Marcy/Rob/Starchild
I'm glad to see this thread.
Alas, I'm also a non-San Francisco resident, as I live in Albany. I
do hope to return one day since that will mean the end of my
dependence on the Bay Bridge!
I have not attended that many meetings of the SFLP - so I recognize
that my comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. That said, I
don't think that many people would be motivated to work on behalf of
the SFLP given what takes place at the meetings I have attended.
Since the SFLP is unlikely to gain power and doesn't have a lot of
money, few people are going to take an interest in the administrative
aspects of running the party. Ideological activists are more likely
to engage in specific, limited duration activities that have a clear
goal and impact.
I think the Ron Paul meetups were a good example of this. People
worked really hard for a short time to make sure that Paul and his
ideas were on the radar screen while the Republican primary remained
competitive. [Unfortunately, many people had unrealistic
expectations about what could be achieved, are now disenchanted and
may thus not be available as potential SFLP activists.]
I like to think that the March 19, 2007 peace protest at Pelosi's
office was another good example of a focused, short term, impactful
activity - but I can't be objective about that one.
Going forward, it seems to me that the Prostitution initiative and
Phil's candidacy have the most potential juice. I also know that
many members of the list want to work on LBGT issues, but I would
suggest that this work be project oriented and that the projects be
chosen should be ones in which a particularly libertarian perspective
makes a difference.
Consequently, you should consider breaking up the agenda so that
there is a portion limited to officers (and those with a keen
interest in discussing what the officers do) and a "public" portion
that focuses on specific issues or campaigns. These campaigns should
be short term and should have realistic goals. People working on
these projects may wish to meet between meetings and should also
engage non-libertarians if appropriate.
Marc
--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry"
<amarcyb@...> wrote:
Hi Starchild,
Excellent work. Thank you! From your list, I see 10 regular
attendees, four no-longer attendees with whom we are in
communication
and who always rise to the occasion when something important is
going
on, and the rest inactive in LPSF. Ten does not compare favorably
to
the 20 or 30 crowded around the table "in the old days." Lots of
reasons why the decline, including the dot-com bust, etc. etc. So,
I
guess we better get to work!
Marcy
>
> Marcy,
>
> Yes, I think you're right that this is the core of what we're
up
> against. People don't find what we're doing
meaningful/satisfying
> enough to them to want to be engaged, but don't say so because
they
> are either embarrassed to admit they don't care more or aren't
> willing to make more of an investment in working for the cause
of
> liberty, and/or don't want to discourage those of us who are
more
> engaged.
>
> As to how to energize ourselves to do things, I really don't
have a
> good answer for that either. I feel like I'm already energized to
do
> things myself, right now being most actively engaged in working
to
> pass the prostitution decriminalization ballot measure. But then
> again I might not be as energized if I had much less free time,
and
> having a relatively large amount of free time is partly a result
of
> working limited hours as a sex worker and not having kids. Of
course
> I also tend to keep my expenses fairly low; people who spend
more
> often have to work longer hours in order to pay for their
consumer
> spending.
>
> I do think that San Francisco is probably one of the more fun
and
> interesting places to be engaged in politics. This is a very
> political town that is small enough that lots of people know
each
> other, there are lots of colorful people, and vast numbers of
small
> local organizations, many of which have real political clout. We
have
> a beautiful City Hall building that is actually sometimes a
pleasure
> to be inside, and lots of beautiful neighborhoods that are a
pleasure
> to walk around. And San Francisco is a cosmopolitan place
offering
> many different single-issue pro-freedom groups with which to
> potentially get involved (see list in my previous message).
>
> There are 37 people on this list, and 87 on lpsf-discuss. I
> sometimes wonder who most of these people are, and what they are
> getting out of being on the lists, since I don't see anywhere
near
> that many people coming to meetings or even posting messages. I
> wonder whether they are at all otherwise involved in politics.
