<div dir="ltr">I would also support an amendment to that effect. I might try to draw up some language, but I don't know that I'll do that prior to December.<div><br></div><div>On the rest, I disagree, but don't have much else to add at the moment that would not be repetitive.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Thank you for clarifying what a house letter is. I meant to inquire before. So it seems like my figures are roughly correct, so I will be looking for a minimum $150,000 paydown which is well within the range that Tim said before we could handle.<div><br><div>And I have expressed before that I think "oh we budget but don't have to actually pay" is pretzel twisting by the LNC of expert level. I would favor strengthening the rule to stop that gaming. And I think "as soon as possible" being made into anything other than the most we can do is also unacceptable, but I suppose this will be the subject of debate. I think members thought this would be a lot more rigourously applied and would understandably feel, and I would if I step back and put my member hat on, that the LNC is not doing what they expected. Which is to get rid of this debt as soon as possible... I feel like I am Alice - The question is whether we can make words mean so many different things.</div><div><br></div><div>On LNBN, yes, I hear it from you. And I don't think turning us into a Washington ladies and lads who lunch is the answer - but we have disagreed on that before (and on whether only things that "require" - another "flexible" word - a national reach and organization is all we should be doing), and that is a different subject.<span class=""><br><div><br></div><div><br class="m_-1244667435869237343gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">-- <br><div class="m_-1244667435869237343gmail-m_5504422403772516312gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span></div></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Joshua Katz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com" target="_blank">planning4liberty@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">A house letter is a fundraising letter. Robert can provide more details, but my understanding is that the $22,453 was paid. It was, however, less than the $60,000 we were supposed to pay.<div><br></div><div>You are correct, the Wiener Rule was mandated only for odd-numbered years. While I have not run the numbers myself, my understanding was that, if followed, that rule would eliminate the balloon payment and amortize the loan over its lifetime. The effect of the rule was to remove the enhanced cash flow in odd-numbered years, where it was believed it would be less helpful, but maintain that benefit in even-numbered years. In odd years, we would pay the same as we were paying in rent; in even years, we would pay less. </div><div><br></div><div>That was, to my understanding, the spirit. (I was, of course, not present when it was adopted, but I was present the first time it applied.) As I mentioned earlier, when we were preparing the 2015 budget, there was discussion about eliminating that rule, which I strongly opposed. In the end, we did not change or eliminate it, which in my opinion is a good thing. We did budget the money. Unfortunately, the way the rule operates does not guarantee that the money will be paid, and it was not. I would be open to strengthening the rule for the future, but keep in mind that standing rules having their application outside the meeting context cannot be suspended, so some care is needed not to lock ourselves in too tightly. </div><div><br></div><div>In any case, yes, it was decided that this would be prioritized, and I agree fully with prioritizing it. That's why I began by saying that I considered paying back what we shorted last year (plus interest) to be the absolute minimum. I don't see the adoption of that goal, though, as meaning that we won't expand in other areas until it is paid off, just as it obviously doesn't mean that we can't have staff until it is paid off. If we followed the rule as stated there, and as it is intended, we'd achieve the goal of paying it off before the 10 year balloon payment. "As soon as possible" is unclear, particularly when phrased as a goal, but I don't think it means we need to pay all the spare cash we've got - it certainly doesn't preclude that, either. My suggestion, again, is that we regard paying our Wiener Rule commitments as inflexible - that's the difference for 2015 and the full amount for 2017 - budget for other programs we regard as important now, and then pay the difference towards the dead pledge, rather than trying to determine how much more to pay above Wiener Rule commitments before determining what else we'll do. Of course, though, when decided how much to budget to other programs, we should have in mind that everything we budget means we'll be doing less to pay down the mortgage, so the threshold for adoption of a project should be not only that it's worth the cost, but that it's worth the cost plus interest over time, just as if we had to borrow the money to finance