Last month the LNC passed Daniel Wiener’s building purchase motion:
*Moved, that the LNC approve the purchase of an office in the greater
Washington, D.C. area, to be named in honor of David Nolan, contingent on
the following conditions:**
*– *A minimum of $400,000 shall be raised from dedicated contributions. If
a portion of that is in the form of pledges, the pledges must be converted
to cash before a purchase contract and mortgage agreement are finalized.*
– *Any loan must be based on a minimum of a 30% down payment and a loan
with options extending for a minimum of 10 years before a final balloon
payment becomes due.*
– *The most recent financial statement reported unrestricted general
fund balance must exceed $167,000 before a purchase contract and loan
agreement are finalized.*
– *Additional payments towards the principal loan balance of at least
$60,000 per year above the minimum loan requirement must be made, with this
requirement structured in such a way that future LNC bodies cannot easily
circumvent it. These payments shall be in the form of an additional
$5,000 per month paid out of the general fund, but reimbursable from
dedicated building fund contributions.**This motion will constitute authority to incur a mortgage if the above
conditions are met and if this motion passes by the necessary two-thirds
vote as specified in the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.*This motion is co-sponsored by Vicki Kirkland, Michael Cloud and Ruth
Bennett
The motion was originally posted on November 23, but due to confusion over exactly wording was reissued on November 26 and voting concluded on December 6.
The public LNC business list reveals the following votes:
YES: Daniel Wiener, Vicki Kirkland, David Blau (not superseded), Jillian Mack, James Lark, myself (Paul Frankel – not superseded), Geoff Neale, Dianna Visek, Arvin Vohra, Tim Hagan
NO: Scott Lieberman (superseded), Starchild, Sam Goldstein (superseded), Norm Olsen, Mark Hinkle, Ruth Bennett.
ABSTAIN: Lee Wrights
LATE: Bill Redpath voted yes, but not in time to be counted.
OFF-LIST: Audrey Capozzi (not superseded) and Michael Cloud voted yes with the Secretary, according to Dan Wiener. Neither one disputed this.
If all of the above is correct, the vote for passage was 12-4.
These results remained unofficial for almost exactly a month, but remained in limbo due to a not yet explained lack of official vote results announced by LNC Secretary Ruth Bennett.
Unfortunately for those who would like to see the building purchase take place, during that time the holiday giving season passed by, and anyone who would like to donate more than can be legally donated in a calendar year will now have to wait until 2014 to make any additional donation, whereas had the results been made official and fundraising commenced people could have donated separately for 2012 and 2013.
Yesterday (January 5) LNC Chair Geoff Neale ruled
I have not as of yet received official notice of the final tabulations of multiple mail ballots.
I have reviewed the Bylaws, and find no way to substitute the action of the Secretary in any official way regarding the final results of mail ballots.
That being said, the Chair is the one person with the authority to rule that a motion passed or failed. I am deciding to take the authority upon myself to rule on certain mail ballots. Each of us received a copy of all mail ballots known to be cast. These votes are known and uncontested. Each of these ballots have been separately tabulated and reported by known and trusted LNC members. The results reported are sufficiently lopsided to make the results to be relatively unquestionable.
It is more important at this time that we have rulings than indecision based upon the absence of rulings, so I am ruling that:
The motion to hold the next LNC meeting in Chicago has passed.
The motion to postpone the implementation of the membership level changes to 7/1/2013 has passed.
Dan Wiener’s motion for purchasing a building has passed.
If I missed a vote, and you think a ruling is appropriate, please let me know.
If you wish to challenge the ruling of the Chair. You will have to get cosponsors and then get the Secretary to submit a mail ballot. Good luck.
Geoffrey Neale
Chair, Libertarian Party
Also, on December 3, Mark Hinkle wrote
I’m seeking co-sponsors for this motion:
*Moved, that the LNC approve the purchase of an office in the greater
Washington, D.C. area, to be named in honor of David F. Nolan,
contingent on the following conditions:** *A minimum of 20% of the down payment shall be raised from dedicated
contributions.If a portion of that is in the form of pledges, the
pledges must be converted to cash before a purchase contract and
mortgage agreement are finalized.*
* *The monthly payment of principle, interest, and OTM (Overhead,
Taxes, and Maintenance) shall not exceed our current lease payments
at the Watergate complex.
**This motion will constitute authority to incur a mortgage if the above
conditions are met and if this motion passes by the necessary two-thirds
vote as specified in the Libertarian Party’s Bylaws.
