[Lnc-business] Upcoming budget increase requests
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Sun Sep 4 17:56:35 EDT 2016
I agree entirely. I'd like to see an increase in the appropriate lines for
this. The same forces increasing our budget at the moment are likely to
increase our litigation needs.
Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
> While we're discussing budget, I want to mention that we have a number of
> legal issues churning around the country, and it may be wise to ensure that
> there is adequate funding for legal.
>
>
> Since this gets published I don't know if I should give specifics, but I
> know of one particular case in which the LNC had allocated funds in 2014,
> but the LNC had not sent all of the funds. After the past 2 weeks, the
> fund for that case, held by the attorney, has been depleted (all actual
> costs, no attorney's fees) and is now negative.
>
> This is just one example. I'm sure you're all aware of other potential
> legal action that may come before this body.
>
> I just want to be sure that, while we have some amazing income right
> now, this body does reserve adequate funds to support our candidates and to
> push back against the abuses of the oligarchy in court.
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2016-09-04 17:34, Joshua Katz wrote:
>
> With the benefit of a few days thought, I have some more comments on this
> discussion.
>
> First, it is not disputed, I think, that we're largely seeing this spike
> as the result of events not of our own making: a libertarian feeling in
> the air, horrible R and D candidates, a loss of faith in many institutions
> including the major parties, etc. Part of it is actions the party took
> that worked well with those conditions, such as running the most credible,
> experienced ticket we have ever run, and doing so in a year where one major
> candidate is not trusted and the other is not credible.
>
> So, the question naturally arises - is this long-term growth, or a
> one-time spike? Furthermore, will the proposed changes make a difference
> in maintaining the growth long-term?
>
> Suppose you ran, let's say, a private school, and enrollment fluctuated
> year to year. One year, you had a major spike, so you were awash in
> money. What would you do with it? Some things would be dictated to you -
> you'd need more teachers, for instance. We cannot get away from having
> more staff to get items out and to process the administrative details,
> whether we do that with more people, more hours, or some combination. I
> leave it to the ED to determine that - from a board perspective, it seems
> obvious to me that compensation needs to increase, and the amount requested
> is reasonable.
>
> What else would you do? Well, you'd want to keep enrollment high the
> following year, too, so maybe you'd use the extra cash to fund more
> admissions/recruitment staff and events, even if that meant socking it away
> for future events. You'd try to convert the crest of the wave to a
> permanent situation.
>
> You might also invest in infrastructure that will save you money in the
> future. For example, if you have many small buildings, you might consider
> covering them with solar panels while you're flush with cash, in order to
> decrease future electrical payouts.
>
> Finally, you'd know you want to maintain a new high, but you'd deal with
> the possibility of not doing so by saving some money.
>
> What are the equivalents here? Well, that's the million dollar question.
> We need to take actions that convert, as I put it, the new roof we've got,
> into strong, sturdy walls. One answer, I think the wrong answer, is to say
> "Presidential spike, won't be maintained, sock away all the money, plan for
> a lean four years." You might call that the Joseph answer. Joseph is
> wrong. Boards should not be premised on long-term pessimism, or the belief
> that good things won't last but bad things will.
>
> However, it is equally wrong - the Potifar answer - to just assume that
> current conditions are the new reality.
>
> Rather, our use of this money is the decisive question. We can let
> everyone who has come in blow away, or we can take actions to stop that.
> The only actions we can take, really, have to do with allocation. So this
> is actually a crucial question before us. I largely tend towards the
> answers the ED gives, but I'd caution the board not to be swayed by the
> belief that a vote for these particular changes is a vote for continued
> growth, and vice-versa. The way we allocate money will decide which
> reality takes hold, and we will be held responsible for the outcome either
> way.
>
> So, are the proposed changes the best ways to allow staff to take actions
> that will maintain our growth? I'm not sure. Let me put out a few ideas.
>
> I asked about both the compensation lines and the fundraising lines.
> Suggestion: determine what it would cost to hire a full-time, dedicated
> fundraising director. Yes, we have staff with expertise in fundraising,
> and we have contractors with expertise in fundraising. If any of them were
> interested, they could seek this position, but the point is to have someone
> working just on this, not several people pitching in on it in addition to
> their main jobs. Just as Wes is capable of putting things in boxes, but
> that is not what his time is best spent doing, the same can be said for
> several people. Additionally, one person having full-time responsibility
> for this would mean a more coherent fundraising program, stretching across
> several functional areas, yet having one message. Instead of this board
> fighting about urgent-grams or commenting on our favorite fonts, let's
> build the type of structure that gets the best results. Whatever it costs,
> I would suggest we'd need to fund two years (of base pay) because it will
> take time to see results, especially when results this year will be hard to
> judge.
