The following regards an ongoing discussion between members of the Libertarian National Committee concerning Party finances, specifically as related to branding.
Email dated October 3, 2015 from Tim Hagan, Treasurer
The August End-of-Month Financial Reports are attached. The reserve, which is at $110,548, has gotten above the target level due to August having a surplus of $58.7k. However, I must caution that we do have ballot access expenses coming up that will reduce the reserve.
As Mr. Benedict mentioned in an e-mail, Branding Expense is about to run above budget. Year to date $19,236 has been spent and we budgeted $20,000. The roll-out of the new logo created the opportunity for more branding revenue through polo shirt sales and a targeted letter to help fund branding, but also more branding expenses. I’d like an e-mail ballot to amend the budget by increasing line 26 Branding/Political Materials Revenue by $15,000 from $20,200 to $35,200 and by increasing line 55 Branding/Political Materials Expense by $15,000 from $20,000 to $35,000. Looking for co-sponsors or for the Chair to sponsor this motion.
Tim Hagan
Some discussion ensued after which this Motion was made on October 4, 2015:
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 14, 2015 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Sponsor: Sarwark
Motion: to amend the budget by increasing line 26 Branding/Political Materials Revenue by $15,000 from $20,200 to $35,200 and by increasing line 55 Branding/Political Materials Expense by $15,000 from $20,000 to $35,000
Alicia Mattson
LNC Secretary
Too late for Feldman to vote, they get a ten day window.
Voting “aye”: Craig, Goldstein, Hagan, Johnson, Katz, Kirkland, Lark, Mattson, McLendon, Redpath, Vohra, Wiener
Voting “nay”: Ludlow, Riemers
With a final vote tally of 12-2, the motion PASSES.
Alicia Mattson
LNC Secretary
Though Bittner commented that it didn’t appear his “aye” vote was counted and he would like confirmation that Feldman did not intend to vote
Come to think of it, I don’t know the answer to that one either.
“The Libertarian Party needs to raise more money for the petition drive in Oklahoma or there’s a pretty good chance it will fail.”
One thing that MIGHT save the LP of OK petition drive is IF the people who are collecting signatures on the Medical Marijuana petition (which is being circulated by unpaid volunteers, since the group doing it has no money) also gets a lot of signatures on the Libertarian Party petition. I know that the Libertarian Party petition has been made available to people working on the Medical Marijuana petition, but I don’t know how many signatures they have collected on it so far, nor do I know what the validity rate is on any signatures that they have collected on the LP petition. Time will tell the answers.
I am not a website designer. I understand the desire to wait to do whatever redesign of the website until the new logo. But how does that increase the cost of the redesign in any significant way? How is it more expensive to use the new logo rather than the old logo if one is already redesigning the site. I never understood this tying of the new logo to the web costs other than timing.
==I share many of these same concerns. I would appreciate hearing from the IT Committee or the Chair as to just how much we anticipate upgrading the website will cost.
As I said before, I think it is unavoidable to spend money updating our literature and materials with our new logo. As Mr. Benedict later clarified, it would also be pointless, in my opinion, to refuse to purchase stock to replace items that have sold quickly – if you’re selling hotcakes, flour is an expense, but it makes sense to allocate more money to flour if it results in more sales.
As the Secretary points out, I don’t know where we are on the website redesign. It seems there are two things being discussed: incorporating the new logo, and redesigning the site in its entirety. Certainly the latter will cost more, but if it’s going to be done, couldn’t the logo incorporation be done along with it? How much will the latter cost? If it costs more than we’ve allocated for IT, wouldn’t it require a vote of the LNC, making it problematic to tell donors it will be done if they donate? We could always return the money, but history doesn’t support the likelihood of this, nor is it an approach likely to endear us to our donors.
Finally, thank you for pointing out the need to separate different items that a lot of people, certainly including me, have been conflating. Purchasing items for resale, modifying the website, and purchasing promotional items are all different activities – although the items we sell certainly are also part of “promotion.” Materials we send out for promotional purposes must be spot-on and consistently branded. Items we sell can be made in a variety of styles, depending on what sells – and, of course, bring in revenue. As for the website, it isn’t entirely clear to me what is wrong with our current website and, more importantly, that the most urgent thing we can do to move public policy in a libertarian direction by electing Libertarians to public office involves redesigning our entire website, as opposed to modifying it. However, I’m not a marketing expert, so if I’m wrong on that, so be it.
