December 2016 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Facebook Tagged The Liberal Party
by Steven Nekhaila 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Just an FYI, the Libertarian Party Facebook page just tagged the Liberal Party of Canada in on of their posts. I'm not sure who to contact to get this corrected. See attached photo. Sincerely, Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Rep Alt 305-393-6412 --- Sent from Boxer | http://getboxer.com

2 1

Empowered Future Committee update
by Trent Somes 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

Hello all - After careful consideration, Larry Sharpe and I have chosen David Demarest as the third member to our committee. He has graciously accepted the position and we are excited to get rolling. We will work hard to continue to keep the LNC updated on our progress. Thank you very much, Trent Somes, III Sent from iPhone

9 16

Thoughts on Strategic Consultants
by Arvin Vohra 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

Hi all, 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. *Strategies vs. Implementation* 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. 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. 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. 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. *The Relevance of Long Term Strategy in Quickly Changing Markets* Looking at opportunities strategically (with long term planning) rather than tactically (with high situational awareness) is less relevant in a very quickly changing marketplace. 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. *Market Research and Messaging Research* 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. *Goals* 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. 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. *Using the Most Expensive Solution is not Always the Best* 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. *Old Party Expertise Does not Usually Translate* 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. 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. *Conflicts of Interest* 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. 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. *Consultants Who Can Help* 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. 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. *Alternative Mechanisms* 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. *Things to Look for if We Decide to Go with Consultants* 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. 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. 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. In Liberty, Arvin Vohra Vice Chair Libertarian National Committee -- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra(a)gmail.com (301) 320-3634

4 6

Email voting question
by Caryn Ann Harlos 18 Dec '16

18 Dec '16

When I first joined Alicia was kind enough to give me a very detailed explanation on email voting, but going back through it, I note that establishing quorum isn't mentioned. How is quorum established for our email votes? -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

3 4

Marijuana Resolution - Request for Co-Sponsors
by Caryn Ann Harlos 18 Dec '16

18 Dec '16

I withdrew this from the agenda and deferred to ask by email vote. The Alaska affiliate requested me to bring this before the LNC - requesting co-sponsors Whereas, cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco; Whereas, existing cannabis laws represent vast government over‐reach into the personal lives of American citizens and violate principles of personal liberty and choice; Whereas, existing cannabis laws have not had a significant impact on cannabis availability; Whereas, millions of peaceful Americans have been arrested, imprisoned, fined, or otherwise needlessly criminalized and stigmatized, potentially for life, because of their use of cannabis; Whereas, over $1 trillion have been spent nationally enforcing drug laws, including those pertaining to cannabis, since the War on Drugs was politically initiated by President Richard Nixon in the 1970s; Whereas, because of drug laws, including cannabis laws, the United States has become a nation of mass incarceration – imprisoning 2 million American citizens which represents the highest imprisonment rate of any nation on Earth and 25% the world’s prisoners; Whereas, the enforcement of cannabis and other drugs laws has been racist and represents the new Jim Crow, disproportionately targeting and impacting people of color and minorities; Whereas, the Drug War’s “asset seizure” program has raised over $13 billion for local police forces across the country, encouraging more cannabis and other drug arrests while funding the purchase of high tech military equipment for police, further militarizing their operations; Whereas, there is a long history of Drug War abusive police tactics including the murdering of unarmed, non‐violent, misidentified, and innocent people; Whereas, those arrested and accused of drug offenses, including cannabis offenses, are often compelled by police and prosecutors to serve as informants for investigations of potentially dangerous drug dealers or else face additional charges; this is a disrespectful and dangerous practice that can have lethal consequences for the accused and their families; Whereas, existing drug laws, including those criminalizing cannabis, have created an illegal market for drugs contributing to crime and violence‐ridden American neighborhoods while funding drug cartels operating in the U.S. and in other countries such as Mexico where their operations have thoroughly undermined civil society and inflicted unimaginable violence and corruption; Whereas, there is a widespread and accurate belief that the War on Drugs, including the war on cannabis, has been an abysmal failure, producing much more harm than good; Whereas, existing drug laws, including those criminalizing cannabis, and their unjust enforcement have caused many Americans to lose respect for law enforcement on all levels including prosecutors, judges, lawmakers, et.al.; Whereas, drug courts for cannabis offenders are no solution because they are fundamentally punitive in nature, assume cannabis users are drug abusers and criminals, and compel those accused of cannabis offenses to give up their rights as a condition of entering drug court in order to escape potentially worse sanctions; drug courts leave the accused at the mercy of court‐appointed coercive drug “counselors,” who serve the court first and their “clients” second, and judges who can order them to jail without recourse; Whereas, decriminalization of cannabis is no solution because it fails to resolve the problems described above and because it continues to maintain two fundamental and indefensible fictions, namely, that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol and tobacco and that cannabis users are more of a threat to society and themselves than those who use alcohol and tobacco; Whereas, seven states, Colorado, Washington, Alaska, California, Nevada, Maine, and Massachusetts have voted to fully legalize cannabis, and more states are likely to follow, over 20 states have enacted medical cannabis laws; Whereas, the vast majority of Americans want prohibition to end as demonstrated by the fact that only five states in America still have full prohibition, all others have some form of legality or decriminalization; Whereas, an April 2, 2014, Pew Research Center poll found that 75% of Americans believe the use and sale of cannabis will eventually be legal in the United States nationwide; Whereas, legalizing cannabis is an important social issue, and a genuinely peaceful approach to cannabis and other currently illegal drugs must be based on freedom, harm reduction, and, in the case of actual drug abuse, free and readily available voluntary treatment – and not criminalization, criminal enforcement, or criminal punishment; And, whereas, cannabis for use by adults should never have been criminalized and we should act now to correct this wrong and all the many wrongs which have followed from it; * * * * * * Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Libertarian Party National Committee supports the full legalization of cannabis; Be it further resolved that the Libertarian Party National Committee supports and endorses the concurrent economic benefits arising from a fully legal market which would alleviate many of the problems described above while raising hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues which could be used to support needed programs, close budget gaps, or finance tax cuts; Be it further resolved that the Libertarian Party National Committee calls on police, prosecutors, and judges to focus on real crime and, until cannabis is legalized, use their discretion to stop arresting, prosecuting, and punishing non‐violent cannabis users and minor drug sellers; Be it further resolved that the Libertarian Party National Committee calls on our President, Congress, Governors, State Legislators, Federal and State Attorneys General, and other officials to undo the damage that has been done by federal and state cannabis and other drug laws by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, releasing from prison and jail those convicted of non‐violent cannabis and other minor drug offenses, and expunging their criminal records. And, finally, be it resolved that the Libertarian Party National Committee supports the legalization of industrial hemp which can be grown containing minimal amounts of psycho‐active ingredients like THC and used to produce renewable food, oil, wax, resin, rope, cloth, paper and fuel in support of a sustainable full‐employment society; and furthermore, calls on federal and state legislators to develop new programs to encourage a decentralized family farm and community‐oriented approach to industrial hemp development as a means to a sustainable full‐employment society. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