> Inspired by my own previous sentences and curious about the
lurkers,
> I went and looked at the LPSF-activists subscribers, and what I
found
> at least for this list is very few surprises:
>
> LPSF Activist List (as of 8/2/08)
>
> Known
> --------------------------------------------------
> Mike Acree (listed twice)
> Chris Maden*
> David Rhodes
> Michael Edelstein
> Francoise Fielding
> Richard Newell*
> Morey Straus*
> Starchild
> Jeremy Linden
> Marc Joffe
> Justin Sampson**
> Kelly Simpson**
> Marcy Barry
> Michael Denny (listed twice)
> Mark Johnson (bouncing)
> Phil Berg
> Rob Power
> Sarosh Kumana**
> S. Rowan Wilson (bouncing)
> Steve Dekorte
> Ron Getty
> M Carling*
> Bryce Bigwood
> TJ Campbell*
> Bart Barry**
> Raphael Moller**
> Guy Wilson (bouncing)
> Richard Winger (bouncing)
> Mimi Ji**
> Josh* (semi-known)
>
> *outside SF
> **politically inactive
>
> Unknown (at least to me)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> FriscoJohn (has posted at least once)
> edbedard (bouncing)
> jill_marc1
> valerie_nightshade_rose (bouncing)
> jones.larry
>
> For starters, we really have 35 people on the list, since
Mike Acree
> and Mike Denny are both listed twice for some reason. Beyond
that, we
> have six people whose emails are bouncing (i.e. they are not
really
> on the list at this point), which brings the actual current
total
> down to 29. Of those 29, most of them are our local usual
suspects,
> including yours truly. But these include Bart Barry, who I
understand
> no longer does activism with us for health reasons, Sarosh
Kumana,
> Kelly Simpson, and Justin Sampson, who seem to have sort of
withdrawn
> from active politics at present, and Raphael Moller, my ex-
roommate
> who was really only involved in LP activism via me and probably
has
> no interest at this point; I highly doubt he is reading these
emails.
> One inactive person, Mimi Ji, seems very worth trying to get in
touch
> with, as she used to be active in the EBLP (their Secretary,
IIRC)
> and wrote to the LPSF Activist list in April 2006 that she now
lives
> in SF, and asked if we were having a Tax Day protest.
>
> Another six (marked with asterisks) are Libertarians who
live
> outside SF. A couple of those, TJ Campbell and Richard Newell,
are
> occasionally involved in local activities, two, Morey Straus and
> Chris Maden, are former LPSF activists now in New Hampshire, one
M
> Carling is active in the LPC and has posted occasionally, and
one
> Josh who I believe found the list through talking with me on a
> Libertarians for Animal Rights list, I believe indicates on his
> profile that he lives in the Seattle area, and I don't recall
has
> ever posted on LPSF. But with the exception of Michael Edelstein,
who
> I didn't even include as living outside SF since he practically
lives
> here and is so involved in our group, I don't think we can
generally
> expect much involvement from people who live elsewhere.
>
> Five other people (listed under "Unkown" above) I don't
recognize
> from their handles at all; one of them "FriscoJohn" has made at
least
> one post to the list, not sure about the others. But the emails
of
> two of these folks are now bouncing anyway.
>
> This leaves us an estimated 14 active activists in regular
> communication with us, which seems in line with our recent
meeting
> attendance. Hope this information is helpful. I will undertake to
do
> a similar analysis of the LPSF-discuss list.
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
>
>
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > Have a good trip to San Diego (thank you for going in our
behalf).
> > You pose some excellent questions, but I think the answers all
boil
> > down to a simple one: people nowadays are very busy, and only
engage
> > in activities that are really meaningful/satisfying to them,
and we
> > offer none. I think the visit a couple of meetings ago of the
> > co-founder of Antiwar.com provided an insight when he related
how the
> > LPSF "did things" in the old days. I assumed enough things were
done
> > to appeal to a lot of people.
