[Please don't raise LP dues]

Discussion
1

Dear Kelley,

Thank you for your well thought out and intentioned sentiments.

To address your points, first of all the LNC has cut the LPHQ staff
drastically over the past several years and in fact just fired several
more people, including Ron Crickenberger. There's not much more
left to cut without closing up entirely.

As far as the actual cost of the membership, it costs far more than $25.00
to recruit a member, much less maintain one. As well, we have to remember
that under UMP, each state LP gets the lions share of the dues, not
national.
The LP is a business and membership in it is a product. We cannot
continue to sell this product for less that its cost and stay in business.

If we lose 10% of our members, when the dues go up to $50.00 a month,
we have an increase in revenue of 80%. And, most people don't think
we'll lose that many. In fact, a large group feels that we will actually
sell MORE membership as the perceived value goes up.

One more thing. Before UMP, LPCa membership was $25.00 and national
LP membership was also $25.00 for a total of $50.00. This was years ago.
To set the dues at $50.00 is not an increase, but in reality just a return
to
the original price of dual membership.

Four dollars a month just isn't that much money to ask for.
I respect your viewpoint and the LPCa Executive Committee carefully
considered it when we voted to support an increase. We're a private
organization and we have to stay solvent to be involved in politics.

Thanks again for your concern and involvement.

Yours,

Bruce Cohen
LPCa Executive Committee (Board of Directors)

PS I answer all my e-mail so, always feel free to write me about this or any
other concern.

2

Bruce,

Please explain how "it costs far more than $25.00 to recruit a member".

If this is simply the membership development budget divided by the number of
new members, then I'll be happy to ship a book on activity based costing to
the LPHQ for review by the LNC. I'll even throw in a copy for the LPCa. If
the LP really were a business, this basic lesson from Finance 101 would
already be well understood.

Frankly, I just can't tell you how furious I was to receive two identical
copies of the exact same fundraising letter, just because I didn't send in a
check when I got the first one. I'm not retarded. I know what the first
letter said. I decided not to send money. If anything, the second letter
only strengthened my resolve not to send in another penny above basic
membership dues. Now that the dues are going to increase, I'm for the first
time since college deciding whether or not to renew my membership in the LP.
Part of me thinks I'd be better off losing my position as an officer and
losing my vote at meetings if I spent that money as a direct contribution to
the LPSF instead of wasting it on a national (and state) organization that
hasn't a clue about how real businesses work.

Rob
LPSF Vice-Chair (until my LP membership runs out)

3

Rob,

If you're so anti-LP, how about just resigning right now and letting someone
that
wants to support them take over?

And, if you read my letter, you would see that I explained in general terms
where
the money goes once the $25.00 is received so I don't feel like
re-explaining.

Let's think of it another way: When the LP spends $1000.00 in recruitment
efforts,
they do not get $1000.00 in revenue from the new members.

Simple accounting, gozouta is more than gozinta.

You sir, with your angry letter and attitude miss the whole point.
We, as your elected representative carefully considered this from many
angles. We discussed and agonized for days. None of this money
will go into my pocket or any other LPCA ExCom member's, nor increase
our power. In point of fact, we feel that national ought to get 100% of the
increase.

So, instead of being a typical 'Angrytarian', listen to, consider and
discuss
the facts. Choose what side you wish to come down on and make your
case intelligently and politely. We'll probably disagree on some other
issue on another day, by the way.

But, there ought not to be any malice on your part, since there certainly is
none
on ours.

4

Bruce,

  You seem to have been listening to Aaron Starr too much. What's this slight-of-hand with the numbers? The claim that a $50 membership level does not represent a dues increase because the pre-Unified Membership Plan cost was similar is highly misleading. Under the proposed dues increase, $50 would be the *minimum* payment amount, whereas pre-UMP people had the option to pay only $25 by joining at one level and not the other. Furthermore, part of the trade-off of joining UMP, which was generally seen as a negative at the time of joining, was that it required California Libertarians giving up a certain amount of financial independence to the national office as a condition of participating in their plan. The LPC would not be getting this independence back under your proposed dues increase, so to look only at the cost of membership is really comparing apples and oranges.

  And who are the members of this "large group" of people you say believe that membership numbers will go up if the price of membership is increased to $50 a year? I'd like some names! The only reason we'd be likely to sell more membership is a temporary spike of people trying to beat the price increase. When it came time to renew, I predict we'd lose members in droves. Not to mention they'll be harder to get in the future, and more skewed toward attracting only the wealthy.

