December 2012 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Email ballot on changing membership in policy manual
by Ruth Bennett 30 Dec '12

30 Dec '12

Here is the link to the Dropbox shared file for voting on this ballot. I had some difficulties using the lnc-business email address, hence sent it out to your individual emails. Please vote just once and DO NOT SEND ME YOUR VOTES. Please vote at this site. Thank you. - Ruth The ballot ends 10 days from today, so on DEC 30, 2012 at midnight EST. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lca0dm270grddrq/BmZuJ6Yjsz *Motion to amend Policy Manual Section II.5 MEMBERSHIP POLICIES such that the three statements "Until Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Until July 1, 2013", and the three statements "Effective Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Effective July 1, 2013. *

15 14

Re: [Lnc-business] Email ballot on changing membership in policy manual
by johnjaymyers 30 Dec '12

30 Dec '12

I vote yes. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note® II -------- Original message -------- From: michael cloud <m.cloud(a)cox.net> Date: 12/30/2012 2:15 AM (GMT-06:00) To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Subject: [Lnc-business] Email ballot on changing membership in policy manual I vote "Yes". - Michael Cloud -----Original Message----- From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org]On Behalf Of Ruth Bennett Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:06 PM To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Subject: [Lnc-business] Email ballot on changing membership in policy manual Here is the link to the Dropbox shared file for voting on this ballot. I had some difficulties using the lnc-business email address, hence sent it out to your individual emails. Please vote just once and DO NOT SEND ME YOUR VOTES. Please vote at this site. Thank you. - Ruth The ballot ends 10 days from today, so on DEC 30, 2012 at midnight EST. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lca0dm270grddrq/BmZuJ6Yjsz Motion to amend Policy Manual Section II.5 MEMBERSHIP POLICIES such that the three statements "Until Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Until July 1, 2013", and the three statements "Effective Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Effective July 1, 2013.

1 0

Request for co-sponsors regarding membership changes
by Daniel Wiener 29 Dec '12

29 Dec '12

Now that the voting period has ended and unofficial tabulations indicate that Mark's motion has failed, we need to postpone the effective date of the new membership levels for the reasons which Geoff gives below. I am therefore requesting co-sponsors for the following motion: *Motion to amend Policy Manual Section II.5 MEMBERSHIP POLICIES such that the three statements "Until Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Until July 1, 2013", and the three statements "Effective Jan 1, 2013" are replaced by "Effective July 1, 2013.* The relevant portion of the Policy Manual ( https://www.lp.org/files/PolicyManualupdated12NOV2012.pdf) can be found starting on page 36. The effect of this will be to postpone the membership changes for six months. If conditions in three or four months have further changed (e.g., if we have a more exact date for relocating our office and thus having to reprint our literature) we can consider a new motion to either move up or move back the July 1st date by a month or two. Daniel Wiener On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote: > I fully concur with Geoff's comments. I will happily vote for a motion to > temporarily defer this change for the reasons Geoff details; that only > makes common sense. But we cannot delay this change endlessly. Once > Mark's motion is defeated, and this LNC body has confirmed the prior > decision to proceed with the new membership levels, let's buckle down and > implement them on a practical schedule. > > Dan Wiener > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Geoffrey Neale <liber8or(a)austin.rr.com>wrote: > >> I strongly urge each and every one of you to vote no on Mr. Hinkle’s >> motion. If you’ve already voted yes, I urge you to change your vote to no, >> for the following reasons:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> First, there are concerns from many of you regarding PORTIONS of the new >> language, but not necessarily the entire new language, that are better >> addressed by amendment than deletion.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Second, mail ballots should be targeted at cut-and-dry binary decisions, >> which this is most certainly not (to me).**** >> >> **** >> >> Third, there are associated costs with this change that are measurable, >> but perhaps unavoidable, which I will explain further at a later point in >> this email.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I therefore urge a NO vote on this motion, and if this motion does fail, >> then I will immediately propose a motion to defer the implementation date >> to July 1, 2012, which I hope everyone will heartily endorse.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> It would have been nice if this had come up in open discussion on the >> floor of an LNC meeting, but this obviously was NOT on anyone’s radar last >> month. That’s too bad.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> My reasoning for my recommendation is as follows:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The biggest factor I want everyone to consider is the costs.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> We have all heard that the biggest single cost will be website changes, >> and many of us find this to be unfathomable. However, my understanding is >> that our current contractual relationship with our website provider is the >> source of these costs. We all know that we have to change our provider, >> and we’ve already had some presentations. I think we need to make the >> website changes as soon as possible. Kicking the new level changes down >> the road would effectively allow us to make the changes (if needed) in a >> more cost-effective manner than changing a system we want to get rid of. >> Why change the tires on a car we’re sending to the scrap-heap?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> We also appear to have passed a motion to proceed with purchasing a >> building. If this fails, we still anticipate moving out of the Watergate >> building. This will require us to change EVERY single piece of material we >> have, right down to letterhead, business cards, etc. It just makes good >> business sense to me to attempt to coordinate membership level changes to >> be introduced (or not) concurrent with a move, so that we only change our >> material ONCE.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Overall, I would have voted no on this motion regardless, because I find >> the merits of the new levels outweighs the arguments against it. But when >> I consider the longer range planning and costs associated with BOTH the >> membership and an address change, I strongly favor deferring the change.* >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> For those of you are still inclined to vote to remove this language, >> please consider that addressing objections and perceived problems with the >> new levels in a less extreme manner, by deferring the implementation, does >> not guarantee the success or failure of your attempts to discard this >> language. Instead, it gives the LNC the opportunity of being seen as >> giving full and measured consideration to our membership levels.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I therefore urge each and every one of you to vote no, or change your >> vote to no.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Geoffrey Neale**** >> >> Chair, Libertarian Party**** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-discuss mailing list >> Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org >> >> >