Joshua Katz
Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)==
For example I threw a small bit at the convention theme fundraiser. Though my cynical side said they don’t give a crap about what is voted for. Just like the logo. That mail poll meant nothing.
Paulie, I agree but then it feels like a Stockholm situation. (I am also FAR from a major donor- my monthly might as well be nothing – but it is a commitment for me – particularly right now).
So I totally see your point- but it is just as bad on long term morale etc for people to feel a bit burned. (Yes I know – get over it already)
I personally think they need to move towards asking for more targeted funds and put a lot of things into the category of – do it if it gets funded.
I haven’t cancelled my monthly yet just -still considering it. They will get the money anyways – I will put it aside for a specfic fundraiser.
Personally I encourage a mix of both. Non-targeted donations encourage them to send out fewer “sky is falling” yellow emergency letters, which I think are terrible for long term morale and growth, even if they do provide short term cash infusions. Targeted donations help encourage more asking for targeted donations, which I think is more effective. I support the party in both of these ways, although I am far from a major donor, and encourage others to do so as well.
Caryn Ann Harlos writes (October 5, 2015 at 7:54 am), If I had known this was coming (perhaps I should have), I would have earmarked all my donations for something else if possible. I have a monthly donation going in now that I am considering stopping and putting aside to just give to earmarked projects.
I would encourage you to do exactly that. From where I sit, the LNC does not spend money wisely enough to warrant giving them non-targeted funds. Better to figure out what you think they ought to be spending money on, and then make a targeted donation for that purpose.
Good point.
Usually the things that should go without saying often need to be said:)
It *should* go without saying that a guy who advocates eugenics and prattles about the “fear of the Jews” and parasitic immigrants is not a Libertarian…. but….
That should go without saying. I think her reasons for her yes vote made sense also.
She is right about the issue of good faith estimates and keeping to what has been estimated and how the donors will react (and the fact that the donors matter)
In voting yes?
“it is rather suspicious how these obvious trolls seemed to be all over your blog, with you going as far as interviewing them (as if they should be taken seriously)”
The Saturnalian is an experimental project with some serious and some not-so-serious material. Robert Milnes calls it “an obscure rag that just about nobody reads, but should.” Perhaps trolls comment there because they know I won’t delete their comments. There hasn’t been much commenting there lately.
” It is also rather suspicious how nobody here knows you outside of this site, ”
I’ve used this pseudonym on Wikipedia/Wikinews since 2007/2008.
” how you refused to meet with anyone in person or even talk to anyone on the phone”
I’ve actually done some phone interviews for Wikinews but I do it only as a last resort. I have no interest in intersecting my real life with my internet persona.
I do not think that people understand the urgency of the Oklahoma situation. The amount budgeted for the project was really not enough, and there is an above average chance that the LP of OK drive will fail if more money does not materialize. DON’T SAY YOU WERE NOT WARNED IF THIS PETITION DRIVE FAILS.
Alicia is right.
“William Saturn
October 10, 2015 at 2:17 am
Was I mentioned in the comments? Please e-mail them to me as well.”
You were not mentioned in the email, but it is rather suspicious how these obvious trolls seemed to be all over your blog, with you going as far as interviewing them (as if they should be taken seriously). It is also rather suspicious how nobody here knows you outside of this site, and how you refused to meet with anyone in person or even talk to anyone on the phone. The troll or trolls seem to have access to the IPR dashboard, which you also have.
Maybe you are not guilty of anything, but the facts above are enough to make one wonder.
Joe Wendt is highly suspicious as well, especially given his apparent affinity for Invictus Augustus, another individual who behaves in a very suspicious manner.
Was I mentioned in the comments? Please e-mail them to me as well.
Subscriptions. Not specific to me.
Caryn, are they specific to you, or are you just getting copies of the troll’s IPR comments because you subscribed to the articles?
Sent. Just filthy trolling
“Caryn Ann Harlos
October 10, 2015 at 12:11 am
You really don’t want to know.”
Probably just more trash talk. I may have seen it here before it was deleted. Can you send it to me, or send it to Paul if you don’t have an email address for me? Thanks.
