[Lnc-business] Motion to Amend Policy for Automatic Approval of Minutes

[david.demarest at lp.org]

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 at 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 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 [1 [1]]

> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20171231/9388c52b/attachment-0002.html>