Colleagues: I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up. I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object. So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors. With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC. Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ." I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded? Page 9: “Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year.” As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes. I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless. Page 13 I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply. Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives. All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision. Pages 15-16 I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page. Joshua A. Katz
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above. On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes). I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal. -Caryn Ann On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: “Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year.”
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz’s motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual) for automatic approval of the minutes by striking “Attendee” and inserting “ Member” as aforementioned at the start of this email chain. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member P.S. I suggest we “divide” this email chain into co-sponsors of this motion and “discussion” of Mr Katz’s other points. Note, I have changed the subject line on this email. Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: “Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year.”
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
My understanding of the stated purpose of RONR is to allow the majority to get stuff done but protect the voice of the minority. In regard to meeting minutes, they should be concise but should not stifle dissent. That said, perhaps fully transparent meeting proceedings including those by email is perhaps a better solution than cluttering meeting minutes with dissent that might be more appropriately made public via full disclosure of meeting discussions. To my mind, that is the real cause of the important and unresolved issue that led to the Bylaws Committee transparency hubbub. I have already shared my views with the Bylaws Committee and the LNC discussion list on the proposed LNC expansion bylaw proposal that is purported to improve affiliate participation but is rife with logistical nightmares that will inevitably lead to more not less concentration of power at the top. I am ready and willing to have an honest and frank discussion regarding the logistical practicalities and perhaps misguided and misrepresented motives behind the LNC expansion proposal. We are not all going to agree but straight talk and logic-driven discussion combined with full transparency are the keys to collegial resolution of this important issue. Thoughts? ~David Pratt Demarest On 2017-12-31 09:19, Daniel Hayes wrote:
I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz's motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual) for automatic approval of the minutes by striking "Attendee" and inserting " Member" as aforementioned at the start of this email chain.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
P.S. I suggest we "divide" this email chain into co-sponsors of this motion and "discussion" of Mr Katz's other points. Note, I have changed the subject line on this email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: "Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year."
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [1 [1]]
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
Links: ------ [1] http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business Links: ------ [1] http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
In response to Ms. Mattson's question: my motion has always contained the words "and alternates," just as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. I hope that is alright with Ms. Harlos and Mr. Hayes. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> Joshua A. Katz On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz’s motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual) for automatic approval of the minutes by striking “Attendee” and inserting “ Member” as aforementioned at the start of this email chain.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
P.S. I suggest we “divide” this email chain into co-sponsors of this motion and “discussion” of Mr Katz’s other points. Note, I have changed the subject line on this email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: “Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year.”
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ 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 will co-sponsor if the words "and alternates" are not included. Article 7, Section 2, of the Bylaws starts with, "The National Committee shall be composed of the following members:" and then lists officers, at-large members, and in subsection c uses the wording "shall be entitled to one National Committee representative and one alternate". I interpret this as meaning that alternates are considered members of the LNC. The instances where the Policy Manual uses "LNC Members and Alternates" or "LNC Members or Alternates" make it sound like the alternates are not members of the LNC. My preference would also be to change all of these to just "LNC Members", with a possible note that "LNC Members" includes officers, At-Large Members, Regional Representatives, and Regional Alternates. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2017-12-31 10:57, Joshua Katz wrote:
In response to Ms. Mattson's question: my motion has always contained the words "and alternates," just as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. I hope that is alright with Ms. Harlos and Mr. Hayes.
[1] Virus-free. www.avast.com [2]
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz's motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual) for automatic approval of the minutes by striking "Attendee" and inserting " Member" as aforementioned at the start of this email chain.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
P.S. I suggest we "divide" this email chain into co-sponsors of this motion and "discussion" of Mr Katz's other points. Note, I have changed the subject line on this email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: "Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year."
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [3]
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [3]
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business Links: ------ [1] https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon [2] https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link [3] http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
Ahh this debate. I would co-sponsor either way. but this brings up another point. Contrary to Mr. Hagan, I do not believe alternates are members unless the primary is absent. I know this body has interpreted differently at other times in the past, but if someone cannot vote, they are not a member. In my opinion. At any time they are sitting at the table in any meeting, they are a member for that period of time. -Caryn Ann On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote:
I will co-sponsor if the words "and alternates" are not included. Article 7, Section 2, of the Bylaws starts with, "The National Committee shall be composed of the following members:" and then lists officers, at-large members, and in subsection c uses the wording "shall be entitled to one National Committee representative and one alternate". I interpret this as meaning that alternates are considered members of the LNC. The instances where the Policy Manual uses "LNC Members and Alternates" or "LNC Members or Alternates" make it sound like the alternates are not members of the LNC. My preference would also be to change all of these to just "LNC Members", with a possible note that "LNC Members" includes officers, At-Large Members, Regional Representatives, and Regional Alternates. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-31 10:57, Joshua Katz wrote:
In response to Ms. Mattson's question: my motion has always contained the words "and alternates," just as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. I hope that is alright with Ms. Harlos and Mr. Hayes.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz's motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual) for automatic approval of the minutes by striking "Attendee" and inserting " Member" as aforementioned at the start of this email chain.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
P.S. I suggest we "divide" this email chain into co-sponsors of this motion and "discussion" of Mr Katz's other points. Note, I have changed the subject line on this email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com
wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: "Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year."