  You say $25 doesn't cover the cost of recruiting a member. That very much depends how the member is recruited. It's true that renting non-movement (usually conservative) lists and sending out direct mail to those lists is expensive, and has not always paid for itself.

   Using wording like "$__ a month isn't that much money," or "Only pennies a day!" are how businesses sometimes advertise in order to make people focus on these low numbers instead of the total or longer-term cost. One could just as legitimately state it the other way by saying that the LP would be asking its members to contribute $200 each every presidential election cycle.

  If you say national has already cut its operations to the bone, let's see the numbers. Office rental, staff salaries, and exactly what work tasks those salaries are compensating. Remember, it was only last year that we were paying a generous 5-figure salary to a "marketing director" whose top conclusion was that we need to get rid of the name "Libertarian Party." I have yet to hear anybody in the national leadership acknowledge that this was a total and complete waste of our money.

  Finally, much as I get the impression that some of our leadership secretly wishes we were a for-profit operation of people working in cubicles and wearing suits and ties, the LP is not a business. Membership in the Libertarian Party is not a product. The LPC Executive Committee is not a Board of Directors. Using corporate metaphors for what we do is only going to turn a lot of young and idealistic people who are mistrustful of corporations off to our cause. I am not in this to make money or "sell" a "product." I am in it to move society toward freedom.

For liberty,
                <<< Starchild >>>

5

Bruce, I've literally begged people to run against me for Vice-Chair at every
single opportunity. I'll do it again. Right now. If anyone is willing to
take over my responsibilities, please speak up. Asking me to resign now is by
no means an affront. I'm a 26-year-old dot-commer who has more than enough to
do just trying to stay gainfully employed. I'm happy to step down if it
doesn't leave a vacuum in the local organization.

If you're so anti-LP, how about just resigning right now and letting someone
that
wants to support them take over?

I'm not anti-LP. I fully support the LPSF and its local candidates, because
they get a lot of results with a meager budget. I'd support LP state and
national organizations, too if either of them could offer as much "bang for
the buck".

And, if you read my letter, you would see that I explained in general terms
where
the money goes once the $25.00 is received so I don't feel like
re-explaining.

"General terms" is what my elected representatives in government give me when
explaining a half trillion or 35 billion dollar deficit. I expect better of
my elected representatives in the Libertarian Party.

Let's think of it another way: When the LP spends $1000.00 in recruitment
efforts,
they do not get $1000.00 in revenue from the new members.

Like I said -- somebody needs a simple lesson in activity based costing. If I
buy a house from you, I expect to pay extra for recent improvements. A couple
thousand for new paint, more for new wiring, plumbing, etc. But if you spend
$10,000 on some mystic to rid the house of evil spirits, I'm not going to let
you tell me the house is worth $10,000 more. So I'll ask again. What EXACTLY
am I getting for this increase in dues, and "general terms" are not
sufficient.

Simple accounting, gozouta is more than gozinta.

HOLY S___! I hope the decision makers put more thought into it than that. I'm
seriously begging someone to tell me that "gozinta" was never uttered in that
meeting.

You sir, with your angry letter and attitude miss the whole point.
We, as your elected representative carefully considered this from many
angles. We discussed and agonized for days. None of this money
will go into my pocket or any other LPCA ExCom member's

Quoting Jim Taggart doesn't exactly endear me to your argument. Just because
the leadership won't profit from it doesn't mean that wasting our money is
acceptable.

, nor increase
our power. In point of fact, we feel that national ought to get 100% of the
increase.

National getting 100% of the increase would actually make my decision much,
much easier.

So, instead of being a typical 'Angrytarian', listen to, consider and
discuss
the facts. Choose what side you wish to come down on and make your
case intelligently and politely. We'll probably disagree on some other
issue on another day, by the way.

But, there ought not to be any malice on your part, since there certainly is
none
on ours.

I don't think I said anything with malice. I didn't call anyone fat, ugly, or
stupid, as I recall. I think I basically just stated that it sounded like the
leadership has no clue about real business processes, a suggestion you
confirmed with your "gozinta" comment. I'm sorry to have offended anyone
personally, but I will not back down from my DEMAND that anyone asking me for
more money, when I now have less, not waste it.

