<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Okay as promised to interact with Larry a bit.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==Are there no "rogue" consultants out there that
can do this or that want to be Libertarian or that are unhappy with the
duopoly? Maybe and maybe not. A search will answer that question.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Agreed though a search of in-house people can accomplish
quite a bit too.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==Are there no consultants who will do a piece at a time to
show results? Maybe and maybe not? A search will answer that question.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes. But see
above. And if we follow our budget to
the letter, we have only $49K left. Let
that sink in to us and to all members reading.
I do not think members will be inspired to give us more money if they
think we are so eager to spend it on things that have not succeeded in the past
without trying to pool our tremendous internal talent.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==Can Trent and I lead this without consultants and be
unbiased, covering all the required bases? Maybe and maybe not. But when we see
the proposals, we can figure that out.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ahhh after there are proposals, that might be invisible---
and the committee creep from others that has happened already is beyond
alarming. I love and respect you and
Trent to pieces, you know that, but we have people with decades of experience
in this Party that have insight here. I
am very pleased David was brought on board, but this is not enough. We new people sometimes act like if only the
party had had us for the past forty years things would be different and poo-poo
the experience of others. I also object
to the insular way the LNC does things.
Open this up to members. There
was no open call for volunteers and no commitment to transparency.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==Will we not have enough money to spend on this? Maybe and
maybe not. When we get the proposals we can see the pricing, look at our budget
and decide then. ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, this is where reality sets in. IF we follow our budget
to the letter we have only 49K left.
There is literally no money for this.
If you want my support, how about going out and fundraising for it? Show some member support in cold hard cash? Why must the LNC do this? THAT is a major problem in this party. If people have a good idea, go out, get the
bids, get the support, and THEN come to the LNC. I am intending upon doing this in part with a
historical project. If I can’t get the support, then I have to make the
argument that it is an issue the LNC must handle on its own. But none of that was done here. The LNC was the first resort. We need to cultivate less reliance on central
top-management and more on grassroots.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==Is this "fraud", as Caryn mentioned? I really
hope not.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A nit-pick, but please, I prefer Caryn Ann (I can’t even get
my husband to follow that, so it is a losing battle, but I am still trying)<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I said this due to a comment made during the presentation
that we could get an outline of things that need to be done and just take those
outlines and do it on our own. Maybe
that was carelessly said, but it was said, and if that is in fact our intent,
when we know we cannot afford this, that is in fact, in my view, fraud, and a
violation of the Statement of Principles.
We can say “Oh but we might hire someone.” But is that based in reality? We might find some rogue agency looking to do
it for next to nothing. But we also
might get a bequest of a billion dollars.
Neither is likely, but perhaps.
But I wish to be clear that going and getting an outline and using it
when we knew we could never hire a particular company is not the way I think
the LP should be doing business. It is
akin to “for sale by owner” home sellers getting a realtor to do a price
evaluation when they know they will not be hiring that realtor no matter what
(or likely any realtor). <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">== When Dr. Lark brought up the idea of Trent and I just
doing this on our own, I was very specific on why we did NOT want to do it
without the LNC. Because we feel that would be unethical and fraud. I am going
into this with an understanding that IF a proposal makes sense to us and they
have good ideas and pricing, then we are willing to pay for the services (a la
carte or in total) that we need. That, in my eyes, is normal business SOP and
not fraud. If that is not the case, then I misunderstood.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think perhaps what was said in the meeting was worded
badly, but I can get the exact quote from the video if needed, and what was said,
IF taken literally, was using people’s time and expertise to get a road map and
then running with that road map. That is
what was said. If that is not what was
meant, okay, we all say things poorly.
Lord knows I do.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==As for "outsiders", they may or may not be bad.
I am often an outsider with companies I work with and they usually think I
perform magic. :) We will look at
consultants and judge them appropriately, because sometimes they can be very
valuable with amazing perspectives.==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have vast untapped talent in our member base that we
didn’t even try to tap first.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">==Can we look to our volunteers? Sure. Why not let them know
what we are looking for and if they have a better volunteer plan, that would be
great. From my experience with non-profits, I rarely see that actually happen,
but I am totally open to the idea. ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then why isn’t that being pursued first? Why are we not modeling a Libertarian
voluntary society and looking to our own FIRST?
