[Lnc-business] DRAFT MINUTES Dec 1-2 LNC Meeting, V6

[Alicia Mattson]

In response to Mr. Bishop-Henchman's request, footnote 16 was added on page
17 to read:

"Mr. Bishop-Henchman asked it to be noted on the record that he did not see
the final document until several hours prior and is not comfortable
approving. Ms. Harlos noted that the content of the minutes has been
available for over a month and that the only change this morning was
corrections in the formatting of the appendices and insertion of missing
pages from staff and special counsel’s report."

If the rationale for this being a footnote is that it is an explanation of
a person's vote, then I don't understand why the second sentence was also
added with Ms. Harlos' debate points to counter Mr. Bishop-Henchman's
position in a way that suggests his objection was unreasonable.

Though it is technically factual that at the time Ms. Harlos told the LNC
that the only changes were those referenced in the footnote, that is not a
fully transparent footnote.  Because the 5:57 a.m. email message had landed
in my spam folder, I hadn't even realized that there was an updated version
to review until the motion was made, so I certainly hadn't had a chance to
identify differences from the prior version.  As a result, after Ms. Harlos
told us what was different, I further inquired whether the Secretary's
Report had been updated to reflect Mr. Phillips' co-sponsorship of a
particular email ballot, and the response was that yes, that had also been
changed.  If the proposed footnote is to include a counter-argument for Mr.
Bishop-Henchman's vote explanation, surely its listing of all the
differences between the versions should be complete.

This further highlights that it was entirely reasonable to want to review
the changes before being asked to vote.

Of course, my position is that neither footnote 16 nor footnote 54 should
be included, but if 54 is there, others should be allowed equal privileges
to explain their own votes, or to argue against someone else's vote
explanation.

-Alicia


On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:31 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> I can easily correct the sent versus seen (though all of the pages had been
> previously sent and seen) but you did not raise an objection to
> consideration of the question which would be in the main body.  It was a
> debate point you made to explain your no vote.  You did ask me to note it
> in your review - I do not include all objections but once that were a
> significant factor in the decision.  This was not a close vote and I rely
> upon members to let me know they want it included because they think it
> significant which is what you did.  If you go back through past years of
> minutes this is not unusual and I have insisted many times that my
> objections be added.
>
> If you do not wish it included please clarify but you can’t have it both
> ways based under a false characterization that I include all objections.
> If you really don’t want it included (and it wasn’t 273 pages) but this is
> some bizarre point trying to be made, let’s please not waste everyone’s
> time and simply vote.  I’m more than happy to try to satisfy you but I’m
> not more than happy to engage in games of proving points that I have no
> interest in as I’m not bored and have plenty of other things to do.
>
> I will make one more attempt to word it in a way you prefer then leave it
> to the vote.  My objection to the Koerner item was also placed in an
> explanatory footnote.
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:17 AM Joe Bishop-Henchman <
> joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org> wrote:
>
> > At the December meeting, on the Secretary’s motion to approve the
> > minutes, I objected on the grounds that the LNC had been sent the
> > 273-page document at 5:57 a.m. that morning, giving us inadequate time
> > to review it. Those were essentially my words.
> >
> > This objection had been omitted from the draft minutes, but since the
> > minutes note the substance of objections on other motions, I asked that
> > my objection from the meeting be included.
> >
> > Ms. Harlos agreed, and the new version supposedly incorporates it. In
> > reviewing it, I couldn’t find it searching for the terms “5:57” or “273”
> > because it was written thusly:
> >
> > “Mr. Bishop-Henchman asked it to be noted on the record that he did not
> > see the final document until several hours prior and is not comfortable
> > approving.”
> >
> > First, my I didn’t ask for anything to be “noted on the record” at the
> > meeting. I objected to the motion and stated my reason.
> >
> > Second, elsewhere objections are noted in the text of the minutes, not
> > relegated to a footnote as this one is. I ask that our minutes be
> > consistent on this – either my objection should appear in the main text
> > of the minutes, or all objections and points of debate to all motions be
> > put into footnotes.
> >
> > Third, and most importantly, my issue was NOT that I did not see the
> > document until 5:57am, but that the Secretary DID NOT SEND IT until
> > 5:57am. I ask that it read: “Mr. Bishop-Henchman objected on the grounds
> > that the LNC had been sent the 273-page document at 5:57 a.m. that
> > morning, leaving inadequate time to review it.”
> >
> >
> > JBH
> >
> > ------------
> > Joe Bishop-Henchman
> > LNC Member (At-Large)
> > joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> > www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
> >
> > On 2019-02-18 04:01, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> > > This incorporates Mr. Bishop-Henchman's and Ms. Mattson's comment.
> > > Please
> > > advise if any further comments so that I can ask for email ballot
> > > sponsors.
> > >  2018-12-01-02-MINUTES-V6.pdf
> > > <
> >
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AhttqWBpYjqFtW_sZqcIlvwaezfKxpFW/view?usp=drive_web
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > *  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/
> >*
> =========================================================================
>