Comments regarding draft minutes
Dear colleagues: I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed several comments regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting. I hope you find these comments to be helpful. A goodly number of the comments involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments involve suggested wording. I apologize that I was unable to prepare and send these comments sooner; during the past three weeks I have been swamped with faculty duties (and faculty problems), Libertarian duties, and travel. Also, because of my schedule, I was able to review the draft only once (and in haste). Thus, it is possible I have overlooked some items that are worthy of consideration. Allow me to express again my appreciation for Ms. Harlos' work to prepare the draft minutes. As one who has served as secretary pro tem for the LNC on occasion (and who now serves as secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia), I am well aware of the effort required to assemble draft minutes. As always, thanks for your work for liberty. Best wishes for a great 2018. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the list of comments. Take care, Jim James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee ----- General comments: * To be consistent with previous minutes, I suggest that the phrase "the motion passed" be replaced by "the motion was adopted." Please note that both phrases are used within these draft minutes. * To be consistent with previous minutes, I suggest that seconders of motions not be listed. * When I refer to the "original agenda" below, I refer to the agenda that was distributed by staff at the meeting. p. 2: * In listing the LNC members and alternates not in attendance, in order to be consistent with previous minutes, the alternates should be listed in order of region number (1 through 8), rather than in alphabetical order of surname. (Thus, Region 4 alternate Starr should be listed before Region 5 alternate Somes.) * I suggest that the phrase "(the Great Snowpocalypse of 2017)" be removed. Also, if I understood Starchild correctly, he was in New Orleans as of Friday afternoon. The phrasing of the special note suggests that his late arrival at the LNC meeting on Dec. 9 was due to a flight delay. * I suggest that the paragraph under "Credentials Report and Paperwork Check" be rewritten as follows: Ms. Harlos confirmed the attendance roster and distributed a departure time information sheet to determine when quorum would be lost on Sunday. Staff provided copies of meeting packets. It was noted that Mr. Bittner had resigned as Region 3 Representative on November 30, 2017. * Near the bottom of the page, I suggest that the phrase "... Mr. Bittner’s resignation as Region 3 Regional Representative ..." be reworded as follows: ".... Mr. Bittner’s resignation as Region 3 Representative ...." p. 3: * In listening to my recording of the meeting, it sounds to me that it was Mr. Redpath who moved that the agenda be adopted as amended, rather than Mr. Hewitt. (Mr. Redpath was seated next to me during the meeting, and his voice comes through clearly in my recording of the meeting. I did not hear Mr. Hewitt's voice.) * Under Reports of Standing Committees, the original agenda listed a report (allotted 5 minutes) from the Credentials Committee, to take place following a report from the Bylaws Committee. That report was not removed from the agenda. (The agenda items for the Platform and Bylaws committees were subsequently removed; the Credentials Committee agenda item was not.) * The time allotted for the agenda item "Amendment to the procedure for approving litigation" is listed as 30 minutes. According to the original agenda, the amount of time allotted is 10 minutes. As far as I can tell, this amount was not changed to 30 minutes. * Under the heading "Sunday Morning Session," the original agenda listed the item "Opportunity for Public Committee," which was allotted 10 minutes. As far as I can recall, it was not removed from the agenda; in addition, Mr. Sarwark solicited public comment on Sunday morning. (Mr. Kraus offered some comments.) p. 4: * The URL for Mr. Sarwark's website is Sarwarkforphoenix.com. (When he announced the website, Mr. Sarwark spelled the word "for.") * Under the "Treasurer's Report," I suggest that the phrase "Mr. Hagan noted that since the Party uses the accrual method that the revenues for the 2018 National Convention ..." be reworded as follows: "Mr. Hagan noted that since the Party uses the accrual method, the revenues for the 2018 National Convention ...." p. 5: * In the second bullet-point item under the "Treasurer's Report," I suggest that the phrase "... (Mr. Kraus will need to confirm if mortgage will be paid in full ..." be reworded as follows: "... (Mr. Kraus will need to confirm whether the mortgage will be paid in full ...." * In the third bullet-point item under the "Treasurer's Report," I suggest $2400 be replaced by $2,400 in order to be consistent with other dollar figures included in the draft. * In the second sentence under "Staff Reports," I suggest that the phrase "... regarding the goals and duties for the new contractors including the recruitment of 2,000 candidates ..." be punctuated as follows: "... regarding the goals and duties for the new contractors, including the recruitment of 2,000 candidates ...." * In the final sentence under "Staff Reports," perhaps reword "Ms. Daugherty was given a round of applause" as "Ms. Daugherty received a round of applause." p. 6: * At the top of the page, I suggest that the phrase "Starchild moved that the LNC disclose everything discussed in the secret session ..." be reworded as follows: "Starchild moved that the LNC disclose everything discussed in the executive session ...." * In the final paragraph under the "Public Disclosure of Items Discussed in Executive Session" item, the first sentence reads as follows: Mr. Moellman moved that the LNC disclose the discussions in the secret session excluding any personally identifiable information which is not just limited to names. I believe the phrase "secret session" should be changed to "executive session." (Mr. Moellman used the phrase "executive session" in stating his motion.) * In the final paragraph under the "Public Disclosure of Items Discussed in Executive Session" item, the final sentence reads as follows: After debate, this motion passed by a show of hands with the required 2/3 vote. It is not clear to me why a 2/3rds vote was required. Prior to the vote, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the motion required a 2/3rds vote. After the vote concluded, a question was raised as to why a 2/3rds vote was needed; someone suggested that since the motion received 2/3rds, it was not necessary to linger in order to discuss the parliamentary issue. If I understand correctly, a motion to postpone a pending question to a time certain only requires a majority vote unless it makes the question a special order. As far as I can tell, adoption of the question considered would not establish a special order. Thus, it appears to me that a 2/3rds vote was not required. I suggest that if it cannot be demonstrated a 2/3rds vote was required, the final sentence should be reworded as follows: After debate, this motion was adopted by a show of hands. * In the third paragraph under the "Audit Committee" item, I believe the phrase "... (see Appendices E and F respectively) ...." should be punctuated as follows: "... (see Appendices E and F, respectively) ...." p. 7: * The first paragraph at the top of the page reads as follows: Ms. Fox indicated that there were some differing