[Lnc-business] Regarding the Doug Craig matter

[Alicia Mattson]

Even determining the portion of fixed and variable costs in a convention
package can get pretty muddy.  One might think the cost of one of the meals
is a variable cost because we wouldn't have to buy that food if the
delegate didn't attend.  Except that our contracts obligate us to a certain
dollar amount of food & beverage spending as part of the package deal.
Most of the food & beverage expenditures are actually fixed-in-the-contract
costs, and we're going to spend that money whether or not delegates buy the
convention packages.  We just take a risk that enough delegates will do so
to meet our fixed obligation.

Also, the price of the higher-end packages has to be inflated to cover for
the fact that about 1/3 of the delegates contribute nothing towards the
fixed costs of the event.

As a result, the variable costs in a convention package are much smaller
than you might think, and there would be arguments about trying to draw
those lines.

If the convention organizers sold a package that ended up being badly
priced, and it didn't even cover the variable costs, would we record it as
a refund of prior contributions to the delegate?  Say the variable costs
were $40, and we sold it for $10 at a $30 loss.  Say the delegate had
previously in the year given a total of $50 and signed the pledge, thus was
a sustaining member.  Would the package purchase essentially be a donation
refund of $30, leaving the delegate with a net $20 donation and eliminating
his sustaining membership status?

-Alicia



On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Sean O'Toole <sean at kingfieldcapital.com>
wrote:

> In the case of conventions and convention packages available for purchase,
> It's helpful to think of fixed costs and variable costs. While I believe
> that our bylaws state that a delegate need not purchase a convention
> package to participate on the convention floor, it is also not likely that
> every dollar of each level of convention package goes entirely to fund
> variable costs. I am of the opinion that anything paid above and beyond
> variable cost should count as a donation to the Party.
>
> Sean O'Toole
> sean at kingfieldcapital.com
> (816) 739-2737
>
>    “It is the job of economists to point out trade-offs; it is the job of
> politicians and planners to deny that trade-offs exist.”
>         -William Easterly, 2006
>
> On 28 Apr 2015, at 19:43, Daniel Wiener wrote:
>
>  I will co-sponsor both of Alicia's email ballots.
>>
>> I had to take a few hours to mull over this question.  The Chair's ruling
>> is plausible but not ultimately persuasive for me.  If we set the
>> precedent
>> that buying a convention package counts as sustaining membership dues,
>> where do we draw the line?  Logically, any transfer of funds to the LP in
>> excess of $25 would then have to similarly qualify.
>>
>> Suppose someone who was briefly a member ten years ago (and hence signed
>> the pledge) should now decide to buy a T-shirt or some books from the LP
>> for more than $25.  Do we automatically categorize that person as a
>> sustaining member?  Even if that wasn't the person's intent, and indeed
>> the
>> person had no knowledge or desire for that to happen?  Does this become an
>> additional burden on staff, to have to check up on every sale to see if it
>> has a membership impact?
>>
>> I'm afraid that the Chair's ruling will just muddy the waters rather than
>> clear them up.  I much prefer a bright line standard which says that a
>> purchase is just a purchase, and a sustaining membership requires a $25
>> donation which specifically identifies it as being for that purpose.  I
>> think that is arguably more in line with both the literal wording (i.e.,
>> "given" refers to a gift rather than a purchase) and the underlying intent
>> of Bylaws Article 5.3.
>>
>> All that being said, I will happily vote for Doug Craig to fill the LNC
>> vacancy, and thus resolve any question as to whether his vote should be
>> excluded on a technicality.  This is also an excellent opportunity for all
>> the LNC members to quickly vote on these email ballots, and thus conclude
>> them well before the normal 10-day deadline.  The LNC should be able to
>> act
>> much quicker than it traditionally has, so let's prove we can do so!
>>
>> Dan Wiener
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
>> guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
>> compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
>> this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
>> the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
>> experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If
>> it
>> disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
>> to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
>> doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
>> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
>> -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150429/ee51670e/attachment-0002.html>