[Lnc-business] Caryn Ann Harlos fundraising and membership recruitment
Wes Benedict
wes.benedict at lp.org
Fri Feb 23 12:11:38 EST 2018
Scenario 1.
If the LNC wants to encourage the chair to approve reimbursing Caryn Ann
Harlos for expenses for travel outside of her region for the purpose of
recruiting dues-paying members, then the LNC can pass a motion to that
effect.
==========
Unless that happens, I lean towards taking Joshua's advice of
discontinuing the practice, given that no one has spoken up in support,
and that Caryn Ann has rescinded her willingness.
I think Caryn Ann probably recruited more dues-paying members to the
national LP in the past 12 months than all other LNC members combined.
Aaron Starr started a program called "Give or Get". It was quite
successful, was in 2006 to 2008 and you can read about in the LNC
minutes here:
https://www.lp.org/lnc-meeting-archives/
I believe flights and hotel expenses were covered for a few LNC members
for the "Give or Get" program. I point that out because there's a
precedent for paying travel expenses for LNC members to do fundraising.
The LNC has routinely reimbursed the current and former Chairs for
travel expenses related to party business including fundraisers, but
excluding LNC meetings, and in accordance with the Policy Manual.
==========
Scenario 2.
While typing this note a donor has offered to help cover Caryn Ann's
expenses for this purpose. If the donor is willing to cover 100% of
those expenses, and if the donor reimburses Caryn Ann directly, and then
the donor reports the reimbursements to me as an in-kind contribution
(probably with the assistance of Caryn Ann), that would take control of
the process out of my hands and out of the LNC's hands.
==========
I recommend the LNC vote regarding Scenario 1, so you can make it more
clear whether or not you approve having LNC members have expenses
reimbursed for raising funds, but that's up to you all. As we ramp up
our fundraising efforts, it will help me to know if I should make staff
the primary relationship builders with our donors, or if I should keep
the opportunity open for board members as well.
I also encourage feedback from individual LNC members regarding Scenario
2 even though technically I don't think approval is required. I'd like
that feedback because I'm willing to cooperate with Caryn Ann and the
donor if there's not a lot of opposition by the LNC. If there's a lot of
opposition by the LNC, I'll be less cooperative with Caryn Ann as she
recruits members and raises funds for the party.
Thanks,
Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
On 2/23/2018 12:01 AM, Joshua Katz 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
>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list