[Lnc-business] Expense Reimbursement for Fundraising

[Alicia Mattson]

I'm going to introduce a few angles that I haven't yet seen addressed.

I was not on the LNC during the Give or Get program, but my understanding
was that the program focused on "big fish" donors.  It was an officially
sanctioned effort that sought the participation of every LNC member, not
just a few. Many (if not all) paid their own expenses and much of the money
raised was from donors living in the LNC member's general vicinity, so
travel expenses were often not even a factor.  Because the focus was donors
capable of large donations, the return on the investment was potentially
far greater than any expense incurred.

In this case, however, it seems that the donations are barely covering the
travel expenses incurred.  I don't know what sales pitch is being used to
encourage people to join, but perhaps it's a pitch based on programs and
projects that they want to support.  I doubt the results would be as good
if these new members understood that really their donations were just
covering the travel expenses of the person asking them to donate.

Is it really worth the minimal net income to have the LNC be seen as
engaging in something that looks so questionable?

Let's not overlook the reality that this situation came to light in a
Facebook post by Ms. Harlos which began with the question, "Should I Run
for LNC Secretary?"  The post was entirely about formulating a campaign
plan to run for party office.  Perhaps there has not yet been an official
declaration of an intent to run, but her social media has contained these
not-so-subtle hints for more than a year.  Is there anyone on this board
who thinks she actually might *not* run for LNC Secretary?

What am I to think of this, when I learn that party funds are being
expended to fund a series of social exposure trips by a person likely to
run against me for party office?  This was known by our ED and four LNC
members, and none of them thought about the optics of this?

Many times our Executive Director has approached the LNC to say he was
thinking of doing something, but it might cause some backlash, so he wanted
to ask us first.  That did not happen here.  It was just done, and
according to today's emails, it would not have been disclosed to the LNC
until after the fact.

I presume that our national chair was at his home-state convention in
Arizona.  It would seem much more reasonable (and cost effective) to have
him do a pitch for national memberships.  Why did the national party need
to incur extra travel expenses to send a second person there from
Colorado?  Oh, and it happened to be Arizona's regional rep, who  in the FB
post in question suggested she might first run for region rep again and
then for LNC secretary at the same convention.

The states that we now know were in the plan happen to be states (a) in her
region, or (b) with large memberships, at which there would be social
exposure to (a) delegates voting for region rep, and (b) large pools of
potential national convention delegates who will vote for party offices.
CA and TX are the two largest affiliates with the largest delegate
allocations.  WA rides the borderline of the top-ten affiliates who get to
name a Platform Committee rep.

There have been other programs pondered and rejected by the LNC because
they didn't treat all affiliates evenly.  Keep in mind that there is an
internal-politics component to making different levels of effort in
different states to recruit new national members.  Sustaining membership
drives the delegate allocation formula.  Sustaining membership impacts
which states get to name members to the Platform Committee and to the
Credentials Committee.  When we have 2 or 3 people in the background,
deciding to use party funds to drive memberships in some affiliates but not
others, that has an impact on internal politics and elections at national
convention.

In a separate message I will highlight some relevant LNC policies.  I am
not convinced that this situation complies with our policies, but even if
an argument is made that it does, it does not pass the smell test.

