Comments regarding draft minutes of July 3 meeting
Dear colleagues: I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed below comments regarding the draft minutes of the July 3 meeting; I hope you find them worthy of consideration. As you will note, most of the comments involve stylistic matters. I apologize that I was unable to prepare and send these comments sooner; I have been remarkably busy since Independence Day. Thanks for your work for liberty. I look forward to seeing you in the Valley of the Sun. Take care, Jim James W. Lark, III Professor, Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Professor, Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Department of Statistics University of Virginia Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee ----- General comments: *As a stylistic matter, I believe it would improve the readability if more clauses were set off by use of commas.For example, the following sentence appears on p. 5: Ms. Harlos confirmed that the prior HPC members comprised herself, Dr. Joe Buchman, Joe Dehn, Ed Fochler, and James Gholston and that they were all active and participating. I believe it would be better to set off the phrase “and that they were all active and participating” by use of a comma following the name of Mr. Gholston.As an aside, please note my comment below (involving an item on p.5) concerning the use of honorifics. p.1: *I suggest that the phrase “Post-Convention” be removed from the title block and the footer. *Under Prelude, perhaps reword the phrase “The potential agenda for the meeting …” as “The proposed agenda for the meeting ….” p. 2: *Since Mr. Fields' position as Press Secretary has not been mentioned as of this point in the text, it would be appropriate to identify him (perhaps parenthetically) as such. *Since the states associated with regions are evidently listed in alphabetical order, Virginia should be listed before West Virginia in the list of the Region 5 state affiliates. p. 3: *Perhaps reword the sentence “It is noted that Alicia Mattson and Dustin Nanna arrived late due to being tied up with other convention-related duties.” as follows: Ms. Mattson and Mr. Nanna arrived following the call to order due to their involvement with other convention-related duties. * I believe it would be appropriate to identify Ms. Daugherty and Mr. Burns as Head of Development (Director of Development?) and State Affiliate Development Specialist, respectively. (Note: I don't know whether Ms. Daugherty's appointment as Director of Development was in effect as of the LNC meeting.) *Perhaps reword the phrase “The gallery contained multiple other attendees …” as “The gallery contained many other attendees ….” p. 4: *Perhaps reword the phrase “Mr. Goldstein inquired if re-creating …” as “Mr. Goldstein inquired whether re-creating ….” * Mr. Bishop-Henchman's surname is listed as Bishop Henchman, rather than Bishop-Henchman. *Perhaps reword the phrase “… for use by the national office and to make arrangements to view the Review of Harassment and Offensive Behavior Prohibition training video” as “… for use by the national office, and to distribute the Review of Harassment and Offensive Behavior Prohibition training video.” *I believe the sentence “Dr. Lark suggested that the requirements for Executive Session confidentiality be discussed” should be rephrased as follows: Dr. Lark suggested that the legal issues regarding Executive Session be mentioned. p. 5: *Perhaps reword the phrase “Ms. Harlos confirmed that the prior HPC members comprised herself, Dr. Joe Buchman, Joe Dehn, Ed Fochler, and James Gholston and that they …” as “Ms. Harlos noted that the prior HPC members consisted of herself, Joe Buchman, Joe Dehn, Ed Fochler, and James Gholston, and that they ….” Note:Honorifics such as Dr. and Prof. should not be used in listing members of a committee unless the honorific is associated with a status that is relevant to the composition and/or function of the committee. *Perhaps reword the sentence “Dr. Lark asked that the LNC thank Ms. Harlos and her committee members for the fine work that they have done which was met with a round of applause” as follows: Dr. Lark suggested that the LNC thank Ms. Harlos and her committee members for their fine work; the LNC provided a round of applause. p. 6: *Perhaps reword the sentence “It is typically used for time-sensitive items that need to be taken up more quickly than the next LNC meeting or email ballot” as follows: The EC typically acts upon time-sensitive items that must be addressed before an LNC meeting can be called or an email ballot completed. In addition, I believe it would be appropriate to reword the sentence "The Executive Committee comprises the four (4) officers and three (3) non-officer members" as follows: The Executive Committee typically consists of the four (4) officers and three (3) non-officer members. *Perhaps reword the sentence “Mr. Fields commented on his experiences with the APRC and interacted with several past members to obtain clarification on the current