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

[Alicia Mattson]

I'm circling back to the discussion of including extensive commentary in
the LNC minutes.

<CAH>  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.
</CAH>

I disagree with your characterization of Appendix C to the 2016 convention
minutes as being my "notes on my views of RONR".  For anyone who wants to
take a look, those minutes can be found here:
https://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2016-Convention-Minutes-approved.pdf

Appendix C consists of verbatim quotations from RONR, which is part of our
adopted rules.  It is the equivalent of your footnote 14, "See Bylaws
Article 9.6."  There is no editorial content.  Regarding my draft you
expressed that my use of the single word "however" was too much editorial
content, so I removed that word.  At your request, I added the note at the
top of that appendix, though the appendix itself contains no editorializing
remarks by me, just verbatim quotes from our rules, and the only opinion
that involved is that I think those particular rules are relevant to the
situation.

It's quite a stretch to say that appendix of verbatim quotes from our rules
is the equivalent of including the extensive personal commentaries that are
in the 7/3/18 draft minutes we're discussing.  If the word "however" was
too much editorializing in the minutes I authored, I don't understand the
consistency of the argument for now including the material we're talking
about here.

<CAH> It is important that members feel they have a voice...</CAH>

This is a strawman argument.  I am not saying that members should not be
able to speak during the public comment portions of our agenda.  I am just
saying that those comments don't belong in the record of formal actions
taken by the LNC as a whole.

Sure, there have been some other secretaries in the past that included much
more material than my minutes did, and I also recall times when that
material became a point of contention for various reasons.  Many members
have told me that they appreciated that the minutes I authored did not do
that.

You indicated that you would leave it to the LNC to decide, and await the
LNC's pleasure on the matter.  I'll go ahead and object to the
auto-approval of the 7/3/18 minutes so that discussion can happen in our
Phoenix meeting.  It doesn't need a separate agenda item, as it can be
covered during the Secretary's report.

-Alicia





On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:31 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180806/938950a0/attachment-0002.html>