Budget Amendment #4: Tying Directed Donation Fund Expenses To The Corresponding Fund

[Joe Burnes]

I move the following changes to the budget that was approved on 11/8/25 and am requesting co-sponsors:

1. Where a budget line item does not specify which bank account the expense must be paid from, that account will be the General Fund.
2. All line item expenses under the Legislative Action Department shall be paid from the Legislative Action Fund.
3. All line item expenses under the Campaign Support Department shall be paid from the Campaign Support Fund.

See attached file that shows exactly what the new budget will look like with these changes adopted. All changes have been highlighted yellow.

The approved budget has new line items where no bank account was specified. The omission of bank accounts for the new line items leaves the Treasurer’s office with no direction as to where money to pay these expenses should be drawn.
Further, in the prior budget, some departments have individual line item expenses that must be paid from different accounts. I.E. The Campaign Support Department has “In-Person Training” coming out of the actual Campaign Support Fund (which is its own bank account) while the Discretionary line item comes out of the General Fund (a separate bank account). This overly complicates the accounting process and forces multiple transfers of funds between various bank accounts to ensure the accounting is correct. It would be far easier and give this body a more clear representation of the financial sitrep of the various Directed Donation funds if all line items in a category were drawn from the same account. This body is always free to make a motion to transfer funds from the General Fund to the specific Directed Donation Fund that it finds is in need at that time (and has done so in the past).

 

[Jocelyn Pantke]

I will cosponsor.

 

[Nolan Schmidt]

I will co-sponsor as well.

 

[Christy Ford]

I will cosponsor.

 

[AaronRamos]

I'll cosponsor

 

[Mike Dooling]

I move the following changes to the budget that was approved on 11/8/25 and am requesting co-sponsors:

1. Where a budget line item does not specify which bank account the expense must be paid from, that account will be the General Fund.
2. All line item expenses under the Legislative Action Department shall be paid from the Legislative Action Fund.
3. All line item expenses under the Campaign Support Department shall be paid from the Campaign Support Fund.

See attached file that shows exactly what the new budget will look like with these changes adopted. All changes have been highlighted yellow.

The approved budget has new line items where no bank account was specified. The omission of bank accounts for the new line items leaves the Treasurer’s office with no direction as to where money to pay these expenses should be drawn.
Further, in the prior budget, some departments have individual line item expenses that must be paid from different accounts. I.E. The Campaign Support Department has “In-Person Training” coming out of the actual Campaign Support Fund (which is its own bank account) while the Discretionary line item comes out of the General Fund (a separate bank account). This overly complicates the accounting process and forces multiple transfers of funds between various bank accounts to ensure the accounting is correct. It would be far easier and give this body a more clear representation of the financial sitrep of the various Directed Donation funds if all line items in a category were drawn from the same account. This body is always free to make a motion to transfer funds from the General Fund to the specific Directed Donation Fund that it finds is in need at that time (and has done so in the past).

I will cosponsor

I move the following changes to the budget that was approved on 11/8/25 and am requesting co-sponsors:

1. Where a budget line item does not specify which bank account the expense must be paid from, that account will be the General Fund.
2. All line item expenses under the Legislative Action Department shall be paid from the Legislative Action Fund.
3. All line item expenses under the Campaign Support Department shall be paid from the Campaign Support Fund.

See attached file that shows exactly what the new budget will look like with these changes adopted. All changes have been highlighted yellow.

The approved budget has new line items where no bank account was specified. The omission of bank accounts for the new line items leaves the Treasurer’s office with no direction as to where money to pay these expenses should be drawn.
Further, in the prior budget, some departments have individual line item expenses that must be paid from different accounts. I.E. The Campaign Support Department has “In-Person Training” coming out of the actual Campaign Support Fund (which is its own bank account) while the Discretionary line item comes out of the General Fund (a separate bank account). This overly complicates the accounting process and forces multiple transfers of funds between various bank accounts to ensure the accounting is correct. It would be far easier and give this body a more clear representation of the financial sitrep of the various Directed Donation funds if all line items in a category were drawn from the same account. This body is always free to make a motion to transfer funds from the General Fund to the specific Directed Donation Fund that it finds is in need at that time (and has done so in the past).