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ 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
"A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, . . . the right to . . . make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote." RONR, 11th. ed., p. 3, ll. 1-5. Starting there, the question is, has the bylaw modified this rule in some way for our purposes? Well, it certainly hasn't given alternates the rights described. (Or, in fact, any rights at all. It just says they exist. Their rights come from the right, in Article 7, section 1, for the LNC to delegate its powers. When an alternate is seated, a new assembly has, in effect, been formed - and the LNC has, via provisions in the Policy Manual, delegated its powers to that body. A seated alternate, to build on Ms. Harlos's comment, is a member of *that *assembly, which can exercise the powers of the LNC.) So what has it done? Well, we know bylaw provisions trump RONR provisions when they conflict, but that is clearly meant for rules, not definitions. A definition is not a rule, and modifying a definition, without modifying any pertinent rules, simply creates a mess. So, if there is any ambiguity, I suggest that the bylaw should be read as not doing something that pointless and silly. And, in fact, there is ambiguity. (c) begins: any additional members as specified below. I do not believe that this language implies that everything specified below is a member. It says "One National Committee representative and one alternate." It should be clear that the alternate "alternates" (or substitutes) for the National Committee representative, not that both are members. If we read this as meaning alternates are members, what follows? The bylaw, recall, says nothing else about alternates than that they exist. It doesn't, for instance, provide that not all members get to vote, and a lower-ranking provision saying that wouldn't be permitted. So, if alternates are members, why aren't we counting their votes in all circumstances? Why is our chair seeking unanimous consent before allowing alternates to speak? Why, to take a much clearer question, can't an alternate cosponsor an email ballot? More to the point - why is it that, when these things happen, no one who thinks alternates are members speaks up and raises a point of order to such grave violations as the denial of a member's right to vote? More to the point, the rule in question goes on to say that any member may object to automatic approval (oddly, in my view, given that it only allowed attendees to raise concerns prior to the second draft). Should an alternate be able to object to automatic approval? What if the rep replies and says "notwithstanding what my alternate has said, I think the draft should be approved?" Should the alternate still be able to prevent approval? If yes, what will happen next? The rule doesn't say, but we can guess. Since the minutes aren't auto-approved, they might be taken up at a meeting. Should the unseated alternate still be able to object, despite this being the only case where an unseated alternate can object to unanimous consent? If not, all that's been achieved is a pointless delay. Or maybe they won't be taken up at a meeting - instead, email ballots could be used to make amendments, in the hopes that, with amendments made, consent will be achieved. The rep will vote against any amendment based on the proposed correction. In fact, no motion to amend will even be made, since the alternate can't make it. This will leave us in some sort of odd limbo, unable to approve the minutes because of an objection, and unable to vote down the proposed correction because the motion hasn't been made. That is what results if we decide to define "member" strangely. But if that's what comes from the truth, let us have it. Does anyone, though, think this is a correct outcome, in terms of our rules? I suspect not. The other strange thing about this purported definition, you'll notice, is that (since it isn't a rule) it doesn't constrain us in any way. If we were to adopt the language suggested, we could then turn around and form committees whose membership, for example, consists of "Three LNC members, none of whom are alternates, and 2 positions to be filled either by non-LNC members or by alternates." The only impact such an interpretation would have is on those Policy Manual provisions using the word "member," without any mention of alternates, which have already been adopted. But the LNC when it adopted those provisions almost certainly thought it was doing something different from saying "LNC member or alternate," since the Policy Manual uses the latter language in other places. So we'd be turning the intended meaning on its head based on a reinterpretation of a bylaw which has existed for some time, a result we ought to avoid if possible. The only constraint would be in relation to bylaw provisions, namely committee appointments, and the net effect would be to make it harder for alternates to serve on those committees. I struggle to see the point of that. Joshua A. Katz On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote:
I will co-sponsor if the words "and alternates" are not included. Article 7, Section 2, of the Bylaws starts with, "The National Committee shall be composed of the following members:" and then lists officers, at-large members, and in subsection c uses the wording "shall be entitled to one National Committee representative and one alternate". I interpret this as meaning that alternates are considered members of the LNC. The instances where the Policy Manual uses "LNC Members and Alternates" or "LNC Members or Alternates" make it sound like the alternates are not members of the LNC. My preference would also be to change all of these to just "LNC Members", with a possible note that "LNC Members" includes officers, At-Large Members, Regional Representatives, and Regional Alternates. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-31 10:57, Joshua Katz wrote:
In response to Ms. Mattson's question: my motion has always contained the words "and alternates," just as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. I hope that is alright with Ms. Harlos and Mr. Hayes.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz's motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual) for automatic approval of the minutes by striking "Attendee" and inserting " Member" as aforementioned at the start of this email chain.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
P.S. I suggest we "divide" this email chain into co-sponsors of this motion and "discussion" of Mr Katz's other points. Note, I have changed the subject line on this email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com
wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: "Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year."
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ 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 do think this is a debate who's time has come. It has been a point of contention for a while, and I pretty stubbornly say, as Joshua has, that alternates are not members. There are a bunch of other odd interpretations that would result - perhaps this is something the Bylaws Committee should consider. I would add that this lack of clarity impacts regional elections. Many people are under the impression that alternates are truly not members (meaning they don't even participate in debate without consent - which doesn't happen on this list) so some regions have very inactive alternates and others don't - because there is no clear expectation and it hurts the regions which basically have only one voice in debate while others have two. This needs to be cleared up. -Caryn Ann On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
"A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, . . . the right to . . . make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote." RONR, 11th. ed., p. 3, ll. 1-5. Starting there, the question is, has the bylaw modified this rule in some way for our purposes? Well, it certainly hasn't given alternates the rights described. (Or, in fact, any rights at all. It just says they exist. Their rights come from the right, in Article 7, section 1, for the LNC to delegate its powers. When an alternate is seated, a new assembly has, in effect, been formed - and the LNC has, via provisions in the Policy Manual, delegated its powers to that body. A seated alternate, to build on Ms. Harlos's comment, is a member of *that *assembly, which can exercise the powers of the LNC.) So what has it done? Well, we know bylaw provisions trump RONR provisions when they conflict, but that is clearly meant for rules, not definitions. A definition is not a rule, and modifying a definition, without modifying any pertinent rules, simply creates a mess. So, if there is any ambiguity, I suggest that the bylaw should be read as not doing something that pointless and silly. And, in fact, there is ambiguity. (c) begins: any additional members as specified below. I do not believe that this language implies that everything specified below is a member. It says "One National Committee representative and one alternate." It should be clear that the alternate "alternates" (or substitutes) for the National Committee representative, not that both are members.
If we read this as meaning alternates are members, what follows? The bylaw, recall, says nothing else about alternates than that they exist. It doesn't, for instance, provide that not all members get to vote, and a lower-ranking provision saying that wouldn't be permitted. So, if alternates are members, why aren't we counting their votes in all circumstances? Why is our chair seeking unanimous consent before allowing alternates to speak? Why, to take a much clearer question, can't an alternate cosponsor an email ballot? More to the point - why is it that, when these things happen, no one who thinks alternates are members speaks up and raises a point of order to such grave violations as the denial of a member's right to vote?
More to the point, the rule in question goes on to say that any member may object to automatic approval (oddly, in my view, given that it only allowed attendees to raise concerns prior to the second draft). Should an alternate be able to object to automatic approval? What if the rep replies and says "notwithstanding what my alternate has said, I think the draft should be approved?" Should the alternate still be able to prevent approval? If yes, what will happen next? The rule doesn't say, but we can guess. Since the minutes aren't auto-approved, they might be taken up at a meeting. Should the unseated alternate still be able to object, despite this being the only case where an unseated alternate can object to unanimous consent? If not, all that's been achieved is a pointless delay. Or maybe they won't be taken up at a meeting - instead, email ballots could be used to make amendments, in the hopes that, with amendments made, consent will be achieved. The rep will vote against any amendment based on the proposed correction. In fact, no motion to amend will even be made, since the alternate can't make it. This will leave us in some sort of odd limbo, unable to approve the minutes because of an objection, and unable to vote down the proposed correction because the motion hasn't been made. That is what results if we decide to define "member" strangely. But if that's what comes from the truth, let us have it. Does anyone, though, think this is a correct outcome, in terms of our rules? I suspect not.