>
> What about maintaining membership? Well, I personally am not a membership
> hawk. Last term, we did not adopt a membership goal. I don't know if we
> will this term. It's hard to justify, given that, too much effort and
> expense on maintaining membership. If we chose to, however, what would
> make it happen? I should point out that I'm actually more of a membership
> hawk at the moment than I was last term, because it is really bad to see
> membership drop in large numbers, and it's worse to see new people wash
> out. If the people who are joining now are not retained, I will see that
> as a failure on our part. I'll see that as them now having license, for
> the rest of their lives, to say "yep, totally tried that third-party thing,
> even paid membership dues, and nada." So what do our new members want? I
> don't know, and I suspect none of us really do. Firms can find that out,
> though, for some money. A survey of a sample of new members would be
> beneficial, I think.
>
> Here's something else - engage and involve them. We say people aren't
> joiners anymore, but what we really mean is that they aren't just joiners.
> They don't want to write a check once a year and be ignored. They want to
> be a part of the organization, they want things to do. Yes, they want
> communication, but more than a newsletter, they want tasks. They don't
> want to be thanked - nothing wrong with saying thank you, but saying it in
> the wrong way implies "we appreciate you helping out, but you're still on
> the outside." People want to be integral. We can strengthen, beginning at
> the end of November, the work we do helping people make contact in their
> affiliates. Last term, we considered the question of a 'functional
> affiliate' and how to get all of our affiliates to be functional. This is
> important. In the meantime, what can we do, on a national scale, to get
> new people involved, other than dropping messages about it to the state
> party? How can we follow-up with the volunteer who signed up on lp.org
> without running the risk of saying "oh, they didn't? I'll remind them
> again?" One way is to have more happening nationally. I think the "let
> national be national" plan means more national-level activity - not
> competing with states for volunteers, but filling the gaps so that people
> always have the chance to volunteer, are always involved in a project, and
> are always engaged.
>
> At the same time, people join parties, for the most part, to be engaged in
> political activity. That doesn't exclude the administrative work, of
> course - so long as the payoff is visible. But it does mean that the
> less-committed-but-eager new volunteer needs more of the things they expect
> if they're going to build a long-term relationship. Sure, people will
> stuff envelopes, but I think they'll build a relationship faster by
> campaigning. So we need more campaign activities with visible payoff -
> i.e. more people in office, more focus on recruiting new volunteers into
> local, winnable races. The best way to keep a volunteer is to have them
> knock on doors for a winning candidate the very month they join.
>
> The money is a sign of a new energy, a new life, and a new supply of
> members. Let's turn them into a strong party, not a party left scratching
> its head and wondering where everyone went after all the great energy last
> year.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Caryn, will do.
>>
>> I'm going downstairs to run the postage machine for a while now.
>> Apparently Robert is too busy to do it for now.
>>
>> And if the postman fails to show up again today, I'll be loading my truck
>> and delivering packages to the post office myself so they don't have to
>> wait till Tuesday to get to the post office.
>>
>> It's not that I'm too good for this work, but I'd rather assign a lower
>> paid person to do it most of the time.
>>
>> Casey Hansen has been out sick for a few days as has our newest intern.
>>
>> We have used this Labor Ready company a bit http://www.laborready.com/
>> but the down side is you aren't guaranteed the same person each time and so
>> you do a lot of retraining. I think that was booked to "Branding" because
>> they were packing the branding materials. My time packing materials is
>> booked to compensation.
>>
>> We're burnt out every volunteer willing to show up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>
>> On 9/2/2016 1:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> If Nick does request you to Wes, I would like to be included on that
>> private distribution list. And not to beat a dead horse to the committee
>> here, but THIS is a perfect thing to bring up at my still suggested
>> September LNC meeting. I am certainly not comfortable with this firehose
>> of information via email and making a decision.
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Alicia, I made a mistake when I brought up Andy Burns. None of his costs
>>> have been booked to the compensation line this year (If I heard Robert
>>> Kraus correctly). I had erroneously been thinking that the time that Mr.
>>> Burns worked on ballot access was booked to compensation, but it was
>>> actually booked to the Ballot Access line. In contrast, I think the time
>>> that Nick Dunbar spent on ballot access was booked to Compensation (because
>>> he's an employee-not a contractor).
