December 2016 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Transparency and the budget
by Joshua Katz 03 Dec '16

03 Dec '16

I pointed out earlier the concern I am expressing here, but I did it briefly and without much explanation, because I wanted to know if, in fact, I have misunderstood, if I was making a big mistake, and if my concerns were unfounded. All of that remains perfectly possible, but the fact that I have not received an explanation making those points suggests to me that perhaps I am onto something important. 80% of the proposed budget is accounted for by administration and compensation. A member seeing that might be excused for believing that the national party simply consumes 80 cents of each dollar received. This would be a mistake, but it would be an understandable mistake - and one we can easily prevent. This member would be mistaken because compensation is not consumption. Staff does a lot of things. Staff work is a very large proportion of what the national party does. When we see an affiliate support line with a rather small number on it, it conceals the fact that staff spends a good amount of time supporting affiliates. Since staff time is split between different functions, we have a timesheet policy allowing staff time to be billed to different lines. So this brings us to, perhaps, a bigger problem: even knowing this, the member reading this budget has no idea how much of staff time is spent on what projects. Perhaps most importantly, neither does the LNC. Certainly the LNC is not giving direction as to how staff time should be spent. We have, essentially, created a black box into which we place 50% of the annual budget. A budget that breaks down staff time the way it is to be billed, and that funds staff time from line items, also allows members, at a glance, to see what priorities the national party has, and to know easily and quickly what staff is doing. Most importantly, it assures members that these priorities are being set by those they elect to make such decisions, not being left to the ED, or to chance, or to "whatever is most pressing at the moment." I have said before that my most pressing After all, functional and operational transparency require not only that members see and hear us talking, but that we are talking about the things that members need to know. If we make ourselves open, but exercise no control over fully half the budget, we are not transparent. This is not at all hard to fix. We know the proposed total compensation. We may modify it at our meeting. A portion of that, perhaps 20%, should be left in the compensation black-box. The LNC can decide what we'd like to prioritize by setting percentages to various functional lines. The remaining compensation multiplied by the percentage gives the amount to be moved from compensation to the appropriate line item. Maintaining is also easy. Simply fund compensation from the various lines, in accordance with the timesheets received. The Treasurer can, in turn, keep an eye on the lines, and see if some lines are over or under funded. If so, the board can decide how to react - by amending the budget, or by instructing staff to respect the priorities set. I am not known as a transparency champion. In large part, I have a different notion of transparency from many of my colleagues. The above shows the sort of transparency I worry about. I hope, though, that my colleagues who are known as transparency champions will join me on this issue, and join me in requesting that we not place 50% of our annual expenditure in a black-box line item such that members cannot use the budget to determine what it is that we do, and we cannot use the budget to govern the organization. For my part, I am disinclined to vote for a budget that black-boxes 50%, and that charges 80% to administration. Joshua A. Katz

5 15

Re: [Lnc-business] Any update on getting LNC photos on site?
by Brett Bittner 03 Dec '16

03 Dec '16

You guys will see next weekend how hard I'm working to make #NeverBittner happen. 10% of the way there. Brett **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos. On Dec 3, 2016 09:44, "Daniel Hayes" <danielehayes(a)icloud.com> wrote: Sam, Didn't you know? #neverbittner. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Dec 3, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge(a)gmail.com> wrote: Can you make lil Bret Bittner look any better? Sam Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee Member at Large 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 Indianapolis IN 46260 317-850-0726 <(317)%20850-0726> Phone 317-582-1773 <(317)%20582-1773> Fax On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict(a)lp.org> wrote: > Sommes, Harlos and Demarest, now posted, and looking good. Thanks to > Denise Luckey, copied, for getting it done tonight. > > https://www.lp.org/libertarian-national-committee/ > > > > On Dec 2, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org> wrote: > > > Very true. > > I don't know exactly what the staff is up to in the next few work > days (I'm sure they're preparing for our meeting next week), but if Wes or > Robert have time I'd like to ask them to update that info as well. > > --- > > Ken C. Moellman, Jr. > LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative > LPKY Judicial Committee > > > > On 2016-12-02 14:22, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: > > I got my professional headshot and the Party paid for it. So I would like > to see it up on the site. And even if those who have not, that is not a > requirement for them to be photographically represented. About half of our > committee is not. > > -- > *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 > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org> > wrote: > >> >> I thought Wes had sent something out about getting professional headshots >> or something. As far as I know, there are no technical reasons why pictures >> could not be added. >> >> I need to go get a new headshot - my 2011 picture is a little bit ugly. >> >> --- >> >> Ken C. Moellman, Jr. >> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative >> LPKY Judicial Committee >> >> >> >> On 2016-12-02 13:43, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: >> >> A good deal of us still are not photographically represented. >> >> >> -- >> *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 >> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> >> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *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> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > *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> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

