[Lnc-business] Caryn Ann Harlos fundraising and membership recruitment

Joshua Katz planning4liberty at gmail.com
Fri Feb 23 00:01:55 EST 2018


Wes,

Thank you for opening a discussion on this.  I do not believe it is proper
to use party funds to send LNC members to state conventions unless they are
"lame ducks" (and, honestly, probably not then either).  The facts provided
are enlightening and important, but the question here is about the
principle, not the people or the individual circumstances.  The principle
is that, as you note in your email, this is a discretionary decision by
staff.  Staff is determining, based, to be sure, on perfectly legitimate
factors, which LNC members are being sent and where.  There is nothing
compelling staff in the future to use the factors you identify here, and
different, less legitimate factors, could be used in the future.  The way
to prevent that is "all or nothing."  But "all" is impractical, and also
not a good idea.

Other corporations handle this in a more direct fashion - they pay
directors.  We don't do that (and I'm not suggesting it).  In fact, we
encourage directors to donate, and I highly appreciate that Ms. Harlos does
so.  I don't see how it changes this arrangement, though.  We have rules
against being an employee and a director simultaneously - to the extent an
LNC member benefits (in addition to the party benefits) from such travel
paid for by the party, the arrangement is somewhat akin to employing that
director to provide a service: in this case, membership recruitment.  Maybe
Ms. Harlos gets no benefit at all from such travel, but will that be true
for future LNC members?  The potentials for self-dealing are numerous.
Directors play a role in selecting and hiring staff - could directors hire
and retain staff who will provide travel for those specific directors, and
in turn, then enjoy an advantage in future LNC elections?

I have every confidence that Ms. Harlos does not campaign while at these
conventions.  If an LNC member attends a convention and is highly visible
(you can't recruit national members if you sit in the back of the room
quietly), benefits are still gained, albeit incidentally and without that
being the motive, in future elections.  It's not a policy manual violation
because they're no campaigning, but the conflicts remain potentially
large.  By definition, it is a benefit not available to other candidates -
the reason it doesn't violate the policy manual is that it's not done in
the role of candidate.

Be that as it may, we could still decide that the benefits outweigh the
dangers.  That would be a reasonable decision.  However, I am of the
opinion that before it began, it should have been disclosed to the board
and a vote taken of the disinterested directors.  It could be pointed out
that, potentially at least, there would be no disinterested directors in
such a decision (at least in spirit) - that would be a reason not to do it.

Your answer to why you aren't sending other LNC members to state
conventions is perfectly appropriate and rational.  You should not send
people to state conventions at party expense who will not produce a
positive return on investment (I, for instance, probably wouldn't).  Of
course, other LNC members could, conceivably, produce value in other ways.
I have provided parliamentary services for several state parties, sometimes
with funding from the state party, sometimes at my own expense.  That's not
something that produces funds for the party, of course, but it does provide
affiliate support, something we also do.  I most certainly should not do
that on party funds.  What, precisely, is the difference?  Well, membership
brings in money and, as you note, numbers have been falling.  Does that
make it a priority over providing other services, or the many other things
we could send LNC members to do?  Well, maybe.  The LNC did not adopt any
goals this term.  Last term, the LNC adopted goals, and
retaining/increasing membership wasn't one of them.  I believe you told us
that you weren't focusing on membership numbers, as a result.  As has come
up in prior discussions, I agree with not prioritizing membership numbers -
I think that, over the long term (granted, not the immediate term) we need
to focus on relying less on membership for revenue and developing other
streams.  To your credit, staff (and especially Lauren) has been developing
other revenue streams, and doing so very effectively.  Membership does have
the advantage of predictable cash flow, admittedly.  But I simply am not
that worried about falling membership numbers persay - if anything, I think
of membership numbers as the tail, not the dog.  That is, I think we can
improve membership by doing things like electing candidates to public
office and having them implement libertarian policies.  More importantly,
this board doesn't seem to regard it as a priority.  But that is a somewhat
different question.

Or, to use another example, members of the LNC travel to states where
signatures are needed and gather hundreds of volunteer signatures.
Granted, they don't desire to be paid for their expenses in those cases,
but if they did, I don't think staff would agree to pay - and I think that
would be the right call, most of the time at least.  That also doesn't put
money in our pocket, although it has the ultimate effect (if history is any
guide) of keeping money there that would otherwise leave.

