My Perspective:
AZGOP Mandatory Meeting
by Itasca Small

Saturday, January 27, 2018:


I was one of the SCs whom the LORD used to fight for Our Party!

For those who ask: “WHY?”

The meeting itself was out of order and should never have left the starting-gate due to failure to effect the required, complete, Mandatory Meeting, Call Notice to every State Committeeman! We did not raise this point of order.

[Clarification: “When a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being violated, he can make a Point of Order . . . thereby calling upon the chair for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular rules.” RONR (11th ed.), Ch.VIII. §23]

We fought the parliamentary war waged on Saturday for several purposes; one was to expose the egregious actions of the Executive Committee in their continuing inexcusable treatment of our duly-elected Secretary, Gabby Mercer! Joe Neglia moved to place the Secretary’s Report on the Agenda! And, YOU voted to give Secretary Gabby Mercer the floor to charge Chairman Lines and others before the assembly!

Another purpose was to defeat Proposed Bylaw Amendments that were worded to tighten the GOPe stranglehold on our Party. They attempted to slip them all past us by falsely claiming: “These changes are non-controversial and procedural.” Well, WE, the People, still read!

Two of the Proposed Amendments were Letters D&M: “D” would have made it possible to nullify Robert’s Rules of Order!

“M” would have raised the bar from 20 to 40%, for the number of members required to sign a petition calling for a Special Meeting! The amendment was clearly offered because of the attempt by membership to call a Special Meeting, in 2017. If your dog slips his leash, what do you do? Tighten the collar! That’s what this amendment would have done to US.

A third crucial amendment was Letter “N.” This change would have set in the Bylaws the right of each State Committeeman to carry and vote two proxies. Sounds good? Ahh, we could have stopped the proxy abuse that helped the GOPe takeover our Party! Or, could we have?

Maybe we should “do the math:” On Saturday, LD28 had 40 SCs present, who carried 55 proxies, an average of 1.375 proxies per attending SC. Hypothetically, if each LD28 SC present carried 2 proxies, the total SCs represented could be: 40 + (40x2) = 40 + 80 = 120, or, 25 more votes than Saturday—55 proxy votes could increase to 80—Not such a good deal, after all. . . .

So, what can we do?

We can take the time-proven advice of Robert’s Rules of Order: Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies . . . Ordinarily it should neither be allowed nor required, because proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly in which membership is individual, personal, and nontransferable. . . . RONR (11th ed.), Ch.XIII.§45

Also, If any members are absent . . . the members present at a regular or properly called meeting act for the entire membership . . . RONR (11th ed.), Ch. I, §1

Proxy voting is a negative force that, as we have learned, can be used to effect an artificial Majority reigning as tyrants! Because it is incompatible with the principles of Liberty and Self-Governance upon which our Nation under God is founded.

The solution is to end the practice entirely in our Party meetings! With eliminating proxy voting, the Ghost PC problem will also be resolved.

Tabling further action on the Proposed Bylaw Amendments pulled from the consent calendar stopped Amendment Letter “N” making the proxy problem worse!

* * *
Saturday’s Quorum was certified at: Present 581 Proxies 388 Total 969

With 388 proxies still allowed on Saturday, the voting was stacked against us. So, we used parliamentary tools and scored big wins with our successful motions! And, the points of order we won were huge! The two-front offensive culminated in a Major Victory for We, the People!

1. We successfully wielded basic Robert’s Rules to score important parliamentary victories.
2. Secretary Mercer exposed Jonathan Lines and the Executive Committee.
3. The Proposed Bylaw Amendments that were pulled from the consent calendar are DEAD!

NOTE: Not all of the Amendments were removed from the consent calendar. Those remaining were declared passed without the voice vote required by the Rules!

* * *

[Following are highlights of the parliamentary war waged, and do not include every tactic or detail.]

1. Joe Neglia moved to amend the Agenda to add the Secretary’s Report! Some confusion. Motion carried.

2. Joe Neglia moved to remove four Proposed Rules. Chaotic parliamentary discussion ensued; the chair finally ordered a manual, written, vote tally—including proxies—recorded by LD Chairmen; facilitated by the Teller’s Committee. Motion failed; Rules were adopted.

3. Item 6. Secretary’s Report. In fearless, righteous indignation, Secretary Gabby Mercer came-out firing verbal salvos at Chairman Lines and the Executive Committee regarding their refusal to provide her with the permanent party records, rendering her unable to perform the duties of her office. In the midst of calls for Lines to respond, a member went to the microphone and asked Lines, “Why . . . ?”
    3.1 Mercer still had the floor! So—out of order—Lines came-forward and threw-out a preposterous excuse for this travesty. He could just as well have said, “There are blue elephants on the Moon!”
   3.2. Joe Neglia immediately moved for the removal of Lines from office. I quickly seconded (there may have been others, but I didn’t hear any). The motion was impeccably timed! and, in accordance with the bylaws! But, when the Question was called at Warp-Speed, using a rule-violating voting procedure, we were caught by surprise, and many couldn’t react fast-enough! The motion failed.

