New poll for lpsf-discuss

Discussion
1

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
lpsf-discuss group:

The California LP is planning to have our next State Party Convention on a cruise ship for 4 days in a forigen country (Mexico). Which statement(s} best describe your feelings about this decision?

  o Great. I love cruise ships. All conventions should be on cruise ships. I can't wait
  o I like the idea. It is a inovative way to attract new people to our convention
  o I don't like the idea but I will go because I don't want to miss the convention
  o I'm not sure. I have never been to a convention or been on a cruise ship
  o Bad idea. It will exclude many members from participating
  o I hate cruise ships. I get seasick. I will never attend. What are our leaders thinking?
  o The convention should be at a hotel like we used to
  o We should end conventions. They are a waste of time
  o None of the above

To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/surveys?id=1801449

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

2

Personally, I would have preferred to take this poll four months ago
when the LPCA asked for bids on the convention. As I recall no one
stepped forward to undertake the effort and risk a convention
entails. Thus, I would prefer that this list remain positive in
outlook and not descend to negative criticism after a deal is done.

Marcy Berry
*Moderator*

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
wrote:

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
lpsf-discuss group:

The California LP is planning to have our next State Party

Convention on a cruise ship for 4 days in a forigen country (Mexico).
Which statement(s} best describe your feelings about this decision?

  o Great. I love cruise ships. All conventions should be on cruise

ships. I can't wait

  o I like the idea. It is a inovative way to attract new people to

our convention

  o I don't like the idea but I will go because I don't want to

miss the convention

  o I'm not sure. I have never been to a convention or been on a

cruise ship

  o Bad idea. It will exclude many members from participating
  o I hate cruise ships. I get seasick. I will never attend. What

are our leaders thinking?

3

Marcy,

  If this were a one-time deal, I'd totally agree. And I do agree that it would have been better to have had the poll months ago. But charging delegates for access has been an issue before, and unless people think enough about the issue to get motivated to prevent a recurrence after next February, it probably will be an issue again. So I consider it a forward-looking issue, not just bringing up old stuff. Personally I wouldn't criticize it as "negative criticism" either -- it gives a wide range of responses, and lets people choose the one they identify with. Isn't that what polls are supposed to do?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starhcild >>>

Personally, I would have preferred to take this poll four months ago
when the LPCA asked for bids on the convention. As I recall no one
stepped forward to undertake the effort and risk a convention
entails. Thus, I would prefer that this list remain positive in
outlook and not descend to negative criticism after a deal is done.

Marcy Berry
*Moderator*

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
>
> Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
> lpsf-discuss group:
>
> The California LP is planning to have our next State Party
Convention on a cruise ship for 4 days in a forigen country (Mexico).
Which statement(s} best describe your feelings about this decision?
>
> o Great. I love cruise ships. All conventions should be on cruise
ships. I can't wait
> o I like the idea. It is a inovative way to attract new people to
our convention
> o I don't like the idea but I will go because I don't want to
miss the convention
> o I'm not sure. I have never been to a convention or been on a
cruise ship
> o Bad idea. It will exclude many members from participating
> o I hate cruise ships. I get seasick. I will never attend. What
are our leaders thinking?
> o The convention should be at a hotel like we used to
> o We should end conventions. They are a waste of time
> o None of the above
>
> To vote, please visit the following web page:
> Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
>
> Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
> not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
> web site listed above.
>
> Thanks!
>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

4

Starchild,

Whether polls (or any other writing) is positive or negative depends
on the words used. You know how I personally feel about the limited
access to members a cruise entails; and I have expressed my opinion
in what I hope are helpful words, acknowledging that there were no
other bids. I would like to see a poll, for instance, asking for
possible bids or leads to bids for the next convention.

Marcy

Marcy,

  If this were a one-time deal, I'd totally agree. And I do

agree that

it would have been better to have had the poll months ago. But

charging

delegates for access has been an issue before, and unless people

think

enough about the issue to get motivated to prevent a recurrence

after

next February, it probably will be an issue again. So I consider it

a

forward-looking issue, not just bringing up old stuff. Personally I
wouldn't criticize it as "negative criticism" either -- it gives a

wide

range of responses, and lets people choose the one they identify

with.

Isn't that what polls are supposed to do?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starhcild >>>

> Personally, I would have preferred to take this poll four months

ago

> when the LPCA asked for bids on the convention. As I recall no

one

> stepped forward to undertake the effort and risk a convention
> entails. Thus, I would prefer that this list remain positive in
> outlook and not descend to negative criticism after a deal is

done.

