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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I disagree with Joshua - as I have made known in the past - with number 2
in part.  His understanding is not the understanding of many in Region 1-
and it is my Region I am concerned with- not a model of an fellow LNC
member - even one I respect as much as Joshua.

Not entirely relevant but I do not let one view of the role of the LNC get
voiced without objection.

-Caryn Ann

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:26 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20170216/d23f1da4/attachment-0002.html>