You really don’t want to know.
“Caryn Ann Harlos
October 10, 2015 at 12:04 am
Andy yes.”
What did the notifications say?
Andy yes.
“Nathan Norman
October 10, 2015 at 12:00 am
And after all … Paulie’s the troll
I am the walrus I am the eggman
Goo goo g’joob”
Joe Wendt, or William Saturn?
“Caryn Ann Harlos
October 9, 2015 at 11:49 pm
I had email notifications.
WTH was that?”
Email notifications about what? The troll posts?
I had email notifications.
WTH was that?
“I am actually the IPR troll along”
We are one to you, Wendt.
“Wait I just hallucinated that. Joe Wendt did not say that. I am talking myself.”
Is Joe Wendt playing cover up now?
“Joe Wendt
October 9, 2015 at 10:45 pm
Andy is just jealous of people who are better petitioners and more libertarian than he is such as Scott Kohlhaas, Eric Dondero, Chaz Tuttle, Emmett Reistroffer, Darryl Bonner, John Michael, Rob Wilkinson, and many others. Andy is nothing but a jealous hater and a racist. Also, there is nothing wrong with Andy (Jacobs) and his homo butt buddy Paul Frankel being racists or homosexuals but why do they have to hate everyone who is not a homosexual so much? Also I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to use illegal drugs but these guys use them all the time so they are almost never even coherent and that is not a good thing at all.”
Did Joe Wendt just give himself away as the IPR Troll?
“Mark Axinn
October 9, 2015 at 9:54 pm
Caryn Ann–
I agree with you about targeted donations. The last one I made, which I highly endorse, was for OK ballot access petition drive. It has its own tab on LP.org under Donate.”
The Libertarian Party needs to raise more money for the petition drive in Oklahoma or there’s a pretty good chance it will fail. Oklahoma is a very difficult state to find locations with public foot traffic where one can collect signatures without being run out, plus 48% of the population of Oklahoma is not registered to vote, and we’ve been told that you can’t register people and have them sign the petition the same day. The amount of money that the LP is paying for signatures is not a competitive rate for 2015 (the LP paid more money last year in Illinois, and Illinois is an easier state to collect signatures in), and some of the petitioners that were working in Oklahoma already left for higher paying petition drives in other states. Multiple petitioners have been told about the LP drive in Oklahoma, and none of them want to go to Oklahoma because it is not paying enough. The LP petition is the only petition that is paying in Oklahoma, and it is the only petition that is likely to pay in Oklahoma (there’s a Medical Marijuana petition, and the Green Party has a petition, but neither group has any money), while there are other states where there are multiple petitions that are paying.
There are currently only 3 experienced petitioners working in Oklahoma, but one of them said that they are leaving soon (if they have not already left), and they said that they are not going to go back unless the pay goes up. The other two experienced petitioners who are working in Oklahoma may end up leaving for “greener pastures” as well. There are a few inexperienced local people working on the petition, but they are not bringing in very many signatures.
I warned about all of these things happening to people on the LNC well before the petition drive started. I told them that we may run into problems getting access to locations, and I suggested that they have an attorney contact the “authorities” in Oklahoma before the petition drive started to clarify with them that we have a right to collect signatures at public venues, but nobody bothered to do this. I also warned them that the later they started the petition drive, the more likely it would be that petitioner circulators would get hired to work on petition drives in other states, and that they’d have a hard time finding petitioners who wanted to work in Oklahoma. They ignored me on this as well.
So more money needs to be raised for the LP petition drive in Oklahoma pronto, or it is going to be at risk of failing, which will be a shame, because that will mean 16 years since the Libertarian Party had party status in Oklahoma, and it will also mean 16 years since people in Oklahoma had anyone else to vote for in the race for President other than a Democrat or a Republican, and they won’t get another shot at having another choice on the ballot for President until 2020.
The amount of money that the LNC budgeted for Oklahoma was based on pay rates from many years ago which are not in line with reality for 2015, nor did they take into account that the validity rates on petitions in Oklahoma are lower than a lot of states (due to 48% of the population not being registered to vote, and the inability to register people and have them sign the same day, and due to having to separate 77 counties on different petition pages, and due to several cities in Oklahoma being divided into more than one county) and I think that they are also banking on more volunteer signatures than are realistic (there are volunteers collecting signatures here, but given the small size of the LP of Oklahoma, and given the difficulty of collecting signatures in Oklahoma, I doubt the volunteers will gather 5,000 signatures).