5 5

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] Mark Hinkle's alternative motion to buy a bu...
by SAM8074＠aol.com 25 Dec '12

25 Dec '12

Maybe everyone should wait to see if the Secretary actually does anything before co-sponsoring or voting on various motions. Sam In a message dated 12/17/2012 10:39:49 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time, vickilp12(a)gmail.com writes: I will co-sponsor the modified motion as well. VK On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Daniel Wiener <_wiener(a)alum.mit.edu_ (mailto:wiener@alum.mit.edu) > wrote: Mark has modified his motion, by changing the requirement to say that the monthly payment will not exceed 75% of the Watergate lease amount. He telephoned me and I agreed to co-sponsor the modified version as well, but I have not yet seen that version in writing. While I presume that the other co-sponsors will also agree, I do not know that for a fact. The Secretary has not yet put anything out for a vote. When she does, I will be voting against Mark's motion. Dan Wiener On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Vicki Kirkland <_vickilp12(a)gmail.com_ (mailto:vickilp12@gmail.com) > wrote: I believe Mark posted the co-sponsors for his motion. VK On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Daniel Wiener <_wiener(a)alum.mit.edu_ (mailto:wiener@alum.mit.edu) > wrote: Starchild, The Secretary has not yet put forth the motion to be voted on. We don't even know if there are four co-sponsors at this point. Dan Wiener On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Starchild <_sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net_ (mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net) > wrote: I vote "no" on this motion, for reasons I previously discussed below. I had hoped that Mark might revise it and give me grounds to consider supporting it, but this has not happened. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mark Hinkle <_mark(a)garlic.com_ (mailto:mark@garlic.com) > wrote: >> Dear LNC, >> >> I'm seeking co-sponsors for this motion: >> >> Moved, that the LNC approve the purchase of an office in the greater Washington, D.C. area, to be named in honor of David F. Nolan, contingent on the following conditions: >> >> • A minimum of 20% of the down payment shall be raised from dedicated contributions. If a portion of that is in the form of pledges, the pledges must be converted to cash before a purchase contract and mortgage agreement are finalized. >> • The monthly payment of principle, interest, and OTM (Overhead, Taxes, and Maintenance) shall not exceed our current lease payments at the Watergate complex. >> This motion will constitute authority to incur a mortgage if the above conditions are met and if this motion passes by the necessary two-thirds vote as specified in the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws. >> >> The final decision on what property to buy shall be ratified by the LNC's Executive Committee by a majority vote once the above conditions are met. >> >> RSVP................Mark Hinkle, >> LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair >> Tel: _408-779-7922_ (tel:408-779-7922) >> -- >> "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." >> - Samuel Adams On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Starchild wrote: > Dan, > > What is the cutoff point of equity below which one cannot sell a building? If there is such a fixed point, and if we buy, it does seem to me it would make sense to plan any proposed purchase in such a way that we meet that minimum threshold quickly, so that if our purchase plans don't end up coming to fruition, at least we do not have to walk away from money we've already sunk into making mortgage payments, but have at least the chance to recoup them by selling. However I don't claim to have any particular expertise about real estate transactions, so maybe I'm missing something here. > > What I told Mark Hinkle when he called me last night to lobby for my vote for his alternate motion, I'll say here as well -- I'm potentially open to voting for a motion including language addressing the issues and concerns raised in the document copied below about how to get the most out of a Libertarian "brick and mortar" space. The more of these concerns a motion to buy a building addresses, and the more strongly it addresses them, the more likely it is to get my support. Conversely, a motion that offers nothing to address these concerns is unlikely to get my support. > > One of my inspirations in terms of what a more functional and effective LP headquarters could look like is the "Freedoms Phoenix" workshop in Phoenix, Arizona. Here is a 9-minute video from 2010 where Ernie Hancock (LP member and former candidate for national chair, and the guy responsible for the "Ron Paul r3VOLution" meme, for those who don't know him) gives a tour of the space and explains what they do there -- _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFeeB41UpI8_ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFeeB41UpI8) . > > I'm not saying the Freedom's Phoenix space is perfect -- in the video, Ernie touts its *lack* of external visibility as an advantage, which makes little sense to me since he goes on to say how they have lots of events there, and obviously the video and other information about the space is out there on the Internet as well so it's not like they're really hiding from anyone. I think almost any libertarian brick-and-mortar space is missing an opportunity by not seeking to expose passers-by to libertarian graphics and information. The Freedoms Phoenix space also feels a bit cold and uninviting; it could use more of a homey touch, imho. But there is a heck of a lot to like about the impressive work they've done down there. It is a functional space where people (not just a few insiders, but lots of freedom supporters) can come in and work and get stuff done. It doesn't look like a corporate office, and has a significant feel of being a community space, a place where libertarians can hang out, bond, network, etc., a place to which people can contribute in various ways without a lot of bureaucracy or hassle. > > Since what a building offers is often considerably more important than specifically where it is located, and therefore we shouldn't automatically eliminate excellent spaces from consideration simply based on their location, I will also be more open to a motion that does not limit our building search to the Washington D.C. area. That being said, so far I've really only heard two options for relocating outside D.C. that seem like they could potentially outweigh the advantages of being located in or very near the U.S. capitol district: > > (1) Basing our national HQ in New Hampshire, both to support, and be supported by, the Free State Project. I think the FSP is something that is likely to continue building over time, and therefore it's sort of an investment in the future. I think we should also try to work with and support other libertarian groups to the extent that we practically can. Not only does it increase the solidarity and strength of the libertarian movement as a whole, but they may return the favor by trying to do more to help and support the LP. In practical terms, New Hampshire offers not only the freest political climate in the nation, but a strong base of liberty-minded activists who could potentially volunteer at headquarters and help out with projects. > > (2) Having a mobile office based out of a large RV, which could hypothetically be parked in the D.C. environs most of the time, perhaps moving around a bit to show up at D.C. protests on the national mall, important press conferences, etc., but go on the road during campaign season to make appearances with presidential, state and local LP candidates, at other (L)ibertarian events, etc. This option could be considerably cheaper than either buying or leasing a building, and would allow us major public visibility compared with a fixed location via having our "office" plastered with Libertarian propaganda like the Gary Johnson vans that were driving around, as well as the flexibility to quickly relocate to different areas if desired by this or future LNCs. (Thanks to California LP member Mike Seebeck for this idea) > > During this whole discussion about what to do about the LP's national office (indeed, in lots of other LNC discussions too!), it's important we keep in mind that