October 2015 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

can anyone reach Rich Tomasso LPNH?
by Wes Benedict 23 Oct '15

23 Oct '15

Multiple people, including George Phillies, have recently told me they can't reach Rich Tomasso. My notes to the LNC seem to have reached him in the past, so I'm trying again. If you are able to reach Rich Tomasso, please have him confirm that the contact information listed on these contact sheets is correct, and also if there is some alternative phone or email that he prefers to be reached at by the committees he serves on, such as, the IT Committee, and the Affiliate Support Committee. Info on the contact sheets attached is: Rich Tomasso rtomasso(a)lpnh.org PO Box 5293 Manchester, NH 03108 800-559-LPNH 603-397-3930 Thanks, Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. *New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314* (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict(a)lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership On 10/22/2015 10:05 PM, George Phillies wrote: > LPNH.org is defunct as an email target, so far as people up here can > tell. > > On 9/14/2015 3:55 PM, Wes Benedict wrote: >> George, you included rtomasso(a)lpnh.org on your list of emails that do >> not work. That's the email for one of our board members and state chair >> from New Hampshire. Emails sometimes intermittently work. Also, just >> because someone works on our national LP email list, does not mean any >> Libertarian group can get the same email address to work using whatever >> the email broadcast method.

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-10: EPCC and Contract Review
by doug＠vikingmetals.com 22 Oct '15

22 Oct '15

I vote no.. at some point we have to trust the people we put in charge.. Doug Craig -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-10: EPCC and Contract Review From: Marc Allan Feldman <marc(a)openivo.com> Date: Oct 22, 2015 10:25 AM To: "lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org lnc lnc lnc" <lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org> CC: There are certain decisions that should be made by the Chair, and the Chair should be kept accountable and held responsible for those decisions. The EPCC should appropraiately offer wise counsel to assist the Chair. The Chair should appropriately seek wise counsel from the EPCC, and from other members of the LNC. If the individuals involved have difficulty in communication and negotiation on a voluntary basis, this is not a problem that a change in a policy manual will correct, or even improve. I vote no. On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair(a)lp.org> wrote: > This proposal will make the process of negotiating director-level > contracts longer and more difficult. > > There is a static waiting period of at least ten days from the > agreement between the Chair and the prospective employee and the > ratification of that agreement by the EPCC or at least 9 LNC members. > Members of the EPCC and the LNC who do not negotiate contracts or > conduct interviews are provided substantially more power to block a > contract negotiated by the Chair and a prospective employee. Blocking > a contract based on provisions that are disapproved of is an easy way > to stop a hire without having the votes to actually say no to the > person. > > A key to any negotiation is to negotiate with the decision maker. The > decision maker on the employee side of a contract negotiation is > always the employee. This proposal makes the decision maker on the > employer side the Chair, the EPCC, and any plurality of LNC members > that would prevent a 9-person vote, along with a 10-day waiting > period. There are some candidates for employment who may not be > willing to negotiate on those terms. If this is adopted, we won't > know who they are, because they won't submit themselves as candidates. > > We already pay our top staff less than other organizations in the > libertarian movement as well as subject them to more criticism and > attacks than other organizations in the libertarian movement. Adding > a hiring process by multiple committees into that mix will not be > helpful to attracting and retaining the best people. > > If you would like to make it easier for the LNC to block particular > director-level hires or particular contracts, and you think that that > change would make the Libertarian Party more effective, you should > vote for this proposal. > > I vote no. > > -Nick > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> We have an electronic mail ballot. >> >> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2015 at 11:59:59pm >> Pacific time. >> >> Sponsor: Mattson, Kirkland, Goldstein, Riemers >> >> Motion: amend the Policy Manual by inserting and striking out text as >> specified in the attached PDF >> >> Alicia Mattson >> LNC Secretary >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business(a)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 -- Marc Allan Feldman CEO OpenIVO, Inc. Beachwood, OH marc(a)openivo.com http://about.me/marcallanfeldman 216-312-4169 (direct) _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

