AZGOP has OUTDONE themselves for the Mandatory Meeting - Take a look

[Arizona Freedom Alliance]

We always say that Hillary is the gift that keeps on giving!  Well, we can say that about AZGOP, too.  It gives us bloggers a lot of material and it's so obvious what they are up to, we don't have to spend much time doing research, leaving us with plenty of time to go shopping!

So here is what they are up to now:

1.  AZGOP threw out every Resolution they knew would upset their personal apple carts.  Archie Dicksion, who submitted the Proxy Limits Resolution, is spearheading a signature gathering drive to force this Resolution to the floor for a vote.  AZGOP won't be able to get away with ignoring it this time. Archie is armed with knowledge and knows how to use it.  Contact him at 949-233-0009 to show up early to help get the needed signatures on this and two other Resolutions that should be passed.  He REALLY needs volunteers and you don't have to be a SC to help out. 

2.  They stripped Navajo County State Committeemen, Steve Slaton and Karen MacKean of their status as SCs to please Sylvia Allen who sometimes poses as a Senator.  Exactly where in the Bylaws does it give AZGOP the authority to do that?

3. They did the same to Debra Rhodes of Pinal County, with a bit of a twist.  She lives in a county with a total population under 500,000 which exempts them of certain rules.  Rules are like bathroom tissue to Jonathan Lines.  They stripped her name from the ballot as 2nd Chair at Saturday's meeting. Whaaaat?  Here is what she has to say about yet another illegitimate maneuver:

I am Debra Rhodes and I am still running for the 2nd Vice Chair for the AZGOP.  I was told on January 12th, 2018 that I was no longer a state committeeman because I have changed my address which resulted in me being in a different precinct.  But the bylaws clearly state that I cannot remain a state committeeman if I move out of my district or county with populations over 500,000 and for less than 500,000 population the only criteria is not to move out of my county. Read page six of your call packet about vacancies. My name is not on the ballot, so please write me in.

Just to be clear, I lived in Pinal County and still do.  I lived in LD8 and still do.  I made the change of address back in April of 2017 and then just two weeks out from the State Meeting I get this determination.  As a grassroots conservative who stood on the lawn of the Capitol on 9/12/09 when we did the March on DC with almost two million other conservative TEA party followers, we knew our country was in trouble.  I worked hard with the social network of Grassfire Nation at www.resistnet.com and put all my energy into getting people to wake up and realize that our country was under siege.  This new administration in 2009 did not have our best interest in their policies and we knew it.  We worked with every minute that we could give to inform the voters.  This war against America was suppose to come to term with the election of Hillary Clinton.  Fortunately for us, we got enough patriots to wake up and stand up for Donald J. Trump.  Had we not started our fight for conservative values in 2008 and reaching out to other's that we could make a difference we would not be enjoying the presidency of President Donald J. Trump.

So I am staying in the fight to drain the swamp and I will not go quietly into the back ground as I am the voice of the people and I am not afraid to stand up for them.  

Thank you,

Debra Rhodes

Pinal County Trump Chairman

AZRA Chapter WPCC 1st Vice President

AZRA State Director

PCRC Chairman of Lincoln Day Luncheon 2017/2018 and more

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4. Our recommendations based on what we know of the tricks and ham-handed methods of the AZGOP (note: we didn't mention crooked, but might have):

For 1st VChair:  Art Olivos, Jr.  He is the only one who won't cave in and "play nice" with the bad decisions

2nd VC: Clearly, Debra Rhodes because AZGOP is worried about her popularity and clear-eyed thinking

3rd VC:  Take a good look at any write-ins on this one.

Asst. Treasurer: Oh, this could be a rousing event.  Word has it that Wes Harris, who was recently busted as having a criminal background with some felonies, civil suits is going to run from the floor.  Van Berry is also going to run from the floor for this position.  He's a combat veteran, has a degree in economics, worked with the Secret Service on the Trump detail (no criminal background),  has worked in the financial industry and the personal security industry.   Our choice: VAN BERRY  (We hear AZGOP will be running a candidate, too.)

Sargeant-at-Arms: no good candidates here so vote for a write-in if there is one

Asst. S-a-A: David Hollenbeck

5.  BYLAWS: There are a very few decent bylaws amendments but if these are passed but the really good ones, the ones that will get AZGOP in line with conservative principles, are defeated, there will not be another Bylaws change for years to come.  Deny the AZGOP from crowing they updated their bylaws!  VOTE NO on all of them and force AZGOP to put together an honest committee to do honest changes and accept suggestions from the PCs and SCs.  JUST SAY NO TO ALL QUESTIONS ON THE BYLWS

OK, all of you State Committeemen, get to the meeting and take back the AZGOP; make the AZGOP great again (it's been many, many years since it was even good!)

COMENTS ARE CLOSE FOR THIS ARTICLE.  PLEASE GO TO https://arizonafreedomalliance.ning.com/group/all-things-conservati... TO ADD MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AZGOP MANDATORY MEETING.

