[Lnc-business] Comments regarding draft minutes

[James Lark]

Dear colleagues:

     I hope all is well with you.  I have enclosed several comments 
regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting.  I hope you 
find these comments to be helpful.  A goodly number of the comments 
involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments 
involve suggested wording.

     I apologize that I was unable to prepare and send these comments 
sooner; during the past three weeks I have been swamped with faculty 
duties (and faculty problems), Libertarian duties, and travel. Also, 
because of my schedule, I was able to review the draft only once (and in 
haste).  Thus, it is possible I have overlooked some items that are 
worthy of consideration.

     Allow me to express again my appreciation for Ms. Harlos' work to 
prepare the draft minutes.  As one who has served as secretary pro tem 
for the LNC on occasion (and who now serves as secretary of the 
Libertarian Party of Virginia), I am well aware of the effort required 
to assemble draft minutes.

     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.  Best wishes for a 
great 2018.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any 
questions about the list of comments.

     Take care,
     Jim

     James W. Lark, III
     Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering
     Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society
     Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics
     University of Virginia

     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
     University of Virginia

     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
-----

General comments:

*  To be consistent with previous minutes, I suggest that the phrase 
"the motion passed" be replaced by "the motion was adopted."  Please 
note that both phrases are used within these draft minutes.

*  To be consistent with previous minutes, I suggest that seconders of 
motions not be listed.

*  When I refer to the "original agenda" below, I refer to the agenda 
that was distributed by staff at the meeting.


p. 2:

*  In listing the LNC members and alternates not in attendance, in order 
to be consistent with previous minutes, the alternates should be listed 
in order of region number (1 through 8), rather than in alphabetical 
order of surname.  (Thus, Region 4 alternate Starr should be listed 
before Region 5 alternate Somes.)

*  I suggest that the phrase "(the Great Snowpocalypse of 2017)" be 
removed.  Also, if I understood Starchild correctly, he was in New 
Orleans as of Friday afternoon.  The phrasing of the special note 
suggests that his late arrival at the LNC meeting on Dec. 9 was due to a 
flight delay.

*  I suggest that the paragraph under "Credentials Report and Paperwork 
Check" be rewritten as follows:

Ms. Harlos confirmed the attendance roster and distributed a departure 
time information sheet to determine when quorum would be lost on 
Sunday.  Staff provided copies of meeting packets.

It was noted that Mr. Bittner had resigned as Region 3 Representative on 
November 30, 2017.

*  Near the bottom of the page, I suggest that the phrase "... Mr. 
Bittner’s resignation as Region 3 Regional Representative ..." be 
reworded as follows:

".... Mr. Bittner’s resignation as Region 3 Representative ...."


p. 3:

*  In listening to my recording of the meeting, it sounds to me that it 
was Mr. Redpath who moved that the agenda be adopted as amended, rather 
than Mr. Hewitt.  (Mr. Redpath was seated next to me during the meeting, 
and his voice comes through clearly in my recording of the meeting.  I 
did not hear Mr. Hewitt's voice.)

*  Under Reports of Standing Committees, the original agenda listed a 
report (allotted 5 minutes) from the Credentials Committee, to take 
place following a report from the Bylaws Committee.  That report was not 
removed from the agenda.  (The agenda items for the Platform and Bylaws 
committees were subsequently removed; the Credentials Committee agenda 
item was not.)

*  The time allotted for the agenda item "Amendment to the procedure for 
approving litigation" is listed as 30 minutes.  According to the 
original agenda, the amount of time allotted is 10 minutes.  As far as I 
can tell, this amount was not changed to 30 minutes.

*  Under the heading "Sunday Morning Session," the original agenda 
listed the item "Opportunity for Public Committee," which was allotted 
10 minutes.  As far as I can recall, it was not removed from the agenda; 
in addition, Mr. Sarwark solicited public comment on Sunday morning.  
(Mr. Kraus offered some comments.)


p. 4:

*  The URL for Mr. Sarwark's website is Sarwarkforphoenix.com. (When he 
announced the website, Mr. Sarwark spelled the word "for.")