Thank you!
She isn’t going away. McDonalds has the arches and Ronald McDonald. The Democrats have the D in a circle and the donkey. The Greens have their green diamond, but if anyone wants to use any of their past logos who’s to stop them? The LP will continue to have Lady Liberty, the porcupine, the penguin, and even TANSTAAFL regardless of how much Trump Hair/Rand Paul torch aka chicken-ka-bob is adopted (or not, as the case may be).
Caryn Ann–
I agree with you about targeted donations. The last one I made, which I highly endorse, was for OK ballot access petition drive. It has its own tab on LP.org under Donate.
Bring back Lady Liberty!!
You’re allowed to use any logo you want. But, using different logos is the opposite of good marketing.
Wrights has said no strongly and publicly. I don’t think Ruwart has to that extent, though she has said no.
She may just be promoting her new book.
I don’t believe they ever really went away. And if we don’t see some dramatic improvement in the membership numbers and finances in the next few months they’ll have a pretty solid case to make to delegates who care about recent vs promised performance more than factionalism. That’s not me taking their side, but rather pointing out the obvious, or what should be obvious.
Ruwart and Wrights have both been asked, and both explicitly said they are not running. My best guess is that the facebook posting, besides giving them something to do, is aimed at making LP members and those curious enough to join LP facebook groups more solidly ideologically libertarian, or if they already are, giving them arguments to use and posts to share with their non-libertarian friends. Maybe they aren’t being honest about disavowing running or will change one of their minds, but I have no reason to presume dishonesty.
Paulie,
==There is actually nothing that says prior logo(s) can’t also be used.===
In fact the design guidelines encourage the continued use of Liberty. And I can tell you… if my husband and I are successful in getting an affiliate going here… at least until there is a membership going that can vote something different into play, I am not using that new logo.
George,
==That’s actually an important statement. It puts LNC members who support the Reeves faction in the position where they need to speak up or appear to agree with the position.==
Agreed. And I love Doug.
==There is some evidence, notably the considerable cost of audits of LNC operations, that the shadowed cabal from several LNCs ago is contemplating a return.==
I am not following…??
==On another side, Mary Ruwart’s massive preaching to the choir facebook posting program makes limited sense as a path to enhancing the strength of the Libertarian Party, but much more sense as the front end of a Presidential campaign. A hypothetical Ruwatt campaign seems unlikely to be as ineffective as the last several Presidential campaigns. For starters, a Ruwart campaign might actually spend money on advertising and other propagation schemes.==
It makes sense on both counts. I would volunteer zealously for a Ruwart campaign.
There is actually nothing that says prior logo(s) can’t also be used.
On one hand I agree with you Matt, but on the other, I think this logo change is a self-imposed blow to the head, and I don’t mind just being a general pain in the bumpkus about it. And it is money I gave….
I don’t think this logo will build awareness.. or build on the awareness that the one already established. God, it just reeks of corporatism… no character. Sorry, I thought i was getting over the logo butthurt but apparently not.
I strongly opposed changing the logo. I think it was a waste of time and resources. This is a good example of that. But, now that its been done, I think it is important to change our marketing materials accordingly. You can’t build awareness of a logo by using a different one.
The change doesn’t have to happen overnight. But, we shouldn’t be using two logos for any longer than necessary.
Doug Craig write: “To be clear…until I hear different it is my understanding the Wes Wagner group is the group that is the legal state chapter and the one the we consider the legal entity. If I am missing something please let me know
Doug Craig”
That’s actually an important statement. It puts LNC members who support the Reeves faction in the position where they need to speak up or appear to agree with the position.
There is some evidence, notably the considerable cost of audits of LNC operations, that the shadowed cabal from several LNCs ago is contemplating a return.
On another side, Mary Ruwart’s massive preaching to the choir facebook posting program makes limited sense as a path to enhancing the strength of the Libertarian Party, but much more sense as the front end of a Presidential campaign. A hypothetical Ruwatt campaign seems unlikely to be as ineffective as the last several Presidential campaigns. For starters, a Ruwart campaign might actually spend money on advertising and other propagation schemes.