the "options on the table" are whichever options we choose to put on the table. > > To the extent we make a habit of assuming that people won't support an idea just because it's new or unfamiliar, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by precluding consideration of fresh new ideas and perspectives. > > "Why should I vote Libertarian when everybody knows that realistically it's going to be Obama or Romney?" We know how that kind of thinking hurts the LP and the freedom movement out there in the real world. We know how the unwillingness to truly consider doing something differently because people don't think others will consider it, and therefore assume "that will never happen", can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We also know that some of our opponents realize this too, and deliberately encourage "that will never happen" thinking in the hopes that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy! > > So it's good to be similarly aware of these dynamics within our own organization, and to understand when the main reasons for not giving something a chance are "political" rather than factual. Many individuals may be privately thinking, "Boy, that actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea, but I don't want to be the one to stand up and say so." This is where being vertebrates comes in! :-) > > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee > > > The Ideal Libertarian “Brick & Mortar” Space > > When Libertarian Party or other pro-freedom groups reach a certain size and have a certain amount of money at their disposal, talk inevitably turns to procuring some kind of office. The national Libertarian Party has an office, as does the California LP (circa 2012). > > Unfortunately, our party is not getting as much benefit from these and other similar spaces as it could. Indeed, the term “office” itself may be part of the problem, in that it can prevent people from thinking outside the box when it comes to the potential of brick-and-mortar spaces! > > Here are some questions to ask about a proposed – or existing – brick-and-mortar location, roughly in order of importance. The more questions you can answer with a “Yes”, the more of an asset the space is likely to be to the LP and to the libertarian cause. > > _______________________________________________________________ > • Does the space function as a kind of libertarian community center (i.e. users have a sense of it not just being the private space of party officers or paid staffers who work there, but belonging to the whole party and to some degree the whole libertarian movement) that is important to the local LP chapter, pro-freedom activists, and friendly community groups as well as to people in the party? > > • Is the space economically sustainable and cost-efficient (i.e. does it have cheap rent or overhead)? > > • Can activists make lots of things (meetings, speakers, workshops, parties, etc.) happen at the space with a minimum of advance notice and bureaucracy? > > • Is the space located in a high-visibility location such that messages and materials can be displayed which will be readily seen by passers-by? > > • Is the space readily accessible (i.e. centrally located, in a walkable neighborhood, in proximity to mass transit and convenient/affordable parking, accessible to people with disabilities)? > > • Is the space a friendly, welcoming place for locals and out-of-towners to drop in and visit, sit down and have a cup of coffee, read some back issues of party newsletters, chat with other libertarians, get online to do some activism, use the bathroom, take a shower, etc.? > > • Is the space geared toward providing things for interns and volunteers to do, both long-term and on a drop-in basis? > > • Does the space serve as a distribution hub for activist materials (free literature and other items which activists can stop in and pick up in bulk for distribution or passers-by can peruse or take with them to learn about libertarianism)? > > • Is the space transparent in its operations so that people can readily discover how to fully make use of it and get things done (e.g. are there easily learned procedures for scheduling events or using equipment, posted office hours during which specific named staffers will be on hand to answer questions, etc.)? > > • Is the space in proximity to centers of political power (U.S. or state capitol, city hall), and public spaces (plazas, parks, and other gathering places) to serve as a ready base camp for protesting, lobbying, and other outside political doings? > > • Does the space have a participatory feel to it (e.g. are activists easily able to contribute their own decorations, materials, and so on to enhance it), and do its users have a say in how it is run? > > • Does the space have a minimum of rules and restrictions (e.g. are eating, drinking, smoking, animals, bicycles, rollerblades, etc., allowed?) > > • Does the space have an “organic” feel to it, a sense of being a place with a soul (e.g. is it comfortable, is it aesthetically pleasing, is there art, is the lighting friendly, is it neither too messy nor too pristine, etc.)? > > • Does the space offer temporary to long-term storage for protest signs, banners, button-making machines, audio/PA equipment, and other materials people might not readily be able to store at home or might desire to maintain in a shared, accessible group space? > > • Does the space serve as an effective workshop for activists to get things done (making signs and banners, filming and recording, creating art, etc.)? > > • Is the space accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to trusted activists, and does it have places for people to crash if necessary? > > • Does the space include a store where people can buy pro-freedom merchandise and supplies? > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > > On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Wiener wrote: > >> I'm replying to this suggested motion on LNC-Discuss. >> >> I for one am not willing to vote for Mark's motion, and I strongly doubt that there is a two-thirds majority of the LNC which will do so. I am very leery of imposing long-term obligations on future LNC's which could mire the Libertarian Party in a financial quagmire, and this applies to both long-term leases and mortgages. I will only vote to purchase an office if there is a sufficiently large down payment that I can be confident our mortgage will not sink under water, and if we commit to paying off the mortgage in a short time span. These are very uncertain economic times, and I believe there are significant risks in the commercial real estate market in Washington, D.C. (and elsewhere). But if we have a large enough equity, we can at least sell the building as a last resort if we're forced to by future financial exigencies. >> >> Dan Wiener > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-discuss mailing list > _Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org_ (mailto:Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org) > _http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org_ (http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org) _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list _Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org_ (mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org) _http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org_ (http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org) _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list _Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org_ (mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org) _http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org_ (http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org) _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list _Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org_ (mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org) _http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org_ (http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org) _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list _Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org_ (mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org) _http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org_ (http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org) _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

