[Lnc-business] Secretary's Report and LPHPC Report
Alicia Mattson
alicia.mattson at lp.org
Sun Nov 25 21:16:10 EST 2018
The comments below are regarding the Secretary’s Report for the September
meeting, which will be an appendix to the minutes we’ll be asked to approve
this weekend.
1) Since the meeting agenda itself identifies what committee appointments
are expected at this meeting, and the body of the minutes already contains
two copies of the agenda, including them yet again in the Secretary’s
report gives three copies of the same information in the same set of
minutes.
If the report is going to detail those then-anticipated appointments, some
of the details need to be corrected:
a. About the Audit Committee it indicates, “Two (2) non-LNC members to be
selected by the LNC,” but Bylaws Article 9.2 says that “[t]he non-officer
members of the National Committee” make the appointment, rather than the
full LNC. Also, it makes no mention of the non-officer LNC member position.
b. About the Convention Oversight Committee it merely indicates, “The LNC
Chair will be appointing the two (2) non-LNC members by October 2018.” Yet
it makes no mention of the other positions which were expected to be made
at the September meeting by the LNC. This sorta makes it look like there
are only two members on the committee, both appointed by the Chair. Also,
the rule is that there are a minimum of two non-LNC members, not a fixed
two, and we presently have three.
c. About the IT Committee it indicates, “Up to 5 non-LNC members selected
by the LNC,” but Policy Manual Section 1.03.1 indicates that these are
appointed by the LNC Chair, rather than by the full LNC. Also, there are
two LNC members or alternates in addition to the five non-LNC members.
d. About the Youth Engagement Committee it indicates, "5 members,
including 1 LNC member, 2 under the age of 27, and 1 college student."
However, the resolution adopted by the convention delegates indicates it is
"at least" one LNC member, and "at least" two under the age of 27, and "at
least" one college student.
e. I'm not sure why the not-a-Judicial-Committee Committee is referenced
in the bullet list of positions labeled "To Be Appointed At This Meeting."
2) To avoid too much excessive, superfluous, repetitive redundancy, my
practice was for the Secretary’s Report to focus on identifying committee
appointments, resignations, or other changes which were announced by emails
in between meetings, things that would not otherwise be documented in any
set of minutes. Appointments made during the 7/3/18 LNC meeting already
are documented in those minutes, so it’s not new information to again list
them. The September minutes do not need to rehash the July minutes.
3) The roll call details for email ballots identify the yes votes, the no
votes, and the express abstentions, but the fourth category is incorrectly
described as “no vote cast”. See RONR p. 45, where it says:
“The chair should not call for abstentions in taking a vote, since the
number of members who respond to such a call is meaningless. To ‘abstain’
means not to vote at all, and a member who makes no response if
‘abstentions’ are called for abstains just as much as one who responds to
that effect (see also p. 407).”
Therefore, the number of people who could be described as “no vote cast”
would also include the express abstentions who were already listed in the
third category. Both of those groups are abstentions, and both groups can
be properly described as not having cast a vote. An abstention is not a
vote, by definition.
The express abstentions are the equivalent of “those answering ‘Present’”
as described for the minutes content of roll call votes on RONR p. 470.
The vote tallies at the end of each email ballot (I mean the counts, like
13-0-1) are only counting the expressly stated abstentions as abstentions.
Since the only numbers that matter for determining whether most motions
passed or failed are the “yes” votes and the “no” votes, my practice was to
limit the tally to those two figures and not list the abstentions there.
If we’re going to report the number of abstentions, though, it should
include the total of number of abstentions, including the eligible voters
who did not respond at all.
4) On email ballot 2018-12, it lists the co-sponsors as Bowden, Harlos,
Longstreth, Mattson. Mr. Bowden is an alternate, thus he cannot co-sponsor
an email ballot. The other co-sponsor was Mr. Phillips, rather than Mr.
Bowden.
5) On email ballot 2018-15, Mr. Phillips also co-sponsored (after Merced,
Henchman, and Harlos, but before Nekhaila and Van Horn). See his email
here:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/013801.html
6) Also on email ballot 2018-15, it contains an asterisked footnote which
editorializes about why some people voted the way they did. I don’t know
if it is even factually correct that it explains “most” of the “no” votes
or merely some of them.