opinions on the duties of the Audit Committee which slowed down its progress and that the LNC might want to review the Policy Manual language for clarity. I suggest that the paragraph be rewritten as follows: Ms. Fox indicated that there were some differing opinions on the duties of the Audit Committee, which slowed down its progress. She suggested that the LNC may wish to review the Policy Manual language for clarity. * In the second paragraph at the top of the page, I suggest that the sentence "Recommendations were made to implement ACH and check positive pay which Mr. Kraus indicated is already in process" be reworded as follows: Recommendations were made to implement check and ACH positive pay; Mr. Kraus indicated that an effort to implement these procedures is already underway. (Note: The specific language used by the Audit Committee is "... also recommends check and ACH positive pay ....") * Under the "Partial Population of Awards Committee" item, I suggest that the sentence "Dr. Lark noted that it is preferable to have continuity on this Committee and two past members (Mr. Lark and Mr. Hagan) have expressed interest" be rewritten as follows: Dr. Lark noted that the Policy Manual explicitly suggests there should be continuity on this Committee. He also noted that as far as he was aware, two members of the 2016 Awards Committee (Dr. Lark and Mr. Hagan) submitted applications for the 2018 Committee. In addition, the following sentence in the draft should be reworded as follows: "Mr. Hayes also indicated ...." * Since I don't like splitting infinitives, I suggest that the second paragraph under "Partial Population of Awards Committee" be rewritten as follows: Mr. Hewitt moved to appoint Hagan, Hayes, and Lark to the Awards Committee (with the understanding that the other two committee members would be selected subsequently). The motion passed without objection. * In the fourth bullet-point under "Convention Oversight Committee," I believe the phrase "... pending approval by Mr. Sarwark" should be in parentheses, or perhaps preceded by a comma. * I suggest that the first paragraph under the "Request for Policy Manual Change" be rewritten as follows: Mr. Hayes stated that there is some potential ambiguity in the current Policy Manual language regarding whether other convention-related revenues would count towards donor contribution levels, such as Life Memberships. To clarify the language, he requested that Section 2.05.2 of the Policy Manual be amended as follows: p. 9: * Under the "IT Committee" item, the last sentence of the first paragraph reads as follows: Back-end assistance would be appreciated with Ruby on Rails for the candidate database. I assume the sentence is supposed to convey that those working on the candidate database would welcome the assistance of people who have competence with Ruby on Rails. If so, I suggest that the sentence be reworded as follows: Those working on the candidate database would welcome the assistance of people who have competence with Ruby on Rails. * Under the "Credentials Committee" item, the following sentences appear: The Credentials Committee is awaiting appointment of an interim Chair. Mr. Hayes moved to appoint Emily Salvette with Mr. Goldstein seconding. Ms. Harlos then moved to appoint Susan Hogarth with Starchild seconding. Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year. I believe the last of these sentences should be modified or removed. When Mr. Sarwark asked whether there was objection to the motion appointing Ms. Salvette, Starchild objected and mentioned the issue of re-appointing people. As far as I can tell from my recording, Ms. Harlos did not make a comment regarding the issue mentioned by Starchild. (She did make comments about the issue. However, as far as I can tell, those comments were made the following day in speaking on behalf of Susan Hogarth's nomination for interim Credentials Committee chair.) * The third sentence under the "Ballot Access Committee" item reads as follows: Mr. Moellman supplemented with an oral report and answered questions including the following information: I suggest that the sentence should be rewritten as follows: Mr. Moellman supplemented with an oral report and answered questions. He provided the following information: * In the first bullet-point under the "Ballot Access Committee" item, I am uncertain whether the statement "Kentucky has submitted a prior request for LNC assistance" is worded correctly. Should the word "prior" be deleted? * In the first sentence of the final paragraph on the page, I believe there should be a comma between the words "Committee" and "creating." The sentence would then read, "Mr. Moellman resigned from the Ballot Access Committee, creating a vacancy ...." p. 11: * Under the "Adoption of 2018 Budget" item, the second sentence of the second paragraph contains the phrase "... took turns to briefly comment, request information ...." I believe the phrase should be reworded as follows: "... took turns to comment briefly, request information ...." * As mentioned previously, I believe "Opportunity for Public Comment" was on the agenda at the beginning of the Sunday session. Mr. Sarwark asked whether there were such comments; Mr. Kraus offered comments regarding check-out times. * Near the bottom of the page, I suggest that Ms. Salvette and Ms. Hogarth be referred to as Emily Salvette and Susan Hogarth. p. 13: * The following paragraph appears around the middle of the page: Mr. Demarest moved to amend revenue line 4375 “Branding/Political Materials” and expense line 7375 “Branding/Political Materials” from $100,000 to $125,000, for an increase of $25,000 on each. Mr. Hewitt seconded. After debate, this motion passed by a show of hands with a vote total of 12-0 with 2 express abstentions. I believe the names of the members who expressed their abstentions should be mentioned. I was one of the abstainers; I believe Starchild was the other, but it is not clear from my recording. * At the bottom of the page, in recording the "aye" votes on the motion, the surnames are not listed in alphabetical order. To be consistent with previous practice, I believe the surnames should be listed in alphabetical order. p. 14: * In the table containing budget items, the heading of the fourth column is "2019 Budget as Amended." I believe this should be "2018 Budget as Amended." p. 15: * In the table containing budget items, the number for the Bequest Receivable for both the 2018 Budget Proposal and the 2018 Budget as Amended is listed as 67,800. According to Mr. Hagan's spreadsheet, that number should be 66,800. Also, Unrestricted Operating Surplus (or Deficit) for the 2018 Budget Proposal is listed as (269,264). In reviewing the spreadsheet distributed by Mr. Hagan (as modified by changing the ballot access expense from $202,000 to $250,000), I believe this number should be (269,864). If so, the number for Net Surplus (or Deficit) After Capital Expenses & Bequest for the 2018 Budget Proposal should be changed from (201,464) to (203,064). In addition, I believe the number for Net Surplus (or Deficit) After Capital Expenses & Bequest for the 2018 Budget as Amended should be changed from (286,464) to (287,464). * Under the "Amendment to the Procedure for Approving Litigation" item, the following sentence appears: Dr. Lark raised concerns regarding the process for approval of the last amicus brief that was filed without adequate lead-time for review. I suggest that this sentence be reworded as follows: Dr. Lark raised concerns regarding the process for approval of the previous amicus brief, which he believes was filed without adequate lead-time