[Lnc-business] Comments regarding draft minutes

[Tim Hagan]

Concerning your comments on the budget table on page 15, Draft 5 of the 
spreadsheet had a former number for the Bequests Receivable. The FEC 
raised the contribution limit to $33,900 per individual, so we can 
withdraw $67,800 from the bequests. (See 
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm for 
contribution limits.) I believe the Bequests Receivable got corrected 
toward the beginning of the budget discussion, before the budget was 
moved.

---
Tim Hagan
Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

On 2017-12-30 19:51, James Lark wrote:
> Dear colleagues:
> 
>     I hope all is well with you.  I have enclosed several comments
> regarding the draft minutes of the December LNC meeting.  I hope you
> find these comments to be helpful.  A goodly number of the comments
> involve substantive issues (e.g., corrections); many of the comments
> involve suggested wording.
> 
>     I apologize that I was unable to prepare and send these comments
> sooner; during the past three weeks I have been swamped with faculty
> duties (and faculty problems), Libertarian duties, and travel. Also,
> because of my schedule, I was able to review the draft only once (and
> in haste).  Thus, it is possible I have overlooked some items that are
> worthy of consideration.
> 
>     Allow me to express again my appreciation for Ms. Harlos' work to
> prepare the draft minutes.  As one who has served as secretary pro tem
> for the LNC on occasion (and who now serves as secretary of the
> Libertarian Party of Virginia), I am well aware of the effort required
> to assemble draft minutes.
> 
>     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.  Best wishes for a
> great 2018.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
> questions about the list of comments.
> 
>     Take care,
>     Jim
> 
>     James W. Lark, III
>     Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering
>     Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society
>     Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics
>     University of Virginia
> 
>     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
>     University of Virginia
> 
>     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> -----
> 
> General comments:
> 
> *  To be consistent with previous minutes, I suggest that the phrase
> "the motion passed" be replaced by "the motion was adopted."  Please
> note that both phrases are used within these draft minutes.
> 
> *  To be consistent with previous minutes, I suggest that seconders of
> motions not be listed.
> 
> *  When I refer to the "original agenda" below, I refer to the agenda
> that was distributed by staff at the meeting.
> 
> 
> p. 2:
> 
> *  In listing the LNC members and alternates not in attendance, in
> order to be consistent with previous minutes, the alternates should be
> listed in order of region number (1 through 8), rather than in
> alphabetical order of surname.  (Thus, Region 4 alternate Starr should
> be listed before Region 5 alternate Somes.)
> 
> *  I suggest that the phrase "(the Great Snowpocalypse of 2017)" be
> removed.  Also, if I understood Starchild correctly, he was in New
> Orleans as of Friday afternoon.  The phrasing of the special note
> suggests that his late arrival at the LNC meeting on Dec. 9 was due to
> a flight delay.
> 
> *  I suggest that the paragraph under "Credentials Report and
> Paperwork Check" be rewritten as follows:
> 
> Ms. Harlos confirmed the attendance roster and distributed a departure
> time information sheet to determine when quorum would be lost on
> Sunday.  Staff provided copies of meeting packets.
> 
> It was noted that Mr. Bittner had resigned as Region 3 Representative
> on November 30, 2017.
> 
> *  Near the bottom of the page, I suggest that the phrase "... Mr.
> Bittner’s resignation as Region 3 Regional Representative ..." be
> reworded as follows:
> 
> ".... Mr. Bittner’s resignation as Region 3 Representative ...."
> 
> 
> p. 3:
> 
> *  In listening to my recording of the meeting, it sounds to me that
> it was Mr. Redpath who moved that the agenda be adopted as amended,
> rather than Mr. Hewitt.  (Mr. Redpath was seated next to me during the
> meeting, and his voice comes through clearly in my recording of the
> meeting.  I did not hear Mr. Hewitt's voice.)
> 
> *  Under Reports of Standing Committees, the original agenda listed a
> report (allotted 5 minutes) from the Credentials Committee, to take
> place following a report from the Bylaws Committee.  That report was
> not removed from the agenda.  (The agenda items for the Platform and
> Bylaws committees were subsequently removed; the Credentials Committee
> agenda item was not.)
> 
> *  The time allotted for the agenda item "Amendment to the procedure
> for approving litigation" is listed as 30 minutes.  According to the
> original agenda, the amount of time allotted is 10 minutes.  As far as
> I can tell, this amount was not changed to 30 minutes.
> 
> *  Under the heading "Sunday Morning Session," the original agenda
> listed the item "Opportunity for Public Committee," which was allotted
> 10 minutes.  As far as I can recall, it was not removed from the
> agenda; in addition, Mr. Sarwark solicited public comment on Sunday
> morning.  (Mr. Kraus offered some comments.)