<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">===Should we have more than 3 committee members or multiple
committees? In my view, this will make selection, planning and execution more
difficult whether we use a consultant, us alone, or a combination. If there is a fear or trust issue (with Trent
and I being new LNC members) then perhaps the LNC can adjust our committee to
add the appropriate seasoning. :) ==<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I recommend that highly, and please don’t take offense at
that. I believe the LNC should consider
appointing a couple trusted Party veterans.
<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank for the mature and frank discussion. We are all friends here but we are also
fiduciaries of this Party, and that is my only motivation.<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">-- <br></p><div class="gmail-m_-3299647391694271768gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">==Of course no one can select a slogan for us except us.==</span><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">After seeing what the past LNC did with the website (not rehashing that here because we are still working on it), I no longer say "of course" to anything. "Of course" the old website committee wasn't going to hoist an ideological rebranding on us. Yet, that is what they (more specifically one former LNC member) did. And after the fact we have not yet proven we will do a thing about it. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">And I note that we have trademarked that phrase as a slogan. Like the adoption of the Statement of Principles, it is our slogan (maybe not the only one) whether some people don't think so or not. But that is another issue.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">==</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> What I think was meant was that, possibly, if we proceed with the project, there will be recommendations in the report that we should consider before choosing a slogan. ==</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I like to go by what was actually said and not guess on what was "meant" and I highly object to any of this even if that what was meant. I know what I am getting sold, and I am not caring for it one bit. First a website slips in unvoted for ideological rebranding basically controlled by one person. I am not going to be quiet about what I see as the beginnings of another such issue - even though unintentional. This is not a criticism about the committee. I believe Kevin did have an agenda and accomplished it (though I like Kevin very much - I did not like what was done there - none of this is personal). I don't believe that here but things happen, and I see it coming, and I will fight it coming. Small committees and already talk of ideological control being shifted is not something I will support. A lot of objections should have come from the LNC when that statement was made and none were but those who were called on.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">==</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">I think it's also important to remember just what the committee will be doing - getting bids. They won't be selected bids, they won't be making choices, ==</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I was told this about the website re-design back from the former LNC. Trust once lost is very difficult to rebuild.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">==and presumably, what will be presented to the companies as the scope of the project will be what we saw in the presentation.==</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I view "presumably" with the same jaundiced eye that I view "of course." I can't trust - my fiduciary duty is to question, and I will do my duty.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">==</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> Also, they aren't empowered to negotiate a contract, so the scope will not be binding until the LNC (or, if it chooses to delegate at that time, whoever it delegates to) make that decision with the company selected. ==</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Andd.... I was told that the former website designers weren't empowered to ideologically rebrand at all. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">A small committee, of mostly new members, with no clear ideological directive, with no transparency procedures in place, and with no cattle call for additional members out of the larger Party members is pretty much everything I oppose and promised to oppose to my constituents. This is not a criticism of the committee <b>for whom I give the utmost kudoes for stepping up and presenting new ideas which we need desparately- WE NEED GO GETTERS!!! </b> but it is of us, as a committee, who so quickly dismissed these concerns.</span></div><span class=""><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div>-- <br><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_5919135007482665047gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Joshua Katz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com" target="_blank">planning4liberty@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Of course no one can select a slogan for us except us. What I think was meant was that, possibly, if we proceed with the project, there will be recommendations in the report that we should consider before choosing a slogan. <div><br></div><div>I think it's also important to remember just what the committee will be doing - getting bids. They won't be selected bids, they won't be making choices, and presumably, what will be presented to the companies as the scope of the project will be what we saw in the presentation. Also, they aren't empowered to negotiate a contract, so the scope will not be binding until the LNC (or, if it chooses to delegate