policies” as follows: Mr. Fields commented on his experiences with the APRC, and sought clarification concerning the current policies. p. 7: *Perhaps reword the phrase “The Ballot Access Committee comprises …” as “The Ballot Access Committee consists of ...." Also, Ed Marsh is not mentioned prior to his listing as a member of the previous BAC; I believe it would be appropriate to mention his first name in the listing. p. 8: *Perhaps reword the phrase “Ken Moellman (former BAC Chair) reminded everyone that …” as “Ken Moellman (former BAC Chair) noted that ….” * On both page 8 and page 9, Dr. Olsen is identified as Mr. Olsen, whereas he is identified as Dr. Olsen in several other locations. *As far as I am aware, Mr. Nanna, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Redpath were not candidates for election to the Candidate Support Committee.However, their names are listed as vote recipients in the vote table, apparently because Mr. Merced cast his votes for them. If this is the case, Mr. Merced voted for three people who were not candidates, and did not vote for any of those who were candidates. I hope it will not be considered impertinent to inquire whether there has been an error in the recording of Mr. Merced's ballot. p. 9: * The following sentence appears under Treasurer's Report: Mr. Sarwark also signed up so many new Life Members that he ran out of Life Member pins. Did Mr. Sarwark actually sign up all of the new Life Members to whom he presented pins? If not, I suggest that the sentence be worded along the following lines: Mr. Sarwark awarded so many Life Member pins to new LIfe Members that he ran out of pins. p. 11: * As far as I am aware, Marc Montoni is not a rabbi (at least, not in the usual sense). Even if he is a rabbi, I don't believe honorifics should be used in listing names on a roster.
Dr. Lark, thank you so much for your comments, and I will take them into consideration in my next draft. I see a few where I do disagree such as placements of commas (due to a particularly dictatorial prior boss who drummed the rules of commas into my head) and using consists of instead of comprises - comprises is used correctly there and is my style and voice (http://www.english-for-students.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Comprise-...) - personally I find consists of to be more informal than comprises and thus I favour the latter. There may be a few more examples--as a writer, there are certain stylistic preferences that I do hold. However, I do heartily approve of the suggested change involving the sentence splice with the semi-colon. Semi-colons are woefully neglected. Mr. Merced's ballot was recorded correctly. It appears he was confused during the hectic rush and mistook the candidates. -Caryn Ann On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:05 PM, James Lark via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed below comments regarding the draft minutes of the July 3 meeting; I hope you find them worthy of consideration. As you will note, most of the comments involve stylistic matters. I apologize that I was unable to prepare and send these comments sooner; I have been remarkably busy since Independence Day.
Thanks for your work for liberty. I look forward to seeing you in the Valley of the Sun.
Take care, Jim
James W. Lark, III Professor, Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Professor, Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Department of Statistics University of Virginia
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee -----
General comments:
* As a stylistic matter, I believe it would improve the readability if more clauses were set off by use of commas. For example, the following sentence appears on p. 5:
Ms. Harlos confirmed that the prior HPC members comprised herself, Dr. Joe Buchman, Joe Dehn, Ed Fochler, and James Gholston and that they were all active and participating.
I believe it would be better to set off the phrase “and that they were all active and participating” by use of a comma following the name of Mr. Gholston. As an aside, please note my comment below (involving an item on p.5) concerning the use of honorifics.
p.1:
* I suggest that the phrase “Post-Convention” be removed from the title block and the footer.
* Under Prelude, perhaps reword the phrase “The potential agenda for the meeting …” as “The proposed agenda for the meeting ….”
p. 2:
* Since Mr. Fields' position as Press Secretary has not been mentioned as of this point in the text, it would be appropriate to identify him (perhaps parenthetically) as such.
* Since the states associated with regions are evidently listed in alphabetical order, Virginia should be listed before West Virginia in the list of the Region 5 state affiliates.
p. 3:
* Perhaps reword the sentence “It is noted that Alicia Mattson and Dustin Nanna arrived late due to being tied up with other convention-related duties.” as follows:
Ms. Mattson and Mr. Nanna arrived following the call to order due to their involvement with other convention-related duties.
