MY PERSPECTIVE: THE DAY WE BEGAN TO TAKE-BACK OUR PARTY! + PROXIES!

[Itasca Small]

My Perspective:
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!

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!
Itasca

Without Liberty, FREEDOM cannot exist!

LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!

[Mike White]

But who exactly pulled resolution N off the Consensus Calendar?  It was the very first one yanked, and it wasn't by Itasca or anyone from her side of the auditorium.  To the best of my knowledge/observation, it was pulled by a guy from the Bylaws Committee!  He was not one of the "Activists".   I have no idea what his motivations were, since he said nothing about what he really wanted, but it seemed at the time that he might have wanted every other Bylaw change to go through but that one.  It appeared he came out of the GOPe camp.

Many of the rest of us in attendance did not see the resistance to Lines, et al, as "chaos", but rather as a small victory against his establishment rule.  I submit that the conclusions of Cochise County were not representative of most of the precincts in attendance.

Just curious, who were the SCs who received The Dutton Report in advance of the Mandatory Meeting?  I've never heard of it.

I recommend you re-direct your passion away from Itasca to support HB 2012, perhaps with a recommendation that it allow only one proxy per carrier as the starting point for negotiations.

[Itasca Small]

Thank you, Mike, for adding clarity to the question of the proposed bylaw amendment N.  As I reported before, I had no idea who actually pulled N from the consent calendar.  Your observations certainly shed light on the question for me!  It does seem even more possible now that it was removed to ensure it would not pass easily on the consent calendar.  I realize there are probably others who blame me for the defeat of the proxy amendment, but, at least, this supports my statement that I did not pull it.

I'm glad SCs who didn't appreciate our efforts to take-back our Party were not in the Majority.  It's good to know that my perception that the outcome is a victory is shared by others.

I also had not heard of The Dutton Report until I read Bruce's critique and accusations.

I'm sorry, I don't believe I had responded to your queries regarding one proxy per carrier until I referenced it in my reply above, to Russell Sias.  Your proposal as presented would be an actual compromise.

But, once I cogitated the subject to understand the ramifications of HB2012 more fully, I found I still cannot support the bill, because  the legislative and executive departments have usurped authority over the organization and government of private clubs.  For more on this question, please see my new Discussion posted on Tuesday in the AZ Legislation Group: PROXIES: Compromise or Capitulation?

Although I have deleted my position and comment from RTS.  I have not changed my position.

Thank you for your always objective and astute observations!

[Itasca Small]

Thank you, Bruce M. Piepho, I realize it isn’t always easy to get to discussion threads as quickly as we would like!

Thank you for clarifying your role in the pursuit of changing the bylaws to continue to allow proxy voting, with a per member maximum of 2 proxy votes.

Your report of members not understanding why and what was transpiring confirms the obvious conclusion that the RRO lessons you proposed in your previous Reply should be implemented as soon as possible, to teach the members parliamentary order and procedure, and, why they are crucial to the proper function of a deliberative assembly.

Of course, costs are pertinent to “whether we can attend or do not attend.”  That isn't what I said.

I said, “Costs are not pertinent to whether we do, or do not, have a moral obligation to exert every effort to attend . . . (Not saying I don’t know the hardship involved!)”

[Russell Sias]

Maybe we are over complicating this issue.

Our choices seem to be:

Stand firm, zero proxies.  Good position, and I support this position, most sincerely.

or

Two proxies.  Far, far better than what we have.  I also support this position, especially in view of not supporting it may mean no change happens.

Therefore, the question becomes, should I reject the two proxy position, because the other option exists and is clearly better, but has no chance of getting passed?

Ummm?  What should i do?  Refuse to support the second position, and likely lose all?  Isn't the real question, will the zero proxy have any chance at all, of passing?  If it does, go for it, and let's get it done.  But, as it seems to me, that it does not have any chance, then the two proxy would be better than choice.  Right?  Right!

So, the bottom line question, and the only one that really counts, seems to be, does the zero proxy limit have any chance at all?  This is a yes/no question we need to be asking ourselves.  If we answer no, then we must be willing to support the two proxy option.  That, or once again, shoot ourselves in the foot.

[Itasca Small]

I agree, Russell.  I think we are over-complicating it!

Zero proxies, Two proxies; both positions are caught on the Horns of a False Dilemma.  The clue is in your second sentence:  "Our choices seem to be:"

Zero proxies, Two proxies . . . ?

False Dilemma: "When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes."

We have to remember that when there are two options that present an apparent conundrum, we are probably wearing blinders and just can't see that there are other options!  In this case, there are other roads leading to "Rome."

If the bill passes, we will live to fight another day—if the LORD wills—

If the bill fails, we will live to fight another day—if the LORD wills—

The world does not turn on whether HB2012 passes or fails.

There are at least four other paths we can follow in conjunction with each other, whether the bill passes or fails.

Our desire to seek the Right and execute it, transcends the vehicle we use to carry it.