2 1

Important broken links.
by Daniel Hayes 02 Dec '16

02 Dec '16

Here are some and they are self evident: https://www.lp.org/building-fund https://www.lp.org/legal https://www.lp.org/ballotfund/ Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

3 4

Region 7 Report - December 2016
by Whitney Bilyeu 02 Dec '16

02 Dec '16

1 0

Membership Report
by Robert Kraus 02 Dec '16

02 Dec '16

The latest Membership Report is attached. Live Free! Robert Robert S. Kraus - Dir of Operations Operations(a)LP.org Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231 Join today: https://www.lp.org/membership LP FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/libertarians

1 0

Interesting analysis forwarded by member
by Caryn Ann Harlos 01 Dec '16

01 Dec '16

Member wishes to be unnamed: ===== I hadn't seen news of this through the National LP so perhaps people aren't aware of this. I'd suggested to a few people in the LP hierarchy that the Johnson campaign needed to do an approval voting (or other alternative voting method) poll. Imagine how different the argument for getting more press coverage or pressure to be included in debates would have been if they could have demonstrated 32.4% approval, showing its a public service to cover the campaign? Perhaps people might pass this along now: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/25/13733322/i nstant-runoff-ranked-voting-2016 Would a different style of voting have changed the 2016 election? We tested 5 alternatives. ...Lastly, some voting experts have argued that neither rankings nor first-past-the-post voting methods are ideal, and instead favor what’s known as “approval voting.” <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting> Voters who find a candidate acceptable or somewhat acceptable: Hillary Clinton: 48.4% Donald Trump: 46.7% Gary Johnson: 32.4% ....Some ranked voting systems *would* change the result of the election, however. One common method, used for determining the winner of the Heisman Trophy and the MLB MVP awardee, is the Borda count <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count>, ...This is a somewhat ham-handed way to compute results, and it gives some very weird results; like instant-runoff voting, it doesn't always elect the candidate who'd beat all the others. In the 2016 election, it would’ve resulted in *Gary Johnson* winning the presidency: Unfortunately it doesn't give the raw data, and its methodology for "approval voting" isn't quite what it should be, but it gives the idea. I suppose there are enough sports fans that the Borda count isn't too academic. The public could be told that "Many today are objecting to the current electoral college method of electing the president. If we were going to make changes, an alternative voting scheme might result in very different results, if it were done like the way the Heisman Trophy or MLB MVP were awarded..". Unfortunately people are a bit skeptical of polls now, this would have been more effective before the election, but its still useful. Its still possible for the figures to be used to argue for future media coverage, suggesting that various ethical guidelines journalists claim to follow (i.e. their standards, not merely begging for coverage) were violated to perhaps try to get debate in the media over the issue, perhaps finding some journalism profs and SPJ members to argue that case. I'm not sure why the campaign didn't do this sort of poll before the election (or any of a list of other things that might have had an impact). Although most libertarians engage in rational thinking about policy decisions, I'm not sure Libertarians always applies the same rigor to their strategic thinking, not taking time for it even though sometimes thinking things through saves time in the long run. ===== -- *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>

1 0

Affiliate Support Committee Meeting Reminder
by Daniel Hayes 01 Dec '16

01 Dec '16

The Affiliate Support Committee will be meeting at it's regularly scheduled time. Date: Thursday, December 1st, 2016, 8PM Eastern Dial in Number:(712)775-7031 Access Code: 571-973-866 The meeting is open to LNC Members, LNC Staff, State Chairs, Party Members, Libertarians, libertarians and invited guests. We are a service oriented committee so we encourage attendees to participate in an orderly manner. If you have a matter you wish us to consider please contact me in a advance if possible. I can be reached at Daniel.Hayes(a)LP.Org or by phone at 504-258-6176. TENTATIVE AGENDA: Annual Affiliate Survey -To date unresponsive affilaites: Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming Daniel Hayes LNC Affiliate Support Committee Chairman

2 1

Region 1 report attached
by Caryn Ann Harlos 01 Dec '16

01 Dec '16

All, attached please find my Region 1 report. -- *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 6