[Lnc-business] Added Mortgage Payment

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you for clarifying what a house letter is.  I meant to inquire
before.  So it seems like my figures are roughly correct, so I will be
looking for a minimum $150,000 paydown which is well within the range that
Tim said before we could handle.

And I have expressed before that I think "oh we budget but don't have to
actually pay" is pretzel twisting by the LNC of expert level.  I would
favor strengthening the rule to stop that gaming.  And I think "as soon as
possible" being made into anything other than the most we can do is also
unacceptable, but I suppose this will be the subject of debate.  I think
members thought this would be a lot more rigourously applied and would
understandably feel, and I would if I step back and put my member hat on,
that the LNC is not doing what they expected. Which is to get rid of this
debt as soon as possible... I feel like I am Alice - The question is
whether we can make words mean so many different things.

On LNBN, yes, I hear it from you.  And I don't think turning us into a
Washington ladies and lads who lunch is the answer - but we have disagreed
on that before (and on whether only things that "require" - another
"flexible" word - a national reach and organization is all we should be
doing), and that is a different subject.


-- 
*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/>

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> A house letter is a fundraising letter.  Robert can provide more details,
> but my understanding is that the $22,453 was paid.  It was, however, less
> than the $60,000 we were supposed to pay.
>
> You are correct, the Wiener Rule was mandated only for odd-numbered
> years.  While I have not run the numbers myself, my understanding was that,
> if followed, that rule would eliminate the balloon payment and amortize the
> loan over its lifetime.  The effect of the rule was to remove the enhanced
> cash flow in odd-numbered years, where it was believed it would be less
> helpful, but maintain that benefit in even-numbered years.  In odd years,
> we would pay the same as we were paying in rent; in even years, we would
> pay less.
>
> That was, to my understanding, the spirit.  (I was, of course, not present
> when it was adopted, but I was present the first time it applied.)  As I
> mentioned earlier, when we were preparing the 2015 budget, there was
> discussion about eliminating that rule, which I strongly opposed.  In the
> end, we did not change or eliminate it, which in my opinion is a good
> thing.  We did budget the money.  Unfortunately, the way the rule operates
> does not guarantee that the money will be paid, and it was not.  I would be
> open to strengthening the rule for the future, but keep in mind that
> standing rules having their application outside the meeting context cannot
> be suspended, so some care is needed not to lock ourselves in too tightly.
>
> In any case, yes, it was decided that this would be prioritized, and I
> agree fully with prioritizing it.  That's why I began by saying that I
> considered paying back what we shorted last year (plus interest) to be the
> absolute minimum.  I don't see the adoption of that goal, though, as
> meaning that we won't expand in other areas until it is paid off, just as
> it obviously doesn't mean that we can't have staff until it is paid off.
> If we followed the rule as stated there, and as it is intended, we'd
> achieve the goal of paying it off before the 10 year balloon payment.  "As
> soon as possible" is unclear, particularly when phrased as a goal, but I
> don't think it means we need to pay all the spare cash we've got - it
> certainly doesn't preclude that, either.  My suggestion, again, is that we
> regard paying our Wiener Rule commitments as inflexible - that's the
> difference for 2015 and the full amount for 2017 - budget for other
> programs we regard as important now, and then pay the difference towards
> the dead pledge, rather than trying to determine how much more to pay above
> Wiener Rule commitments before determining what else we'll do.  Of course,
> though, when decided how much to budget to other programs, we should have
> in mind that everything we budget means we'll be doing less to pay down the
> mortgage, so the threshold for adoption of a project should be not only
> that it's worth the cost, but that it's worth the cost plus interest over
> time, just as if we had to borrow the money to finance it.
>
> To repeat a point I've made before, we've got to think more strategically
> when we budget, and reference budget lines when we spend money.  I think it
> encourages the wrong sort of thinking, and confuses people, try to decide
> whether or not to spend X on Y out of "the universe" rather than spend X on
> Y out of the budget line for things like Y, which is Z.
>
> Regarding "LNBN," I'm not sure how much you're hearing it tossed around.
> Since it's my phrase, I guess I hope you're hearing it tossed around a lot,
> but I've only seen it tossed around by me.  In any case, yes, it's a slogan
> and content-less without context.  I just meant it to indicate the thrust
> of the things I want to see us do, which I see as "those things that
> require a national reach and organization."  The one I harp on the most is
> appointments, but I'd also include doing more outreach to the DC Press
> Corps, certain lobbying operations, and a few other things.  I didn't
> specify here, because I wasn't arguing here for anything specific, just
> saying that I expect over the term to introduce motions which, if adopted,
> would cost various amounts of money, and that I think others will do so as
> well. It is not about board governance per say; that's another pet issue of
> mine, but a separate one.  I do think more care as regards governance can
> lead to clearer goals and better facilitate their achievement, as well as
> clarify what goal-setting means, but that's an indirect connection.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20161127/2b00efd6/attachment-0002.html>