<div dir="ltr"><div>I am sure you all have received Starchild's email, which contained forwarded emails by Mr. Riemers, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Benedict, which was sent this morning. Rather than hitting "reply all" there, I thought it would be best to reply via the business list.</div><div><br></div><div>Beginning from the top: First of all, it is not true that a single individual is making unilateral decisions on ballot access. Ultimately, all action is taken by this board or its EC. I would favor having more empowered committees with independent powers of action, but it's not what we have at the moment. Instead, we have people and committees reporting to the board. Following the allocation of money by the board, staff expends that money in keeping with the Policy Manual provisions. </div><div><br></div><div>Regarding contracts: LNC members do not need to guess at their contents; board members have the right to inspect corporate records after signing a non-disclosure agreement. Mr. Jacobs says that Mr. Tuttle received an advance, but points only to a cash-basis report; for all I know, that payment is a delayed payment for some past activity. Mr. Tuttle, via Mr. Riemers, denies receiving an advance. I will separately request from staff a copy of this contract but, in keeping with the NDA, I will not discuss its provisions publicly. I do not agree that they should be public. It disadvantages both the party (which is harmed in its negotiation position) and staff/contractors (who suffer a loss of privacy) to make such things public in the broad sense.</div><div><br></div><div>A lot of ink seems, to me, to be spilled in response to misunderstandings of what a board ought to do. A board is not management; a board provides governance. I can certainly understand why there is misunderstanding on this point; the LNC micromanages and often fails to provide governance for the party. The response is not to conclude that this is what the board should do, but rather, in my view, for the LNC to stop doing that and to start governing. I provided an example of this the other day regarding messaging. A better board governance model would, I think, make for a far more effective party and LNC. Instead, we adopt goals, drag them out every once in a while, but, by and large, fail to adopt policies related to our goals, fail to establish mechanisms to see our goals carried out, and fail to tie accountability and reviews to our goals. I would like to see us do a better job of creating a joint vision, transmitting that vision to those who look to us for leadership, and establishing procedures and structures to support our vision.</div><div><br></div><div>One thing the board did do was form a ballot access committee. I note that forming such a committee most certainly does not mean that individuals cannot come to the LNC with proposals; we didn't establish any rules about automatic referral of matters to this committee. It does mean that we as a board expressed a desire to have a small group work together to research questions related to ballot access and to present their recommendations to the board. That doesn't stop anyone from also presenting recommendations. I have expressed an interest in, from a strategic point of view (I claim no special knowledge or expertise in tactics), reviewing the way we view ballot access, its role in our priority structure, and the way we make decisions about it. These are questions that this committee may well consider, although it hasn't been instructed to do so. I will ask at the next meeting, then, the means by which this committee operates and what it does consider. In fact, the Policy Manual directs all committees formed by the LNC to report their meetings and attendance at each meeting.</div><div><br></div>Ballot access is the single largest item in our budget. Much of our activity as a board relates to allocating money to it, primarily because Mr. Redpath invests the time and effort to determine what should be done and to present it to the board. I know I am very grateful that he does so. Part of governing this party is handling ballot access properly, not just in terms of how much money is spent where, but in terms of governing and overseeing the ways it is carried out. This board should not be designing tactical models for achieving ballot access in particular states; we are not chosen for any specific expertise in doing so (although some of our members have a lot of expertise), and doing so is not the job of a board. Doing so would, in fact, prevent us from doing our job - if we designed the plan ourselves, we would be in a poor decision to review it. What we ought to be doing is setting clearer objectives - it seems we want 50 state ballot access, but how much do we want it? What will we give up for it? How do we wish, as a board, for agreements to be structured? What should be the overall strategy when fundraising for these activities? As I said about messaging - give staff overall strategic direction, let them figure out how best to achieve the goals we set out (that's why we hire people, after all), and review whether or not our objectives were met, and if not, why not. It is incorrect to believe that the LNC ought to be setting out each detail of how a drive in South Dakota works; it is also incorrect to allocate the money and ignore what happens next. <div><br></div><div>I would disagree with the idea of creating a parallel structure within the party for ballot access. Not only would this create massive inefficiencies, I don't understand how it would work. Do we imagine that targeted donations for ballot access entirely fund that activity, allowing that part of the party to have its own funding mechanism (this is not the case, and I think, unlikely to be the case in the near future) or would the LNC budget money to this alternate structure and lose the ability to exercise oversight? It makes no sense to me to invent ways for the party to do a poorer job of allocating resources to needs.</div><div><br></div><div>Furthermore, such a proposal takes us further from the question of determining how scarce resources are to be divided between different goals, not closer. </div><div><br></div><div>I agree with Mr. Riemers that our ballot access efforts need to be better organized, in the governance sense. I do not know, or pretend to know, the best tactics for winning ballot access, and I think this board is wise to leave such questions to those who do. The board must deal with matters of resource allocation, determining priorities, and oversight of the contractual relationships entered into in pursuit of ballot access. Part of the way it deals with these is by setting up appropriate structures, such as the Ballot Access Committee, peopled by those who do know best on these topics. I would hope that this committee will take up these matters and make recommendations; I would prefer if the committee were empowered to exercise oversight directly on contracts and arrangements. I would also note that the LNC can direct the committee to take up these questions and recommend procedures.</div><div><br></div><div>Here, then, is my vision: A board which limits itself to proper board functions, and does them well, not pretending to knowledge it lacks, but taking advantage of knowledge held by its members and by party members at large through strong, empowered committees. A board willing to tackle hard questions without being terrified of offending one another, so that important points can be raised and the best decision reached. Conversely, a board willing to tackle hard questions without making it personal. A board exercising a strong oversight and accountability function, but not trying to direct and plan every activity engaged in by the party, staff, and committees. </div><div><br></div><div>Such an arrangement would give us a stronger LNC, one which does not waste time on triviality but which, instead, addresses critical issues relevant to governing the party, financial oversight, and measuring progress towards our strategic goals. It would let us devote more of our time, as a group, to winning elections than to reinventing wheels. I would also like to see a party that prioritizes moving policy in a liberty direction by electing officials to public office over scoring points on ourselves; a leaner, more effective board providing good oversight and accountability can help us get there.</div><div><br></div><div><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div>Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)</div></div></div></div>
</div></div>