Secretary Mattson has released the second draft of the 2016 National Convention Minutes correcting some typographical issues noted by some party members. I had also initially objected to the first draft as follows:
This is a question of an inexperienced convention person so I please ask
indulgence for this question.
I note in several places a ruling of the Chair is mentioned yet there is a parenthetical comment that says (However, see RONR ****). This seems to me to be an insertion in the minutes of opinion that the Chair’s ruling may not be correct. And that contradiction was not part of the record.
Can someone please point me to custom or rules or other resources that such an insertion is proper?
(and yes I note that other times helpful references to RONR are placed in comments, and I do not understand how that is part of the minutes if it was not specifically part of the proceedings).
In the second draft, Secretary Mattson responded thusly:
Attached is a very slightly updated draft of the national convention minutes. There have been no significant changes since the first version I circulated. I corrected a typo that indicated Darryl Perry was a delegate from NY rather than from NH. I changed one instance of “Mr. Feldman” to “Dr. Feldman”. I corrected on p. 39 the listing of who spoke to the nomination of Steve Sheetz.
Staff, please go ahead and post this version to the website so that it will become eligible for approval by the LNC.
At some point Ms. Harlos had asked about the inclusion of some RONR references. I do some extra work to concisely add RONR references to our convention minutes in the hopes that the knowledge will help our future conventions run more smoothly. For the past two conventions I’ve taken the time to write appendices about election anomalies, including highlighting a mistake of my own, so that we can aim to avoid repeating those problems in the future, lest they change an outcome. In 2014 I specifically asked the LNC if they wanted that information in the official record, and they did, so I went ahead and included that appendix in this year’s draft.
To which I responded in several emails:
Alicia, I still believe the inclusion of RONR references is improper. It is interpretive and not properly part of the record particularly when they imply the ruling of the Chair might have been incorrect. I believe appendices that are presented as interpretative are entirely different.
I don’t know what the 2014 decided and if my specific type of objection was addressed. Was there an official resolution of the LNC that this type of commentary would parenthetically inserted into the body of the Concention Minties?
In case I didn’t say the precise words needed under the policy manual, I challenge these based on the parenthetical inclusions of RONR in the body of the minutes.
I hold firm that this is inappropriate editorializing. I will keep you updated. You can view these second draft minutes here.