* I believe it would be appropriate to identify Ms. Daugherty and Mr. Burns as Head of Development (Director of Development?) and State Affiliate Development Specialist, respectively. (Note: I don't know whether Ms. Daugherty's appointment as Director of Development was in effect as of the LNC meeting.)
* Perhaps reword the phrase “The gallery contained multiple other attendees …” as “The gallery contained many other attendees ….”
p. 4:
* Perhaps reword the phrase “Mr. Goldstein inquired if re-creating …” as “Mr. Goldstein inquired whether re-creating ….”
* Mr. Bishop-Henchman's surname is listed as Bishop Henchman, rather than Bishop-Henchman.
* Perhaps reword the phrase “… for use by the national office and to make arrangements to view the Review of Harassment and Offensive Behavior Prohibition training video” as “… for use by the national office, and to distribute the Review of Harassment and Offensive Behavior Prohibition training video.”
* I believe the sentence “Dr. Lark suggested that the requirements for Executive Session confidentiality be discussed” should be rephrased as follows:
Dr. Lark suggested that the legal issues regarding Executive Session be mentioned.
p. 5:
* Perhaps reword the phrase “Ms. Harlos confirmed that the prior HPC members comprised herself, Dr. Joe Buchman, Joe Dehn, Ed Fochler, and James Gholston and that they …” as “Ms. Harlos noted that the prior HPC members consisted of herself, Joe Buchman, Joe Dehn, Ed Fochler, and James Gholston, and that they ….”
Note: Honorifics such as Dr. and Prof. should not be used in listing members of a committee unless the honorific is associated with a status that is relevant to the composition and/or function of the committee.
* Perhaps reword the sentence “Dr. Lark asked that the LNC thank Ms. Harlos and her committee members for the fine work that they have done which was met with a round of applause” as follows:
Dr. Lark suggested that the LNC thank Ms. Harlos and her committee members for their fine work; the LNC provided a round of applause.
p. 6:
* Perhaps reword the sentence “It is typically used for time-sensitive items that need to be taken up more quickly than the next LNC meeting or email ballot” as follows:
The EC typically acts upon time-sensitive items that must be addressed before an LNC meeting can be called or an email ballot completed.
In addition, I believe it would be appropriate to reword the sentence "The Executive Committee comprises the four (4) officers and three (3) non-officer members" as follows:
The Executive Committee typically consists of the four (4) officers and three (3) non-officer members.
* Perhaps reword the sentence “Mr. Fields commented on his experiences with the APRC and interacted with several past members to obtain clarification on the current policies” as follows:
Mr. Fields commented on his experiences with the APRC, and sought clarification concerning the current policies.
p. 7:
* Perhaps reword the phrase “The Ballot Access Committee comprises …” as “The Ballot Access Committee consists of ...." Also, Ed Marsh is not mentioned prior to his listing as a member of the previous BAC; I believe it would be appropriate to mention his first name in the listing.
p. 8:
* Perhaps reword the phrase “Ken Moellman (former BAC Chair) reminded everyone that …” as “Ken Moellman (former BAC Chair) noted that ….”
* On both page 8 and page 9, Dr. Olsen is identified as Mr. Olsen, whereas he is identified as Dr. Olsen in several other locations.
* As far as I am aware, Mr. Nanna, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Redpath were not candidates for election to the Candidate Support Committee. However, their names are listed as vote recipients in the vote table, apparently because Mr. Merced cast his votes for them. If this is the case, Mr. Merced voted for three people who were not candidates, and did not vote for any of those who were candidates.
I hope it will not be considered impertinent to inquire whether there has been an error in the recording of Mr. Merced's ballot.
p. 9:
* The following sentence appears under Treasurer's Report: Mr. Sarwark also signed up so many new Life Members that he ran out of Life Member pins.
Did Mr. Sarwark actually sign up all of the new Life Members to whom he presented pins? If not, I suggest that the sentence be worded along the following lines: Mr. Sarwark awarded so many Life Member pins to new LIfe Members that he ran out of pins.
p. 11:
* As far as I am aware, Marc Montoni is not a rabbi (at least, not in the usual sense). Even if he is a rabbi, I don't believe honorifics should be used in listing names on a roster.