So, in summary, my position is that we should not fund LNC member travel,
even if the LNC member agrees not to run for reelection.  But I recognize
that opinions can differ on that, so my additional opinion is that the
board is within its rights to decide otherwise, but that potentially
conflicted transactions involving board members should be discussed with
the board ahead of time, and approved by a majority of disinterested
directors.  What's done is done.  I think that before it continues, action
should be taken to approve it (or not) by a majority of disinterested
directors.  There's no rule that can compel that outcome, it's just my
opinion.



Joshua A. Katz


On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:56 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:

>      Dear LNC,
>
>      Caryn Ann Harlos has recruited a lot of dues-paying members by
>      attending state conventions and getting people to join or renew.
>
>      At first, she did this at state conventions she was attending in her
>      region at her own expense.
>
>      Her results were so strong that I asked her if she would be willing
>      to go to some other states outside of her region to do similar
>      fundraising efforts if her travel expenses were reimbursed.
>
>      We have been struggling to keep membership from falling. We send
>      renewal emails and renewal letters that perform reasonably well but
>      pretty much exhaust that method. Other methods we try have very low
>      ROI. Caryn Ann's ROI has been comparatively strong.
>
>      Caryn Ann attended the Washington State convention last weekend and
>      recruited 18 to 20 dues-paying members for the national LP.
>
>      That trip is one in which we have reimbursed her for her travel.
>
>      I'd like to send Caryn Ann to more state conventions to have her do
>      this work. No one else has done this as successfully as Caryn Ann.
>      Caryn Ann is a volunteer so we don't pay her for her time.
>
>      For conventions that Caryn Ann is unable to take the time to attend,
>      I will be sending our staff member Jess Mears. The thing with Jess
>      is that we pay her for her hours to travel, attend, and return from
>      state conventions. She's unlikely to get as high of a ROI.
>
>      I received a complaint today that it is inappropriate for someone
>      running for a position on the LNC to have travel reimbursed.
>
>      I sympathize with the complaint, but do not think it's a violation
>      of our policies.
>
>      Nevertheless, I bring this up to the LNC for your feedback. If you
>      request a stop to sending Caryn Ann Harlos or any other LNC member
>      to state conventions for the purpose of recruiting dues-paying
>      members, we can end the program.
>
>      A reasonable question might be, "I'm willing to go to state
>      convention at the expense of the LNC and recruit members--why don't
>      you send me?" The answer is that Caryn Ann proved her willingness
>      and capability within her own region. No other LNC members have
>      mailed us several envelopes of dues-paying members from their
>      states. Caryn Ann and Jess Mears together are not able to attend
>      every state convention. If you are interested in helping, and
>      willing to prove your ability first at a state in your region or at
>      another state at your own expense, let me know and we might be able
>      to try that. And then we can report the results.
>
>      Below is a report from Robert Kraus with some of the fundraising
>      results from Caryn Ann.
>
>      I welcome your feedback.
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, [1]wes.benedict at lp.org
> [2]facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
> Join the Libertarian Party at: [3]http://lp.org/membership
>
>    -------- Forwarded Message --------
>    Subject: Harlos Fundraising
>       Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:27:47 -0500
>       From: Robert S. Kraus [4]<robert.kraus at lp.org>
>         To: Wes Benedict [5]<wes.benedict at lp.org>
> I have Harlos pegged as solicitor for a total of $2,335.00 for 82
> members 49 of which where new (these 82 folks have also contributed a
> net total excluding conv related gifts of $6,261.74 since 2016
> convention - bunch of them to Hist Preservation of course so she has her
> fans)
>
> In addition she is likely 95% responsible for the $12,120 raised for
> Historic Preservation
>
> Finally she has given $2181 herself since the 2016 convention (non
> convention related - however $1525 was for Hist Preservation)
>
> --
> Robert S. Kraus - Operations Director
> [6]Operations at LP.org
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> 1444 Duke Street
> Alexandria, VA 22314
> Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231
>
> References
>
>    1. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
>    2. http://facebook.com/libertarians
>    3. http://lp.org/membership
>    4. mailto:robert.kraus at lp.org
>    5. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
>    6. mailto:Operations at LP.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
   Wes,
   Thank you for opening a discussion on this.  I do not believe it is
   proper to use party funds to send LNC members to state conventions
   unless they are "lame ducks" (and, honestly, probably not then
   either).  The facts provided are enlightening and important, but the
   question here is about the principle, not the people or the individual
   circumstances.  The principle is that, as you note in your email, this
   is a discretionary decision by staff.  Staff is determining, based, to
