Arizona Citizens Supporting Honest Representative Government At All Levels
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 read there were 13 or so SC who had some administrative errors with their call letters. Could it be that this is the reason? The lawless AZGOP was busy making unauthorized changes and screwed some things up?
Everyone should have a current list of who YOU elected in your LD to be SC. Bring it with you Saturday. If you notice someone in your section who is not on the list, investigate. I have my list for LD18. AZGOP would not send me an official list from their headquarters, though, it's now day 107 since I have requested it (more than once).
There are too many flaws in the current Call to reveal in our limited space. We have been alerted by quite a few of our members that they are still waiting to get their Call documents. Your point to assure that only legitimate SCs should be voting is on target. We saw last year that people who were not SCs were voting as were staff members. This is the problem with electronic voting. AZGOP needs to go back to paper ballots since next to no one trusts them (the AZGOP).
Great that you just reminded us! I never received my Call documents in the mail and just emailed Kyle Pierce and Kim Owens to make sure that I will be credentialed and admitted to the meeting.
Update: Kyle Pierce immediately responded to my email and sent me the two large documents included in the call letter. For anyone else who does this, print out the call letter package in portrait, and the Appendix in landscape so you can read it better.
[I am underwhelmed by the typos, grammar, transparently biased Rules, proposed Bylaw changes and rejected Resolutions in this Mandatory Meeting Call!]
1. I find it shocking and transparent that the text of the rejected resolutions is printed in something-like 3- or 4-point type. I had to reach for my deceased husband's 7x magnifying visor to be able to read it!
I agree that the proxy situation must be corrected, and I applaud the efforts of Archie Dicksion and the others who submitted proxy resolutions. However I must apologize to Archie, but, I take issue with one provision of Archie's resolution, which states: "No Proxy shall be allowed from any Principal if such Principal resides in the county in which the meeting shall be held." I do not agree with precluding an otherwise allowable proxy from a Principal simply because he resides in the county in which the meeting is held.
I know there are legitimate reasons that a Principal may be unable to attend a meeting in spite of his deep desire to attend. The purpose of proxies in the first-place is to accommodate such legitimate reasons; illness being one such reason, e.g. if the Principal is too ill to travel across the street—or across his county—or is contagious, I hope he will be able to execute his proxy and be represented at the meeting.
Residence in a county in which the meeting is held—especially in counties the size of many of our Arizona counties—should not preclude a committeeman's right to send his proxy when other Principals who also have legitimate reasons for not attending would be allowed to do so just by virtue of their residence outside the subject county.
This provision would violate the principles of "free and equal elections," and "impartial and uniform processes."
2. Having owned property in Navajo County for 37 years, and been a resident thereof for many of those years, I am appalled by the actions of the AZGOP and Sen. Sylvia Allen. When tyranny is allowed to take root, nothing is too evil to feed its lust for power. "Leadership" continues to prove that tyranny prevails—for the moment—in our AZGOP.
As for my friend of more than two decades, Sen. Allen continues to add to my list of grievances against her that began in bewilderment in 2010—when my neighbors and I were rebuffed as we begged her repeatedly to help us by defending the true constitutional and legal arguments on the side of our fight to protect ourselves and our private property against the unconstitutional utility-scale wind energy juggernaut invading our homes in Navajo, Apache and Mojave Counties!
That, and other betrayals of Our Liberty under God, in Our Nation under God, comprising the litany begun with HB2184 Ward Amendment, SB1469, SB1416 (passed as HB2620), her Move On When Reading "snafu!" NPV sponsorship, other legislation ad inifinitum, and now, the Slaton/Mackean debacle, I am now of the opinion that my former senator and county supervisor is not the Constitutional Conservative I thought she was . . .
3. When tyranny is allowed to flourish, nothing is too evil to feed its lust for power. Yes, I do repeat myself when repetition fits the act. I will be voting for Debra Rhodes. . . .
4. I will also heed your recommendations for the other elective offices. I'm pleased to see that a qualified SC is willing to run for Assistant Treasurer! Your post "Would You Vote For This Man," caused me to try to find a candidate to nominate!
5. Bylaws: I agree with the premise! But, I'm wondering if anyone can shed light on whether or not this tactic is likely to succeed—?
I note that Rule No.5.B.Sentence 3, states: "These changes are noncontroversial and procedural." Are they actually saying that all of the proposed changes are noncontroversial and procedural, or, are they saying that if the change is not removed for special preference, it is considered such? Either way, I take issue with the claim! Obviously, a number of them are most-assuredly controversial and non-procedural!