Selective “transparency” is not the same thing as transparency, which is
the typical argument given for including such commentary. It just means
that someone has chosen which details to reveal and which to leave out. No
editorial comment is made about why others voted “yes” in spite of the
maker of the motion agreeing to take it up later.
This footnote gives a feeling that without that particular reasoning, the
reader might have thought it to be an unreasonable thing to vote “no”. I
think the footnote should simply be removed and leave it to the September
meeting minutes to document that we revisited the subject. Or the footnote
could be replaced with a factual statement that the subject was revisited
during the September meeting.
7) A formatting note on email ballot 2018-18: it has the formatting the
way that our email list translates text strikeouts, rather than the
strikeout and insert format to match the legend used in the minutes.
8) In the section titled, “Status of Minutes Since Last Report”, for
terminology consistent with the other entries there, you could note that
the draft of the 2018 convention minutes “was distributed in accordance
with LP Bylaws Article 10.9 and was posted on the website more than 14 days
prior to this session, making them eligible for approval at this session.”
-Alicia
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:20 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> Attached.
> --
> In Liberty,
> [uc?id=1DeRjq-L8dvRZabgEG94VkkUvjoHatcfP&export=download]
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
> - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> Call me at 561.523.2250 and follow my public figure page
> at [2]facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
> =======================================================================
> ==
> Peaceful Commerce With All Nations * Non-interventionism * Re-Legalize
> All Drugs * End Government Intrusion In The Bedroom * Repeal All Gun
> Laws * Abolish All Taxation * Sound, Free-market Money * Abolish The
> Fed * End Corporate & Individual Welfare * Abolish The IRS and Repeal
> the Income Tax * Privatize Transportation Infrastructure * Free-market
> Emergency Services * Open Migration * Transfer Government Schools To
> The Private Sector * Eliminate Regulation *
> VOTE LIBERTARIAN * 800-ELECT-US or [3]http://www.LP.org
> =======================================================================
> ==
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 2. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
> 3. http://www.lp.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
The comments below are regarding the Secretary’s Report for the
September meeting, which will be an appendix to the minutes we’ll be
asked to approve this weekend.
1) Since the meeting agenda itself identifies what committee
appointments are expected at this meeting, and the body of the minutes
already contains two copies of the agenda, including them yet again in
the Secretary’s report gives three copies of the same information in
the same set of minutes.
If the report is going to detail those then-anticipated appointments,
some of the details need to be corrected:
a. About the Audit Committee it indicates, “Two (2) non-LNC members to
be selected by the LNC,” but Bylaws Article 9.2 says that “[t]he
non-officer members of the National Committee” make the appointment,
rather than the full LNC. Also, it makes no mention of the non-officer
LNC member position.
b. About the Convention Oversight Committee it merely indicates, “The
LNC Chair will be appointing the two (2) non-LNC members by October
2018.” Yet it makes no mention of the other positions which were
expected to be made at the September meeting by the LNC. This sorta
makes it look like there are only two members on the committee, both
appointed by the Chair. Also, the rule is that there are a minimum of
two non-LNC members, not a fixed two, and we presently have three.
c. About the IT Committee it indicates, “Up to 5 non-LNC members
selected by the LNC,” but Policy Manual Section 1.03.1 indicates that
these are appointed by the LNC Chair, rather than by the full LNC.
Also, there are two LNC members or alternates in addition to the five
non-LNC members.
d. About the Youth Engagement Committee it indicates, "5 members,
including 1 LNC member, 2 under the age of 27, and 1 college student."
However, the resolution adopted by the convention delegates indicates
it is "at least" one LNC member, and "at least" two under the age of
27, and "at least" one college student.
e. I'm not sure why the not-a-Judicial-Committee Committee is
referenced in the bullet list of positions labeled "To Be Appointed At
This Meeting."
2) To avoid too much excessive, superfluous, repetitive redundancy, my
practice was for the Secretary’s Report to focus on identifying
committee appointments, resignations, or other changes which were
announced by emails in between meetings, things that would not
otherwise be documented in any set of minutes. Appointments made
during the 7/3/18 LNC meeting already are documented in those minutes,
so it’s not new information to again list them. The September minutes
do not need to rehash the July minutes.
