[Lnc-business] Added Mortgage Payment

Sun Nov 27 14:55:42 EST 2016

I would also support an amendment to that effect.  I might try to draw up
some language, but I don't know that I'll do that prior to December.

On the rest, I disagree, but don't have much else to add at the moment that
would not be repetitive.

Joshua A. Katz

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161127/29a1bc6d/attachment-0002.html>