it. </div><div><br></div><div>To repeat a point I've made before, we've got to think more strategically when we budget, and reference budget lines when we spend money. I think it encourages the wrong sort of thinking, and confuses people, try to decide whether or not to spend X on Y out of "the universe" rather than spend X on Y out of the budget line for things like Y, which is Z. </div><div><br></div><div>Regarding "LNBN," I'm not sure how much you're hearing it tossed around. Since it's my phrase, I guess I hope you're hearing it tossed around a lot, but I've only seen it tossed around by me. In any case, yes, it's a slogan and content-less without context. I just meant it to indicate the thrust of the things I want to see us do, which I see as "those things that require a national reach and organization." The one I harp on the most is appointments, but I'd also include doing more outreach to the DC Press Corps, certain lobbying operations, and a few other things. I didn't specify here, because I wasn't arguing here for anything specific, just saying that I expect over the term to introduce motions which, if adopted, would cost various amounts of money, and that I think others will do so as well. It is not about board governance per say; that's another pet issue of mine, but a separate one. I do think more care as regards governance can lead to clearer goals and better facilitate their achievement, as well as clarify what goal-setting means, but that's an indirect connection.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_-1244667435869237343m_-3090427447226485491gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div class="m_-1244667435869237343h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Though these numbers will have changed since October, at that time our principal was $430,598.33. It appears that we budgeted in 2015 $67,300 for Building Fund revenues to pay $60,000 towards the mortgage (as per the Policy Manual) and $7,300 for a house letter (I don't know what that means), but only raised $22,435.63. Was that $22,435.63 paid? Or did it go into shorted reserves? Also have we already paid additional principle yet this year?<div><br></div><div>I believe Robert Kraus said we paid $27,500 extra towards principal in 2015 and $22,000 extra toward principal in 2016. If this is correct, we were short $32,500 in 2015 as per the Policy Manual, and I do not see a Policy Manual provision for even-numbered years to make additional principal payments.</div><div><br></div><div>Tim in October said he believe he would be comfortable with a figure of about $200,000, and that is the figure that comes to my mind as a<i> total </i>for the two years, at a minimum, so that would be right around Sam's initial bid of $150,000 (more precisely it would be $150,500). That would be the minimum I would like to see.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I echo Joshua's concern of other projects we may wish to do, but <b>this was already decided to be a priority</b> back when we got the mortgage, and I do not like the way it seems we make promises and then... are like, oh well.... <i>such and such.</i> That is what I see as happening so far with the website, and if we made this priority, let's fulfill it first. We passed a Policy Manual provision to "pay off the office mortgage as quickly as possible" so let's do it. And set a fiscal example. On a related note on "let national be national" that keeps getting used... to borrow a phrase that Joshua likes to use in other contexts, I don't find it helpful as it is "content-less" :) I don't think anyone wants to have national be other than what it should be- it is what it should be that is precisely the issue. Slogans aren't helpful in planning. I am of a view that the LNC is too hands off in some things, and that there are things that we must have as LNC level decisions and that is "national being national" and I have made some of those things clear in the website discussion in which I think we seriously abrogated some duty.</div><span><div><br></div><div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a>Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="m_-1244667435869237343m_-3090427447226485491h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Joshua Katz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com" target="_blank">planning4liberty@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I don't have a number in mind, but my preference is to look at it from the other side first: how much did we short ourselves last year? We should obviously pay that much extra this year as a starting point. (I'd say that even if doing so pushed our reserves down; we should tighten our belts in that circumstance.) However, it seems that we can pay that much and more, so how much more?<div><br></div><div>Well, here's one answer - imagine we, as an LNC, had absolutely no ideas. We just couldn't think of a single thing we want to do beyond what we're already doing. Then, obviously, we should pay as much as we can towards the mortgage, get down to bare subsistence, and hope that when it's paid off, that LNC is more creative than we are.