-- -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org or Secretary@LP.org. Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
Here is my feedback regarding the draft July 3 minutes: 1) The bylaws require roll-call voting on substantive motions, however it leaves it to the LNC to decide what is or isn't substantive. Footnote 7 reflects one person's belief that it was substantive, however the LNC did not make such a determination. 2) On page 10, in the "Adjournment" section, there is a statement that I requested interested parties to stick around after the LNC meeting to assist with the "auditing" of the Judicial Committee results. It was actually the initial tally of the Judicial Committee, not an audit of a previously-completed tally. 3) On RONR p. 468, lines 16-18, the rule of thumb for minutes is given as, "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." The first draft of the minutes has a lot of content that is based on what was said, rather than what was done collectively by the LNC as a whole. The meeting's call-to-order doesn't appear until page 3 of the minutes, and we end up with 3 different listings of agenda items along the way. The final 4 pages of the 15-page document contains things said by people who are not on the LNC. I realize that different Secretaries have different styles, however including this degree of what was said can be quite problematic. The things said may or may not even be true, and the fact that it appears in approved minutes may incorrectly give a statement credence. Since it's not a transcript, the summaries may or may not be fair representations of what the person actually thinks they said. One of the public comments was particularly personal in nature about someone I'm not even familiar with. Starting the trend of including anything that anyone says during public comments then turns our minutes into a free speech forum for anyone who wants their opinions posted on the LP website. This makes our minutes something other than simply a record of our collective actions as a board. If people want to personally publish their notes about things that were said in the meeting, they can do that, but they shouldn't be a part of the official record of the board's proceedings. -Alicia
Thank you Alicia - even though this was received after the first requested deadline for comments of 7/30/18, I had not yet completed the second draft so I will be able to incorporate these. I comment as follows: ===1) The bylaws require roll-call voting on substantive motions, however it leaves it to the LNC to decide what is or isn't substantive. Footnote 7 reflects one person's belief that it was substantive, however the LNC did not make such a determination.=== I will leave it to the LNC to decide whether or not to object to that footnote. I don't think it requires an official proclamation that appointment to the executive committee is substantive - it is obvious that it is. The lack of a roll call vote was noted with displeasure by two members to me. ==2) On page 10, in the "Adjournment" section, there is a statement that I requested interested parties to stick around after the LNC meeting to assist with the "auditing" of the Judicial Committee results. It was actually the initial tally of the Judicial Committee, not an audit of a previously-completed tally.=== I will note that, thank you. === The meeting's call-to-order doesn't appear until page 3 of the minutes, and we end up with 3 different listings of agenda items along the way. === That is how the meeting went. While chaotic, I cannot change the past. The fact of this procedure was noted in the minutes for the future reader. === The final 4 pages of the 15-page document contains things said by people who are not on the LNC. I realize that different Secretaries have different styles, however including this degree of what was said can be quite problematic. The things said may or may not even be true, and the fact that it appears in approved minutes may incorrectly give a statement credence. Since it's not a transcript, the summaries may or may not be fair representations of what the person actually thinks they said. One of the public comments was particularly personal in nature about someone I'm not even familiar with. Starting the trend of including anything that anyone says during public comments then turns our minutes into a free speech forum for anyone who wants their opinions posted on the LP website. This makes our minutes something other than simply a record of our collective actions as a board. If people want to personally publish their notes about things that were said in the meeting, they can do that, but they shouldn't be a part of the official record of the board's proceedings.== On this we disagree and I will leave it to the LNC to decide. These are located in an appendix not in the minutes and just like we agreed that Ms. Mattson's notes on her views of RONR could be included in an appendix of convention minutes (which actually is editorial content) there should be no issue with summaries of things said in an appendix of meeting minutes. I have no issue adding a footnote that these are member comments and we do not endorse them (though I think that quite obvious) but I do not agree to removing them. It is important that members feel they have a voice (and yes a near free speech forum - *just like they do to comments they forward to our official business list*, and there is a video recording of the meeting that anyone can go to. Noting the location of the video recording I do think would be an important addition, and I will do that. It was put in an appendix precisely to avoid this issue. On the issue of the members having a voice, I am quite truculent. Over the course of the existence of the LP rather than simply the past five years, the custom has been to include more detail than the skeletor requirements of RONR. In fact WAY more detail than I have included which creates a rather thorough historical record which - with all due respect to General Robert - is just as important as having voted down a particular committee creation. I have found no official determination that this practice must or even should cease - there was a change in Secretary in which it ceased as was her prerogative absent contrary direction. And now there is another change. I will await the LNC's pleasure on that issue. The second draft will be presented later today. -Caryn Ann On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:28 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Here is my feedback regarding the draft July 3 minutes:
1) The bylaws require roll-call voting on substantive motions, however it leaves it to the LNC to decide what is or isn't substantive. Footnote 7 reflects one person's belief that it was substantive, however the LNC did not make such a determination.