for review. p. 16: * Following the bullet-point list of topics at the top of the page, the following paragraph appears: Mr. Sarwark resumed the gavel and presided over discussion on the timing of a vote on this decision. One key factor in the discussion was the possibility of showing our strong support for Second Amendment rights in a gun-friendly venue with the concurrent publicity that may ensue. I believe the word "key" should be removed, or that the phrase "One key factor ..." should be replaced by "One of the factors ...." * In the paragraph following the listing of the votes for the convention site, the second sentence reads as follows: The LNC responded with a rousing rendition of “Deep in the Heart of Texas.” I request that this sentence be reworded as follows: Some LNC members responded with a rousing rendition of “Deep in the Heart of Texas.” On a personal note, I was impressed by the number of different keys in which "Deep in the Heart of Texas" was sung. (When I played violin and viola with various orchestras and string ensembles, and when I played drums with various groups, we usually endeavored to settle on one key in which we would all play.) p. 17: * The item "Changes to names of Party donor association levels" was added to the agenda under the heading New Business without Previous Notice, and is so listed on p. 4. However, the discussion of the item is included on this page under the heading New Business with Previous Notice. p. 18: * The second sentence at the top of the page reads as follows: Jess Mears is her Campaign Manager. I suggest that "Campaign Manager" be written as "campaign manager." * The third sentence at the top of the page reads as follows: Between 6,000 and 7,000 votes are needed to win. I suggest that this sentence be reworded as follows: The number of votes needed to win is estimated to be between 6,000 and 7,000. * In referring to the report from Region 5, it is noted that I provided a Campus Organizing report and an International Representative Report, which are included in appendices P and Q, respectively. While it is acceptable to organize the appendices in this manner, it may be better to reorganize the appendices so that the Campus Organizing and International Representative reports follow the block of regional reports. p. 19: * In referring to the Region 5 report (Appendix O), the following is listed: Region 5 Report (NC, PA, VA, WV). Since it is unclear why "(NC, PA, VA, WV)" appears, allow me to note that the state affiliates in Region 5 are Delaware (DE), the District of Columbia (DC), Maryland (MD), North Carolina (NC), Pennsylvania (PA), Virginia (VA), and West Virginia (WV). The state parties for which someone submitted material included in this report are Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; no material was submitted for Delaware, DC, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Concerning your comments on the budget table on page 15, Draft 5 of the spreadsheet had a former number for the Bequests Receivable. The FEC raised the contribution limit to $33,900 per individual, so we can withdraw $67,800 from the bequests. (See https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm for contribution limits.) I believe the Bequests Receivable got corrected toward the beginning of the budget discussion, before the budget was moved. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2017-12-30 19:51, James Lark wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed several comments regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting. I hope you find these comments to be helpful. A goodly number of the comments involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments involve suggested wording.
I apologize that I was unable to prepare and send these comments sooner; during the past three weeks I have been swamped with faculty duties (and faculty problems), Libertarian duties, and travel. Also, because of my schedule, I was able to review the draft only once (and in haste). Thus, it is possible I have overlooked some items that are worthy of consideration.
Allow me to express again my appreciation for Ms. Harlos' work to prepare the draft minutes. As one who has served as secretary pro tem for the LNC on occasion (and who now serves as secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia), I am well aware of the effort required to assemble draft minutes.
As always, thanks for your work for liberty. Best wishes for a great 2018. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the list of comments.
Take care, Jim
James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee -----
General comments:
* To be consistent with previous minutes, I suggest that the phrase "the motion passed" be replaced by "the motion was adopted." Please note that both phrases are used within these draft minutes.
* To be consistent with previous minutes, I suggest that seconders of motions not be listed.
* When I refer to the "original agenda" below, I refer to the agenda that was distributed by staff at the meeting.
p. 2:
* In listing the LNC members and alternates not in attendance, in order to be consistent with previous minutes, the alternates should be listed in order of region number (1 through 8), rather than in alphabetical order of surname. (Thus, Region 4 alternate Starr should be listed before Region 5 alternate Somes.)
* I suggest that the phrase "(the Great Snowpocalypse of 2017)" be removed. Also, if I understood Starchild correctly, he was in New Orleans as of Friday afternoon. The phrasing of the special note suggests that his late arrival at the LNC meeting on Dec. 9 was due to a flight delay.
* I suggest that the paragraph under "Credentials Report and Paperwork Check" be rewritten as follows:
Ms. Harlos confirmed the attendance roster and distributed a departure time information sheet to determine when quorum would be lost on Sunday. Staff provided copies of meeting packets.
It was noted that Mr. Bittner had resigned as Region 3 Representative on November 30, 2017.
* Near the bottom of the page, I suggest that the phrase "... Mr. Bittner’s resignation as Region 3 Regional Representative ..." be reworded as follows:
".... Mr. Bittner’s resignation as Region 3 Representative ...."
p. 3:
* In listening to my recording of the meeting, it sounds to me that it was Mr. Redpath who moved that the agenda be adopted as amended, rather than Mr. Hewitt. (Mr. Redpath was seated next to me during the meeting, and his voice comes through clearly in my recording of the meeting. I did not hear Mr. Hewitt's voice.)
* Under Reports of Standing Committees, the original agenda listed a report (allotted 5 minutes) from the Credentials Committee, to take place following a report from the Bylaws Committee. That report was not removed from the agenda. (The agenda items for the Platform and Bylaws committees were subsequently removed; the Credentials Committee agenda item was not.)
* The time allotted for the agenda item "Amendment to the procedure for approving litigation" is listed as 30 minutes. According to the original agenda, the amount of time allotted is 10 minutes. As far as I can tell, this amount was not changed to 30 minutes.
* Under the heading "Sunday Morning Session," the original agenda listed the item "Opportunity for Public Committee," which was allotted 10 minutes. As far as I can recall, it was not removed from the agenda; in addition, Mr. Sarwark solicited public comment on Sunday morning. (Mr. Kraus offered some comments.)
p. 4:
* The URL for Mr. Sarwark's website is Sarwarkforphoenix.com. (When he announced the website, Mr. Sarwark spelled the word "for.")