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, we could believe that we have IDEAS, BIG IDEAS, LOTS OF IDEAS, and that it is vitally important that we act now, not those jerks who might be on the LNC in the future. In that case, we should pay what we shorted ourselves last year and leave it at that.</div><div><br>I don't think either of the two answers above is correct, but the point is, where along that spectrum are we? Also, what pressing things are there that need to be done now? I'd suggest this: we just received record Presidential vote totals and saw a large spike in membership. It would be appropriate to take action to retain the new members, and attempt to get more commitment from those voters. Perhaps a survey of our new membership is in order so we have a better idea of why they joined and what they want. </div><div><br></div><div>After all, wasn't enhanced cash flow one of the selling points that convinced a previous LNC to purchase a {noun deleted to avoid controversy}? Isn't it also the case that, if we adhere strictly to the Wiener Rule, there will be no balloon payment due? Granted, of course, any delay in payments changes the calculation, so we'd need to pay somewhat more than we were short last year to continue that rule. Granted, too, that every additional payment will decrease overall money spent on interest.</div><div><br></div><div>In 2017, I'd like to see us do more to help candidates coordinate and build ground-games. I'm hoping to continue over the term to promote my proposals regarding appointments and "let national be national," both of which take money. I'm sure others have ideas, which can either out-compete mine or be done simultaneously, that will also cost money. </div><div><br></div><div>Even so, I'd like to pay substantially more than what we owe ourselves towards the mortgage. I would also note, as I pointed out at the e-meeting, that this year's enhanced revenue hasn't been across the board. In fact, recurring gifts, last I checked, were below budget. I'd encourage optimism, and I absolutely will not say "well, we'll never see a year like this again" but a lack of recurring gifts does raise the possibility of coming back down. If I believed we'd never see such success again, and that we were just returning to normal, I'd say throw as much of it as possible at paying down the dead pledge. If recurring gifts were up, I'd probably say the same thing. I think, though, that what we do now will determine if we will continue on an upward trajectory, or instead return to 'normal,' and that this might be worth some investment.</div><div><br></div><div>Before committing myself to a number, though, I'll want to hear from the Treasurer. I might also favor making this decision after the budget is approved.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_-1244667435869237343m_-3090427447226485491m_-6863744539875405328gmail-m_-8131410954324654565m_6229708608626934622gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="m_-1244667435869237343m_-3090427447226485491m_-6863744539875405328gmail-m_-8131410954324654565h5">On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Sam Goldstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com" target="_blank">goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="m_-1244667435869237343m_-3090427447226485491m_-6863744539875405328gmail-m_-8131410954324654565h5"><div dir="ltr">I intend to make a motion at our next meeting to spend a good portion of our 2016 surplus to make a payment on the principal on our office mortgage. <div><br></div><div>Not knowing our final numbers at this time lends some uncertainty to that number, but I would like to start the bidding at $150,000. That amount ought to leave us in a very favorable position as to our ongoing reserve for unforeseen expenses over the next few years.</div><div><br></div><div>Does anyone want to offer a lower/higher amount? If so, what is your reasoning.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks and </div><div><br></div><div>Live Free,<br><div><br></div><div> <br clear="all"><div><div class="m_-1244667435869237343m_-3090427447226485491m_-6863744539875405328gmail-m_-8131410954324654565m_6229708608626934622m_8659817883127552176gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Sam Goldstein<div>Libertarian National Committee</div><div>Member at Large</div><div>8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101</div><div>Indianapolis IN 46260</div><div><a href="tel:317-850-0726" value="+13178500726" target="_blank">317-850-0726</a> Phone</div><div><a href="tel:317-582-1773" value="+13175821773" target="_blank">317-582-1773</a> Fax</div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div>
<br></div></div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><span>-- <br><div class="m_-1244667435869237343m_-3090427447226485491m_-6863744539875405328gmail-m_-8131410954324654565gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</span></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_-1244667435869237343gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>