2) On page 10, in the "Adjournment" section, there is a statement that I requested interested parties to stick around after the LNC meeting to assist with the "auditing" of the Judicial Committee results. It was actually the initial tally of the Judicial Committee, not an audit of a previously-completed tally.
3) On RONR p. 468, lines 16-18, the rule of thumb for minutes is given as, "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."
The first draft of the minutes has a lot of content that is based on what was said, rather than what was done collectively by the LNC as a whole. The meeting's call-to-order doesn't appear until page 3 of the minutes, and we end up with 3 different listings of agenda items along the way. The final 4 pages of the 15-page document contains things said by people who are not on the LNC.
I realize that different Secretaries have different styles, however including this degree of what was said can be quite problematic. The things said may or may not even be true, and the fact that it appears in approved minutes may incorrectly give a statement credence. Since it's not a transcript, the summaries may or may not be fair representations of what the person actually thinks they said. One of the public comments was particularly personal in nature about someone I'm not even familiar with. Starting the trend of including anything that anyone says during public comments then turns our minutes into a free speech forum for anyone who wants their opinions posted on the LP website. This makes our minutes something other than simply a record of our collective actions as a board.
If people want to personally publish their notes about things that were said in the meeting, they can do that, but they shouldn't be a part of the official record of the board's proceedings.
-Alicia
-- -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org or Secretary@LP.org. Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
I'm circling back to the discussion of including extensive commentary in the LNC minutes. <CAH> On this we disagree and I will leave it to the LNC to decide. These are located in an appendix not in the minutes and just like we agreed that Ms. Mattson's notes on her views of RONR could be included in an appendix of convention minutes (which actually is editorial content) there should be no issue with summaries of things said in an appendix of meeting minutes. </CAH> I disagree with your characterization of Appendix C to the 2016 convention minutes as being my "notes on my views of RONR". For anyone who wants to take a look, those minutes can be found here: https://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2016-Convention-Minutes-approv... Appendix C consists of verbatim quotations from RONR, which is part of our adopted rules. It is the equivalent of your footnote 14, "See Bylaws Article 9.6." There is no editorial content. Regarding my draft you expressed that my use of the single word "however" was too much editorial content, so I removed that word. At your request, I added the note at the top of that appendix, though the appendix itself contains no editorializing remarks by me, just verbatim quotes from our rules, and the only opinion that involved is that I think those particular rules are relevant to the situation. It's quite a stretch to say that appendix of verbatim quotes from our rules is the equivalent of including the extensive personal commentaries that are in the 7/3/18 draft minutes we're discussing. If the word "however" was too much editorializing in the minutes I authored, I don't understand the consistency of the argument for now including the material we're talking about here. <CAH> It is important that members feel they have a voice...</CAH> This is a strawman argument. I am not saying that members should not be able to speak during the public comment portions of our agenda. I am just saying that those comments don't belong in the record of formal actions taken by the LNC as a whole. Sure, there have been some other secretaries in the past that included much more material than my minutes did, and I also recall times when that material became a point of contention for various reasons. Many members have told me that they appreciated that the minutes I authored did not do that. You indicated that you would leave it to the LNC to decide, and await the LNC's pleasure on the matter. I'll go ahead and object to the auto-approval of the 7/3/18 minutes so that discussion can happen in our Phoenix meeting. It doesn't need a separate agenda item, as it can be covered during the Secretary's report. -Alicia On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:31 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alicia - even though this was received after the first requested deadline for comments of 7/30/18, I had not yet completed the second draft so I will be able to incorporate these.
