The California Libertarian Party’s Executive Committee is currently considering a proposal to move its state office from Los Angeles County to Sacramento. The new location would be on the ninth floor of an executive office suite within two blocks of the state capitol building. The office is currently located at 14547 Titus Street in Panorama City.
The Executive Committee is currently voting on a motion to accept the proposal, so interested LP members should contact their representatives on the committee immediately if they have any questions or want to provide input to the process. Executive Committee members can be contacted through the California LP’s website at http://ca.lp.org/contact, however, committee members are listed by title and not individually. To date, there has been no formal attempt by the Executive Committee to inform the general membership of the proposal or gather input. However, some members of the Executive Committee are discussing the proposal with LP members individually and at local meetings.
The new proposal includes a 184 square foot office (approximately 12-1/4 feet by 15 feet) at a cost of $595 per month. Staff would also have the use of a common kitchen/break room and reception area, and the use of two meeting rooms for 8 hours per month free of charge. No additional storage area is included. Estimates of the size of the current office range from 230 to 365 square feet, at a cost of $420 per month. Additional meeting space is available at the present location for an additional fee.
Until the proposal was brought to the committee’s attention, there had been no formal discussions of moving the office. No needs assessment was performed, and the overall impact on the state LP’s budget have not been calculated, as there may be potential savings on telephone and internet costs, etc. The proposal was brought before the Executive Committee by Flavio Fiumerodo, who is a real estate professional and at-large member. Mr. Fiumerodo found the space while looking at several offices near the capitol building during a business trip, and determined that it is the most economical space available in that area. No other proposals were presented to the Executive Committee, and to date, the lease has not been provided to committee members for review.
Supporters point to a potential savings of $600 per year for holding Executive Committee meetings in the suite’s board room. However, the company’s promotional video shows the board room to have only 12 chairs arranged around a long table. The Executive Committee consists of 17 members, and approximately 10 guests currently attend its meetings.
Voting will close on Saturday, May 26 unless the motion receives the required 2/3 majority before then. Executive Committee members may change their votes at any time before voting closes.
The proposed office space (#946) and common areas are shaded yellow on the attached floor plan. Videos of the suite’s common areas can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_RZJ0N0EP4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mco6UWm-cH8&feature=youtu.be.
Update: Since this article was written, Northern Vice Chair C. Michael Pickens has recommended including a notice in the state LP’s electronic newsletter and putting a poll on the website. (California does not currently have a printed newsletter due to budgetary constraints.)-Alan Pyeatt]
[
At last report, Indiana had an office and a paid staff member.
Under the prior regime Massachusetts had a paid staff member (got at least COBRA).
Mike @ 53: I would have spent party time and money doing more direct outreach activities, but, again, it wasn’t my decision to make. I think 2 or 3 people looked at the office and decided this was a prudent move. I think the move is happening right away.
@48 Alabama still has a HQ but no longer has a paid employee.
Other states?
Jill @51: It won’t. 2/3 of the state population is in the Southern Region. To get the people, you go to the people, not away from them. Outsiders will not be attracted to the LP by its office location–that’s a Watergate Mistake. They get attracted by simple grassroots activities, advertising, and feet-on-street work–visibility to people and action, not a store facade.
Heck, in CO, LPCO used to be in south Denver and now it’s in the south suburbs. CODP is in south Denver in a location (8th and Broadway) that had crap parking. The heart of the COGOP is in Colorado Springs. Physical location is not what it used to be in the pre-Internet Era. Biggest example of such is these guys, who haven’t been in brick and mortar for over a decade: http://www.wards.com/
Not much time left, and hobnobbing with conservative state lobbyists won’t get you tens of thousands of voter registrations.
I believe the reason for the Sacramento office is to look better to outsiders, therefore attracting better “quality” people to the LP. Whether this helps with ballot status or not, only time will tell.
Well, maybe it will give a small handful of people the illusion that they are impacting state policy just like the big political parties and stuff.
Meanwhile, what are they doing to keep from losing their ballot status by 2015? Anything?
46 @ 47: I’m thinking along the same lines as both of you. However , I pulled myself out of the state’s politics, so I had nothing to do with this.
BTW – how many other state LPs have an office and/or employees anymore?
