[Lnc-business] Transparency and the budget

Sat Dec 3 19:06:08 EST 2016

Well, sure, I'm game for this, and I might learn something.  You're right,
I learned from doing CT ballot access last summer.

I do want some additional clarification, at the same time.  (I would advise
charging the time to provide it to administration.)  To be honest, I'm
confused because I do not see how this line of discussion is responsive to
what I said.  If I had proposed, for example, a timesheet policy, I'd
understand this response.  I'm not proposing one - we've had one for
years.  I'm proposing that the LNC budget a certain way.  So what is the
reason for responding as if I were proposing something new for staff?

In fact, off-list, I received a report showing what 2014 would look like if
allocated according to 2013 timesheets.  I don't know why it is shown that
way, but regardless, this shows me that time is, in fact, being allocated.
So how would it impose anything new on staff for the LNC to budget
accordingly?  The numbers I received came, presumably, from somewhere.

I have also received some comments and feedback.  Some point out that
months are different, which makes perfect sense.  I'm not sure why this
prevents us from funding compensation from the appropriate line items on an
annual budget, though - in some months, some lines will be drawn down more
than others, but I'm not convinced that's a problem.

I've seen concern about having to vote more often to amend the budget if
we're off.  This is certainly a possibility, and likely to occur more often
in the first year than it will with more practice.  However, I think a
point is being missed here.  While a large part of what I'm trying to do is
show how time is spent, I am also trying to have the board use the budget
to govern.  Sure, staff could simply not react to what we do, and then come
to us with amendment requests, but in a healthy organization, staff works
within board governance.  In other words, I am not assuming we will simply
be ignored, and I do not think that would be appropriate.

I'd also point out that I'm not suggesting anything new, bold, or
revolutionary.  I'm not claiming to have chanced upon a genius idea.  It is
standard practice to fund compensation from the appropriate lines.  Nor are
we too small:  I served on a (public) board with 3 staff members, and we
allocated their time rather than dumping it into a single line item.  This
is part and parcel of how well-functioning boards operate because it gives
them levers of control without requiring them to jump into the weeds.

I understand that, as you write, it gets fuzzy.  I think I acknowledged in
my first message that this is not a search for perfection; estimates and
inaccuracies tend to come out in the wash.  If you spend .03 hour on
something, it won't get reported.  Next time, you might overestimate the
time you spend on that item.  There is space - the space where board
directions are followed and useful information produced - between perfect
recording and dumping 50% of the budget into a black box.  When the current
proposal is simply to not budget staff time by function at all, I don't
consider it persuasive to point to the fact that there would be some
inaccuracy in a functional budget.

I also am not proposed to send unhappy members a 14 page report.  I am
proposing that they not be made unhappy (at least in this regard) by being
shown a black-box budget in the first place, and that they instead be able
to look at a budget much like this one, except that the Compensation line
is reduced and other lines increased.  You spend a lot of time supporting
affiliates - a member should be able to see that, at a glance, by looking
at the budget and seeing a chunk of money allocated to Affiliate Support,
not seeing a rather puny number there and half the budget in Compensation,
then trying to imagine how much of that compensation translates to
affiliate support.

Finally, Wes, while I consolidated my responses, don't feel that this
entire message is directed at you.  It is mostly to the LNC, and I'm not
trying to step on the chair's prerogative to manage as CEO by debating with
you or giving you instructions.  For example, if you don't feel like
answering my question above, feel free not to.  As a board member, I have
no power except to vote on the board.  Also, as I said before, I am happy
(with my EPCC hat on) to hear suggestions as to how we can allocate
compensation in other ways.  If the policy needs to be modified, I am open
to modifying it, but not by giving up on the idea of governing this item.

