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

Joshua Katz planning4liberty at gmail.com
Fri Feb 23 12:35:26 EST 2018


I agree with the ED on scenario 1.  I lean towards agreeing about Scenario
2.

There should also be LNC training, at the start of each term (or, at least,
this is my suggestion to future LNCs) about recognizing issues relating to
duties of directors.

Joshua A. Katz


On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:

> 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 that Caryn Ann has rescinded her willingness.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
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1444+Duke+St.,+Alexandria,+VA+22314&entry=gmail&source=g>
> (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
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=to+try+that.+And+then+we+can+report+the&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> 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 --------------
   I agree with the ED on scenario 1.  I lean towards agreeing about
   Scenario 2.
   There should also be LNC training, at the start of each term (or, at
   least, this is my suggestion to future LNCs) about recognizing issues
   relating to duties of directors.

   Joshua A. Katz
   On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Wes Benedict <[1]wes.benedict at lp.org>
   wrote:

     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:
     [2]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.
     [3]1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
     [4](202) 333-0008 ext. 232, [5]wes.benedict at lp.org
     [6]facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
     Join the Libertarian Party at: [7]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][8]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
              [9]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][10](202) 333-0008 ext. 232, [1][3][11]wes.benedict at lp.org
           [2][4][12]facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
           Join the Libertarian Party at:
     [3][5][13]http://lp.org/membership
              -------- Forwarded Message --------
              Subject: Harlos Fundraising
                 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:27:47 -0500
                 From: Robert S. Kraus [4]<[6][14]robert.kraus at lp.org>
                   To: Wes Benedict [5]<[7][15]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][16]wes.benedict at lp.org
              2. [10][17]http://facebook.com/libertarians
              3. [11][18]http://lp.org/membership
              4. mailto:[12][19]robert.kraus at lp.org
              5. mailto:[13][20]wes.benedict at lp.org
              6. mailto:[14]Operations at LP.org
     References
         1. mailto:[21]wes.benedict at lp.org
         2. tel:[22](202) 333-0008 ext. 232
         3. mailto:[23]wes.benedict at lp.org
         4. [24]http://facebook.com/libertarians
         5. [25]http://lp.org/membership
         6. mailto:[26]robert.kraus at lp.org
         7. mailto:[27]wes.benedict at lp.org
         8. tel:[28]202.333.0008 x 231
         9. mailto:[29]wes.benedict at lp.org
        10. [30]http://facebook.com/libertarians
        11. [31]http://lp.org/membership
        12. mailto:[32]robert.kraus at lp.org
        13. mailto:[33]wes.benedict at lp.org
        14. mailto:[34]Operations at LP.org

References

   1. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
   2. https://www.lp.org/lnc-meeting-archives/
   3. https://maps.google.com/?q=1444+Duke+St.,+Alexandria,+VA+22314&entry=gmail&source=g
   4. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
   5. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
   6. http://facebook.com/libertarians
   7. http://lp.org/membership
   8. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
   9. https://maps.google.com/?q=to+try+that.+And+then+we+can+report+the&entry=gmail&source=g
  10. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
  11. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
  12. http://facebook.com/libertarians
  13. http://lp.org/membership
  14. mailto:robert.kraus at lp.org
  15. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
  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. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
  22. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
  23. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
  24. http://facebook.com/libertarians
  25. http://lp.org/membership
  26. mailto:robert.kraus at lp.org
  27. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
  28. tel:202.333.0008 x 231
  29. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
  30. http://facebook.com/libertarians
  31. http://lp.org/membership
  32. mailto:robert.kraus at lp.org
  33. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
  34. mailto:Operations at LP.org


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list