2 1

Middle School Election Lesson
by Scott L. 20 Oct '15

20 Oct '15

This article tells you everything you need to know about how Republican and Democrat State Legislators can devise ballot access laws that can yield a dozen or more candidates for a Primary, but then restrict the general election ballot to only two choices. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-principal-middle-school-election-w inners-6578286.php When you have school officials who would even consider pulling a stunt like this, you can understand how 30 years later, when their students get elected to their State Legislature, the students think this kind of election tampering is perfectly acceptable. Scott Lieberman

1 0

Email Ballot 2015-09: Increase Branding Budget
by Alicia Mattson 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

We have an electronic mail ballot. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 14, 2015 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Sponsor:* Sarwark *Motion:* to amend the budget by increasing line 26 Branding/Political Materials Revenue by $15,000 from $20,200 to $35,200 and by increasing line 55 Branding/Political Materials Expense by $15,000 from $20,000 to $35,000 Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

19 29

Top Two victorious in Washington, DC
by Scott L. 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

It looks like the tyrants in favor of top-two elections across the country just got their oath-breakers on the US Supreme Court to help them out: http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/10/13/high-court-wont-tinker-with-top-two -election-scheme.htm Scott Lieberman

1 0

Nationally syndicated radio talk-show host to run for US House
by Scott L. 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

Jason Lewis used to fill in for Rush Limbaugh. Lewis is a big fan of non-intervention overseas, and he is probably more conservative on economic policy than Limbaugh. I assume Lewis is running for the Republican Nomination for US House, but I hope that the LP of Minnesota is at least talking to Mr. Lewis. Perhaps he could run as a Libertarian if he gets the cold shoulder from the GOP. http://www.startribune.com/radio-show-host-lewis-enters-minnesota-congressio nal-race/332083412/ Here is his campaign web site: https://www.jasonlewis2016.com <https://www.jasonlewis2016.com/> Scott Lieberman

1 0

Policy Manual provision regarding 2.5% of budgeted revenue
by Wes Benedict 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

This email is primarily a notification email to be sure we're in compliance with our Policy Manual rules. The Policy Manual says: > The Executive Director shall notify the LNC of any intention to > undertake any project that > is estimated, on gross, to cost more than 2.5% of budgeted revenue. I'm sending some fundraising letters that mention branding prominently. What exactly you consider "branding" is subject to interpretation. But as you can imagine, with a new logo and other branding, you change graphic design in snail mail, printed items, fundraising letters, business cards, email headers, brochures, t-shirts, stickers, door hangers, website graphics, and much more. Depending on how well fundraising goes, some of the spending will come out of various categories on the Standard Statement of Operations, depending on the area affected, but could include: 32 Fundraising Costs 33 Membership Fundraising Costs 35 Convention 36 Ballot Access Fundraising Exp 37 Building Fundraising Exp (for example a snail mail for the building using new branded letterhead) 40 Administrative Costs 45 Compensation 50 Affiliate Support 55 Brand Dev / Political Materials 58 Campus Outreach 60 Candidate, Campaign & Initiatives 85 Member Communication 88 Outreach I don't consider new polo shirts, minor website changes, new envelopes, etc., to be a single project. In any case, to be prudent, based on some advice from the APRC, I'm notifying the LNC in case depending on how things go and/or how we treat the bookkeeping we go over 2.5% of budgeted revenue. I have no plans to spend more than 2.5% on a project without approval, unless you consider all of the various minor efforts to be a single project, in which case we'll go over that. We're not building a website without LNC or IT Committee approval and don't have specific plans for a new website yet, just to ease any concerns by the IT Committee in case this email gives the wrong impression. Most of our fundraising letters raise around $10k to $30k. If one of the next ones raises upwards in the range of $45k to $90k, we'd be in a great position to initiate a new website with IT Committee and/or LNC approval. I don't think it would be prudent for me to predict one of our next letters will bring in $90k, but if so, we might feel a bit of pressure to move quickly on some of the bigger IT Project challenges. This email is primarily a notification email. I'm not asking for changes in the budget via this email. However, a separate request, perhaps by the Treasurer, may go out to ask for an increase in the branding budget, so we can add some new brochures to LPStore.org as and/or replenish what is already there. For Functional Allocation of Expenses purposes, I think the time spent on this email should be allocated to Admin, although a case could be made for allocating it to Branding or even Fundraising, since it was a fundraising letter that triggered this. Thanks, -- Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. *New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314* (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict(a)lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership

