2010 GPUS Budget: Expense Narrative
The 2010 GPUS Budget occurs amidst a deep national and international financial crisis that has made it extremely difficult for non-profit organizations and others like the GPUS that survive primarily or exclusively on donations and fundraising. This follows the Green Party's own difficult period when it suffered the blowback of being blamed for the Bush presidency and the self-inflicted internal wounds of a party divided over presidential strategy in 2004. The cumulative effect of those trends, combined with the party's financial choices over time, have left it with limited options today.
The 2010 GPUS Budget is designed to get the party out of debt and on a sustainable financial footing in difficult financial times. It emphasizes minimizing expenses while still meeting basic party operating needs, and includes not funding certain staff and contractor positions. The hard choices before the GPUS are not unique to it. Non-profit organizations across the country are cutting back personnel and expenses to survive. The GPUS is proposed to do the same in 2010. At the same time, this budget also represents the first time that a specific budget line for fundraising by National Committee and Steering Committee members is being included, representing an organizational commitment for the National Committee to be a partner in fundraising along with GPUS Staff.
However, there is no guarantee that the recommended reductions and fundraising will be sufficient. Should income not support spending early in 2010, the Finance Committee is developing for recommendation to the Steering Committee, a list of budgeted services, from the most to the least essential for maintaining the organization. In this way the party can prepare for an orderly reduction in operations should that be necessary.
I. STAFF AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
1-1 GPUS Staff: Funding GPUS Staff.
GPUS staff positions in 2009 are Executive Director, Office Manager and Fundraising Manager. Staff costs include salaries, health care, and employer-paid taxes. GPUS staff positions have changed over the years, so salaries for 2006 through 2008 reflect various configurations of staff positions.
In 2010, staff salaries are budgeted to remain the same as 2009 for the Executive Director and Office Manager positions. For the Executive Director, one-third of the salary is paid under each expense category: Electoral Programs, Fundraising Programs, and Support & Services. For the Office Manager, salary is paid under Support & Services. In 2010 there will be a change from a budgeted part-time to a budgeted full-time Office Manager position. Until June 2009 the GPUS employed an Operations Director. Some of the responsibilities from that position have since been shifted to the Office Manager, hence the increase to full-time for the position.
The existing job description for the Executive Director was last amended in February 2009. It should be noted that although starting in 2006, the salary of the Executive Director was increased to $48,000, there were mid-year 'pay cuts' in the first three years, so the actual pay was less: $46,800 (2006), $42,800 (2007) and $44,800 (2008).
The Office Manager job description is being revised by the Steering Committee to reflect the additional responsibilities in the move from a half-time to full-time position, along with the additional fundraising responsibilities that were previously done by the Fundraising Manager.
In 2010 it is proposed not to retain and fund the position of Fundraising Manager, at least until the GPUS is in a stronger financial position. Some of the responsibilities of the Fundraising Manager will be shifted to the Executive Director (Direct Mail and Phone Solicitation) and some to the Office Manager (On-Line Fundraising), and those two job descriptions respectively, will be amended to reflect this for 2010. The short term financial savings from eliminating this position would go towards reducing expenses and resolving the GPUS debt.
In making this recommendation, the Steering Committee considered either not funding the position until the party is stronger financially, or to borrow money to fund the position and its associated fundraising, with the goal of raising enough in return. The Steering Committee acknowledges that to make money, the party must spend money, and that properly done, investing in fundraising will pay back over time and more. The Steering Committee also acknowledges that the Fundraising Manager's position's performance in 2009 can not be fully evaluated because the resources projected to support its work were not available. For example, the party's data base was not functional enough to support basic fundraising. At the same time, direct mail income was less than had been realized in the preceding years and the party could not afford to send all of the direct mail it had projected to profit from. In addition the phone-banking program is on hold until the company is paid for the calls they've already made.