The expense was the reason.
The office movement is a bad idea, unless the reason is the lease is up and getting spiked. Otherwise it was a solution in search of a problem.
Sounds like dropping it may have been a diversion tactic so critics would stop paying attention long enough for it to pass.
FYI, this measure passed. The office location will be moved to Sacramento.
Do the people who expressed opinions about it before know that?
FYI, Flavio has re-introduced the motion to move the California LP office to the Pacific Business Center in Sacramento.
RMWA2012 has better language, but it didn’t attract the funding to get on the ballot. Maybe the language was too extreme for the big money donors, maybe it was personality conflicts, maybe California is too expensive a target right after prop 19, maybe other things I haven’t thought of off the top of my head, maybe a combination of factors.
Either way, RMWA2012 will not be on the ballot in CA; the CO measure will be, however imperfect, and may even pass. If it does, I would count that as a major victory.
It may be better than prohibition, but they should be honest about it and not deceptive,
Besides, compared to RMWA2012, it is lacking.
I realized that after I posted and reversed that assumption in followup comments.
Sure, but it’s a lot better than prohibition; and 2 ounces of pot is not equivalent in any sense to two shots of booze, since an ounce of pot is quite a few doses to most people.
Nick @27:
Re: Initiative 75: Works for me! I’m tracking all of the initiatives in the pipe right now (so what else is new? :-))
Re: Amendment 64: While it has made the ballot, it’s high taxes and 2 ounce limit frankly suck. They claim to regulate it like alcohol but booze does not have a 2-shot limit. I could (and in CA helped to) write better.
Alan @37: Any reason given for the withdrawal?
FYI, the motion to accept the proposal to lease office space at 770 L Street in Sacramento has been withdrawn.
Thanks for the link at 26, Indy. I might try to post it here as its own article over the weekend.
“Paulie // May 24, 2012 at 7:33 am
If it’s not paying, and it sounds like it’s not, it probably won’t come anywhere close to getting enough signatures in CO this year”
The deadline to place initiatives on the statewide Colorado ballot for the 2012 general election is not until early August, so there’s still time for this thing to get on the ballot this year in Colorado if there is money behind this Top Two initiative in that state.
If they get the funding from the big money corporate interests like the insurance corporations that have funded CA and AZ they could easily have enough sigs by August. Otherwise it’s a dry run.
@27: The state board is aware of and watching Initiative 75. We will continue to watch it to see if it’s likely to get the signatures necessary. My guess is that, like the competing marijuana initiative (Initiative 70?), getting the signatures will fail.
Speaking of Colorado initiatives, Amendment 64 will legalize recreational use and possession of marijuana in Colorado. The LP of CO was the first political party in the state to endorse the initiative. (The Dems later added support to their platform at convention, but we know how much platforms don’t matter.)
If it’s not paying, and it sounds like it’s not, it probably won’t come anywhere close to getting enough signatures in CO this year, although it may well be a threat for the future. AZ will unfortunately almost certainly get enough signatures, so get prepared to fight it at the ballot box.
CA can turn lemons into lemonade by using the need to increase registrations to get libertarian activist fundraisers and field organizers who will create and strengthen college and county organizations, distribute literature, do OPH booths, collect contacts/inquiries, inviting people to meetings, etc, while registering voters.
Otherwise, the most likely scenario is that it will wind up on the clipboard of everyone willing to petition at low rates for a quick fix all over the state, with most of the money going to several layers of coordinators. The registrations will still get done, sometime close to the deadline, but the party will lose the opportunity to use it to build the party in other ways.
“Ad Hoc // May 23, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Haven’t heard of that one paying in CO this year. It is paying in AZ though. Word is going out to petitioners not to work that steaming pile but probably too little too late.”
I’ve been leading the charge in urging petition circulators to not work on the Top Two initiative in Arizona (note that I’m not there, so I’ve been doing this remote). I did get a few people to stop working on it, but I don’t know if there are any others who’ve stopped. Unfortunately, it is probably too little, too late. I didn’t find out that Top Two was paying in Arizona until several weeks into it.
I have gotten the word out to a bunch of petition circulators about why this is such a horrible initiative, and why they should boycott it in Arizona, as well as in any other state where it pops up.