I comment as follows:
===1) The bylaws require roll-call voting on substantive motions, however it leaves it to the LNC to decide what is or isn't substantive. Footnote 7 reflects one person's belief that it was substantive, however the LNC did not make such a determination.===
I will leave it to the LNC to decide whether or not to object to that footnote. I don't think it requires an official proclamation that appointment to the executive committee is substantive - it is obvious that it is. The lack of a roll call vote was noted with displeasure by two members to me.
==2) On page 10, in the "Adjournment" section, there is a statement that I requested interested parties to stick around after the LNC meeting to assist with the "auditing" of the Judicial Committee results. It was actually the initial tally of the Judicial Committee, not an audit of a previously-completed tally.===
I will note that, thank you.
=== The meeting's call-to-order doesn't appear until page 3 of the minutes, and we end up with 3 different listings of agenda items along the way. ===
That is how the meeting went. While chaotic, I cannot change the past. The fact of this procedure was noted in the minutes for the future reader.
=== The final 4 pages of the 15-page document contains things said by people who are not on the LNC.
I realize that different Secretaries have different styles, however including this degree of what was said can be quite problematic. The things said may or may not even be true, and the fact that it appears in approved minutes may incorrectly give a statement credence. Since it's not a transcript, the summaries may or may not be fair representations of what the person actually thinks they said. One of the public comments was particularly personal in nature about someone I'm not even familiar with. Starting the trend of including anything that anyone says during public comments then turns our minutes into a free speech forum for anyone who wants their opinions posted on the LP website. This makes our minutes something other than simply a record of our collective actions as a board.
If people want to personally publish their notes about things that were said in the meeting, they can do that, but they shouldn't be a part of the official record of the board's proceedings.==
On this we disagree and I will leave it to the LNC to decide. These are located in an appendix not in the minutes and just like we agreed that Ms. Mattson's notes on her views of RONR could be included in an appendix of convention minutes (which actually is editorial content) there should be no issue with summaries of things said in an appendix of meeting minutes. I have no issue adding a footnote that these are member comments and we do not endorse them (though I think that quite obvious) but I do not agree to removing them. It is important that members feel they have a voice (and yes a near free speech forum - *just like they do to comments they forward to our official business list*, and there is a video recording of the meeting that anyone can go to. Noting the location of the video recording I do think would be an important addition, and I will do that. It was put in an appendix precisely to avoid this issue. On the issue of the members having a voice, I am quite truculent.
Over the course of the existence of the LP rather than simply the past five years, the custom has been to include more detail than the skeletor requirements of RONR. In fact WAY more detail than I have included which creates a rather thorough historical record which - with all due respect to General Robert - is just as important as having voted down a particular committee creation. I have found no official determination that this practice must or even should cease - there was a change in Secretary in which it ceased as was her prerogative absent contrary direction. And now there is another change. I will await the LNC's pleasure on that issue.
The second draft will be presented later today.
-Caryn Ann
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:28 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Here is my feedback regarding the draft July 3 minutes:
1) The bylaws require roll-call voting on substantive motions, however it leaves it to the LNC to decide what is or isn't substantive. Footnote 7 reflects one person's belief that it was substantive, however the LNC did not make such a determination.
2) On page 10, in the "Adjournment" section, there is a statement that I requested interested parties to stick around after the LNC meeting to assist with the "auditing" of the Judicial Committee results. It was actually the initial tally of the Judicial Committee, not an audit of a previously-completed tally.
3) On RONR p. 468, lines 16-18, the rule of thumb for minutes is given as, "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."
The first draft of the minutes has a lot of content that is based on what was said, rather than what was done collectively by the LNC as a whole. The meeting's call-to-order doesn't appear until page 3 of the minutes, and we end up with 3 different listings of agenda items along the way. The final 4 pages of the 15-page document contains things said by people who are not on the LNC.
I realize that different Secretaries have different styles, however including this degree of what was said can be quite problematic. The things said may or may not even be true, and the fact that it appears in approved minutes may incorrectly give a statement credence. Since it's not a transcript, the summaries may or may not be fair representations of what the person actually thinks they said. One of the public comments was particularly personal in nature about someone I'm not even familiar with. Starting the trend of including anything that anyone says during public comments then turns our minutes into a free speech forum for anyone who wants their opinions posted on the LP website. This makes our minutes something other than simply a record of our collective actions as a board.
