[Lnc-business] adopting the convention minutes

[Alicia Mattson]

Dan,

That's one of several instances where the reality wasn't perfect, so the
minutes aren't either.  The chair did not issue a ruling on that point of
order.  He didn't issue a ruling on the point of order in the previous
paragraph either.

-Alicia




On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Alicia,
>
> I noticed that on page 43 of the minutes, the following paragraph lacks an
> internal sentence stating that the chair ruled against Mr. Moellman's point
> of order:
>
> Ken Moellman raised a point of order that candidates receiving less than a
> majority are
> not to be elected, thus the coin toss decision making process was not in
> order. (Since the
> requirement of a majority for election is in Convention Rule 8.2, rather
> than in the
> Bylaws, and the motion was to suspend the rules, see RONR 11th ed., p. 17,
> lines 19-22.)
>
>
> Dan Wiener
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As I mentioned in our previous LNC meeting, we had a draft of the
>> convention minutes, but they needed a number of corrections before we
>> adopted them.
>>
>> In the time since then, I've finished that work.  During the Secretary's
>> report in our December meeting, I intend to make a motion to adopt the
>> convention minutes.
>>
>> The draft I am proposing for adoption is currently posted on the website
>> on the minutes archive page, since the new bylaw requires that it be posted
>> there for 14 days before the LNC can vote to approve it.  Here is the
>> direct link to it:
>>
>> https://www.lp.org/files/20140627-29_convention_minutes.pdf
>>
>> Alicia Mattson
>> LNC Secretary
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
> guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
> compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
> this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
> the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
> experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
> disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
> to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
> doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
> -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20141130/98696f4f/attachment-0002.html>