[Lnc-business] Draft Minutes Comments

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

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 at 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 at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20171230/62481394/attachment-0002.html>