at that time, whoever it delegates to) make that decision with the company selected. </div><div><br></div><div>This would, I think, be a bigger issue if it were likely that consulting houses would take our request and build a proposal. I think what's more likely, though, is that they'll say "our basic service costs X." Based on their size, the scope of projects they undertake, and our size, I don't think what we're asking will cause them to come up with a customized proposal. That means less fraud concerns, because we're really getting a quotation, and less concern about the influence of the committee because the details of what's in the request won't impact what we get all that much. </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736m_-2940251686560342298gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Thank you Larry for your thoughtful points which I will address in full this weekend. I want to highlight a few ahead of time in case you want to provide fuller detail before then.<div><br></div><div>YES, I think such a small committee and comprised solely of relatively new Party members (and again no insult there, I am new too-- way newer than you are) is a big issue (<i>and candidly multiple Party members have approached me about this</i>), and not committing to transparency, nor opening it up through cattle call to the membership. Also a great concern raised over and over was over preserving our ideology, and I do think that several persons committed to making sure that isn't done (whether those persons are new members or not) would bring a lot of re-assurance. I heard phrases several times this meeting that really concerned me deeply, and I felt I was being placated in others. Whenever I hear that more Party member involvement, new or old, is a hindrance, my red flags go up. The LNC tends to treat Party members (inadvertently I believe) as a nuisance. We MUST stop this culture of holding things tight to our chest and open things up. I work with larger committees all the time. Three is absurdly (and that word is not one I like but I am struggling to find a less "judgmental" one), and for an ideological party, not having a few (again new or old) that are ideological champions to at least assure people that our most precious treasure is guarded immediately loses support from me. <b>You and Trent are fantastic representatives of perspectives we need!!!</b>, but more are needed. Someone who has been through this before and knows the pitfalls and someone known for their commitment to the unique Libertarian identity. At a minimum. And there are plenty of qualified people who fall within these parameters (and perhaps the second is also a veteran allowing multiple veteran eyes - we have treasures in the members we have that have been here for decades yet we didn't think that absolutely necessary here?). </div><div><br></div><div>But here is the bigger concern, and if you or Trent jumped up immediately to correct this statement, I would have been relieved, but it didn't happen and perhaps you just weren't as sensitive to the past LNC history of this as I am. When we discussed the potential of adopting an official slogan, an LNC member said "Oh that would fall within this new committee." <u><b>NO it absolutely would not, and I wish this almost immediately unvoted on expanse of power was challenged.</b> </u>The motion was to allow bids. That is it. This slippage horrifies members (and putting my member hat on, me).</div><div><br></div><div>And of course, IF the budget goes as planned, we only have 49K left in reserves at years end. I hope we do better, but I hope the enormity of that sinks in as responsible Party governors. Ballot access and debt reduction are our primary responsibilities right now - to me. I realize others disagree. Various affiliates have no use for national and if they think we are just looking for ways to spend money and model ourselves after the old parties, they will have even less. Unless Region 1 sees how any such thing directly and immediately benefits them, I will have some 'splaining to do.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you again and you know I love you to pieces - this concerns are a filling of my fiduciary duty to my Region and the Party which comes before all.</div><div><br></div><div>Much respect, </div><span><div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736m_-2940251686560342298m_5748446097127262900m_-2759489160596983458gmail-m_5919135007482665047gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span><div><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736m_-2940251686560342298h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Larry Sharpe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lsharpe@neo-sage.com" target="_blank">lsharpe@neo-sage.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Hi Arvin and Caryn,<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It was good seeing you both recently. Because it is so hard to sense the tone of email let me set it here: I love and respect you both and only want what I think will work, even if that means scrapping this idea. With that in mind, I do think this idea has some merit.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think there are many assumptions being made that may not be true: <br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Are there no "rogue" consultants out there that can do this or that want to be Libertarian or that are unhappy with the duopoly? Maybe and maybe not. A search will answer that question.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Are there no consultants who will do a piece at a time to show results? Maybe and maybe not? A search will answer that question.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Can Trent and I lead this without consultants and be unbiased, covering all the required bases? Maybe and maybe not. But when we see the proposals, we can figure that out.