-Alicia



On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Expense reimbursements to LNC members have been made (and will be made
> in the future) according to the rules set out in our policy manual.
> The Chair and/or the Treasurer (depending on the situation) approve
> the expenses and no officer approves his or her own expenses.
>
> When expense reimbursements for party business are made to a member of
> the LNC, they are reported on the related party transactions portion
> of the Treasurer's report.
>
> As our fundraising infrastructure has improved, there are more
> opportunities for fundraising events than there is availability from
> only staff and the Chair. If LNC members are able to handle events at
> the direction of the Executive Director or Head of Development, they
> have been (and will continue to be) reimbursed for their expenses
> associated with those events.
>
> Membership recruitment is one part of an effective fundraising
> strategy.  When a person makes an initial financial commitment to the
> party, they are much more likely to make future financial commitments
> over their lifetime (and sometimes at the end of it).
>
> Absent a change in the policy manual or specific guidance in the form
> of a vote of the national committee, it is my intention to proceed as
> we have been doing in consultation with the Treasurer, Executive
> Director, and the Head of Development.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> Nick
>
-------------- next part --------------
   I'm going to introduce a few angles that I haven't yet seen addressed.
   I was not on the LNC during the Give or Get program, but my
   understanding was that the program focused on "big fish" donors.  It
   was an officially sanctioned effort that sought the participation of
   every LNC member, not just a few. Many (if not all) paid their own
   expenses and much of the money raised was from donors living in the LNC
   member's general vicinity, so travel expenses were often not even a
   factor.  Because the focus was donors capable of large donations, the
   return on the investment was potentially far greater than any expense
   incurred.
   In this case, however, it seems that the donations are barely covering
   the travel expenses incurred.  I don't know what sales pitch is being
   used to encourage people to join, but perhaps it's a pitch based on
   programs and projects that they want to support.  I doubt the results
   would be as good if these new members understood that really their
   donations were just covering the travel expenses of the person asking
   them to donate.
   Is it really worth the minimal net income to have the LNC be seen as
   engaging in something that looks so questionable?
   Let's not overlook the reality that this situation came to light in a
   Facebook post by Ms. Harlos which began with the question, "Should I
   Run for LNC Secretary?"  The post was entirely about formulating a
   campaign plan to run for party office.  Perhaps there has not yet been
   an official declaration of an intent to run, but her social media has
   contained these not-so-subtle hints for more than a year.  Is there
   anyone on this board who thinks she actually might not run for LNC
   Secretary?
   What am I to think of this, when I learn that party funds are being
   expended to fund a series of social exposure trips by a person likely
   to run against me for party office?  This was known by our ED and four
   LNC members, and none of them thought about the optics of this?
   Many times our Executive Director has approached the LNC to say he was
   thinking of doing something, but it might cause some backlash, so he
   wanted to ask us first.  That did not happen here.  It was just done,
   and according to today's emails, it would not have been disclosed to
   the LNC until after the fact.
   I presume that our national chair was at his home-state convention in
   Arizona.  It would seem much more reasonable (and cost effective) to
   have him do a pitch for national memberships.  Why did the national
   party need to incur extra travel expenses to send a second person there
   from Colorado?  Oh, and it happened to be Arizona's regional rep, who
   in the FB post in question suggested she might first run for region rep
   again and then for LNC secretary at the same convention.
   The states that we now know were in the plan happen to be states (a) in
   her region, or (b) with large memberships, at which there would be
   social exposure to (a) delegates voting for region rep, and (b) large
   pools of potential national convention delegates who will vote for
   party offices.  CA and TX are the two largest affiliates with the
   largest delegate allocations.  WA rides the borderline of the top-ten
   affiliates who get to name a Platform Committee rep.
   There have been other programs pondered and rejected by the LNC because
   they didn't treat all affiliates evenly.  Keep in mind that there is an
   internal-politics component to making different levels of effort in
   different states to recruit new national members.  Sustaining
   membership drives the delegate allocation formula.  Sustaining
   membership impacts which states get to name members to the Platform
   Committee and to the Credentials Committee.  When we have 2 or 3 people
   in the background, deciding to use party funds to drive memberships in
   some affiliates but not others, that has an impact on internal politics
   and elections at national convention.
   In a separate message I will highlight some relevant LNC policies.  I
   am not convinced that this situation complies with our policies, but
   even if an argument is made that it does, it does not pass the smell
   test.
   -Alicia

   On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <[1]chair at lp.org>
   wrote:

     Dear All,
     Expense reimbursements to LNC members have been made (and will be
     made
     in the future) according to the rules set out in our policy manual.
     The Chair and/or the Treasurer (depending on the situation) approve
     the expenses and no officer approves his or her own expenses.
     When expense reimbursements for party business are made to a member
     of
     the LNC, they are reported on the related party transactions portion
     of the Treasurer's report.
     As our fundraising infrastructure has improved, there are more
     opportunities for fundraising events than there is availability from
     only staff and the Chair. If LNC members are able to handle events
     at
     the direction of the Executive Director or Head of Development, they
     have been (and will continue to be) reimbursed for their expenses
     associated with those events.
     Membership recruitment is one part of an effective fundraising
     strategy.  When a person makes an initial financial commitment to
     the
     party, they are much more likely to make future financial
     commitments
     over their lifetime (and sometimes at the end of it).
     Absent a change in the policy manual or specific guidance in the
     form
     of a vote of the national committee, it is my intention to proceed
     as
     we have been doing in consultation with the Treasurer, Executive
     Director, and the Head of Development.
     Yours in liberty,
     Nick

References

   1. mailto:chair at lp.org