The Personnel Committee evaluated an approach that retained the Fundraising Manager's position and funded it through a loan, with the approach that investing in an income strategy would grow the party while gaining financial sustainability, instead of cutting back positions to do the same. The Personnel Committee presented that approach to the Steering Committee on its November 15th call, but support was limited. Some Steering Committee members expressed that it may be too risky of a strategy with the financial position the party is in. Others said that they sensed the sentiment of a majority of the National Committee at present was to cut back on spending and staff.
The Steering Committee has also evaluated the option of eliminating each of the three staff positions and which responsibilities could be handed by the remaining staff members and concluded that not renewing the Fundraising Manager position and having fundraising tasks done by the remaining members was the most efficient way. By contrast,
- Eliminate Executive Director: Longest employment and most accumulated knowledge; Previously was half-time Fundraising Director so able to take over Direct Mail and Phone Solicitation if necessary; Currently paid $48,000 per year.
- Eliminate Fundraising Manager: Key Fundraising components can be done by the Executive Director and Office Manager; Database components scheduled to be manageable by end of year, and can be done by the Executive Director and Office Manager; Currently paid $40,000 per year - and the party has not had the resources to help this position generate the income needed.
- Eliminate Office Manager: Familiar with myriad of office tasks, having served under previous Operations Manager and now as Office Manager; Can take over Online Fundraising program (and FEC filings from the Accountant); Currently paid $36,000 per year.
Therefore what this budget recommends is that when the party is in a stronger financial position, the Steering Committee could propose funding for a fundraising position via a mid-year budget revision. Until then, the Personnel Committee will be working on a revised job description for the position, with input from GPUS staff.
Currently there is no job description for the Fundraising Manager. Until January 2008, Tamar Yager was full-time Fundraising Manager for Direct Mail, Events, and Personal Solicitation and Emily Citkowski was half-time Fundraising Manager for Merchandise, Online, and State Programs. Beginning in 2008, Citkowski began working half time, continuing as Operations Manager but not as Fundraising Manager. In May 2009 she left her position at GPUS, and spent her last week training Brian Bittner, who was then employed as half-time Office Manager, for what would become his new role. If/when a revised position is funded, the salary would be paid under Fundraising Programs.
The contract that Yager signed for 2008 states that the position continues until it is terminated and that severance pay is one month's salary less mandatory employee deductions for taxes, etc. and this is what is budgeted to be paid. However it should be noted that an error was made in which template was used when this contact was signed and that this is not in keeping with the subsequently revised GPUS Personnel Manual. The contract will, however, be be honored.
The GPUS Personnel Manual states that for a position that is being terminated due to a reduction in the work force, there is no severance pay, and an an argument could be made that the Fundraising Manager position is being eliminated, and when a new fundraising person is hired, it will be for a different job description. Alternatively, the Steering Committee could treat this as a position that is temporarily not being funded, rather than a reduction in the work force, even if the job description is being altered.
1-2 Independent Contractors: Funding Independent Contractors
In addition to paid staff, the GPUS retained independent contractors for three positions in 2009 - Accountant, Web Manager and Media Coordinator. In past years, the Accountant and Media Coordinator have been paid a straight monthly amount, while the Web Manager has been paid by the hour upon submission of invoice, with a monthly cap (with the flexibility to average the cap over a few months when the work load demanded it).
For 2010, the Steering Committee is recommending continuing the same job description and terms of payment for the Media Coordinator and Web Manager, but only retaining the Accountant through January 2010. This would be as part of an overall strategy to minimize costs and reduce debt by having fewer staff and contract employees and consolidating responsibilities among those remaining. Within this approach, the Accountant would stay on through January 2010 in order to file year end reports, including the last Federal Elections Report for 2009, after which such filings in 2010 would be done by the Office Manager with support from the Executive Director and the Treasurer.
The budget costs for the Web Manager are found in Support & Services. The budget costs for the Media Coordinator are found in Organizing & Outreach, under Media Committee.
II. ELECTORAL POLITICS
2-1 Campaigns, Candidates and Campaign Schools - $500: Funding for regional campaign schools and other forms of candidate support, but not direct financial contributions to candidates.