>>>
>>> Alicia asked, "Which individuals are included in the Compensation budget
>>> category? "
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hansen, Casey T
>>> Howell, Carla A.
>>> Kraus, Robert S
>>> Benedict, Robert C
>>> Dunbar, Dominick J
>>> Thexton, Matthew A
>>> Daugherty, Lauren
>>> Luckey, Denise
>>> Johnston, Robert
>>> Brierly, Elizabeth
>>>
>>> Alicia asked "So for the increase in Compensation are we just talking
>>> about increased hours for Nick Dunbar and Casey Hansen because the rest are
>>> salaried?"
>>>
>>> No, that is not all. I'm not going to disclose every bonus,
>>> pay-raise, or hour increase on this list, but if Nick Sarwark asks me to,
>>> I'll have Robert Kraus compile a list and send it to whomever on the LNC
>>> requests it.
>>>
>>> Alicia asked "The new people being brought in to help with the
>>> presumed-temporary surge, how are they treated, as employees or
>>> contractors?"
>>>
>>> There's been a combination, depending on the circumstances.
>>>
>>> Alicia asked: "Don't contractors show up in other budget categories?
>>> For instance, Andy Burns was budgeted in Affiliate Support, and his extra
>>> hours would not affect the Compensation budget category."
>>>
>>> Many contractors do show up in other budget categories, but some
>>> contractors also show up in the compensation category. Andy Burn's extra
>>> hours have not been booked to the compensation budget category at least so
>>> far.
>>>
>>> Alicia asked: "Where do the other contractors fall in the budget
>>> categories?"
>>>
>>> I'm not going to list every contractor here - we have dozens, but some
>>> are booked to Admin, at least one to Affiliate Support, dozens in Ballot
>>> Access, at least two to Brand Development/Political Materials, at least one
>>> in Media, probably a few in Member Communications.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>>
>>> On 9/2/2016 3:31 AM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>>
>>> Which individuals are included in the Compensation budget category? All
>>> employees, I would think, whether hourly or salaried. So for the increase
>>> in Compensation are we just talking about increased hours for Nick Dunbar
>>> and Casey Hansen because the rest are salaried?
>>> The new people being brought in to help with the presumed-temporary
>>> surge, how are they treated, as employees or contractors?
>>>
>>> Don't contractors show up in other budget categories? For instance,
>>> Andy Burns was budgeted in Affiliate Support, and his extra hours would not
>>> affect the Compensation budget category.
>>>
>>> Where do the other contractors fall in the budget categories?
>>> -Alicia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wes,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm still missing something here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The original budget for compensation was based on a particular staffing
>>>> level at specific amounts of compensation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the activity of the first eight months is already running
>>>> at a rate that will exceed the budget for compensation for the year. (If
>>>> $314,155 is eight months of expense, a simple extrapolation would bring us
>>>> to $471,233 for twelve months, which is well above the budget of
>>>> $388,800.) I seem to recall that most of our compensation cost is based on
>>>> fixed salaries, not hourly rates.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> During the first eight months we were spending just under $40K per
>>>> month. For the last four months of the year you anticipate spending only
>>>> $34K per month, so I'm not seeing how the need for a $60K increase in the
>>>> budget is due to a need to cover increased people costs between now and the
>>>> end of the year. It appears that we were spending well over our budget
>>>> earlier during the year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Starr
>>>>
>>>> (805) 583-3308 Home
>>>>
>>>> (805) 404-8693 Mobile
>>>>
>>>> starrcpa at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Wes Benedict
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2016 4:25 PM
>>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Upcoming budget increase requests
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't disclose exact pay rates and hours worked publicly on this
>>>> email list, as you know. In any case, the increase in the budget is to
>>>> cover more hours and more people than were originally budgeted for.
>>>>
>>>> Some contractors and staff have been working more hours, and I'd like
>>>> to continue working more hours, than were in the original budget.
>>>>
>>>> I've got more contractors than in the original budget.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to spend more on additional staff, including interns, as
>>>> advertised here:
>>>> http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/hiring-libertarian-packaging-interns
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With Robert's help, the numbers below show:
>>>>
>>>> FYI – Compensation:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Compensation YTD * $314,155
>>>>
>>>> Est Amount for Sept-Oct (based on July/Aug) $69,000
>>>>
>>>> Est Amount for Nov-Dec $65,000
>>>>
>>>> TOTAL EST 2016: $448,155
>>>>
>>>> * Includes 09/07 payroll
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm prepared to scale back everywhere if needed as needed, including
>>>> cutting people, hours, pay rates, etc., if activity drops post Election Day
>>>> or whenever regardless of how far it drops. Of course we hope to win lots
>>>> of elections and see activity skyrocket even higher after Election Day, but
>>>> I'm prudently prepared for the alternate scenario as well.
