[Lnc-business] Caryn Ann Harlos fundraising and membership recruitment
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Fri Feb 23 00:59:29 EST 2018
Hi Joshua a few points of clarification.l
*I have not declared for any LNC position. * I *nearly *certainly will, but
that is not absolutely certain. Other opportunities exist that I am
exploring for my time investment. I will however be deciding this month.
So while not relevant to the past trip, that will nearly certainly be
relevant to the future.
But - for example - I am scrupulous about not discussing anything than
neutral party business while at the convention (I keep such things to
personal discussions with people who are my personal friends). In
Washington, the Radical Caucus State Coordinator asked me to give
information on the Caucus to other people sitting at the table. I declined
saying it would be an inappropriate action as I was sent by the national
party which is hands off on caucuses. I didn't even bring any buttons or
materials for others to pass out.
I am good at recruiting members. But I am good at more than that - the
members I recruit usually become activists.
I think sometimes we get a bit petty in our territory guarding (not saying
you - I am making a cultural observation).
In any event, I always have something to do with my weekends and my
vacation time that I sacrifice. I was planning on attending the CA and TX
conventions where I am certain that I would walk out with significant
membership applications. Its not about the "memberships" per se. It is
about inspiring buy-in.
Early last year Patrick McKnight challenged us to do something about
growing our Party and our donor base. *I did.*
I absolutely disagree that reimbursing expenses is at all analogous as
"paying" an employee. Was Sean O'Toole reimbursed for his expenses for the
fundraising party? I sure hope so. At least some of them. How is that
different? I am reimbursed for expenses for the historical committee
(vendors, supplies, etc) - maybe there is some "benefit" there when in the
future I want to convert my old videos? There is always a "benefit" - but
we get IMHO somewhat over the top about wanting LNC members to do things
then fretting over people noticing that they do things - such as the
complaint about six months ago about allegedly using Facebook to boost
"personal profile." We want you to be good. But not too good.
I got reimbursed for expenses when doing affiliate convention facebook
posts last year which required me interfacing with the state parties. Did
I get a "benefit"? State chairs knew me when they might not have.
But in the end, going to conventions is hard and taxing. I left on the red
eye and came back on it. I don't see my family and I come back exhausted.
I will not be bored on my weekends if I don't spend the next months
recruiting members every weekend, but rather happily buried in document
preservation.
*-Caryn Ann*
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
Hi Joshua a few points of clarification.l
I have not declared for any LNC position. I nearly certainly will, but
that is not absolutely certain. Other opportunities exist that I am
exploring for my time investment. I will however be deciding this
month. So while not relevant to the past trip, that will nearly
certainly be relevant to the future.
But - for example - I am scrupulous about not discussing anything than
neutral party business while at the convention (I keep such things to
personal discussions with people who are my personal friends). In
Washington, the Radical Caucus State Coordinator asked me to give
information on the Caucus to other people sitting at the table. I
declined saying it would be an inappropriate action as I was sent by
the national party which is hands off on caucuses. I didn't even bring
any buttons or materials for others to pass out.
I am good at recruiting members. But I am good at more than that - the
members I recruit usually become activists.
I think sometimes we get a bit petty in our territory guarding (not
saying you - I am making a cultural observation).
In any event, I always have something to do with my weekends and my
vacation time that I sacrifice. I was planning on attending the CA and
TX conventions where I am certain that I would walk out with
significant membership applications. Its not about the "memberships"
per se. It is about inspiring buy-in.
Early last year Patrick McKnight challenged us to do something about
growing our Party and our donor base. I did.
I absolutely disagree that reimbursing expenses is at all analogous as
"paying" an employee. Was Sean O'Toole reimbursed for his expenses for
the fundraising party? I sure hope so. At least some of them. How is
that different? I am reimbursed for expenses for the historical
committee (vendors, supplies, etc) - maybe there is some "benefit"
there when in the future I want to convert my old videos? There is
always a "benefit" - but we get IMHO somewhat over the top about
wanting LNC members to do things then fretting over people noticing
that they do things - such as the complaint about six months ago about
allegedly using Facebook to boost "personal profile." We want you to
be good. But not too good.
I got reimbursed for expenses when doing affiliate convention facebook
posts last year which required me interfacing with the state parties.
Did I get a "benefit"? State chairs knew me when they might not have.
But in the end, going to conventions is hard and taxing. I left on the
red eye and came back on it. I don't see my family and I come back
exhausted. I will not be bored on my weekends if I don't spend the
next months recruiting members every weekend, but rather happily buried
in document preservation.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Joshua Katz
<[1]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
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][2]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][3](202) 333-0008 ext. 232, [1][3][4]wes.benedict at lp.org
[2][4][5]facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at:
[3][5][6]http://lp.org/membership
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Harlos Fundraising
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:27:47 -0500
From: Robert S. Kraus [4]<[6][7]robert.kraus at lp.org>
To: Wes Benedict [5]<[7][8]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][9]wes.benedict at lp.org
2. [10][10]http://facebook.com/libertarians
3. [11][11]http://lp.org/membership
4. mailto:[12][12]robert.kraus at lp.org
5. mailto:[13][13]wes.benedict at lp.org
6. mailto:[14]Operations at LP.org
References
1. mailto:[14]wes.benedict at lp.org
2. tel:[15](202) 333-0008 ext. 232
3. mailto:[16]wes.benedict at lp.org
4. [17]http://facebook.com/libertarians
5. [18]http://lp.org/membership
6. mailto:[19]robert.kraus at lp.org
7. mailto:[20]wes.benedict at lp.org
8. tel:[21]202.333.0008 x 231
9. mailto:[22]wes.benedict at lp.org
10. [23]http://facebook.com/libertarians
11. [24]http://lp.org/membership
12. mailto:[25]robert.kraus at lp.org
13. mailto:[26]wes.benedict at lp.org
14. mailto:[27]Operations at LP.org
References
1. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
2. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
3. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
4. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
5. http://facebook.com/libertarians
6. http://lp.org/membership
7. mailto:robert.kraus at lp.org
8. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
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:wes.benedict at lp.org
15. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
16. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
17. http://facebook.com/libertarians
18. http://lp.org/membership
19. mailto:robert.kraus at lp.org
20. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
21. tel:202.333.0008 x 231
22. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
23. http://facebook.com/libertarians
24. http://lp.org/membership
25. mailto:robert.kraus at lp.org
26. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
27. mailto:Operations at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list