[Mike White]

I just noticed that Proposal N ("Meetings", Article III, Section E) of Appendix A (Proposal to Amend the Continuing Bylaws of the Arizona Republican Party) as part of the Call Letter provides for a limit of "two proxies to any state committee meeting".  (And that's all it says). I'm just a bit confused on how this relates to the rejection by the Resolutions Committee (chaired by Barry Wong) of the four Proxy Limit proposals submitted in advance by Archie Dicksion, Bruce Piepho, Judith Langer, and Russell Pearce that provided the same thing, but with more explanation.

Anyone understand this apparent contradiction and have a recommendation?  It sounds on the surface like something we should vote for.

[Arizona Freedom Alliance]

Also note, Mike, that it specifies "any state meeting.'  How about at district or county meetings?  Last year, more than half of the "attendees" were by proxy in Maricopa County.  This is not the proper language to limit proxy voting.  Also, note that the amendments say that the Bylaws go into effect immediately after they are adopted.  That means at and during this very meeting they will go into effect.  Check your agenda to see what happens before and after the vote on the bylaws.  The best way to get good bylaws in place is to forget that there are a few good ones sprinkled in.  Most are not good and come with specific agendas.

[Marianne Ferrari]

That uncertainty which you express, as to what it means is sufficient to justify voting NO on all bylaws. We should only vote on bylaws that we know, beforehand, are correct. There are so many tricks in these bylaws. I am convinced that the effect of some of the bylaws changes approved by leadership would be to block all conservatives from effective participation in the affairs of the state party. Such an effect simply cannot be an accident. In September, I had the sense that this mandatory meeting might very well be planned as an "endgame," in the sense that it could end conservative influence and participation, once and for all. Everything about the call letter I received seems to me to clearly corroborate the concerns I felt, back then. 

If what I sensed in September and still concerns me today, comes to pass at Saturday's meeting, a serious question looms for conservatives: How can we help Trump save the country, and make it great again, if all our energies are monopolized in a continual and futile effort to regain influence in our state party? Secondly, what if the same struggle is going on in a majority, if not all, of the other states? How confident are we that we are the only ones experiencing this? I asked myself those questions in September, and made one phonecall. I did not need to make more than one to get the message. The person whose number I tried first was a State Committeeman in Kentucky. I asked him, "Is Mitch McConnell to Kentucky what John McCain is to Arizona?" His answer: "By way of replying, let me say that you are now speaking to the last, and only, conservative SC in the state of Kentucky."

In other words, there is a reason: 

• Why there are ever fewer LDs with conservative majorities
• Why so many of the most effective pcs, like Ray Sweeney for example, have been swept out as pcs in their precincts by pc elections suddenly stuffed with "new" candidates
• Why Yavapai county conservatives had to fight so hard to get Jonathan Lines to acknowledge the 3 new SCs they elected to replace people who moved out of their area
• Why those 3 new Yavapai SCs have not yet received notification acknowledging their election as SCs
• Why this call letter contains bylaws changes that seem directly aimed at disenfranchising and ostracizing conservatives from the affairs of our state party
• Why Debra Rhodes--who is running for 2nd vice chair--was suddenly told she is no longer an SC
• Why Russell Sias's complete revamp of the AZGOP bylaws was not included in the call, as promised
• Why it was excluded from the call, according to our general counsel (who just happens also to be John McCain's personal attorney). (I'm told that he claims Sias's bylaws "violate at least 3 of Arizona's Revised Statutes.") 
• Why Archie Dicksion's resolution to limit proxies supposedly "FAILED," thus was printed in 3pt or 4pt type, so that few could even read it. Had everyone read it, they would know why it is a change without which the party will become, in my opinion, a wholly owned subsidiary of the globalist cabal of so-called "donors" who are bent on destroying the Republican Party, as a means to complete the destruction of our nation.

There is no reason, anymore--no justification for giving the RINOs-in-charge yet another opportunity to prove they really are being aboveboard. There is just too much malfeasance that has been witnessed, as well as personally experienced, by too many of us. 

In my opinion: until someone succeeds in taking away the last protections our current bylaws contain--which seems clearly to be Saturday's potential outcome--the SCs still have the power to unseat the current leadership by a simple vote to that effect. 

In this mandatory meeting, ANY sitting official--or even EVERY SITTING OFFICIAL-- can be removed, if we want to do so. Then, every vacancy can also be filled. It is nowhere near as difficult as organizing a special meeting in between the annual ones. At a regular meeting, such as the Mandatory, we can do all of that by simply making motions to do so. 

This Saturday, however, may be our last chance to do so. So, at the very least, vote NOT to even vote on any bylaws. Or vote NO on EVERY bylaws change, to make sure none of the wrong ones have a chance to be passed. That, at least, will retain the precarious status quo in which we now live. 