* Under the "Treasurer's Report," I suggest that the phrase "Mr. Hagan noted that since the Party uses the accrual method that the revenues for the 2018 National Convention ..." be reworded as follows:
"Mr. Hagan noted that since the Party uses the accrual method, the revenues for the 2018 National Convention ...."
p. 5:
* In the second bullet-point item under the "Treasurer's Report," I suggest that the phrase "... (Mr. Kraus will need to confirm if mortgage will be paid in full ..." be reworded as follows:
"... (Mr. Kraus will need to confirm whether the mortgage will be paid in full ...."
* In the third bullet-point item under the "Treasurer's Report," I suggest $2400 be replaced by $2,400 in order to be consistent with other dollar figures included in the draft.
* In the second sentence under "Staff Reports," I suggest that the phrase "... regarding the goals and duties for the new contractors including the recruitment of 2,000 candidates ..." be punctuated as follows:
"... regarding the goals and duties for the new contractors, including the recruitment of 2,000 candidates ...."
* In the final sentence under "Staff Reports," perhaps reword "Ms. Daugherty was given a round of applause" as "Ms. Daugherty received a round of applause."
p. 6:
* At the top of the page, I suggest that the phrase "Starchild moved that the LNC disclose everything discussed in the secret session ..." be reworded as follows:
"Starchild moved that the LNC disclose everything discussed in the executive session ...."
* In the final paragraph under the "Public Disclosure of Items Discussed in Executive Session" item, the first sentence reads as follows: Mr. Moellman moved that the LNC disclose the discussions in the secret session excluding any personally identifiable information which is not just limited to names.
I believe the phrase "secret session" should be changed to "executive session." (Mr. Moellman used the phrase "executive session" in stating his motion.)
* In the final paragraph under the "Public Disclosure of Items Discussed in Executive Session" item, the final sentence reads as follows: After debate, this motion passed by a show of hands with the required 2/3 vote.
It is not clear to me why a 2/3rds vote was required. Prior to the vote, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the motion required a 2/3rds vote. After the vote concluded, a question was raised as to why a 2/3rds vote was needed; someone suggested that since the motion received 2/3rds, it was not necessary to linger in order to discuss the parliamentary issue.
If I understand correctly, a motion to postpone a pending question to a time certain only requires a majority vote unless it makes the question a special order. As far as I can tell, adoption of the question considered would not establish a special order. Thus, it appears to me that a 2/3rds vote was not required.
I suggest that if it cannot be demonstrated a 2/3rds vote was required, the final sentence should be reworded as follows: After debate, this motion was adopted by a show of hands.
* In the third paragraph under the "Audit Committee" item, I believe the phrase "... (see Appendices E and F respectively) ...." should be punctuated as follows:
"... (see Appendices E and F, respectively) ...."
p. 7:
* The first paragraph at the top of the page reads as follows: Ms. Fox indicated that there were some differing opinions on the duties of the Audit Committee which slowed down its progress and that the LNC might want to review the Policy Manual language for clarity.
I suggest that the paragraph be rewritten as follows: Ms. Fox indicated that there were some differing opinions on the duties of the Audit Committee, which slowed down its progress. She suggested that the LNC may wish to review the Policy Manual language for clarity.
* In the second paragraph at the top of the page, I suggest that the sentence "Recommendations were made to implement ACH and check positive pay which Mr. Kraus indicated is already in process" be reworded as follows:
Recommendations were made to implement check and ACH positive pay; Mr. Kraus indicated that an effort to implement these procedures is already underway.
(Note: The specific language used by the Audit Committee is "... also recommends check and ACH positive pay ....")
* Under the "Partial Population of Awards Committee" item, I suggest that the sentence "Dr. Lark noted that it is preferable to have continuity on this Committee and two past members (Mr. Lark and Mr. Hagan) have expressed interest" be rewritten as follows:
Dr. Lark noted that the Policy Manual explicitly suggests there should be continuity on this Committee. He also noted that as far as he was aware, two members of the 2016 Awards Committee (Dr. Lark and Mr. Hagan) submitted applications for the 2018 Committee.
In addition, the following sentence in the draft should be reworded as follows: "Mr. Hayes also indicated ...."
* Since I don't like splitting infinitives, I suggest that the second paragraph under "Partial Population of Awards Committee" be rewritten as follows:
Mr. Hewitt moved to appoint Hagan, Hayes, and Lark to the Awards Committee (with the understanding that the other two committee members would be selected subsequently). The motion passed without objection.
* In the fourth bullet-point under "Convention Oversight Committee," I believe the phrase "... pending approval by Mr. Sarwark" should be in parentheses, or perhaps preceded by a comma.
* I suggest that the first paragraph under the "Request for Policy Manual Change" be rewritten as follows:
Mr. Hayes stated that there is some potential ambiguity in the current Policy Manual language regarding whether other convention-related revenues would count towards donor contribution levels, such as Life Memberships. To clarify the language, he requested that Section 2.05.2 of the Policy Manual be amended as follows:
p. 9:
* Under the "IT Committee" item, the last sentence of the first paragraph reads as follows: Back-end assistance would be appreciated with Ruby on Rails for the candidate database.
I assume the sentence is supposed to convey that those working on the candidate database would welcome the assistance of people who have competence with Ruby on Rails. If so, I suggest that the sentence be reworded as follows:
Those working on the candidate database would welcome the assistance of people who have competence with Ruby on Rails.
* Under the "Credentials Committee" item, the following sentences appear: The Credentials Committee is awaiting appointment of an interim Chair. Mr. Hayes moved to appoint Emily Salvette with Mr. Goldstein seconding. Ms. Harlos then moved to appoint Susan Hogarth with Starchild seconding. Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year.
I believe the last of these sentences should be modified or removed. When Mr. Sarwark asked whether there was objection to the motion appointing Ms. Salvette, Starchild objected and mentioned the issue of re-appointing people. As far as I can tell from my recording, Ms. Harlos did not make a comment regarding the issue mentioned by Starchild. (She did make comments about the issue. However, as far as I can tell, those comments were made the following day in speaking on behalf of Susan Hogarth's nomination for interim Credentials Committee chair.)