Rob

6

Bruce,

I can assure you that Rob is not anti-LP and is not an "Angrytarian." He is a kind, generous, intelligent, thoughtful, responsible, fun, and hard-working activist, and I hope very much that he will continue as the vice-chair of the LPSF!

Kelly

7

I second what Kelly says. It would be hard to find a more thoughtful, hardworking and gracious Libertarian than Rob Power and it would be a great loss for the party if he were to give up his membership- not to mention his position as Vice-Chair of the LPSF. Differences of opinion do not warrant going "ad hominem".
Francoise Fielding

8

Rob,

Thanks again for discussing this with me.
I'll respond to you in the same style as you did me.

Bruce, I've literally begged people to run against me for Vice-Chair at

every

single opportunity. I'll do it again. Right now. If anyone is willing

to

take over my responsibilities, please speak up. Asking me to resign now

is by

no means an affront. I'm a 26-year-old dot-commer who has more than

enough to

do just trying to stay gainfully employed. I'm happy to step down if it
doesn't leave a vacuum in the local organization.

I don't REALLY want you to resign, I was just trying to wake you up to how
you sound.

> If you're so anti-LP, how about just resigning right now and letting

someone

> that
> wants to support them take over?

I'm not anti-LP. I fully support the LPSF and its local candidates,

because

they get a lot of results with a meager budget. I'd support LP state and
national organizations, too if either of them could offer as much "bang

for

the buck".

I like it!

> And, if you read my letter, you would see that I explained in general

terms

> where
> the money goes once the $25.00 is received so I don't feel like
> re-explaining.

You know, I do wish we had an 'official' pie chart.

"General terms" is what my elected representatives in government give me

when

explaining a half trillion or 35 billion dollar deficit. I expect better

of

my elected representatives in the Libertarian Party.

Puh-leeze! Here we are trying to have an informal discussion and you
want me to have sworn forensic accountants with charts and graphs?

> Let's think of it another way: When the LP spends $1000.00 in

recruitment

> efforts,
> they do not get $1000.00 in revenue from the new members.

Like I said -- somebody needs a simple lesson in activity based costing.

If I

buy a house from you, I expect to pay extra for recent improvements. A

couple

thousand for new paint, more for new wiring, plumbing, etc. But if you

spend

$10,000 on some mystic to rid the house of evil spirits, I'm not going to

let

you tell me the house is worth $10,000 more. So I'll ask again. What

EXACTLY

am I getting for this increase in dues, and "general terms" are not
sufficient.

Wrong.
If you are selling new houses, you have to get more for them that it costs
you
to make them. What more you are getting for this increase would be that the
LP will stay alive.

> Simple accounting, gozouta is more than gozinta.

HOLY S___! I hope the decision makers put more thought into it than that.

I'm

seriously begging someone to tell me that "gozinta" was never uttered in

that

meeting.

<LOL!>

> You sir, with your angry letter and attitude miss the whole point.
> We, as your elected representative carefully considered this from many
> angles. We discussed and agonized for days. None of this money
> will go into my pocket or any other LPCA ExCom member's

Quoting Jim Taggart doesn't exactly endear me to your argument. Just

because

the leadership won't profit from it doesn't mean that wasting our money is
acceptable.

Who's Jim Taggart?

> , nor increase
> our power. In point of fact, we feel that national ought to get 100% of

the

> increase.

National getting 100% of the increase would actually make my decision

much,

much easier.

> So, instead of being a typical 'Angrytarian', listen to, consider and
> discuss
> the facts. Choose what side you wish to come down on and make your
> case intelligently and politely. We'll probably disagree on some other
> issue on another day, by the way.
>
> But, there ought not to be any malice on your part, since there

certainly is

> none
> on ours.

I don't think I said anything with malice. I didn't call anyone fat, ugly,

or

stupid, as I recall. I think I basically just stated that it sounded like

the

leadership has no clue about real business processes, a suggestion you
confirmed with your "gozinta" comment. I'm sorry to have offended anyone
personally, but I will not back down from my DEMAND that anyone asking me

for

more money, when I now have less, not waste it.

Well... You got my private note about that.

Thanks again!

9

Bruce Cohen wrote:
>> Let's think of it another way: When the LP spends $1000.00 in recruitment

efforts, they do not get $1000.00 in revenue from the new members.

I'd be curious to know if as anyone on this mailing list came to the LP by way of party subsidized recruitment efforts. The last time the LPSF had a meeting where we asked everyone how they came to the party, I don't recall any such answers. But I have a poor memory.

