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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Yes there are presently Schroedinger's members.  I'll take a look vis a vis
bylaws and see if any fellow committee members are willing to take this up.

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan at lp.org> wrote:

> I agree that it needs to be cleared up. For the Audit Committee, the
> Bylaws Article 9 states:
> The non-officer members of the National Committee shall appoint a standing
> Audit Committee of three members with power to select the independent
> auditor. One member shall be a non-officer member of the National Committee
> and the other two shall not be members of the National Committee.
>
>
> The question then arises whether an Alternate can be the non-officer
> member of the National Committee, would an Alternate be eligible to be the
> non-member of the National Committee, or are Alternates similar to
> Schrodinger's cat being simultaneously members and non-members?
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
>
> On 2017-12-31 14:30, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171231/71eb1540/attachment-0002.html>