Joshua A. Katz

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:

> Caryn Ann, I don't mind if you do it successfully.  I'm not saying it
> can't be done.
>
> So, I hereby challenge you to do it, if you can do it without my help
> (meaning don't ask me what goes in what category).
>
>
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <(202)%20333-0008>, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>
> On 12/2/2016 5:11 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> Wes I'm not the best person to make that challenge to.  I'm a paralegal.
> My entire work day requires me to keep track of every six minute block by L
> and A codes.  I have done it for twenty years.  It does require setting
> guidelines for what things get calculated as and tolerance levels on level
> of granularity.
>
>
> --
> *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 Friday, December 2, 2016, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> An interesting experiment would be for each LNC member to track its hours
>> for one month according to the Functional Allocation of Expenses procedures
>> requested. It would give you some hands on experience in dealing with the
>> reality that we switch categories often every few minutes, like from:
>>
>> 40 - Admin (this conversation)
>>
>> 88 - Outreach (LNC photos on the website)
>>
>> 80 - Media or 85 - Member Communications (delivering the message the LNC
>> wants)
>>
>> 85 - Member Communication (recording the termination of the membership of
>> person who disapproves of LNC buying meat)
>>
>> 40 Admin? or 55 Branding? or 70 - Ballot Access?  - approving staff
>> getting a poster about ballot access printed.
>>
>> I literally switch tasks every few minutes. Trying to track this in
>> detail is very tough.
>>
>> I really would like to see the LNC track themselves for a month. You'll
>> find out how hard this is after one hour.
>>
>>
>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <%28202%29%20333-0008>, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>
>> On 12/2/2016 3:21 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:
>>
>> I pointed out earlier the concern I am expressing here, but I did it
>> briefly and without much explanation, because I wanted to know if, in fact,
>> I have misunderstood, if I was making a big mistake, and if my concerns
>> were unfounded.  All of that remains perfectly possible, but the fact that
>> I have not received an explanation making those points suggests to me that
>> perhaps I am onto something important.
>>
>> 80% of the proposed budget is accounted for by administration and
>> compensation.  A member seeing that might be excused for believing that the
>> national party simply consumes 80 cents of each dollar received.  This
>> would be a mistake, but it would be an understandable mistake - and one we
>> can easily prevent.
>>
>> This member would be mistaken because compensation is not consumption.
>> Staff does a lot of things.  Staff work is a very large proportion of what
>> the national party does.  When we see an affiliate support line with a
>> rather small number on it, it conceals the fact that staff spends a good
>> amount of time supporting affiliates.  Since staff time is split between
>> different functions, we have a timesheet policy allowing staff time to be
>> billed to different lines.
>>
>> So this brings us to, perhaps, a bigger problem:  even knowing this, the
>> member reading this budget has no idea how much of staff time is spent on
>> what projects.  Perhaps most importantly, neither does the LNC.  Certainly
>> the LNC is not giving direction as to how staff time should be spent.  We
>> have, essentially, created a black box into which we place 50% of the
>> annual budget.
>>
>> A budget that breaks down staff time the way it is to be billed, and that
>> funds staff time from line items, also allows members, at a glance, to see
>> what priorities the national party has, and to know easily and quickly what
>> staff is doing.  Most importantly, it assures members that these priorities
>> are being set by those they elect to make such decisions, not being left to
>> the ED, or to chance, or to "whatever is most pressing at the moment."  I
>> have said before that my most pressing
>>
>> After all, functional and operational transparency require not only that
>> members see and hear us talking, but that we are talking about the things
>> that members need to know.  If we make ourselves open, but exercise no
>> control over fully half the budget, we are not transparent.
>>
>> This is not at all hard to fix.  We know the proposed total
>> compensation.  We may modify it at our meeting.  A portion of that, perhaps
>> 20%, should be left in the compensation black-box.  The LNC can decide what
>> we'd like to prioritize by setting percentages to various functional
>> lines.  The remaining compensation multiplied by the percentage gives the
>> amount to be moved from compensation to the appropriate line item.
>>
>> Maintaining is also easy.  Simply fund compensation from the various
>> lines, in accordance with the timesheets received.  The Treasurer can, in
>> turn, keep an eye on the lines, and see if some lines are over or under
>> funded.  If so, the board can decide how to react - by amending the budget,
>> or by instructing staff to respect the priorities set.
>>
>> I am not known as a transparency champion.  In large part, I have a
>> different notion of transparency from many of my colleagues.  The above
>> shows the sort of transparency I worry about.  I hope, though, that my
>> colleagues who are known as transparency champions will join me on this
>> issue, and join me in requesting that we not place 50% of our annual
>> expenditure in a black-box line item such that members cannot use the
>> budget to determine what it is that we do, and we cannot use the budget to
>> govern the organization.
>>
>> For my part, I am disinclined to vote for a budget that black-boxes 50%,
>> and that charges 80% to administration.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://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/20161203/252f8248/attachment-0002.html>