[Lnc-business] Secretary's Report and LPHPC Report
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sun Nov 25 23:05:19 EST 2018
I have taken a look. My responses are as follows:
* 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.*
With all due respect to Ms. Mattson, if I wish to include that in my report
which may be read separate from any minutes, then that is my choice. I was
elected to this position to exercise my judgment in my reports. I will
submit an errata to be appended to this report noting the committee
composition issues noted by Ms. Mattson.
* 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.*
That is an excellent observation, and I will change the language of "no
vote cast" to absentions and include those in the total. I note that this
should have been noted at the time I announced the results not months later.
* 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
<http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/013801.html>*
I will note this and reiterate my prior point that this should have been
noted at the time I announced the results not months later.
* 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.*
This was reported back at the time of the vote and no objection noted at
that time thus I am leaving that in my report as an account of what was
reported on the LNC list. Objections should have been noted at that time.
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.
This portion of my report is to reflect back what was reported at the time
of the votes. Since that is the precise way that the motion was made, the
way I noted it is appropriate, and I am leaving that be.
* 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.”*
This is a stylistic issue that I would have gladly amended if this comment
was made timely, but I do not see a need to address at this point, but will
keep this in mind for the future.
I conclude that *some* of this (not any actual errata) is a very odd
micromanagement that I objected to last meeting. This is my job, and I ask
to be left to do it.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 8:42 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> While I certainly appreciate the comments, the time to make them is prior
> to the formal submission of the report at the meeting. In approving the
> minutes you are not approving the contents of any report, and it is
> inappropriate IMHO to request changes to a report after it is submitted. I
> have no personal issues taking a look and submitting a revised report (if I
> concur with the suggestions) but in the future I ask that comments be given
> at the time the report is submitted and not after the meeting. Everyone
> had this report *one week prior to the September meeting* and could have
> offered suggestions then or at the meeting itself.
>
> Joe, here is the document that Alicia is referring to.
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 7:29 PM Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Would you mind attaching the report you're referencing? I can't seem to
>> find it.
>> JBH
>>
>
>
> --
>
> * In Liberty,*
>
> *Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary *- Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <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
> 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 http://www.LP.org <http://www.lp.org/>*
> =========================================================================
>
--
* In Liberty,*
*Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary *- Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <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
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 http://www.LP.org <http://www.lp.org/>*
=========================================================================
-------------- next part --------------
I have taken a look. My responses are as follows:
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.
With all due respect to Ms. Mattson, if I wish to include that in my
report which may be read separate from any minutes, then that is my
choice. I was elected to this position to exercise my judgment in my
reports. I will submit an errata to be appended to this report noting
the committee composition issues noted by Ms. Mattson.
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.
That is an excellent observation, and I will change the language of "no
vote cast" to absentions and include those in the total. I note that
this should have been noted at the time I announced the results not
months later.
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][1]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/013801.html
I will note this and reiterate my prior point that this should have
been noted at the time I announced the results not months later.
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.
This was reported back at the time of the vote and no objection noted
at that time thus I am leaving that in my report as an account of what
was reported on the LNC list. Objections should have been noted at
that time.
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.
This portion of my report is to reflect back what was reported at the
time of the votes. Since that is the precise way that the motion was
made, the way I noted it is appropriate, and I am leaving that be.
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.”
This is a stylistic issue that I would have gladly amended if this
comment was made timely, but I do not see a need to address at this
point, but will keep this in mind for the future.
I conclude that *some* of this (not any actual errata) is a very odd
micromanagement that I objected to last meeting. This is my job, and I
ask to be left to do it.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 8:42 PM Caryn Ann Harlos
<[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
While I certainly appreciate the comments, the time to make them is
prior to the formal submission of the report at the meeting. In
approving the minutes you are not approving the contents of any report,
and it is inappropriate IMHO to request changes to a report after it is
submitted. I have no personal issues taking a look and submitting a
revised report (if I concur with the suggestions) but in the future I
ask that comments be given at the time the report is submitted and not
after the meeting. Everyone had this report one week prior to the
September meeting and could have offered suggestions then or at the
meeting itself.
Joe, here is the document that Alicia is referring to.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 7:29 PM Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
<[3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
Would you mind attaching the report you're referencing? I can't
seem to
find it.
JBH
--
In Liberty,
[uc?id=1DeRjq-L8dvRZabgEG94VkkUvjoHatcfP&export=download]
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary - [4]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 [5]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 [6]http://www.LP.org
=======================================================================
==
--
In Liberty,
[uc?id=1DeRjq-L8dvRZabgEG94VkkUvjoHatcfP&export=download]
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee
Secretary - [7]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 [8]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 [9]http://www.LP.org
=======================================================================
==
References
1. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/013801.html
2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
5. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
6. http://www.lp.org/
7. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
8. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
9. http://www.lp.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list