Seeking co-sponsors: 2026 Convention Budget

[Joe Burnes]

I have completed my own data analysis and am providing it here. This included a comparison between 2026 Projections and 2024 Actuals. It also includes necessary cash flow data. I'll provide my personal opinion of this data and how it related to the current motion in the next comment. CORRECTION: The Starting Balance for the Convention Fund Account was as of 9/30/23, NOT 9/30/24 (corrected screenshot should be visible).

 

[Kenneth Feagins]

I have completed my own data analysis and am providing it here. This included a comparison between 2026 Projections and 2024 Actuals. It also includes necessary cash flow data. I'll provide my personal opinion of this data and how it related to the current motion in the next comment. CORRECTION: The Starting Balance for the Convention Fund Account was as of 9/30/23, NOT 9/30/24.

View attachment 949

This is excellent information. Thank you for compiling this. With this information, I would need to know why the committee need the reserve against the general. If anything (without a more detailed analysis), it would appear cashflows were generally positive leading up to the event.

 

[Kate Prather]

Also, don’t like that sponsorships aren’t included in the authorized amount. Unless we magically get a sponsor who wants to drop upwards of 10k just on the convention (which is unlikely), sponsorships should OFFSET costs (and increase revenue), not justify additional spending.

It does both. Funds cover base costs then if their terms for the sponsorship include they want something in addition, that does not require slec to approve.

 

[Kate Prather]

After taking into consideration comments from Mr Burnes and others, and rethinking how cash flows would work in practice, I have decided to change my vote to no. If and when the convention fund approaches 0, this body is completely capable of revisiting any projected shortfalls, and shoring that up from the general fund, at that time.

While I have faith we will grow revenues, now is not the time to spend that towards this.

@Kate Prather do we have an idea of how much is due on signing (20%?) to the venue to secure the contract? I would also like to have a general idea of when we expect major outlays, so we can stay on top of that in respect to cashflows, convention and general.

We are only now starting to negotiate the contact. Their terms are flexible after an initial 25% of f&b and venue costs with service fees and taxes are paid. Venue costs are not waived until after we meet f&b minimum, which won't be determined until after convention.

 

[Anastasia Wilford]

@Kate Prather is there a deadline by which we need to submit a deposit in order to finally secure the pricing we were quoted by the Abilene location?

 

[Kenneth Feagins]

We are only now starting to negotiate the contact. Their terms are flexible after an initial 25% of f&b and venue costs with service fees and taxes are paid. Venue costs are not waived until after we meet f&b minimum, which won't be determined until after convention.

Thank you. I echo @Anastasia Wilford's ask on if any outlay is needed now to secure while negotiations are ongoing.


I also would like to raise a concern, with this being a public forum, any authorizations made now could hurt negotiations, as they know you have the go-ahead to spend a certain amount. And any overs/aboves are backstopped with the general. That's ignoring the revenue projections included.

 

[Joe Burnes]

1. In 2024, cash flow never dipped more than 5k below the initial balance. The vast majority of expenses were paid AFTER convention was over. As such, we do not have a cash flow problem and there is no need for the clause that authorizes funds to be taken from the General Fund...assuming we sell at least $13k in ticket revenue which we should do easily and may do by EOY.
2. A budgeted total expense of $81.8K leaves room to spend far less. Places where we can significantly cut this number are the AV Budget (up to about $5k), Entertainment (up to $7k), and Contingency (up to $7.5k). It is possible our total expenses end up not exceeding $65k and probable they won't exceed the cost of last convention ($71k).
3. The largest issue I am concerned about is what Jessi mentioned above regarding what the balance in the Convention Fund account is AFTER the 2026 convention is done. Last convention, we increased that balance from $36k to $69k. While I'd like to see that again, it won't happen. Any increase would be good in my opinion and, realistically, I'm looking for break even. If this convention spends only what it makes, we will be in a good position rolling into a presidential convention cycle. If it spends $12k more than it brings in, that isn't the end of the world either. BUT, that 12k should not come from the General Fund. That loss should be sustained by the Convention Fund itself. If the fund is allowed to keep its profit, it should sustain its losses. And, given that the majority of expenses are paid AFTER the convention is over, we can revisit whether or not any loss is pulled from the General Fund in due time. But for now, there is absolutely no need authorize a dip into a depleting General Fund when a mere $13k in ticket sales will ensure the Convention Fund can weather the approved/budgeted expenses without cash flow concerns. This is a habit we are forming that needs to stop now.