It sounds like Top Two has been filed as an initiative petition in Colorado this year. If I hear that that this thing is going to pay in Colorado this year I’ll do what I can to squash it there before it gets going.
The names behind the CO effort are listed in the PDF link. However, they have also submitted other initiatives and are all over the political map with them, so they’re either independently carrying the ball here or just cribbing the idea.
However, the CA effort IIRC was related to the ones in WA and OR (that one failed), and a Googling of Prop 14 for CA 2010 should reveal some of the proponents in the news articles.
Has anyone heard anything about a national group being behind the top two effort nationally? What names are behind this, etc?
Haven’t heard of that one paying in CO this year. It is paying in AZ though. Word is going out to petitioners not to work that steaming pile but probably too little too late.
BTW, that registration goal, per the court order Winger mentions, is 103,004. The LPCA is as 93,217 as of last count by the SoS. In February of 2011 when I compiled the numbers for my SVCreport, they were at 92,246. Delta is 971, which is nowhere near the needed average delta of 2690 from 2011-2014. Now they need to pull an average registration number of 3262 per year just to stay on the primary ballot. Not good. The death clock is ticking, and this is why defeating Top Two is so damned important where it pops up elsewhere. Right now in CO it is known as Initiative 75, had its title set 5/3, and petitions for it are in circulation until 8/6. 86,105 valid signatures are required. Read it at http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2011-2012/75Final.pdf. Hopefully it will not get there. LPCO needs to be fighting this tooth and nail, ditto the AIPCO and GPCO, and every other minor party in the state.
The case cited itself has to do with the timing required to make the 10% petition goal, or 1,030,040 signatures, to qualify for the ballot. It has zero to do with Top Two, except to restate the actual 2014 registration goal, or in lieu of that, the likely impossible goal by petition instead. Note the numbers themselves are not challenged; just the timing.
FWIW, the CA Constitution Party made 121 registrations and the Justice Party (dunno who they are) made 183.
@25
http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/05/22/u-s-district-court-grants-injunctive-relief-against-californias-deadline-for-newly-qualifying-parties/
Richard, can you post a link about yesterdsy’s decision? I’d love to see something about it.
There is reason for optimism that the California legislature will pass a bill easing the definition of “party”. One thing that will help is yesterday’s great court decision in Los Angeles enjoining the January deadline for qualifying a new party. I am sort of surprised that the news media has ignored that.
3011 = 2011. Bad fingers!
@18, As did I. My final SVC report at the 3011 LPCA convention focused heavily on it.
If they don’t make that goal, it won’t matter where their office is because they’ll be Out Of Business. I have no idea where the registration numbers are right now.
Since I live in El Dorado County it would certainly be a lot easier for me to volunteer if it is in Sacramento.
415-690-6352 if anyone wants to talk about the registration issue.
That is a wonderful offer, Don! And even though I’m opposed to this specific proposal (although I’m not necessarily opposed to moving to Sacramento), maybe I can help with the digitization process.
Thanks for your positive contribution. I will pass it on to the Executive Committee.
Tried to talk to a whole bunch of them about that, all to no avail.
I remember discussing this on the side a few years ago and at the time I was told about our lease terms, and for LA metro they’re decent.
While Berkman is right on the LPCA demographics, he’s dead wrong on influence lobbying, but it has to be developed and earned. Ask Nick Sarwark about LPCO’s efforts over the past decade.
Frankly the bigger issue with LPCA is getting their registration numbers up enough to keep primary ballot access in light of Top Two. If meeting space is an issue then virtual e-meetings should be explored as an alternative.
For now, it ain’t broken so don’t fix it until it is.
We can’t even afford a newsletter
Actually, we can. I left the LPCA ExCom in order to have time create a free online version and a printer-ready version as well, at zero labor cost compared to the $12K/yr we used to spend on it.
That offer still stands.
For storage and availability of supplies and equipment in the Southland, the party is welcome to use my office in West Hollywood.
I really think 2 offices should be the ultimate goal. Our state is so big that 2 offices would be able to serve everyone better.
Of course, cost is the issue. That’s the kind of thing to set goals for, and plan for.