Yes I did miss a few. That archive link is where I am going to regularly visit.
And yeah with Doug…. #thatwasrandom
I have no idea what Doug’s comment had to do with the preceding discussion. Maybe he just found it more convenient to reply to an unrelated LNC email and didn’t bother to erase the unrelated discussion. That would be my best guess.
As Wes (Benedict, not Wagner) pointed out, the “spending” is not necessarily even spending at all. A lot of it comes with revenues attached, but has to involve spending to buy the items that are for sale.
Glad you liked the archive link. I think there are a few emails there you may have missed. I find that not all of them make it to my email.
And new LNC member Ludlow makes sense… (particularly on the issue that this the member’s money and we are not cash-flush—- of course I am indeed re-arguing the logo because I think it isn’t going to help us, it sucks us of all personality with the bland branding that removes the Statue of Liberty which was a strong identifier with our party— still quite vexed by this nonsense that was passed):
==
This is a tricky vote for me. I am of the mindset that this will likely
pass, but I believe it should not. I would like to voice that reasoning
below.
I felt extremely under-prepared when discussing these points at the
previous meeting as I had only been elected to the position 4 days prior.
That said, my arguments against the logo were that there was seemingly no
real plan of attack for using it. I feel that point has now been
vindicated if not at least illustrated. I strongly favor change
(seriously, I’m young and impetuous to a fault), but I also favor it to
make business sense. This went from a logo change, to a logo change +
$5,000 to a logo change + $5,000 + $30,000.
Yes we need to change the material, but this mentality of just doing it all
at once strikes me as a kid-in-a-candy-shop mentality. This money isn’t
earned, it’s donated for the goal of promoting a Libertarian agenda, for
growing the party, etc. There is simply no evidence – at all – that
immediately changing our logo will accomplish this in any capacity. I
cannot imagine one of you would be willing to drop another $30,000 of your
own money (especially given our existing budgetary constraints) simply to
change your business branding on the fly. I would certainly not for any of
my businesses. We’re willing to be hasty with this, in my opinion, because
it is not our money.
Many large corporations phase in branding changes, sometimes over a few
years even. I strongly suggest that we do the same thing. I do not
believe that the membership levels of commitment of donations to the LP are
going to change even a little bit whether we change our logo material today
or over the next year or two. Blowing through this cash is a poor business
decision.
I vote NO.
-Kevin Ludlow
Region 7==
This money isn’t
earned, it’s donated for the goal of promoting a Libertarian agenda, for
growing the party, etc. There is simply no evidence – at all – that
immediately changing our logo will accomplish this in any capacity.
THAT! TEN THOUSAND TIMES THAT!
I don’t think changing it all is effective, but hell to the yes on that point.
Chair Sarwark goes on to clarify that the logo end up costing considerably less than $5,000 (to me, sorry…. wrong to pass something without even knowing what it would cost…. but then again, I wouldn’t find any cost reasonable in ditching our most recognizable symbol).
But then things got odd…. in response to this whole discussion on budgeting, an email chain was started with this:
==To be clear…until I hear different it is my understanding the Wes Wagner group is the group that is the legal state chapter and the one the we consider the legal entity. If I am missing something please let me know
Doug Craig==
Ruh. Roh. I think I am going to be firing up another Oregon article.
Wagner hasn’t sacrificed any animals or anything has he?
Paulie, thank you for that archive link… that helps a LOT.
Regarding Benedict and Katz’ emails…
Good to know they are not throwing anything out. And yes it is understandable that once a logo is changed, the infrastructure and products must be updated. Of course.
I am still just objecting (as Paulie) said to the done decision and the money we are paying for the new logo and the IMHO bad decision to complete change our look to something that looks like a johnny-come-lately insurance company.
That’s just me. Yes, the decision has been made (and thank you Norm! for voting against it), and they must move forward. Doesn’t mean I gotta pay for it. Free market. I use my wallet. I will gladly fund things I think are the best use of our resources.
==It has come to my attention that my last email may have sounded like I was advocating throwing away promotional materials. I was suggesting two possibilities: continue to use them, or get rid of them. The argument for not using materials with the old logo would be maintaining consistency. The argument for continuing to use them would be, well, we already have them. On further consideration, I’ve come to the view that the best procedure would be to use up what we have and use the new logo as we replace items. Wes’ later email seems to say that there isn’t much to use up or get rid of anyway.
