[FunCom] IMPORTANT: Please comment: State Sharing Issues

That is something I can really, fully, support.

Which i have begun to do with the letter below.

Monte Letourneau
WIGP Rec. Sec., 

GPUS NC Alternate,

wigp.org
montesite.net

necedahharvest.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: monte letourneau <geanark@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:08 AM
Subject: Fwd: [FunCom] IMPORTANT: Please comment: State Sharing Issues
To: WIGP Coordinating Council <CC@lists.wisconsingreenparty.org>, WI Greens <greens@yahoogroups.com>, milwaukeegreens@yahoogroups.com, 4lakesgreens <4lakesgreens@yahoogroups.com>

I vote yes, on both the proposed Shared Campaigns policy below,
and support giving our full cooperation and support to joining a state sharing campaign.

I had not realized how favourable to the states this program had beome.

We would have to provide most of the effort, but there have been quite a few of these now,
and they have helped revitalize the participating states.

I have withheld my formal full support of this concept to date,
upon reading this discussion of the policy I find that to be a mistake.

For our meeting on Sat.,:

I would like to propose we discuss this possibility to bring cohesion and expertise
into our efforts to be in contact with our membership.

I also would like to propose that we discuss having district lists for each of the CC District reps.

Please peruse the material below and let us know what you think,
either here or at the meeting.

Monte Letourneau
WIGP Rec. Sec., 

GPUS NC Alternate,

wigp.org
montesite.net

necedahharvest.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Karen Young <karenyoung521@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:37 PM
Subject: [FunCom] IMPORTANT: Please comment: State Sharing Issues
To: GP -GPUS Fund <fundraising@green.gpus.org>

On our last call, we decided our top priority was to develop a new policy around state sharing that we think makes the most sense from a fundraising perspective.

We decided we would discuss online and then come to a proposal to be voted on.

since this discussion has not really gotten started, I suggest we try to get a proposal together, not for our next meeting this coming Monday, but for the following one, May 16th.

Here are some issues that Jeff has brought up. Please set aside some time to think carefully about this, and share your thoughts and experience on these topics.   Please add any other topics you find relevant, but if you do, please define them clearly so that others will be able to comment on them as well.

- sharing ratio (s)

 

- states that don't have FEC accounts  (I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS MEANS)

 

-states that don't even have an organization at all

 

-state driven sharing   vs   national driven sharing

 

-concept of direct pass through of state's share to the state without GPUS even taking possession of the funds (and therefore not having to account for it at all)

 

- cost of handling funds for states

 

- same fundraising services for lower levels of organization than states (counties, locals, ?)

HERE ARE SOME RELEVANT SECTIONS OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES:

Section 7-4 Revenue Sharing

7-4.1 National-driven contributions are those that are received through efforts of the GPUS, its staff, contractors and NC. Such contributions shall be considered 'internal funds' rather than 'conduit funds' as defined by the FEC, unless or until they are released to the state party,caucus, or network. For national-driven programs, 70% of the donation will be allocated to the GPUS and 30% to the state party, caucus, or network.

7-4.2 State, caucus, network, and committee-driven contributions are those that are received through efforts of the state party, caucus, network or committee. For these programs, state parties and committees will be allocated 70% of the contribution, and caucuses and networks will be all allocated 90% of the contribution. The GPUS will be allocated the remaining share.

7-4.3 If according to FEC regulations, a state party cannot accept its full share of the money for its own use, the Treasurer and the Fundraising Committee shall consult with the state party treasurer to establish the alternative disposition of the contribution for the state's benefit.

7-4.4 Contributions to special projects are contributions made according to 9-4.3. For these contributions, GPUS will be allocated 5% of the contribution or $500, whichever is less, plus credit card fees incurred.

7-4.5 In reporting revenues due to a restricted fund of a state, caucus, network, or committee, the report shall include the name, address, phone and email of each donor, the date, amount, and method of payment for each donation, and any notes a donor may have sent to the state, caucus, network, or committee. Caucuses, networks, and committees requesting disbursement of funds shall file their requests according to 8-1.6.

ARTICLE XII COORDINATION OF FUNDRAISING BETWEEN GPUS AND STATE PARTIES

Section 12-1 Coordination of Donor Lists With State Parties

12-1.1 Once per calendar year, member state parties are expected to make available to the GPUS their donor lists for the purpose of fundraising and outreach. Other arrangements may be substituted in coordination with the Fundraising Committee. GPUS shall use these lists only for fundraising and outreach. GPUS shall not share or sell these lists with anyone.

12-1.2 Once per calendar year, GPUS is expected to make available to member state parties their donor lists for the member state for the purpose of fundraising and outreach. State parties shall use these lists only for fundraising and outreach. State parties shall not share or sell these lists with anyone.

12-1.3 The Fundraising Committee, as well as other committees, networks, and caucuses, shall coordinate the timing of any solicitation so as to avoid conflict between state, caucus, network, and GPUS fundraising efforts.

 

Karen Young
karenyoung521@yahoo.com
Check out my blog for good news every day: http://www.reasonstobecheerful.net

Posted via email from geanark's posterous