I will cosponsor

 

[Anastasia Wilford]

I will be voting no on this motion for the reasons described below.

Directives for how the monies from the special funds are given in the creation of the funds themselves. As an example, monies in the Legislative Action Fund can be spent on compensation and lodging/travel expenses for a Legislative Coordinator for LPTexas to be at the Capitol when the legislature is in session. What the funds cannot be spent on is analytics or discretionary expenses that don't fall under the above categories. Therefore, only authorizing expenditures for the Legislative Action Department from the Legislative Action Fund would be in direct violation of our policy.

I think the confusion may be in the similarity of the names. While the funds and the similarly (or sometimes identically) named departments share goals and purposes and much of the money spent on those departments will come from those special funds, they are not statutorily linked.

If the finance team (or SLEC) needs directives on where the monies should be sourced for a given line item, the policy manual should be consulted especially with regard to the special funds. On that note, the campaign fund that was passed several months ago needs to be added to the policy manual as 7.5.4 and published as the current version on Egnyte does not include it.

 

[Joe Burnes]

I will be voting no on this motion for the reasons described below.

Directives for how the monies from the special funds are given in the creation of the funds themselves. As an example, monies in the Legislative Action Fund can be spent on compensation and lodging/travel expenses for a Legislative Coordinator for LPTexas to be at the Capitol when the legislature is in session. What the funds cannot be spent on is analytics or discretionary expenses that don't fall under the above categories. Therefore, only authorizing expenditures for the Legislative Action Department from the Legislative Action Fund would be in direct violation of our policy.

I think the confusion may be in the similarity of the names. While the funds and the similarly (or sometimes identically) named departments share goals and purposes and much of the money spent on those departments will come from those special funds, they are not statutorily linked.

If the finance team (or SLEC) needs directives on where the monies should be sourced for a given line item, the policy manual should be consulted especially with regard to the special funds. On that note, the campaign fund that was passed several months ago needs to be added to the policy manual as 7.5.4 and published as the current version on Egnyte does not include it.

Do you remember when the campaign support fund was created? We should be able to go back and look at the approved minutes and find it.
I just did a quick check from the accounting side and we've been tracking income for the legislative action fund since at least 2022 on the budget tracker. Edit: I was thinking of the Legislative Action Fund.

 

[Anastasia Wilford]

It was passed at the August 2024 meeting.
Here's the motion on Egnyte: https://lpt.egnyte.com/navigate/file/5fbfc28b-ad91-49f2-a3e8-5cb07e126853
And it's referenced as passing without objection or amendment in the minutes: https://lpt.egnyte.com/navigate/file/f418f709-a9de-4eb1-a39c-45031bf339f1

 

[Joe Burnes]

I will be voting no on this motion for the reasons described below.

Directives for how the monies from the special funds are given in the creation of the funds themselves. As an example, monies in the Legislative Action Fund can be spent on compensation and lodging/travel expenses for a Legislative Coordinator for LPTexas to be at the Capitol when the legislature is in session. What the funds cannot be spent on is analytics or discretionary expenses that don't fall under the above categories. Therefore, only authorizing expenditures for the Legislative Action Department from the Legislative Action Fund would be in direct violation of our policy.

I think the confusion may be in the similarity of the names. While the funds and the similarly (or sometimes identically) named departments share goals and purposes and much of the money spent on those departments will come from those special funds, they are not statutorily linked.

If the finance team (or SLEC) needs directives on where the monies should be sourced for a given line item, the policy manual should be consulted especially with regard to the special funds. On that note, the campaign fund that was passed several months ago needs to be added to the policy manual as 7.5.4 and published as the current version on Egnyte does not include it.