3 2

Re: [Lnc-business] (no subject)
by doug＠vikingmetals.com 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

I vote yes Doug Craig -------- Original Message -------- Subject: From: Tim Hagan <timhagan-tyr(a)yahoo.com> Date: Oct 10, 2015 1:50 AM To: "lnc-business" <lnc-business(a)lp.org> CC: I vote yes. Tim Hagan From: Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> To: lnc-business <lnc-business(a)lp.org> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:29 AM Subject: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-09: Increase Branding Budget We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 14, 2015 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Sponsor: Sarwark Motion: to amend the budget by increasing line 26 Branding/Political Materials Revenue by $15,000 from $20,200 to $35,200 and by increasing line 55 Branding/Political Materials Expense by $15,000 from $20,000 to $35,000 Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)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

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Oregon..
by doug＠vikingmetals.com 09 Oct '15

09 Oct '15

To be clear...until I hear different it is my understanding the Wes Wagner group is the group that is the legal state chapter and the one the we consider the legal entity. If I am missing something please let me know Doug Craig -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-09: Increase Branding Budget From: Kevin Ludlow <ludlow(a)gmail.com> Date: Oct 8, 2015 11:38 AM To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org CC: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Chair. To be clear, I'm not opposed to spending money on branding - not at all. I simply find it imprudent for us to allocate such a large chunk of our budget all at once to something that won't actually benefit us in a measurable way. -Kevin On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair(a)lp.org> wrote: > FYI, the cost of the logo did not end up being $5,000. Wes Benedict > has the exact cost, but it was much less. > > The other issue is that we have to have a budgeted expense line for > the cost of the new materials and cost of fundraising for branding, > even if those things bring in more revenue than is spent on them. The > polo shirt fundraiser was a success from a revenue perspective, but > the cost of the shirts goes on that branding line. > > -Nick > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > This is a tricky vote for me. I am of the mindset that this will likely > > pass, but I believe it should not. I would like to voice that reasoning > > below. > > > > I felt extremely under-prepared when discussing these points at the > previous > > meeting as I had only been elected to the position 4 days prior. That > said, > > my arguments against the logo were that there was seemingly no real plan > of > > attack for using it. I feel that point has now been vindicated if not at > > least illustrated. I strongly favor change (seriously, I'm young and > > impetuous to a fault), but I also favor it to make business sense. This > > went from a logo change, to a logo change + $5,000 to a logo change + > $5,000 > > + $30,000. > > > > Yes we need to change the material, but this mentality of just doing it > all > > at once strikes me as a kid-in-a-candy-shop mentality. This money isn't > > earned, it's donated for the goal of promoting a Libertarian agenda, for > > growing the party, etc. There is simply no evidence - at all - that > > immediately changing our logo will accomplish this in any capacity. I > > cannot imagine one of you would be willing to drop another $30,000 of > your > > own money (especially given our existing budgetary constraints) simply to > > change your business branding on the fly. I would certainly not for any > of > > my businesses. We're willing to be hasty with this, in my opinion, > because > > it is not our money. > > > > Many large corporations phase in branding changes, sometimes over a few > > years even. I strongly suggest that we do the same thing. I do not > believe > > that the membership levels of commitment of donations to the LP are > going to > > change even a little bit whether we change our logo material today or > over > > the next year or two. Blowing through this cash is a poor business > > decision. > > > > I vote NO. > > > > -Kevin Ludlow > > Region 7 > > > > On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> We have an electronic mail ballot. > >> > >> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 14, 2015 at 11:59:59pm > >> Pacific time. > >> > >> Sponsor: Sarwark > >> > >> Motion: to amend the budget by increasing line 26 Branding/Political > >> Materials Revenue by $15,000 from $20,200 to $35,200 and by increasing > line > >> 55 Branding/Political Materials Expense by $15,000 from $20,000 to > $35,000 > >> > >> Alicia Mattson > >> LNC Secretary > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Lnc-business mailing list > >> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org > >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > ======================================================== > > Kevin Ludlow > > 512-773-3968 > > http://www.kevinludlow.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lnc-business mailing list > > Lnc-business(a)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 > -- ======================================================== Kevin Ludlow 512-773-3968 http://www.kevinludlow.com _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