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Will we not have enough money to spend on this? Maybe and maybe not. When we get the proposals we can see the pricing, look at our budget and decide then. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Is this "fraud", as Caryn mentioned? I really hope not. When Dr. Lark brought up the idea of Trent and I just doing this on our own, I was very specific on why we did NOT want to do it without the LNC. Because we feel that would be unethical and fraud. I am going into this with an understanding that IF a proposal makes sense to us and they have good ideas and pricing, then we are willing to pay for the services (a la carte or in total) that we need. That, in my eyes, is normal business SOP and not fraud. If that is not the case, then I misunderstood.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">As for "outsiders", they may or may not be bad. I am often an outsider with companies I work with and they usually think I perform magic. :) We will look at consultants and judge them appropriately, because sometimes they can be very valuable with amazing perspectives.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Can we look to our volunteers? Sure. Why not let them know what we are looking for and if they have a better volunteer plan, that would be great. From my experience with non-profits, I rarely see that actually happen, but I am totally open to the idea. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Should we have more than 3 committee members or multiple committees? In my view, this will make selection, planning and execution more difficult whether we use a consultant, us alone, or a combination. If there is a fear or trust issue (with Trent and I being new LNC members) then perhaps the LNC can adjust our committee to add the appropriate seasoning. :) <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">So, it it still my opinion that the bids are a good idea. If they show us that the right consultants are out there, great. If they show us that we need to supplement them, great. If they get our volunteers to step up, great. If they do none of those and we need to come up with a plan and execution ourselves, still great. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">There is, in my eyes, no downside. Trent and I will be piking our third member soon. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks and enjoy the coming weekend.<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736m_-2940251686560342298m_5748446097127262900m_-2759489160596983458gmail-m_4057264389440950911h5">On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736m_-2940251686560342298m_5748446097127262900m_-2759489160596983458gmail-m_4057264389440950911h5">I echo very much of what Arvin says - he focused very clearly.<div><br></div><div>And I will point out the obvious. We don't have the money. That is the cold equation (to borrow a title from that classic sci work).</div><div><br></div><div>I think in-house we can do a great deal - and we have people with expertise and insights willing to jump in who are not on the LNC. I disagree with Arvin in one respect- and while this may sound critical - the criticism would apply equally to me (less so to Larry - but putting this so entirely in the hands first of so few people (three person committee!!!!!) and of persons with so little time in the time compared to others with decades of long-term experience is not wise. (I am also one of those new people) We need more Party veterans to mix with with the wonderful fresh new talented energy (like the current make-up of the LNC) but we are not being responsible in not openly soliticiting the vast resources we have in people who have a longer depth and range of LP-specific knowledge. </div><div><br></div><div>Arvin is right -old party expertise does not translate - and we have LP and alternative expertise in our Party just waiting to be asked in addition to the millennial perspective.</div><div><br></div>I was troubled by the dismissal of concerns of people who have seen this before. I agree that past "failures" (I hate that word) should not stop us but we can't dismiss it either. We are a governing board.<div><br></div><div>This seems like it requires several active committees with mixtures of experience levels and ideas.</div><div><br></div><div>I was also troubled by something else that was said- all we approved was a committee to solicit bids- yet not two motions later it was said that a potential slogan would be the work of this committee. This is NOT what was passed in its creation. The LNC engages in this kind of slippage often and the current website woes is a recent example.</div><div><br></div><div>I remain opposed to getting bids because the reality is that there isn't money, and I personally don't think it will inspire donors if it appears we are spending unnecessarily and speculatively. I also find it a violation of the SoP to ask firms to spend time to produce an outline for us when there is absolutely no chance of our being able to afford them unless we are upfront with that. I am highly in favour of an approach like Arvin outlined - with several committees that are not just insular LNC appointees of its own plus one without any commitment to transparency, solicitations for party applications, or a desire to have more breadth of party veterans. </div><div><br></div><div>I really like the underlying idea and highly advocate Arvin's mindset with a much more diverse Committe (more than one actually) that is larger and open to Party members.</div><div><br></div><div>Our fresh new volunteers can revitalize and harness the experience of those members. We need both perspectives here.</div><div><br></div><div>Rather than pie in the sky, I want to focus on what can do - and internally we can do a great deal and get resources to the affiliates for their upcoming races to get some Libertarians elected in the winnable races.