**The final decision on what property to buy shall be ratified by the
LNC’s Executive Committee by a majority vote once the above conditions
are met.*RSVP…………….Mark Hinkle,
LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair
Tel: 408-779-7922
That motion was co-sponsored by Dan Wiener (although he also announced he will be voting no), John Jay Myers and Vicki Kirkland, with enough co-sponsors in place by December 10.
However, voting on this motion has not yet started because as Geoff Neale also clarified yesterday
Per the Bylaws, only the Secretary can start a mail ballot.
Today, Geoff Neale wrote
I just got off the phone with Ruth – she is alive and well, so no need to be concerned with alien abduction or the like.
She has informed me that she will have a general announcement to the LNC by the end of the week, and will be working on getting up-to-date on Secretarial duties in the meantime.
Geoffrey Neale
Regardless of what happens with Mark Hinkle’s building motion (which Dan Wiener has said will supersede his if it also passes), or with calls by various people that the Secretary resign or be removed, or her upcoming announcement, Dan Wiener’s building motion has now officially passed, so presumably fundraising can start.
For anyone interested in the details of all the debates over these motions, see the LNC Discussion Archives. With 3,699 messages posted since May 2012, you may wish to also consult with George Phillies’ index of messages to find the ones that interest you most.
38 responses so far ↓
1 Peter J. Orvetti // Jan 6, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Pardon mon ignorance — what’s superceded/not superceded?
2 paulie // Jan 6, 2013 at 10:03 pm
Definition of SUPERSEDE
1
a : to cause to be set aside
b : to force out of use as inferior
2
: to take the place or position of
3
: to displace in favor of another
3 Krzysztof Lesiak // Jan 6, 2013 at 10:05 pm
Good news, about damn time.
4 paulie // Jan 6, 2013 at 10:07 pm
LNC Alternates can vote – but we get superseded if the Region Rep for our region also votes.
5 Oranje Mike // Jan 6, 2013 at 10:16 pm
The $400k would be better spent getting ballot access in all 50 states. I’m not even convinced the LP needs to be based near DC.
6 Peter J. Orvetti // Jan 6, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Well, yes, I know what “supersede” means. I’m wondering why a cast vote would be superseded or not superseded.
7 Peter J. Orvetti // Jan 6, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Oh I see now. Never mind.
8 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 12:00 am
You are assuming the 400k would be available for ballot access. Not the case. This is a special project, meaning money being raised specifically for this purpose, not as part of the budget, from those people who want THIS project. Some of them may want to also separately donate to ballot access, but many may not. The same holds true with people who would donate to ballot access – some of them would also donate to a building. Others won’t.
The building would actually allow us to make more money available for ballot access, because right now we are blowing more money on rent than we would on a mortgage.
9 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 12:02 am
Also, in the long run, we would be out from under the mortgage. I think we are talking 5-10 years. We had a chance to buy a building on Capitol Hill in iirc 1987 for $140k. Right now that building is probably worth around a million and we have spent several million on rent in the meantime. Not smart!
10 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 12:05 am
As for being based around DC, I’ve been talking to numerous members of the LNCs of the 1980s when we moved to Texas and back to DC and they are telling me that was a bad move. Donors, supporters and media expect us to be in the DC area. When we leave DC we send them all the message that we are giving up on ever trying to become a player in national politics (and changing the rules of the game is included in that).
What’s more, where else would we be? Every LNC term would be consumed by trying to decide whether and where to move.
11 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 12:06 am
The money still has to be raised, and it won’t be easy.
12 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 12:08 am
Sorry – I wasn’t sure what you were asking, so I answered both interpretations of the question separately.
13 ATBAFT // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:18 am
#9, I recall that was for the townhouse on SE Penna. Anyone who visited that site, while the LNC rented it, is probably glad it wasn’t purchased. I’m also informed that Cong. Dana Rohrabacher has put his real Capitol Hill townhouse up for sale, and for under $1mm.
Maybe the site search committee should look into it? Problem in DC is always parking, so suburban buildings probably the best answer.
14 Mark Hilgenberg // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:19 am
Yea debt!
15 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:26 am
Rent is debt too, unless you think we can get by without a physical office. Right now it is costing more than the mortgage is supposed to cost. With no end in sight.
