[Lnc-business] Draft Minutes Comments

Sun Dec 31 13:54:57 EST 2017

I will object to final minutes containing debate to this degree, but will
save my debate for that time.

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Joshua A. Katz

On Sun, 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171231/24157b79/attachment-0002.html>