1 0

Presidential candidates
by Joshua Katz 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

Colleagues, I have been thinking about this for some time, and have decided to present my concern to the LNC for your input. Here is a relevant Policy Manual provision: Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for any candidate for public office prior to the nomination unless: • such information or services are available and announced on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that nomination, • such information or services are generally available and announced to all party members, or • the service or candidate has been approved by the state chair. This leaves open to some interpretation (some would say it leaves a penumbra) a few questions, such as what "declared" means in provision 1. The easiest way to comply with this provision would be to simply not maintain a list of Presidential candidates. However, this may not be practical, since HQ will be asked who our candidates are, and we might as well have a list. I would not be opposed to eliminating the list, but I'm also not necessarily opposed to having one. Nor is it practical to list everyone who says they want our nomination, particularly if we wish to appear credible. A look at the 1175 FEC Form 2 Filers will confirm that no party can list all of its "declared candidates" nor take all, or most, seriously. So, I agree with having objective criteria for being listed as a candidate, if we are to have a list. Here are the 2012 criteria: Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party Campaign website is current with contact information Nothing binds us to observe the past requirements, of course, and I tend to think, unless the LNC acts, the definition of the criteria belong to the Chair or staff. I also don't think the LNC should micromanage those criteria; that is, while I would be fine with the LNC saying not to list candidates, I'd be much less enthusiastic about the LNC trying to write criteria. Here is a statement of the current criteria: The Libertarian Party recognizes 2016 Presidential candidates who have campaign websites, are dues-paying members of the LP, have met all U.S. Constitutional requirements to serve in office as president, and are not running for the nomination of any other political party. They have filed with the FEC, with the exception of Darryl Perry, who has chosen not to file as a protest against the FEC, claiming it lacks constitutional authority. Now, Darryl Perry is listed, as noted above. Not listed is Austin Petersen, who meets all criteria, as far as I know, other than filing FEC Form 2. I believe that such a loose criteria as one that can be paraphrased as "either filed Form 2, or doesn't want to" is, at least arguably, a violation of our Policy Manual requirement to make information or services available equally to all declared candidates. This is, in my opinion, not an objective criterion. Petersen hasn't filed the form - as far as I know, he also hasn't triggered any requirement to do so, and neither has Perry (or, likely, anyone else.) He is certainly as much a declared candidate as anyone else. So hasn't he "chosen not to" file it, at least at the moment, making him as qualified for listing as is Perry? Is there a definition of "chosen not to" that excludes, well, anyone? In summary, I believe we can meet our Policy Manual requirement by having objective criteria and sticking to them (equally available to all can reasonably be seen as "equally available to all who have done certain things.) I believe that, at the moment, either non-objective criteria are being applied, or they are being applied selectively, and either option is, in my opinion, a Policy Manual violation. I cannot make motions, so I am simply bringing this to the LNC's attention. It is not my intent to attack any candidate, or any decision, but rather to ensure that our rules are followed. Thank you for your time and consideration, Joshua A. Katz Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate Libertarian National Committee Elected Libertarian

7 7