[Lnc-business] DRAFT MINUTES JULY 27-28, 2019 V2

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Gracias I will take a look.

And you are correct - I had multiple deadlines that weekend, and I
mistakenly put in July 29 rather than July 28 as the last day of the
meeting.

With the vote counts, I keep getting contradictory feedback, so I am going
to make a decision on how I am going to report and stick with it.  In a
past report, I included yes-no-abstain-and did not vote in the totals, and
there was an objection to that.  But you are correct, that such is a data
point to be noted.  I am going to go back to the YES-NO-ABSTAIN-DIDNOTVOTE
format and leave it at that.  I can't please everyone, but that to me seems
to capture all the data.

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *



On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 7:49 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Below are my comments on v2 of the draft minutes from the July 27-28 LNC
> meeting.
>
> The email transmitting v2 again portrays the Secretary's assertion that
> these are eligible for the LNC's auto-approval policy.  Again I will note
> that the policy (PM 1.02.6) establishes that to be eligible for
> auto-approval, "Draft minutes shall be mailed or emailed to all LNC Members
> not more than 15 days after each meeting."  The meeting ended on July 28,
> so 15 days after would have been August 12th.  The email list and I
> received the first draft on August 14.  The Secretary set the 15-day
> comment deadline relative to that same August 14th date.  When I previously
> noted that was too late for auto-approval, the Secretary's response was
> that they had been sent a few moments before midnight, yet that still would
> have been on August 13, which is too late for the auto-approval process to
> apply.
>
> SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS
>
> p. 6, under "Opportunity for Public Comment", I think to be fair to Jeff
> Hewitt and how this will read to someone who wasn't there, if the joke is
> to be included in the minutes at all, the text should say "Jeff Hewitt
> jokingly moved to adjourn until the following morning..."  Similarly on p.
> 12 under "Chair's Report", I think to be fair to Jeff in how a reader
> perceives it, the text should note his motion to adjourn was done jokingly.
>
> p. 6, under "Attendance", we often note when the listed participants
> arrived following the call-to-order.  My notes indicate that the Region 2
> alternate arrived at approximately 11:30 a.m. on Saturday.
>
> p. 7 references an appendix of those who signed onto the attendance roster,
> but do you also wish to list others who are known to have attended?  Wes
> Benedict was at times present, though he is not listed in the appendix
> presumably because he did not sign in.
>
> p. 12, under "Chair's Report", after the Chair, "further highlighted the
> tremendous work that Ms. Daugherty did at FreedomFest..." we could add that
> the LNC gave her a standing ovation.
>
> p. 18, under "Population of Awards Committee" we informally punted a motion
> by reading the room, ignoring the original motion, and instead taking up a
> different motion.  Because we did that, it looks like the minutes are
> missing the explanation of how we disposed of a motion.  It says, "Mr.
> Smith moved to suspend the rules and elect these five (5) candidates by
> acclamation."  It never says what happened to that motion.  It goes
> directly to, "Mr. Phillips moved to suspend the rules and elect the three
> (3) nominated LNC members by acclamation..."  Perhaps in between it would
> help to explain that, "Based on an observation by Ms. Bilyeu that the LNC
> has not yet seen the submitted applications of the unfamiliar candidates,
> the Chair read the sense of the body and no one objected when Mr. Phillips
> introduced an alternate motion and it was taken up instead of the Smith
> motion."
>
> p. 19, under "Audit Committee", it refers readers to appendices J-2 and J-3
> for the Board Disclosure Letter and the Management Letter.  There is a
> reason that these documents were not emailed to the public email list but
> were instead only provided on paper in person.  These documents are not
> published because their nature can at times reveal weaknesses in internal
> controls, which could allow someone to take advantage of them.  I thought
> the audit firm usually put a "confidential" label on at least one of them,
> but Ms. Fox may have just mentioned it to us in person.  The end of each of
> these documents says that it is intended only for use by the board and the
> management team, and no others.  These should not be put into public
> documents without an LNC decision to disclose them.
>
> p. 21, regarding the sentence, "Mr. Hagan moved to amend criterion number
> three (3) by adding 'and must not be registered as a member of another
> Party'" I believe this is an inaccurate representation of the motion.  That
> phrase was not to be added to the existing language of item 3, but it was
> to replace the last portion of item 3, such that the full sentence would
> read, "The candidate is legally qualified to hold the office and must not
> be registered as a member of another Party."
>
> p. 29, with my usual caveat that I don't believe extensive debate should be
> included in the minutes, if it's going to be there then I would change the
> description of my comments to be, "Ms. Mattson noted that there were
> important gaps in this proposal such as:  whether or not the $200,000
> figure is gross or net of Mr. Sarwark's pay, any limitation on the number
> of hours for which we could be charged, distinction between volunteer time