And, we live to fight another day—if the LORD wills!

[Bruce M Piepho]

At this time there is no zero proxy option. The time to drop new legislation has passed. The only likely scenario for January 2019 is a proxy fight for control of the AZGOP at the Statutory meeting. We are not dealing with Angels. Has everyone forgotten Kenney recruiting Vietnamese PCs who did not speak English?

What is the RRO penalty for proxy use?

HB 2012 passed in GOV committee by a Vote on 2/08/18 of 5 to 3.

Now assigned to RULES committee for 1/9/2019
House First Read: 01/09/2018
House Second Read: 01/10/2018

This video at this link says a lot -https://youtu.be/td7SXuv1LG8. Reducing the federal government size and excessive spending begins with the election of Conservative constitionalists to the state party leadership and to the AZ legislature as well as the U.S. Senate and House. Consider the long winded political speech by McSally but not Kelly Ward? McSally has a Conservative Review of F = failure. So who is the AZGOP Cabal(e) supporting?  Not a conservative.

[Joe Neglia]

Hi Bruce, you are absolutely correct regarding the need to reduce excessive spending.  However, I would ask that you reconsider your promotion of a Con-Con as the solution.  PragerU's videos are usually good, but they are seriously mistaken in the one in your link.  Please watch this rebuttal:

https://youtu.be/FjUJt4RtO4Y

(BTW, I don't understand the date you provide for the Rules committee hearings on HB2012.  Surely it's not scheduled for January 2019!)

[Rose Sperry]

Thanks for the video, Joe.  I agree, No Con-Con! I'll not be one to sit idly by while California and New York tell us how things are going to be. What we need to do is be very selective of who we send to Congress to do our bidding.  We fail tremendously in this arena.  

[Bruce M Piepho]

Joe - I place more trust in men such as Jim DeMint then Mr. Gomez.  As to the fears of a complete re-write of the Constitution it is just that fear.  I have been tracking and working on the Convention of States (COS) project since 2013.  There is a lot of mis-information and fake news.  Even the upper echelon of the Higher Education law professors can not come to agreement.

The COS proposes amendments, Each state has ONE vote.  Each amendment HAS to be RATIFIED. The path to restore our Constitution is wrought with pitfalls and obstacles.  Rose it, the COS, is not a CON-CON.  There has only been one and never will be another CON-CON or Constitutional Convention.

The dates were taken off the AZ GOV bill status web site.  Probably change daily.  I doubt the rules committee will pass it soon. Yes the 2019 was a typo.

[Itasca Small]

Thanks, Joe,

If this video and others by JBS do not at least give patriots pause to consider and investigate further, we are in deeper trouble than I thought.

I know that Judge Robert Bork, inarguably one of America's best Constitutional Minds, considered calls for an Article V Convention, opening the door to a Constitutional Convention.  Saying to the effect that there would be no way to prevent it!

There are at least two other JBS videos that present a logically-sound argument to unintended consequences.  I can't find them quickly, but will try to locate them as soon as I can.

This video gave me a new perspective on the death of Justice Scalia!

Imagine if the most Constitutional Justice on the Supreme Court refuses to support an Article V Convention called for by many "Conservatives." And, imagine if at least some of those "Conservatives" want to conserve, not the Constitution, but, the globalist agenda of the Progressive/Collectivists & Technocrats? 

What better way to get us to open the Constitution to unintended consequences on the Constitutionalist side, but intended consequences on the globalist side, than to convince Constitutionalists that nothing bad can happen?

And, knowing that the ends justify the means to the collectivist globalists, why not just remove the Constitutionalist Justice who is staunchly opposed to an Article V Convention?

Food for Thought?

[Itasca Small]

Bruce,

For starters, please see my Discussion in the AZ Legislation Group, here:  PROXIES: Compromise or Capitulation?  The post was not eblasted, but, it has been posted since 2/6.  There are other things we can do NOW!  I did not address everything I've thought of there, and I'm sure others are thinking of more, too, but, it's a start. . . . Your suggestion that we teach/learn RRO at the LD—or even precinct-level—is a great concurrent starting point!

Regarding HB2012:  Technically, IF activists were successful in convincing a senator now, or a representative later—if HB2012 should be defeated in the House—a Strike Everything Amendment to co-opt a different existing bill is always an option. In the House, there is already a second bill waiting in the wings.  The deadlines for dropping new bills do not apply to strikers.  BUT, I don't think it likely that, if 2012 is defeated, the House would be the place to move the second bill, or to start a striker.

The Legislative Manual explains strikers.  I am attaching the version I downloaded in Jan. '16, because I can't readily locate it on the current Legislature Home Page.  If you want to find out if there is a later version, and how to find it, you can contact the Webmaster via a link in the large blue block at the bottom of the Home Page.

