[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