4. Item 9. Election of non-statutory officers. When balloting was closed, we went on to Item 10, while the Teller’s Committee tallied the electronic votes. Vote results, and Second & Third Round balloting were interspersed with the bylaw amendment procedures.

5. Item 11. Joe Neglia moved to reject the Proposed Bylaw Amendments consent calendar. Presider Gage objected to the motion’s validity, claiming it was an attempt to reject an entire class of individual amendments at one time. His argument was invalid, because as long as they were part of the consent calendar, they were not a class of individual amendments!  They were the one consent calendar, which by rule is voted-on as one item. But . . . Of course! it was an attempt to reject all of them! just not as individual amendments. . . . He finally conceded the point, but, we did not prevail.

[At some point, it became apparent that our quorum may be lost. The committee counted the counties, but there was no attempt to count the members present, in-person and by proxy! If there was no longer a quorum, the meeting should have been adjourned!]

    5.1. Tim Horn, Jim Dutton, and other members, called for certain amendments to be pulled from the consent calendar as special preference items, per Rules 5.B&C.
    5.2. With the items pulled, the Presider suddenly asked if there was any objection to accepting the consent calendar. This, too, was done too quickly, without due deliberation to allow the members to catch-up. In the next breath, he declared the calendar accepted without the required voice vote! Rule 5.B. states: “. . . the consent calendar items . . . will be voted on en masse.”

6. Item 12. Bylaw Amendment special preference items that were pulled from the calendar. Due to the time, with no objection, Presider Gage determined we would debate and vote on the items in groups of three. As mentioned above, Letter “D,” as written, actually could have been used to nullify Robert’s Rules! Three of us spoke against it. (For the result, see below.)
    6.1 Presider Gage ordererd balloting for the next Round of Election Voting, and Amendments B.C.&D, to begin electronically. He then began debate on the next amendment.

7. I realized it was out of order to debate the next items while balloting was occurring! And, I realized that Rule 8.A, required a voice vote on the amendments! [Why did they want to vote on the amendments electronically? It was easier to vote the proxies that way!]

8. I began my point of order; challenging:  1. Debating during balloting, and, 2. Voting on the amendments electronically. I raised the point of order repeatedly while being ignored for several minutes, as the Presider and others conferred on the dais; then I debated the Presider. Jim Dutton cut-in to move to table further action on the Bylaw Amendments. He was shutdown by Presider Gage because my point of order was still open. (We didn’t know that a point of order yields to a motion to lay the main question on the table.)
Presider Gage finally acknowledged my points were valid: 1. Debate during balloting was out of order, and, 2. Rule 8.A. did govern the amendment voting, so electronic balloting was out of order.

    8.1 As soon as he acknowledged these facts, I quickly reiterated Jim Dutton’s Motion to Table Further Action on the Bylaw Amendments. I heard my Fellow-LD25 SC, Jacque Wilson, Second—with Warp-Speed! Presider Gage argued the point and wouldn’t allow the motion, while he danced around verbally trying to decide what to do. I began to press for the motion to be called, reminding him that it was moved and seconded, and he had to call for a vote.

[Bylaws Committee Chair Kathy Petsas had repeatedly been allowed to take the floor just to indignantly remind us how much effort the committee had put-into the amendments. When she did it while I was at the microphone arguing parliamentary truths for all of us, I called, “Mr. Chairman, Point of Order! Emotional appeals are out of order!” He and she were speechless. I was told afterward that my Fellow-SCs told her to sit-down, and she did. . . .]

NOTE: The crucial difference between Constitutional Conservatives and Progressive/Collectivists of any Party Label is the polar opposites: Logic and Reason v. Emotion!]

Gage demanded that the votes taken on the three amendments be counted. I should not have agreed, but did. (But, it worked-out well to know the results. See below.)

He agreed to call the question on the Motion to Table Further Action on the Bylaw Amendments!

Our Fellow-SCs were ready to take the ball and run with it! When the voice vote was taken, it was obvious the Ayes had it!!! Presider Gage had to admit the motion carried. No further action could be taken on the remaining Bylaw Amendments! They were dead!

The results of voting on Amendments B,C&D, were announced: All three were defeated!