The other strange thing about this purported definition, you'll notice, is that (since it isn't a rule) it doesn't constrain us in any way. If we were to adopt the language suggested, we could then turn around and form committees whose membership, for example, consists of "Three LNC members, none of whom are alternates, and 2 positions to be filled either by non-LNC members or by alternates." The only impact such an interpretation would have is on those Policy Manual provisions using the word "member," without any mention of alternates, which have already been adopted. But the LNC when it adopted those provisions almost certainly thought it was doing something different from saying "LNC member or alternate," since the Policy Manual uses the latter language in other places. So we'd be turning the intended meaning on its head based on a reinterpretation of a bylaw which has existed for some time, a result we ought to avoid if possible. The only constraint would be in relation to bylaw provisions, namely committee appointments, and the net effect would be to make it harder for alternates to serve on those committees. I struggle to see the point of that.
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote:
I will co-sponsor if the words "and alternates" are not included. Article 7, Section 2, of the Bylaws starts with, "The National Committee shall be composed of the following members:" and then lists officers, at-large members, and in subsection c uses the wording "shall be entitled to one National Committee representative and one alternate". I interpret this as meaning that alternates are considered members of the LNC. The instances where the Policy Manual uses "LNC Members and Alternates" or "LNC Members or Alternates" make it sound like the alternates are not members of the LNC. My preference would also be to change all of these to just "LNC Members", with a possible note that "LNC Members" includes officers, At-Large Members, Regional Representatives, and Regional Alternates. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-31 10:57, Joshua Katz wrote:
In response to Ms. Mattson's question: my motion has always contained the words "and alternates," just as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. I hope that is alright with Ms. Harlos and Mr. Hayes.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz's motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual) for automatic approval of the minutes by striking "Attendee" and inserting " Member" as aforementioned at the start of this email chain.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
P.S. I suggest we "divide" this email chain into co-sponsors of this motion and "discussion" of Mr Katz's other points. Note, I have changed the subject line on this email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: "Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year."
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
I agree that it needs to be cleared up. For the Audit Committee, the Bylaws Article 9 states: The non-officer members of the National Committee shall appoint a standing Audit Committee of three members with power to select the independent auditor. One member shall be a non-officer member of the National Committee and the other two shall not be members of the National Committee. The question then arises whether an Alternate can be the non-officer member of the National Committee, would an Alternate be eligible to be the non-member of the National Committee, or are Alternates similar to Schrodinger's cat being simultaneously members and non-members? --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2017-12-31 14:30, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I do think this is a debate who's time has come. It has been a point of contention for a while, and I pretty stubbornly say, as Joshua has, that alternates are not members. There are a bunch of other odd interpretations that would result - perhaps this is something the Bylaws Committee should consider.
I would add that this lack of clarity impacts regional elections. Many people are under the impression that alternates are truly not members (meaning they don't even participate in debate without consent - which doesn't happen on this list) so some regions have very inactive alternates and others don't - because there is no clear expectation and it hurts the regions which basically have only one voice in debate while others have two. This needs to be cleared up.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
"A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, . . . the right to . . . make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote." RONR, 11th. ed., p. 3, ll. 1-5. Starting there, the question is, has the bylaw modified this rule in some way for our purposes? Well, it certainly hasn't given alternates the rights described. (Or, in fact, any rights at all. It just says they exist. Their rights come from the right, in Article 7, section 1, for the LNC to delegate its powers. When an alternate is seated, a new assembly has, in effect, been formed - and the LNC has, via provisions in the Policy Manual, delegated its powers to that body. A seated alternate, to build on Ms. Harlos's comment, is a member of _that _assembly, which can exercise the powers of the LNC.) So what has it done? Well, we know bylaw provisions trump RONR provisions when they conflict, but that is clearly meant for rules, not definitions. A definition is not a rule, and modifying a definition, without modifying any pertinent rules, simply creates a mess. So, if there is any ambiguity, I suggest that the bylaw should be read as not doing something that pointless and silly. And, in fact, there is ambiguity. (c) begins: any additional members as specified below. I do not believe that this language implies that everything specified below is a member. It says "One National Committee representative and one alternate." It should be clear that the alternate "alternates" (or substitutes) for the National Committee representative, not that both are members.
If we read this as meaning alternates are members, what follows? The bylaw, recall, says nothing else about alternates than that they exist. It doesn't, for instance, provide that not all members get to vote, and a lower-ranking provision saying that wouldn't be permitted. So, if alternates are members, why aren't we counting their votes in all circumstances? Why is our chair seeking unanimous consent before allowing alternates to speak? Why, to take a much clearer question, can't an alternate cosponsor an email ballot? More to the point - why is it that, when these things happen, no one who thinks alternates are members speaks up and raises a point of order to such grave violations as the denial of a member's right to vote?
More to the point, the rule in question goes on to say that any member may object to automatic approval (oddly, in my view, given that it only allowed attendees to raise concerns prior to the second draft). Should an alternate be able to object to automatic approval? What if the rep replies and says "notwithstanding what my alternate has said, I think the draft should be approved?" Should the alternate still be able to prevent approval? If yes, what will happen next? The rule doesn't say, but we can guess. Since the minutes aren't auto-approved, they might be taken up at a meeting. Should the unseated alternate still be able to object, despite this being the only case where an unseated alternate can object to unanimous consent? If not, all that's been achieved is a pointless delay. Or maybe they won't be taken up at a meeting - instead, email ballots could be used to make amendments, in the hopes that, with amendments made, consent will be achieved. The rep will vote against any amendment based on the proposed correction. In fact, no motion to amend will even be made, since the alternate can't make it. This will leave us in some sort of odd limbo, unable to approve the minutes because of an objection, and unable to vote down the proposed correction because the motion hasn't been made. That is what results if we decide to define "member" strangely. But if that's what comes from the truth, let us have it. Does anyone, though, think this is a correct outcome, in terms of our rules? I suspect not.
The other strange thing about this purported definition, you'll notice, is that (since it isn't a rule) it doesn't constrain us in any way. If we were to adopt the language suggested, we could then turn around and form committees whose membership, for example, consists of "Three LNC members, none of whom are alternates, and 2 positions to be filled either by non-LNC members or by alternates." The only impact such an interpretation would have is on those Policy Manual provisions using the word "member," without any mention of alternates, which have already been adopted. But the LNC when it adopted those provisions almost certainly thought it was doing something different from saying "LNC member or alternate," since the Policy Manual uses the latter language in other places. So we'd be turning the intended meaning on its head based on a reinterpretation of a bylaw which has existed for some time, a result we ought to avoid if possible. The only constraint would be in relation to bylaw provisions, namely committee appointments, and the net effect would be to make it harder for alternates to serve on those committees. I struggle to see the point of that.