*  Under the "Treasurer's Report," I suggest that the phrase "Mr. Hagan 
noted that since the Party uses the accrual method that the revenues for 
the 2018 National Convention ..." be reworded as follows:

"Mr. Hagan noted that since the Party uses the accrual method, the 
revenues for the 2018 National Convention ...."


p. 5:

*  In the second bullet-point item under the "Treasurer's Report," I 
suggest that the phrase "... (Mr. Kraus will need to confirm if mortgage 
will be paid in full ..." be reworded as follows:

"... (Mr. Kraus will need to confirm whether the mortgage will be paid 
in full ...."

*  In the third bullet-point item under the "Treasurer's Report," I 
suggest $2400 be replaced by $2,400 in order to be consistent with other 
dollar figures included in the draft.

*  In the second sentence under "Staff Reports," I suggest that the 
phrase "... regarding the goals and duties for the new contractors 
including the recruitment of 2,000 candidates ..." be punctuated as follows:

"... regarding the goals and duties for the new contractors, including 
the recruitment of 2,000 candidates ...."

*  In the final sentence under "Staff Reports," perhaps reword "Ms. 
Daugherty was given a round of applause" as "Ms. Daugherty received a 
round of applause."


p. 6:

*  At the top of the page, I suggest that the phrase "Starchild moved 
that the LNC disclose everything discussed in the secret session ..." be 
reworded as follows:

  "Starchild moved that the LNC disclose everything discussed in the 
executive session ...."

*  In the final paragraph under the "Public Disclosure of Items 
Discussed in Executive Session" item, the first sentence reads as 
follows:  Mr. Moellman moved that the LNC disclose the discussions in 
the secret session excluding any personally identifiable information 
which is not just limited to names.

     I believe the phrase "secret session" should be changed to 
"executive session."  (Mr. Moellman used the phrase "executive session" 
in stating his motion.)

*  In the final paragraph under the "Public Disclosure of Items 
Discussed in Executive Session" item, the final sentence reads as 
follows:  After debate, this motion passed by a show of hands with the 
required 2/3 vote.

     It is not clear to me why a 2/3rds vote was required.  Prior to the 
vote, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the motion required a 2/3rds vote.  
After the vote concluded, a question was raised as to why a 2/3rds vote 
was needed; someone suggested that since the motion received 2/3rds, it 
was not necessary to linger in order to discuss the parliamentary issue.

     If I understand correctly, a motion to postpone a pending question 
to a time certain only requires a majority vote unless it makes the 
question a special order.  As far as I can tell, adoption of the 
question considered would not establish a special order. Thus, it 
appears to me that a 2/3rds vote was not required.

     I suggest that if it cannot be demonstrated a 2/3rds vote was 
required, the final sentence should be reworded as follows:  After 
debate, this motion was adopted by a show of hands.

*  In the third paragraph under the "Audit Committee" item, I believe 
the phrase "... (see Appendices E and F respectively) ...." should be 
punctuated as follows:

"... (see Appendices E and F, respectively) ...."


p. 7:

*  The first paragraph at the top of the page reads as follows:  Ms. Fox 
indicated that there were some differing opinions on the duties of the 
Audit Committee which slowed down its progress and that the LNC might 
want to review the Policy Manual language for clarity.

     I suggest that the paragraph be rewritten as follows:  Ms. Fox 
indicated that there were some differing opinions on the duties of the 
Audit Committee, which slowed down its progress.  She suggested that the 
LNC may wish to review the Policy Manual language for clarity.

*  In the second paragraph at the top of the page, I suggest that the 
sentence "Recommendations were made to implement ACH and check positive 
pay which Mr. Kraus indicated is already in process" be reworded as follows:

Recommendations were made to implement check and ACH positive pay; Mr. 
Kraus indicated that an effort to implement these procedures is already 
underway.

(Note:  The specific language used by the Audit Committee is "... also 
recommends check and ACH positive pay ....")

*  Under the "Partial Population of Awards Committee" item, I suggest 
that the sentence "Dr. Lark noted that it is preferable to have 
continuity on this Committee and two past members (Mr. Lark and Mr. 
Hagan) have expressed interest" be rewritten as follows:

Dr. Lark noted that the Policy Manual explicitly suggests there should 
be continuity on this Committee.  He also noted that as far as he was 
aware, two members of the 2016 Awards Committee (Dr. Lark and Mr. Hagan) 
submitted applications for the 2018 Committee.

