Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
AZGOP Mandatory Meeting
by Itasca Small
Saturday, January 27, 2018:
THE DAY WE, THE PEOPLE, BEGAN TO TAKE-BACK OUR PARTY!!!
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!
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!
Without Liberty, FREEDOM cannot exist!
LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!
Marianne and Itasca, you never cease to amaze me. To see things as clearly as you do and then be able to articulate them in a manner we can all understand is a work of God. We The People are blessed to have such discerning people as you two on our team.
Praise the LORD!
Soli Deo Gloria! - To God Alone, Glory!
For Our Liberty under God!
Without Liberty, FREEDOM cannot exist!
LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!
Marianne and Itasca, and of course, Joe, you all saved the day! My hat is off to you all.
Thank you, Russell! From what I hear, you did a LOT of work on the Bylaws. What it sounds like you achieved was proving that they had no intention of working with us, just like the Dems in the U.S. Congress. They can't claim they tried. . . .
Of course, I'm sure all your work was not in vain in the long run. I'm sure we'll be able to use it in the future!
Thank you for your work and dedication!
HB 2012 will be coming up for a hearing before the House Government Committee tomorrow morning at 9:30 in hearing room 1. Please use Request to Speak at the legislature to indicate your support for the measure. If you cannot use Request to Speak, either call or email the members of the committee requesting them approve the proposed legislation.
Thanks, Archie, I read it and does seem straightforward. I just emailed all of the above committee members* and stressed that, according to ARS 16-102, they should vote for no proxies, or compromise on a maximum of ONE proxy. *the email to Cloddfelter bounced back as Access Denied.
According to RNOR, state statutes take precedence over any organization's bylaws if they are in conflict, so the GOPe will have no choice but to comply.
Archie: I sent the email to every one of those representatives whose names you provided. I also posted the message on the Briefs, in the form of an open letter, placing all their names in the salutation. That way, it is on record that all of them have the information I provided, which I believe fully justifies ending unlimited proxies, once and for all. They have NO EXCUSE!
Did your email to Cloddfelter bounce back, too, for Access Denied?
In case you haven't gotten your email to go through, my first try it was denied. So, I deleted a "d" from the address, and it worked.
I really appreciate you taking the time to post this information! I certainly do agree with sharing the information we need to be proactive.
As I replied earlier, I agree with legislation to correct the enormous problem we have with proxy voting. I just see that if enough of us urged the committee members to go for the gold, they might amend the bills to repeal the statute (16-828), eliminating proxy voting in political parties altogether! Any number allowed will be an open invitation to the abusers to adjust by just using more individuals to carry and vote the proxies.
I checked the email address for Rep. Todd Clodfelter, and learned that there is only one "d" in his name. This may correct the problems with his emails being rejected.
The information on 16-102 is good to know, also. The problem with using it to argue the proxy voting in political parties is that the legislative intent behind it is to prohibit proxy voting in government elections. The statute that applies here is the one HB2012 & HB2029 propose to amend: 16-828.
Thanks again for all your work!
This graphic was shown in the AFA group on Proxy Abuse, but it is so potentially powerful as an attention-getter for those less involved or unaware of how dangerous RINOs are, I think it fits in this group, too; and I recommend we help it go viral. Don't turn your back on them.
Thank you for sharing this graphic! Very clever! I like your label, too. Wondering though, if it would work as, "Don't turn your back!" It would be fewer words to add under his feet, or across his side, if possible; it causes the mind to subliminally "hear" it more abruptly as a shouted warning . . . ?