LNC Region 5S Report

“Submitted to: Libertarian National Committee, Mar. 7, 2013

Submitted by: James W. Lark, III
Region 5S Representative, Libertarian National Committee

This report will provide information concerning activities of the Libertarian Party state affiliates in Region 5S since the LNC meeting on Nov. 17-18, 2012. I shall provide an updated report at the LNC meeting in Rosemont should additional information become available.”

Since the report includes some images and links, I am posting it as an attachment:

Region5SReport2013-03-16

It may be of some interest to regular IPR readers since the region covers Pennsylvania, as well as Maryland, West Virginia, DC, Virginia, Delaware and North Carolina.

I posted some comments on this report as well as the Campus Organizing Report also submitted by Dr. Lark to the LNC. Since these comments are in parts editorial in nature, it is against IPR rules for me to include them in these two articles. I will post them as comments on these two posts and leave it up to other IPR writers to decide whether they should be a separate article posted by someone other than myself.

6 thoughts on “LNC Region 5S Report

  1. paulie Post author

    My comments on the Region 5s report submitted to LNC list follow below the divider. I am submitting these, together with my first comment on the last article (campus organizing report) to be posted as an IPR article by others here, since they contain editorial statements by myself.


    Ryan Sabot of DCLP writes

    “We have paid for our mailbox through June; as long as we raise at least $30 before that, we’ll be fine, but I wish to eventually move beyond just having enough money to pay for a mailbox. I’d be very open to fundraising suggestions.”

    This is a question/problem, along with many other basic nuts and bolts issues, that many local and state LP affiliates face. I think the national LP needs to do more to help the people who are looking for this kind of information find it.

    Specifically, http://www.lp.org/campaign-resources has links around the middle of the page

    “State Affiliate Resource pages

    Several state affiliates have extensive lists of helpful resources and guides. Election laws vary by state. Also, preferred strategies vary. Below are several states with extensive libraries of campaign resources

    Indiana
    Illinois
    Michigan
    Virginia”

    In my experience talking to state and local party LP leaders who are looking for this kind of information, they are not finding it. One approach may be to compile the information from those state party pages and post it directly at LP.org. Another thing we can do is periodically feature some of the materials, with links to the rest, in our email blasts, facebook and twitter posts, LP.org blog, LP videos, etc. We need multiple ways and repetition for this information to find its target audience.

    If there is any way in which I may be allowed to assist with such an effort, say in updating the website, I would be willing to do so.

    I realize there is fundraising underway to create workshops on this kind of stuff and take them around the country, but in the meantime, we should do what we can to get the information to where it can do some good. Would it be appropriate to put this on the meeting agenda, do we need motions to address this, or how should we go about making some progress in this area?

    Dr. Stevens of LPPA writes:

    “Starchild has interjected himself into the Pennsylvania LP race by endorsing the challenger as has Paul Frankel and others who are perceived to have an interest in future paid petitioner business out of Pennsylvania.”

    It is true that Starchild has endorsed Steve Scheetz for State Chair. While I am generally sympathetic to the arguments of Steve Scheetz, Ed Reagan and others supporting their slate, I have not issued any formal endorsement. As far as I can remember, the only member of that slate that I have personally met is Richard Schwarz, and I only know him very casually.

    It’s entirely untrue that I have any interest in future paid petitioner business out of PA, and it is also entirely untrue that any other petitioners I know have made any endorsements in Pennsylvania. PA requires petitioners to be state residents; the only petitioners I know who live there are Andy and Kevin Jacobs and Darryl Bonner, and I have heard nothing whatsoever from any of them about endorsing any slate of candidates for LP offices – nor have I heard any such endorsements from any petitioners in any other state.

    As for myself, I’m weighing my future and whether I should be a petitioner or try to transition to something else. I am inclined towards the latter.

    Dr. Stevens has been informed repeatedly that my interest in PA LP controversies has nothing whatsoever to do with my past or possible future business as a petitioner (if there is any such future), and that none of my petition contacts have anything to do with my comments on these matters, yet he persists in spreading these blatant falsehoods repeatedly and has now included them in his region report for official LP dissemination and publication. I am requesting that this false information about myself and my current or former associates be retracted.

    I could address quite a few other statements from Dr. Stevens in his regional report that distort the facts, but I will refrain from doing so in this email. Suffice it to say that, besides deviating from the truth, the tone and language of much of that state report (especially the next to last paragraph) is IMO inappropriate for materials that we publish at LP.org (region reports are included with meeting minutes) among other ways that this information is officially disseminated by the national LP organization.