> 
> 
> p. 4:
> 
> *  The URL for Mr. Sarwark's website is Sarwarkforphoenix.com. (When
> he announced the website, Mr. Sarwark spelled the word "for.")
> 
> *  Under the "Treasurer's Report," I suggest that the phrase "Mr.
> Hagan noted that since the Party uses the accrual method that the
> revenues for the 2018 National Convention ..." be reworded as follows:
> 
> "Mr. Hagan noted that since the Party uses the accrual method, the
> revenues for the 2018 National Convention ...."
> 
> 
> p. 5:
> 
> *  In the second bullet-point item under the "Treasurer's Report," I
> suggest that the phrase "... (Mr. Kraus will need to confirm if
> mortgage will be paid in full ..." be reworded as follows:
> 
> "... (Mr. Kraus will need to confirm whether the mortgage will be paid
> in full ...."
> 
> *  In the third bullet-point item under the "Treasurer's Report," I
> suggest $2400 be replaced by $2,400 in order to be consistent with
> other dollar figures included in the draft.
> 
> *  In the second sentence under "Staff Reports," I suggest that the
> phrase "... regarding the goals and duties for the new contractors
> including the recruitment of 2,000 candidates ..." be punctuated as
> follows:
> 
> "... regarding the goals and duties for the new contractors, including
> the recruitment of 2,000 candidates ...."
> 
> *  In the final sentence under "Staff Reports," perhaps reword "Ms.
> Daugherty was given a round of applause" as "Ms. Daugherty received a
> round of applause."
> 
> 
> p. 6:
> 
> *  At the top of the page, I suggest that the phrase "Starchild moved
> that the LNC disclose everything discussed in the secret session ..."
> be reworded as follows:
> 
>  "Starchild moved that the LNC disclose everything discussed in the
> executive session ...."
> 
> *  In the final paragraph under the "Public Disclosure of Items
> Discussed in Executive Session" item, the first sentence reads as
> follows:  Mr. Moellman moved that the LNC disclose the discussions in
> the secret session excluding any personally identifiable information
> which is not just limited to names.
> 
>     I believe the phrase "secret session" should be changed to
> "executive session."  (Mr. Moellman used the phrase "executive
> session" in stating his motion.)
> 
> *  In the final paragraph under the "Public Disclosure of Items
> Discussed in Executive Session" item, the final sentence reads as
> follows:  After debate, this motion passed by a show of hands with the
> required 2/3 vote.
> 
>     It is not clear to me why a 2/3rds vote was required.  Prior to
> the vote, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the motion required a 2/3rds
> vote.  After the vote concluded, a question was raised as to why a
> 2/3rds vote was needed; someone suggested that since the motion
> received 2/3rds, it was not necessary to linger in order to discuss
> the parliamentary issue.
> 
>     If I understand correctly, a motion to postpone a pending question
> to a time certain only requires a majority vote unless it makes the
> question a special order.  As far as I can tell, adoption of the
> question considered would not establish a special order. Thus, it
> appears to me that a 2/3rds vote was not required.
> 
>     I suggest that if it cannot be demonstrated a 2/3rds vote was
> required, the final sentence should be reworded as follows:  After
> debate, this motion was adopted by a show of hands.
> 
> *  In the third paragraph under the "Audit Committee" item, I believe
> the phrase "... (see Appendices E and F respectively) ...." should be
> punctuated as follows:
> 
> "... (see Appendices E and F, respectively) ...."
> 
> 
> p. 7:
> 
> *  The first paragraph at the top of the page reads as follows:  Ms.
> Fox indicated that there were some differing opinions on the duties of
> the Audit Committee which slowed down its progress and that the LNC
> might want to review the Policy Manual language for clarity.
> 
>     I suggest that the paragraph be rewritten as follows:  Ms. Fox
> indicated that there were some differing opinions on the duties of the
> Audit Committee, which slowed down its progress.  She suggested that
> the LNC may wish to review the Policy Manual language for clarity.
> 
> *  In the second paragraph at the top of the page, I suggest that the
> sentence "Recommendations were made to implement ACH and check
> positive pay which Mr. Kraus indicated is already in process" be
> reworded as follows:
> 
> Recommendations were made to implement check and ACH positive pay; Mr.
> Kraus indicated that an effort to implement these procedures is
> already underway.
> 
> (Note:  The specific language used by the Audit Committee is "... also
> recommends check and ACH positive pay ....")
> 
> *  Under the "Partial Population of Awards Committee" item, I suggest
> that the sentence "Dr. Lark noted that it is preferable to have
> continuity on this Committee and two past members (Mr. Lark and Mr.
