[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Event funding

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I'm using a different subject because this isn't about the merits of the motion to support a booth at RiotFest.  Rather, these are questions that I see as arising from that motion.

My first question would be - if we do this (and on the merits it strikes me as something worth doing) we'll be asked to fund a number of such events.  It seems to me that, as a matter of board governance, we should come up with an overall strategy that informs such decisions.  If we can clarify the purpose of the LNC putting money and personnel into a booth at an event such as this, it may guide future decisions.

Which leads me to my next question - while no other apparatus exists for this at the moment, this doesn't look to me like the kind of question that needs to come before a national board.  I would suggest that, since I do expect these requests to continue coming if we fund this one, we build some intervening structures, or make use of ones that exist (maybe affiliate support?), empower them within a budget (outreach?  affiliate support?  a new line?), and give instructions based on my first question above.

Next - I have to admit that I am uncomfortable with a board motion specifying that a particular employee be sent to a particular place with a particular task.  That looks far too much like a management task to me, and I see a lot of potential for conflict if the board gets in the habit of doing that sort of thing.  It creates uncertainty for management if we swoop in and start moving staff members around.  Rather, I'd like to see a broad directive to staff to support these endeavors in such ways, and leave prioritization and decisions about who to send where up to management and, at times, the chair.  I think this, also, feeds back into my main point about board governance vs. management.

So I suppose what I am suggesting is that, in addition to whatever we decide to do on RiotFest, the LNC adopt a strategy, explicitly, regarding this sort of endeavor (we can define "this sort" as broadly as we think useful) and our strategic reasons for getting involved, of the sort that can inform an empowered committee and staff, rather than face the potential of the national board sorting through these sorts of requests - and, let's not forget, it's possible that there will be strategically useful events for which no request is made, but a committee established for that purpose might find them and suggest to the affiliate that a presence should be established there, and that funding will be available.  

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Absolutely agree on every count.

and I do expect that more requests will come in, and that are there more requests that should be considered

and it is back before the LNC precisely because there is no apparatus in place.  Wes did not want to unilaterally make this decision and Nick also has a potential conflict due to his prior ties with Colorado.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative 

(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)

Caryn.An...@LP.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I agree with Caryn and Joshua – we ought to have an overall strategy, or guidelines, that informs our decisions about which state-level events or causes (or candidates) to fund. The LNC evaluating proposals on a case-by-case basis without any consistent approach, has been an issue for years. I think the result has been a tendency for funding requests to be more likely to be approved if they come from people on the LNC, or known to the LNC, rather than proposals being viewed primarily on their merits.

Of course coming up with a consistent standard for such decisions is difficult, especially when we're often looking at apples and oranges as well as changing circumstances. There is an alternative approach I think could serve well though. That would be listing any projects deemed by the LNC to be deserving on a website, and inviting party supporters to donate to the project(s) of their choice.

In other words, crowdfunding. 

We talked about this on the 2012-2014 LNC term, and even passed a motion supporting the concept, but somehow it never got implemented. I think the potential remains, and that crowdfunding could not only help us raise more money and empower our donors by giving them more choices, but it could also partially resolve for the LNC the recurring dilemma of fairly deciding which projects to fund from among all the worthy requests for funding that the committee receives.

I said four years ago that we wouldn't necessarily even need as a committee to vet or censor the proposals seeking funds (see email thread below), but if we did have something like the APRC to ensure proposed projects were not contrary to our bylaws or platform, that could be a good thing.

Love & Liberty,

                                                ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (2016-2018)

                                     RealR...@earthlink.net

                                             (415) 625-FREE

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

On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Starchild wrote:

Geoff,

Thanks for your input. If the desire to move forward with this exists and constructive action is being planned/taken in the absence of any motion, I'm willing to hold off on introducing a motion, if you think that's a better approach.

