[Lnc-business] Affiliate Support and Raiser's Edge

[Joshua Katz]

On this topic:

1.  I agree entirely with Mr. Hayes that we need to provide true
value-added to our affiliates, particularly those who do not need our help
with ballot access.  I emphasize the "value-added" because we need to make
sure that the total value to our affiliates exceeds the total amount of
money sent out to affiliates.  As a national organization, we have
advantages of scope and scale that we can use, which I think is more
valuable than redistributing wealth.

I also agree that data sharing and providing more actionable, usable data
and a platform for same (I apologize to the extent that my tech-speak is
incorrect, since I know very little about this topic) is a prime example of
a way that national can and should be more helpful than we are.  While our
data dumps are better than nothing, they are not exactly easy to use,
particularly for affiliates without tech people.  Even where tech savvy
volunteers are available, affiliates are better off when not in the
position of relying heavily on one or two volunteers.  They have to be
imported into something, which means the affiliate needs their own
solution, and they are time-delayed, so by the time the new person makes
into onto an email blast, it may be outside the window of opportunity
(which is often approximately 10 minutes, in my experience).  I had hoped
we'd come up with a solution for this last term, but we did not.  Maybe
this updated Razer's Edge will be the solution, maybe it will not.  At the
moment, I'd urge caution until we know if it will be the solution and until
it can be rolled out nicely.

2.  At the same time, I get a bit of a nervous feeling with some points in
this email.  It is very possible I'm taking them the wrong way, but they do
touch on one of my pet issues.  We are not managers, we are here to
govern.  Mr. Hayes is entirely correct that we can, and in some cases
should, pass motions to direct staff to do things, but I think it is
important to try to govern by other means - such as via our budget, by
adopting general policies, and by giving general strategic guidance,
without, as Carver's puts it, stepping into things we've delegated.  A
bigger point, though, is that we need to be careful to remember that our
power within this party exists entirely as members of the board, not as
individuals.  I don't have an objection to board members making suggestions
to staff, but I do have an objection to staff being in a position to take
direction from individuals other than the chair.  This board needs to speak
with one voice when it comes to staff.  Of course, if board members make
suggestions and staff can choose to act or not, well, that's reasonable -
but we should also remember that it's not always the easiest thing to
ignore suggestions from people who vote on things like your contract and
your pay.  Of course, there are also practical realities - I feel rather
free to ask Robert when I need a document, for instance.

On this topic, last term we all received a great book about board
governance.  I'd suggest the chair consider doing another "LNC book club"
this term, with another book on the topic.  It would be nice if this became
a custom we continued moving forward.  I can suggest some such books if
desired.

3.  I would not suggest prioritizing this particular project at this time,
personally.

Joshua A. Katz


On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
wrote:

> Wes,
>
> Please give us an update on what we are doing regarding getting Raiser's
> Edge up and running with regards to state affiliates.  I had been prepared
> to get a motion together to make this happen but as it seems that you were
> working in that direction I held off on the motion.  We have 5 or 6 states
> ready to go as test subjects to work on getting this up.  Are we at an
> impasse on this?
>
> I suggest we start even more basic than that.  Let's start with one
> state.  Louisiana.  It's not that big.  I am a board member of that
> affiliate and have been the biggest fund raiser for that affiliate.  I have
> authorization from Rufus Craig the LPL Chairman to use this program and get
> it up and running for La.  As I am a LNC member I have an interest and a
> duty to protect our data. I also have a NDA signed with the LNC.  We could
> have Andy work with Keith Thompson our LPL IT officer and me to get it up
> and running and start beating on it to work out any kinks of how it will
> work with each affiliate.  Once we have that all figured out we can roll it
> out to other affiliates.
>
> John Wilford, Chair of LP Texas related a story from a member that came
> over from the GOP.  He told us about how the GOP tried to do this but had
> some problems with the data getting altered by too many people.  He
> suggested some restrictions on the information coming down from the LNC
> relative to editing.  I understand that Robert has some concerns regarding
> this and I agree that those are legitimate.  It strikes me that there
> should be some permissions that are able to restrict data editing while
> allowing recording of various touches so state and LNC don't walk over each
> others toes.
>
> States that have good ballot access often feel like they have the short
> end of the stick.  I have heard members claim that the way National handles
> ballot access is welfare for states receiving that help. I don't see it
> that way but some do.  The reason I wanted to be on the Affiliate Support
> Committee is I wanted to change that.  Pushing to get affiliates use of a
> program like Raiser's Edge could go a long way to changing that idea.  Andy
> Burns has helped a lot to change that negative sentiment, but we need to
> give him the tools he tells us he needs.  To my hearing, he feels that
> testing  Raiser's edge in states is the start of figuring out one of the
> biggest needs states have, that being data.  The ASC survey supports that.
>
> As a LNC member I have the authority to put forward motions that create
> policy with regards to how staff is directed.  That of course requires the
> motion to pass etc.  I think its so much easier when we let staff know what
> our members are wanting and staff can just address Committee members asks
> and needs without a motion.  I thought that was the direction we were going
> with regards to RE NXT. Please let Andy get more involved with the initial
> set up to help get things ready for evaluation and further deployment
> to state affiliates.
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170215/e4d15e35/attachment-0002.html>