2 1

Geoff's motion.
by Vicki Kirkland 21 Dec '12

21 Dec '12

I vote yes on Geoff's motion. VK

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Email ballot on changing membership in policy manual
by SAM8074＠aol.com 21 Dec '12

21 Dec '12

Although I think I was able to vote on dropbox, I will add my "yes" vote to this list also for those keeping score. Sam Goldstein, Chair Libertarian Party of Indiana LNC Region 3 Alternate 8925 N. Meridian St., Ste. 101 Indianapolis IN 46260 317-850-0726 Cell 317-582-1773 Fax chair(a)lpin.org Email In a message dated 12/21/2012 11:03:09 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time, rleewrights(a)gmail.com writes: I vote, "Nay." I had the same problem as Mr. Wiener and I agree with his assessment. Frankly, I can't see how using Dropbox is easier than just using our normal lists. Lee Wrights Vice Chair Libertarian Party On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Daniel Wiener <_wiener(a)alum.mit.edu_ (mailto:wiener@alum.mit.edu) > wrote: I followed the link to the document in Dropbox and I was not able to edit it. After spending ten minutes trying to figure it out and googling for help, I do not wish to waste any more of my time on something which should be as trivially simple as voting on a motion by email. I therefore vote YES using this LNC-Business list. Daniel Wiener _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-discuss] Mark Hinkle's alternative motion to buy a building
by Starchild 17 Dec '12