16 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:29 am
All fair points, but I wasn’t really addressing specific site selection, just the principle in general. There is no site search committee yet, but they are supposed to be looking at Alexandria and Arlington. Between those two I much prefer Arlington.
It’s true there is a parking issue in DC, but there’s also a metro, buses and cabs everywhere.
If you remember anything else about the 1980s moves please let me know. I’ve been meaning to give Jim Turney a call.
17 Mark Hilgenberg // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:33 am
@ 15 Paulie
Ya, I am kinda against the central office idea.
We should have an executive suite membership where we can have a small “headquarters” and several satellite meeting spaces all over that can be used (for a fee) by local activists.
We could have staff telecommuting and focus more resources on wiring meetings and events.
18 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:34 am
Have you communicated with staff on whether telecommuting would work for them?
My impression is that the answer has been no, from past discussions.
19 Mark Hilgenberg // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:43 am
Paulie,
No, I have just sent my idea to my regional. I don’t think enough people support the idea based on feedback I received. Not worth pushing.
The writing on the wall for a purchase has been in the works for a long time, I am resigned to it.
I just find it funny that most libertarians are expecting an economic crash, so they go out and push for a locked in obligation on an overpriced piece of real estate.
20 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:48 am
Real estate has been pretty steady in DC and burbs, even as it has gone up and down elsewhere, and not all libertarians expect a crash, although some do.
Rent has just been too damn high for too damn long, and there are a lot of donors who want to give to this specifically rather than other things.
21 Mark Hilgenberg // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:52 am
Paulie, Yes, DC does well, until it doesn’t.
I agree rent sucks and I would have no problem if the donors sent enough to pay cash. I just think debt is a huge problem because if we get in trouble, we have one option, foreclosure. With rent we can downsize, renegotiate, etc.
22 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:57 am
Paulie, Yes, DC does well, until it doesn’t.
Well then our job will be done, at least at the national level
I just think debt is a huge problem because if we get in trouble, we have one option, foreclosure.
Selling or being on the other end of the whole “rent” thing are additional options.
23 Daniel Wiener // Jan 7, 2013 at 8:40 pm
One clarification regarding Mark Hinkle’s proposed motion: Mark subsequently called me to say that he wished to modify his motion, such that the combined monthly payment could not exceed 75% of our Watergate lease rather than 100%. I said I was also willing to co-sponsor that revised motion (although I would also vote against it). However, Mark has not yet submitted his revised motion in writing to the LNC nor officially garnered the necessary co-sponsors. So notwithstanding our serious Secretarial problems, Mark’s motion remains in limbo at the moment.
At least we can resume fundraising to purchase an office based on my motion, now that Geoff Neale has officially ruled that it passed. Unfortunately we lost a critical month since the balloting closed, and will probably have to extend our Watergate lease for one or more additional months (assuming that can be done on reasonable terms).
24 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:56 pm
Dan,
Thanks!
You are usually very accurate, so I’m sure you must be right….but I’m going to double check when I get sober just in case.
25 George Phillies // Jan 8, 2013 at 12:04 am
Out of curiosity, has anyone investigated how you can legally sell a building, given that you cannot take corporate checks, and no one can give you more than iirc $31,500 a year?
If you cannot sell it except at a huge loss, you have an issue.
Yes, I did raise this before.
There may be a regulatory loophole for “investments” or special rules for party offices, but I have not seen this having been discussed with the FEC and specified in the LNC minutes. Some office rules were changed a few years ago.
The other two parties bought their buildings many years ago when the rules were different.
26 George Phillies // Jan 8, 2013 at 12:05 am
@17 Telecommute will not work for almost all the things that the staff does.
For money, read Hagan’s careful and thoughtful report on why we are in compliance.
27 Peter J. Orvetti // Jan 8, 2013 at 7:18 am
I do think, for better or worse, people tend to take a national party less seriously if it is not based in or close to D.C.
Do the Greens and Constitution Party have permanent national offices and staffs? Do any other alternative parties?
28 paulie // Jan 8, 2013 at 11:19 am
My understanding is that the GP and CP national HQs no longer have physical offices. The GP had one in DC but had to close it down a few years ago due to lack of funds. They have a PO Box, email and phone line. The Constitution Party used to have a DC office iirc, then they had one in Lancaster PA at the former national chairman’s law office for a number of years. I think they closed that last year and have no physical office now, but I could be wrong.
I don’t remember seeing the concern about selling the building that Phillies expressed ever before, but I’ll ask the LNC.