I just spent time on one of the proposed changes preparing an argument against it, and see others I would be inclined to challenge from the floor. If there is a likelihood that the consent calendar can be defeated, then there would be no necessity to remove these as special preferences. However, if the likelihood is that we may NOT be successful in defeating the entirety as the consent calendar, then, we need to call for these to be removed from the consent calendar and opposed one-by-one! Even one minute each is at-least some time to raise needed objections!
Without Liberty, FREEDOM cannot exist! LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!
What Is Liberty? http://itascasmall.com/
Itasca: there is a bit of wisdom that roughly says do not let the perfect get in the way of the good. This is a resolution, not a bylaw change. I hope you vote for it.
Tactics succeed when people set aside their emotions and vote against AZGOP. They are thugs and thugs cannot be trusted. I agree that the consent calendar can be set aside if the body would only get their heads in gear and do it. I have learned that AFA doesn't often shoot from the hip on these issues but can't always maybe say everything they know so I intend to take their advice.
BTW, my spouse NEVER got a Call at all. What about those who do not have a spouse who got one so they could read the Call? Republicans excoriated Michele Reagan for committing these kinds of lapses that were really done by the county recorder.
Ahh, thank you Jaspersgoat, for reminding me that the view from the base of the Sequoia is exceedingly daunting, and I need to zoom-out if I want to see the whole forest more clearly! Yes, a Resolution . . . not a Bylaw change! Got it! :-)
From the vantage point of seeing the forest, thank you also for reminding me that these are THUGS! The Call illustrates your point—throughout its content—
I just want to reiterate that unless we pull items off the consent calendar to address as special preference items, we will be committed to one vote that will either accept ALL items on the consent calendar, or reject all of them. If we aren't reasonably certain we can reject the calendar, we will need to pull out all the ones that are objectionable before the "en masse" consent calendar vote.
BUT, am I again only seeing the base of one Sequoia? Am I not seeing clearly that it doesn't matter about all the Sequoias in the forest individually because the forest itself is so devastated by blight that the only meaningful vote is against the intact consent calendar—in one comprehensive, cleansing, phaser cannon blast?
The advice is, We either take-out all the proposed changes at-once, or, let them pass and stand to fight another day? [And, I must say, there are many things in the Rules and Bylaws that call for slash & burn amendments to the documents!]
Regarding the failure of the committee to issue the Call according to the requirements, doesn't this fact render the entire meeting, and any action taken therein, null and void?
If so, is it possible that someone like Joe Neglia, or the gentleman who further clarified the procedural details in the recent MCRC Mandatory Meeting, could challenge the entire proceedings on the point that the required notice was not effected to all SCs?
Secretary of State Michele Reagan has committed her own violations separate from any attributable to the county recorder. At least two are egregious and actionable! For more information you can go to: Secretary of State Issues Page plus the two Issue sub-pages. (And, please note, the Prop 123 debacle was allowed to proceed without legal challenge by Attorney General Mark Brnovich!)
In defense of former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell, it is my understanding that the lady was humble in not declaring from the rooftops that the number of Presidential Preference Election polling places was determined in accordance with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors' direction, as required by law. And, our county GOP threw Purcell under the bus in the general election; in what appears to be a plot to rid the party of her in the hope that we could reclaim the office in the next cycle.
There were many of us today who never received the Call Letter in the mail. And, 20% of our county delegation had no credentials waiting for us. We had to wait over an hour to use credentials from some no-shows from other counties (but they did let us in).
The Call Letter contained an attachment of all the proposed resolutions that were arbitrarily dismissed by Resolutions Committee. When I asked Barry Wong (Chair of the committee), who received the best district Chairman award from the board at the Friday night banquet, what the rationale was for such a massive dismissal of solid Republican-plank resolutions, he just said "We are not required by the Bylaws to explain our decisions."
Mike: Can you copy/paste and move your comment about todays meeting to the report from there? It will be easier for people to go to one page to get info on the usual uproar of events. Thanks. AFA Team
Will do, both from this posting and from one other I made in AFA tonite. I have a few other things to say, too, if you would like to see them (I will try to avoid hyperbolic or overly impassioned observations/language). This was my first SC meeting, and when it was over I left it an a rather disenchanted mood, fyi.
Mike, you are one of our trusted commenters. You know what language not to use so whatever you want to post is fine with us.
I only volunteered those comments because I feel hyperbolic and very impassioned, but thanks for the reinforcement. Will put my thoughts together in the AM.