</div><div><br></div><div>PS: there might be some new innovative consultant out there however, that is hungry and creative (and lean and affordable) that we might find if we think way outside the box.<div><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736m_-2940251686560342298m_5748446097127262900m_-2759489160596983458gmail-m_4057264389440950911m_-114643231831235333h5"><br><div><br>On Sunday, December 11, 2016, Arvin Vohra <<a href="mailto:votevohra@gmail.com" target="_blank">votevohra@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>I have a few thoughts on the strategic plan proposal. Normally, I don't discuss strategy on public lists, but the importance of this necessitates it. I think we have major opportunities right now; however, I have reservations about the approach of using a political consulting company.</div><div><br></div><b>Strategies vs. Implementation</b><div><br></div><div>Many of our current issues are implementation issues, not strategic ones. In other words: we know what do do. We just need to do it.</div><div><br></div><div>We don't need outside consultants to tell us that marketing should use relevant benefits for an audience, not features that appeal only to insiders. This weekend, Larry Sharpe, Aaron Starr, Carla Howell, and others specifically highlighted that fact. Imagine if all LP candidates were skilled at that! That's not a new strategy; it's implementing common sense. We have at least 2-3 great training programs that focus on that to varying extent. Growing them is an implementation, not a strategic issue. Taking resources away from implementation and putting them into strategic research may not be advisable.</div><div><br></div><div>Similarly, having a platitudinous presidential campaign slogan is obviously a bad idea. Having a vice presidential candidate indicate preference between old party candidates is obviously a bad idea. That's not a strategic insight. It's basic sense that needs to be implemented. For example, before 2020, I intend to encourage each presidential candidate to record a clear, unambiguous, and total rejection of all old party candidates, for the LNC to use if/when appropriate.</div><div><br></div><div>Similarly, having people register Libertarian is an obvious strategy. The brilliance of Mr. Somes's Re-Register campaign was not in the idea of registration, but rather in the effective implementation.</div><div><br></div><div><b>The Relevance of Long Term Strategy in Quickly Changing Markets</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><div>Looking at opportunities strategically (with long term planning) rather than tactically (with high situational awareness) is less relevant in a very quickly changing marketplace. </div><div><br></div><div>For example: in 2014, most political strategy organizations would have told us that focusing on withdrawing from NATO would be politically preposterous. Now it's completely fair game, thanks to Trump's campaign. Messaging rules are changing very quickly, and any strategy may have a very short shelf life.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Market Research and Messaging Research</b></div><div><br></div><div>As any business owner knows, demographic market research is highly useful. However, much of that takes place through trial and error. We have very quick and easy way to do trial and error market research using social media. We can target ads to very specific demographics and quickly measure response rates. Much of this has already been done. We can base direct mail campaigns off of these rates. A/B campaigns can help further refine messaging. For example, our data tell us that legalizing marijuana does well in social media advertising. We can follow that up with direct mail on that topic, and test if a serious "End the War on Drugs" or a sarcastic "Continue the War on Drugs" gets a higher response rate. This can be done for a few thousand dollars right now. Even after talking to a political consulting firm, that kind of testing would still cost a few thousand dollars.</div></div><div><br></div><div><b>Goals</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>Strategies depend on goals. Our goal is to cut government to advance individual freedom. Political consulting companies whose focus is election victories will not have the right experience for that.</div><div><br></div><div>For example, right now we can focus on pressuring the GOP to eliminate the Department of Education, withdraw from NATO, etc. Victory there massively advances our goal. That goal may be enhanced by electoral successes, but is not inherently contingent on them. There may be consulting companies with expertise in that area, but they may not be the same as those with a purely electoral focus. </div><div><br></div><div><b>Using the Most Expensive Solution is not Always the Best</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>Digital advertising, direct mail, etc. allow very precise demographic targeting and experimentation at comparatively low financial risk. We can see what messaging works with Hispanic women between ages 23 and 24 in chicago with incomes between 50k and 51k a year. My own business does heavy demographic experimentation like that. It's low risk, but when you find something that works, the returns can be massive. Small test mailings can easily be ramped up to nationwide campaigns. </div><div><br></div><div><b>Old Party Expertise Does not Usually Translate</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>Gary Johnson's campaign leadership had experience winning within the duopoly. that experience was extremely useful in getting media coverage, and other areas of overlap.