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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I do think this is a debate who's time has come.  It has been a point of
contention for a while, and I pretty stubbornly say, as Joshua has, that
alternates are not members.  There are a bunch of other odd interpretations
that would result - perhaps this is something the Bylaws Committee should
consider.

I would add that this lack of clarity impacts regional elections.  Many
people are under the impression that alternates are truly not members
(meaning they don't even participate in debate without consent - which
doesn't happen on this list) so some regions have very inactive alternates
and others don't - because there is no clear expectation and it hurts the
regions which basically have only one voice in debate while others have
two.  This needs to be cleared up.

-Caryn Ann

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> "A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above,
> is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, . .
> . the right to . . . make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote."  RONR,
> 11th. ed., p. 3, ll. 1-5.  Starting there, the question is, has the bylaw
> modified this rule in some way for our purposes?  Well, it certainly hasn't
> given alternates the rights described.  (Or, in fact, any rights at all.
> It just says they exist.  Their rights come from the right, in Article 7,
> section 1, for the LNC to delegate its powers.  When an alternate is
> seated, a new assembly has, in effect, been formed - and the LNC has, via
> provisions in the Policy Manual, delegated its powers to that body.  A
> seated alternate, to build on Ms. Harlos's comment, is a member of *that *assembly,
> which can exercise the powers of the LNC.)  So what has it done?  Well, we
> know bylaw provisions trump RONR provisions when they conflict, but that is
> clearly meant for rules, not definitions.  A definition is not a rule, and
> modifying a definition, without modifying any pertinent rules, simply
> creates a mess.  So, if there is any ambiguity, I suggest that the bylaw
> should be read as not doing something that pointless and silly.  And, in
> fact, there is ambiguity.  (c) begins: any additional members as specified
> below.  I do not believe that this language implies that everything
> specified below is a member.  It says "One National Committee
> representative and one alternate."  It should be clear that the alternate
> "alternates" (or substitutes) for the National Committee representative,
> not that both are members.
>
> If we read this as meaning alternates are members, what follows?  The
> bylaw, recall, says nothing else about alternates than that they exist.  It
> doesn't, for instance, provide that not all members get to vote, and a
> lower-ranking provision saying that wouldn't be permitted.  So, if
> alternates are members, why aren't we counting their votes in all
> circumstances?  Why is our chair seeking unanimous consent before allowing
> alternates to speak?  Why, to take a much clearer question, can't an
> alternate cosponsor an email ballot?  More to the point - why is it that,
> when these things happen, no one who thinks alternates are members speaks
> up and raises a point of order to such grave violations as the denial of a
> member's right to vote?
>
> More to the point, the rule in question goes on to say that any member may
> object to automatic approval (oddly, in my view, given that it only allowed
> attendees to raise concerns prior to the second draft).  Should an
> alternate be able to object to automatic approval?  What if the rep replies
> and says "notwithstanding what my alternate has said, I think the draft
> should be approved?"  Should the alternate still be able to prevent
> approval?  If yes, what will happen next?  The rule doesn't say, but we can
> guess.  Since the minutes aren't auto-approved, they might be taken up at a
> meeting.  Should the unseated alternate still be able to object, despite
> this being the only case where an unseated alternate can object to
> unanimous consent?  If not, all that's been achieved is a pointless delay.
> Or maybe they won't be taken up at a meeting - instead, email ballots could
> be used to make amendments, in the hopes that, with amendments made,
> consent will be achieved.  The rep will vote against any amendment based on
> the proposed correction.  In fact, no motion to amend will even be made,
> since the alternate can't make it.  This will leave us in some sort of odd
> limbo, unable to approve the minutes because of an objection, and unable to
> vote down the proposed correction because the motion hasn't been made.
> That is what results if we decide to define "member" strangely.  But if
> that's what comes from the truth, let us have it.  Does anyone, though,
> think this is a correct outcome, in terms of our rules?  I suspect not.
>
> The other strange thing about this purported definition, you'll notice, is
> that (since it isn't a rule) it doesn't constrain us in any way.  If we
> were to adopt the language suggested, we could then turn around and form
> committees whose membership, for example, consists of "Three LNC members,
> none of whom are alternates, and 2 positions to be filled either by non-LNC
> members or by alternates."  The only impact such an interpretation would
> have is on those Policy Manual provisions using the word "member," without
> any mention of alternates, which have already been adopted.  But the LNC
> when it adopted those provisions almost certainly thought it was doing
> something different from saying "LNC member or alternate," since the Policy
> Manual uses the latter language in other places.  So we'd be turning the
> intended meaning on its head based on a reinterpretation of a bylaw which
> has existed for some time, a result we ought to avoid if possible.  The
> only constraint would be in relation to bylaw provisions, namely committee
> appointments, and the net effect would be to make it harder for alternates
> to serve on those committees.  I struggle to see the point of that.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> I will co-sponsor if the words "and alternates" are not included. Article
>> 7, Section 2, of the Bylaws starts with, "The National Committee shall be
>> composed of the following members:" and then lists officers, at-large
>> members, and in subsection c uses the wording "shall be entitled to one
>> National Committee representative and one alternate". I interpret this as
>> meaning that alternates are considered members of the LNC. The instances
>> where the Policy Manual uses "LNC Members and Alternates" or "LNC Members
>> or Alternates" make it sound like the alternates are not members of the
>> LNC. My preference would also be to change all of these to just "LNC
>> Members", with a possible note that "LNC Members" includes officers,
>> At-Large Members, Regional Representatives, and Regional Alternates.
>> ---
>> Tim Hagan
>> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>>
>>
>> On 2017-12-31 10:57, Joshua Katz wrote:
>>
>> In response to Ms. Mattson's question: my motion has always contained the
>> words "and alternates," just as Oceania has always been at war with
>> Eastasia.  I hope that is alright with Ms. Harlos and Mr. Hayes.
>>
>>
>> <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>
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org>
>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/da2e6de4/attachment-0002.html>