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote:
I will co-sponsor if the words "and alternates" are not included. Article 7, Section 2, of the Bylaws starts with, "The National Committee shall be composed of the following members:" and then lists officers, at-large members, and in subsection c uses the wording "shall be entitled to one National Committee representative and one alternate". I interpret this as meaning that alternates are considered members of the LNC. The instances where the Policy Manual uses "LNC Members and Alternates" or "LNC Members or Alternates" make it sound like the alternates are not members of the LNC. My preference would also be to change all of these to just "LNC Members", with a possible note that "LNC Members" includes officers, At-Large Members, Regional Representatives, and Regional Alternates.
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-31 10:57, Joshua Katz wrote: In response to Ms. Mattson's question: my motion has always contained the words "and alternates," just as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. I hope that is alright with Ms. Harlos and Mr. Hayes.
[1] Virus-free. www.avast.com [2]
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz's motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual) for automatic approval of the minutes by striking "Attendee" and inserting " Member" as aforementioned at the start of this email chain.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
P.S. I suggest we "divide" this email chain into co-sponsors of this motion and "discussion" of Mr Katz's other points. Note, I have changed the subject line on this email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: "Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year."
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [3]
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [3]
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business Links: ------ [1] https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon [2] https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link [3] http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
Yes there are presently Schroedinger's members. I'll take a look vis a vis bylaws and see if any fellow committee members are willing to take this up. On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote:
I agree that it needs to be cleared up. For the Audit Committee, the Bylaws Article 9 states: The non-officer members of the National Committee shall appoint a standing Audit Committee of three members with power to select the independent auditor. One member shall be a non-officer member of the National Committee and the other two shall not be members of the National Committee.
The question then arises whether an Alternate can be the non-officer member of the National Committee, would an Alternate be eligible to be the non-member of the National Committee, or are Alternates similar to Schrodinger's cat being simultaneously members and non-members?
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-31 14:30, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I do think this is a debate who's time has come. It has been a point of contention for a while, and I pretty stubbornly say, as Joshua has, that alternates are not members. There are a bunch of other odd interpretations that would result - perhaps this is something the Bylaws Committee should consider.
I would add that this lack of clarity impacts regional elections. Many people are under the impression that alternates are truly not members (meaning they don't even participate in debate without consent - which doesn't happen on this list) so some regions have very inactive alternates and others don't - because there is no clear expectation and it hurts the regions which basically have only one voice in debate while others have two. This needs to be cleared up.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
"A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, . . . the right to . . . make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote." RONR, 11th. ed., p. 3, ll. 1-5. Starting there, the question is, has the bylaw modified this rule in some way for our purposes? Well, it certainly hasn't given alternates the rights described. (Or, in fact, any rights at all. It just says they exist. Their rights come from the right, in Article 7, section 1, for the LNC to delegate its powers. When an alternate is seated, a new assembly has, in effect, been formed - and the LNC has, via provisions in the Policy Manual, delegated its powers to that body. A seated alternate, to build on Ms. Harlos's comment, is a member of *that *assembly, which can exercise the powers of the LNC.) So what has it done? Well, we know bylaw provisions trump RONR provisions when they conflict, but that is clearly meant for rules, not definitions. A definition is not a rule, and modifying a definition, without modifying any pertinent rules, simply creates a mess. So, if there is any ambiguity, I suggest that the bylaw should be read as not doing something that pointless and silly. And, in fact, there is ambiguity. (c) begins: any additional members as specified below. I do not believe that this language implies that everything specified below is a member. It says "One National Committee representative and one alternate." It should be clear that the alternate "alternates" (or substitutes) for the National Committee representative, not that both are members.
If we read this as meaning alternates are members, what follows? The bylaw, recall, says nothing else about alternates than that they exist. It doesn't, for instance, provide that not all members get to vote, and a lower-ranking provision saying that wouldn't be permitted. So, if alternates are members, why aren't we counting their votes in all circumstances? Why is our chair seeking unanimous consent before allowing alternates to speak? Why, to take a much clearer question, can't an alternate cosponsor an email ballot? More to the point - why is it that, when these things happen, no one who thinks alternates are members speaks up and raises a point of order to such grave violations as the denial of a member's right to vote?
More to the point, the rule in question goes on to say that any member may object to automatic approval (oddly, in my view, given that it only allowed attendees to raise concerns prior to the second draft). Should an alternate be able to object to automatic approval? What if the rep replies and says "notwithstanding what my alternate has said, I think the draft should be approved?" Should the alternate still be able to prevent approval? If yes, what will happen next? The rule doesn't say, but we can guess. Since the minutes aren't auto-approved, they might be taken up at a meeting. Should the unseated alternate still be able to object, despite this being the only case where an unseated alternate can object to unanimous consent? If not, all that's been achieved is a pointless delay. Or maybe they won't be taken up at a meeting - instead, email ballots could be used to make amendments, in the hopes that, with amendments made, consent will be achieved. The rep will vote against any amendment based on the proposed correction. In fact, no motion to amend will even be made, since the alternate can't make it. This will leave us in some sort of odd limbo, unable to approve the minutes because of an objection, and unable to vote down the proposed correction because the motion hasn't been made. That is what results if we decide to define "member" strangely. But if that's what comes from the truth, let us have it. Does anyone, though, think this is a correct outcome, in terms of our rules? I suspect not.
The other strange thing about this purported definition, you'll notice, is that (since it isn't a rule) it doesn't constrain us in any way. If we were to adopt the language suggested, we could then turn around and form committees whose membership, for example, consists of "Three LNC members, none of whom are alternates, and 2 positions to be filled either by non-LNC members or by alternates." The only impact such an interpretation would have is on those Policy Manual provisions using the word "member," without any mention of alternates, which have already been adopted. But the LNC when it adopted those provisions almost certainly thought it was doing something different from saying "LNC member or alternate," since the Policy Manual uses the latter language in other places. So we'd be turning the intended meaning on its head based on a reinterpretation of a bylaw which has existed for some time, a result we ought to avoid if possible. The only constraint would be in relation to bylaw provisions, namely committee appointments, and the net effect would be to make it harder for alternates to serve on those committees. I struggle to see the point of that.
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote:
I will co-sponsor if the words "and alternates" are not included. Article 7, Section 2, of the Bylaws starts with, "The National Committee shall be composed of the following members:" and then lists officers, at-large members, and in subsection c uses the wording "shall be entitled to one National Committee representative and one alternate". I interpret this as meaning that alternates are considered members of the LNC. The instances where the Policy Manual uses "LNC Members and Alternates" or "LNC Members or Alternates" make it sound like the alternates are not members of the LNC. My preference would also be to change all of these to just "LNC Members", with a possible note that "LNC Members" includes officers, At-Large Members, Regional Representatives, and Regional Alternates. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-31 10:57, Joshua Katz wrote:
In response to Ms. Mattson's question: my motion has always contained the words "and alternates," just as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. I hope that is alright with Ms. Harlos and Mr. Hayes.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz's motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual) for automatic approval of the minutes by striking "Attendee" and inserting " Member" as aforementioned at the start of this email chain.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
P.S. I suggest we "divide" this email chain into co-sponsors of this motion and "discussion" of Mr Katz's other points. Note, I have changed the subject line on this email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: "Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year."
