[Lnc-business] Budget meeting

Ken Moellman ken.moellman at lp.org
Tue Dec 5 12:39:01 EST 2017


I assume you mean "no additional payment from the general fund", and if
someone wants to donate directly to the building fund we'd still honor
that of course.  I say this only to clarify, not that anything else was
intended.

---
Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian National Committee
Region 3 Alternate 

On 2017-12-05 12:01, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> Joshua, I would like to amend the Wiener rule to make it not so easy to avoid.  That really scratched a lot of people in an unpleasant place.  And perfectly fine with no additional payments this budget - that was the intent , on even-numbered years we focus on elections.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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 [1] 
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee 
> 
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: 
> _We defend your rights_ 
> _And oppose the use of force_ 
> _Taxation is theft_ 
> 
> On 2017-12-05 09:29, Joshua Katz wrote: 
> I am inclined to put the Alabama drive into the budget.  I will say this, though: if you want my vote for a budget, it will be a balanced budget, and so the money to cover that, plus the money to cover the existing deficit, is going to have to come from somewhere.  I'm perfectly willing to adjust revenue if a reasonable case is made as to why - often, an expenditure is, in itself, a reason to expect some fundraising line to go up, but some case has to be made, in my view, not just "let's make this line higher so it balances."   
> 
> I also think we need to allocate more to drives when we decide to do them.  I am only in my second term on the LNC, but it's clear to me that, consistently (including the CT drive I ran) we come back saying that something is going to cost more than we originally thought.  I think we need to adjust our expectations up front on ballot access, assume less, and as a result, make a decision about what the full expenditure will be, rather than approving a relatively small expenditure, then approving more because, well, we're not going to let our sunk costs go to waste.   
> 
> Finally, last term we adopted goals.  This term, we did not.  In the last term, 50+1 ballot access was not one of those goals.  No LNC action has made it a goal this term.  I think it's become something of an implied goal - and making something a goal without any LNC action means there's no real discussion or weighing of pros and cons.  I think we should avoid adopting goals by default - whatever they happen to be.  Sometimes, we even let goals get pushed on us from outside - let's be proactive and decide what we want to achieve for ourselves. 
> 
> As to the mortgage, I strongly support the Wiener Rule, and would support an effort to amend the policy manual to require us to actually pay the amount indicated, not just budget it (perhaps with some sort of proviso based on financial condition, cash flow, or the like).  That said, it does not require any extra payments in 2018, and I'm not inclined to budget for any, but my opinion on that can be changed by the remainder of the budget.  The way I see it, adopting a budget incorporates beliefs about the total payout of money we spend on operations - a deficit budget, for instance, assumes the return on investment will more than cover that deficit in the following years.  If the budget has a deficit greater than 4.85%, as a result, I'd oppose any payments beyond those required.  If the budget is balanced, I'm more open to extra payments. 
> 
> Joshua A. Katz 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> Sam,
> 
> I certainly understand that sentiment.  
> 
> Going forward, I agree that the LNC needs to see real progress toward accomplishment of goals on the state-side prior to encumbering and expending funds for a state drive.  Good intentions are not good enough.  We need to see the ability to execute.  
> 
> To that end, we haven't spent anything in TN yet, and likewise wouldn't recommend spending in AL until such time as they have met a substantial part of their end of the bargain.  If you look at the AL proposal, the LNC is listed last among funding sources. That was not an accident or by random lot; I made it clear that the state is going to have to show that it can execute.  And TN knows this as well.
> 
> I want to see every single state have access, but there needs to be an understanding that it's a team effort, and everyone has to pull their weight.
> 
> I can speak about this in more detail in person. 
> 
> I am bringing Dustin from LPO with me to the LNC meeting, so he can answer your questions about the Ohio drive either in the meeting or privately, as well.
> 
> On the upside, we've never had as much ballot access coming off of a presidential election as we have now.  So we really don't even have that many projects to choose from.  That's a problem we like to have!
> 
> Ken 
> 
> On 12/04/2017 03:38 PM, Sam Goldstein wrote: 
> 
> Following the ongoing debacle for OH ballot access, I'll vote for AL ballot access money when they show me a  
> 
> bank statement with the money for their share in a escrow account.  Notwithstanding my faith in Mr. Frankel,  
> 
> 10,000 sigs is a ton for one person to get alone.  We have seen several overly optimistic presentations from  
> 
> state in recent years to get burnt again. 
> 
> ---
> Sam Goldstein
> Libertarian National Committee
> 317-850-0726 [2] Cell 
> 
> On 2017-12-04 14:58, Daniel Hayes wrote: We have a LOT of members that are sick to death of hearing about ballot access.  We have other members that are motivated by certain things. We have a lot of members that don't believe in paying mortgages. 
> We have people complaining about $10,000 being spent by the historic committee. Despite this being donated specifically for that project. 
> 
> I fully support us striving to achieve true 51 "State" ballot access. I tell members from states that have great ballot access that it helps us all when we have more states that have it.    Also, to remember that many states that do have great ballot access were helped in getting that by people like Richard Winger and Bill Redpath and many others. If others had taken the attitude of "I got it, I don't need to help you" early on, many of those states actually wouldn't have it. It's important to pay it forward. 
> 
> That said what happens when people poo-poo encouraging others to give money to the Historic Committee or the Building Fund because we need more ballot access is that we probably end up with LESS money for ballot access.  Different things motivate different people. When someone that otherwise hasn't been giving now has something they want to donate to, a funny thing can happen. Some of those people get into the habit of giving and start giving to other things as well.  