I like your vision of a shop with lots of "products" from which to choose (similar to my dream of LP conventions with hundreds or thousands of vendor booths). To me that's not marketing, but actual *content* or *substance*, which from the donor's point of view is much better than marketing. Having a framework that allows all levels of LP affiliates to show their projects to prospective donors, and having donations go directly to the affiliates without the LNC ever touching the money, both sound excellent.

Adding an edit/control function to prevent affiliates from asking for money for unlibertarian projects seems to me unnecessary however. That is not to say this I would be unconcerned by such a project proposal -- I would be very concerned. However, it would merely be a *symptom* of a greater problem, namely the insufficient understanding of, and/or dedication to, libertarian beliefs which would cause someone in the LP to propose such a project in the first place. If other Libertarians were to see someone's name attached to a fundraising proposal to raise money for something that goes against our principles (and I do think names should be attached to the proposals), this could facilitate a number of other useful things happening:

• Leaders at the national and state level could make inquiries about what was going on at that affiliate

• Particular topics could be identified on which a need exists for more/better internal education ("inreach"), perhaps leading to articles in LP News, website blog posts, etc.

• LP members might think twice before selecting a person behind a dubious project as a national delegate or party leader, supporting him or her as a candidate, etc.

• Occasionally, a reappraisal of our position or stance on a topic might occur -- a proposal might turn out to be more in synch with libertarian principles than it appeared at first blush

Alternately, an edit/control mechanism could be built in as a crowdsourced function rather than imposed as a unilateral top-down decision -- projects receiving a certain number or percentage of negative votes from site visitors could be removed or at least made less visible (e.g. moved to the bottom of the project listings). I believe acting as direct censors tends to lead to bitter disputes and dissatisfaction over censorship which do not serve the LP's interests, and that such heavy-handed control should generally be avoided except to the extent it's necessary for the very survival and sustainability of our organization as a libertarian party. Most of the time I think we're better off letting "the market" handle it.

Until we develop something like this in-house, what do folks think about listing LP fundraising projects on existing crowdfunding websites like Kickstarter.com, GoGetFunding.com, or IndieGoGo.com, and linking to those projects from a donations page on LP.org? Is anyone aware of any existing or previous LP or libertarian projects being hosted on crowdfunding sites? If you have links to such, or can describe how such projects went if they are concluded now, this could be helpful information to have in planning a similar feature for LP.org.

If people prefer to host something like this on a freestanding site rather than on LP.org, I have acquired a couple domain names that I think are promising and which I would be willing to donate to the LP for a worthwhile project-based fundraising effort of this sort -- CrowdfundFreedom.com, and CrowdfundLiberty.com . If that does not materialize, I'm also open to working with others to develop one of these sites as an independent effort, for-profit or otherwise. I could imagine such a site serving as a portal through which to donate to all manner of pro-freedom projects and causes.

Love & Liberty,

                                 ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Geoffrey Neale wrote:

Yes - I have a lot of suggestions, and I won't go into all of them.

First, I'd like to state for the record that I've been talking about this in
an "ad hoc" manner for a very long time, but my vision might very well
exceed what others have thought of.

I see a "fundraising central" kind of solution that would allow donors to go
to a single place, and see all of the activities going on at national, at
states, at counties, and decide how they want to give their money.  In other
words, if a "customer" goes to a "shop" and sees lots of things to buy, the
chances that they will spend more is significantly more likely.  It's just
marketing.

I would like to see a framework that would support all levels of LP
affiliates, but we would have to set up some expectations of appropriate
behavior for all, and perhaps some kind of edit/control function.  After
all, we cannot let just anyone ask for money for anything they want, if the
appeal is for something that violates our Bylaws or principles.

Also, we have to consider both FEC and IRS implications.  While there are no
FEC restrictions on us sending money to affiliates, there are restrictions
on whether or not we can accept money from the affiliates.  Also, if we were
to "channel" funds into the LNC, and then out to the affiliates, we WILL
have to consider that there are maximum donations that we can take in a
calendar year.  I'd prefer a way to "channel" the donations directly to the
affiliate, without us ever touching the money.  Also, with the IRS, if we
charge a fee for providing a service that is taken out of a donation, we may
very well be subject to having to pay tax on unrelated business income.
Even if we didn't have to pay tax, we might have other bookkeeping
implications I am unaware of.

