[Lnc-business] discussion on variant of UMP

[Joshua Katz]

Starchild - in addition, we can't send out checks to affiliates in many
cases, so doing it that way isn't really a possibility anymore.
Personally, I think the concern that national is going to steal affiliate
money is overblown, but regardless, that program can't exist.  I think it's
relatively easy to do the automation you speak, with no need to outsource
the work.  That, at least, is my impression.

But that's all an implementation question.  A lot comes before that, such
as if we want something like that at all, how it should be structured, how
to divide up responsibilities between state and national, how the division
should look, etc.  For those things, I think Caryn Ann's suggestion is a
good one.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

> This comes up periodically, and I totally understand why. My sense is that
> most members would like a system that lets you join all levels of the party
> (national/state/local) with one form and one payment. But I think many
> grassroots activists are justifiably wary of a system that sends all the
> money to national and then relies on staff to send out checks to state and
> local affiliates. Ideal would be a system that automatically divvies up
> funds collected according to where they're supposed to go and disperses
> them simultaneously to all levels of the party, so no level would be
> dependent on another level doing its job properly. I wonder whether it's
> possible to totally automate something like that, or whether the work could
> be outsourced at a reasonable cost to someone whose sole focus was this
> sort of payment transfers (as opposed to just one of many hats staff are
> wearing).
>
> Love & Liberty,
>                                    ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>
>
> On Oct 8, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> I have had a few members bring up the UMP (Unified Membership Program) to
> me over the past few months.  A few would like to see something like that
> re-instituted.  I don't want to waste time here with half-baked proposals
> but I am planning on getting an informal group of members together to
> discuss in November.  If anyone here would like to be part of this
> discussion group please let me know.
>
> --
> *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 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/20161008/e249dedf/attachment-0002.html>