Bylaw Summary:

1. The consent calendar holding the unpulled Proposed Bylaw Amendments, was wrongfully accepted. Because there was NO VOTE taken!
2. The amendments pulled as special preference items ALL died on the table!

Results of the Third Round of voting for officers were read. Presider Gage called for a Motion to Adjourn. The motion carried. Items 13&14, Resolutions and New Business, were left unheard!

Praise the LORD! for helping us to begin to take-back our Party!

For Liberty!

Without Liberty, FREEDOM cannot exist!

LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!

Views: 868

Replies to This Discussion

"Don't turn your back" is great with that graphic (which came from AFA).



This Rhino is walking toward the left.  How appropriate.  

Itasca, I must admit that I am puzzled. I was just on the Arizona Legislature Website to check on the people supporting and opposing HB2012 which Bill is to amend ARS 16-828 to limit the use of proxies.  I noted that you signed on to urge the committee to defeat the measure. Would you care to tell us all why you do not want to limit the use of proxies at party meetings?

Thank you, Archie and Mike!

Considering the content of your replies, and your last one, Archie, I will respond to that one first.  (I'm sorry I couldn't do so sooner, but, I can't go without sleep as long as I used to be able to!)

I saw from Mike's earlier Reply that I needed to expand and extend my discussion of the proxy problem I addressed in this post.  To recap, above I concluded that:

Proxy voting is a negative force that, as we have learned, can be used to effect an artificial Majority reigning as tyrants! Because it is incompatible with the principles of Liberty and Self-Governance upon which our Nation under God is founded.

The solution is to end the practice entirely in our Party meetings! With eliminating proxy voting, the Ghost PC problem will also be resolved.

I did write an expansion around the section in this post as a new Discussion on the AZ Legislation Group Page, and posted it at 5:28, this morning.  I see that the AFA Team has not been able to eblast it yet, so there were only 4 views a few minutes ago, some of which are mine.  (Brad Heward did see it and added a concurring Reply.)

Please, consider reading the new post before condemning me!  Thank you, for your passion and tireless work to Take-Back Our Party!

For Liberty!


Without Liberty, FREEDOM cannot exist!

LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!

Itasca, I am not condemning you. You and several others worked hard at the meeting last Saturday and I assume for some time before that against the establishment. I have worked hard for  almost a year gathering signatures for the limitation of the use of  proxies. Jose and I have worked hard over the past several month to bring this legislation HB2012 to the forefront in an effort to limit the use of proxies. Currently, the AZGOP has no limitation on the use of proxies. This legislation while not the be all end all, is a step in the right direction. I do not and will not castigate you for your position.

Archie, I apologize! Thank you!

I think I probably let the memory of my LD Chairman's castigation immediately after we tabled the amendments lurk in my subconscious, to make me hypersensitive to expecting those whom I would have agreed with wholeheartedly just about 46 hours ago, to feel the same as he did.  In my new post, I related what happened on Saturday regarding the amendment, and that I did not know at the time, that it was pulled from the consent calendar.

I also do know how important this problem is, and I am grateful for you, Jose and all who have worked so diligently on it!  Right now, we just agree to disagree on how to fix the problem.

The good thing is, as you probably know, if you and others see the value in not allowing any proxy voting, as I have presented here and in my new post, your efforts are not in vain!  You got it in the door!!!  You have a bill in committee!!!  That is a HUGE accomplishment!!!

If Rep. Ugenti-Rita and the other legislators seeking to fix the problem concur, she can amend her bill and pursue that goal instead.  If not, and it passes with allowing two or possibly 0ne per attendee, I hope I'm wrong—

Thank you again!

The AZ GOP simply expected the PC's /State Committeemen to rubber stamp their agenda. On FB, people were furious saying that they were not expecting " shenanigans " . I responded that the goal of the  proposed bylaws and amendments was to  centralize power . One person  actually complained about the amount of work she had to do  on the bylaws and felt time was simply wasted by those who expressed opposition.  What they witnessed was Democracy  in action. They did not tolerate my disagreement and the conclusion is I had to block them from my FB.

Thank you Joe Paglia, Jim Dutton , Tim Horne and Itasca for all the preparation work you did to make sure the Conservative voice was heard and that our powers were not diminished. I am so appreciative that I have Arizona Freedom Alliance which keeps such a good eye on the AZGOP.

Agreed, but for now at least, let's focus our next efforts on getting either HB 2012 or HB 2029 passed, but with an amendment to reduce the number of proxies to zero, not two as currently written!  If the bills end up struggling in the general assembly, then perhaps we can suggest compromising on one.  But ask for zero per the Donald's negotiating tactic!  Having a limit of two proxies per elector doesn't really solve our misrepresentation problems, as explained so well by Itasca.

