[Lnc-business] Fwd: [Lnc-votes] Proposed

[Whitney Bilyeu]

Below is a message from Paul Frankel, Region 7 Member, on the matter
at-hand.

========================================================================================


I think the point you make about who is the boss of the independent
contractor is a good one. I would be interested in an answer from Mr.
Sarwark, Mr. Fishman, and  Ms. Daugherty if she sees it and wants to
answer. The executive director answers to the chair, and the only
alternative is to have the whole committee be the boss of the chair as
independent contractor, which is a nightmare for any independent contractor
and a headache for a committee. Even if Nick and Dan can resolve their
boss/employee dissonance with no problems, what about future chairs and
executive directors if they are put in this position? There are other
problems too; even if there is no actual corruption at all, our party is
one where perceptions matter a lot when it comes to fundraising, and
there's a valid questions about how the *perception* of corruption would be
handled, even if it's all smoke and no fire.

On the other side of the ledger is the undeniable fact that someone whose
full time job it is to be press secretary and fundraiser can do a lot more
of those things than someone with four young kids and either a business,
full time job elsewhere, or active job search underway. No matter how
dedicated someone is there are only so many hours in the day, as you are
all too well aware. There's the undeniable fact that the lack of a
fundraising director and press secretary is an urgent need, and that
finding new ones who will do a good job is not easy on short notice and
that the LNC is just now coming out of a big, bad funding hole with the
extraordinary efforts of a very talented employee who has served her notice
of leaving, and is in real danger of falling into an even bigger hole while
the search for a replacement is underway and the eventual replacement has
time to get up to speed on the job. There's the undeniable fact that the
chair is a well known name to many existing and would be donors (which has
pluses and minuses, but would open many doors that would be otherwise
closed) and that top donors to any organization are more apt to make more
and bigger donations the more they can talk to someone with the title of
national chair.

There are other factors which need to be weighed too. One is that the
bigger parties have paid chairs, but they also don't elect them in
convention. Is the whole body of delegates able to competently evaluate
applicants for a joint chair-employee position? Lastly I should correct
something I said earlier which was forwarded to the list. Geoff was not
formally executive director in 2002-4, but the ED was either fired or quit,
there was a huge budget hole, and an expensive new database Geoff had been
the prime mover behind pushing through with many implementation/changeover
issues. That happened to be his professional field of expertise so Geoff
hired himself to work on that implementation project, temporarily moved to
work in DC, and once he was in the office became the de facto executive
director in function but not title.

Regarding the idea that Nick should quit to be a fundraiser, he could, but
I don't know if he would be willing to. Alex has said he is not ready to be
chair beyond occasionally filling in. If Nick was willing to make that
leap, and I am in no way saying he is, LNC would have a bloody battle
picking its new chair. I don't envy you if you put yourselves in that
position.

I actually do in part agree with you, I just want the LNC to consider both
the pluses and minuses, and there are many of both. My last message, by the
time it got forwarded, grew to a lengthy back and forth monstrosity. I'd
prefer if this one could be forwarded in clean form.



To address one thing Nick said below:


> Some people have suggested that the position be commission only. I would
> not be comfortable with that. There are advantages in fundraising to my
> position in the organization that would create the potential for very
large
> commissions that would take away from the resources we need to spend on
> party projects and operations. My preference would be an agreed on flat
> hourly rate.  be

The point of commission only is to minimize the party's risk. If you want
to *cap* your proposed potential compensation without an hourly rate
minimum guarantee, I would not turn that down if I was on the other side of
the negotiating table, if we were to get to a point where such a
negotiation would be allowed to happen at all. Of course I understand why
you, as a person with a family and bills to pay, would want a guaranteed
minimum as well, and I trust you would understand why others may be wary of
that. Personally I prefer commission only jobs for myself, and when I have
been in a position to hire people that's the only way I like to do it. But
I  never raised any kids, and have moved around in fluid living situation
by myself or with a working partner pretty much all my life, so obviously
there is a difference.

Paul Frankel,
Secretary, Libertarian Party of Alabama
Former LNC Alternate 2012-2014
205-534-1622
======================================================