[Lnc-business] discussion on variant of UMP

Sun Oct 9 09:06:53 EDT 2016

Caryn,

I would like to be part of the UMP discussion group.

I have raised the UMP restitution issue in LNC and ASC meetings and been
told there are legal obstacles and unintended consequences of state
affiliates becoming dependent on UMP revenue. I am open to exploring
innovative ways to mutually boost national and affiliate membership
programs.

I would suggest including Daniel Hayes (ASC Chair) in the discussion and
perhaps involving the broader ASC membership at some point. George Phillies'
historical perspective would also be a value add to the discussion.

Thoughts?

Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!

The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of
Government!

~David Pratt Demarest

http://www.lpne.org 

secretary at lpne.org <mailto:secretary at lpne.org> 

dpdemarest at centurylink.net <mailto:dpdemarest at centurylink.net>  

david.demarest at firstdata.com <mailto:david.demarest at firstdata.com>  

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
Starchild
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2016 4:20 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] discussion on variant of UMP

Joshua,

            I don't think it's a fear that "national is going to steal
affiliate money" so much as an awareness that things people aren't
incentivized to do are naturally more likely to get de-prioritized or fall
between the cracks.

            But I agree a discussion group as Caryn suggests sounds like a
good idea.

Love & Liberty,

                                  ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                (415) 625-FREE

On Oct 8, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:

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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20161009/4ce9bf36/attachment-0002.html>