17 Dec '12

I vote "no" on this motion, for reasons I previously discussed below. I had hoped that Mark might revise it and give me grounds to consider supporting it, but this has not happened. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mark Hinkle <mark(a)garlic.com> wrote: >> Dear LNC, >> >> I'm seeking co-sponsors for this motion: >> >> Moved, that the LNC approve the purchase of an office in the greater Washington, D.C. area, to be named in honor of David F. Nolan, contingent on the following conditions: >> >> • A minimum of 20% of the down payment shall be raised from dedicated contributions. If a portion of that is in the form of pledges, the pledges must be converted to cash before a purchase contract and mortgage agreement are finalized. >> • The monthly payment of principle, interest, and OTM (Overhead, Taxes, and Maintenance) shall not exceed our current lease payments at the Watergate complex. >> This motion will constitute authority to incur a mortgage if the above conditions are met and if this motion passes by the necessary two-thirds vote as specified in the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws. >> >> The final decision on what property to buy shall be ratified by the LNC's Executive Committee by a majority vote once the above conditions are met. >> >> RSVP................Mark Hinkle, >> LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair >> Tel: 408-779-7922 >> -- >> "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." >> - Samuel Adams On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Starchild wrote: > Dan, > > What is the cutoff point of equity below which one cannot sell a building? If there is such a fixed point, and if we buy, it does seem to me it would make sense to plan any proposed purchase in such a way that we meet that minimum threshold quickly, so that if our purchase plans don't end up coming to fruition, at least we do not have to walk away from money we've already sunk into making mortgage payments, but have at least the chance to recoup them by selling. However I don't claim to have any particular expertise about real estate transactions, so maybe I'm missing something here. > > What I told Mark Hinkle when he called me last night to lobby for my vote for his alternate motion, I'll say here as well -- I'm potentially open to voting for a motion including language addressing the issues and concerns raised in the document copied below about how to get the most out of a Libertarian "brick and mortar" space. The more of these concerns a motion to buy a building addresses, and the more strongly it addresses them, the more likely it is to get my support. Conversely, a motion that offers nothing to address these concerns is unlikely to get my support. > > One of my inspirations in terms of what a more functional and effective LP headquarters could look like is the "Freedoms Phoenix" workshop in Phoenix, Arizona. Here is a 9-minute video from 2010 where Ernie Hancock (LP member and former candidate for national chair, and the guy responsible for the "Ron Paul r3VOLution" meme, for those who don't know him) gives a tour of the space and explains what they do there -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFeeB41UpI8 . > > I'm not saying the Freedom's Phoenix space is perfect -- in the video, Ernie touts its *lack* of external visibility as an advantage, which makes little sense to me since he goes on to say how they have lots of events there, and obviously the video and other information about the space is out there on the Internet as well so it's not like they're really hiding from anyone. I think almost any libertarian brick-and-mortar space is missing an opportunity by not seeking to expose passers-by to libertarian graphics and information. The Freedoms Phoenix space also feels a bit cold and uninviting; it could use more of a homey touch, imho. But there is a heck of a lot to like about the impressive work they've done down there. It is a functional space where people (not just a few insiders, but lots of freedom supporters) can come in and work and get stuff done. It doesn't look like a corporate office, and has a significant feel of being a community space, a place where libertarians can hang out, bond, network, etc., a place to which people can contribute in various ways without a lot of bureaucracy or hassle. > > Since what a building offers is often considerably more important than specifically where it is located, and therefore we shouldn't automatically eliminate excellent spaces from consideration simply based on their location, I will also be more open to a motion that does not limit our building search to the Washington D.C. area. That being said, so far I've really only heard two options for relocating outside D.C. that seem like they could potentially outweigh the advantages of being located in or very near the U.S. capitol district: > > (1) Basing our national HQ in New Hampshire, both to support, and be supported by, the Free State Project. I think the FSP is something that is likely to continue building over time, and therefore it's sort of an investment in the future. I think we should also try to work with and support other libertarian groups to the extent that we practically can. Not only does it increase the solidarity and strength of the libertarian movement as a whole, but they may return the favor by trying to do more to help and support the LP. In practical terms, New Hampshire offers not only the freest political climate in the nation, but a strong base of liberty-minded activists who could potentially volunteer at headquarters and help out with projects. > > (2) Having a mobile office based out of a large RV, which could hypothetically be parked in the D.C. environs most of the time, perhaps moving around a bit to show up at D.C. protests on the national mall, important press conferences, etc., but go on the road during campaign season to make appearances with presidential, state and local LP candidates, at other (L)ibertarian events, etc. This option could be considerably cheaper than either buying or leasing a building, and would allow us major public visibility compared with a fixed location via having our "office" plastered with Libertarian propaganda like the Gary Johnson vans that were driving around, as well as the flexibility to quickly relocate to different areas if desired by this or future LNCs. (Thanks to California LP member Mike Seebeck for this idea) > > During this whole discussion about what to do about the LP's national office (indeed, in lots of other LNC discussions too!), it's important we keep in mind that the "options on the table" are whichever options we choose to put on the table. > > To the extent we make a habit of assuming that people won't support an idea just because it's new or