[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