In short, I strongly favor working out a plan for this, and would like to
see it launched with the entire LP in mind, because I do not think it is
that problematic to do so.  I also think this could be so valuable to all of
us.

That said, I am totally opposed to trying to "craft" this with a mail ballot
at this time, because there are so many possible implications that we have
not worked out.  I also am not inclined to dump a "good idea" on staff given
their workload at this time.  I do not know what this will cost, and who
will bear that cost.  I can see getting the IT Committee involved with this.
I can also see getting the overhead for this covered under the Affiliate
Support Committee.  There must be other possibilities as well, but this is
not currently budgeted, and we don't even know the costs.

Let's have a more well-rounded plan before we talk about motions, okay?    

Geoffrey Neale
Chair
Libertarian Party

PS: An investor that provides their own money towards a venture is commonly
known as an "angel".  I have already purchased (on behalf of the LP)
www.libertarianangels.com and .org.  I cannot communicate strongly enough
that this is something I am excited about, and will advocate and work
towards.


-----Original Message-----
From: lnc-discu...@hq.lp.org [mailto:lnc-discu...@hq.lp.org]
On Behalf Of Starchild
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:09 PM
To: lnc-d...@hq.lp.org
Cc: grassrootsl...@yahoogroups.com; Mark Hilgenberg
Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] Small Projects motion

The general concept is definitely something I think is important in
terms of improving our fundraising practices and the amount of money they
bring in, and I'm inclined to make a motion along these lines. 

Before I do so, does anyone have any suggested edits that you think
would improve the language Utah vice chair Mark Hilgenberg offers below?

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee


On Aug 24, 2012, at 9:53 AM, travelli...@gmail.com wrote:

Forwarded to LNC for consideration. 

-paulie

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Mark <hi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

As opposed to trying to get LNC consensus on what projects to fund, why

not just create an open source list for projects from anyone. The LP could
provide the listing on the website and process the fund raising in exchange
for a fee to the LP if the project funded is not from the LP. 

This type of system is how crowd funding and other sites work. It is very

Libertarian IMHO. 

Here is my quick and dirty, needs editing motion.

"The LNC will promptly undertake a project-targeted fund raising website

page similar to Crowd funding to generate money for LP projects such as
Facebook and other internet advertising campaigns on the theme "Vote
Libertarian!" This page will also allow other affiliates, groups,
individuals and companies the opportunity to promote their activities and
raise donations.

In exchange for this service, non-LP projects will pay a fee of 10% of the

money raised to the LP for establishing the webpage and donation system and
the processing of the donations."

Mark Hilgenberg

Vice Chair

Libertarian Party of Utah

Nothing new below, included only for context:

--- In LNCDiscu...@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: travellingcircus@...

Date: August 21, 2012 9:09:40 AM PDT

To: region1rep@..., lnc-discuss@...

Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] Draft motions for LNC:

Reply-To: lnc-discuss@...

I'm hoping that we get project fundraising started ASAP and Norm has a

good explanation of how and why it works below. 

As for the specific projects that George proposes, you can of course

substitute other projects if and when someone introduces the motion(s) and
debate their relative merits, and I hope to see some other ideas introduced
for those. 

-paulie 415-690-6352

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Norm Olsen region1rep@... wrote:

With regard to item 1):

This is an excellent strategy. That is, plan and implement small

projects successfully, regularly, and then brag about the success. I have
used this strategy in other organizations successfully. So regular that
there is an annual plan which produces small projects scheduled round
Liberty News publications, which are followed up by a fund raising effort;
all schedule for maximum effect as much as 12 months in advance.

The important thing is to achieve something, and then tell the whole

world about. It is next to impossible to grow an organization where the only
thing it seems to do is beg for money. When our Monday messages, or our
Liberty News' habitually announce the successful completion of a project or
effort, regardless of how small, building membership and monthly pledges
becomes so much easier.