unfamiliar, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by precluding consideration of fresh new ideas and perspectives. > > "Why should I vote Libertarian when everybody knows that realistically it's going to be Obama or Romney?" We know how that kind of thinking hurts the LP and the freedom movement out there in the real world. We know how the unwillingness to truly consider doing something differently because people don't think others will consider it, and therefore assume "that will never happen", can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We also know that some of our opponents realize this too, and deliberately encourage "that will never happen" thinking in the hopes that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy! > > So it's good to be similarly aware of these dynamics within our own organization, and to understand when the main reasons for not giving something a chance are "political" rather than factual. Many individuals may be privately thinking, "Boy, that actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea, but I don't want to be the one to stand up and say so." This is where being vertebrates comes in! :-) > > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee > > > The Ideal Libertarian “Brick & Mortar” Space > > When Libertarian Party or other pro-freedom groups reach a certain size and have a certain amount of money at their disposal, talk inevitably turns to procuring some kind of office. The national Libertarian Party has an office, as does the California LP (circa 2012). > > Unfortunately, our party is not getting as much benefit from these and other similar spaces as it could. Indeed, the term “office” itself may be part of the problem, in that it can prevent people from thinking outside the box when it comes to the potential of brick-and-mortar spaces! > > Here are some questions to ask about a proposed – or existing – brick-and-mortar location, roughly in order of importance. The more questions you can answer with a “Yes”, the more of an asset the space is likely to be to the LP and to the libertarian cause. > > _______________________________________________________________ > • Does the space function as a kind of libertarian community center (i.e. users have a sense of it not just being the private space of party officers or paid staffers who work there, but belonging to the whole party and to some degree the whole libertarian movement) that is important to the local LP chapter, pro-freedom activists, and friendly community groups as well as to people in the party? > > • Is the space economically sustainable and cost-efficient (i.e. does it have cheap rent or overhead)? > > • Can activists make lots of things (meetings, speakers, workshops, parties, etc.) happen at the space with a minimum of advance notice and bureaucracy? > > • Is the space located in a high-visibility location such that messages and materials can be displayed which will be readily seen by passers-by? > > • Is the space readily accessible (i.e. centrally located, in a walkable neighborhood, in proximity to mass transit and convenient/affordable parking, accessible to people with disabilities)? > > • Is the space a friendly, welcoming place for locals and out-of-towners to drop in and visit, sit down and have a cup of coffee, read some back issues of party newsletters, chat with other libertarians, get online to do some activism, use the bathroom, take a shower, etc.? > > • Is the space geared toward providing things for interns and volunteers to do, both long-term and on a drop-in basis? > > • Does the space serve as a distribution hub for activist materials (free literature and other items which activists can stop in and pick up in bulk for distribution or passers-by can peruse or take with them to learn about libertarianism)? > > • Is the space transparent in its operations so that people can readily discover how to fully make use of it and get things done (e.g. are there easily learned procedures for scheduling events or using equipment, posted office hours during which specific named staffers will be on hand to answer questions, etc.)? > > • Is the space in proximity to centers of political power (U.S. or state capitol, city hall), and public spaces (plazas, parks, and other gathering places) to serve as a ready base camp for protesting, lobbying, and other outside political doings? > > • Does the space have a participatory feel to it (e.g. are activists easily able to contribute their own decorations, materials, and so on to enhance it), and do its users have a say in how it is run? > > • Does the space have a minimum of rules and restrictions (e.g. are eating, drinking, smoking, animals, bicycles, rollerblades, etc., allowed?) > > • Does the space have an “organic” feel to it, a sense of being a place with a soul (e.g. is it comfortable, is it aesthetically pleasing, is there art, is the lighting friendly, is it neither too messy nor too pristine, etc.)? > > • Does the space offer temporary to long-term storage for protest signs, banners, button-making machines, audio/PA equipment, and other materials people might not readily be able to store at home or might desire to maintain in a shared, accessible group space? > > • Does the space serve as an effective workshop for activists to get things done (making signs and banners, filming and recording, creating art, etc.)? > > • Is the space accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to trusted activists, and does it have places for people to crash if necessary? > > • Does the space include a store where people can buy pro-freedom merchandise and supplies? > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > > On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Wiener wrote: > >> I'm replying to this suggested motion on LNC-Discuss. >> >> I for one am not willing to vote for Mark's motion, and I strongly doubt that there is a two-thirds majority of the LNC which will do so. I am very leery of imposing long-term obligations on future LNC's which could mire the Libertarian Party in a financial quagmire, and this applies to both long-term leases and mortgages. I will only vote to purchase an office if there is a sufficiently large down payment that I can be confident our mortgage will not sink under water, and if we commit to paying off the mortgage in a short time span. These are very uncertain economic times, and I believe there are significant risks in the commercial real estate market in Washington, D.C. (and elsewhere). But if we have a large enough equity, we can at least sell the building as a last resort if we're forced to by future financial exigencies. >> >> Dan Wiener > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-discuss mailing list > Lnc-discuss(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org