* The third sentence under the "Ballot Access Committee" item reads as follows: Mr. Moellman supplemented with an oral report and answered questions including the following information:
I suggest that the sentence should be rewritten as follows:
Mr. Moellman supplemented with an oral report and answered questions. He provided the following information:
* In the first bullet-point under the "Ballot Access Committee" item, I am uncertain whether the statement "Kentucky has submitted a prior request for LNC assistance" is worded correctly. Should the word "prior" be deleted?
* In the first sentence of the final paragraph on the page, I believe there should be a comma between the words "Committee" and "creating." The sentence would then read, "Mr. Moellman resigned from the Ballot Access Committee, creating a vacancy ...."
p. 11:
* Under the "Adoption of 2018 Budget" item, the second sentence of the second paragraph contains the phrase "... took turns to briefly comment, request information ...."
I believe the phrase should be reworded as follows: "... took turns to comment briefly, request information ...."
* As mentioned previously, I believe "Opportunity for Public Comment" was on the agenda at the beginning of the Sunday session. Mr. Sarwark asked whether there were such comments; Mr. Kraus offered comments regarding check-out times.
* Near the bottom of the page, I suggest that Ms. Salvette and Ms. Hogarth be referred to as Emily Salvette and Susan Hogarth.
p. 13:
* The following paragraph appears around the middle of the page: Mr. Demarest moved to amend revenue line 4375 “Branding/Political Materials” and expense line 7375 “Branding/Political Materials” from $100,000 to $125,000, for an increase of $25,000 on each. Mr. Hewitt seconded. After debate, this motion passed by a show of hands with a vote total of 12-0 with 2 express abstentions.
I believe the names of the members who expressed their abstentions should be mentioned. I was one of the abstainers; I believe Starchild was the other, but it is not clear from my recording.
* At the bottom of the page, in recording the "aye" votes on the motion, the surnames are not listed in alphabetical order. To be consistent with previous practice, I believe the surnames should be listed in alphabetical order.
p. 14:
* In the table containing budget items, the heading of the fourth column is "2019 Budget as Amended." I believe this should be "2018 Budget as Amended."
p. 15:
* In the table containing budget items, the number for the Bequest Receivable for both the 2018 Budget Proposal and the 2018 Budget as Amended is listed as 67,800. According to Mr. Hagan's spreadsheet, that number should be 66,800.
Also, Unrestricted Operating Surplus (or Deficit) for the 2018 Budget Proposal is listed as (269,264). In reviewing the spreadsheet distributed by Mr. Hagan (as modified by changing the ballot access expense from $202,000 to $250,000), I believe this number should be (269,864). If so, the number for Net Surplus (or Deficit) After Capital Expenses & Bequest for the 2018 Budget Proposal should be changed from (201,464) to (203,064).
In addition, I believe the number for Net Surplus (or Deficit) After Capital Expenses & Bequest for the 2018 Budget as Amended should be changed from (286,464) to (287,464).
* Under the "Amendment to the Procedure for Approving Litigation" item, the following sentence appears: Dr. Lark raised concerns regarding the process for approval of the last amicus brief that was filed without adequate lead-time for review.
I suggest that this sentence be reworded as follows:
Dr. Lark raised concerns regarding the process for approval of the previous amicus brief, which he believes was filed without adequate lead-time for review.
p. 16:
* Following the bullet-point list of topics at the top of the page, the following paragraph appears: Mr. Sarwark resumed the gavel and presided over discussion on the timing of a vote on this decision. One key factor in the discussion was the possibility of showing our strong support for Second Amendment rights in a gun-friendly venue with the concurrent publicity that may ensue.
I believe the word "key" should be removed, or that the phrase "One key factor ..." should be replaced by "One of the factors ...."
* In the paragraph following the listing of the votes for the convention site, the second sentence reads as follows: The LNC responded with a rousing rendition of “Deep in the Heart of Texas.”
I request that this sentence be reworded as follows: Some LNC members responded with a rousing rendition of “Deep in the Heart of Texas.”
On a personal note, I was impressed by the number of different keys in which "Deep in the Heart of Texas" was sung. (When I played violin and viola with various orchestras and string ensembles, and when I played drums with various groups, we usually endeavored to settle on one key in which we would all play.)
p. 17:
* The item "Changes to names of Party donor association levels" was added to the agenda under the heading New Business without Previous Notice, and is so listed on p. 4. However, the discussion of the item is included on this page under the heading New Business with Previous Notice.
p. 18:
* The second sentence at the top of the page reads as follows: Jess Mears is her Campaign Manager. I suggest that "Campaign Manager" be written as "campaign manager."
* The third sentence at the top of the page reads as follows: Between 6,000 and 7,000 votes are needed to win. I suggest that this sentence be reworded as follows: The number of votes needed to win is estimated to be between 6,000 and 7,000.
* In referring to the report from Region 5, it is noted that I provided a Campus Organizing report and an International Representative Report, which are included in appendices P and Q, respectively. While it is acceptable to organize the appendices in this manner, it may be better to reorganize the appendices so that the Campus Organizing and International Representative reports follow the block of regional reports.
p. 19:
* In referring to the Region 5 report (Appendix O), the following is listed: Region 5 Report (NC, PA, VA, WV). Since it is unclear why "(NC, PA, VA, WV)" appears, allow me to note that the state affiliates in Region 5 are Delaware (DE), the District of Columbia (DC), Maryland (MD), North Carolina (NC), Pennsylvania (PA), Virginia (VA), and West Virginia (WV).
The state parties for which someone submitted material included in this report are Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; no material was submitted for Delaware, DC, North Carolina, and Virginia.