> Hagan) have expressed interest" be rewritten as follows:
> 
> Dr. Lark noted that the Policy Manual explicitly suggests there should
> be continuity on this Committee.  He also noted that as far as he was
> aware, two members of the 2016 Awards Committee (Dr. Lark and Mr.
> Hagan) submitted applications for the 2018 Committee.
> 
>     In addition, the following sentence in the draft should be
> reworded as follows:  "Mr. Hayes also indicated ...."
> 
> *  Since I don't like splitting infinitives, I suggest that the second
> paragraph under "Partial Population of Awards Committee" be rewritten
> as follows:
> 
> Mr. Hewitt moved to appoint Hagan, Hayes, and Lark to the Awards
> Committee (with the understanding that the other two committee members
> would be selected subsequently).  The motion passed without objection.
> 
> *  In the fourth bullet-point under "Convention Oversight Committee,"
> I believe the phrase "... pending approval by Mr. Sarwark" should be
> in parentheses, or perhaps preceded by a comma.
> 
> *  I suggest that the first paragraph under the "Request for Policy
> Manual Change" be rewritten as follows:
> 
> Mr. Hayes stated that there is some potential ambiguity in the current
> Policy Manual language regarding whether other convention-related
> revenues would count towards donor contribution levels, such as Life
> Memberships.  To clarify the language, he requested that Section
> 2.05.2 of the Policy Manual be amended as follows:
> 
> 
> p. 9:
> 
> *  Under the "IT Committee" item, the last sentence of the first
> paragraph reads as follows:  Back-end assistance would be appreciated
> with Ruby on Rails for the candidate database.
> 
>     I assume the sentence is supposed to convey that those working on
> the candidate database would welcome the assistance of people who have
> competence with Ruby on Rails.  If so, I suggest that the sentence be
> reworded as follows:
> 
> Those working on the candidate database would welcome the assistance
> of people who have competence with Ruby on Rails.
> 
> *  Under the "Credentials Committee" item, the following sentences
> appear:  The Credentials Committee is awaiting appointment of an
> interim Chair.  Mr. Hayes moved to appoint Emily Salvette with Mr.
> Goldstein seconding.  Ms. Harlos then moved to appoint Susan Hogarth
> with Starchild seconding.  Both Harlos and Starchild object to the
> re-appointment of the same persons, no matter how obviously qualified,
> year after year.
> 
>     I believe the last of these sentences should be modified or
> removed.  When Mr. Sarwark asked whether there was objection to the
> motion appointing Ms. Salvette, Starchild objected and mentioned the
> issue of re-appointing people.  As far as I can tell from my
> recording, Ms. Harlos did not make a comment regarding the issue
> mentioned by Starchild.  (She did make comments about the issue.
> However, as far as I can tell, those comments were made the following
> day in speaking on behalf of Susan Hogarth's nomination for interim
> Credentials Committee chair.)
> 
> *  The third sentence under the "Ballot Access Committee" item reads
> as follows:  Mr. Moellman supplemented with an oral report and
> answered questions including the following information:
> 
>     I suggest that the sentence should be rewritten as follows:
> 
> Mr. Moellman supplemented with an oral report and answered questions. 
> He provided the following information:
> 
> *  In the first bullet-point under the "Ballot Access Committee" item,
> I am uncertain whether the statement "Kentucky has submitted a prior
> request for LNC assistance" is worded correctly.  Should the word
> "prior" be deleted?
> 
> *  In the first sentence of the final paragraph on the page, I believe
> there should be a comma between the words "Committee" and "creating." 
> The sentence would then read, "Mr. Moellman resigned from the Ballot
> Access Committee, creating a vacancy ...."
> 
> 
> p. 11:
> 
> *  Under the "Adoption of 2018 Budget" item, the second sentence of
> the second paragraph contains the phrase "... took turns to briefly
> comment, request information ...."
> 
> I believe the phrase should be reworded as follows:  "... took turns
> to comment briefly, request information ...."
> 
> *  As mentioned previously, I believe "Opportunity for Public Comment"
> was on the agenda at the beginning of the Sunday session. Mr. Sarwark
> asked whether there were such comments; Mr. Kraus offered comments
> regarding check-out times.
> 
> *  Near the bottom of the page, I suggest that Ms. Salvette and Ms.
> Hogarth be referred to as Emily Salvette and Susan Hogarth.
> 
> 
> p. 13:
> 
> *  The following paragraph appears around the middle of the page: Mr.
> Demarest moved to amend revenue line 4375 “Branding/Political
> Materials” and expense line 7375 “Branding/Political Materials” from
> $100,000 to $125,000, for an increase of $25,000 on each.  Mr. Hewitt
> seconded. After debate, this motion passed by a show of hands with a
> vote total of 12-0 with 2 express abstentions.