>
> Marcy Berry
> *Moderator*
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
> > lpsf-discuss group:
> >
> > The California LP is planning to have our next State Party
> Convention on a cruise ship for 4 days in a forigen country

(Mexico).

> Which statement(s} best describe your feelings about this

decision?

> >
> > o Great. I love cruise ships. All conventions should be on

cruise

> ships. I can't wait
> > o I like the idea. It is a inovative way to attract new

people to

> our convention
> > o I don't like the idea but I will go because I don't want to
> miss the convention
> > o I'm not sure. I have never been to a convention or been on a
> cruise ship
> > o Bad idea. It will exclude many members from participating
> > o I hate cruise ships. I get seasick. I will never attend.

What

> are our leaders thinking?
> > o The convention should be at a hotel like we used to
> > o We should end conventions. They are a waste of time
> > o None of the above
> >
> >
> > To vote, please visit the following web page:
> > Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
> >
> > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
> > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo!

Groups

> > web site listed above.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

5

I think we have a consensus on the convention issue. The more
constructive approach is what we will do at the 2006 convention to
prevent a reoccurance. A number of questions come to mind.

Why is it that for the last two conventions we have had only one
bidder? What is our bid process for conventions? Are our
requirements too restrictive? Is there not a market for this type of
event, or are we not getting the inquiries out to the right people?
I'm not trying to criticize Allen Hacker or others involved with our
conventions, but I think we need to do something different.

If we are doing all we can to seek bids, and the market is just not
there, then I would propose that we add a line item to the budget for
managing the event internally. It would ideally be done in such a way
as to be self-supporting, and not drain or significantly enhance the
Party coffers.

If next year we are again facing one outside bid, this way we will at
least have a choice.

-Morey

6

The convention subject is particularly important because, as I
understand it, the next one will be in Northern California, and it
will be the one to elect new leadership (no inference here on my
opinion pro/con the current leadership).

Also as I understand it, the reason so few bids are received if any,
is the huge financial risk associated with a large gathering. Unless
we want the convention to be in one of the meadows in Golden Gate
Park, someone needs to step forward and assume the financial risk.

To do the convention "internally", the LPCA would have to have a lot
of spare cash on hand. Another option is to have one of our members
take on the task as an "independent contractor", as Gail Lightfoot
did a couple of years ago (I tried to find Gail's recent comment on
that convention, but could not; as I recall she mentioned the
experience was financially draining).

Perhaps some of us interested folks could start gathering information
on how to put on a convention.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Morey Straus <morey.straus@g...>
wrote:

I think we have a consensus on the convention issue. The more
constructive approach is what we will do at the 2006 convention to
prevent a reoccurance. A number of questions come to mind.

Why is it that for the last two conventions we have had only one
bidder? What is our bid process for conventions? Are our
requirements too restrictive? Is there not a market for this type

of

event, or are we not getting the inquiries out to the right people?
I'm not trying to criticize Allen Hacker or others involved with our
conventions, but I think we need to do something different.

If we are doing all we can to seek bids, and the market is just not
there, then I would propose that we add a line item to the budget

for

managing the event internally. It would ideally be done in such a

way

as to be self-supporting, and not drain or significantly enhance the
Party coffers.

If next year we are again facing one outside bid, this way we will

at

7

Having served as the hotel liaison for the 1994 LPC convention in
Oakland, I have some experience with the process. While Gail mentioned
that the experience was "financially draining," the Ontario convention
that she organized has the distinction of being the last LPC convention
that made any kind of profit. When the LPC decided to take on the
responsibility of running the convention "in-house" for a few years, the
result was a net loss. Thus, we've gone back to contracting out.
Unfortunately, the last two contractors have been essentially "one-man
shows" and also lost money. In my experience, a dedicated committee
charged with the responsibility of organizing the event and allocating
tasks among a group of people has always been a more effective means of
running a convention, and spreads the risk among a larger group, rather
than having it all fall on one person's shoulders.

The Convention and Visitors Bureau in Oakland was immensely helpful in
assisting us with our convention all those years ago, and I have been
involved in some convention planning since then. None of these events
have lost a dime, but the goal was always to break even, not make a
profit. If others in the area are interesting in forming a bid
committee, I would be happy to volunteer.