Finally, while I don't think it would do harm to pass this motion, my vote is still "no". While I am in favor of trusting our people and giving them RAA (as Mr. Feagins mentioned), I believe a tighter total cap for expenses is warranted and one that does not allow expenses to travel above that cap based on sponsorship income. It is my intent to bring a motion to this body as soon as Paul's bid has been submitted where the total expenses authorized is adjusted for that bid. It will read:

"I move that the Libertarian Party of Texas authorize expenditures for the purpose of holding the 2026 State Convention in Abilene, Texas up to a total amount of $X;
I further move that those expenditures must be drawn from the Convention Fund account."

 

[Joe Burnes]

While we're talking about last convention, I double checked, and I can't find that SLEC ever passed a budget or authorized expenditures for last convention, and this body never questioned it.

8/26/23 SLEC Meeting in El Paso. Per minutes that I believe you took (correction: I believe Stephanie Berlin took them as you weren't able to make the meeting) (and those minutes were approved at the following meeting on 11/11/23):
Motion to Approve and Authorize a Convention Budget - Kate Prather

Kate Prather presented to the committee her proposal for a budget for the 2024 LPTexas State Convention.

Kate Prather moved to approve a budget of $82,000 for the planning of the 2024 LPTexas State
Convention and to authorize the expenditure thereof. The motion passed without objection.

 

[Anastasia Wilford]

8/26/23 SLEC Meeting in El Paso. Per minutes that I believe you took (correction: I believe Stephanie Berlin took them as you weren't able to make the meeting) (and those minutes were approved at the following meeting on 11/11/23):
Motion to Approve and Authorize a Convention Budget - Kate Prather

Kate Prather presented to the committee her proposal for a budget for the 2024 LPTexas State Convention.

Kate Prather moved to approve a budget of $82,000 for the planning of the 2024 LPTexas State
Convention and to authorize the expenditure thereof. The motion passed without objection.

Nice. I wasn't able to find it, but that's helpful

 

[Ginny Moore]

Added thought- we could pass this motion so they can not have their hands tied and should we need to present a new motion to make any adjustments we could easily do this. These aren’t strangers spending this money we voted these people to the committee. Let them get to work!

I’ve read the above discussion. I’m with RJ on this sentiment and have voted in favor of authorizing the 2026 state convention budget. I appreciate all the insights and work put into opposing views but I’ve worked extensively behind the scenes on the last two conventions and the sooner we can get this ball rolling the better. I’m proud of the work the Convention Committee has done so far and I look forward to seeing them knock this one out of the park - even on a non-presidential election year.

 

[Rene Perez]

If you are one of the members who voted “no” on this request, I would like to know why as a member of the Convention Committee. Although I believe the motion will pass, all points of view still need to be taken into consideration as we negotiate expenditures and as we make plans to offset costs via various endeavors. Your input would be appreciated. Also, please try to be pithy.

I do not agree with the wording of the Motion.
Reading the Convention report, I see that each location lists "Preliminary Budget." I appreciate the Cmte using weighted scoring, however it seems the information used for the scoring is not based on hard information.
I'm concerned about potential low attendance if the venue is in a small city. Is it possible that we could get a better deal in Conroe or Richardson if the SLEC were to authorize a larger-than-normal down payment sooner than later?
Am I making an incorrect assumption?

 

[Jacob Bradley]

I do not agree with the wording of the Motion.
Reading the Convention report, I see that each location lists "Preliminary Budget." I appreciate the Cmte using weighted scoring, however it seems the information used for the scoring is not based on hard information.
I'm concerned about potential low attendance if the venue is in a small city. Is it possible that we could get a better deal in Conroe or Richardson if the SLEC were to authorize a larger-than-normal down payment sooner than later?
Am I making an incorrect assumption?

I'm confused by this comment. This is the vote to pay for the convention space that was chosen at the previous SLEC meeting, not a vote for the location itself. Abilene was already chosen by this body, this is just the vote to give the convention committee the money they are asking for to hold the convention.

 

[RJ Pase]

I do not agree with the wording of the Motion.
Reading the Convention report, I see that each location lists "Preliminary Budget." I appreciate the Cmte using weighted scoring, however it seems the information used for the scoring is not based on hard information.
I'm concerned about potential low attendance if the venue is in a small city. Is it possible that we could get a better deal in Conroe or Richardson if the SLEC were to authorize a larger-than-normal down payment sooner than later?
Am I making an incorrect assumption?

Abilene is centrally located and that accommodates well for people in all corners of the state.
At the meeting, we didn’t make any official decisions about 2028 which would be a presidential year, but there was a lot of agreement that Richardson could be a solid choice for that.