Quoting the Policy Manual here:
7.5.3 Legislative Action Fund
This Special Project authorizes the Development Department to raise funds to provide compensation and
expenses for lodging, travel, etc. for one or more individuals to provide full-time representation as a
Legislative Coordinator for LPTexas at the Texas Capitol any time the Texas Legislature is in session,
under the specific direction of the Political Action Director and the general supervision of the Chair of
LPTexas.
End Quote.

Your argument leaves out a very important word, "etc". When you say "What the funds cannot be spent on is analytics or discretionary expenses that don't fall under the above categories.", the "etc" in the Policy Manual is very critical and it cannot be ignored.

"compensation and expenses for lodging, travel, etc. for one or more individuals to provide full-time representation as a Legislative Coordinator for LPTexas..."

I would interpret that "etc." to mean any expenses found necessary for this/these individuals to "provide full-time representation". I would definitely not agree that this fully restricts spending to only travel and lodging as the inclusion of "etc" belies such a strict interpretation.

Further, I would argue that the "Analytics & Support" definitely fall in line with the intent of supporting our people at the Capital by empowering them to provide that full-time representation. Of the 4060.20 that was spent this year, $1060.20 of it was for parking, printing, & ink. I can't imagine how those expenses would not be fall under "lodging, travel, etc." What you suggest is that the fund, as written, does not provide for parking fees. Even the IRS allows for parking fees to be considered part of Travel Expense. (See Topic 511: HERE)

That said, I could say where there may be some concern over whether or not the other $3,000 spent on Dr. Ruwart's book falls under the "etc". For me, anything that supports our people in their endeavor to represent us at the Capital should fall under this fund.

As for Discretionary, the $51 of expenses there were also for printing related to our representation at the Capital.

I find this line of argument to be a bit of a red herring. I think the underlying issue is a valid one and one you raised during the discussion with the department heads when we initially formed the expense side of the budget. You'll have to correct me where I'm wrong, but you brought up the point that representing our party at the Capital is a primary function of the party and should be funded by the party to the extent that SLEC feels necessary and not restricted by the amount of money contained in a Special Fund. And while I fully agree with the idea, it does not give a full picture of what the Special Funds' purpose is. Special Funds do not restrict the spending of this party. They allow us to raise money with a purpose that can be illustrated to donors (a proven method to increase total revenue). They further allow us to track performance of a specific entity more clearly than we otherwise could or would. And, at any time, SLEC can choose to transfer funds from the General Fund to a specific fund when it sees fit....as it has done in the past and will likely do in the future. Continuing to force the various expenses from the same category to be spent from different bank accounts has created an accounting nightmare. It was not put in place when the budget was originally passed but inserted at the only meeting I missed and without my input. I very much regret having missed that meeting. It has been a frustrating thing to deal with and I'm not willing to continue dealing with it. If we need a motion to adjust the policy manual to better define the Legislative Action Fund within the policy manual, I'm happy to work with you to that end. As is, any TEC audit of our books would raise serious questions about what I'm doing with them. And while I'm confident I would survive any such audit, it would be highly uncomfortable and one that I would withstand alone. I'd much rather keep our accounting as clean as possible such that any audit would have very few questions.

 

[Anastasia Wilford]

That "etc", while important, does not cover any and all expenses that could come up for that department, and by tying the entire department's spending to that fund, restricts us to only work that fits within the definition of that fund. Further, that fund is specific to during the legislative session and in support of efforts at the Capitol by our Legislative Coordinator while there is work that upcoming that may need expenditure in support of efforts that will help our candidates be more effective legislatively and therefore in their campaigns which I feel would be a stretch for that to fall under the legislative action fund despite holding significant value for the party.

As for the parking fees, I disagree that my interpretation would mean they wouldn't qualify as travel expenses. Parking fees are well established as travel expenses and were rightly categorized as such and paid for from the lege fund, and should continue to be.