</div><div><br></div><div>But it also lead to an overly timid campaign. Old party politics is often personality politics; new party politics does not have that option due to lower media coverage. Advertising like Governor Johnson's original ads decades ago in NM (if you vote for me, you'll have more money) may have been more effective than the campaigns more timid personality approach. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Conflicts of Interest</b></div><div><br></div><div>As some of you know, my personal business often focuses on getting people to dominate their high schools and get into Ivy League colleges. If I have a new student who wants to become the valedictorian in a school in which one of my long term clients expects to be the valedictorian, he's going to have to pay me a hell of a lot. It's not that I can't do it. It's that the new client paying me $X is just not going to be a priority over the old client who has paid me $1000X, and intends to pay me another $1000X.</div><div><br></div><div>I have no doubt that there are political consulting companies who know specific strategic weaknesses in the GOP or Dem party. I doubt that they would alienate those groups by telling us them. At most, they may bring up strategic weaknesses that everyone knows. Realistically, they may be legally unable to give the kind of insider knowledge that could be more useful.<br clear="all"><div><br></div><div><b>Consultants Who Can Help</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>I imagine that there are almost certainly consultants in the world who may have insights that could be highly relevant. But they will almost certainly not be found among regular political consulting firms. </div><div><br></div><div>My guess is that the strategic team we have, if we set our focus on messaging strategy and experimentation, will outperform consulting firms with primarily old party experience. </div><div><br></div><div><b>Alternative Mechanisms</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>I think that having a small group of volunteers from the LNC and state leadership work on messaging experimentation right now, using direct mail, online ads, etc. would be be faster and more responsive. </div><div><br></div><div><b>Things to Look for if We Decide to Go with Consultants</b></div><div><br></div><div>Any consultant we work for should be able to prove ability and ROI with a small project. A firm that demands a huge up-front investment as the only option should not be taken seriously. We're looking for a company that can help do what others consider impossible. They should be able to prove ability and ROI on something small first.</div><div><br></div><div>And before anyone says "McKinsey has a huge minimum....", I recommend speaking with those who have actually hired them. What I've heard is a tendency to arrogantly state the obvious and to be unaware of critical nuances. This is exactly what we do not need.</div><div><br></div><div>I appreciate the work of Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Somes, and strongly respect their insights so far. I would honestly much rather have them run this directly, as both have a proven and relevant track record at this point.</div><div><br></div><div>In Liberty,</div><div><br></div><div>Arvin Vohra</div><div>Vice Chair</div><div>Libertarian National Committee </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Arvin Vohra<br><br><a href="http://www.VoteVohra.com" target="_blank">www.VoteVohra.com</a><br><a>VoteVohra@gmail.com</a><br><a href="tel:(301)%20320-3634" value="+13013203634" target="_blank">(301) 320-3634</a></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div><span class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736m_-2940251686560342298m_5748446097127262900m_-2759489160596983458gmail-m_4057264389440950911m_-114643231831235333HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" color="#666666" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" color="#666666" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br>
</font></span><br></div></div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736m_-2940251686560342298m_5748446097127262900m_-2759489160596983458gmail-m_4057264389440950911m_-114643231831235333gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Larry</span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Larry Sharpe</span></b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p><p><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.</span></b></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><a href="http://theneosage.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">http://TheNeoSage.com/</span></a></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,204)"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue"></span></a></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,204)"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">https://www.youtube.com/user/T<wbr>heNeoSage</span></a></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage" title="View public profile" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">http://www.linkedin.com/in/neo<wbr>sage</span></a></span></p><p><u><span style="color:rgb(0,0,204)"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/neosage" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">https://www.facebook.com/neosa<wbr>ge</span></a></span></u></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><b><a href="tel:212-307-3545" value="+12123073545" target="_blank">212-307-3545</a></b></span></p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><img src="cid:image001.png@01D03B1D.00062F00" border="0" height="91" width="91"> <i>Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring</i></span></div></div></div></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736m_-2940251686560342298m_5748446097127262900m_-2759489160596983458gmail-m_4057264389440950911gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_-7578027546630279698gmail-m_8412258425338975736gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>