<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Per request, I sent a copy of the contract to Mr. Katz. <br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org">wes.benedict@lp.org</a>
facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lp.org/membership">http://lp.org/membership</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/6/2016 7:26 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAG3paOTufJMpSK8NGz+RPC6zpggef6ZeViKVaQrUFqRG8F_CtQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>