> spent by an elected chair as opposed to paid fundraiser hours, and which
> revenues would be counted as new fundraising specifically attributable to
> the new paid effort as opposed to baseline party revenues which would occur
> without a paid fundraiser."
>
> p. 37, regarding the sentence, "The amendment PASSED by a show of hands
> with a vote count of 10-3" - My notes show the vote total as 11-3, rather
> than 10-3.  I reviewed the audio to confirm that the chair's count was
> stated as 11.
>
> p. 41, my notes indicate that Mr. Sarwark resumed the chair at the point
> following the sentence, "Without objection, Mr. Phillips moved to postpone
> indefinitely" but before the section about timing of LNC committee
> appointments.  The gavel had been passed to Mr. Merced back on p. 39.
>
> p. 41, regarding the sentence, "Without objection, Mr. Bishop-Henchman
> moved that budget category 68-Candidates & Campaigns be increased..." - We
> do not have a budget line 68, but the Candidates & Campaigns line is 60.
>
> p. 70, in Secretary's report, email ballot 190410-1 does not include its
> ending date of 04/13/19.  It ended in fewer than 7 days because all of us
> had voted.
>
> p. 69-75, as I have noted in the Secretary's reports for previous meetings,
> the vote tallies are reporting yes-no-abstain votes, but they only include
> some of the abstentions rather than all of them.  Express abstentions and
> not casting a vote are both abstentions which should be counted together to
> report how many people abstained.
>
>
> EDITORIAL COMMENTS
>
> There are a number of sentences which are just written awkwardly such that
> the meaning is muddled.  For instance:
> p. 9, "Without objection, Mr. Hagan requested that ten (10) minutes be
> added for a proposed Policy Manual amendment regarding functional
> allocation of expenses to New Business without Previous Notice."  It sounds
> like a discussion of allocating expenses to an agenda category.  Perhaps
> rewording as "...Mr. Hagan requested that ten (10) minutes be added to New
> Business without Previous Notice for discussion of a proposed Policy Manual
> amendment regarding functional allocation of expenses."
>
> Similarly, two sentences later on the same page could be more clearly
> rewritten as, "...Ms. Harlos requested that ten (10) minutes be added to
> New Business without Previous Notice for a discussion of..."
>
> p. 9, I believe "gave notice" is technically incorrect terminology in the
> sentence "...Ms. Harlos gave notice of her request to add this to the
> November agenda."  One gives notice of a motion, rather than an agenda item
> request.  Perhaps it is better written as "...Ms. Harlos requested to add
> this to the November agenda."
>
> p. 9, I believe the sentence "Ms. Harlos requested ten (10) minutes be
> added on Sunday's agenda for approval of the March minutes" could provide a
> more complete picture if the phrase, "with an updated draft to be provided
> on Saturday night" were added to the end.
>
> p. 13, the paragraph which begins, "Ms. Mattson questioned whether it was
> appropriate to book..." would be more clear if the final phrase, "which
> resulted in extensive discussion" were made into a separate sentence.
>
> p. 14-16, there are two pages of minutes content which largely are
> unnecessary duplication of the staff report in the appendix
>
> p. 16, the paragraph which begins, "Mr. Bishop-Henchman moved to suspend
> the rules..." is another awkwardly written sentence which sounds like the
> email list might be temporarily for 10 minutes moved to Google, and we
> might fund a request for 10 minutes.  Perhaps it would be clearer to
> instead write, "Mr. Bishop-Henchman moved to suspend the rules to add two
> 10-minute agenda items under New Business Without Previous Notice:  moving
> the LNC list to Google, and amending the budget to accommodate Apollo
> Pazell's request for candidate support funding."  See also 4 paragraphs
> later for similar awkward phrasing.
>
> p. 26, awkward language in a sentence which refers to "...not doing more to
> retain her in this position for five (5) minutes" rather than discussing a
> 5-minute suspension of the rules to take up the subject.
>
> p. 27, regarding, "Ms. Mattson moved a substitute motion to appoint..."
> there is a missing comma which should appear here:  "...until the next
> quarterly LNC meeting, being eligible to receive..."  The comma made it
> into the amended version on p. 28.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:16 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> > Attached are the V2 draft minutes from the July 27-28, 2019 LNC session.
> > Suggestions from Dr. Lark (and from members Chuck Moulton and Joe Dehn)
> are
> > incorporated. I also noted that there was a missing portion after
> regional
> > reports and that has been added. This is the OCR'd compressed PDF
> version.
> > In the following message I will send google links for the non-compressed
> > OCR'd pdf and Word versions.
> >
> > Please note that the LNC has a policy which allows automatic approval (if
> > no objection) under various time frames.  See Policy Manual Section
> 1.02.6
> > for the details of this process. Any requests for correction are due
> within
> > 15 days, by August 29, 2019.  After that time I will put out an updated
> > draft which will become auto-approved absent a qualifying objection
> (which
> > would generate a new set of deadlines or postpone approval until the next
> > LNC meeting).
> >
> > Dr. Lark and Mr. Goldstein won the bounty hunt.
> >
> >
> > *  In Liberty,*
> > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
> > pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.  *
> >
>