Most importantly, do NOT get distracted. Pay close attention especially to anyone speaking from the microphone(s) on the floor. Make sure you understand what is being said. Get people near you to listen just as closely and compare notes, if you can't hear something clearly. It is extremely easy to miss a call for a vote. This year, of all years, do NOT miss your opportunity to vote NO on all the bylaws!!!!!!!

[Itasca Small]

Yes! Marianne!

This is exactly what I see in the changes and the Rules!

And, Yes!  We can ACT in this regular meeting to remove the offenders from office!  If we don't successfully challenge the meeting itself. . . .

Thank you All for the additional background, and your informed and wise counsel!!!

[Jaspersgoat]

I concur completely with the conclusion of AFA in their original article and now Marianne.  Only a fool or one who has failed to study these bylaws would vote in favor of them. As both AFA and Marianne have pointed out, their are road blocks to PC participation throughout these amendments, most hidden in simple wording so easy to skim over.  Please PASS THE WORD TO ALL IN YOUR DISTRICT.

[Russell Sias]

It is just my suspicious nature I suppose, but i am expecting them to present the bylaws committee "report" on an up or down vote, where they don't plan on voting on each issue.  Otherwise, they might get a bit of scrutiny they won't want.  Just guessing....

[Mike White]

Item 11 on the Agenda is "Bylaws Committee consent calendar", which does exactly that I believe.  And item 12 is "Bylaws Committee special preference items", whatever that means.

[Itasca Small]

Yes!  That is what Rule 5.B. explains:  All Bylaw changes proposed are on the consent calendar, and ALL "will be voted on en masse."

UNLESS, the membership calls for pulling individual items/changes out of the consent calendar as "special preference items."  This is the only way individual changes can be challenged and voted upon separately!

If no item is pulled out of the consent calendar, the one voice vote for the consent calendar WILL, either:  PASS ALL of the items, or, DEFEAT ALL of the items.  If the chair determines that there is no clear majority in the voice vote, he can order a revote with a show of hands.

[Mike White]

Thanks for helping us (the so-called "Activists") do that today at the Mandatory Meeting.  I appreciated your well-reasoned  arguments on the obvious issues with the agenda and decisions from the professional presider, who was not a neutral party in any sense of the phrase.  After you spoke the first time, I turned around and asked  a fellow SC "Who is that lady?  She really knows her stuff!"

It's a shame that the entrenched establishment won all the elections, with their outnumbering us almost 2 to 1, but it was obvious that there is a major divide in our state party, with so many of us not respecting or trusting their "consensus" recommendations.

[Arizona Freedom Alliance]

Mike, could you copy/paste and move this comment to the post-meeting article so all post on that are in one place OR write a similar comment there so people can see what others have to say about the meeting.  Thanks.

http://arizonafreedomalliance.ning.com/group/all-things-conservativ...

[Itasca Small]

Thank you! Praise the LORD. . . .

The light dawned more brightly when we realized they were continually violating the rules AND their meeting agenda in real-time, by their own actions!—Suddenly—in God's Impeccable Timing—my phone refused to let me vote on the floor! . . . Which confirmed my first reaction that they CAN NOT conduct two actions at the same time!  Which would have been glaringly obvious sooner, had they been following their own Rule 8.A; challenged by Joe Neglia at the beginning! . . . They could not have conducted the voice vote and possible show of hands, at the same time they proceeded to debate the next three proposed-amendments! The cries to extend the balloting time were further evidence that a point of order was necessary to address these violations!

[Why did they try to vote on the bylaw changes electronically?  It was much easier to vote the proxies electronically!!!]

In the heat of battle, we left some important points of order unchallenged, and didn't win every skirmish.  But, though we didn't fend-off every thrust, we did prevail on several points to set the field for the final lunge—to score a solid "Touché!"—achieving a major victory!  

And—most important—by tabling the Special Preference Bylaw Amendments we had pulled off the Consent Calendar, we resoundingly defeated some egregiously bad changes—which would have required an extended battle during which we would have had the abusive proxies to overcome at every vote—

And, we live—to fight another day!

Next time, as the LORD Wills—to carry the fencing analogy a thrust farther—we will be able to counter their parries, and lunge successfully at every opening.

Yes, it is difficult to trust "consensus" claims when they are replete with language crafted to hogtie and muzzle us! And "they" are doing everything they can to show that they do not seek unity; they want to crush us and cage us. . . . But, with the LORD's blessings, in Our Liberty under God, we are rising like the legendary Phoenix!

For the record:  There were certain points of order that could have been invoked that could have shutdown the meeting entirely. . . .

[I will copy/paste mine to the other post when I see that yours is there. I will also address a major concern on the other post that my LD Chairman confronted me with after the amendments were tabled.]

Soli Deo Gloria! - To God Alone Glory!

Without Liberty, FREEDOM cannot exist!

LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!

[Christina Dumal]

Just wanted to mention that Robert Moore is running for Sargent-at-Arms. Presently he is the 2nd Vice Chair of the Pinal County Republican Committee (PCRC). I've worked with him on the PCRC executive committee and he is a conservative and an outsider. I would encourage you to vote for him.