   be sure, on perfectly legitimate factors, which LNC members are being
   sent and where.  There is nothing compelling staff in the future to use
   the factors you identify here, and different, less legitimate factors,
   could be used in the future.  The way to prevent that is "all or
   nothing."  But "all" is impractical, and also not a good idea.
   Other corporations handle this in a more direct fashion - they pay
   directors.  We don't do that (and I'm not suggesting it).  In fact, we
   encourage directors to donate, and I highly appreciate that Ms. Harlos
   does so.  I don't see how it changes this arrangement, though.  We have
   rules against being an employee and a director simultaneously - to the
   extent an LNC member benefits (in addition to the party benefits) from
   such travel paid for by the party, the arrangement is somewhat akin to
   employing that director to provide a service: in this case, membership
   recruitment.  Maybe Ms. Harlos gets no benefit at all from such travel,
   but will that be true for future LNC members?  The potentials for
   self-dealing are numerous.  Directors play a role in selecting and
   hiring staff - could directors hire and retain staff who will provide
   travel for those specific directors, and in turn, then enjoy an
   advantage in future LNC elections?
   I have every confidence that Ms. Harlos does not campaign while at
   these conventions.  If an LNC member attends a convention and is highly
   visible (you can't recruit national members if you sit in the back of
   the room quietly), benefits are still gained, albeit incidentally and
   without that being the motive, in future elections.  It's not a policy
   manual violation because they're no campaigning, but the conflicts
   remain potentially large.  By definition, it is a benefit not available
   to other candidates - the reason it doesn't violate the policy manual
   is that it's not done in the role of candidate.
   Be that as it may, we could still decide that the benefits outweigh the
   dangers.  That would be a reasonable decision.  However, I am of the
   opinion that before it began, it should have been disclosed to the
   board and a vote taken of the disinterested directors.  It could be
   pointed out that, potentially at least, there would be no disinterested
   directors in such a decision (at least in spirit) - that would be a
   reason not to do it.
   Your answer to why you aren't sending other LNC members to state
   conventions is perfectly appropriate and rational.  You should not send
   people to state conventions at party expense who will not produce a
   positive return on investment (I, for instance, probably wouldn't).  Of
   course, other LNC members could, conceivably, produce value in other
   ways.  I have provided parliamentary services for several state
   parties, sometimes with funding from the state party, sometimes at my
   own expense.  That's not something that produces funds for the party,
   of course, but it does provide affiliate support, something we also
   do.  I most certainly should not do that on party funds.  What,
   precisely, is the difference?  Well, membership brings in money and, as
   you note, numbers have been falling.  Does that make it a priority over
   providing other services, or the many other things we could send LNC
   members to do?  Well, maybe.  The LNC did not adopt any goals this
   term.  Last term, the LNC adopted goals, and retaining/increasing
   membership wasn't one of them.  I believe you told us that you weren't
   focusing on membership numbers, as a result.  As has come up in prior
   discussions, I agree with not prioritizing membership numbers - I think
   that, over the long term (granted, not the immediate term) we need to
   focus on relying less on membership for revenue and developing other
   streams.  To your credit, staff (and especially Lauren) has been
   developing other revenue streams, and doing so very effectively.
   Membership does have the advantage of predictable cash flow,
   admittedly.  But I simply am not that worried about falling membership
   numbers persay - if anything, I think of membership numbers as the
   tail, not the dog.  That is, I think we can improve membership by doing
   things like electing candidates to public office and having them
   implement libertarian policies.  More importantly, this board doesn't
   seem to regard it as a priority.  But that is a somewhat different
   question.
   Or, to use another example, members of the LNC travel to states where
   signatures are needed and gather hundreds of volunteer signatures.
   Granted, they don't desire to be paid for their expenses in those
   cases, but if they did, I don't think staff would agree to pay - and I
   think that would be the right call, most of the time at least.  That
   also doesn't put money in our pocket, although it has the ultimate
   effect (if history is any guide) of keeping money there that would
   otherwise leave.
   So, in summary, my position is that we should not fund LNC member
   travel, even if the LNC member agrees not to run for reelection.  But I
   recognize that opinions can differ on that, so my additional opinion is
   that the board is within its rights to decide otherwise, but that
   potentially conflicted transactions involving board members should be
   discussed with the board ahead of time, and approved by a majority of
   disinterested directors.  What's done is done.  I think that before it
   continues, action should be taken to approve it (or not) by a majority
   of disinterested directors.  There's no rule that can compel that
   outcome, it's just my opinion.