> 
> It's about developing relationships with donors. When someone says to a donor, "what's important and excites you isn't really important. Give your money to this instead" , some of those donors will close their checkbook back up and not donate at all. When you say what's important to them isn't really important, they hear that they are not that important. 
> 
> Everyone needs to keep that in mind. Options are a good thing. 
> 
> Daniel Hayes 
> LNC At Large Member
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 
> 
> On Dec 4, 2017, at 1:35 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lp.org> wrote: 
> 
> It is my understanding that the interest on the building is at about 4%, and that previous contributions have set us on a path to pay off the building prior to the balloon payment.  I have not independently verified this, but if it's true, then I would suggest that pushing to pay it off any sooner may be to the detriment of other goals.  Certainly I appreciate paying off debts, but simultaneously, there is a weighing of opportunity cost to consider. 
> 
> On a separate note, the Ballot Access Committee's report is asking for $250,000. I apologize for the discrepancy between what was placed into the budget and the report itself.  As the report was being put together, a number of things changed.  Primarily, Alabama has put together a plan which, if they execute their half, I would encourage the LNC to execute the second-half.  Additionally, LP Ohio and LP Tennessee will have "carry over" from the 2017, which isn't shown as carry-over. 
> 
> Here is the link to the Ballot Access Committee report for the upcoming meeting: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hi2dav_9dfwRURz4pv8K6wG5GDsJMYisc-83WW-jRfQ/edit?usp=sharing [3] 
> 
> Here is the link to the Ballot Access plan submitted by LP Alabama:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2NSKFsqjBXmvLqZXKkHVHNDMxQB3pgaXYsJzxuiVzU/edit?usp=sharing [4] 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> ---
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> Libertarian National Committee
> Region 3 Alternate 
> 
> On 2017-12-04 12:39, Lauren Daugherty wrote: 
> 
> Hi Caryn Ann, 
> 
> We may do 1 or 2 fundraising appeals about the building in 2018 but probably not much more than that because we'll be focused on fundraising for ballot access, candidate support, etc. 
> 
> Yes, some people really like giving to something they can touch and something that allows their name to displayed permanently. We now have sponsors for all of our named rooms at HQ so that removes what many people would consider the biggest incentive for donors to give big checks to the Building Fund. There are still other opportunities for people to give and have their name listed prominently, however, and we'll highlight that occasionally. 
> 
> For the purposes of budgeting, I do think it is wise not to expect any large contributions to the Building Fund in 2018. 
> 
> Lauren
> 
> ---
> Lauren Daugherty
> Head of Development
> Libertarian National Committee
> 
> On 12/3/2017 12:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: 
> 
> Aren't the building targeted fund-raisers pretty successful?  I do hope we have some planned.  Some people really like giving to that preferring to invest in something they can touch.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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 [1] 
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee 
> 
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: 
> _We defend your rights_ 
> _And oppose the use of force_ 
> _Taxation is theft_ 
> 
> On 2017-12-03 10:31, Tim Hagan wrote: 
> 
> The draft 2018 budget that we were working on is attached in Excel and PDF formats. I deleted the worksheet for Total Salary since it contains the salary for each staff member, which we have always treated as confidential. Let me know if you want a copy of the confidential salary expenses sheet. 
> 
> The first worksheet, Operating Budget, is the budget to be considered. The amounts are calculated from the values on the Account Detail sheet. 
> 
> Note on the Operating Budget sheet, row 49, that the budget has a $155,064 net deficit.
> 
> On the Account Detail sheet, many of the revenue numbers are based on the amounts raised in 2017. The draft assumes no growth in membership during the year.
> 
> No targeted fundraising is planned for the Building Fund, so its budgeted revenue of $15,000 is based on 2016.
> 
> Expenses were increased compared to previous years in the areas where contractors or staff have been hired for functional areas: Affiliate Development, Donor Renewal, Media Relations, Candidate Support & Training. 
> 
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee 
> 
> On 2017-12-02 18:22, Joshua Katz wrote: 
> I did not receive any reply indicating when the proposed budget would be available.  The meeting is now next week.  Is the EC's proposed budget available yet?   
> 
> [5]
> Virus-free. www.avast.com [6]
> 
> Joshua A. Katz 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It appears (I just noticed last night; I thought our next meeting was in April) that we have a budget meeting in December.  Ahead of that, I wanted to ask if the EC had a timeline for the proposed budget. 
> 
> Last term, we held one or two teleconferences after we had the proposed budget.  I found those helpful, and would encourage us to do that again.  I don't know that they resolved much, but at least we knew going in where the flashpoints were.   
> 
> In any case, I'd appreciate knowing when we can expect the proposed budget so I can plan my time accordingly. 
> 
> Joshua A. Katz 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [7]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [7] 

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [7]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [7] 

> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [7]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [7] 

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [7]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [7] 
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.lpcolorado.org/
[2] tel:(317)%20850-0726
[3]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hi2dav_9dfwRURz4pv8K6wG5GDsJMYisc-83WW-jRfQ/edit?usp=sharing
[4]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2NSKFsqjBXmvLqZXKkHVHNDMxQB3pgaXYsJzxuiVzU/edit?usp=sharing
[5]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon
[6]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link
[7] http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20171205/c9b1f864/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list