[Lnc-business] Expense Reimbursement for Fundraising
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Feb 24 05:07:10 EST 2018
=== 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? ==
What am I to think about the pretty obviously personal nature this has
delved into mischaracterizing fundraising as social exposure and asking if
anyone really believes me when I say I have not decided that I will run
(i.e. insinuating I am deceptive) when this is done by someone who is a
current officer to a potential challenger?
If we are going to go down that road, I have every right to point that out.
Which is why that road is inappropriately personal and should not be a part
of this discussion. Higher roads are drier roads.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> I am glad to address these:
>
> === In this case, however, it seems that the donations are barely
> covering the travel expenses incurred. ===
>
> As does nearly every method to attract members. It is the long-term
> return. I was once told the average cost to get a new donor. It is
> usually more than the initial donation. In retail, that is a loss leader.
>
> ==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.===
>
> You could ask. It is explaining how national party memberships are used
> to show buy-in and how they give the states voice in things like delegate
> counts and committee appointments. Ask Montana why they got on fire for
> it, and there you know the pitch. Also they get a shirt. That's not as
> sexy as some nefarious plot but it has the fortunate quality of being the
> truth. And through these activities I have over time cultivated relations
> with "big fish" donors if we are going to use that terminology. Speak to
> Wes or Lauren privately if you want details.
>
> == 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.==
>
> Funny that. I told the members in WA and AZ that exact thing. So I think
> they understood.
>
> ==== 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.==
>
> It was entirely about determining if there was actual support or not -
> Facebook likes are not support, I was asking for concrete commitments..
> The issue had only come up from people actively recruiting me to run in the
> Party. Which I at first turned down.
>
> ==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.==
>
> Have they now? As of Sept I was definitely running for Region 1 and made
> an official post about that. In that post I told members that while I
> appreciated the support for other things, Region 1 was my focus. Then I
> retracted that and become noncommittal as to whether I would run for
> anything because local politics started to heat up here and there is
> opportunity to win local office. My husband decided to make that run, and
> at first I didn't know if he would have a team, so that team would be me.
> But he has a team rounded up that is experienced. I have not yet declared
> for anything. And I put that in that post for GASP transparency to make it
> absolutely clear that my Party work is kept entirely separate from other
> things. That was not only said in that post it had been said before.
> Again, this was no "secret." Because it was no secret I was making it
> absolutely clear that no one could expect me to be campaigning.
>
> == Is there anyone on this board who thinks she actually might not run
> for LNC Secretary?==
>
> Raises hand. If you think I have made a decision you are mistaken. I
> have not. I have some must-haves which have not been fully met. That was
> the purpose of the post. And have you declared? I haven't heard that. It
> would be logical and natural but I don't assume that is the case. In fact
> there was a FB rumour - not a particularly credible one - that you might be
> running for VC. Though it is no secret that I have a big problem with some
> of our Party culture that is very much a lego version of Game of Thrones -
> we fight over non-existent power and advantage and turn genuine desires to
> do great activist work into something else. And yes, I think this an
> example. And I think that question here is not particularly appropriate -
> it leaves the impression that the problem is partially motivated by
> potential competition. You are suggesting that I am not being honest in
> saying it is NOT certain and basically asking "does anyone else believe
> her?" Not appropriate. But frankly, I don't care. I will or I won't, and
> no one knows that answer, and neither do I. And the people who can attest
> to that are donors who want to help me and I thanked them and told them
> that if I do decide to, I will be in touch. If that decision was made, I
> would have grabbed the funding then and there. Offers today are not always
> offers tomorrow. But I did not because it is not certain. The day I make
> up my mind everyone else will know. And if I don't have a conviction about
> it by month's end, then I will not be.
>
> === 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?===
>
> Exposure trips? They were member recruitment trips. Now you may think
> they grant that added benefit to but characterize them as that intent is
> downright false. And reality time. I already have a lot of social
> exposure in the Party. That I earned fair and square by my own hard work.