Bruce,

Could you tell us what percentage of the LP revenue is from memberships and how much is from large donations? If the majority is from large donors, then perhaps dropping the membership to as small an amount as possible may have the result of increasing revenue by casting the donor net widest. I've heard of an Indian business association that dropped their membership fee from something like $100 to $0 and found that both their membership and their revenues increased greatly.

If this doesn't seem like an reasonable alternative, then could you share with us the break down of expenditures for the National LP? I'm sure LP members would feel better about paying more if they could be presented with evidence that it was being spent on things they approve of.

Regards,
Steve

10

"Who's Jim Taggart?" Haha (nervous laugh). You're making a play on words,
right? Just like "Who is John Galt?" except turned around. I was worried
for a minute until I got the joke. It's a joke, right? Because even if you
hadn't read the book, you surely would have used Google to do a search.
Haha (nervous laugh again).

11

Bruce Cohen wrote:
>> Let's think of it another way: When the LP spends $1000.00 in
recruitment
>> efforts, they do not get $1000.00 in revenue from the new members.

I'd be curious to know if as anyone on this mailing list came to the LP
by way of party subsidized recruitment efforts. The last time the LPSF
had a meeting where we asked everyone how they came to the party, I
don't recall any such answers. But I have a poor memory.

By far and away the greatest number of members are recruited by the
national LP.

Bruce,

Could you tell us what percentage of the LP revenue is from memberships
and how much is from large donations? If the majority is from large
donors, then perhaps dropping the membership to as small an amount as
possible may have the result of increasing revenue by casting the donor
net widest. I've heard of an Indian business association that dropped
their membership fee from something like $100 to $0 and found that both
their membership and their revenues increased greatly.

I don't know. I've seen the numbers, but it's been a long time.
National is quite open about this and you might call them on their
toll free number (800-ELECT-US) to find out.
Please post it if you do.

If this doesn't seem like an reasonable alternative, then could you
share with us the break down of expenditures for the National LP? I'm
sure LP members would feel better about paying more if they could be
presented with evidence that it was being spent on things they approve
of.

Again, I'm not in the national LP organization and my level of activism
prevents this type of specific research. Call the above number and they
will be glad to tell you.

Regards,
Steve

Certainly, this being a free market, and like it or not, membership in the
LP
certainly being a product, whatever price brings in the best combination of
revenue and members will hopefully be what is settled upon.

Again, I have little or no influence at the National ExCom, having a vote
only at the State ExCom. We voted a non-binding resolution in favor
of an increase, but it's completely out of our hands now. Let's agree to
have made our points to national and sit back and let things take their
course.

Whatever the decision is, I will support it. I will continue with my 40-60
hours a week of activism and will continue to recruit new members no
matter if they stay at $25.00, go to the $50.00 I support, or choose some
other number.

I hope you will do the same.

Bruce!

12

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rob,

If you're so anti-LP, how about just resigning right now and letting someone
that
wants to support them take over?

I'm glad to see the continuing level of support for regional organizations
from the state ExCom.

You sir, with your angry letter and attitude miss the whole point.

It goes to show that emotion doesn't translate via ASCII. Rob's attitude
hardly read as angry to those who know him... which is why the only
response was from someone who's never met him, but still feels obligated to
castigate him publicly.

Rob is one of our most dedicated local activists. An offer to donate his
otherwise-dues is hardly anti-LP, nor is his fronting most of the cost of
our participation on SF Pride, nor is any of the other great work he's done.

~Chris
- --
Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce / Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

13

By far and away the greatest number of members are recruited by the
national LP.

Bruce,

Could you site your source for this?

I don't know. I've seen the numbers, but it's been a long time.
National is quite open about this and you might call them on their
toll free number (800-ELECT-US) to find out.
Please post it if you do.

Thanks for the link. I think I'll do that.

Certainly, this being a free market, and like it or not, membership in the
LP certainly being a product, whatever price brings in the best combination of
revenue and members will hopefully be what is settled upon.

Yes, there is a market between parties, and like businesses, learning tends to come by way of poorly run ones going broke. The party itself is effectively a democratic commune. It would be quite interesting and perhaps more self consistent for anarchy advocates if there were a market *within* the party...

Cheers,
Steve
Social and economic freedom: http://www.lp.org/