In 2010 there are plans for a regional campaign school in Little Rock, Arkansas, February 19-21, 2010. Arkansas and the other sponsoring state parties will fund the school itself. The 2010 budget provides $500 to cover travel expenses for the Executive Director to attend and participate.
2-2 Travel - $1,000: Funding for the Executive Director to attend state Green party meetings and conferences, and to appear at meetings and conferences of other organizations upon invitation on behalf of the GPUS.
In 2010, $1,000 is budgeted for such travel. This line item was not funded in either 2007 or 2008 . As a result, rather than respond to invitations, Executive Director Brent McMillan has paid most of his own expenses to such events, being reimbursed after-the-fact on only a few occasions. This kind of practice understates the real cost of the party's work and gives the party a distorted picture of its financial operations.
2-3 Dues - $50: Funding for dues to electoral politics-related organizations that the GPUS is a member/supporter.
In 2010, $50 is budgeted to continue the GPUS's membership in the Coalition for Open and Fair Elections <http://www.cofoe.org>. The GPUS has this membership because COFOE's work goes to the heart of one of the key GPUS priorities - ballot access. COFOE continually files ballot access and other related lawsuits that benefit the Green Party, usually three to five at a time. Awards they receive are reinvested into further work. Former GPUS Steering Committee member Phil Huckelberry is on the COFOE Board of Directors at present and McMillan has been in the past.
In 2009 the GPUS did not pay its COFOE dues. Instead COFOE accepted a personal in-kind contribution by McMillan in lieu of GPUS dues, with McMillan paying for the Washington, DC-based PO Box that COFOE maintains. In 2008 the dues were paid by Phil Huckelberry. This kind of practice understates the real cost of the party's work and gives the party a distorted picture of its financial operations.
2-4 Ballot Access - $0: Funding for the Ballot Access Committee
The 2010 budget provides no funds for ballot access, despite 2010 being a critical ballot access year with November general elections coming for state and federal office in most states.
Since 2006, funds to support ballot access shave been budgeted only twice 2008 ($1,459) and 2006 ($2,000). In 2010, there are ballot status signature drives in Arizona, Hawai'i, Nebraska, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Utah that could be achieved with sufficient funding, in some cases a relatively small amount given the number of signatures needed. There are also potentially ballot-qualifying statewide candidacies in Massachusetts and New York that will also need signatures to qualify for the ballot that would use support.
In the past, what was raised for ballot access was very helpful where applied. But the overwhelming disparity between what is needed and what is budgeted - much less actually funded - is stark. For 2010, Ballot Access Committee (BAC) Co-Chair Phil Huckelberry estimates that $50,000 spread over ten to twelve states would help the party reach its doable ballot access goals. While this is a large amount by Green Party standards, it is not for a party seeking to be meaningful on the national level. Although BAC has shown itself to be somewhat successful in its own fundraising efforts, the absence of the expectation of funding gives the BAC less incentive to plan registration efforts, if it's unlikely there will be the funding for them.
In terms of past funding, the budget will reflect the amount to be repaid to the BAC by which the donations received for BAC exceed the total paid out for BAC projects. This amount went instead into the General Fund to pay for other party expenses and is to be repaid to BAC. At the end of July 2009, this amount was $2,559.
2-5 Presidential Campaign Support - $0: Funding for the Presidential Campaign Support Committee
For 2010, no funds are budgeted. No funds have been budgeted in any year since 2006.
2-6 Green Officeholders - $0: Funding for the Green Officeholders Network
For 2010, no funds are budgeted. No funds have been budgeted in any year since 2006.
III. ORGANIZING AND OUTREACH
3-1 Media Committee - $10,400: Funding to the Media Coordinator and the Media Committee
3-2 Green Pages - $0: Funding for Green Pages, the newspaper of the GPUS <http://www.gp.org/greenpages/mission.php>.
For 2010, no funding is budgeted for Green Pages. Green Pages would continue to be published on-line at www.gp.org/greenpages and distributed from via email from the GPUS office through Greenline. There will also be a four page .pdf for each issue of 8 1/2 x 11 pages, that can be downloaded and printed for use and distribution by Green locals. The layout manager for Green Pages Jan Martell has agreed to donate her layout work.