>
> Nick is re-running for Chair. Perhaps someone on this Board may run
> against him. Is that exposure trips? And let's say there is someone in
> Region 1 who is going to run for RR - and then I am given a platform on
> snapchat or membership recruitment, should they think there is party
> resources for "exposure" - which of course is what was insinuated earlier
> this year in perfectly appropriate facebook posts. Because - and I called
> it as petty then - there is this constant worry that there is some fixed
> popularity pie and if anyone has a piece it takes it away from someone
> else. I recruit members. I am good at it.
>
> == 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.===
>
> A post which happened three weeks after their convention. And one in
> which I was letting people forthrightly know what my thoughts were (and
> what the Utah Chair had requested of me). As to why Nick didn't do the
> recruitment, from what I understand it was because the focus for him that
> weekend was his mayoral race and he participated in Party business in his
> affiliate - which would not allow full focus to be given to recruitment.
>
> Here is the exact text:
> I need an actual campaign team, not just "yeah you should run" posts -
> this is not an easy race and if I am in it, I am in it to win it. This
> would include a campaign manager, floor whip, - a convention team and at
> least a basic website.
> And lastly, I would need some financial support for materials and to visit
> conventions. Right now I am going to several conventions on behalf of the
> Party to do membership drives. On those trips I absolutely cannot campaign
> for anything- Party resources are not to be used for internal Party
> politics.
> A rule which I scrupulously keep. I was making it clear to any supporters
> that IF they wanted me to campaign, they would have to make it happen.
> That I would do absolutely zero campaigning in any Party capacity. Which I
> don't. And which I will not. I was making it clear that I didn't want to
> hear any noise about "oh you're going to be at X - how about a candidate
> panel or debate?" That such was a complete non-starter.
>
> == 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. ===
>
> And the largest conventions to have a pool for getting new members. And
> western states thus least expenses. And for which no campaigning would
> have been done, I said that explicitly, and I really hate to put a reality
> check here. I already have a lot of social exposure. I don't need to go
> to conventions for that. I will go anywhere. But a convention in which
> there are ten people is not going to have a ROI. And if the past is any
> indicator, a good chuck of CA delegates are seated from out of state so
> that is not the best place to go for that any campaigning purpose, but it
> is a good place to go for member recruitment.
>
> ==WA rides the borderline of the top-ten affiliates who get to name a
> Platform Committee rep.===
>
> And has a competition going with CO that generates interest for signing up
> memberships. And since they get to name a PlatComm rep they want to keep
> that up. They were not top ten in December so the only way they get
> another PlatComm rep in 2020 is to be a per capita state. Which was part
> of the sales pitch. And is part of my FB sales pitch. A few other states
> have entered the competition. Other states were not even aware that a per
> capita reward was available. They do now.
>
> ===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.==
>
> Now that is a good point that I appreciate. And the goal was to cover as
> many conventions as possible with staff from what I understand.
>
> == 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.==
>
> The people tasked with this in our policies. If a policy change is needed
> that is another issue. And I had not and still have not declared for any
> position. And tactically if I really wanted to have the best chance
> re-running as a popular incumbent is much wiser than running against a very
> competent incumbent in another race. No one likes to lose. Not that
> anything ever is a guarantee but a realistic assessment of a region 1
> re-run is a far better "gamble" from a sheerly pragmatic standpoint.
>
> I do my work out of a desire to grow the Party. Period. And had the
> proper approval. Which may have changed if and when I did declare for
> something which is part of the reason I made Feb my deadline. I did not
> want to make any other Party committments until I could give an answer on
> that so that decision makers could change their decisions if they felt it
> was an unavoidable issue. I know it is much sexier to spin up something
> else. That's politics. Unfortunately. It is unfortunate the mission of
> liberty is the ultimate loser while we engage in this.
>
> The Party can continue to use my skills on that or not. Up to the Party.
