Tuniewicz styles himself “The Reluctant Representative”. He reminds us that all opinions herein are his, not the opinions of the National Committee.
IPR owner George Phillies caught up with LNC member Mark Tuniewicz in New Hampshire recently, where Tuniewicz had previously served as state chair and was in the area celebrating his mother’s 85th birthday. Tuniewicz has served on the boards of five different state affiliates, previously represented New York in the New England states, and also did two terms as national treasurer during the party’s most successful times.
We met at Nashua, NH, breakfast institution Bud’s, and talked about the LP.
IPR: Why is the LP’s membership declining?
Tuniewicz: Part of the problem has been a decrease in our ability to initiate effective membership renewals due to challenges associated with our migration away from the Raider’s Edge fundraising software into the Civi CRM. This was made worse by heavy staff turnover. Fixing migration-related issues contributing to the membership decline has been a top staff priority for the last couple of months.
It’s been suggested that some people have not renewed in the wake of our divisive convention in Reno, but it’s difficult to prove that with data without surveying those who have not yet renewed as to the reasons why.
IPR: What is the situation with respect to proposals from the Chair and Secretary that LNC members should contact nonrenewing people?
Tuniewicz: LNC members have been asked to help by calling lapsed members. While well intentioned, a systemic solution that automatically contacts such lapsed members before the lapse and in stages afterwards is what is really needed. Membership renewal activity should always be a staff function.
[IPR recalls that at one time, the LNC had a seven mailing process for encouraging members to renew, all mailings in the process being rewarding.]
IPR: How do you feel things are going on the LNC, one year in?
Tuniewicz: We have a fair amount of dysfunction on our Committee, in part due to policies that are overly proscriptive and which create unneeded complexity, with some confusion about roles and responsibilities. I think most Committee members have seen that dysfunction and want it to stop. It’s a limiting factor in our future success.
We also have a number of of smart, highly engaged people who want to make things better. The chair, to her credit, has recognized these issues, and has asked for board training proposals and begun a review of the strategic planning effort we started at the beginning of the term. The question is, will we have time to turn things around in the next 12 months? What is the path to do so, the metrics by which well measure our progress, and how will we hold ourselves accountable?
IPR: Who would you say runs the show on the LNC? Who has been the driver of the board’s actions during the first 12 months of the term?
Tuniewicz: I think two individuals in particular. Our Chair, certainly, is at the top. But our Secretary exerts a tremendous amount of influence over the Committee, has a high level of perceived power, and arguably could be considered a co-chair in our current environment based on her level of involvement and the time she puts in. I think they probably talk and text multiple times per day most weeks. I believe most members would agree that secretary often drives the bus.
IPR: What’s the status of the national staff?
Tuniewicz: We’ve had a huge amount of staff turnover since Reno. The primary bright spot today is our new Executive Director Lainie Huston. If she were to depart, I think we’d be in a very difficult situation. The Chair has been working closely with her to ensure her success.
IPR: Have you heard member concerns about alleged heavy use of executive session and private emails?
Tuniewicz: Without revealing the content of meetings held in executive session, I can say that recently during those meetings there is vigorous, open and frank discussion of issues, in which most LNC members participate. A recently passed LNC policy allows for private email use, and public notification when such use takes place among the full LNC. It’s not what I would have crafted, but it’s something.
IPR: What about direct mail fundraising? At one time direct mail was a major source of revenue.
Tuniewicz: In the past, AIRC the Treasurer indicated that other fundraising means had a better cost of cash raised. I believe direct mail is a key tool in the toolbox that includes things like email solicitations, phone calls, major donor and project-based outreach, along with events and new member prospecting.I’m not certain that the few goals that have been set are so called “SMART” goals, and it’s unclear whether or not we have dedicated sufficient resources to achieve these goals.
IPR: You served as Regional Rep and National Treasurer during the tenure of former LP communications director Bill Winter. What differences do you see between that time and now?
Tuniewicz: in the late ’90s and into 2000s, we had a much larger staff, 30,000 members, and revenue approaching 3 million as I recall. All this with a policy manual of just 30 pages! The approach with Mr Winter and his deputy was to engage the news cycle on a daily basis, reach out to a broad range of statewide and local news publications & radio, and engage in interview activities. Their progress was measured by the reach of the articles and the number of them. It was a highly effective strategy that got our chair on national news programs regularly.
Our communication team, all volunteers, are today focused on the three principal social media channels of Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. That has been perceived as something that is functioning well.
But the real question is how does it translate into increased fundraising dollars, membership increases, and building a better reputation for the party and its positions? No answers there yet.
IPR: what are the most important things to be done during the last 12 months of this LNC’s term?
Tuniewicz: My view is we need to move into hiring mode quickly. A couple well paid fundraising staff members or contractors as soon as possible in June or July.. A communications director in January in advance of the presidential election year.
