FW: Discussion Thread McGee's policy manual amendment of 1.07.8 proposal

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Sonja Feintech <sonja.f...@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 5:20:14 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Discussion Thread McGee's policy manual amendment of 1.07.8 proposal

I am starting this discussion thread regarding Mr. McGee's policy manual amendment proposal: I have been looking into the manual extensively and had a few questions.

I would like to note - Mr. McGee in his policy amendment proposal referred to the section as 1.07.08 however I believe Mr. Mcgee inadvertently mislabeled the policy whereas it should read 1.02.07-8 per the only copy of the public policy manual made available to the LNC at this time. I have been reliably informed that this version of the public policy manual does not reflect changes made post-July 2025; however, those changes do not impact Section 1.02.07-8. I will attach the posted public policy manual from July 1, 2025 here -- https://lp.org/wp-content/uploads/LNC-Policy-Manual-Adopted-thru-2025-06-01-2.pdf  

I wanted to make a note of that to avoid any confusion. I will be referring to the Section from here on out as Section 1.02.07-8.

Mr. Secretary,

I am sorry if I seem a bit confused. I would appreciate some clarification on your proposed policy manual amendment (1.02.07-8 Electronic Meetings) and have listed my questions below;

1. Are you proposing a change to the scope of business currently associated with "electronic meetings"? Currently "electronic meetings/special meetings" have a limited scope, confined to the specific topics noted in the call/notice of the meeting. Regular meetings are "full scope" meetings with full business requirements, notice, standard agenda etc. and are typically reserved for in-person meetings, not electronic. 

2. Does this proposal, in effect, create a new designation of “regular/electronic meetings”  where none existed before? What is the process around that?

3. What are the implications of this amendment on the rest of Section 1.02? Do you think additional amendments would be required in order for the Policy Manual to maintain organizational consistency? 

4. How do you think this amendment will affect LNC members accustomed to the notice requirements already in place? Do you foresee issues with navigating a 5 day notice requiring info about the items of business to be done but sometimes a 7 day regular notice if there is just a meeting? 

I guess I am a little surprised that such drastic changes are even being suggested and seems like it could open a bureaucratic hellscape that will require an entire policy manual section rewrite in order for it to even function without breaking the whole machine. Something I would expect the majority of the LNC would be reluctant to embark upon together, regardless of our shared gluttony for punishment. 

I would also caution against increasing centralized control when there isn’t a present need for one. Actions like this may seem good in the moment, but will likely be weaponized against its own supporters after the next changing of the guard. 

A parable I remember from my childhood sums up my meaning pretty well. It’s called, The Horse, the Hunter, and the Stag (Aesop's Fable)

A Horse was feuding with a Stag over a meadow. Unable to defeat the Stag on his own, the Horse went to a Hunter for help. The Hunter agreed, but only if the Horse accepted a bit in his mouth and a saddle on his back so the Hunter could ride and guide him.

The Horse agreed. Together they drove off the Stag. When the Horse asked the Hunter to remove the bit and saddle, the Hunter replied:

“Not so fast, friend. I have you under bit and spur now, and I prefer to keep you as you are.”

Moral: In seeking to destroy your enemy, do not give so much power to an “ally” that you lose your own freedom.

To close my thoughts out: I can understand the urge to streamline things and wanting to relieve scheduling demands however it would be remiss of me to not ask these relevant questions. What is being discussed could have very critical implications and lead to time-consuming complications if undertaken without properly understanding the full effect of this amendment proposal.

I look forward to your response to these questions and appreciate your time exploring this topic with myself and the rest of the LNC members.

Thanks!

Sonja Feintech

Region 1 Alt

541.231.4293