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Was I the only one hoping that an alternate would say "meow"? Anyway, here's where I think we are with this developing email ballot. Initially the language of changing "Attendees" to "Members" got three co-sponsors: Katz, Harlos, Hayes. Then Katz clarified he intended to say "Members and alternates", which I interpret as withdrawing his support for the first version. Harlos confirmed she would still co-sponsor. Hagan only wanted to cosponsor the original, but not the revised. I will co-sponsor the revised "Members and alternates". If we get confirmation from Hayes that he's fine with the revised wording, we'll have enough for an email ballot on that. -Alicia On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Yes there are presently Schroedinger's members. I'll take a look vis a vis bylaws and see if any fellow committee members are willing to take this up.
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote:
I agree that it needs to be cleared up. For the Audit Committee, the Bylaws Article 9 states: The non-officer members of the National Committee shall appoint a standing Audit Committee of three members with power to select the independent auditor. One member shall be a non-officer member of the National Committee and the other two shall not be members of the National Committee.
The question then arises whether an Alternate can be the non-officer member of the National Committee, would an Alternate be eligible to be the non-member of the National Committee, or are Alternates similar to Schrodinger's cat being simultaneously members and non-members?
--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-31 14:30, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I do think this is a debate who's time has come. It has been a point of contention for a while, and I pretty stubbornly say, as Joshua has, that alternates are not members. There are a bunch of other odd interpretations that would result - perhaps this is something the Bylaws Committee should consider.
I would add that this lack of clarity impacts regional elections. Many people are under the impression that alternates are truly not members (meaning they don't even participate in debate without consent - which doesn't happen on this list) so some regions have very inactive alternates and others don't - because there is no clear expectation and it hurts the regions which basically have only one voice in debate while others have two. This needs to be cleared up.
-Caryn Ann
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
"A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, . . . the right to . . . make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote." RONR, 11th. ed., p. 3, ll. 1-5. Starting there, the question is, has the bylaw modified this rule in some way for our purposes? Well, it certainly hasn't given alternates the rights described. (Or, in fact, any rights at all. It just says they exist. Their rights come from the right, in Article 7, section 1, for the LNC to delegate its powers. When an alternate is seated, a new assembly has, in effect, been formed - and the LNC has, via provisions in the Policy Manual, delegated its powers to that body. A seated alternate, to build on Ms. Harlos's comment, is a member of *that *assembly, which can exercise the powers of the LNC.) So what has it done? Well, we know bylaw provisions trump RONR provisions when they conflict, but that is clearly meant for rules, not definitions. A definition is not a rule, and modifying a definition, without modifying any pertinent rules, simply creates a mess. So, if there is any ambiguity, I suggest that the bylaw should be read as not doing something that pointless and silly. And, in fact, there is ambiguity. (c) begins: any additional members as specified below. I do not believe that this language implies that everything specified below is a member. It says "One National Committee representative and one alternate." It should be clear that the alternate "alternates" (or substitutes) for the National Committee representative, not that both are members.
If we read this as meaning alternates are members, what follows? The bylaw, recall, says nothing else about alternates than that they exist. It doesn't, for instance, provide that not all members get to vote, and a lower-ranking provision saying that wouldn't be permitted. So, if alternates are members, why aren't we counting their votes in all circumstances? Why is our chair seeking unanimous consent before allowing alternates to speak? Why, to take a much clearer question, can't an alternate cosponsor an email ballot? More to the point - why is it that, when these things happen, no one who thinks alternates are members speaks up and raises a point of order to such grave violations as the denial of a member's right to vote?
More to the point, the rule in question goes on to say that any member may object to automatic approval (oddly, in my view, given that it only allowed attendees to raise concerns prior to the second draft). Should an alternate be able to object to automatic approval? What if the rep replies and says "notwithstanding what my alternate has said, I think the draft should be approved?" Should the alternate still be able to prevent approval? If yes, what will happen next? The rule doesn't say, but we can guess. Since the minutes aren't auto-approved, they might be taken up at a meeting. Should the unseated alternate still be able to object, despite this being the only case where an unseated alternate can object to unanimous consent? If not, all that's been achieved is a pointless delay. Or maybe they won't be taken up at a meeting - instead, email ballots could be used to make amendments, in the hopes that, with amendments made, consent will be achieved. The rep will vote against any amendment based on the proposed correction. In fact, no motion to amend will even be made, since the alternate can't make it. This will leave us in some sort of odd limbo, unable to approve the minutes because of an objection, and unable to vote down the proposed correction because the motion hasn't been made. That is what results if we decide to define "member" strangely. But if that's what comes from the truth, let us have it. Does anyone, though, think this is a correct outcome, in terms of our rules? I suspect not.
The other strange thing about this purported definition, you'll notice, is that (since it isn't a rule) it doesn't constrain us in any way. If we were to adopt the language suggested, we could then turn around and form committees whose membership, for example, consists of "Three LNC members, none of whom are alternates, and 2 positions to be filled either by non-LNC members or by alternates." The only impact such an interpretation would have is on those Policy Manual provisions using the word "member," without any mention of alternates, which have already been adopted. But the LNC when it adopted those provisions almost certainly thought it was doing something different from saying "LNC member or alternate," since the Policy Manual uses the latter language in other places. So we'd be turning the intended meaning on its head based on a reinterpretation of a bylaw which has existed for some time, a result we ought to avoid if possible. The only constraint would be in relation to bylaw provisions, namely committee appointments, and the net effect would be to make it harder for alternates to serve on those committees. I struggle to see the point of that.
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote:
I will co-sponsor if the words "and alternates" are not included. Article 7, Section 2, of the Bylaws starts with, "The National Committee shall be composed of the following members:" and then lists officers, at-large members, and in subsection c uses the wording "shall be entitled to one National Committee representative and one alternate". I interpret this as meaning that alternates are considered members of the LNC. The instances where the Policy Manual uses "LNC Members and Alternates" or "LNC Members or Alternates" make it sound like the alternates are not members of the LNC. My preference would also be to change all of these to just "LNC Members", with a possible note that "LNC Members" includes officers, At-Large Members, Regional Representatives, and Regional Alternates. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
On 2017-12-31 10:57, Joshua Katz wrote:
In response to Ms. Mattson's question: my motion has always contained the words "and alternates," just as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. I hope that is alright with Ms. Harlos and Mr. Hayes.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
Joshua A. Katz
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will Co-Sponsor Mr Katz's motion to amend the LNC policy/(manual) for automatic approval of the minutes by striking "Attendee" and inserting " Member" as aforementioned at the start of this email chain.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
P.S. I suggest we "divide" this email chain into co-sponsors of this motion and "discussion" of Mr Katz's other points. Note, I have changed the subject line on this email.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: "Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year."