If people want to personally publish their notes about things that were said in the meeting, they can do that, but they shouldn't be a part of the official record of the board's proceedings.
-Alicia
-- -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org or Secretary@LP.org. Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
A couple of things to note: First, since RONR was not even cited in the proceeding (in most instances) it is in fact your opinion on its applicability since it was not part of the official record, and for context for new members, that "however" was editorializing because it was used to disagree with a ruling of the Chair that was not over-ruled by the body. Even when "however" was not used - there were several instances where those notes were used to challenge or cast doubt on the actions of the Chair. Your reference of footnote 14 is nowhere similar as that Bylaw was referenced in the meeting directly. An appendix of what was mentioned in public comment (and by the way what was mentioned in public comment has been approved in the actual body of prior minutes - see the December 2017 minutes) is not adding any information that was not present. An appendix does not purport to be the records of actions taken. And in fact members of the LNC *asked* me *during the proceeding* to make note of who said they were interested in various committees thus making it part of the record and Starchild was directed by the Chair to give me his notes to makes them a part of the minutes. You did not object at that time. When it comes to having a voice, I think it is apparent that I mean having it "noted" not merely having the option to create sound waves at a specified period of time. What members said and thought is important. It is important for us to hear, and it is important for others to read. I will make note that this will be covered during the Secretary's report at our Phoenix meeting and thus remove it from the auto-approval schedule. -Caryn Ann On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 3:15 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
I'm circling back to the discussion of including extensive commentary in the LNC minutes.
<CAH> On this we disagree and I will leave it to the LNC to decide. These are located in an appendix not in the minutes and just like we agreed that Ms. Mattson's notes on her views of RONR could be included in an appendix of convention minutes (which actually is editorial content) there should be no issue with summaries of things said in an appendix of meeting minutes. </CAH>
I disagree with your characterization of Appendix C to the 2016 convention minutes as being my "notes on my views of RONR". For anyone who wants to take a look, those minutes can be found here: https://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2016-Convention-Minutes-approv...
Appendix C consists of verbatim quotations from RONR, which is part of our adopted rules. It is the equivalent of your footnote 14, "See Bylaws Article 9.6." There is no editorial content. Regarding my draft you expressed that my use of the single word "however" was too much editorial content, so I removed that word. At your request, I added the note at the top of that appendix, though the appendix itself contains no editorializing remarks by me, just verbatim quotes from our rules, and the only opinion that involved is that I think those particular rules are relevant to the situation.
It's quite a stretch to say that appendix of verbatim quotes from our rules is the equivalent of including the extensive personal commentaries that are in the 7/3/18 draft minutes we're discussing. If the word "however" was too much editorializing in the minutes I authored, I don't understand the consistency of the argument for now including the material we're talking about here.
<CAH> It is important that members feel they have a voice...</CAH>
This is a strawman argument. I am not saying that members should not be able to speak during the public comment portions of our agenda. I am just saying that those comments don't belong in the record of formal actions taken by the LNC as a whole.
Sure, there have been some other secretaries in the past that included much more material than my minutes did, and I also recall times when that material became a point of contention for various reasons. Many members have told me that they appreciated that the minutes I authored did not do that.
You indicated that you would leave it to the LNC to decide, and await the LNC's pleasure on the matter. I'll go ahead and object to the auto-approval of the 7/3/18 minutes so that discussion can happen in our Phoenix meeting. It doesn't need a separate agenda item, as it can be covered during the Secretary's report.
-Alicia
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:31 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Thank you Alicia - even though this was received after the first requested deadline for comments of 7/30/18, I had not yet completed the second draft so I will be able to incorporate these.
I comment as follows:
===1) The bylaws require roll-call voting on substantive motions, however it leaves it to the LNC to decide what is or isn't substantive. Footnote 7 reflects one person's belief that it was substantive, however the LNC did not make such a determination.===
I will leave it to the LNC to decide whether or not to object to that footnote. I don't think it requires an official proclamation that appointment to the executive committee is substantive - it is obvious that it is. The lack of a roll call vote was noted with displeasure by two members to me.