That said, I reiterate my main point: when we adopted the new logo, we took responsibility for updating all our materials. You can’t agree to build a new clubhouse but not want to budget for the wood. Therefore, we should budget money for doing so. I apologize for clouding this point by including other matters. Other longer-term projects have been delayed because of the new logo’s impact on them, so those need to be funded now as well.
Joshua Katz
Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)==
==Most of the increase in the budget is required because we have sold so many of the old items this year that I personally designed, and those were designed before the new logo was adopted.
There might be a misunderstanding that we’re spending $30,000 on items with the new logo this year. That’s simply not the case, at least not so far.
I personally designed the black T-shirt and blue hat here. An intern designed the white T-shirt several years ago:
http://lpstore.org/apparel/
All these brochures have the old logo and we’ve sold a bunch, particularly the Declaration of Independence (a real graphic designer did the Declaration).
http://lpstore.org/brochures/
I designed this door hanger as well. We’ve sold over a million (over several years) I’m pretty sure:
http://lpstore.org/door-hangers/
I personally designed these signs and stickers that we continue to sell:
http://lpstore.org/stickers-signs/
We will be replacing some of those items designed by me with items designed by professional graphic designers that have the new logo, but the budget shortfall on branding items is primarily due to high demand for the ugly things I designed myself, and that I rolled out without formal marketing studies.
Now to be clear, not 100% of the branding budget is items sold at LPStore.org. But, the major consequence of not increasing the budget for branding would be that instead of replenishing stock for things we sell, we’d just put a big graphic that says “SORRY WE’RE SOLD OUT” at LPStore.org for each item as we run out.
Wes Benedict, Executive Director==
Paulie that is true to an extent. And I accept the decision has been made. And then I gotta do what I gotta do… and that is likely (I haven’t decided yet) to stop sending in unspecified funds. Decision has been made by the people put into offices by our membership… voluntary association. Got it. My money, my decision what to do with it, and I don’t want it going to into awful branding I opposed. I am willing to give, but in order to stop my bitching, I am really considering just targeted fundraisers. I haven’t cancelled my monthly yet, but am considering it. I just don’t want to be the cause of an any downward blip in giving on the charts which hurts my heart. So I am torn. I think the logo decision was bad both money-wise and branding wise. It is not a popular logo… a good chunk of members are grinning and bearing it.
It sounds to me like the objections are coming from people who don’t like the new logo. Fair enough, I don’t like it either, but that vote took place earlier and this one is just minor housekeeping. It’s just like some people like to re-argue the office purchase (to take a decision I actually agreed with) every time someone mentions installing a sprinkler system or anything to deal with some other consequence of the prior decision.
The way our budgeting process works, the spending can’t go over 110% percent of the budgeted amount. (You can always take in more revenue than budgeted).
Even though branding is in large part self-funded (people who like the new logo buying new shirts, donors responding to a letter asking for targeted donations for branding, etc.), the cost (e.g. $20 + 5 S&H for a polo shirt) has to be reflected in the books as an expense and that expense line was close to exceeding the budgeted amount for the year.
I have some sympathy for Shane’s suggestion to “just blow the budget,” and would consider doing something like that in my own business, but there are specific policy manual provisions that prohibit that right now.
I read that differently as just saying they are not going to be throwing anything out, not that there is nothing to be thrown out. But if it’s the latter, it would be because they are intentionally keeping inventory low in anticipation of the change.
I mentioned this on the other thread, but for anyone else having that problem see http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/date.html
E.G.
[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-09: Increase Branding Budget Guy McLendon
[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-09: Increase Branding Budget Scott L.
[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-09: Increase Branding Budget Sam Goldstein
You can also sort by thread, author etc.
Fortunately it looks more like a torch in a breeze.
The eagle is traditionally associated with republicans and nazis and other nationalists.
Very bad choice.
Votes are coming in, but unless I am missing something it isn’t always possible to identify the sender of the emails… if they don’t sign it. So far all the votes are yes. The only ones I can identify are Vohra and Lieberman,
I agree Paulie… I always respond to them and dig in.