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
===Was I the only one hoping that an alternate would say "meow"?==== Or not. We don’t know which it is until we listen. Or not. -Caryn Ann On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will cosponsor “members and alternates”.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2018, at 4:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote:
s
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
How will listening help? How long must we listen before concluding that no meow is forthcoming? In any event, I think the references to Schrodinger's Cat here have been entirely correct. Although it's been misused to demonstrate "look how cool science is," the point of Schrodinger's thought experiment was that an interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation) which led to such a consequence was wrong. It was a reductio. (The Copenhagen interpretation had accepted such behavior but promised it was contained, so to speak, at the microscopic level. A simple way to sum up that argument would be the casino argument: the micro weirdness is like the unpredictable results of hands of blackjack, while the macro world, where we do not see such weirdness, except in the LP, is like the casino's ability to predict its average results over a year of play. Schrodinger's point was that, if we tolerate weirdness at the micro level, we can't keep it there, because we can force an individual interaction to have macro effects. The micro world doesn't only exist to be summed up and averaged, we're also able, through various mechanisms, to interact with it directly.) The point we're supposed to take from it is an acceptance of the Schrodinger pilot-wave interpretation. So, while I agree that Schrodinger's alternates are not something we should have, or something our bylaws meant to create, I don't think this points to any deep mystery. I think it points to a mistake. Joshua A. Katz On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
===Was I the only one hoping that an alternate would say "meow"?====
Or not. We don’t know which it is until we listen. Or not.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will cosponsor “members and alternates”.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2018, at 4:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote:
s
_______________________________________________ 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
After I went to the trouble to get confirmation that Daniel was okay with the revised wording, it occurs to me that maybe there's a better option for wording. I guess I'll put my co-sponsorship on pause until I hear from the other cosponsors whether the following would be better. At times I have taken input from non-member, non-alternate, non-attendees of a meeting to correct a detail, spelling, whatever. Paul Frankel during this term has written to give me useful feedback on minutes. In reality, there's nothing to stop a Secretary from listening to feedback from whomever when writing the draft. What if we removed the issue of whether they're members or alternates or neither by changing the first sentence from: "Attendees may submit corrections, clarifications and changes to the draft minutes for the Secretary’s consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes." to "Corrections, clarifications, and changes to the draft minutes may be submitted for the Secretary's consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes." Is that better, or worse? -Alicia On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
How will listening help? How long must we listen before concluding that no meow is forthcoming?
In any event, I think the references to Schrodinger's Cat here have been entirely correct. Although it's been misused to demonstrate "look how cool science is," the point of Schrodinger's thought experiment was that an interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation) which led to such a consequence was wrong. It was a reductio. (The Copenhagen interpretation had accepted such behavior but promised it was contained, so to speak, at the microscopic level. A simple way to sum up that argument would be the casino argument: the micro weirdness is like the unpredictable results of hands of blackjack, while the macro world, where we do not see such weirdness, except in the LP, is like the casino's ability to predict its average results over a year of play. Schrodinger's point was that, if we tolerate weirdness at the micro level, we can't keep it there, because we can force an individual interaction to have macro effects. The micro world doesn't only exist to be summed up and averaged, we're also able, through various mechanisms, to interact with it directly.) The point we're supposed to take from it is an acceptance of the Schrodinger pilot-wave interpretation.
So, while I agree that Schrodinger's alternates are not something we should have, or something our bylaws meant to create, I don't think this points to any deep mystery. I think it points to a mistake.
Joshua A. Katz
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
===Was I the only one hoping that an alternate would say "meow"?====
Or not. We don’t know which it is until we listen. Or not.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will cosponsor “members and alternates”.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2018, at 4:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote:
s
_______________________________________________ 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 think it's better. We might as well let the rule reflect the obvious: there's no way (and no reason) to limit who may submit corrections, because they have no automatic effect. I'd cosponsor that. Joshua A. Katz On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote:
After I went to the trouble to get confirmation that Daniel was okay with the revised wording, it occurs to me that maybe there's a better option for wording. I guess I'll put my co-sponsorship on pause until I hear from the other cosponsors whether the following would be better.
At times I have taken input from non-member, non-alternate, non-attendees of a meeting to correct a detail, spelling, whatever. Paul Frankel during this term has written to give me useful feedback on minutes. In reality, there's nothing to stop a Secretary from listening to feedback from whomever when writing the draft. What if we removed the issue of whether they're members or alternates or neither by changing the first sentence from:
"Attendees may submit corrections, clarifications and changes to the draft minutes for the Secretary’s consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes."
to
"Corrections, clarifications, and changes to the draft minutes may be submitted for the Secretary's consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes."
Is that better, or worse?
-Alicia
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
How will listening help? How long must we listen before concluding that no meow is forthcoming?
In any event, I think the references to Schrodinger's Cat here have been entirely correct. Although it's been misused to demonstrate "look how cool science is," the point of Schrodinger's thought experiment was that an interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation) which led to such a consequence was wrong. It was a reductio. (The Copenhagen interpretation had accepted such behavior but promised it was contained, so to speak, at the microscopic level. A simple way to sum up that argument would be the casino argument: the micro weirdness is like the unpredictable results of hands of blackjack, while the macro world, where we do not see such weirdness, except in the LP, is like the casino's ability to predict its average results over a year of play. Schrodinger's point was that, if we tolerate weirdness at the micro level, we can't keep it there, because we can force an individual interaction to have macro effects. The micro world doesn't only exist to be summed up and averaged, we're also able, through various mechanisms, to interact with it directly.) The point we're supposed to take from it is an acceptance of the Schrodinger pilot-wave interpretation.
So, while I agree that Schrodinger's alternates are not something we should have, or something our bylaws meant to create, I don't think this points to any deep mystery. I think it points to a mistake.
Joshua A. Katz
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org
wrote:
===Was I the only one hoping that an alternate would say "meow"?====
Or not. We don’t know which it is until we listen. Or not.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will cosponsor “members and alternates”.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2018, at 4:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote:
s
_______________________________________________ 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 agree, and will co-sponsor. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 3, 2018, at 7:47 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:
I think it's better. We might as well let the rule reflect the obvious: there's no way (and no reason) to limit who may submit corrections, because they have no automatic effect. I'd cosponsor that.