3 4

Formal request for vote count
by David E. Blau, Esq. 17 Dec '12

17 Dec '12

1 0

Email Ballot regarding striking Policy Manual section 2.95 Membership Policies.
by Ruth Bennett 17 Dec '12

17 Dec '12

Mark Hinkle moves this motion and it is cosponsored by Tim Hagan, Michael Cloud, and Vicki Kirkland. Voting will close on December 18, 2012 at 12 Midnight EST Move that the following language be stricken from the LNC Policy Manual Section 2.05 Membership Policies: Until July 1, 2012 > The following levels of association are recognized by the Party: > and > Effective July 1, 2012: > The following levels of association are recognized by the Party: > • Chairman’s Circle* $25,000 annually or $2500 monthly in dues or > contributions > • Select Benefactor* $15,000 annually or $1500 monthly in dues or > contributions > • Beacon of Liberty* $5,000 annually or $500 monthly in dues or > contributions > • Pioneer of Freedom* $2,500 annually or $250 monthly in dues or > contributions > • Lifetime Founder* $1,500 annually or $150 monthly in dues or > contributions > • Patriot $500 annually or $50 monthly > • Minuteman $250 annually or $25 monthly > • Advocate $150 annually or $15 monthly > • Supporter $50 annually > • Foundation Member $25 annually > Convention registration does not count towards contribution levels. > and from Sub-section 3: Life Membership Status strike the following: > Until July 1, 2012: > A member who contributes at least $1,000 during any twelve-month period > shall be granted > life membership in the Party.45 > Effective July 1, 2012: > and from Sub-section 4: Benefits > Until July 1, 2012: > and > Effective July 1, 2012: > Non-member contributors shall be provided all benefits provided to membercontributors, > except for those rights specifically granted only to members or > sustaining members by the > Party Bylaws or this Policy Manual. > A contributor (member or non-member) shall be entitled to the following > basic benefit: > • 1-Year subscription to LP News > A member with a future benefits lapse date shall also be entitled to the > following basic > benefit: > • Customized Party membership card, updated annually, identifying the > individual’s > level of association and lapse date. > A Lifetime Founder shall be entitled to the following benefits: $1,500 > level > (Convention benefits are based on giving at least one annual contribution > or equivalent > pledges, from the start of the previous convention and prior to the next > convention) > • Special Name badge with Life Ribbon (Torch Club) > • Lifetime Pin > • Mention in program at National Convention > • Mention in LP News > • Mention on LP website > A Pioneer of Freedom shall be entitled to the following benefits: $2,500 > level > (Convention benefits are based on giving at least one annual contribution > or equivalent > pledges, from the start of the previous convention and prior to the next > convention) > • Special name badge with Life Ribbon (Torch Club) > • Lifetime Pin > • Special mention on signage and programs at National Convention > • VIP seating at National Convention banquet** > • Mention in LP News > • Mention on LP website > > A Beacon of Liberty shall be entitled to the following benefits: $5,000 > level > (Convention benefits are based on giving at least one annual contribution > or equivalent > pledges, from the start of the previous convention and prior to the next > convention) > • Special name badge with Life Ribbon (Torch Club) > • Lifetime Pin > • Special mention on signage and programs at National Convention > • VIP Seating with LNC member at National convention banquet** > • Mention and photo in LP News, with the permission of contributor > • Mention and photo on LP Website, with the permission of contributor > A Select Benefactor shall be entitled to the following benefits: $15,000 > level > (Convention benefits are based on giving at least one annual contribution > or equivalent > pledges, from the start of the previous convention and prior to the next > convention) > • Special name badge with Life Ribbon (Torch Club) > • Lifetime Pin > • Special mention on signage and programs at National Convention > • VIP Seating with National Chair or LNC officer at National Convention > banquet > or other events** > • Mention and photo in LP News, with the permission of contributor > • Mention and photo on LP Website, with the permission of contributor > A Chairman’s Circle member shall be entitled to the following benefits: > $25,000 level > (Convention benefits are based on giving at least one annual contribution > or equivalent > pledges, from the start of the previous convention and prior to the next > convention) > • Special name badge with Life Ribbon (Torch Club) > • Lifetime Pin > • Special mention on signage and programs at National Convention > • VIP Seating (includes guest if requested) with National Chair, LNC > officer, > special guest, or POTUS nominee at National Convention banquet or other > events** > • Naming of an event** > • Direct contact with National Chair, POTUS nominee, or significant LP > candidate > during campaign season** > • Mention and photo in LP News, with the permission of contributor > • Mention and photo on LP Website, with the permission of contributor > > 5) Benefits Lapse Date > An individual’s benefits lapse date is independent of the sustaining > membership lapse date > defined by the Party’s Bylaws.46 > Individuals making a first contribution shall have a benefits lapse date > established one year > from the date of receipt. Individuals who remit the required amount of > dues in response to > a membership renewal request shall have the benefits lapse date extended > by one year from > the existing lapse date or one year from the date of receipt, whichever is > later. > Individuals who remit the required amount other than dues during the > Renewal Period shall > have the benefits lapse date extended by one year from the existing lapse > date or one year > from the date of receipt, whichever is later. > Individuals pledging at least $10 per month using an automated recurring > payment method, > such as a valid credit card or ACH debit, shall have their benefits lapse > dates extended to > the last day of the following December. > Other contributions in response to other than a membership renewal appeal > shall not as a > policy extend the benefits lapse date, however Staff shall have the > discretion on a case-by- > case basis to extend a contributor’s benefits lapse date up to one year > from the last > contribution date, if failure to do so would damage donor relations. > Notwithstanding the above, an individual who has contributed an amount > sufficient to have > qualified for life membership status shall be entitled to lifetime basic > benefits. > <===== end of motion ======>