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
Dear colleagues: I hope all is well with you. Thanks to Mr. Hagan for his message regarding the draft minutes; I greatly appreciate his taking the time and trouble to dig through my long list of comments and suggestions. I do not recall a discussion during the meeting of changing the bequests receivable number from $66,800 to $67,800. In reviewing my recording and notes, it is possible I was out of the room when Mr. Sarwark made a comment regarding the amount. (As they say in Hollywood, "Timing is everything.") Specifically, roughly 25 minutes after the beginning of the 2018 budget discussion, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the $66,800 bequests receivable figure may be too low. There was a very brief discussion among Mr. Hagan, Mr. Sarwark, and Mr. Kraus, from which the $67,800 figure emerged. Thus, allow me to propose a modification of the draft minutes. On p. 11, the text under the heading Adoption of 2018 Budget currently reads as follows: Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000. Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to briefly comment, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s). I suggest the draft minutes be amended so that the text reads as follows: Adoption of 2018 Budget Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000. Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. Mr. Sarwark suggested that the Bequests Receivable number of $66,800 in the draft budget may be too low. After a brief discussion, the number was changed to $67,800. As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to comment briefly, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s). Please note that in the third paragraph, I have changed the phrase "... to briefly comment ..." to the phrase "... to comment briefly ...." (I prefer that we not split infinitives.) As always, thanks for your work for liberty. As always, thanks for considering my comments and suggestions. Best wishes to you for a great 2018. Take care, Jim James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee ----- On 12/31/2017 12:42 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:
Concerning your comments on the budget table on page 15, Draft 5 of the spreadsheet had a former number for the Bequests Receivable. The FEC raised the contribution limit to $33,900 per individual, so we can withdraw $67,800 from the bequests. (See https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm for contribution limits.) I believe the Bequests Receivable got corrected toward the beginning of the budget discussion, before the budget was moved.
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-30 19:51, James Lark wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed several comments regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting. I hope you find these comments to be helpful. A goodly number of the comments involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments involve suggested wording. <SNIP>
Starchild, I was under the impression you had just arrived in New Orleans. Can you please let me know if you were there on Friday? Mr. Lark, yes, on that number Mr. Hagan and I had an off-list discussion to be sure the numbers were right as I did not have that in my notes either and when I ran the numbers they did not add up. -Caryn Ann On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM, James Lark <james.lark@lp.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. Thanks to Mr. Hagan for his message regarding the draft minutes; I greatly appreciate his taking the time and trouble to dig through my long list of comments and suggestions.
I do not recall a discussion during the meeting of changing the bequests receivable number from $66,800 to $67,800. In reviewing my recording and notes, it is possible I was out of the room when Mr. Sarwark made a comment regarding the amount. (As they say in Hollywood, "Timing is everything.") Specifically, roughly 25 minutes after the beginning of the 2018 budget discussion, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the $66,800 bequests receivable figure may be too low. There was a very brief discussion among Mr. Hagan, Mr. Sarwark, and Mr. Kraus, from which the $67,800 figure emerged.
Thus, allow me to propose a modification of the draft minutes. On p. 11, the text under the heading Adoption of 2018 Budget currently reads as follows:
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to briefly comment, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
I suggest the draft minutes be amended so that the text reads as follows:
Adoption of 2018 Budget
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. Mr. Sarwark suggested that the Bequests Receivable number of $66,800 in the draft budget may be too low. After a brief discussion, the number was changed to $67,800.
As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to comment briefly, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
Please note that in the third paragraph, I have changed the phrase "... to briefly comment ..." to the phrase "... to comment briefly ...." (I prefer that we not split infinitives.)
As always, thanks for your work for liberty. As always, thanks for considering my comments and suggestions. Best wishes to you for a great 2018.
Take care, Jim
James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee -----
On 12/31/2017 12:42 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:
Concerning your comments on the budget table on page 15, Draft 5 of the spreadsheet had a former number for the Bequests Receivable. The FEC raised the contribution limit to $33,900 per individual, so we can withdraw $67,800 from the bequests. (See https://transition.fec.gov/pag es/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm for contribution limits.) I believe the Bequests Receivable got corrected toward the beginning of the budget discussion, before the budget was moved.
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-30 19:51, James Lark wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed several comments regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting. I hope you find these comments to be helpful. A goodly number of the comments involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments involve suggested wording.
<SNIP>
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
PS: if split infinitives terribly bother Dr. Lark (like the lack of an Oxford comma does me), for stylistic purposes, I have no issue changing that. However, I note, that it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives, and I do so with reckless abandon. -Caryn Ann On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Starchild, I was under the impression you had just arrived in New Orleans. Can you please let me know if you were there on Friday?
Mr. Lark, yes, on that number Mr. Hagan and I had an off-list discussion to be sure the numbers were right as I did not have that in my notes either and when I ran the numbers they did not add up.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM, James Lark <james.lark@lp.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. Thanks to Mr. Hagan for his message regarding the draft minutes; I greatly appreciate his taking the time and trouble to dig through my long list of comments and suggestions.
I do not recall a discussion during the meeting of changing the bequests receivable number from $66,800 to $67,800. In reviewing my recording and notes, it is possible I was out of the room when Mr. Sarwark made a comment regarding the amount. (As they say in Hollywood, "Timing is everything.") Specifically, roughly 25 minutes after the beginning of the 2018 budget discussion, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the $66,800 bequests receivable figure may be too low. There was a very brief discussion among Mr. Hagan, Mr. Sarwark, and Mr. Kraus, from which the $67,800 figure emerged.
Thus, allow me to propose a modification of the draft minutes. On p. 11, the text under the heading Adoption of 2018 Budget currently reads as follows:
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to briefly comment, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
I suggest the draft minutes be amended so that the text reads as follows:
Adoption of 2018 Budget
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. Mr. Sarwark suggested that the Bequests Receivable number of $66,800 in the draft budget may be too low. After a brief discussion, the number was changed to $67,800.
As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to comment briefly, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
Please note that in the third paragraph, I have changed the phrase "... to briefly comment ..." to the phrase "... to comment briefly ...." (I prefer that we not split infinitives.)
As always, thanks for your work for liberty. As always, thanks for considering my comments and suggestions. Best wishes to you for a great 2018.
Take care, Jim
James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee -----
On 12/31/2017 12:42 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:
Concerning your comments on the budget table on page 15, Draft 5 of the spreadsheet had a former number for the Bequests Receivable. The FEC raised the contribution limit to $33,900 per individual, so we can withdraw $67,800 from the bequests. (See https://transition.fec.gov/pag es/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm for contribution limits.) I believe the Bequests Receivable got corrected toward the beginning of the budget discussion, before the budget was moved.
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-30 19:51, James Lark wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed several comments regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting. I hope you find these comments to be helpful. A goodly number of the comments involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments involve suggested wording.
<SNIP>
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
I advocate the splitting of infinitives when (and only when) it is necessary, as Orwell put it, to prevent saying anything barbarous. On Oxford commas, though, I see no good argument for ever omitting them (unless you are a cannibal and do, in fact, enjoy eating Grandma). Joshua A. Katz On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
PS: if split infinitives terribly bother Dr. Lark (like the lack of an Oxford comma does me), for stylistic purposes, I have no issue changing that. However, I note, that it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives, and I do so with reckless abandon.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org
wrote:
Starchild, I was under the impression you had just arrived in New Orleans. Can you please let me know if you were there on Friday?