Joshua A. Katz
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote: After I went to the trouble to get confirmation that Daniel was okay with the revised wording, it occurs to me that maybe there's a better option for wording. I guess I'll put my co-sponsorship on pause until I hear from the other cosponsors whether the following would be better.
At times I have taken input from non-member, non-alternate, non-attendees of a meeting to correct a detail, spelling, whatever. Paul Frankel during this term has written to give me useful feedback on minutes. In reality, there's nothing to stop a Secretary from listening to feedback from whomever when writing the draft. What if we removed the issue of whether they're members or alternates or neither by changing the first sentence from:
"Attendees may submit corrections, clarifications and changes to the draft minutes for the Secretary’s consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes."
to
"Corrections, clarifications, and changes to the draft minutes may be submitted for the Secretary's consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes."
Is that better, or worse?
-Alicia
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: How will listening help? How long must we listen before concluding that no meow is forthcoming?
In any event, I think the references to Schrodinger's Cat here have been entirely correct. Although it's been misused to demonstrate "look how cool science is," the point of Schrodinger's thought experiment was that an interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation) which led to such a consequence was wrong. It was a reductio. (The Copenhagen interpretation had accepted such behavior but promised it was contained, so to speak, at the microscopic level. A simple way to sum up that argument would be the casino argument: the micro weirdness is like the unpredictable results of hands of blackjack, while the macro world, where we do not see such weirdness, except in the LP, is like the casino's ability to predict its average results over a year of play. Schrodinger's point was that, if we tolerate weirdness at the micro level, we can't keep it there, because we can force an individual interaction to have macro effects. The micro world doesn't only exist to be summed up and averaged, we're also able, through various mechanisms, to interact with it directly.) The point we're supposed to take from it is an acceptance of the Schrodinger pilot-wave interpretation.
So, while I agree that Schrodinger's alternates are not something we should have, or something our bylaws meant to create, I don't think this points to any deep mystery. I think it points to a mistake.
Joshua A. Katz
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: ===Was I the only one hoping that an alternate would say "meow"?====
Or not. We don’t know which it is until we listen. Or not.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote: I will cosponsor “members and alternates”.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2018, at 4:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote:
s
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
Me as well. On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Starchild <starchild@lp.org> wrote:
I agree, and will co-sponsor.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On Jan 3, 2018, at 7:47 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:
I think it's better. We might as well let the rule reflect the obvious: there's no way (and no reason) to limit who may submit corrections, because they have no automatic effect. I'd cosponsor that.
Joshua A. Katz
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote:
After I went to the trouble to get confirmation that Daniel was okay with the revised wording, it occurs to me that maybe there's a better option for wording. I guess I'll put my co-sponsorship on pause until I hear from the other cosponsors whether the following would be better.
At times I have taken input from non-member, non-alternate, non-attendees of a meeting to correct a detail, spelling, whatever. Paul Frankel during this term has written to give me useful feedback on minutes. In reality, there's nothing to stop a Secretary from listening to feedback from whomever when writing the draft. What if we removed the issue of whether they're members or alternates or neither by changing the first sentence from:
"Attendees may submit corrections, clarifications and changes to the draft minutes for the Secretary’s consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes."
to
"Corrections, clarifications, and changes to the draft minutes may be submitted for the Secretary's consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes."
Is that better, or worse?
-Alicia
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
How will listening help? How long must we listen before concluding that no meow is forthcoming?
In any event, I think the references to Schrodinger's Cat here have been entirely correct. Although it's been misused to demonstrate "look how cool science is," the point of Schrodinger's thought experiment was that an interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation) which led to such a consequence was wrong. It was a reductio. (The Copenhagen interpretation had accepted such behavior but promised it was contained, so to speak, at the microscopic level. A simple way to sum up that argument would be the casino argument: the micro weirdness is like the unpredictable results of hands of blackjack, while the macro world, where we do not see such weirdness, except in the LP, is like the casino's ability to predict its average results over a year of play. Schrodinger's point was that, if we tolerate weirdness at the micro level, we can't keep it there, because we can force an individual interaction to have macro effects. The micro world doesn't only exist to be summed up and averaged, we're also able, through various mechanisms, to interact with it directly.) The point we're supposed to take from it is an acceptance of the Schrodinger pilot-wave interpretation.
So, while I agree that Schrodinger's alternates are not something we should have, or something our bylaws meant to create, I don't think this points to any deep mystery. I think it points to a mistake.
Joshua A. Katz
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
===Was I the only one hoping that an alternate would say "meow"?====
Or not. We don’t know which it is until we listen. Or not.
-Caryn Ann
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote:
I will cosponsor “members and alternates”.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2018, at 4:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote:
s
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Me five, Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2018, at 10:51 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Me as well.
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Starchild <starchild@lp.org> wrote:
I agree, and will co-sponsor.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
On Jan 3, 2018, at 7:47 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:
I think it's better. We might as well let the rule reflect the obvious: there's no way (and no reason) to limit who may submit corrections, because they have no automatic effect. I'd cosponsor that.
Joshua A. Katz
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote: After I went to the trouble to get confirmation that Daniel was okay with the revised wording, it occurs to me that maybe there's a better option for wording. I guess I'll put my co-sponsorship on pause until I hear from the other cosponsors whether the following would be better.
At times I have taken input from non-member, non-alternate, non-attendees of a meeting to correct a detail, spelling, whatever. Paul Frankel during this term has written to give me useful feedback on minutes. In reality, there's nothing to stop a Secretary from listening to feedback from whomever when writing the draft. What if we removed the issue of whether they're members or alternates or neither by changing the first sentence from:
"Attendees may submit corrections, clarifications and changes to the draft minutes for the Secretary’s consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes."
to
"Corrections, clarifications, and changes to the draft minutes may be submitted for the Secretary's consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes."
Is that better, or worse?
-Alicia
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: How will listening help? How long must we listen before concluding that no meow is forthcoming?
In any event, I think the references to Schrodinger's Cat here have been entirely correct. Although it's been misused to demonstrate "look how cool science is," the point of Schrodinger's thought experiment was that an interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation) which led to such a consequence was wrong. It was a reductio. (The Copenhagen interpretation had accepted such behavior but promised it was contained, so to speak, at the microscopic level. A simple way to sum up that argument would be the casino argument: the micro weirdness is like the unpredictable results of hands of blackjack, while the macro world, where we do not see such weirdness, except in the LP, is like the casino's ability to predict its average results over a year of play. Schrodinger's point was that, if we tolerate weirdness at the micro level, we can't keep it there, because we can force an individual interaction to have macro effects. The micro world doesn't only exist to be summed up and averaged, we're also able, through various mechanisms, to interact with it directly.) The point we're supposed to take from it is an acceptance of the Schrodinger pilot-wave interpretation.