Frankly, I disagree with the "small" projects suggested; I have in

mind others that I (of course :>) think would be better. However, since the
suggested projects are small, there will not be a big effort against them
(one of the side benefits of this approach) and LNC approval is much more
likely, perhaps not even required. Therefore, at least something will get
accomplished.

I am very much in favor of this approach: Regularly achieve an

"accomplishment", regardless of how small, and then brag the hell out of it
in preparation for the next "accomplishment". After a while, fund raising
for the bigger projects will become easier and achieving larger and more
meaningful "accomplishments" will become a habit.

With regard to item 2: I will considering introducing a motion

concerning Oregon.

With regard to item 3(?J): I am still thinking about it; thanks for

the prod.

Norm

--

Norman T Olsen

Regional Representative, Region I

Libertarian National Committee

7931 S Broadway, PMB 102

Littleton, Colorado 80122-2710

303-277-9967

Norman.Olsen@...

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight 

you, then you win." -- Gandhi

From: lnc-discuss-bounces@... [mailto:lnc-discuss-bounces@...] On

Behalf Of travellingcircus@...

Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 6:06 AM

To: George Phillies; lnc-discuss@...

Cc: Starchild

Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] Draft motions for LNC:

I've asked people on the public lists for some time to come up with

ideas in the form of motions for things that the LNC is allowed to do which
it should do. Here's the only response so far. 

1) The LNC and staff shall undertake short-term projects, likely to be

visible to the membership, fundable and funded as projects, to demonstrate
that we can do politics effectively. In particular:

1) The LNC will promptly undertake project-targeted fundraising to

generate money for facebook and other internet advertising campaigns on the
theme "Vote Libertarian!", targeting young voters, and targeting issues that
other parties are avoiding, including ending all foreign wars, ending the
war on drugs, and ending internet and phone wiretapping.

2) The LNC will soon undertake project-based fundraising to republish

key brochures in foreign languages corresponding to recent large-scale
immigration, including Spanish, Mandarin, Russian, standard Hindi in
Devanagari script, Hmong, and Vietnamese. 

3) The LNC will soon undertake project-based fundraising to support

creating Libertarian Party affiliates in U.S. Associated Commonwealths and
Territories that do not currently have affiliates.

4) The LNC will promptly undertake project-based fundraising to offer

external support, e.g., advertising, for Libertarian Senatorial and
Congressional candidates who meet objective standards, in particular (1)
they are FEC filing, (2) they have an active web site and social media
presence, and (3) they are identifiably doing legitimate fundraising or are
self-funding.

In all cases, at least 75% of all money raised for a project will be

spent on that project.

[p: We may wish to produce key brochures in English as well. What 

we have now are outdated brochures from the 1990s citing outdated 

facts and statistics from that time. ]

[p: I am strongly in favor of project based fundraising in 

general. I'm not sure whether these are the exact projects I would 

propose first - I'd have to think of a few others, which I will do 

later if this discussion goes anywhere]

From the same person:

2) In order to demonstrate to the membership that the LNC supports its

own Bylaws, the LNC will promptly take necessary action to validate the LP
Judicial Committee affirmation that the LP of Oregon is the group chaired by
Wes Wagner. In particular, it will cease to support (as by providing
publicity or internet services) the so-called Libertairan State Leadership
Confernece, until such time as that organization accepts Wagner and group as
the legiitmate party organization.

[p: I believe the author means Libertarian State Leadership 

Alliance]

Would any of the voting members like to introduce either or both of

these motions in either original or modified form?