Approval of the 2010 Budget would mean that the National Committee is directing that no hard copies of Green Pages be published until a separate proposal is approved by the National Committee to that effect. In 2009, the National Committee approved a similar proposal to limit publication to one issue <http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=375>. It is expected that Green Pages and the Fundraising Committee will discuss how Green Pages can be published in a manner that is financially advantageous for the party.
Between 2002 and 2008, Green Pages was published three or four times a year in hard copy. It was included as a courtesy to most donors, as well as sold in bundles to state parties. Budgeting for Green Pages was as high as $13,000 as recently as in 2008. Then in 2009 Green Pages was initially budgeted at $8,000, but to cut costs below this, the Green Pages Editorial Board proposed to the NC to print only one hard copy issue in 2009, timed to come out a few weeks before the Annual National Meeting. For the other issues, a .pdf of four 8 1/2 x 11 pages was designed to be downloaded and reprinted for local use. This approach reduced the actual 2009 expenditure to $2,082.
There are competing approaches in considering funding Green Pages in 2010. On one hand, the party's finances suggest that until basic operating expenses can be sustainably paid for, the party can not afford to publish a hard copy publication like a newspaper. On the other hand, the party's fundraising is related to the quality of its promotional materials. Green Pages has been the party's preeminent hard copy promotional tool, including as a courtesy to sustainers and large donors.
In addition, there is the question of what income can Green Pages bring in. For many years, the price for a one time order has been $25/100, and if a state had a continuous order to automatically receive each issue, it was $20/100. In 2009 these were raised by $5 each, to $30/100 and $25/100 respectively.
Unfortunately it is clear from past experience that in some cases, orders have been shipped that have not been paid for, and a mechanism to ensure this no longer occurs needs to be explored, if bulk shipments are to be contemplated. When the National Committee voted to suspend production for the first half of 2009, many subscribers - having not received a new issue since fall of 2008 - also assumed their subscription had ended. Many either did not respond to a letter asking if they wished to continue their subscription or did not pay for bundles that were sent out on the basis of old subscriptions.
Perhaps the largest unanswered question is whether inserting a fundraising appeal envelope into each issue of Green Pages could be an effective fundraising tool. This approach has been contemplated, but not yet pursued. There is growing sentiment that if and when the next Green Pages is published in hard copy, that it should include such an appeal, although profitability is not guaranteed.
For 2010, one option is to publish Green Pages only online. This would require no budget allocation.
A second option is to attempt to budget an issue, based upon expectations of a return from bulk orders and the fundraising appeal. A variant on this approach would be to print only when a certain threshold of bulk order payments are received in advance.
Finally, because GPUS donors have been led to believe they would receive a hard copy subscription to Green Pages, if the NC is going to decide not to publish any hard copy of Green Pages in 2010, then the Green Pages web site and any other places on gp.org where a subscription is implied with a sustainer donation needs to be changed and information on the availability of Green Pages on line included, so that there is consistency with the GPUS Donors Bill of Rights.
IV. FUNDRAISING PROGRAMS (See the Fundraising Narrative for additional information.)
Phone Solicitation: In October 2008 GPUS hired Empower Telefundraising to handle our phone solicitation program, replacing the Fundraising Assistants we have used for the past few years. This line is for their charges and supplies. It includes $22,000 for resolicitation calls and two prospect projects at $10,000 each. We pay Empower per calling hour. They receive a very small bonus on credit cards only. They are doing average or above average work for us based on industry standards. Less staff time per week is spent with their reports, briefings, etc. than with ONE fundraiser. It is difficult for staff to supervise from afar - especially if there are two or three fundraisers with different styles, etc. Our fundraiser made approximately 35-40% of what she raised on good weeks. We are paying Empower approximately 45% of what they raise with much less work on our part for re-solicitations. Currently they are bringing in an average of 5 NEW sustainers from our current donors. Prospecting with Empower has been at or close to break-even on most lists. This is actually good. Plus, they gave us a list of leads that likely would have cost us at least $2,000 to rent the list. They got over 200 NEW donors from this list. We paid them about $10000 and they got about $8500 (but again they did not charge us for the list). These donors are now our donors and are a part of our re-solicitation list.