> >
> > Energizing ourselves to "do things" is essential before we can
> > energize others, but how do we do that? Beats me. Your idea
about
> > increasing the conversion rate from the Drinking Freely group is
> > excellent. I will continue my snail-mail outreach to lapsed
members,
> > prospects, etc. Ron Getty's initiative work will also help. Phil
> > Berg's candidacy could serve as a rallying point for tablings
and
> > other political action. Starchild's initiative could be another
> > rallying point.
> >
> > Maybe once we get going a little, we could start an LPSF Meetup
Group,
> > which might serve as public announcement/promotion of LPSF
activities;
> > that is, not a discussion group (we have the LPSF-discuss for
that),
> > and not a private place (like our LPSF-activists).
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> > >
> > > I know the question of how to get $25 or $55 out of people is
an
> > > important question the Treasurer should ask. But I'm frankly
not
> > nearly
> > > as concerned about the money as I am about the people. Heck,
I'm a
> > > member of the LPC Coffee Club, so I'm already paying the
> > equivalent of
> > > 10 full memberships a year. We can subsidize those who don't
want to
> > > give us their money. I just want their presence,
participation,
> > time,
> > > and effort, not their cash. How do we get people to show up
and do
> > > stuff? If it's totally free, and it's not a case of "getting
one's
> > > money's worth" then will people show up? I tend to think they
won't.
> > > It's not the money. It's something else. We need to find a
hook. The
> > > Drinking Freely Meetups are proof positive that there are
plenty of
> > > Libertarians in town. They just have no interest whatsoever
in
> > boring
> > > things like interviewing and vetting candidates for
> > recommendation and
> > > endorsement. So, we've got to find something that they would
be
> > > interested in.
> > >
> > > BTW, is 2005 when the meetings moved from Geary to 9th? How
many
> > people
> > > did we lose just from that location change? Richard Winger
always
> > used
> > > to bike to the meetings on Geary before I moved away in
2004.
> > I've not
> > > seen him at a meeting on 9th since I moved back in 2007. Lots
of
> > other
> > > people in that category. Kelly Simpson. Mike Acree. Even the
> > postcard
> > > we tried to send to Sarosh bounced back as undeliverable. What
> > happened
> > > to everyone? Most are still on this list, and I occasionally
see
> > > something from one of them.
> > >
> > > Marcy, let's go through some of those old attendance sheets
that I
> > > scanned in for the officers and burned to CDs for us. I'm
betting
> > the
> > > list of former regulars who we don't see anymore is more
than
> > twice as
> > > long as the list I just mentioned. We should call them
directly and
> > ask
> > > what it would take to get them to come back to meetings.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, I need someone to volunteer to be the Social
Networks
> > > Committee Chair. I think this is a separate function from
Outreach
> > > Director, because maintaining an LPSF group on all of the
various
> > social
> > > networks will take a lot of work, and it's really more than
> > enough for
> > > just one person all by itself. We need an LPSF Facebook
group, at
> > > minimum, but we also need someone who can get us into the
things
> > that
> > > I've only heard about but never tried (like Twitter). I'll
also
> > do my
> > > best to try to increase our "conversion" rate from the
Drinking
> > Freely
> > > Meetups.
> > >
> > > And if there are any other ideas, I'd love to hear them. But
I'd
> > better
> > > go to sleep now. I've got a crazy early flight to tomorrow's
LPC
> > ExCom
> > > meeting in San Diego.
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > Amarcy D. Berry wrote:
> > > > Thank you, Rob, for the heartfelt words. I completely
agree
> > with your
> > > > assessment of the situation, but would like to add a couple
more
> > thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Based on the information I see on the latest LPSF
membership
> > list
> > > > we received, LPSF members paid-up-to-date total 47, with 23
of
> > those
> > > > being life members, leaving only 24 as having felt it
> > worthwhile to
> > > > renew their annual memberships. 79 on the list lapsed during
> > > > 2005-2007, which precludes our temptation to blame the
decline
> > on any
> > > > Ron Paul poaching in our ranks. 2) I personally believe
that the
> > > > membership will continue to decline, since we core LPSF
> > activists have
> > > > not succeeded lately in providing any good reason for the
> > average San
> > > > Franciscan to fork over a hard-earned $25 or $50.
