My understanding of the stated purpose of RONR is to allow the majority to get stuff done but protect the voice of the minority. In regard to meeting minutes, they should be concise but should not stifle dissent. That said, perhaps fully transparent meeting proceedings including those by email is perhaps a better solution than cluttering meeting minutes with dissent that might be more appropriately made public via full disclosure of meeting discussions. To my mind, that is the real cause of the important and unresolved issue that led to the Bylaws Committee transparency hubbub.

I have already shared my views with the Bylaws Committee and the LNC discussion list on the proposed LNC expansion bylaw proposal that is purported to improve affiliate participation but is rife with logistical nightmares that will inevitably lead to more not less concentration of power at the top. I am ready and willing to have an honest and frank discussion regarding the logistical practicalities and perhaps misguided and misrepresented motives behind the LNC expansion proposal. We are not all going to agree but straight talk and logic-driven discussion combined with full transparency are the keys to collegial resolution of this important issue. 

Thoughts?

~David Pratt Demarest

On 2017-12-31 09:19, Daniel Hayes wrote:

I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz’s motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual)
for automatic approval of the minutes by striking “Attendee” and
inserting “ Member” as aforementioned at the start of this email
chain.

Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member

P.S.
I suggest we “divide” this email chain into co-sponsors of this
motion and “discussion” of Mr Katz’s other  points.  Note, I
have changed the subject line on this email.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.

On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more
things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if
the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in
the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to
secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and
over.  That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and
myself.  Since we have included other information in the past (and I
will review your other statements), I solicit other members'
feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted -
others perhaps should be removed (and I will review).  But I do not
think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was
some action taken by the LNC.  It is pretty explicit it was not,
thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I
don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be
noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am
confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).

I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion
once you have the wording down.  And I do note, as an aside, that
just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small
concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee
to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass.  This is a great
example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz
<planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

Colleagues:

I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has
been a busy time (and continues to be) for me.  Furthermore, I
would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem.
I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine
it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you.
Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence
since.  As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few
days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which
resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my
book).  I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but
that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday,
and a parliamentary engagement coming up.

I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to
note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors
to amend.  On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes,
the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ."  It then
goes on to state the deadline for comments.  Members who are not
in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely
interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what
was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means
a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed).  But,
as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit
comments.  Since all the rule says is that these comments are
submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly
nothing stopping me.  Nothing requires that the draft be changed
based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for
comments from an attendee.  So, the language in the Policy Manual
limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing.
But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in
attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of
opinion whether or not those below are useful).  As a clear
example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance
sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member,
that member has every bit of information needed to object.

So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in
its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.

With that said, here are my comments on the minutes.  Most reflect
the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21:  "In an
ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of
what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members."
Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often
contain things not described in RONR.  Some of those are listed in
the Policy Manual on p. 12.  Others typically include, .e.g., the
full course of amendment of a motion.  So I am not objecting to
everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things
I think should not be there.  In particular, I'm going to call
attention to points where debate has been included, and where it
may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken
by the LNC.

Page 5:  "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms.
Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr.
Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."

I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes.  I
would equally object even if debate from both sides were included.
I also have two nit-picks here.  First, I would suggest that
motions for the previous question be stated more precisely,
because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is
ignored) that one member can close debate.  Second, while I'm not
objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I
noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I
would question the parenthetical here.  As a general rule, the
minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary
for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder.  What's
more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the
chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it
suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency.  Finally, the note
is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and
the seconder not recorded?

Page 9:  “Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment
of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after
year.”

As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be
in the minutes.

I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to
this same sentence on other grounds.  I have no opinion on that
objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is
not material where I think the item should not be included
regardless.

Page 13

I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment.
I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr.
Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I
would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done
consistently throughout.  I am in a rush to finish this since I
have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are
other instances where it would apply.

Page 15:  Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation

This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping
it alive.  Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors
for an email ballot.  I was in the process of perfecting the
wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at
the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it
since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet.  My intent,
though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this
topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against
(that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.")  I also want to
create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time
constraints.  The language on that last part is giving me trouble
to avoid perverse incentives.

All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general
statement of what was discussed.  I think too much detail has been
included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there
reflects an LNC decision.

Pages 15-16

I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of
topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the
LNC in some way.  If it was, I think that should be made more
clear.  Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be
included.  As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the
discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes.
Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting
location decision at the bottom of the page.

Joshua A. Katz

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [1]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

 

Links:
------
[1] http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business