     In addition, the following sentence in the draft should be reworded 
as follows:  "Mr. Hayes also indicated ...."

*  Since I don't like splitting infinitives, I suggest that the second 
paragraph under "Partial Population of Awards Committee" be rewritten as 
follows:

Mr. Hewitt moved to appoint Hagan, Hayes, and Lark to the Awards 
Committee (with the understanding that the other two committee members 
would be selected subsequently).  The motion passed without objection.

*  In the fourth bullet-point under "Convention Oversight Committee," I 
believe the phrase "... pending approval by Mr. Sarwark" should be in 
parentheses, or perhaps preceded by a comma.

*  I suggest that the first paragraph under the "Request for Policy 
Manual Change" be rewritten as follows:

Mr. Hayes stated that there is some potential ambiguity in the current 
Policy Manual language regarding whether other convention-related 
revenues would count towards donor contribution levels, such as Life
Memberships.  To clarify the language, he requested that Section 2.05.2 
of the Policy Manual be amended as follows:


p. 9:

*  Under the "IT Committee" item, the last sentence of the first 
paragraph reads as follows:  Back-end assistance would be appreciated 
with Ruby on Rails for the candidate database.

     I assume the sentence is supposed to convey that those working on 
the candidate database would welcome the assistance of people who have 
competence with Ruby on Rails.  If so, I suggest that the sentence be 
reworded as follows:

Those working on the candidate database would welcome the assistance of 
people who have competence with Ruby on Rails.

*  Under the "Credentials Committee" item, the following sentences 
appear:  The Credentials Committee is awaiting appointment of an interim 
Chair.  Mr. Hayes moved to appoint Emily Salvette with Mr. Goldstein 
seconding.  Ms. Harlos then moved to appoint Susan Hogarth with 
Starchild seconding.  Both Harlos and Starchild object to the 
re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified, 
year after year.

     I believe the last of these sentences should be modified or 
removed.  When Mr. Sarwark asked whether there was objection to the 
motion appointing Ms. Salvette, Starchild objected and mentioned the 
issue of re-appointing people.  As far as I can tell from my recording, 
Ms. Harlos did not make a comment regarding the issue mentioned by 
Starchild.  (She did make comments about the issue. However, as far as I 
can tell, those comments were made the following day in speaking on 
behalf of Susan Hogarth's nomination for interim Credentials Committee 
chair.)

*  The third sentence under the "Ballot Access Committee" item reads as 
follows:  Mr. Moellman supplemented with an oral report and answered 
questions including the following information:

     I suggest that the sentence should be rewritten as follows:

Mr. Moellman supplemented with an oral report and answered questions.  
He provided the following information:

*  In the first bullet-point under the "Ballot Access Committee" item, I 
am uncertain whether the statement "Kentucky has submitted a prior 
request for LNC assistance" is worded correctly.  Should the word 
"prior" be deleted?

*  In the first sentence of the final paragraph on the page, I believe 
there should be a comma between the words "Committee" and "creating."  
The sentence would then read, "Mr. Moellman resigned from the Ballot 
Access Committee, creating a vacancy ...."


p. 11:

*  Under the "Adoption of 2018 Budget" item, the second sentence of the 
second paragraph contains the phrase "... took turns to briefly comment, 
request information ...."

I believe the phrase should be reworded as follows:  "... took turns to 
comment briefly, request information ...."

*  As mentioned previously, I believe "Opportunity for Public Comment" 
was on the agenda at the beginning of the Sunday session. Mr. Sarwark 
asked whether there were such comments; Mr. Kraus offered comments 
regarding check-out times.

*  Near the bottom of the page, I suggest that Ms. Salvette and Ms. 
Hogarth be referred to as Emily Salvette and Susan Hogarth.


p. 13:

*  The following paragraph appears around the middle of the page: Mr. 
Demarest moved to amend revenue line 4375 “Branding/Political Materials” 
and expense line 7375 “Branding/Political Materials” from $100,000 to 
$125,000, for an increase of $25,000 on each.  Mr. Hewitt seconded. 
After debate, this motion passed by a show of hands with a vote total of 
12-0 with 2 express abstentions.

     I believe the names of the members who expressed their abstentions 
should be mentioned.  I was one of the abstainers; I believe Starchild 
was the other, but it is not clear from my recording.