17 18

Some items for your consideration
by James Lark 16 Dec '12

16 Dec '12

Dear colleagues: I hope all is well with you. I am writing to mention some items for your consideration. I hope my comments about these items are helpful to you. 1) I shall vote against the motion to amend the Policy Manual regarding membership levels. While I understand the concerns expressed by several colleagues, I believe it is best not to amend the Policy Manual as proposed. During the discussion of this motion, an issue was raised as to whether there are people who have (a) donated at least $25,000 in a given year and (b) attended a national convention. I hope you won't consider it impertinent of me to mention that there is at least one LP member (Jim Lark) who satisfies conditions (a) and (b). 2) In case no one has mentioned it previously, allow me to note that I believe the closing date cited for the aforementioned motion should be clarified. According to the time stamp associated with Ms. Bennett's message, the motion was sent by her to the LNC on Saturday, Dec. 8, at 8:09 p.m. EST. According to Article 8, Section 10 of the LP Bylaws, the period for voting on a question shall remain open for ten days. If one assumes (as I do) that the "ten days" phrase should be interpreted as the question must remain open for at least 240 hours, then the closing date must be no earlier than 8:09 p.m. EST on Tuesday, Dec. 18. The convention I have always used is that December 18, 2012 at 12 Midnight EST should be interpreted at 12:00 a.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 18. Thus, I request that Ms. Bennett restate the closing date as 8:09 p.m. EST on Dec. 18. As long as no one else objects, it is OK with me if the secretary restates the closing time as 11:59 p.m. EST on Dec. 18. Allow me to suggest that henceforth closing dates be stated in terms of a.m. or p.m., and that terms such as "midnight" not be used. 3) In one of his messages to the LNC yesterday, Geoff Neale requested feedback concerning the matter of issuing a press release about the horrible events in Connecticut on Friday. I greatly appreciate his message and comments. I also appreciate the comments of Arvin Vohra and others about the nature of "social media," and the importance of responding quickly and boldly. Allow me to share some information with you about a previous horrible event in U.S. history; I hope this info is helpful to you as we look forward. As you may know, I had the honor of serving as LNC chair during the 2000-2002 term; in particular, I served as chair when "9-11" took place. The official LP response was issued roughly 24 hours after the event. In preparing the statement on behalf of the LP, I considered two points to be of particular importance: * It is crucial that we get it right the first time; it is much more important for the LP to have a first-rate statement than to be fast in releasing a statement. * It is important for us (a) to allow people to take stock of the situation, (b) to recognize the enormous pain and grief that so many were suffering, and (c) to avoid treating the victims in a cavalier fashion in order to make partisan political points. As I mentioned to my Executive Committee colleagues, I felt it was important that "we wait for the rubble to stop bouncing" before we issued a statement. My EC colleagues and the staff (in particular, executive director Steve Dasbach and communications director Bill Winter) apparently shared my perspective. I am proud to note that as far as we could tell, the statement I issued was very well received. (I worked with Mr. Winter on the statement; he deserves a great deal of credit for his work.) Thus, my experience leads me to believe it was appropriate for Mr. Neale and Ms. Howell to wait until today to release the statement about Newtown. (I suspect it would have been OK to release the statement on Saturday evening; however, I also suspect we didn't lose much by waiting until this morning.) I realize the world of communication has changed substantially since Sept. 11, 2001. I also suspect that many gun-control enthusiasts will not hesitate to exploit the pain and suffering of others to achieve their political goals. However, all things being equal, on the margin I prefer that we take a little more time in the effort to get our statements right, and that we show proper respect for those who have suffered so greatly. As always, thanks for your work for liberty. Best wishes to you and your loved ones for a wonderful holiday season. Take care, Jim James W. Lark, III Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia Region 5S Representative, Libertarian National Committee ----- From the LP Bylaws: Article 8, Section 10: The National Committee may, without meeting together, transact business by electronic mail. The Secretary shall send out electronic mail ballots on any question submitted by the Chair or cosponsored by at least 1/5 of the members of the Committee. The period for voting on a question shall remain open for ten days, unless all members have cast votes, or have stated an intention to abstain, by electronic mail to the Secretary. Votes from alternate regional representatives will be counted, in accordance with the ranking procedure of the region, only if the regional representative fails to respond to the ballot. The number of votes required for passage of any motion shall be the same as that required during a meeting. The Secretary shall preserve all such votes until the next meeting of the National Committee, at which meeting the Committee shall order the disposition of such votes. ----- ----- On 12/8/2012 8:09 PM, Ruth Bennett wrote: Mark Hinkle moves this motion and it is cosponsored by Tim Hagan, Michael Cloud, and Vicki Kirkland. Voting will close on December 18, 2012 at 12 Midnight EST Move that the following language be stricken from the LNC Policy Manual Section 2.05 Membership Policies:

1 0