Regarding the dates from the Bill Status Page:

1/09/18: The bill's number was read to the Full House (Committee of the Whole—COW) for the first time by a House Clerk, then, the same day, it was assigned to Government and Rules Committees.

1/10/18: The bill's number was read to the COW for the second time by a House Clerk.

2/08/18: The bill was moved from the Government Committee with a DO PASS Recommendation.

The Rules Committee does not have it on the Agenda for 2/12/18.  They can issue additional agendas, so it could be added.  The Rules Committee usually meets on Monday at 12:30, to consider all bills that are otherwise ready to move to COW.  No debate is allowed in the Rules Committee; it is just there to decide if the bill is structurally sound. When it is moved, it goes to the Floor before the COW.

When we really analyze the dichotomy between "Conservatives," "Moderates," "RINOs" and "Constitutional Conservatives, it is necessary to take a magnifying glass to the records and find just how "Constitutional" the "Conservatives" are!  There is a sometimes subtle, but hugely important difference!  John McCain and Jeff Flake claim the latter title, and we all see what they are:  not Constitutional!  "Conservative" does NOT mean "Constitutional!"  It just means one wants to conserve something; in the case of many members of the Republican Party, that "something" is diametrically opposed to constitutions—national or state!  In my observations, J. McCain and J. Flake want to conserve the advances made by Progressive Globalists (Collectivists/Technocrats) over the past century-plus!  They actually are "Conservatives" by definition; just not "Constitutional Conservatives."  Perhaps we should start to drop the generic term and just say we are "Constitutionalists!"

When we see Martha McSally, obviously a McCainite by her record, and the other GOPe elected officials, campaigning during the time we should have been conducting business, it is also obvious that, as the AZGOP is currently being "run," there is no effort to even pretend to be "Constitutionally Conservative!" Evil always assumes it is unassailable and cannot be defeated.  By God's Grace, we have other options than those "they" give us!  We need to think outside the Box! There are tactics we can employ NOW!

We don't have to keep proving Einstein's maxim:  Doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity! 

We also need to be aware that some of our most cherished "Conservatives" who appear to be Constitutional on the surface, are NOT "Constitutional Conservatives."  If you want to see what I mean, you could research the history of the evisceration—for the time-being!—of the constitutional authority and power of our office of state superintendent of public instruction (SPI); beginning with Gov Ducey's usurpation of judicial powers nullifying the Constitutional authority of the SPI, in starting the whole Juggernaut rolling through our state-level elective office of SPI, through our legislature via then-Senate President Andy Biggs-'15 & '16, then-Senate President Pro-Tem Sylvia Allen-'15 & '16, and then-Senate Education Committee Chair Kelli Ward-'15—Sylvia Allen was also Senate Ed Comm Chair in '16.  And, during the same period, the Juggernaut rolled onward from Attorney General Mark Brnovich's office, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's office and the state superior court! 

OHHH! and, with the cooperation through capitulation, of SPI Diane Douglas, who's refusal to fight in the RIGHT WAY what she KNEW was unconstitutional evisceration of the office she holds, culminated in the ultimate undeniable capitulation, through her agreement to scuttle the power of the office of SPI, 5/16.  The person holding a constitutional office CAN NOT agree to cede the constitutional nature of the office—the nature of the constitutional entity can only be changed via Constitutional Amendment!!!

The Point here is, Some of the people we think are obviously Constitutional Conservatives, sometimes reveal Unconstitutional principles in their actions.  We have to be ever-vigilant in measuring their words and deeds with a Strict-Constructionist's ruler.

If you want an in-depth history, I was closely-involved in fighting the entire Juggernaut, and am working on an analysis to publish on my Web-site: ItascaSmall.com.

CONCLUSION:

We have a lot to do to complete the taking-back of our Party! But, the dynamic was put in-motion in 2017, by Joe Neglia—at the '17 State Meeting—as he fearlessly took-on the chairman and presider in parliamentary procedure challenges!  He was joined by those brave souls who have also studied Robert's Rules and the bylaws, fought for proxy reform, fought for removal of the RINO GOPe officers, resolution and bylaw writers, and All those about whom I do not yet know!

The dynamic reached a new peak on January 27th, when we took on the presider and scored a major victory, with God's Providential Help!

They won a small victory—even though it looks huge for many right now—when their side pulled the proxy amendment from the consent calendar and it was swept-away in our Motion to Table.

But, that did not kill the dynamic!  We overwhelmed their attempt to force bylaws amendments upon us that would have h0g-tied us worse than the proxy voting alone could in the future.

We must not let the dynamic die!  We are in the right, and God is with Us!

For Liberty!

Itasca

Without Liberty, FREEDOM cannot exist!

LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!

[Mike White]

Another observation on Diane Douglas -- she said nada in her speech at the Mandatory Meeting about her pushing for a tax increase that Gov. Ducey said we don't need to get more educational funding.  She also went to lengths to explain her meeting her campaign pledge to stop Common Core (in lieu of an AZ system that is similar).