*  At the bottom of the page, in recording the "aye" votes on the 
motion, the surnames are not listed in alphabetical order.  To be 
consistent with previous practice, I believe the surnames should be 
listed in alphabetical order.


p. 14:

*  In the table containing budget items, the heading of the fourth 
column is "2019 Budget as Amended."  I believe this should be "2018 
Budget as Amended."


p. 15:

*  In the table containing budget items, the number for the Bequest 
Receivable for both the 2018 Budget Proposal and the 2018 Budget as 
Amended is listed as 67,800.  According to Mr. Hagan's spreadsheet, that 
number should be 66,800.

     Also, Unrestricted Operating Surplus (or Deficit) for the 2018 
Budget Proposal is listed as (269,264).  In reviewing the spreadsheet 
distributed by Mr. Hagan (as modified by changing the ballot access 
expense from $202,000 to $250,000), I believe this number should be 
(269,864).  If so, the number for Net Surplus (or Deficit) After Capital 
Expenses & Bequest for the 2018 Budget Proposal should be changed from 
(201,464) to (203,064).

     In addition, I believe the number for Net Surplus (or Deficit) 
After Capital Expenses & Bequest for the 2018 Budget as Amended should 
be changed from (286,464) to (287,464).

*  Under the "Amendment to the Procedure for Approving Litigation" item, 
the following sentence appears:  Dr. Lark raised concerns regarding the 
process for approval of the last amicus brief that was filed without
adequate lead-time for review.

     I suggest that this sentence be reworded as follows:

Dr. Lark raised concerns regarding the process for approval of the 
previous amicus brief, which he believes was filed without adequate 
lead-time for review.


p. 16:

*  Following the bullet-point list of topics at the top of the page, the 
following paragraph appears:  Mr. Sarwark resumed the gavel and presided 
over discussion on the timing of a vote on this decision. One key factor 
in the discussion was the possibility of showing our strong support for 
Second Amendment rights in a gun-friendly venue with the concurrent 
publicity that may ensue.

     I believe the word "key" should be removed, or that the phrase "One 
key factor ..." should be replaced by "One of the factors ...."

*  In the paragraph following the listing of the votes for the 
convention site, the second sentence reads as follows:  The LNC 
responded with a rousing rendition of “Deep in the Heart of Texas.”

     I request that this sentence be reworded as follows:  Some LNC 
members responded with a rousing rendition of “Deep in the Heart of Texas.”

     On a personal note, I was impressed by the number of different keys 
in which "Deep in the Heart of Texas" was sung.  (When I played violin 
and viola with various orchestras and string ensembles, and when I 
played drums with various groups, we usually endeavored to settle on one 
key in which we would all play.)


p. 17:

*  The item "Changes to names of Party donor association levels" was 
added to the agenda under the heading New Business without Previous 
Notice, and is so listed on p. 4.  However, the discussion of the item 
is included on this page under the heading New Business with Previous 
Notice.


p. 18:

*  The second sentence at the top of the page reads as follows: Jess 
Mears is her Campaign Manager.  I suggest that "Campaign Manager" be 
written as "campaign manager."

*  The third sentence at the top of the page reads as follows: Between 
6,000 and 7,000 votes are needed to win.  I suggest that this sentence 
be reworded as follows:  The number of votes needed to win is estimated 
to be between 6,000 and 7,000.

*  In referring to the report from Region 5, it is noted that I provided 
a Campus Organizing report and an International Representative Report, 
which are included in appendices P and Q, respectively.  While it is 
acceptable to organize the appendices in this manner, it may be better 
to reorganize the appendices so that the Campus Organizing and 
International Representative reports follow the block of regional reports.


p. 19:

*  In referring to the Region 5 report (Appendix O), the following is 
listed:  Region 5 Report (NC, PA, VA, WV).  Since it is unclear why 
"(NC, PA, VA, WV)" appears, allow me to note that the state affiliates 
in Region 5 are Delaware (DE), the District of Columbia (DC), Maryland 
(MD), North Carolina (NC), Pennsylvania (PA), Virginia (VA), and West 
Virginia (WV).

     The state parties for which someone submitted material included in 
this report are Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; no material 
was submitted for Delaware, DC, North Carolina, and Virginia.