It appears this $25,000 allocation will pass overwhelmingly and that my vote will not have a material impact, but besides Norm's balanced on one hand/on the other hand remarks below, I haven't heard seen anything further on this motion in response to the questions I raised in the post to which he responded, so I vote to abstain. Except for the brief in-person conversation I alluded to with Brett Pojunis, who gave some reasons to support it (basically he feels the Arkansas LP is doing great work and deserves our help), there has been silence, and not having more information I do not feel comfortable voting yes under such circumstances. This is in no way a reflection on the Arkansas Libertarians; I would take the same approach if the state affiliate to receive the money were my own California and a positive rationale was similarly non-forthcoming (except in the case of California, I unfortunately can't say that I think we're doing such a great job as a state party right now. While Libertarian registration in the state is significantly up, this has not translated into increased members or activism that I have seen. Attendance at our recent state convention was pathetic -- less than 100 people, I'm pretty sure. Hopefully these things will change). Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Norm Olsen wrote:

Hello Starchild . . .

This is a tough call. I'm a big fan of supporting affiliates. I appreciate how tough it can be to get an affiliate started without being able to put candidates on the ballot. I have in the past applied the criteria that major ballot access expenditures should provide benefits for more than just a single election. This would be true in the case of Arkansas, but only if the gubernatorial candidate gets 3+% of the statewide vote. The folks in Arkansas are optimistic as one would certainly hope for and expect. I'm not so sanguine. 3% in a statewide race is a tough barrier, though not impossible.

So, this is a catch 22 situation and you can't get much in the way of truly objective information; it's all guess work. You can only go on gut feel. Supporting affiliates like Arkansas is definitely a legitimate purpose of the LNC. However:

· Is this opportunity worth $25,000 in a year where we've cut so heavily into other very important things (LP News, project funding, web site, social media, organizational development, etc.)?

· We have 31 affiliates with ballot access, and another 10 or so where ballot access is reasonable (http://www.ballot-access.org/2013/01/04/december-2012-ballot-access-news-pri...). What are we doing to improve our level of success in these 41 affiliates? Would we serve liberty and our other 50 affiliates better using that financial resource elsewhere?

· Should we, or can we reasonably, expect more input from the Arkansas affiliate?

In the past three years, we have made some very good expenditures in the ballot access area and some very poor ones. My recollection is that the smaller expenditures (i.e. $10,000 and less) tend to work out better than the larger ones ($50,000 or more). No one can predict the future (especially in politics) so knowing beforehand how this one will turn out is impossible.

For now, I remain undecided.

Norm -- Norman T Olsen Regional Representative, Region I Libertarian National Committee 7931 S Broadway, PMB 102 Littleton, Colorado 80122-2710 303-277-9967 Norman.Olsen@lp.org

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Gandhi

-----Original Message----- From: Lnc-discuss [mailto:lnc-discuss-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Starchild Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 3:39 PM To: LNC Discussion List Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] [Lnc-business] Email ballot 2013-8: Ballot access expense

Ballot access is important, but what is the rationale for passing this particular motion? I'm not leaning against it, however I'd like to see the arguments for spending $25,000 on this rather than on something else laid out clearly, as well as where specifically the money would come from. (Brett Pojunis mentioned the Audit Committee saving $6000 a year as a result of switching to a new auditor, and that the savings could be used for this type of affiliate support, but the motion doesn't specify that.) Perhaps Norm Olsen would like to make the counter-argument? We don't want to get into the habit of rubber-stamping stuff.

Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

On Apr 7, 2013, at 11:33 AM, David E. Blau, Esq. wrote:

...

Moved by Chairman Neale: To increase the LNC budget for Ballot Access expense for 2013 by $25,000, to assist in funding a petition drive for the Libertarian Party of Arkansas.

Voting on this motion concludes at 11:59 PM Eastern time on April 17, 2013. Please reply directly to this email with your vote.

--

David E. Blau, Esq. Chairman, Libertarian Association of Massachusetts. chair@lpmass.org Secretary, Libertarian National Committee. secretary@lp.org www.lpmass.org | www.lp.org 617.396.4253

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-discuss mailing list Lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org