   Joshua A. Katz
   On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:56 PM, Wes Benedict <[1]wes.benedict at lp.org>
   wrote:

          Dear LNC,
          Caryn Ann Harlos has recruited a lot of dues-paying members by
          attending state conventions and getting people to join or
     renew.
          At first, she did this at state conventions she was attending
     in her
          region at her own expense.
          Her results were so strong that I asked her if she would be
     willing
          to go to some other states outside of her region to do similar
          fundraising efforts if her travel expenses were reimbursed.
          We have been struggling to keep membership from falling. We
     send
          renewal emails and renewal letters that perform reasonably well
     but
          pretty much exhaust that method. Other methods we try have very
     low
          ROI. Caryn Ann's ROI has been comparatively strong.
          Caryn Ann attended the Washington State convention last weekend
     and
          recruited 18 to 20 dues-paying members for the national LP.
          That trip is one in which we have reimbursed her for her
     travel.
          I'd like to send Caryn Ann to more state conventions to have
     her do
          this work. No one else has done this as successfully as Caryn
     Ann.
          Caryn Ann is a volunteer so we don't pay her for her time.
          For conventions that Caryn Ann is unable to take the time to
     attend,
          I will be sending our staff member Jess Mears. The thing with
     Jess
          is that we pay her for her hours to travel, attend, and return
     from
          state conventions. She's unlikely to get as high of a ROI.
          I received a complaint today that it is inappropriate for
     someone
          running for a position on the LNC to have travel reimbursed.
          I sympathize with the complaint, but do not think it's a
     violation
          of our policies.
          Nevertheless, I bring this up to the LNC for your feedback. If
     you
          request a stop to sending Caryn Ann Harlos or any other LNC
     member
          to state conventions for the purpose of recruiting dues-paying
          members, we can end the program.
          A reasonable question might be, "I'm willing to go to state
          convention at the expense of the LNC and recruit members--why
     don't
          you send me?" The answer is that Caryn Ann proved her
     willingness
          and capability within her own region. No other LNC members have
          mailed us several envelopes of dues-paying members from their
          states. Caryn Ann and Jess Mears together are not able to
     attend
          every state convention. If you are interested in helping, and
          willing to prove your ability first at a state in your region
     or at
          another state at your own expense, let me know and we might be
     able
          to try that. And then we can report the results.
          Below is a report from Robert Kraus with some of the
     fundraising
          results from Caryn Ann.
          I welcome your feedback.
     Wes Benedict, Executive Director
     Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
     1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
     [2](202) 333-0008 ext. 232, [1][3]wes.benedict at lp.org
     [2][4]facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
     Join the Libertarian Party at: [3][5]http://lp.org/membership
        -------- Forwarded Message --------
        Subject: Harlos Fundraising
           Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:27:47 -0500
           From: Robert S. Kraus [4]<[6]robert.kraus at lp.org>
             To: Wes Benedict [5]<[7]wes.benedict at lp.org>
     I have Harlos pegged as solicitor for a total of $2,335.00 for 82
     members 49 of which where new (these 82 folks have also contributed
     a
     net total excluding conv related gifts of $6,261.74 since 2016
     convention - bunch of them to Hist Preservation of course so she has
     her
     fans)
     In addition she is likely 95% responsible for the $12,120 raised for
     Historic Preservation
     Finally she has given $2181 herself since the 2016 convention (non
     convention related - however $1525 was for Hist Preservation)
     --
     Robert S. Kraus - Operations Director
     [6]Operations at LP.org
     Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
     1444 Duke Street
     Alexandria, VA 22314
     Ph: [8]202.333.0008 x 231
     References
        1. mailto:[9]wes.benedict at lp.org
        2. [10]http://facebook.com/libertarians
        3. [11]http://lp.org/membership
        4. mailto:[12]robert.kraus at lp.org
        5. mailto:[13]wes.benedict at lp.org
        6. mailto:[14]Operations at LP.org

References

   1. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
   2. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
   3. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
   4. http://facebook.com/libertarians
   5. http://lp.org/membership
   6. mailto:robert.kraus at lp.org
   7. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
   8. tel:202.333.0008 x 231
   9. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
  10. http://facebook.com/libertarians
  11. http://lp.org/membership
  12. mailto:robert.kraus at lp.org
  13. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
  14. mailto:Operations at LP.org


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list