[Lnc-business] Secretary's Report and LPHPC Report
Alicia Mattson
alicia.mattson at lp.org
Tue Nov 27 17:43:45 EST 2018
<CAH> 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.</CAH>
Any portion of the LNC's published minutes is subject to amendment by the
LNC. RONR p. 481, speaking of reports of officers, indicates that, "If the
report is to become a permanent official document of the organization, it
should be formally adopted by the assembly." When we approve minutes, and
they contain various attached reports, yes, we are approving that material
for publication as part of our minutes. If we haven't actually approved
the officer reports, they should not be published as an official document
of the organization. What's the basis for your assertion that the reports
attached to the minutes are exempt from LNC approval? What's the basis for
putting time constraints precluding amendment after the moment of
submission? We could even amend them after publication, if a need were
found, and we have done so in the recent past.
CAH> This portion of my report is to reflect back what was reported at the
time of the votes.
Isn't the point of this report to just accurately report the email ballot
results for our historical records? Bylaw Article 13 says the minutes
should report the "outcome of the motion", not that it should reflect
whatever magic text was originally reported on the email list. Policy
Manual Section 1.02.6 expands on the list of data which should be reported
in the minutes, and it just says the specified data should be included,
with no language hinting it must be frozen as of a particular moment in
time when a particular email was posted. What's the basis for that theory
that a particular moment in time is more important than making sure it is
correct data?
This Secretary's Report ALREADY incorporates other corrections that were
pointed out since the time of your initial announcement of the email ballot
results. Applying your theory would result in rolling back your report
content to reflect the initial report of the results, and the corrections
you have already incorporated here should instead be placed in some sort of
errata appendix. That becomes unreadable and hard for the reader to
quickly piece together to determine the final result.
During the 6/30 pre-convention LNC meeting in New Orleans, I made motions
to amend the email ballot results contained in the secretary's report
section of some past minutes, because they had been discovered to be
incomplete. The discovery was made many months after the minutes had been
adopted. You raised no objection to the LNC amending the secretary's
report I had submitted, offered no theory that it should be frozen in time
as of the original meeting date, and made no complaint that these
corrections weren't timely. What has changed since then?
In the particular case of my suggestion to correct the formatting for the
strikeout text on email ballot 2018-18, you indicated that you want to
leave the motion as it was made. If that's the technical standard, when I
made the motion, I actually used strikeout font in the email that I sent,
but the email list simply refused to display it the way that I made it.
The email list didn't make the motion. I did. A future reader who doesn't
know the nuanced issues of our email list may have no idea what that
gibberish is, so if we are to convey useful information to the reader, and
show how the motion was actually made, then strikeout font would be an
appropriate way to do both simultaneously.
-Alicia
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 7:42 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.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
> <[1]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 - [2]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 [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 [4]http://www.LP.org
> =======================================================================
> ==
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 3. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
> 4. http://www.lp.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
<CAH> 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.</CAH>
Any portion of the LNC's published minutes is subject to amendment by
the LNC. RONR p. 481, speaking of reports of officers, indicates that,
"If the report is to become a permanent official document of the
organization, it should be formally adopted by the assembly." When we
approve minutes, and they contain various attached reports, yes, we are
approving that material for publication as part of our minutes. If we
haven't actually approved the officer reports, they should not be
published as an official document of the organization. What's the
basis for your assertion that the reports attached to the minutes are
exempt from LNC approval? What's the basis for putting time
constraints precluding amendment after the moment of submission? We
could even amend them after publication, if a need were found, and we
have done so in the recent past.
CAH> This portion of my report is to reflect back what was reported at
the time of the votes.
Isn't the point of this report to just accurately report the email
ballot results for our historical records? Bylaw Article 13 says the
minutes should report the "outcome of the motion", not that it should
reflect whatever magic text was originally reported on the email list.
Policy Manual Section 1.02.6 expands on the list of data which should
be reported in the minutes, and it just says the specified data should
be included, with no language hinting it must be frozen as of a
particular moment in time when a particular email was posted. What's
the basis for that theory that a particular moment in time is more
important than making sure it is correct data?
This Secretary's Report ALREADY incorporates other corrections that
were pointed out since the time of your initial announcement of the
email ballot results. Applying your theory would result in rolling
back your report content to reflect the initial report of the results,
and the corrections you have already incorporated here should instead
be placed in some sort of errata appendix. That becomes unreadable and
hard for the reader to quickly piece together to determine the final
result.
During the 6/30 pre-convention LNC meeting in New Orleans, I made
motions to amend the email ballot results contained in the secretary's
report section of some past minutes, because they had been discovered
to be incomplete. The discovery was made many months after the minutes
had been adopted. You raised no objection to the LNC amending the
secretary's report I had submitted, offered no theory that it should be
frozen in time as of the original meeting date, and made no complaint
that these corrections weren't timely. What has changed since then?
In the particular case of my suggestion to correct the formatting for
the strikeout text on email ballot 2018-18, you indicated that you want
to leave the motion as it was made. If that's the technical standard,
when I made the motion, I actually used strikeout font in the email
that I sent, but the email list simply refused to display it the way
that I made it. The email list didn't make the motion. I did. A
future reader who doesn't know the nuanced issues of our email list may
have no idea what that gibberish is, so if we are to convey useful
information to the reader, and show how the motion was actually made,
then strikeout font would be an appropriate way to do both
simultaneously.
-Alicia
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 7:42 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.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
<[1][2]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 - [2]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 [3][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 [4][4]http://www.LP.org
====================================================================
===
==
References
1. mailto:[5]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:[6]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
3. [7]http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
4. [8]http://www.lp.org/
References
1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
3. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
4. http://www.LP.org/
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
7. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
8. http://www.lp.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list