Executive Director<br><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Libertarian National Committee, Inc.<br><b>New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314</b><br><a href="tel:%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232" target="_blank">(202) 333-0008 ext. 232</a>, <a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org">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">http://lp.org/membership</a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 12/10/2015 10:57 PM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I appreciate the variety of voices responding to my questions. And to Mr. Olsen, 6 paragraphs were most certainly welcome :)<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Anyway, thank you all for listening and for responding to my questions / concerns. I appreciate your time.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-Kevin Ludlow<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Region 7<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Scott L. <<a href="mailto:scott73@earthlink.net">scott73@earthlink.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>I am very glad that the Regional Representative from Colorado is asking us to look at and evaluate “This implied goal, or objective if you prefer, is 50+ state ballot access for the Libertarian party.”</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>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>2016 </b>Libertarian Presidential Nominee is on the ballot, obviously constrained by how much money we have available to pay for signatures.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>However – the next LNC <b>should </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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>That being said, I disagree with the Regional Representative’s statement that “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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> Scott Lieberman</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>1. Defined by the FEC, for example, as receiving 25% of the vote for President</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Lnc-business [mailto:<a href="mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org">lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Norm Olsen<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 07, 2015 11:50 AM</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hello Kevin . . .</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>></span> why we should be focusing so many efforts on Oklahoma?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><a href="https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf">https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf</a></span></i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> (printed page 17, .pdf page 17):</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:#1F497D'>. . . moved to authorize the Executive Committee to encumber expenses for ballot access,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:#1F497D'>notwithstanding the provisions of section 1.05 of the Policy Manual, for the year 2011.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[Section 1.05 of the Policy Manual is that section which limits Executive Committee encumbrances to that which has been budgeted.]</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This motion was made, seconded, <b>and the question called</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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That answers the primary question, but the leaves the follow up questions begging for an answer.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Norm</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>--</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Norman T Olsen</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regional Representative, Region 1</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Libertarian National Committee</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>7931 South Broadway, PMB 102</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Littleton, CO 80122-2710</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><a href="tel:303-263-4995" target="_blank">303-263-4995</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Lnc-business [mailto:<a href="mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org">lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Kevin Ludlow<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:21 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Wes,<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Thank you for this update. <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom: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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Times
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Times
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>Please feel free to email/call/text me any time of day at <a href="tel:512-773-3968" target="_blank">512-773-3968</a> with any questions / comments.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>Thank you much for your time.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>Kevin Ludlow</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Region 7 <br><a href="tel:512-773-3968" target="_blank">512-773-3968</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Wes Benedict <<a href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org">wes.benedict@lp.org</a>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'> 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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'> 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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>(My plane, where I'm writing most of this note, just landed in DC. Final thoughts below from the office.)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'><a href="http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/serious-help-needed-for-oklahoma-petition-drive">http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/serious-help-needed-for-oklahoma-petition-drive</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>I’ll have more good news about support from Mr. Chastain soon. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>cc'ing Richard Winger.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Times New
","serif"'>-- <br>Wes Benedict, Executive Director<br></span><span style='font-size:7.5pt'>Libertarian National Committee, Inc.</span> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Times
","serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><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" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><br>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>========================================================<br>Kevin Ludlow<br><a href="tel:512-773-3968" target="_blank">512-773-3968</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.kevinludlow.com" target="_blank">http://www.kevinludlow.com</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Lnc-business mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><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><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><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" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><br>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>========================================================<br>Kevin Ludlow<br>512-773-3968<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.kevinludlow.com" target="_blank">http://www.kevinludlow.com</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Lnc-business mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>