4 6

draft minutes of 12/10/16 LNC meeting
by Alicia Mattson 18 Dec '16

18 Dec '16

Attached are the first draft minutes from the December 10-11, 2016 LNC meeting. Please note that comments from the LNC on the minutes are due by December 31. -Alicia

7 8

updated policy manual
by Alicia Mattson 18 Dec '16

18 Dec '16

Attached is the Policy Manual, updated to reflect the one minor change made during our meeting last weekend. Staff please update the version on the website with this one when you get a chance to do so. -Alicia

1 0

approved minutes from 7/17/16 LNC session
by Alicia Mattson 16 Dec '16

16 Dec '16

Attached are the now-approved minutes from the LNC session in Las Vegas on July 17, 2016. Staff, please post these to the website when you get a chance to do so. -Alicia

1 0

April meeting locations
by Caryn Ann Harlos 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

What are the options here? I know we will need to be meeting in LA to start viewing the convention site and I think that a good idea. If not LA, I would like to propose Denver. This is another area we have not been at in 8 years and has an excellent airport with wonderful art and Blucifer. I could get local party people to assist Robert in meeting space planning and tours of Denver if desired - or possibly even some other outing. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

7 10

Post LNC meeting discussion website issues
by Caryn Ann Harlos 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

Committee members, I am back talking about the website and some decisions that were made this weekend. Some of those decisions were good, some were at best very incomplete (and at worst misguided). I believe Motion(s) to amend will be the result of these discussions I hope to get going-perhaps even a sub-committee to work with the IT Committee (one that might be in the realm of the proposed historical/archival committee). In our very time-limited discussions, complicated decisions and discussions cannot be adequately done. I will attempt to organize this email into digestable issues. *BASIC ISSUES WITH CURRENT WEBSITE* This would include bad colour scheme of grey on grey, difficult navigation, slow load times, odd information screens that are not customizable etc. We gave Wes the authority to work with Zocolo on that which seems to be the right move to get these issues resolved. I trust Wes will give us regular reports. We also gave Wes the authority and discretion to restore the old masthead which stated “Party of Principle” (as that was a separate issue as to whether that would be a policy manual official logo – it is in fact a trademark – no matter how I feel about trademarks – of the Libertarian Party). I highly encourage Wes to make that happen and the LNC can later vote to change if they wish. *THE PROPOSED NEW SEPARATE LP ARCHIVE SITE* I do not believe this was the right decision or a well-thought-out decision with all due respect to my fellow committee members. It is in fact an inadvertent betrayal of the earlier promise to membership that no ideological content would be lost. This solution does not make good on that promise. Words are made in a context, and the context of the assurances to members was that content would not be lost *from the LP.org website* AND IT IS– shunting it off into another website which may not even be cross-searchable (that decision was not made) is in fact losing the content, and this should be unacceptable. I think part of the problem in the discussions was a fundamental mis-casting of how websites actually work. *Objection: “We don’t want to clutter the new website”* First I will add, clutter or not, this was an assurance made to members and we can either keep that assurance or not. I was given that assurance as a member, and I expect the LNC to keep it. But this is a non-concern that seems to be operating under some kind of physical assumption along the lines of some analogous idea that the website weighs two pounds now and would then weigh twenty pounds or that we would be adding 100 more library stacks. That is not how websites work. And I think we can get into this more in the sub-divisions of my email of the types of content on the two older sites which I will call the 2016 site and the 2006 site for clarity. But in general, this would be invisible to the user until they needed the data. The issue of “clutter” is a red herring. At most there might be a new submenu called “archives” which is hardly some monumental clutter. Users could go there or not. The ones that go there *want* this information. The rest of the information clearly falls under current headings, is relevant, and as presently organized is not cluttered. It is arguably way too compressed. *Issue: What would this new Archive site look like?