Direct Mail Expenses:
Online Expenses: Included on this line are monthly expenses of $500 for Wired for Change (formerly Democracy in Action), as well as payment for occasional consulting work to increase the usability of the database.
Merchandise Committee: Cost of goods is figured at half of the budgeted income from merchandise.
Platform: These are costs that may be incurred if the platform is revised and if it is printed in 2010.
Collection processing: These are costs for processing check and credit cards and are based on a percentage of income. These costs have been reduced from previous years by consolidation of services with our bank.
State Revenue Sharing: Estimated costs for 2010 are $1000 per month. During 2008 national-driven programs accounted for over 90% of state sharing. In August 2009 we paid the 2008 and Jan-Jun 2009 state-driven state sharing of $1000. During 2009 states forgave over $8000 in national-driven state sharing. The balance of 2008 national driven state sharing owed to states is on Line 109.
5-1 Annual National Meeting - $25,000: Funding of the Annual National Meeting (ANM).
Funding of the Annual National Meeting (ANM) is meant to be included in-budget. In any ANM budget by definition, budgeted expenses are to be equal to or less than the budgeted income. The amount currently budgeted in the 2010 budget is a placeholder number, pending passage later of a specific ANM propposal including a budget by the National Committee.
No later than February 1st, the ANM Committee expects to present a 2010 ANM proposal to the National Committee for approval of date, location and budget Approval of the GPUS 2010 budget as proposed would mean that the National Committee will treat the ANM line item as a mid-year budget revision in the form of the ANM Committee's proposal and will not commit to any specific budget for the ANM until that occurs.
5-2 Steering Committee - $0: Funding of an in-person meeting of the Steering Committee
In past years, the Steering Committee has had at least one face-to-face meeting a year and sometimes a second. At a minimum there has been one at every ANM, with newly elected Steering Committee members meeting each other and with incumbents. This provided the opportunity for an in-person orientation and a chance to interact face-to-face before spending a year working primarily over email and conference calls.With the passage of Proposal #389, the Steering Committee elections occur after the ANM, eliminating the opportunity for newly elected members to meet at the ANM. This may have implications for the effectiveness and working relationship of the new Steering Committee and therefore is an issue for the National Committee to consider.
If the National Committee wishes to retain on-line elections, does it want to conclude the Steering Committee elections during the ANM, so that the newly elected members can meet there? Or does the National Committee want to provide funding to ensure that the new Steering Committee can meet in person soon after it is elected before it gets too far into its work year? The need for such a meeting was considered by the 2009-2010 Steering Committee, but the absence of sufficient travel subsidies along with scheduling difficulties undermined its possibility. In addition to meetings at the ANM, in some years - twice in the past five years - there has also been funding for a mid-term meeting of the Steering Committee in Washington, DC., in conjunction with GPUS staff.
For 2010, there are at several choices before the National Committee. One is to not fund any in-person meetings of the Steering Committee. This would save money for other uses, but would not provide the advantages that could come from an in-person meeting, depending upon the objective. Because of financial realities, this is what is being recommended.
A second option would be to fund a mid-term meeting, possibly in January, February or March, possibly in Washington, DC. If there was a clear objective, it could provide specific benefits. However by then, the terms of four Steering Committee members will almost be over, so the benefits towards a working relationship of that group would be limited.
A third option would be to fund a post-ANM meeting for the 2010-2011 Steering Committee, possibly with the objective of orientation and planning.
A fourth option would be to amend #389 to conduct the on-line vote before the ANM or concluding with it, rather than after it. Combined with not budgeting a separate in-person meeting, this could retain on-line elections and provide a face-to-face opportunity for the Steering Committee to meet.