    Chuck Moulton of LPVA writes:

    “On the technical end, the LPVA has been utilizing Facebook events and meetups for local organizing. Investments in Facebook advertising have catapulted the LPVA’s Facebook page to the most liked state affiliate in the country (around 6,000 likes): http://www.facebook.com/LPVirginia

    I would be curious to know how the amount of money spent on such advertising translates into other measurable party growth indicators such as dues paying members, registered Libertarians (if the commonwealth has that option), number of candidates, vote percentages in the next election, attendance at local events, number of known LP letters to the editor of newspapers, and so on. I hope we begin tracking such results if we haven’t already to compare facebook advertising with various traditional forms of advertising so that interested state parties can decide whether it is the best way to spend their advertising budget or not.

    “Lack of state legislative districts in the data dump provided by national has made candidate recruitment unnecessarily difficult. A volunteer programmer has recently written a script to hack around this issue. However, Virginia continues to insist that the best long term solution is for LPHQ to populate its database with state legislative districts (and other districts down to individual voting precincts) which would in turn be provided in monthly data dumps to states. Unfortunately other states may not have found such a volunteer programmer, and we fear the Libertarian Party loses many potential candidates due to LPHQ’s lack of political subdivision data in its database. Virginia again asks the Libertarian National Committee to instruct staff to address this database need — a fundamental act of affiliate support facilitating real politics.”

    I know this issue has been discussed on this list before, but was any action taken or has any progress been made? If not, should it be on our meeting agenda, or should we have a motion to address it? Should it be a targeted fundraising item? Is there another way of addressing this need that currently exists?

    Michael Wilson of LPWV writes:

    ” A bill has been introduced in the West Virginia legislature that (if enacted) will make it easier for the LPWV to retain ballot status.”

    Are we doing anything to coordinate, facilitate and otherwise help various states in lobbying efforts to make petition requirements more reasonable?

    We have a bill like this (S265) we are working on in Alabama, as well as a petitioners rights bill that may be introduced in the legislature. I know other states are working on similar efforts. Can we do anything at the national level to help coordinate these efforts?

    And a quasi-related query:

    Can we do anything to help coordinate ballot access with campus organizing and local party building activities? I would like to help work on a plan to make our petition efforts do “double duty” in helping us grow the party in other ways.

    If anyone on this list would like to work together with me on any of this, please let me know. And if you all can and are willing to get it done without me – please do so! My interest in these matters is not whether I participate or not – I am willing to do so if my help is wanted or needed, or to stay out of the way if it isn’t – only that they get done.

    Thanks,

    Paul Frankel
    415-690-6352

  2. Mark Axinn

    Jim Lark’s father passed away a couple of days ago.

    My deepest sympathies to a wonderful man.

  3. Pingback: Paul Frankel Responds to Dr. Tom Stevens and Asks for Retraction | Independent Political Report: Third Party News

  4. Marc Montoni

    “Lack of state legislative districts in the data dump provided by national has made candidate recruitment unnecessarily difficult. A volunteer programmer has recently written a script to hack around this issue. However, Virginia continues to insist that the best long term solution is for LPHQ to populate its database with state legislative districts (and other districts down to individual voting precincts) which would in turn be provided in monthly data dumps to states. Unfortunately other states may not have found such a volunteer programmer, and we fear the Libertarian Party loses many potential candidates due to LPHQ’s lack of political subdivision data in its database. Virginia again asks the Libertarian National Committee to instruct staff to address this database need — a fundamental act of affiliate support facilitating real politics.”

    I know this issue has been discussed on this list before, but was any action taken or has any progress been made?

    Your guess is as good as mine. Bill Redpath promised me he’d look into it back in mid-January, but now almost two months later I haven’t seen any evidence of any progress whatsoever.

    If not, should it be on our meeting agenda

    I have asked since June of 2012 for it to be discussed by the LNC, but to my knowledge it has not been an agenda item.

    … or should we have a motion to address it?

    I wish someone would introduce such a motion.

    Should it be a targeted fundraising item?

    No. It should be considered a mandatory core function. Yes, money can be raised for it, but if we’re supposed to be here to help get candidates elected, providing election districts down to the precinct level is like Politics 101 kinda stuff and it should have been funded a long time ago.

    Is there another way of addressing this need that currently exists?

    I’ve given the LNC several options. I’m sure a porogrammer or three could offer even more.

  5. Chuck Moulton

    I also brought up the matter of populating the database with districts in opportunity for public comment at the November LNC meeting. I can’t point you to minutes because those minutes haven’t been posted yet and I doubt the secretary even noted public comments (given the sparse information in her minutes for earlier meetings).

    I intend to mention the issue in every Virginia report (included in the region 5S report) until the LNC does something to address this critical need.

Leave a Reply