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

Alicia Mattson alicia.mattson at lp.org
Wed Jan 3 17:16:05 EST 2018 

Was I the only one hoping that an alternate would say "meow"?

Anyway, here's where I think we are with this developing email ballot.
Initially the language of changing "Attendees" to "Members" got three
co-sponsors:  Katz, Harlos, Hayes.  Then Katz clarified he intended to say
"Members and alternates", which I interpret as withdrawing his support for
the first version.  Harlos confirmed she would still co-sponsor.  Hagan
only wanted to cosponsor the original, but not the revised.

I will co-sponsor the revised "Members and alternates".  If we get
confirmation from Hayes that he's fine with the revised wording, we'll have
enough for an email ballot on that.

-Alicia





On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180103/05549f39/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list