> 
>     I believe the names of the members who expressed their abstentions
> should be mentioned.  I was one of the abstainers; I believe Starchild
> was the other, but it is not clear from my recording.
> 
> *  At the bottom of the page, in recording the "aye" votes on the
> motion, the surnames are not listed in alphabetical order.  To be
> consistent with previous practice, I believe the surnames should be
> listed in alphabetical order.
> 
> 
> p. 14:
> 
> *  In the table containing budget items, the heading of the fourth
> column is "2019 Budget as Amended."  I believe this should be "2018
> Budget as Amended."
> 
> 
> p. 15:
> 
> *  In the table containing budget items, the number for the Bequest
> Receivable for both the 2018 Budget Proposal and the 2018 Budget as
> Amended is listed as 67,800.  According to Mr. Hagan's spreadsheet,
> that number should be 66,800.
> 
>     Also, Unrestricted Operating Surplus (or Deficit) for the 2018
> Budget Proposal is listed as (269,264).  In reviewing the spreadsheet
> distributed by Mr. Hagan (as modified by changing the ballot access
> expense from $202,000 to $250,000), I believe this number should be
> (269,864).  If so, the number for Net Surplus (or Deficit) After
> Capital Expenses & Bequest for the 2018 Budget Proposal should be
> changed from (201,464) to (203,064).
> 
>     In addition, I believe the number for Net Surplus (or Deficit)
> After Capital Expenses & Bequest for the 2018 Budget as Amended should
> be changed from (286,464) to (287,464).
> 
> *  Under the "Amendment to the Procedure for Approving Litigation"
> item, the following sentence appears:  Dr. Lark raised concerns
> regarding the process for approval of the last amicus brief that was
> filed without
> adequate lead-time for review.
> 
>     I suggest that this sentence be reworded as follows:
> 
> Dr. Lark raised concerns regarding the process for approval of the
> previous amicus brief, which he believes was filed without adequate
> lead-time for review.
> 
> 
> p. 16:
> 
> *  Following the bullet-point list of topics at the top of the page,
> the following paragraph appears:  Mr. Sarwark resumed the gavel and
> presided over discussion on the timing of a vote on this decision. One
> key factor in the discussion was the possibility of showing our strong
> support for Second Amendment rights in a gun-friendly venue with the
> concurrent publicity that may ensue.
> 
>     I believe the word "key" should be removed, or that the phrase
> "One key factor ..." should be replaced by "One of the factors ...."
> 
> *  In the paragraph following the listing of the votes for the
> convention site, the second sentence reads as follows:  The LNC
> responded with a rousing rendition of “Deep in the Heart of Texas.”
> 
>     I request that this sentence be reworded as follows:  Some LNC
> members responded with a rousing rendition of “Deep in the Heart of
> Texas.”
> 
>     On a personal note, I was impressed by the number of different
> keys in which "Deep in the Heart of Texas" was sung.  (When I played
> violin and viola with various orchestras and string ensembles, and
> when I played drums with various groups, we usually endeavored to
> settle on one key in which we would all play.)
> 
> 
> p. 17:
> 
> *  The item "Changes to names of Party donor association levels" was
> added to the agenda under the heading New Business without Previous
> Notice, and is so listed on p. 4.  However, the discussion of the item
> is included on this page under the heading New Business with Previous
> Notice.
> 
> 
> p. 18:
> 
> *  The second sentence at the top of the page reads as follows: Jess
> Mears is her Campaign Manager.  I suggest that "Campaign Manager" be
> written as "campaign manager."
> 
> *  The third sentence at the top of the page reads as follows: Between
> 6,000 and 7,000 votes are needed to win.  I suggest that this sentence
> be reworded as follows:  The number of votes needed to win is
> estimated to be between 6,000 and 7,000.
> 
> *  In referring to the report from Region 5, it is noted that I
> provided a Campus Organizing report and an International
> Representative Report, which are included in appendices P and Q,
> respectively.  While it is acceptable to organize the appendices in
> this manner, it may be better to reorganize the appendices so that the
> Campus Organizing and International Representative reports follow the
> block of regional reports.
> 
> 
> p. 19:
> 
> *  In referring to the Region 5 report (Appendix O), the following is
> listed:  Region 5 Report (NC, PA, VA, WV).  Since it is unclear why
> "(NC, PA, VA, WV)" appears, allow me to note that the state affiliates
> in Region 5 are Delaware (DE), the District of Columbia (DC), Maryland
> (MD), North Carolina (NC), Pennsylvania (PA), Virginia (VA), and West
> Virginia (WV).
> 
>     The state parties for which someone submitted material included in
> this report are Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; no material
> was submitted for Delaware, DC, North Carolina, and Virginia.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business