> I am not at a shortage for something to do. and I am not in need of
> "social exposure." I am bit weary of the amount I already have. But I
> don't need anyone else to get it for me. I make my own successes.
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
=== 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? ==
What am I to think about the pretty obviously personal nature this has
delved into mischaracterizing fundraising as social exposure and asking
if anyone really believes me when I say I have not decided that I will
run (i.e. insinuating I am deceptive) when this is done by someone who
is a current officer to a potential challenger?
If we are going to go down that road, I have every right to point that
out.
Which is why that road is inappropriately personal and should not be a
part of this discussion. Higher roads are drier roads.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
I am glad to address these:
=== In this case, however, it seems that the donations are barely
covering the travel expenses incurred. ===
As does nearly every method to attract members. It is the long-term
return. I was once told the average cost to get a new donor. It is
usually more than the initial donation. In retail, that is a loss
leader.
==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.===
You could ask. It is explaining how national party memberships are
used to show buy-in and how they give the states voice in things like
delegate counts and committee appointments. Ask Montana why they got
on fire for it, and there you know the pitch. Also they get a shirt.
That's not as sexy as some nefarious plot but it has the fortunate
quality of being the truth. And through these activities I have over
time cultivated relations with "big fish" donors if we are going to use
that terminology. Speak to Wes or Lauren privately if you want
details.
== 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.==
Funny that. I told the members in WA and AZ that exact thing. So I
think they understood.
==== 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.==
It was entirely about determining if there was actual support or not -
Facebook likes are not support, I was asking for concrete
commitments.. The issue had only come up from people actively
recruiting me to run in the Party. Which I at first turned down.
==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.==
Have they now? As of Sept I was definitely running for Region 1 and
made an official post about that. In that post I told members that
while I appreciated the support for other things, Region 1 was my
focus. Then I retracted that and become noncommittal as to whether I
would run for anything because local politics started to heat up here
and there is opportunity to win local office. My husband decided to
make that run, and at first I didn't know if he would have a team, so
that team would be me. But he has a team rounded up that is
experienced. I have not yet declared for anything. And I put that in
that post for GASP transparency to make it absolutely clear that my
Party work is kept entirely separate from other things. That was not
only said in that post it had been said before. Again, this was no
"secret." Because it was no secret I was making it absolutely clear
that no one could expect me to be campaigning.
== Is there anyone on this board who thinks she actually might not
run for LNC Secretary?==
Raises hand. If you think I have made a decision you are mistaken. I
have not. I have some must-haves which have not been fully met. That
was the purpose of the post. And have you declared? I haven't heard
that. It would be logical and natural but I don't assume that is the
case. In fact there was a FB rumour - not a particularly credible one
- that you might be running for VC. Though it is no secret that I have
a big problem with some of our Party culture that is very much a lego
version of Game of Thrones - we fight over non-existent power and
advantage and turn genuine desires to do great activist work into
something else. And yes, I think this an example. And I think that
question here is not particularly appropriate - it leaves the
impression that the problem is partially motivated by potential
competition. You are suggesting that I am not being honest in saying
it is NOT certain and basically asking "does anyone else believe her?"
Not appropriate. But frankly, I don't care. I will or I won't, and no
one knows that answer, and neither do I. And the people who can attest
to that are donors who want to help me and I thanked them and told them
that if I do decide to, I will be in touch. If that decision was made,
I would have grabbed the funding then and there. Offers today are not
always offers tomorrow. But I did not because it is not certain. The
day I make up my mind everyone else will know. And if I don't have a
conviction about it by month's end, then I will not be.
=== 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?===
Exposure trips? They were member recruitment trips. Now you may think
they grant that added benefit to but characterize them as that intent
is downright false. And reality time. I already have a lot of social
exposure in the Party. That I earned fair and square by my own hard
work.