> > > >
> > > > So, I agree with you that our focus should be on working
to
> > increase
> > > > the number of local folks who view themselves as
affiliated
> > with the
> > > > LPSF, and who will be there for candidates nights, signature
> > > > gathering, tabling, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Because we LPSF activists are blessed with such divergent
views of
> > > > what our constituency should be, we have gone after none;
and
> > maybe
> > > > that is a hurdle we need to overcome.
> > > >
> > > > Marcy
> > > > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Rob Power <chair@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I agree completely. But it was brought up at the last
meeting,
> > and
> > > >> there wasn't enough interest, so it wasn't included in the
> > postcard that
> > > >> went out this week.
> > > >>
> > > >> In addition, given that we can barely get 1% of registered
> > libertarians
> > > >> to sign a candidate's petition and return it to us, the
odds of
> > getting
> > > >> 10% of them to give up an evening to listen to candidates
seems
> > > >> unlikely. I hate to say it, but I think a majority of the
people
> > > >> registered as Libertarians in San Francisco actually
don't
> > know the
> > > >> meaning of the word. I think we really have to concentrate
on
> > paid
> > > >> members of the LP (and there are still over 300 of those),
and
> > only once
> > > >> we've exhausted that supply should we spend any real money
or
> > effort on
> > > >> non-LP-member registered Libertarians.
> > > >>
> > > >> I realize that we have a sort of chicken-and-egg situation
here
> > (where
> > > >> we can't do anything without numbers, and we won't gain
numbers
> > until we
> > > >> start doing things) -- but given the slipping attendance
at
> > monthly
> > > >> meetings among our core activists (consistently fewer than
10
> > activists
> > > >> at every meeting this year, with only the occasional guest
or two
> > > >> getting us up to 10 in the room), we have to allocate our
time
> > and
> > > >> effort toward activities that such a small core of people
can
> > > >> accomplish. A small group this size can do effective
outreach by
> > paper
> > > >> mail and electronically and by having OPH booths and such,
but
> > whenever
> > > >> an activity calls for filling a room, unless some major
advance
> > is made
> > > >> in cloning real soon now, the 6 of us die-hards who are at
every
> > event
> > > >> will look awfully foolish.
> > > >>
> > > >> If we can have 20 LPSF members in the room at the August 9
> > meeting, and
> > > >> get them to commit to attending a candidates night, then I
think
> > we can
> > > >> safely schedule a candidates night for the week before
our
> > September
> > > >> meeting, and get a second postcard out publicizing that
one
> > event, as
> > > >> you suggest, four weeks in advance of it. It's still
doable. But
> > > >> unless we have the reliable core of activists regularly
> > showing up at
> > > >> meetings (20 or more of us at the 16th and Geary Round
Table
> > Pizza) that
> > > >> we had when we last did the big candidate nights, I'm
going to
> > vote "no"
> > > >> on doing it.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, do you think you can get us more than double our
usual
> > turnout of
> > > >> LPSF members at next Saturday's meeting? I've been begging
and
> > pleading
> > > >> for people to show up (you know who you are -- you're all
still
> > on this
> > > >> list), but attendance keeps dwindling. I'm at a loss for
how
> > to fix
> > > >> it. But I have to insist that bringing participation back
up
> > amongst
> > > >> our core activists is a necessary condition before even
> > considering
> > > >> putting on any event that requires us to fill a room to
not look
> > > >> foolish, and candidate night would qualify as such an
event.
> > > >>
> > > >> Rob
> > > >>
> > > >> Ron Getty wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> If candidate nights were highly publicized among all
registered
> > > >>> Libertarians with enough advance notice and there was a
turnout
> > of at
> > > >>> least 10% of all registered Libertarians ( 150-200 ) then
this
> > would
> > > >>> have more meaning. Then any endorsement or recommendation
would