3) The roll call details for email ballots identify the yes votes, the
no votes, and the express abstentions, but the fourth category is
incorrectly described as “no vote cast”. See RONR p. 45, where it
says:
“The chair should not call for abstentions in taking a vote, since the
number of members who respond to such a call is meaningless. To
‘abstain’ means not to vote at all, and a member who makes no response
if ‘abstentions’ are called for abstains just as much as one who
responds to that effect (see also p. 407).”
Therefore, the number of people who could be described as “no vote
cast” would also include the express abstentions who were already
listed in the third category. Both of those groups are abstentions,
and both groups can be properly described as not having cast a vote.
An abstention is not a vote, by definition.
The express abstentions are the equivalent of “those answering
‘Present’” as described for the minutes content of roll call votes on
RONR p. 470.
The vote tallies at the end of each email ballot (I mean the counts,
like 13-0-1) are only counting the expressly stated abstentions as
abstentions. Since the only numbers that matter for determining
whether most motions passed or failed are the “yes” votes and the “no”
votes, my practice was to limit the tally to those two figures and not
list the abstentions there. If we’re going to report the number of
abstentions, though, it should include the total of number of
abstentions, including the eligible voters who did not respond at all.
4) On email ballot 2018-12, it lists the co-sponsors as Bowden,
Harlos, Longstreth, Mattson. Mr. Bowden is an alternate, thus he
cannot co-sponsor an email ballot. The other co-sponsor was Mr.
Phillips, rather than Mr. Bowden.
5) On email ballot 2018-15, Mr. Phillips also co-sponsored (after
Merced, Henchman, and Harlos, but before Nekhaila and Van Horn). See
his email here:
[1]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/013801.html
6) Also on email ballot 2018-15, it contains an asterisked footnote
which editorializes about why some people voted the way they did. I
don’t know if it is even factually correct that it explains “most” of
the “no” votes or merely some of them.
Selective “transparency” is not the same thing as transparency, which
is the typical argument given for including such commentary. It just
means that someone has chosen which details to reveal and which to
leave out. No editorial comment is made about why others voted “yes”
in spite of the maker of the motion agreeing to take it up later.
This footnote gives a feeling that without that particular reasoning,
the reader might have thought it to be an unreasonable thing to vote
“no”. I think the footnote should simply be removed and leave it to
the September meeting minutes to document that we revisited the
subject. Or the footnote could be replaced with a factual statement
that the subject was revisited during the September meeting.
7) A formatting note on email ballot 2018-18: it has the formatting
the way that our email list translates text strikeouts, rather than the
strikeout and insert format to match the legend used in the minutes.
8) In the section titled, “Status of Minutes Since Last Report”, for
terminology consistent with the other entries there, you could note
that the draft of the 2018 convention minutes “was distributed in
accordance with LP Bylaws Article 10.9 and was posted on the website
more than 14 days prior to this session, making them eligible for
approval at this session.”
-Alicia
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:20 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
<[2]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Attached.
--
In Liberty,
[uc?id=1DeRjq-L8dvRZabgEG94VkkUvjoHatcfP&export=download]
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
Call me at 561.523.2250 and follow my public figure page
at [2][3]facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
====================================================================
===
==
Peaceful Commerce With All Nations * Non-interventionism *
Re-Legalize
All Drugs * End Government Intrusion In The Bedroom * Repeal All
Gun
Laws * Abolish All Taxation * Sound, Free-market Money * Abolish
The
Fed * End Corporate & Individual Welfare * Abolish The IRS and
Repeal
the Income Tax * Privatize Transportation Infrastructure *
Free-market
Emergency Services * Open Migration * Transfer Government Schools
To
The Private Sector * Eliminate Regulation *
VOTE LIBERTARIAN * 800-ELECT-US or [3][4]http://www.LP.org
====================================================================
===
==
References
1. mailto:[5]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
2. [6]http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
3. [7]http://www.lp.org/
References
1. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/013801.html
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
4. http://www.LP.org/
5. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
6. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
7. http://www.lp.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list