Nick is re-running for Chair. Perhaps someone on this Board may run
against him. Is that exposure trips? And let's say there is someone
in Region 1 who is going to run for RR - and then I am given a platform
on snapchat or membership recruitment, should they think there is party
resources for "exposure" - which of course is what was insinuated
earlier this year in perfectly appropriate facebook posts. Because -
and I called it as petty then - there is this constant worry that there
is some fixed popularity pie and if anyone has a piece it takes it away
from someone else. I recruit members. I am good at it.
== 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.===
A post which happened three weeks after their convention. And one in
which I was letting people forthrightly know what my thoughts were (and
what the Utah Chair had requested of me). As to why Nick didn't do the
recruitment, from what I understand it was because the focus for him
that weekend was his mayoral race and he participated in Party business
in his affiliate - which would not allow full focus to be given to
recruitment.
Here is the exact text:
I need an actual campaign team, not just "yeah you should run" posts -
this is not an easy race and if I am in it, I am in it to win it. This
would include a campaign manager, floor whip, - a convention team and
at least a basic website.
And lastly, I would need some financial support for materials and to
visit conventions. Right now I am going to several conventions on
behalf of the Party to do membership drives. On those trips I
absolutely cannot campaign for anything- Party resources are not to be
used for internal Party politics.
A rule which I scrupulously keep. I was making it clear to any
supporters that IF they wanted me to campaign, they would have to make
it happen. That I would do absolutely zero campaigning in any Party
capacity. Which I don't. And which I will not. I was making it clear
that I didn't want to hear any noise about "oh you're going to be at X
- how about a candidate panel or debate?" That such was a complete
non-starter.
== 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. ===
And the largest conventions to have a pool for getting new members.
And western states thus least expenses. And for which no campaigning
would have been done, I said that explicitly, and I really hate to put
a reality check here. I already have a lot of social exposure. I
don't need to go to conventions for that. I will go anywhere. But a
convention in which there are ten people is not going to have a ROI.
And if the past is any indicator, a good chuck of CA delegates are
seated from out of state so that is not the best place to go for that
any campaigning purpose, but it is a good place to go for member
recruitment.
==WA rides the borderline of the top-ten affiliates who get to name a
Platform Committee rep.===
And has a competition going with CO that generates interest for signing
up memberships. And since they get to name a PlatComm rep they want to
keep that up. They were not top ten in December so the only way they
get another PlatComm rep in 2020 is to be a per capita state. Which
was part of the sales pitch. And is part of my FB sales pitch. A few
other states have entered the competition. Other states were not even
aware that a per capita reward was available. They do now.
===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.==
Now that is a good point that I appreciate. And the goal was to cover
as many conventions as possible with staff from what I understand.
== 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.==
The people tasked with this in our policies. If a policy change is
needed that is another issue. And I had not and still have not
declared for any position. And tactically if I really wanted to have
the best chance re-running as a popular incumbent is much wiser than
running against a very competent incumbent in another race. No one
likes to lose. Not that anything ever is a guarantee but a realistic
assessment of a region 1 re-run is a far better "gamble" from a sheerly
pragmatic standpoint.
I do my work out of a desire to grow the Party. Period. And had the
proper approval. Which may have changed if and when I did declare for
something which is part of the reason I made Feb my deadline. I did
not want to make any other Party committments until I could give an
answer on that so that decision makers could change their decisions if
they felt it was an unavoidable issue. I know it is much sexier to
spin up something else. That's politics. Unfortunately. It is
unfortunate the mission of liberty is the ultimate loser while we
engage in this.
The Party can continue to use my skills on that or not. Up to the
Party. I am not at a shortage for something to do. and I am not in
need of "social exposure." I am bit weary of the amount I already
have. But I don't need anyone else to get it for me. I make my own
successes.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Alicia Mattson
<[2]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
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][3]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:[4]chair at lp.org
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
3. mailto:chair at lp.org
4. mailto:chair at lp.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list