Mr. Lark, yes, on that number Mr. Hagan and I had an off-list discussion to be sure the numbers were right as I did not have that in my notes either and when I ran the numbers they did not add up.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM, James Lark <james.lark@lp.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. Thanks to Mr. Hagan for his message regarding the draft minutes; I greatly appreciate his taking the time and trouble to dig through my long list of comments and suggestions.
I do not recall a discussion during the meeting of changing the bequests receivable number from $66,800 to $67,800. In reviewing my recording and notes, it is possible I was out of the room when Mr. Sarwark made a comment regarding the amount. (As they say in Hollywood, "Timing is everything.") Specifically, roughly 25 minutes after the beginning of the 2018 budget discussion, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the $66,800 bequests receivable figure may be too low. There was a very brief discussion among Mr. Hagan, Mr. Sarwark, and Mr. Kraus, from which the $67,800 figure emerged.
Thus, allow me to propose a modification of the draft minutes. On p. 11, the text under the heading Adoption of 2018 Budget currently reads as follows:
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to briefly comment, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
I suggest the draft minutes be amended so that the text reads as follows:
Adoption of 2018 Budget
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. Mr. Sarwark suggested that the Bequests Receivable number of $66,800 in the draft budget may be too low. After a brief discussion, the number was changed to $67,800.
As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to comment briefly, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
Please note that in the third paragraph, I have changed the phrase "... to briefly comment ..." to the phrase "... to comment briefly ...." (I prefer that we not split infinitives.)
As always, thanks for your work for liberty. As always, thanks for considering my comments and suggestions. Best wishes to you for a great 2018.
Take care, Jim
James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee -----
On 12/31/2017 12:42 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:
Concerning your comments on the budget table on page 15, Draft 5 of the spreadsheet had a former number for the Bequests Receivable. The FEC raised the contribution limit to $33,900 per individual, so we can withdraw $67,800 from the bequests. (See https://transition.fec.gov/pag es/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm for contribution limits.) I believe the Bequests Receivable got corrected toward the beginning of the budget discussion, before the budget was moved.
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-30 19:51, James Lark wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed several comments regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting. I hope you find these comments to be helpful. A goodly number of the comments involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments involve suggested wording.
<SNIP>
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 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
On the Oxford we agree. On the other, I take a perverse joy out of wantonly splitting them and in starting sentences with "but" and "and." On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
I advocate the splitting of infinitives when (and only when) it is necessary, as Orwell put it, to prevent saying anything barbarous. On Oxford commas, though, I see no good argument for ever omitting them (unless you are a cannibal and do, in fact, enjoy eating Grandma).
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org
wrote:
PS: if split infinitives terribly bother Dr. Lark (like the lack of an Oxford comma does me), for stylistic purposes, I have no issue changing that. However, I note, that it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives, and I do so with reckless abandon.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Starchild, I was under the impression you had just arrived in New Orleans. Can you please let me know if you were there on Friday?
Mr. Lark, yes, on that number Mr. Hagan and I had an off-list discussion to be sure the numbers were right as I did not have that in my notes either and when I ran the numbers they did not add up.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM, James Lark <james.lark@lp.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. Thanks to Mr. Hagan for his message regarding the draft minutes; I greatly appreciate his taking the time and trouble to dig through my long list of comments and suggestions.
I do not recall a discussion during the meeting of changing the bequests receivable number from $66,800 to $67,800. In reviewing my recording and notes, it is possible I was out of the room when Mr. Sarwark made a comment regarding the amount. (As they say in Hollywood, "Timing is everything.") Specifically, roughly 25 minutes after the beginning of the 2018 budget discussion, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the $66,800 bequests receivable figure may be too low. There was a very brief discussion among Mr. Hagan, Mr. Sarwark, and Mr. Kraus, from which the $67,800 figure emerged.
Thus, allow me to propose a modification of the draft minutes. On p. 11, the text under the heading Adoption of 2018 Budget currently reads as follows:
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to briefly comment, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
I suggest the draft minutes be amended so that the text reads as follows:
Adoption of 2018 Budget
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. Mr. Sarwark suggested that the Bequests Receivable number of $66,800 in the draft budget may be too low. After a brief discussion, the number was changed to $67,800.
As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to comment briefly, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
Please note that in the third paragraph, I have changed the phrase "... to briefly comment ..." to the phrase "... to comment briefly ...." (I prefer that we not split infinitives.)
As always, thanks for your work for liberty. As always, thanks for considering my comments and suggestions. Best wishes to you for a great 2018.
Take care, Jim
James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee -----
On 12/31/2017 12:42 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:
Concerning your comments on the budget table on page 15, Draft 5 of the spreadsheet had a former number for the Bequests Receivable. The FEC raised the contribution limit to $33,900 per individual, so we can withdraw $67,800 from the bequests. (See https://transition.fec.gov/pag es/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm for contribution limits.) I believe the Bequests Receivable got corrected toward the beginning of the budget discussion, before the budget was moved.
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-30 19:51, James Lark wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed several comments regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting. I hope you find these comments to be helpful. A goodly number of the comments involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments involve suggested wording.
<SNIP>
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 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
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
I'm with you on starting sentences. Intellectually, I agree on infinitives, but I can't make myself really believe it. On Dec 31, 2017 4:22 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
On the Oxford we agree. On the other, I take a perverse joy out of wantonly splitting them and in starting sentences with "but" and "and."
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
I advocate the splitting of infinitives when (and only when) it is necessary, as Orwell put it, to prevent saying anything barbarous. On Oxford commas, though, I see no good argument for ever omitting them (unless you are a cannibal and do, in fact, enjoy eating Grandma).
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
PS: if split infinitives terribly bother Dr. Lark (like the lack of an Oxford comma does me), for stylistic purposes, I have no issue changing that. However, I note, that it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives, and I do so with reckless abandon.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Starchild, I was under the impression you had just arrived in New Orleans. Can you please let me know if you were there on Friday?