Thank you for this information, Myrna! I wonder if they expected the rubber stamp because they knew they had the proxy advantage . . . But, it sounds like they just believed their man in Jonathan Lines' corner, Presider Gage, could crack-the-whip at any pesky Conservatives who tried to challenge him, and shut us down. 

Great response! That's exactly what they were trying to do—centralize power! Would that person who complained happen to be Kathy Petsas? As the Bylaws Committee Chair, Kathy Petsas was the one who kept getting-away with taking the floor and telling us about the hundreds of hours they worked to provide us with those amendments. I guess they expected us to thank them for giving us the choke chain to put around our necks.

When she did it one last time to try to stop our Motion to Table Further Action, I was moved to raise one more point of order, and, the words that came out of my mouth, "Emotional appeals are out-of-order!" stopped them both. Praise the LORD for the words!

If I may, it wasn't actually Democracy, it was our American Republic working. Robert's Rules of Order and any other similar parliamentary procedures, are founded in our Self-Governance and Rule of Law.  The purpose of which is to govern ourselves, while the purpose of the government the Founding Fathers instituted is to Protect Rights.  Especially the Rights of the Minority against the Tyranny of the Majority.

Democracy is the logical fallacy of "Appeal to the People," or, "Mob Rule." It protects the offenses of a tyrannical Majority, while our Republic protects the Rights of the Minority. That is why America is NOT a Democracy. 

What we all did on Saturday was to rise as a Minority, follow parliamentary procedures as closely as possible in the hostile environment amidst numerous rule violations by the Majority, and in the end, we persuaded enough SCs to join us and vote to end the tyranny by defeating their proposed amendments!

That is what our American parliamentary procedure is all-about! It takes the purpose of government and applies it in our societal and business arenas to give us a platform in which to conduct meetings that acknowledge and allow the Minority the freedom to attempt to persuade the Majority of its position.

By just applying parliamentary procedures where we could under the challenging circumstances, the positive dynamic that resulted achieved what the procedures stand for: When Man works together in accordance with God's Law, positive results prevail!

There were numerous rule violations we were not yet prepared to fight effectively, but we didn't have to!  We just had to get the dynamic going in the Right direction to decentralize the power by directing it to all the members who were seeking to decentralize it—as Individuals—to achieve success and the Major Victory!

Your FB conclusion is the natural outcome when they are confronted with Truth. You knew what the Truth was, they would not relent and the only way to deal with wild hyenas yapping at your heels is to put a fence around them. They cannot deal with Truth, and because their thought-processes are disorganized—even chaotic—they can only lash-out and attack from uncontrolled emotion.

Hence, the emotional appeals to the chair when their work was being challenged. They are not ruled by God's Love, and they cannot abide Truth:  "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life . . ."  They are slaves to sin, and do not know Our Liberty under God!

Praise the LORD for preparing all of us—Joe Neglia, Jim Dutton, Tim Horn, others whose names I do not know, me, and, thank you, Christina Dumal for Steve Kohut's name to add to the roll call of those of us who stood at the microphone on Saturday—for our roles, as our preparation melded with the the preparatory work of the many Patriots who joined in preparing the way to the microphone for us all!

Yes, our powers were magnified with the Individual, Constitutional Conservative Voices of We, the People! Yes, it is good to know we have Alliances such as Arizona Freedom Alliance to open and maintain communications with like-minded Arizonans.

Great information on the AZGOP state meeting, Itasca.  Thank you.  I also wanted to thank Joe Neglia, Jim Dutton, Tim Horne, and Pinal County's Steve Kohut for stepping up to the microphone and dealing with the GOP leadership head on. This was my first state meeting so it was quite an experience for me.  If I understood correctly, we did have one amendment pass, A.  That amendment permitted the secretary to make grammatical changes. All others were either defeated or tabled. Although we didn't get any conservatives elected, I'd like to point out that Robert Moore was only defeated by 3 votes.  If all of our delegates had been in attendance we would have had at least one conservative elected.

Peggy McClain and myself put out some tweets with emphasis on the 113K debt from 2015/2016 when Lines was treasurer and the fact that Gabby hasn't received former minutes.





NOTE:  Blog posts cannot be blasted to the membership.  Post in Opinions if you want your post to be blasted out.

Post on the correct tab that matches your topic.

Keep it brief and to the point.

Use the proper spelling and punctuation.

Please include the link to your source for the information you post.

Do not attack your fellow conservatives.

If you wouldn't say it to your mother, think twice before saying it here.

Follow these rules!


Suppose the earth and its inhabitants exist in order to identify just what causes mankind continually to suffer so many troublesome problems and afflictions.



© 2023   Created by Arizona Freedom Alliance.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service