[Lnc-business] Comments regarding draft minutes

Sun Dec 31 18:18:20 EST 2017

	I was in New Orleans from Thursday night, but arrived late to the meeting Saturday morning due to a local bridge being unexpectedly closed for ice when Hap and I drove in from her place across the lake.

	And yes Caryn Ann, you're correct that I do not consider our objections as noted by you below to be a minor matter, and do want them included in the minutes.

On Dec 30, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote (in part):

> ...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 believe minutes are most useful when written in such a manner as to enable people who were not at a meeting to understand what happened at the meeting and why (i.e. including discussion beyond just the bare minimum of what occurred in parliamentary terms is appropriate). That may or may not be the rule according to Robert's, but I think it is common sense and within the discretion of the Secretary (or acting Secretary) under our Bylaws to record the minutes in a manner that conforms to common sense.

	For anyone who wants minutes to be as concise as possible, I think the most unnecessary details (i.e. the first targets for removal, if anything is to be removed) are things like noting that someone received a round of applause. However I am not personally in favor of removing those references either, as they help give a sense of the climate of the meeting.

On Dec 30, 2017, at 7:51 PM, James Lark wrote (in part):

> 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 ...."

	Jim, I know you prefer the euphemism, but that was not the motion I made. We are not "executives"; the term "secret meeting" is more accurate.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                       RealReform at earthlink.net
                                 (415) 625-FREE

On Dec 31, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> PS:  if split infinitives terribly bother Dr. Lark (like the lack of an Oxford comma does me), for stylistic purposes, I have no issue changing that.  However, I note, that it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives, and I do so with reckless abandon.
> 
> -Caryn Ann
> 
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> Starchild, I was under the impression you had just arrived in New Orleans.  Can you please let me know if you were there on Friday?
> 
> Mr. Lark, yes, on that number Mr. Hagan and I had an off-list discussion to be sure the numbers were right as I did not have that in my notes either and when I ran the numbers they did not add up.
> 
> -Caryn Ann
> 
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM, James Lark <james.lark at lp.org> wrote:
> Dear colleagues:
> 
>     I hope all is well with you.  Thanks to Mr. Hagan for his message regarding the draft minutes; I greatly appreciate his taking the time and trouble to dig through my long list of comments and suggestions.
> 
>     I do not recall a discussion during the meeting of changing the bequests receivable number from $66,800 to $67,800.  In reviewing my recording and notes, it is possible I was out of the room when Mr. Sarwark made a comment regarding the amount.  (As they say in Hollywood, "Timing is everything.")  Specifically, roughly 25 minutes after the beginning of the 2018 budget discussion, Mr. Sarwark indicated that the $66,800 bequests receivable figure may be too low.  There was a very brief discussion among Mr. Hagan, Mr. Sarwark, and Mr. Kraus, from which the $67,800 figure emerged.
> 
>     Thus, allow me to propose a modification of the draft minutes. On p. 11, the text under the heading Adoption of 2018 Budget currently reads as follows:
> 
> Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions.  He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
> 
> Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs. As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to briefly comment, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer
> amendment(s).
> 
>     I suggest the draft minutes be amended so that the text reads as follows:
> 
> Adoption of 2018 Budget
> 
> Mr. Hagan had distributed a proposed budget in advance, gave an oral overview, and fielded questions.  He noted the previously discussed increase on the ballot access line (Program Expense line “70-BallotAccess Voter Reg & Related Exp”) from $202,000 to $250,000.
> 
> Ms. Daugherty was requested to speak on fundraising efforts and costs.  Mr. Sarwark suggested that the Bequests Receivable number of $66,800 in the draft budget may be too low.  After a brief discussion, the number was changed to $67,800.
> 
> As previously agreed, each LNC member took turns to comment briefly, request information, express concerns, and/or state intent to offer amendment(s).
> 
> 
> Please note that in the third paragraph, I have changed the phrase "... to briefly comment ..." to the phrase "... to comment briefly ...."  (I prefer that we not split infinitives.)
> 
>     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.  As always, thanks for considering my comments and suggestions.  Best wishes to you for a great 2018.
> 
>     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
> -----
> 
> On 12/31/2017 12:42 PM, Tim Hagan wrote:
> 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.
> <SNIP>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d057d6ce/attachment-0002.html>