Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
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:
Replies are closed for this discussion.
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.
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.
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:
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!!!!!!!
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!!!
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.