5-3 International Committee - $0: Funding for the International Committee
The 2010 Budget provides no funding for the International Committee, despite the predictable cost of providing GPUS representation at the 2010 annual meeting of the Federation of Green Parties of the Americas (FPVA in Spanish). The 2010 meeting is tentatively planned for Cartegena, Colombia, likely in the later half of 2010. The GPUS is entitled to one vote at these meetings, but could send up to three delegates to participate in the official proceedings and cast that one vote. The amount needed could therefore be understood as funding between one to three people to travel and stay in Colombia.
The 2010 budget will reflect as an amount to be repaid, the $2,360 which was received in donations dedicated to funding GPUS representation at the 2008 Global Green Congress but never spent towards it, but instead went into the General Fund to pay for other party expenses.
5-4 Dispute Resolution Committee - $0: Funding for the Dispute Resolution Committee
The 2010 Budget provides no funding for the Dispute Resolution Committee.
5-5 Legal - $0: Funding of the party's legal needs and obligations
The 2010 Budget provides no funding for the party's legal needs and obligations. While the party does have pro-bono attorneys from whom it can occasionally seek legal advice, there are no provisions with anyone for extended legal support should the GPUS be involved in litigation. This could have extremely negative consequences for the party.
VI. SUPPORT AND SERVICES
6-1 Office Manager - $36,000: Funding for salary and benefits for the Office Manager as GPUS Staff Member
The 2010 Budget provides for a salary of $36,000/year plus benefits for the Office Manager.
The position of Office Manager was a part time position between 2006 and 2009, alongside the more senior position of Operations Director. When Operations Director Emily Citkowski left in June 2009, Office Manager Brian Bittner went from part-time to full time, even though he continued to operate under his part-time contract signed earlier in the year. One of the goals for 2010 is to establish the Office Manager position as an officially-budgeted full time position and to enter into an employment contract with the Office Manager to reflect the same. Bittner is expected to be rehired in 2010 under a revised job description.
6-2 Fundraising Manager - $4,260: Severance Pay for Fundraising Manager as GPUS Staff Member
The 2010 Budget provides for a severance pay of #$3,500 ($3,778 less $289 employer taxes) for the Fundraising Manager, as described in 1-1 above and a salary of $760 for 1-6 January, 2010 after providing 30 days notice on December 5th (20% of month's salary plus health care.)
6-3 Accountant - $900: Funding for Accountant as Independent Contractor
The 2010 Budget provides for a one month payment of $900 for January 2010, during which the Accountant will fill end-of-the-year reports for 2009, including with the Federal Elections Commission. After January the position will not be funded and tasks will be taken up by the Office Manager, Executive Director and Treasurer.
6-4 Web Manager - $7200: Funding for hourly payment to Web Manager as Independent Contractor
The 2010 Budget provides for payment of $15 an hour up to a maximum average of 40 hours per month. The job description for the Web Master is at http://www.gp.org/wiki/index.php/Web_Manager_Job_Description. This is a continuation of terms from 2009.
6-5 IT Development - $5,000: Funding for IT hardware and software needs
The 2010 Budget provides for $5,000 for for hardware and software purchases from a prioritized list of needs developed by GPUS staff. GPUS equipment is long overdue to be replaced and is often less functional than the party needs, which makes the work of GPUS staff more difficult and less efficient. To address these needs, a 'wish list' of party needs has also been added to the party's web site: www.gp.org/donate/needs-list.shtml. In 2009 the office computer used by the Fundraising Director crashed and to replace it, the party depended upon a donation of another computer by the Office Manager. In turn the Fundraising Director spent $154 of her own money to buy a copy of MS Office herself for the donated computer because the party office did not have a usable copy to replace the one lost on the computer that crashed. This kind of practice understates the real cost of the party's work and gives the party a distorted picture of its financial operations.