29 Mark Hinkle // Jan 8, 2013 at 11:33 am
George Phillies // Jan 8, 2013 at 12:04 am
Out of curiosity, has anyone investigated how you can legally sell a building, given that you cannot take corporate checks, and no one can give you more than $31,500 a year?
——
Yes, the LP can accept corporate checks when selling assets. This was done when we sold assets (mainly literature) to LP Stuff and again when we sold some old video equipment on EBay.
We can also accept corporate checks if we rent out space.
And if we had any corporate vendors that sent us rebates and/or credits, we can cash those corporate checks as well.
We have an FEC consultant that we’ve retained that advises us on all these matters.
FYI……………….Mark Hinkle,
LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair
Tel: 408-779-7922
P.S. the real maximum donation level is $30,800 per year, not $30,500 per year.
Here’s the link to that information: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
30 Be Rational // Jan 8, 2013 at 11:34 am
@25 The FEC rule is against taking corporate donations not against corporate checks in the transaction of business.
If a political party places a large advertising buy, and pays for it, but then all the ads don’t run and the media outlet issues a refund, guess what, they do it by check, legally.
A few years back the LP received a $100,000 check from a convention hotel for damages in breach of contract for cancelling out on the LP. They paid by corporate check.
Business transactions are not donations.
GP is spinning nonsense into worry.
31 Robert Capozzi // Jan 8, 2013 at 11:45 am
br 30: GP is spinning nonsense into worry.
me: Another example of serial treachery.
32 Mark Hinkle // Jan 8, 2013 at 2:37 pm
paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:26 am
Yea debt!
Rent is debt too, unless you think we can get by without a physical office. Right now it is costing more than the mortgage is supposed to cost. With no end in sight.
—
On 12/20/05, the LNC signed a 6 year lease for our current HQ in the Watergate to the tune of $692,777.78. And yes, that is a debt that we were legally required to pay.
Had we purchased 1428 Duke Street in Alexandria, VA early last year, we could have had a principle mortgage of $600,000 after a 20% down payment. The seller was willing to give us a 2nd @ $150K @ 6%.
Clearly, taking the money we spent over that 6 year lease period and applying it to a mortgage, means we would pay off the building in slightly more than 7 years.
And that assumes no additional capital fund raising, which we would undoubtedly do.
As I’ve repeatedly said, when you lease, you just buy a building for someone else.
If we’re serious about reducing our office expenses, buying a building is the best solution.
And it needs to be in the DC Metro area if we’re at all interested in keeping our current staff, keeping our credibility as a political party and heeding the needs and wants of our donors.
Yours in liberty………….Mark Hinkle,
LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair
33 Mark Hilgenberg // Jan 8, 2013 at 5:01 pm
@ Mark 32,
I am still for a decentralized, telecommuting office but you make some good points.
Will the principle payments be budgeted or will they just be made if we have the money?
If so I may change my mind and begrudgingly support the purchase. ‘-)
34 Mark Hinkle // Jan 8, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Will the principle payments be budgeted or will they just be made if we have the money?
—
Under Dan Wiener’s motion, it’ll be budgeted. With my motion, it’s optional. Either way, we’ll save a bunch of money. It’s just a matter of how fast you pay off the building.
My preference is to pay it off early via additional fund raising. Dan wants to pay it off via the budget.
BTW, regarding telecommuting, we already have Bob Johnson working remotely and Art DiBianca also worked remotely when he was an LNC contractor. No problems there.
FYI……………Mark Hinkle,
LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair
35 George Phillies // Jan 8, 2013 at 5:35 pm
@30 Those were *refunds*.
That was our money coming back.
36 Daniel Wiener // Jan 8, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Under my motion, the additional principle payments will be budgeted, precisely to avoid letting them slide. However, if we raise additional targeted funding we can reimburse the budgeted payments back into the general fund. That lets us have our cake and eat it too, and gives us a strong incentive to continue targeted fundraising to pay off the mortgage as quickly as possible.
37 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 9, 2013 at 3:45 pm
“When we leave DC we send all members whose IQs are greater than two standard deviations below the mean the message that we are giving up on ever trying to become a player in national politics”
There, fixed that for ya.
38 George Phillies // Jan 9, 2013 at 5:17 pm
When we stay in DC, we send all members who believe in sympathetic magic and cargo cults that we are standing with them in their belief that if we look like the other major parties we will be as major as they are.
Leave a Comment