Paulie 415-690-6352

_______________________________________________

Lnc-discuss mailing list

Lnc-discuss@...

http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I would support a limited crowdfunding mechanism.  In particular, and I've suggested this here before, I'd like to see a list of projects, none of them mandatory (i.e. keeping the lights turned on) which cannot all be funded due to budget constraints, displayed on a website, and pledges taken, with money only actually charged when the pledges reach the target for the particular project.  This wouldn't replace the role of the board in setting priorities - what winds up on the list as opposed to funded directly is simply a result of that prioritization.  What I would oppose is any mechanism that sought to replace direct budgeting with such a process.  After all, the delegates elect this board to represent them, and I think the board should do what it is supposed to - provide governance and oversight - and stop doing what it shouldn't, such as trying to reproduce management functions - and also not transfer its role to either the most vocal members or the members most willing to give money.  We shouldn't let decision-making power be purchased rather than elected.

The question then is, what is the status of outreach booths?  They certainly aren't mandatory in the sense of keeping the lights on.  In fact, I don't recall us having done them very much, except FreedomFest.  They are, I think, a part of a useful strategy, particularly during Presidential elections.  Which to attend is a strategic decision, though, that I think I would prefer to see handled in that manner, rather than as a matter of popularity.  So I think I'd rather fund these directly, by setting aside funds and empowering a committee, over crowdfunding the choice of which events to attend, but I may be open to being persuaded otherwise.

I understand the concern about apples and oranges comparisons, and changing circumstances.  I think those can be addressed, though, by crafting the strategy statement broadly enough.  I'm not prepared to offer a suggestion on that - actually, I expect to try to draft one based, in part, on debate about Caryn's motion if it gets enough seconds - but if it is too narrowly tailored, I agree it will be difficult to apply.  

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I believe that efforts of this nature properly fall under the purview of the Affiliate Support Committee, which has a budget and could implement a mechanism for evaluating and implementing requests from state parties for event support.  The LNC does not have time nor does it need to micro-mange to the point of approving funding at this level.

I agree with Mr. Katz that the LNC should not involve itself in assigning staff to certain functions and/or events.  That is the job of the Chair and the ED.

Thanks and 

Live Free,

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I think these are all good points and I agree that this is probably something that should fall under the direction of the Affiliate support committee.  I think helping affiliates to develop a robust outreach effort if they don't have one should be a priority and if they do to help share their best practices with others.  

It's a relatively inexpensive way to get "the Party" in front of a lot of eyeballs in a grassroots way.   Many of those eyeballs might never approach the booth but seeing it creates a  "touch" of one degree or another.  That helps to prepare that prospect by either encouraging them to go find out what the LP is on their own or when they do get eyeball to eyeball with a Libertarian, they are a little more open to what they have to say because of the vague familiarity they have with the Party.  Happy people see stuff all around the country helps show we are a national organization, not just pockets of activists.

I am glad to see that LPCO intends to have some skin in the game and just isn't expecting the LNC to be Uncle Sugar and cover everything. That usually indicates they will appreciate and make the most of the opportunity.  

I also like that it's coming from Colorado because I know that they already do outreach somewhat regularly.  Additionally, I know Caryn does a lot of their outreach in Colorado.  I think she will help to serve as a good steward of our funds and the opportunity with her connections to both organizations and her experience and level of commitment. 

I think this could be a good test and be used to help the Affiliate Support committee to develop some policies with LNC approval to move this forward.  I think the idea of crowdfunding it as a way to show which events we should do and builds in the mechanism to find it which takes away a lot of the complaints of favoritism etc.  It's essentially a market driven solution to selection of which projects to pursue.

Ultimately, outreach is best handled locally.  Sometimes a project might be out of an organizations financial means to put  on alone.   Other times they may not be sure where exactly they go to get started.   The LNC should be using this as a means to boost local outreach and not to be the sole source of it.  It's also good for helping the affiliate with a larger event that they may have a lot lower percentage of direct return for the local with many people in attendance from out of their area.

That all said,  I will jump in and co sponsor as outreach is one area of  focus for me. Clearly, there will need to be tweaking but we can't learn unless we try. Now seems to be the time. 

For

Clarity I will go throw in my cosponsor on the other thread.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large

Sent from my iPhone