It has been the specificity of how the funds raised for legislative action will be spent that has given donors the confidence to contribute to that fund, a sentiment shared by you during the conversation around this department's budget last year. I'm willing to gamble on it, but the arguments made in opposition to using general funds for a portion of the LAD's expenditures last year were that we have these special funds so that donors can have confidence in where their money is going and I wonder if those same people would be concerned that opening that definition up too much would harm our ability to raise funds to that end.

If the solution is going to be changing what expenditures are authorized by the special funds, I would rather those changes get made before this so that we don't find ourselves tangled in a web we have to unwind before we can do work.

 

[Joe Burnes]

... while there is work that upcoming that may need expenditure in support of efforts that will help our candidates be more effective legislatively and therefore in their campaigns which I feel would be a stretch for that to fall under the legislative action fund despite holding significant value for the party.

I agree, and those expenses should fall under the Campaign Support umbrella. But I can definitely see where there may be expenses that the Legislative Action Dept would have that wouldn't fall under the purview of the Leg Act Fund.

As for the parking fees, I disagree that my interpretation would mean they wouldn't qualify as travel expenses. Parking fees are well established as travel expenses and were rightly categorized as such and paid for from the lege fund, and should continue to be.

Parking fees have not bee paid from the leg fund. I was instructed to code the parking reimbursements (as well as other supplies for Kevin) to " analytics and support" and that line item gets paid from the general fund. This is why when we have paid him, I've had to send him 2 payments and each from different accounts.

It has been the specificity of how the funds raised for legislative action will be spent that has given donors the confidence to contribute to that fund, a sentiment shared by you during the conversation around this department's budget last year. I'm willing to gamble on it, but the arguments made in opposition to using general funds for a portion of the LAD's expenditures last year were that we have these special funds so that donors can have confidence in where their money is going and I wonder if those same people would be concerned that opening that definition up too much would harm our ability to raise funds to that end.

If the solution is going to be changing what expenditures are authorized by the special funds, I would rather those changes get made before this so that we don't find ourselves tangled in a web we have to unwind before we can do work.

Valid point. This motion governs the current budget and imo, all existing line items are valid expenses of the lege fund. If we add a new expense to that department that shouldn't be paid for by the lege fund, we can segregate it at the time we add it so I don't see how this would stop us from doing work. Another possible solution would be to separate our accounting for that fund where all expenses that come directly from that fund would have their own heading and not be nested under a department.

I don't think opening up the definition a bit would harm our ability to raise funds. It wouldn't have changed my 2k donation. Regardless of any concern that general funds were funding a portion of the LAD's expenditures, this body still transferred 10k to the fund. As for the concern of donors that donated specifically to the lege fund, the vast majority of their money has been spent, given the balance in the fund of that money is $669.17 and I have no doubt that we will spend at least that towards the original defined ends. If we were to go back and include parking and printing, it would already be spent. If we decide to change that definition, now (between sessions) is the perfect time to do it.

 

[Mike Dooling]

Thank you both for your diligence and time spent discussing this matter!

 

[Michael Winters]

I’m voting no because this motion appears to me to be making donor-restricted funds into a 1:1 relationship that does not exactly exist in our day to day work on staff. It's more of an organizational/structural problem, not a disagreement about accounting preferences. Departments frequently collaborate (Particularly often with the Communications Department) and I believe that by forcing each department to draw exclusively from their fund, this motion implies (or rather, could be interpreted as) that it prevents cross-functional projects (without SLEC intervention as you mention), restricting our ability to carry out normal operations. We have already identified that pushing too many decisions to SLEC creates delays and lost opportunities, this motion could make it worse: For example, if Campaign Support needs Communications to place a paid ad, Communications likely couldn’t act without SLEC first voting to transfer funds between accounts, which is essentially the reverse of the reason you are suggesting we do this. We can always vote to move money from general into these accounts, but we would still need to move money out of these accounts in the same manner, and likely far more often under this structure. I understand it's not the easiest for accounting, but for operational flexibility it's probably better to not be incredibly explicit.