There is a debate within the party about replacing Microsoft Office with Open Source. Advocates point to the GPUS platform "Open-Source Software" section, which says "Open-source software is necessary to achieve personal, cultural, and organizational security in the face of technological threats brought by corporations and individual criminals." and that "Government has a vital role in breaking up software monopolies, not so much by filing antitrust suits, but by buying nothing but open systems." <http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/economics.html#247616>
Staff attempts to use open source goal as much as possible, with the following exceptions: the newest version of Excel has numerous features that Open Office does not have, particularly working with lists. In addition, using MS Office is necessary in dealing with many vendors, including the mailhouse. In some other cases, Open Office is different enough from Microsoft Office that the staff doesn't always the luxury of time to figure out how to do something new. That being said, as GPUS Staff job descriptions are being revised, some level of proficiency in Open Office (or commitment to learn) could be considered as part of the desired experience.
6-6 Internet - $2,000: Funding for web hosting, computer updates, virus protection, and other related internet expenses.
The 2010 Budget provides $2,000 for web hosting, computer updates, virus protection, and other related internet expenses.
6-7 Phone/fax/DSL - $5,000: Funding for the phone, fax and DSL expenses associated with the GPUS office
The 2010 Budget provides $5,000 for phone, fax and DSL expenses.
6-8 Postage/shipping $6,000: Funding for general postage and shipping costs from the GPUS office
The 2010 Budget provides $6,000 for general postage and shipping costs from the GPUS office. Costs for sending merchandise are not included in these costs, but are included in the respective line items for each. Because of a shortage of postage on hand, the Executive Director and Treasurer actually have paid out of pocket for stamps, other mailing costs, and faxes from time to time. This kind of practice understates the real cost of the party's work and gives the party a distorted picture of its financial operations.
6-9 Supplies - $5,000: Funding for general office supplies for the GPUS office
The 2010 Budget provides $5,000 for general office supplies. Because of a shortage of such supplies on hand, the Executive Director actually has paid out of pocket for them from time to time. This kind of practice understates the real cost of the party's work and gives the party a distorted picture of its financial operations.
6-10 Health insurance - $10,800: Funding for health insurance for GPUS employees.
The 2010 Budget provides $10,800 for employee health insurance. Like health care costs nationwide, this line item continues to go up for the GPUS, down from $14,393 in 2008, as a result of having fewer staff members. According to District of Columbia and/or Federal law, employees hired for 24 hours a week or more receive health insurance.
6-11 Insurance - $1,400: Funding to pay for GPUS insurance
The 2010 Budget provides $1,400 for property and liability insurance that includes the Annual National Meeting and the liability policy for the DC office as required by our lease.
6-12 Bank Fees - $500: Funding to pay for fees associated with the GPUS bank account.
In 2010, $500 is budgeted for bank fees.
6-13 Payroll taxes/Fees - $9,350: Funding to pay the GPUS's legal obligation to pay payroll taxes and related fees
The 2010 Budget provides $9,350 for payroll taxes and fees.
6-14 Depreciation - $0: Accounting for depreciation of GPUS assets.
No depreciation of GPUS assets is scheduled for 2010. None has been scheduled between 2006 and 2009.
6-15 Miscellaneous - $903:
The 2010 Budget provides $903 for miscellaneous expenses.
VII. RESTRICTED FUNDS - $27,097
The amounts owed to caucuses and committees are year-to-date figures.
The amount for State Sharing 2009 is the balance due for national-driven state sharing through the end of the 3rd Quarter with an estimate added for amounts anticipated for the 4th Quarter for both national-drive and state-driven state sharing. State-driven state sharing has been paid in full through the end of the 2nd Quarter and 3rd and 4th Quarters will be paid when the amounts are known. State sharing projected for 2010 is shown under Fundraising Programs.
VIII. LOAN REPAYMENTS - $29,500
This includes the loans totaling $15,000 borrowed late in 2008 and repaid in early 2009 with the exception of loans of $2500 to Jody Grage and $2000 to Budd Dickinson that are included with loans to be repaid in 2010. It also includes loans of $25,000 in mid 2009 that will be repaid early in 2010.
IX. DEFICIT FROM 2009 TO PAY IN 2010 - $35,00
This is the amount of Accounts Payable projected at the end of December 2009.