So, while I agree that Schrodinger's alternates are not something we should have, or something our bylaws meant to create, I don't think this points to any deep mystery. I think it points to a mistake.
Joshua A. Katz
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: ===Was I the only one hoping that an alternate would say "meow"?====
Or not. We don’t know which it is until we listen. Or not.
-Caryn Ann
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes@lp.org> wrote: > I will cosponsor “members and alternates”. > > Daniel Hayes > LNC At Large Member > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 4:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote: > > > > s > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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 will object to final minutes containing debate to this degree, but will save my debate for that time. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> Joshua A. Katz On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:
Joshua, I would co-sponsor your policy manual amendment above.
On the additional points, as you note, we do often include more things in the minutes and that appears to be a judgment call and if the particular members want those objections noted as I have done in the past. For instance, I would object to removing my objections to secrecy and our practice of appointing the same people over and over. That was not a minor point now or ever to Starchild and myself. Since we have included other information in the past (and I will review your other statements), I solicit other members' feedback. For myself, I want those particular concerns noted - others perhaps should be removed (and I will review). But I do not think there is any confusion in the examples you cited that this was some action taken by the LNC. It is pretty explicit it was not, thus why myself and Starchild objected (as did Ms. Bilyeu though I don't know if she feels so strongly as I do for her objection to be noted - having discussed this issue with Starchild many times, I am confident I am accurately reflecting his wishes).
I likely will be interested in co-sponsoring your litigation motion once you have the wording down. And I do note, as an aside, that just such a thing would inevitably be relegated to s small concentrated group if the current proposal by the Bylaws Committee to increase the LNC by over ten-fold were to pass. This is a great example of why I oppose that Bylaws proposal.
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
I apologize for waiting until the last minute on this, but it has been a busy time (and continues to be) for me. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ms. Harlos for serving as secretary pro tem. I have served as secretary in a few organizations, and I imagine it would be a much harder job to do without notice, so thank you. Finally, let me apologize for my absence, and relative silence since. As I mentioned, it's been a busy time, and during the few days that were less busy, I had little desire to think, which resulted in reorganizing my apartment (a definite plus, in my book). I had expected things to eventually become less busy, but that has proven illusory, with my next job coming in on Tuesday, and a parliamentary engagement coming up.
I have a few items, but before I proceed to those, I'd like to note an issue with the Policy Manual which I will seek cosponsors to amend. On page 12, discussing automatic approval for minutes, the Policy Manual states "Attendees may submit . . . ." It then goes on to state the deadline for comments. Members who are not in attendance either may not submit comments (the more likely interpretation) or may submit them anytime (which, while not what was meant, is also true; failing to meet the deadlines just means a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed). But, as this email proves, those not in attendance can very well submit comments. Since all the rule says is that these comments are submitted for the Secretary's consideration, there's clearly nothing stopping me. Nothing requires that the draft be changed based on the comments below - but that would be equally true for comments from an attendee. So, the language in the Policy Manual limiting comments to attendees is toothless, or achieves nothing. But even if it were effective, I would object, as those not in attendance might very well have useful comments (it's a matter of opinion whether or not those below are useful). As a clear example (which I admit to stealing), if a member not in attendance sees the minutes reflecting a motion made by that very member, that member has every bit of information needed to object.
So I would like to amend by striking "Attendees" and inserting in its place "Members," and seek cosponsors.
With that said, here are my comments on the minutes. Most reflect the following, found at RONR, 11th ed, p. 468, ll. 14-21: "In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." Certainly a body may choose to include more, and our minutes often contain things not described in RONR. Some of those are listed in the Policy Manual on p. 12. Others typically include, .e.g., the full course of amendment of a motion. So I am not objecting to everything in the minutes not stated by RONR, just to those things I think should not be there. In particular, I'm going to call attention to points where debate has been included, and where it may be mistakenly thought to reflect some part of an action taken by the LNC.
Page 5: "After debate and concerns expressed by Ms. Bilyeu, Ms. Harlos, and Starchild about the problems with secrecy, Mr. Goldstein called the question (no second recorded) . . . ."
I do not think these debating points belong in the minutes. I would equally object even if debate from both sides were included. I also have two nit-picks here. First, I would suggest that motions for the previous question be stated more precisely, because the phrasing used here suggests (if the context is ignored) that one member can close debate. Second, while I'm not objecting to the inclusion, throughout, of seconds (although I noted while writing that Dr. Lark is, and I don't disagree), I would question the parenthetical here. As a general rule, the minutes need not include seconders, so I think it is unnecessary for them to note the absence of a record of the seconder. What's more, even the absence of a second would be immaterial once the chair states the question and debate begins, and noting it suggests, to my eye at least, some deficiency. Finally, the note is ambiguous - was the motion not seconded, or was it seconded and the seconder not recorded?
Page 9: “Both Harlos and Starchild object to the re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, year after year.”
As I said, I do not think these sorts of debating points should be in the minutes.
I note that, while I was writing, Dr. Lark raised an objection to this same sentence on other grounds. I have no opinion on that objection since I was absent, and since, in my view, accuracy is not material where I think the item should not be included regardless.
Page 13
I have no particular comments here, but I note Dr. Lark's comment. I don't have a strong opinion on including the information Dr. Lark mentions (I do have an opinion, but it isn't strong), but I would say that, if this is to be done, it should be done consistently throughout. I am in a rush to finish this since I have an early flight, so I have not checked to see if there are other instances where it would apply.
Page 15: Amendment to Procedure for Approving Litigation
This was my agenda item, and I want to thank Dr. Lark for keeping it alive. Since no action was taken, I will be seeking cosponsors for an email ballot. I was in the process of perfecting the wording in the airport when I noticed a group of angry people at the ticket counter and hurried over, and haven't worked on it since, so I don't have my proposed wording yet. My intent, though, was to remove the EC's exclusive authority over this topic, and to empower the LNC to decide - both for and against (that is, not a simple addition of "or the LNC.") I also want to create a preference for the LNC deciding, subject to time constraints. The language on that last part is giving me trouble to avoid perverse incentives.
All that said, I don't object to the inclusion of a general statement of what was discussed. I think too much detail has been included, considering that (as far as I can tell) nothing there reflects an LNC decision.
Pages 15-16
I do not think the minutes should include the bulleted list of topics covered in questions, unless that list was adopted by the LNC in some way. If it was, I think that should be made more clear. Similarly, I do not think the gun rights factor should be included. As the draft minutes state, it was a factor in the discussion, i.e. debate, which should not be in the minutes. Similarly, I would raise the same comments about the meeting location decision at the bottom of the page.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
participants (7)
-
Alicia Mattson -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
Daniel Hayes -
david.demarest＠lp.org -
Joshua Katz -
Starchild -
Tim Hagan