Board and governance training that includes substantial revisions or a complete rebuild of our policy manual and secretary’s manual, both of which are lengthy and highly prescriptive documents that in my opinion stifle innovation of the board and the staff.
Lastly I think it’s important that our chair and leadership acknowledge our failures publicly while defining the path forward. I can certainly do so as an individual board member…. it is our past decisions and actions that have brought us to this point, and as an LNC member I own that….but I think it is a highlight of good leadership to take responsibility then move on.
IPR: How are things in your region, Region 6?
Tuniewicz: Pretty good. As a South Dakota voter for the last several years, I’m pleased to represent those nine plains and Midwestern states. Our last meeting of chairs was a two-hour conversation surrounding fundraising best practices, related goals, objectives, tools, and technology. I think there’s a real hunger for that, and I’m happy to try and facilitate those kinds of exchanges among the states in our region and beyond.
IPR: What is being done about candidate training?
Tuniewicz: The national LP currently offers weekend training sessions provided by third party and shares in the cost of providing it with sponsoring state(s) in a region. I think the national Party picks up half the cost. I’m not sure how many of these trainings have taken place.
IPR: There seems to be a respectable amount of turnover within the LNC. Have there been any indications of other departures?
Tuniewicz: I think we’ve had about 25% of our board turn over in the past year. These include former vice chair Josh Smith, former Executive Committee member Brian Elliott, and CA region Rep. Carrie Eiler most recently. While there are others and their reasons may vary, I think that in the case of the three above my general impression is that they were dissatisfied with things we were or were not doing, enough so that they chose to leave.
I’m concerned about other LNC members potentially leaving the body, and the impact that has on our ability to execute on goals and objectives. For myself personally I’ve reluctantly committed to the states of my region to serve through until the end of our next national convention.
There are almost always “sides” to any event. Whether advisarial or in agreement, the party leaders that were mentioned in the interview will have their own opinion.
The suggestion to interview them makes sense to me.
I would like to say there should not be any “sides” to this issue.
Also, Thanks to the commentors above.
gail lightfoot
San Luis Opispo. CA [Pismo Beach]
I believe it is appropriate to respond in support of the comment made earlier about “respectfully shared opinions have always seemed welcome”.
I completely agree. But I need to add something regarding a misconception that I have just recently heard is still in existence within the LP.
I have known Dr Phillies since he first walked up to me at the 2006 Portland convention, introduced himself, and told me that he was running for president.
After our brief, but pleasant conversation ended, someone else I knew said “oh, that’s just Phillies. He’s a troublemaker. Ignore him.”
I ended up coming out of that convention serving as an alternate on the LNC, and started running into Dr Phillies at just about every meeting. He was a fly on the wall. He raised issue with a lot of things taking place. A troublemaker.
Sometimes he raised questions that I thought were valid and sometimes not. We had numerous conversations over the years. But unlike some, he was respectful of the process. At times I found him to be an ally on several important issues and I found it quite useful to have a troublemaker in the room watching the process. Other times I did not.
From the perspective of leadership in any organization, troublemakers may at times be annoying and felt to be in the way. And some are actually just in the way. I remember the time that after a vote on a future convention site a member of my region openly threatened me for “not representing my region” for not voting for his state’s bid. My answer was that it was not the best choice and pointed out that the site I voted for was in another state that was also in the region! (Neither choice won). I was being challenged by a troublemaker who was simply in the way.
But others over the years, including Dr Phillies, have performed an important service by holding the system accountable. Right or wrong, he wants answers and clarity on events that he believes are not clear. That is what happens here. While I am sure that a few times he has spoken with anger in his voice, my general memory of those years was that he was respectful and discussions, even when disagreeing, were worth having.
So where am I going with this? Recently, I started writing some lengthy comments that Dr Phillies “elevated” to articles. I wrote some more, and they were published. I know some agree with me and others do not, but my voice has been permitted to be heard. To some people I am now a troublemaker. Maybe I always have been.
A friend of mine asked some people in the libertarian party to visit these sites and read what I have written. This interview is also something they should see, however their answer was something to the effect that Dr Phillies runs IPR, so they won’t visit. They don’t like him. What a sad and polarizing world we live in. My guess is that they don’t like him because in their view he is simply a troublemaker.
And just what is wrong with that? Agree or disagree, opinions here are being treated with respect. They might learn something.
Interviews like this give perspective that all of us should be allowed to see.
Mark and George, thank you for your work. I hope to be able to run for regional rep at some point and I appreciate your voice and representation.
Mark has a lot of institutional memory and has served in public office. He wrote a fine how-to essay on getting in local office that I hope he could share here.
I hope other LNC members will consent to be interviewed here at IPR, where respectfully shared opinions have always seemed welcome.
You should interview Angela McArdle or Caryn Ann Harlos and get their side of the story.