 

[Joe Burnes]

I’m voting no because this motion appears to me to be making donor-restricted funds into a 1:1 relationship that does not exactly exist in our day to day work on staff. It's more of an organizational/structural problem, not a disagreement about accounting preferences. Departments frequently collaborate (Particularly often with the Communications Department) and I believe that by forcing each department to draw exclusively from their fund, this motion implies (or rather, could be interpreted as) that it prevents cross-functional projects (without SLEC intervention as you mention), restricting our ability to carry out normal operations. We have already identified that pushing too many decisions to SLEC creates delays and lost opportunities, this motion could make it worse: For example, if Campaign Support needs Communications to place a paid ad, Communications likely couldn’t act without SLEC first voting to transfer funds between accounts, which is essentially the reverse of the reason you are suggesting we do this. We can always vote to move money from general into these accounts, but we would still need to move money out of these accounts in the same manner, and likely far more often under this structure. I understand it's not the easiest for accounting, but for operational flexibility it's probably better to not be incredibly explicit.

I think I see where you're coming from. But I believe there is some misunderstanding of how these accounts function. If Campaign Support needed Comms to place a paid ad, they'd likely request from Comms to do that for them, however, they'd already have to send a request to the Treasurer to get that ad paid for. Comms would simply need confirmation from likely the XD or an officer that we are ok with that happening. Then, if the vendor accepts ACH, the Treasurer pays them directly from the Campaign Support Fund account. If they only take credit cards, the Treasurer pays them using the CC tied to the General Account and then transfers those funds from the Campaign Support Fund into the General Account to reimburse it.

A problem only really arises when a Fund doesn't have enough money to pay for the things it would like to pay for. I think we ended up in this position where some line items for the Legislative Action Fund are paid from the general fund and others from the LAF because we were concerned we might not raise enough money in the fund to cover everything (although that is my opinion and might not be shared by others). For me, I'd rather SLEC simply donate money to the fund from the general than to have different line items paid out of different accounts (unless of course a specific line item goes against the directive of that fund as Anastasia pointed out might be the case above).

 

[Michael Winters]

I think I see where you're coming from. But I believe there is some misunderstanding of how these accounts function. If Campaign Support needed Comms to place a paid ad, they'd likely request from Comms to do that for them, however, they'd already have to send a request to the Treasurer to get that ad paid for. Comms would simply need confirmation from likely the XD or an officer that we are ok with that happening. Then, if the vendor accepts ACH, the Treasurer pays them directly from the Campaign Support Fund account. If they only take credit cards, the Treasurer pays them using the CC tied to the General Account and then transfers those funds from the Campaign Support Fund into the General Account to reimburse it.

A problem only really arises when a Fund doesn't have enough money to pay for the things it would like to pay for. I think we ended up in this position where some line items for the Legislative Action Fund are paid from the general fund and others from the LAF because we were concerned we might not raise enough money in the fund to cover everything (although that is my opinion and might not be shared by others). For me, I'd rather SLEC simply donate money to the fund from the general than to have different line items paid out of different accounts (unless of course a specific line item goes against the directive of that fund as Anastasia pointed out might be the case above).

It's definitely possible I am not understanding what was being proposed, and I really wish we could have talked about this at the last SLEC meeting. I voted no on passing the budget because I had a few questions from my constituents regarding income and I heard you say you had amendments to make, but the question was called very quickly so unfortunately we did not get a chance to hash these things out where we could get answers and discuss the language of the resolutions. It's not really anyone's fault, it just is what it is.

I agree with the idea of having SLEC donate money to the fund from the general being a good thing, and I agree this would make the accounting much more clear, it just seems like from the way I am reading the language that it looks as if money needs to come out of that fund to be utilized by another department for purposes that benefit the sending department that we would still be in the same position.