Terry Floyd

8

Hi Terry,

I appreciated your information on convention planning, something I
know zip about. I am wondering if others in this list are as
knowledgeable as you or not; but it would seem to me that knowledge
of what personal or group financial risk bidding for a convention
entails would be a prerequisite to expressing an interest. Any
chance that you would give us a few words on the financial risk angle?

Regards,

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Terry Floyd" <tlfloyd3@c...>
wrote:

Having served as the hotel liaison for the 1994 LPC convention in
Oakland, I have some experience with the process. While Gail

mentioned

that the experience was "financially draining," the Ontario

convention

that she organized has the distinction of being the last LPC

convention

that made any kind of profit. When the LPC decided to take on the
responsibility of running the convention "in-house" for a few

years, the

result was a net loss. Thus, we've gone back to contracting out.
Unfortunately, the last two contractors have been essentially "one-

man

shows" and also lost money. In my experience, a dedicated committee
charged with the responsibility of organizing the event and

allocating

tasks among a group of people has always been a more effective

means of

running a convention, and spreads the risk among a larger group,

rather

than having it all fall on one person's shoulders.

The Convention and Visitors Bureau in Oakland was immensely helpful

in

assisting us with our convention all those years ago, and I have

been

involved in some convention planning since then. None of these

events

have lost a dime, but the goal was always to break even, not make a
profit. If others in the area are interesting in forming a bid
committee, I would be happy to volunteer.

Terry Floyd

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-

discuss@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 2:48 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: New poll for lpsf-discuss

The convention subject is particularly important because, as I
understand it, the next one will be in Northern California, and it
will be the one to elect new leadership (no inference here on my
opinion pro/con the current leadership).

Also as I understand it, the reason so few bids are received if

any,

is the huge financial risk associated with a large gathering.

Unless

we want the convention to be in one of the meadows in Golden Gate
Park, someone needs to step forward and assume the financial risk.

To do the convention "internally", the LPCA would have to have a

lot

of spare cash on hand. Another option is to have one of our

members

take on the task as an "independent contractor", as Gail Lightfoot
did a couple of years ago (I tried to find Gail's recent comment on
that convention, but could not; as I recall she mentioned the
experience was financially draining).

Perhaps some of us interested folks could start gathering

information

on how to put on a convention.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Morey Straus

<morey.straus@g...>

wrote:
>
> I think we have a consensus on the convention issue. The more
> constructive approach is what we will do at the 2006 convention to
> prevent a reoccurance. A number of questions come to mind.
>
> Why is it that for the last two conventions we have had only one
> bidder? What is our bid process for conventions? Are our
> requirements too restrictive? Is there not a market for this

type

of
> event, or are we not getting the inquiries out to the right

people?

> I'm not trying to criticize Allen Hacker or others involved with

our

> conventions, but I think we need to do something different.
>
> If we are doing all we can to seek bids, and the market is just

not

> there, then I would propose that we add a line item to the budget
for
> managing the event internally. It would ideally be done in such

a

way
> as to be self-supporting, and not drain or significantly enhance

the

> Party coffers.
>
> If next year we are again facing one outside bid, this way we

will

at
> least have a choice.
>
> -Morey
>

SPONSORED LINKS

U
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos?

t=ms&k=U+s+government+grant&w1=U+s+governm

ent+grant&w2=Libertarian+party&w3=U+s+government+student+loan&w4=Calif
or

nia+politics&c=4&s=107&.sig=-TEWz9xDSTBwp7pUOuLHAA> s government

grant

Libertarian
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos?

t=ms&k=Libertarian+party&w1=U+s+government

+grant&w2=Libertarian+party&w3=U+s+government+student+loan&w4=Californ
ia

+politics&c=4&s=107&.sig=GhiTfRFcmqxbzfuEtgS-Ow> party
U
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos?

t=ms&k=U+s+government+student+loan&w1=U+s+

government+grant&w2=Libertarian+party&w3=U+s+government+student+loan&w
4=

California+politics&c=4&s=107&.sig=at21uQxzQxCrqYBHvl-9-w> s

government

student loan

California
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos?

t=ms&k=California+politics&w1=U+s+governme

nt+grant&w2=Libertarian+party&w3=U+s+government+student+loan&w4=Califo
rn

ia+politics&c=4&s=107&.sig=XR3mel2ZuJZkr4i7oNUS-A> politics

  _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

* Visit your group "lpsf-discuss
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; " on the web.
  
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?

subject=Unsubscribe>