[Lnc-business] Comments regarding draft minutes of July 3 meeting

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you Alicia - even though this was received after the first
requested deadline for comments of 7/30/18, I had not yet completed
the second draft so I will be able to incorporate these.

I comment as follows:

===1)  The bylaws require roll-call voting on substantive motions,
however it leaves it to the LNC to decide what is or isn't
substantive.  Footnote 7 reflects one person's belief that it was
substantive, however the LNC did not make such a determination.===

I will leave it to the LNC to decide whether or not to object to that
footnote.  I don't think it requires an official proclamation that
appointment to the executive committee is substantive - it is obvious
that it is.  The lack of a roll call vote was noted with displeasure
by two members to me.

==2)  On page 10, in the "Adjournment" section, there is a statement
that I requested interested parties to stick around after the LNC
meeting to assist with the "auditing" of the Judicial Committee
results.  It was actually the initial tally of the Judicial Committee,
not an audit of a previously-completed tally.===

I will note that, thank you.


=== The meeting's call-to-order doesn't appear until page 3 of the
minutes, and we end up with 3 different listings of agenda items along
the way. ===

That is how the meeting went.  While chaotic, I cannot change the
past.  The fact of this procedure was noted in the minutes for the
future reader.

=== The final 4 pages of the 15-page document contains things said by
people who are not on the LNC.

I realize that different Secretaries have different styles, however
including this degree of what was said can be quite problematic.  The
things said may or may not even be true, and the fact that it appears
in approved minutes may incorrectly give a statement credence.  Since
it's not a transcript, the summaries may or may not be fair
representations of what the person actually thinks they said.  One of
the public comments was particularly personal in nature about someone
I'm not even familiar with.  Starting the trend of including anything
that anyone says during public comments then turns our minutes into a
free speech forum for anyone who wants their opinions posted on the LP
website.  This makes our minutes something other than simply a record
of our collective actions as a board.

If people want to personally publish their notes about things that
were said in the meeting, they can do that, but they shouldn't be a
part of the official record of the board's proceedings.==

On this we disagree and I will leave it to the LNC to decide.  These
are located in an appendix not in the minutes and just like we agreed
that Ms. Mattson's notes on her views of RONR could be included in an
appendix of convention minutes (which actually is editorial content)
there should be no issue with summaries of things said in an appendix
of meeting minutes.  I have no issue adding a footnote that these are
member comments and we do not endorse them (though I think that quite
obvious) but I do not agree to removing them.  It is important that
members feel they have a voice (and yes a near free speech forum -
*just like they do to comments they forward to our official business
list*, and there is a video recording of the meeting that anyone can
go to.  Noting the location of the video recording I do think would be
an important addition, and I will do that.  It was put in an appendix
precisely to avoid this issue.  On the issue of the members having a
voice, I am quite truculent.

Over the course of the existence of the LP rather than simply the past
five years, the custom has been to include more detail than the
skeletor requirements of RONR.  In fact WAY more detail than I have
included which creates a rather thorough historical record which -
with all due respect to General Robert - is just as important as
having voted down a particular committee creation.  I have found no
official determination that this practice must or even should cease -
there was a change in Secretary in which it ceased as was her
prerogative absent contrary direction.  And now there is another
change.  I will await the LNC's pleasure on that issue.

The second draft will be presented later today.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:28 AM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business
<lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Here is my feedback regarding the draft July 3 minutes:
>
> 1)  The bylaws require roll-call voting on substantive motions, however it
> leaves it to the LNC to decide what is or isn't substantive.  Footnote 7
> reflects one person's belief that it was substantive, however the LNC did
> not make such a determination.
>
> 2)  On page 10, in the "Adjournment" section, there is a statement that I
> requested interested parties to stick around after the LNC meeting to assist
> with the "auditing" of the Judicial Committee results.  It was actually the
> initial tally of the Judicial Committee, not an audit of a
> previously-completed tally.
>
> 3)  On RONR p. 468, lines 16-18, the rule of thumb for minutes is given as,
> "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."
>
> The first draft of the minutes has a lot of content that is based on what
> was said, rather than what was done collectively by the LNC as a whole.  The
> meeting's call-to-order doesn't appear until page 3 of the minutes, and we
> end up with 3 different listings of agenda items along the way.  The final 4
> pages of the 15-page document contains things said by people who are not on
> the LNC.
>
> I realize that different Secretaries have different styles, however
> including this degree of what was said can be quite problematic.  The things
> said may or may not even be true, and the fact that it appears in approved
> minutes may incorrectly give a statement credence.  Since it's not a
> transcript, the summaries may or may not be fair representations of what the
> person actually thinks they said.  One of the public comments was
> particularly personal in nature about someone I'm not even familiar with.
> Starting the trend of including anything that anyone says during public
> comments then turns our minutes into a free speech forum for anyone who
> wants their opinions posted on the LP website.  This makes our minutes
> something other than simply a record of our collective actions as a board.
>
> If people want to personally publish their notes about things that were said
> in the meeting, they can do that, but they shouldn't be a part of the
> official record of the board's proceedings.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
-- 
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft