[Lnc-business] DRAFT MINUTES from December 1-2 2018 meeting version 3

[Alicia Mattson]

Below are my comments on version 3 of the draft December LNC minutes.

APPENDICES:

Appendix F, Secretary’s Report
1)  It appears that this is version 4 of the Secretary’s report, though
there is a version 5, which removed the COC from the list of “Appointments
Remaining” and added a one-page “appended correction”.
2) Version 5 of the report still says “version 4” in the footer
3) Version 5 still reports in the “Appointments Remaining” list that the
Ballot Access Committee was lacking a chair, though it already had one.
4) The “appended correction” page in version 5 lists 11/9/18 in the “Date”
column for the COC appointments, though the description of that item
indicates the appointment was made on 11/1/18.
5) The footer on page 7 of version 5 indicates that it is “page 1 of 6”,
though it is page 7 of 7 (assuming you will delete the blank page 8).

Appendix S contains version 2 of the Region 5 report, though as noted in
footnote 16 on p. 19 of the minutes, Dr. Lark submitted a version 3 with
information from South Carolina


MAIN BODY:

p. 10, second paragraph under “Treasurer’s Report” – It indicates that Mr.
Kraus reported $12,300 of unrestricted cash.  It’s not a large dollar
amount difference, however Mr. Kraus said $11,700.

p. 10 - The motion moved and later withdrawn by Mr. Redpath was not a
motion to entirely eliminate the Wiener Rule as the draft indicates.  It
would have deleted all but the first sentence.

p. 17 contains a sentence, “Without objection, Mr. Goldstein moved to enter
executive session with Ms. Daugherty present.”  My notes indicate that
there was no objection to allowing Ms. Daugherty to be present, but I
believe you voted against the motion to enter executive session so that it
was not without objection.

p. 17 - It is later noted what time we emerged from executive session, but
you could also note that we entered executive session at 4:55 p.m.

p. 18, under “Membership Support Committee” – An “Easter egg” has not yet
been removed from version 3.

p. 19, under “Region 5 Report” – The draft indicates that Ms. Hogarth
provided a report focusing on South Carolina, though it should be North
Carolina.

p. 20, under “Region 8 Report” – It was Dan Fishman, rather than Mr. Lyons,
who provided additional information regarding Massachusetts.

p. 21, under “Executive Session”, it is later noted what time we emerged
from executive session, but you could also note that we entered executive
session at 11:00 a.m.

p. 25 indicates that, “Mr. Nekhaila offered a substitute motion as follows:
…”  However, his motion was not a substitute for the entirety of item F.
It was clarified that it only replaced the first portion and the second
portion would be retained regarding encumbrances, etc.

p. 25 indicates that, “Mr. Sarwark indicated that the LNC would be in
recess…”  This sounds like the chair unilaterally declared a recess.  The
chair inquired whether there was any objection, and there was none.

p. 25 indicates that, “Mr. Smith moved to close debate on all pending
questions.”  He only said “call the question” without saying “on all
pending questions”, and we only proceeded to a vote on the pending
amendments but not to a vote on the pending main motion.

p. 26, regarding the bullet list of debate points on item C – Obviously, I
have advocated that this degree of debate shouldn’t be in the minutes, but
if it’s going to be there I think at least one particularly substantive
point was not included in the list though it was mentioned at least twice
during debate, that the motion only cuts the planned expenditure line
without also cutting the matching assumption that $28,000 revenue would be
raised to cover that expense.

p. 26 indicates that, “Without objection, Mr. Merced moved to close debate
on all pending questions.”  Again, we merely closed debate on all pending
amendments, not including the pending main motion.

p. 28, footnote 33 asserts that, “This would be accomplished by reducing
the number of in-person LNC meetings to three (3) and cutting out all
frills such as meals.”  This is an example where something said during
debate wasn’t correct, yet it is stated in the minutes as though it is
fact, and as though the LNC all agreed that's how the reduction would be
accomplished.  Bill Redpath and I specifically noted during subsequent
debate that three is the normal number of annual meetings, so having three
meetings is not a reduction.

p. 29, footnote 35 credits me with referring the LNC to RONR p. 315.  While
that’s a perfectly applicable reference that confirms what I advised, I
don’t recall actually looking the subject up in the index and referring the
LNC to that (or any other) page number.  I only recall taking a quick look
at the tables on the tinted pages to re-confirm that only a majority was
required.

p. 30, footnote 39 should instead say the Building Fund expenses were cut
from $60,000 to $20,000, rather than from $60,000 to $40,000.

p. 30, I don’t understand footnote 40 – It indicates “This represents 150%
of ballot access expenses as amended.”  We only left $22,000 in ballot
access expense, but the number associated with this footnote is the
changed-by amount of $57,800, which is well above 150% of $22,000.  If it
was meant to refer to the $75,000 in the “as amended” column, that figure
was at one point during the process 150% of the intermediate $50,000
expense figure, but we later removed another $28,000 from that to reduce it
to $22,000, so the 150% ratio no longer exists in the final budget.

p. 31, regarding line “40-Administrative Costs” in the budget table – This
row is missing a figure in the center column to show the amount of the
decrease from the proposed budget to the adopted budget, as was done for
other categories which were amended.

p. 31, footnote 44 documents only part of the net -$2,000 change.  A
previous Mattson motion increased it by $8,000, then part H of the Henchman
motion reduced it by $10,000 for the net change.

p. 33, footnote 56, I don’t understand the distinction being made that
answering “present” was “counted as” an abstention.  It IS an abstention
without any interpretation necessary.  RONR p. 421, “If he does not wish to
vote, he answers present (or abstain).”  Similarly, voting “yes” and voting
“aye” carry the same meaning, but we don’t footnote to say a “yes” vote was
counted as an “aye”.

p. 35, Table of Appendices – Mr. Hagan is listed as the author of Appendix
E, however Robert Kraus prepares the monthly financial reports.

p. 35, Table of Appendices – Mr. Hewitt is listed as the author of Appendix
R, however the body of the minutes indicate that Dr. Olsen submitted that
report…probably because Mr. Hewitt has been just a wee bit busy with, I
dunno, something...  :-)

p. 37, public comments by Ms. Hogarth indicate that she promoted a
fundraiser for the Libertarian Party of South Carolina, though I believe it
should be North Carolina.

p. 37, footnote 59 – Including this plug in our minutes could be an FEC
violation if we are soliciting non-federal funds.  It looks as though North
Carolina has recently started filing FEC reports, however even FEC-filing
state affiliates can also raise non-federal funds.  Has anyone confirmed
whether this a fundraiser for federal funds that will be reported to the
FEC?

-Alicia



On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:32 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