* This was not even discussed. It seemed to me like the LNC thought we could just stick it at a new address, flip a switch, and be done. But that isn’t an archive, it is a time machine that would freeze a site as it looked on the day it was taken down. For instance on the 2016 site, this LNC would remain enshrined forever on a page. That is not useful. Ditto to the 2006 site. This brings us to the actual issue: the content that needs to be preserved – and that can be broken down into some broad categories (with some overlap but not much): ideological content, news content, parliamentary institutional content (some of it bylaws-required), and historical institutional content. Each of these categories need to be handled deliberately and separately, and it is frankly impossible (I was going to say insane) to think a simple solution like flipping a switch to an archive site can responsibility do this. And this also exposes another huge flaw: Will there be TWO archive sites? A 2016 and 2006 archive site? How does this LNC possibly think those two can be merged? Do you seem how quickly unworkable this becomes? What we passed is simply not do-able and if we continue down that path, it will become obvious and the temptation will be to throw up our hands and say “oh well we tried” and just let the content go away. I will not go down that path because it isn’t inevitable. So now on to discuss the types of content… *THE CONTENT* *Ideological Content* This would include staff blog articles, press releases, newsletters, and the like. These items are part of what makes up our current positions – there is an unbroken line – and these should be searchable and part of our current site. How that would be done has many open paths, including simply putting them where they belong in chronological order. This can be done by trained volunteers. I believe Chuck Moulton volunteered to do some. This would be fulfilling the promise to our members. As an example (and this touches on my earlier archive emails), ALL of the old issues of LP News should be on the website. This does not “clutter” any more than having older minutes does, particularly the way we do with “see more” pull downs that only list the title year. *News Content* This is part of our political history and again, these items should just be put into the blog section where they originally appeared and can be done by trained volunteers. *Parliamentary Institutional Content* This would include LNC minutes, EC minutes, Convention Minutes, old and current Bylaws, and Policy Manual etc. These need to go where they exist presently on the site. Most of this is required by our Bylaws and is already being planned on by staff, but when I say minutes, I mean *ALL minutes*, including those from the 2006 site and those that I am gathering from members. We can either put a disclaimer that they are not certified or come up with a certification method. They were historically verified. *Historical Institutional Content* This would include lists of past staff, past candidates, and past committees. This is perfect for LPedia – but of course that requires us getting on the ball with LPedia. Some other content above arguably would be better for LPedia. I would like the IT Committee Chair to give us some thoughts here on LPedia. *Conclusory Comment* I think this analysis has shown that this idea of an archive site is unworkable, not keeping our assurances to our members, and unnecessary – a combination of our current site and LPedia is the answer. *MY PROPOSED SOLUTIONS* This ties right in to the Historical/Archive Committee I have been hinting out. I believe these decisions and plans can be done by such a committee working with staff and the IT Committee and that the Chair of the IT Committee would automatically be on this almost proposed new Committee which would give a recommendation on how to better handle this issue rather than the clumsy way done at the LNC meeting. And then there would be a plan going forward for digitizing the rich content found at HQ and in our storage unit. And yes, such a committee should have full transparency. Nothing here is secret and is the collective heritage of members. I solicit thoughts. I believe we made a rushed grave mistake, and we can fix it in an orderly manner that would not take more LNC time but the time and loving care of LNC members and voluntary Party members who truly care about this issue. We can't all be passionate about all things. Let's let those who are plan it. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

4 6