>>>>
>>>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>>>
>>>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>>>
>>>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>>>>
>>>> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
>>>>
>>>> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>>>>
>>>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>>>
>>>> On 9/1/2016 6:25 PM, starrcpa at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the good news!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to understand in greater detail the need for a $60,000
>>>> increase in compensation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Starr
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 1, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear LNC:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to start a discussion about several budget increase requests
>>>> before a formal motion is considered. I mentioned to the chair that I
>>>> thought it would be good for me to put this before the LNC soon, and he
>>>> agreed it was okay for me to get this discussion started on this list.
>>>>
>>>> To me, all of these budget increase requests are the result of good
>>>> news -- our revenue, membership, and interest is very high, far higher than
>>>> budgeted, and as a result, many of our expenses are higher as well.
>>>>
>>>> More revenue and members means more membership cards and LP News to
>>>> mail out, and bigger lists to send fundraising letter to.
>>>>
>>>> The original 2016 Budget adopted for the entire year of 2016 was
>>>> *$1,474,561*. My preliminary estimate for August 31, 2016 YTD revenue
>>>> is $1,679,938 (July 2016 YTD) plus $412,425 (August 2016) =
>>>> *$2,092,363*. It's possible we could double the original revenue
>>>> budgeted for the entire year (although I'm not ready to predict that).
>>>>
>>>> Dues-paying membership has increased from *11,693* at the start of
>>>> January to approximately *19,300* at the end of August.
>>>>
>>>> The original budget for branding revenue was *$35,000*. We've already
>>>> brought in *$205,862* in branding revenue (that's mostly the stuff we
>>>> sell at LPStore.org <http://lpstore.org>).
>>>>
>>>> Again, all of these increases in donations, memberships, and store
>>>> orders, means higher postage, credit card processing fees, purchases of
>>>> items offered at LPStore.org <http://lpstore.org>, office supplies,
>>>> and some labor to help process all that stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Robert Kraus and I have looked over the results of this year to date,
>>>> considered what things could look like going forward, and are recommending
>>>> that the LNC proposed and passes the following budget increases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 26-Brand Political Materials Revenue increase by $150,000 to $400,000
>>>> 32-Fundraising Costs increase by $60,000 to $201,364
>>>> 33-Membership Fundraising Costs increase by $35,000 to $127,200
>>>> 40-Adminstrative Costs increase by $50,000 to $310,050
>>>> 45-Compensation increase by $60,000 to $448,800
>>>> 55-Brand Political Materials Expense increase by $150,000 to $400,000
>>>> 85-Member Communication increase by $17,500 to $62,500
>>>>
>>>> We have the revenue to pay for all of these budget increases. I'm
>>>> pretty certain we have more money in the bank for the September of a
>>>> Presidential election year than ever before in the history of the
>>>> Libertarian Party, and that's in spite of paying what it has taken to
>>>> achieve 50 state ballot access for the first time since 2000.
>>>>
>>>> While we are not technically over budget in most areas, we are trending
>>>> in that direction and certainly will go way over budget by the end of the
>>>> year unless I proactively cut back on fundraising letters, LP News,
>>>> shipping LPStore.org <http://lpstore.org> materials, staff levels, and
>>>> other areas. That could be done, but I don't think it's the right thing to
>>>> do. For example, instead of focusing my time on trying to continue the
>>>> growth of membership and fundraising by hiring another intern to fill boxes
>>>> with campaign materials, I could spend my own time stuffing envelopes and
>>>> filling boxes with yard signs--something I do actually enjoy and find to be
>>>> therapeutic.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be happy to try to respond to any questions you have on these
>>>> items.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your consideration. I'm hoping we have a productive
>>>> discussion on this, and then the chair or treasurer can propose a motion
>>>> that fits a consensus for you to consider of the Labor Day Weekend.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>>>
>>>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>>>
>>>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>>>>
>>>> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
>>>>
>>>> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>>>>
>>>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing
>>>> list Lnc-business at hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi
>>>> nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://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/listi
>>> nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160904/fbc890cc/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list