Mr. Lark, yes, on that number Mr. Hagan and I had an off-list discussion to be sure the numbers were right as I did not have that in my notes either and when I ran the numbers they did not add up.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM, James Lark <james.lark@lp.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. Thanks to Mr. Hagan for his message regarding the draft minutes; I greatly appreciate his taking the time and trouble to dig through my long list of comments and suggestions.
I do not recall a discussion during the meeting of changing the bequests receivable number from $66,800 to $67,800. In reviewing my recording and notes, it is possible I was out of the room when Mr. Sarwark made a comment regarding the amount. (As they say in Hollywood, "Timing is everything.") Specifically, roughly 25 minutes after the beginning of the 2018 budget discussion, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the $66,800 bequests receivable figure may be too low. There was a very brief discussion among Mr. Hagan, Mr. Sarwark, and Mr. Kraus, from which the $67,800 figure emerged.
Thus, allow me to propose a modification of the draft minutes. On p. 11, the text under the heading Adoption of 2018 Budget currently reads as follows:
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to briefly comment, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
I suggest the draft minutes be amended so that the text reads as follows:
Adoption of 2018 Budget
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. Mr. Sarwark suggested that the Bequests Receivable number of $66,800 in the draft budget may be too low. After a brief discussion, the number was changed to $67,800.
As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to comment briefly, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
Please note that in the third paragraph, I have changed the phrase "... to briefly comment ..." to the phrase "... to comment briefly ...." (I prefer that we not split infinitives.)
As always, thanks for your work for liberty. As always, thanks for considering my comments and suggestions. Best wishes to you for a great 2018.
Take care, Jim
James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee -----
On 12/31/2017 12:42 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:
Concerning your comments on the budget table on page 15, Draft 5 of the spreadsheet had a former number for the Bequests Receivable. The FEC raised the contribution limit to $33,900 per individual, so we can withdraw $67,800 from the bequests. (See https://transition.fec.gov/pag es/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm for contribution limits.) I believe the Bequests Receivable got corrected toward the beginning of the budget discussion, before the budget was moved.
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-30 19:51, James Lark wrote:
> Dear colleagues: > > I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed several comments > regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting. I hope you > find these comments to be helpful. A goodly number of the comments > involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments > involve suggested wording. > <SNIP>
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 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
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 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
I was in New Orleans from Thursday night, but arrived late to the meeting Saturday morning due to a local bridge being unexpectedly closed for ice when Hap and I drove in from her place across the lake. And yes Caryn Ann, you're correct that I do not consider our objections as noted by you below to be a minor matter, and do want them included in the minutes. On Dec 30, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote (in part):
...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 believe minutes are most useful when written in such a manner as to enable people who were not at a meeting to understand what happened at the meeting and why (i.e. including discussion beyond just the bare minimum of what occurred in parliamentary terms is appropriate). That may or may not be the rule according to Robert's, but I think it is common sense and within the discretion of the Secretary (or acting Secretary) under our Bylaws to record the minutes in a manner that conforms to common sense. For anyone who wants minutes to be as concise as possible, I think the most unnecessary details (i.e. the first targets for removal, if anything is to be removed) are things like noting that someone received a round of applause. However I am not personally in favor of removing those references either, as they help give a sense of the climate of the meeting. On Dec 30, 2017, at 7:51 PM, James Lark wrote (in part):
At the top of the page, I suggest that the phrase "Starchild moved that the LNC disclose everything discussed in the secret session ..." be reworded as follows: "Starchild moved that the LNC disclose everything discussed in the executive session ...."
Jim, I know you prefer the euphemism, but that was not the motion I made. We are not "executives"; the term "secret meeting" is more accurate. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Dec 31, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
PS: if split infinitives terribly bother Dr. Lark (like the lack of an Oxford comma does me), for stylistic purposes, I have no issue changing that. However, I note, that it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives, and I do so with reckless abandon.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: Starchild, I was under the impression you had just arrived in New Orleans. Can you please let me know if you were there on Friday?
Mr. Lark, yes, on that number Mr. Hagan and I had an off-list discussion to be sure the numbers were right as I did not have that in my notes either and when I ran the numbers they did not add up.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM, James Lark <james.lark@lp.org> wrote: Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. Thanks to Mr. Hagan for his message regarding the draft minutes; I greatly appreciate his taking the time and trouble to dig through my long list of comments and suggestions.
I do not recall a discussion during the meeting of changing the bequests receivable number from $66,800 to $67,800. In reviewing my recording and notes, it is possible I was out of the room when Mr. Sarwark made a comment regarding the amount. (As they say in Hollywood, "Timing is everything.") Specifically, roughly 25 minutes after the beginning of the 2018 budget discussion, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the $66,800 bequests receivable figure may be too low. There was a very brief discussion among Mr. Hagan, Mr. Sarwark, and Mr. Kraus, from which the $67,800 figure emerged.
Thus, allow me to propose a modification of the draft minutes. On p. 11, the text under the heading Adoption of 2018 Budget currently reads as follows:
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to briefly comment, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
I suggest the draft minutes be amended so that the text reads as follows:
Adoption of 2018 Budget
Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions. He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. Mr. Sarwark suggested that the Bequests Receivable number of $66,800 in the draft budget may be too low. After a brief discussion, the number was changed to $67,800.
As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to comment briefly, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
Please note that in the third paragraph, I have changed the phrase "... to briefly comment ..." to the phrase "... to comment briefly ...." (I prefer that we not split infinitives.)
As always, thanks for your work for liberty. As always, thanks for considering my comments and suggestions. Best wishes to you for a great 2018.
Take care, Jim
James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics University of Virginia
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee -----
On 12/31/2017 12:42 PM, Tim Hagan wrote: Concerning your comments on the budget table on page 15, Draft 5 of the spreadsheet had a former number for the Bequests Receivable. The FEC raised the contribution limit to $33,900 per individual, so we can withdraw $67,800 from the bequests. (See https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm for contribution limits.) I believe the Bequests Receivable got corrected toward the beginning of the budget discussion, before the budget was moved.
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-30 19:51, James Lark wrote: Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed several comments regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting. I hope you find these comments to be helpful. A goodly number of the comments involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments involve suggested wording. <SNIP>
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 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
participants (5)
-
Caryn Ann Harlos -
James Lark -
Joshua Katz -
Starchild -
Tim Hagan