==2) On page 10, in the "Adjournment" section, there is a statement that I requested interested parties to stick around after the LNC meeting to assist with the "auditing" of the Judicial Committee results. It was actually the initial tally of the Judicial Committee, not an audit of a previously-completed tally.===
I will note that, thank you.
=== The meeting's call-to-order doesn't appear until page 3 of the minutes, and we end up with 3 different listings of agenda items along the way. ===
That is how the meeting went. While chaotic, I cannot change the past. The fact of this procedure was noted in the minutes for the future reader.
=== The final 4 pages of the 15-page document contains things said by people who are not on the LNC.
I realize that different Secretaries have different styles, however including this degree of what was said can be quite problematic. The things said may or may not even be true, and the fact that it appears in approved minutes may incorrectly give a statement credence. Since it's not a transcript, the summaries may or may not be fair representations of what the person actually thinks they said. One of the public comments was particularly personal in nature about someone I'm not even familiar with. Starting the trend of including anything that anyone says during public comments then turns our minutes into a free speech forum for anyone who wants their opinions posted on the LP website. This makes our minutes something other than simply a record of our collective actions as a board.
If people want to personally publish their notes about things that were said in the meeting, they can do that, but they shouldn't be a part of the official record of the board's proceedings.==
On this we disagree and I will leave it to the LNC to decide. These are located in an appendix not in the minutes and just like we agreed that Ms. Mattson's notes on her views of RONR could be included in an appendix of convention minutes (which actually is editorial content) there should be no issue with summaries of things said in an appendix of meeting minutes. I have no issue adding a footnote that these are member comments and we do not endorse them (though I think that quite obvious) but I do not agree to removing them. It is important that members feel they have a voice (and yes a near free speech forum - *just like they do to comments they forward to our official business list*, and there is a video recording of the meeting that anyone can go to. Noting the location of the video recording I do think would be an important addition, and I will do that. It was put in an appendix precisely to avoid this issue. On the issue of the members having a voice, I am quite truculent.
Over the course of the existence of the LP rather than simply the past five years, the custom has been to include more detail than the skeletor requirements of RONR. In fact WAY more detail than I have included which creates a rather thorough historical record which - with all due respect to General Robert - is just as important as having voted down a particular committee creation. I have found no official determination that this practice must or even should cease - there was a change in Secretary in which it ceased as was her prerogative absent contrary direction. And now there is another change. I will await the LNC's pleasure on that issue.
The second draft will be presented later today.
-Caryn Ann
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:28 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:
Here is my feedback regarding the draft July 3 minutes:
1) The bylaws require roll-call voting on substantive motions, however it leaves it to the LNC to decide what is or isn't substantive. Footnote 7 reflects one person's belief that it was substantive, however the LNC did not make such a determination.
2) On page 10, in the "Adjournment" section, there is a statement that I requested interested parties to stick around after the LNC meeting to assist with the "auditing" of the Judicial Committee results. It was actually the initial tally of the Judicial Committee, not an audit of a previously-completed tally.
3) On RONR p. 468, lines 16-18, the rule of thumb for minutes is given as, "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."
The first draft of the minutes has a lot of content that is based on what was said, rather than what was done collectively by the LNC as a whole. The meeting's call-to-order doesn't appear until page 3 of the minutes, and we end up with 3 different listings of agenda items along the way. The final 4 pages of the 15-page document contains things said by people who are not on the LNC.
I realize that different Secretaries have different styles, however including this degree of what was said can be quite problematic. The things said may or may not even be true, and the fact that it appears in approved minutes may incorrectly give a statement credence. Since it's not a transcript, the summaries may or may not be fair representations of what the person actually thinks they said. One of the public comments was particularly personal in nature about someone I'm not even familiar with. Starting the trend of including anything that anyone says during public comments then turns our minutes into a free speech forum for anyone who wants their opinions posted on the LP website. This makes our minutes something other than simply a record of our collective actions as a board.
If people want to personally publish their notes about things that were said in the meeting, they can do that, but they shouldn't be a part of the official record of the board's proceedings.
-Alicia
-- -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org or Secretary@LP.org. Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
-- -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org or Secretary@LP.org. Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia@LP.org A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
participants (3)
-
Alicia Mattson -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
James Lark