That’s why the party should do a lot more of them.
It appears to have been said in subsequent discussions that there is nothing to be thrown out…. very unclear to me why… though my guess is that they didn’t have a “stockpile” so that they are being used, and in fact, have been re-ordered to some extent during this transition. (Paulie, you covered that with Wes’ email)
I have to say it out loud once in this discussion and shut up. I hate the new logo. I don’t approve of any portion of the funds for “rebranding” though I understand that a lot of that is just general updating so it is difficult to parse out.I still think I am going to save myself a lot of lathered indignation and re-vamp my giving (by canceling my monthly and putting aside to earmarked funds so that I don’t feel screwed)…. for my own stewardship and peace of mind. I tended to do that a lot anyways.. biggest gifts always to specific calls. This way it will be bigger gifts to earmarked projects or to candidates now that we are approaching election season. I might feel better just finding a few radical candidates to support…. particularly until this Oregon issue is resolved one way or another. Just thinking out loud. I’m not a big donor by any stretch of the imagination, so there will be no angst about it to anyone but me. My biggest donations to the LP are in time and work.
Notice I used the new logo in the article. I have accepted it. Doesn’t mean I like it. (and yes, will get one of the new polos for use at events). I am not putting any bumper sticker with that thing on my car. I have some pretty much text-only ones that I can use for years to come.
The vote on updating the logo was already done. This isn’t it. This vote is on ordering the materials with the new logo, making website changes, and so forth. It’s a housekeeping thing. At least at this stage, it doesn’t sound like the foolishness about throwing away the old materials will be implemented.
“Shane
October 5, 2015 at 8:34 am
Wow. Petty waste of time. Blow the budget if you’re not going into a hole and don’t burden anyone with administrative BS.
As for ‘branding’ I don’t think anyone on the board or staff even knows what that means. If they do, they surely don’t know how to measure its effectiveness.
How many new members have resulted in the branding change? How man new registered voters? Yep, didn’t think so.”
I agree. This does not strike me as a productive use of donor money. How about spending money on more important projects, like new membership recruitment, ballot access, etc…?
Wes Benedict writes:
Wes makes more sense than Joshua on this.
Roland Riemers writes
The secretary takes official minutes, which are detailed, accurate and published in a timely manner, unlike what we experienced for most of the previous term. They are available on the national website. LNC members should know where. There are also the unofficial “minutes” we take of public LNC meetings and accompanying discussions at IPR. Liberty For America summarizes the highlights.
That would be a huge waste that we can’t afford.
False. There’s such a thing as transition with all branding changes, and the motion or discussion adopted along with the logo change was that we could keep using the old symbols as well.
If they throw anything out, please send it to me. I’ll take up a fund drive for the shipping costs.
It’s barely starting. Personally I am not a fan of the new logo, but that was something a lot of people were asking for on the social media teams and that is the one the LNC picked. Waiting on the decision to be made, which took a long time, was used as a reason or excuse to wait on updating the website and outreach materials, since they will all need the new logo on them, so now they can do all that, if and when they have the money. And the website update may or may not be tied in with a database update of some some sort. So all sorts of things were waiting on the logo change, but they also need money.
Wow. Petty waste of time. Blow the budget if you’re not going into a hole and don’t burden anyone with administrative BS.
As for “branding” I don’t think anyone on the board or staff even knows what that means. If they do, they surely don’t know how to measure its effectiveness.
How many new members have resulted in the branding change? How man new registered voters? Yep, didn’t think so.
The discussions right now seem to be people not clear on precisely *what* they decided at the last meeting and these points:
1. Is this additional expense reasonable? It seems somewhat snuck in considering the sticker shock of the new logo which wasn’t received with thunderous acclaim (that last part is my observation)
2. Are they throwing out old stuff (Katz argued they should as it is foolish to have inconsistent branding)?
My own commentary: If I had known this was coming (perhaps I should have), I would have earmarked all my donations for something else if possible. I have a monthly donation going in now that I am considering stopping and putting aside to just give to earmarked projects.
Can a scale be established for political budgeting?
For example a scale with a high side of 10 and a low side of what the US Congress does?
A reasonable budget process would not create this difficulty.
Seems reasonable to me.
What She Said…
Commenting to subscribe