As a local up in this neck of the woods that is a relatively good deal for a business space near the Capital building. It would be nice to have a closer office for those of us up North. Northern Calif often has trouble with accurate representation when the offices are down South. It would make sense to me to have a Northern and South office…but that would be costly and require the party to actually attempt to grow the party instead of keeping it the best kept secret around.
“Our presence will also show we are serious about our political intentions of state domination.”
Not sure how moving to a more expensive, smaller space in a city dominated by our opponents shows that we are serious.
Gene @ 4: If we tried, no legislator would take us seriously because we don’t have enough members, our candidates don’t get enough votes, and if a legislator voted our way, our bylaws prohibit supporting his or her election anyway.
Me: Then change the by-laws. Because of the top-two primary, do everything you can before the primary to get your candidates onto the November ballot. Then after the primary, in races where there are only a Republican and a Democrat, endorse some of the libertarian leaning candidates of the major parties to try to influence the election.
Don, while I agree with you about the junk, I also think it would be advisable to find out how long it will take Beau to finish digitizing our archives, and figure out a plan for where to put them in the meantime.
Also, what about flyers, door hangers, audio/video equipment, booths for special events, etc.? A needs assessment would take all of these things into consideration.
WtR @ 2: We are told that the lessor may lease the space to someone else at any time. I don’t find this argument persuasive in a buyer’s market, but perhaps some other Executive Committee members do.
I think it’s a great idea! We will be great to be able to witness first hand the implosion of “Bullet-Train Brown” and his union-backed Democratic cronies. The office was never used to “serve” the members and having a conference room (remove the table) for meetings will save at least a couple of hundred four times a year. Storage space for unnecessary junk just accumulates unnecessary junk. Our presence will also show we are serious about our political intentions of state domination.
Lidia, you will have to ask Beau how that affects him. As you know, he reports directly to the State Chair, and that fact may color his response.
I have stated repeatedly that the proper way to handle a move like this is to perform a needs assessment first, and that should start with Beau, since he has run the office for 5 years and knows more about our office needs than anyone else in the entire state. Nevertheless, some Executive Committee members have determined that the best course of action is to press ahead with a vote on this proposal, despite the fact that we haven’t seen the lease yet.
Kudos to Michael Pickens, for at least recognizing the fact that our membership needs to be included in this decision. Otherwise, I am completely flabbergasted at how this is happening.
We can’t even afford a newsletter, but we can afford to move our office without knowing the budget ramifications, which should be easy enough to calculate. Amazing.
How does this affect Beau??
No. Leave as is.
The Libertarian Party of California does not actively lobby the state legislature. If we tried, no legislator would take us seriously because we don’t have enough members, our candidates don’t get enough votes, and if a legislator voted our way, our bylaws prohibit supporting his or her election anyway.
Most LPC members are in southern California, so an office in Los Angeles County makes sense for providing service to LPC members and to the county organizations.
Paying higher rent for less space, just to be in the capitol makes no sense at all.
While I am not from California, I do believe that the headquarters of a party should be located in the state’s capital city.
No comment on the particular building…
I’ve got a lot of reservations about this office proposal, but top of my list is: What’s the hurry? I just don’t understand why this is being rushed to a vote right now. Anyone??
As the floor plan tells me zilch (and I’m at work, where YouTube is blocked), I took a look at the website:
http://www.pbcoffices.com/locations/sacramento.html
Yep, it certainly is prettier than our present office. But do we need to pay more money for a smaller space, just for a ‘pretty face’?
If storage and an actual “working” space weren’t needed, maybe this would be great. But the problem is we DO need those. (Oh boy, do we!)
And it’s fabulous that there’s “monthly parking available”. How many spaces? How much $ per month? (Available don’t mean free, ya know!) What’s available for visitors? What do they pay?
And while I don’t live in Sacramento, I have an idea that cost-of-living is a bit higher up there than in Panorama City. Have those costs been considered?
Yeah, I’m gonna urge a big ol’ NO vote… Let’s get some studies & other proposals, if we really need to move the office. I don’t think we should jump on the first place — just because someone wants to rush it.
Just my 2 cents…
My suggestion is that the CA Ex Com have BOTH
offices.