>    [1] [icon_10_generic_list.png]  2018-12-01-02-MINUTES-V3.pdf
>    [x_8px.png]
>    Dr. Lark kindly sent me some suggestions off-list which I have
>    incorporated into this draft.
>    If anyone would like a word version, please let me know offlist.
>    --
>      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.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eVHIl7tJgIx6CnG-Rv-4TsoDS_m9ml2H/view?usp=drive_web
>    2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>    3. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
>    4. http://www.lp.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
   Below are my comments on version 3 of the draft December LNC minutes.
   APPENDICES:
   Appendix F, Secretary’s Report
   1)  It appears that this is version 4 of the Secretary’s report, though
   there is a version 5, which removed the COC from the list of
   “Appointments Remaining” and added a one-page “appended correction”.
   2) Version 5 of the report still says “version 4” in the footer
   3) Version 5 still reports in the “Appointments Remaining” list that
   the Ballot Access Committee was lacking a chair, though it already had
   one.
   4) The “appended correction” page in version 5 lists 11/9/18 in the
   “Date” column for the COC appointments, though the description of that
   item indicates the appointment was made on 11/1/18.
   5) The footer on page 7 of version 5 indicates that it is “page 1 of
   6”, though it is page 7 of 7 (assuming you will delete the blank page
   8).
   Appendix S contains version 2 of the Region 5 report, though as noted
   in footnote 16 on p. 19 of the minutes, Dr. Lark submitted a version 3
   with information from South Carolina
   MAIN BODY:
   p. 10, second paragraph under “Treasurer’s Report” – It indicates that
   Mr. Kraus reported $12,300 of unrestricted cash.  It’s not a large
   dollar amount difference, however Mr. Kraus said $11,700.
   p. 10 - The motion moved and later withdrawn by Mr. Redpath was not a
   motion to entirely eliminate the Wiener Rule as the draft indicates.
   It would have deleted all but the first sentence.
   p. 17 contains a sentence, “Without objection, Mr. Goldstein moved to
   enter executive session with Ms. Daugherty present.”  My notes indicate
   that there was no objection to allowing Ms. Daugherty to be present,
   but I believe you voted against the motion to enter executive session
   so that it was not without objection.
   p. 17 - It is later noted what time we emerged from executive session,
   but you could also note that we entered executive session at 4:55 p.m.
   p. 18, under “Membership Support Committee” – An “Easter egg” has not
   yet been removed from version 3.
   p. 19, under “Region 5 Report” – The draft indicates that Ms. Hogarth
   provided a report focusing on South Carolina, though it should be North
   Carolina.
   p. 20, under “Region 8 Report” – It was Dan Fishman, rather than Mr.
   Lyons, who provided additional information regarding Massachusetts.
   p. 21, under “Executive Session”, it is later noted what time we
   emerged from executive session, but you could also note that we entered
   executive session at 11:00 a.m.
   p. 25 indicates that, “Mr. Nekhaila offered a substitute motion as
   follows: …”  However, his motion was not a substitute for the entirety
   of item F.  It was clarified that it only replaced the first portion
   and the second portion would be retained regarding encumbrances, etc.
   p. 25 indicates that, “Mr. Sarwark indicated that the LNC would be in
   recess…”  This sounds like the chair unilaterally declared a recess.
   The chair inquired whether there was any objection, and there was none.
   p. 25 indicates that, “Mr. Smith moved to close debate on all pending
   questions.”  He only said “call the question” without saying “on all
   pending questions”, and we only proceeded to a vote on the pending
   amendments but not to a vote on the pending main motion.
   p. 26, regarding the bullet list of debate points on item C –
   Obviously, I have advocated that this degree of debate shouldn’t be in
   the minutes, but if it’s going to be there I think at least one
   particularly substantive point was not included in the list though it
   was mentioned at least twice during debate, that the motion only cuts
   the planned expenditure line without also cutting the matching
   assumption that $28,000 revenue would be raised to cover that expense.
   p. 26 indicates that, “Without objection, Mr. Merced moved to close
   debate on all pending questions.”  Again, we merely closed debate on
   all pending amendments, not including the pending main motion.
   p. 28, footnote 33 asserts that, “This would be accomplished by
   reducing the number of in-person LNC meetings to three (3) and cutting
   out all frills such as meals.”  This is an example where something said
   during debate wasn’t correct, yet it is stated in the minutes as though
   it is fact, and as though the LNC all agreed that's how the reduction
   would be accomplished.  Bill Redpath and I specifically noted during
   subsequent debate that three is the normal number of annual meetings,
   so having three meetings is not a reduction.
   p. 29, footnote 35 credits me with referring the LNC to RONR p. 315.
   While that’s a perfectly applicable reference that confirms what I
   advised, I don’t recall actually looking the subject up in the index
   and referring the LNC to that (or any other) page number.  I only
   recall taking a quick look at the tables on the tinted pages to
   re-confirm that only a majority was required.
   p. 30, footnote 39 should instead say the Building Fund expenses were
   cut from $60,000 to $20,000, rather than from $60,000 to $40,000.
   p. 30, I don’t understand footnote 40 – It indicates “This represents
   150% of ballot access expenses as amended.”  We only left $22,000 in
   ballot access expense, but the number associated with this footnote is
   the changed-by amount of $57,800, which is well above 150% of $22,000.
   If it was meant to refer to the $75,000 in the “as amended” column,
   that figure was at one point during the process 150% of the
   intermediate $50,000 expense figure, but we later removed another
   $28,000 from that to reduce it to $22,000, so the 150% ratio no longer
   exists in the final budget.
   p. 31, regarding line “40-Administrative Costs” in the budget table –
   This row is missing a figure in the center column to show the amount of
   the decrease from the proposed budget to the adopted budget, as was
   done for other categories which were amended.
   p. 31, footnote 44 documents only part of the net -$2,000 change.  A
   previous Mattson motion increased it by $8,000, then part H of the
   Henchman motion reduced it by $10,000 for the net change.
   p. 33, footnote 56, I don’t understand the distinction being made that
   answering “present” was “counted as” an abstention.  It IS an
   abstention without any interpretation necessary.  RONR p. 421, “If he
   does not wish to vote, he answers present (or abstain).”  Similarly,
   voting “yes” and voting “aye” carry the same meaning, but we don’t
   footnote to say a “yes” vote was counted as an “aye”.
   p. 35, Table of Appendices – Mr. Hagan is listed as the author of
   Appendix E, however Robert Kraus prepares the monthly financial
   reports.
   p. 35, Table of Appendices – Mr. Hewitt is listed as the author of
   Appendix R, however the body of the minutes indicate that Dr. Olsen
   submitted that report…probably because Mr. Hewitt has been just a wee
   bit busy with, I dunno, something...  :-)
   p. 37, public comments by Ms. Hogarth indicate that she promoted a
   fundraiser for the Libertarian Party of South Carolina, though I
   believe it should be North Carolina.
   p. 37, footnote 59 – Including this plug in our minutes could be an FEC
   violation if we are soliciting non-federal funds.  It looks as though
   North Carolina has recently started filing FEC reports, however even
   FEC-filing state affiliates can also raise non-federal funds.  Has
   anyone confirmed whether this a fundraiser for federal funds that will
   be reported to the FEC?
   -Alicia

   On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:32 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business
   <[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

        [1] [icon_10_generic_list.png]  2018-12-01-02-MINUTES-V3.pdf
        [x_8px.png]
        Dr. Lark kindly sent me some suggestions off-list which I have
        incorporated into this draft.
        If anyone would like a word version, please let me know offlist.
        --
          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][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 [4][3]http://www.LP.org

     ====================================================================
     ===
        ==
     References
        1.
     [4]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eVHIl7tJgIx6CnG-Rv-4TsoDS_m9ml2H
     /view?usp=drive_web
        2. mailto:[5]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
        3. [6]http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
        4. [7]http://www.lp.org/

References

   1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   2. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
   3. http://www.LP.org/
   4. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eVHIl7tJgIx6CnG-Rv-4TsoDS_m9ml2H/view?usp=drive_web
   5. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
   6. http://facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
   7. http://www.lp.org/