[Lnc-business] Added Mortgage Payment

Sun Nov 27 13:02:05 EST 2016

Though these numbers will have changed since October, at that time our
principal was $430,598.33.   It appears that we budgeted in 2015 $67,300
for Building Fund revenues to pay $60,000 towards the mortgage (as per the
Policy Manual) and $7,300 for a house letter (I don't know what that
means), but only raised $22,435.63.  Was that $22,435.63 paid?  Or did it
go into shorted reserves?  Also have we already paid additional principle
yet this year?

I believe Robert Kraus said we paid $27,500 extra towards principal in 2015
and $22,000 extra toward principal in 2016.  If this is correct, we were
short $32,500 in 2015 as per the Policy Manual, and I do not see a Policy
Manual provision for even-numbered years to make additional principal
payments.

Tim in October said he believe he would be comfortable with a figure of
about $200,000, and that is the figure that comes to my mind as a* total *for
the two years, at a minimum, so that would be right around Sam's initial
bid of $150,000 (more precisely it would be $150,500).  That would be the
minimum I would like to see.

I echo Joshua's concern of other projects we may wish to do, but *this was
already decided to be a priority* back when we got the mortgage, and I do
not like the way it seems we make promises and then... are like, oh
well.... *such and such.* That is what I see as happening so far with the
website, and if we made this priority, let's fulfill it first.  We passed a
Policy Manual provision to "pay off the office mortgage as quickly as
possible" so let's do it.  And set a fiscal example.  On a related note on
"let national be national" that keeps getting used... to borrow a phrase
that Joshua likes to use in other contexts, I don't find it helpful as it
is "content-less" :)  I don't think anyone wants to have national be other
than what it should be- it is what it should be that is precisely the
issue.  Slogans aren't helpful in planning.  I am of a view that the LNC is
too hands off in some things, and that there are things that we must have
as LNC level decisions and that is "national being national" and I have
made some of those things clear in the website discussion in which I think
we seriously abrogated some duty.

-- 
*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 Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't have a number in mind, but my preference is to look at it from the
> other side first:  how much did we short ourselves last year?  We should
> obviously pay that much extra this year as a starting point.  (I'd say that
> even if doing so pushed our reserves down; we should tighten our belts in
> that circumstance.)  However, it seems that we can pay that much and more,
> so how much more?
>
> Well, here's one answer - imagine we, as an LNC, had absolutely no ideas.
> We just couldn't think of a single thing we want to do beyond what we're
> already doing.  Then, obviously, we should pay as much as we can towards
> the mortgage, get down to bare subsistence, and hope that when it's paid
> off, that LNC is more creative than we are.
>
> On the other hand, we could believe that we have IDEAS, BIG IDEAS, LOTS OF
> IDEAS, and that it is vitally important that we act now, not those jerks
> who might be on the LNC in the future.  In that case, we should pay what we
> shorted ourselves last year and leave it at that.
>
> I don't think either of the two answers above is correct, but the point
> is, where along that spectrum are we?  Also, what pressing things are there
> that need to be done now?  I'd suggest this:  we just received record
> Presidential vote totals and saw a large spike in membership.  It would be
> appropriate to take action to retain the new members, and attempt to get
> more commitment from those voters.  Perhaps a survey of our new membership
> is in order so we have a better idea of why they joined and what they want.
>
>
> After all, wasn't enhanced cash flow one of the selling points that
> convinced a previous LNC to purchase a {noun deleted to avoid
> controversy}?  Isn't it also the case that, if we adhere strictly to the
> Wiener Rule, there will be no balloon payment due?  Granted, of course, any
> delay in payments changes the calculation, so we'd need to pay somewhat
> more than we were short last year to continue that rule.  Granted, too,
> that every additional payment will decrease overall money spent on interest.
>
> In 2017, I'd like to see us do more to help candidates coordinate and
> build ground-games.  I'm hoping to continue over the term to promote my
> proposals regarding appointments and "let national be national," both of
> which take money.  I'm sure others have ideas, which can either out-compete
> mine or be done simultaneously, that will also cost money.
>
> Even so, I'd like to pay substantially more than what we owe ourselves
> towards the mortgage.  I would also note, as I pointed out at the
> e-meeting, that this year's enhanced revenue hasn't been across the board.
> In fact, recurring gifts, last I checked, were below budget.  I'd encourage
> optimism, and I absolutely will not say "well, we'll never see a year like
> this again" but a lack of recurring gifts does raise the possibility of
> coming back down.  If I believed we'd never see such success again, and
> that we were just returning to normal, I'd say throw as much of it as
> possible at paying down the dead pledge.  If recurring gifts were up, I'd
> probably say the same thing.  I think, though, that what we do now will
> determine if we will continue on an upward trajectory, or instead return to
> 'normal,' and that this might be worth some investment.
>
> Before committing myself to a number, though, I'll want to hear from the
> Treasurer.  I might also favor making this decision after the budget is
> approved.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Sam Goldstein <
> goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I intend to make a motion at our next meeting to spend a good portion of
>> our 2016 surplus to make a payment on the principal on our office mortgage.
>>
>>
>> Not knowing our final numbers at this time lends some uncertainty to that
>> number, but I would like to start the bidding at $150,000.  That amount
>> ought to leave us in a very favorable position as to our ongoing reserve
>> for unforeseen expenses over the next few years.
>>
>> Does anyone want to offer a lower/higher amount?  If so, what is your
>> reasoning.
>>
>> Thanks and
>>
>> Live Free,
>>
>>
>> Sam Goldstein
>> Libertarian National Committee
>> Member at Large
>> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>> Indianapolis IN 46260
>> 317-850-0726 Phone
>> 317-582-1773 Fax
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

-- 
*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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161127/a509a68d/attachment-0002.html>