Thursday, 11 December 2014
Let's Adopt An Agenda And Then Adjourn
Let's Adopt An Agenda And Then Adjourn.
That seems to be the pattern of events at the December Organizational Meeting.
Maybe it makes sense to some of them, who voted to do it. But most folks might be puzzled by that turn of events.
I was there as an observer, I cannot usually attend meetings during the week since I work nights, but have been able to be at a few since my medical leave for open heart surgery.
So I sat and watched the Circus and commented a couple of times when it was appropriate or the Sub-Committee Chair asked,
The main item of contention was that the proposed agenda had an item that was in fact Improper.
Under Reports by Committees it listed Webmaster
The Webmaster is not nor has it ever been a Committee. What it is I will get to later in this discourse
But first let us look at a complaining vent by one of the attendees the other night
Tonight I attended a meeting where I witnessed the MOST SLEEZY UNDERHANDED ACT I think ever witnessed in a supposed civilized group.
I would say the Gentleman has lived a sheltered life for he certainly has a much different conception of the the MOST SLEEZY UNDERHANDED ACT than I.
Now while not being the MOST sleezy and underhanded act I have ever witnessed I would say THIS ACT could be considered a considerable bit more sleezy and or underhanded than anything I saw at the meeting in question
A member handed out copies of an agenda stating it was the chairs agenda and then called for the approval of it.
A member handed out copies of a corrected agenda with the incorrect and improper listing of the Webmaster as a Committee removed, which had been shown to the Chair while she tried to explain the issue,
Turns out there was some confusion at this time.
Something not generally done at a meeting of this size.
The Chair asked for my input on this issue. While the above statement may be true for small Sub-Committee meetings, this one was very large. In fact it was almost large enough fulfill the requirements of a Quorum for a Full Meeting. That fact and the fact that at the beginning of the Minutes the Secretary included a statement that Robert's Rules of Order was in use, prompted me to respond that it was quite in Order for members of the Sub-Committee to ask for a vote approving the Agenda
Which was done.
It had omitted items, strategically placed to silence some members.
Now here we verge from the Truth and dive off a Cliff of Fabrication,
I suppose it may be Ego Enhancing to think of oneself as a Committee of One, but in this case it is Untrue,
(We will discuss this in tommorrow's post)
The Complaint that the Sub-Committee for Communications had with the Agenda of the Organizational Sub-Committee is due to the FACT that the Full Body adopted a Charter for the Communications Sub-Committee which gives THEM Authority over the Webpage. Therefore any report by the Webmaster to ANYONE shold be a part of a report by the Communications Sub-Committee.
Should that be needed why of course we would call on the cognizant individual ie the Webmaster'
We had no intention of "silencing" him we did object to an Improper and Illegal Power Grab of Authority.
Once discovered she continued to argue that it was the agenda. Her attempt at undermining the meeting failed and then the meeting was adjourned.
Yeah the vote as I recall actually adopted the original and Improper Agenda so as soon as that group got it's way they voted to Adjourn??
Perhaps she should just amend her agenda to say STAY AT HOME AND DON”T BE SUCH A _______
Could that last statement possibly be projection?
Wednesday, 10 December 2014
The Star Chamber of the LCRCC
Recently one of the Admins for the Linn County Republican Central Committee Facebook Group was removed.
The REASON for removal given by the Webmaster was:
Per the Exec vote and policy I removed her again. Perhaps you need to discuss this with Bill.
This has come as a surprise to other members of the Communications Sub-Committee, those of us who actually attend the Sub-Committee meetings.
I feel I must mention here the complaint the Webmaster makesbout our meetings is that the Starlite, where we have our meetings, has a bar.
Oddly enough, this fact does NOT prevent him from attending meetings of the Organization Sub-Committee at the Lone Star Steakhouse which has an even larger bar right beside the room where the meeting usually takes place,
But it is foolish to expect moral consistency from someone whose logic would be better used in the ground inspiring turnips.
Another puzzle was this supposed Exec vote and policy.
Turns out this happened at one of the Exec/Advisory Board meetings
A meeting where there was NO Quorum of Executives therefore NO, repeat, NO Legal Vote could be taken by the Executives.
The rest of the meeting was the Advisory Board.
Have I explained to you the meaning of the term Advisory?
SO it would appear that while the Chair of the Communications Sub-Commitee was out of town,
A meeting took place that could not LEGALLY make any decisions, and a decision about how the Communications Sub-Commitee should be run was made??
Leaving aside the small little detail that the Executive Board, even if it had a Quorum, has NO Legal Authority to issue orders to the Central Commitee or any portion of it, this is almost a Classic Example of a Star Chamber Meeting.
From the Linn County Republican Party Constitution
VIII. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The Executive Committee shall consist of the Chair, Co-Chair, Secretary and Treasurer of the
Linn County Central Committee. The Executive Committee shall transact the routine business
of the Linn County Central Committee during the interim of the meetings of the Linn County
Central Committee. Any business transacted or action taken shall be reported to the Linn
County Central Committee at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Executive
Committee is subject to the orders of the Linn County Central Committee, and none of its acts
shall conflict with actions of the Linn County Central Committee.
it is also another example of the Pattern of Behavior by the Chair of ignoring inconvenient items as Constitutions, ByLaws and Rules of Order.
Tuesday, 9 December 2014
To Sign Or Not To Sign?
Yesterday we discussed the Check that Should Not Have Been Signed, but Was
Today To Sign Or Not To Sign is the Question.
A few months back after a good deal of debate the Linn County Central Committee voted to establish a method of rewards for volunteer work to promote Absente Ballots.
Due to Time Constraints before the election and also due to the intricacies of present Election Law, the Body gave the Executives Extraordinary Powers.
To wit the gave they Executives Prior Approval to Alter the Wording of the Bodies Motion if there turned out to be any Legal Impediament.
Fast forward to another meeting and the Body was informed that the Treasurer had to have the Co-Chair sign checks because the Chair refused to do so,
One of our members queried the Chair as to the Legality of our Original Motion. The Chair did make a Statement which was put into the Record that NO Illegality was brought forward by the State Ethics Board.
Another Member from the rear of the room brought out as well that the Chair chose not to sign the checks because after discussing the situation with others, they determined the reward program was
NOT A GOOD IDEA.
May I remind our readers of that portion of the Linn County Republican Party Constitution which says
- The Executive
- Committee is subject to the orders of the Linn County Central Committee, and none of its acts
- shall conflict with actions of the Linn County Central Committee.
I submit that the Chair did NOT follow the Orders of the Linn County Central Committee
AND that the acts of the Chair (refusing to sign reward checks) was In FACT in Conflict with actions of the Linn county Central Committee.
A situation that appears to be a Pattern of Behavior with this Chair.
To wit they seem to be of the opionion that they should RULE by Fiat rather than be a Servant of the Body as the Constitution and ByLaws require.
Tommorrow's Post will be the Facebook Admin who wasn't there.
Monday, 8 December 2014
Financial Malfeasance
Recently we have been exposed to some hysteria over issues dealing with the Linn County Republican Central Committee's finances.
And of course like most hysterical exhortations we had to do something now, Now NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
Or we faced CATASTROPHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have looked at the DR-2 forms in question.
Hint: they were in an email from the State Ethics Board which also stated that they were not even received by the Ethics Board until the Friday after our meeting.
To me that seems odd.
What seems odder is the Summary of the DR-2 Form,
Summary of Findings
After looking over the various LCRCC financial statements and DR-2 forms, there does not appear to
be any misuse of funds or other intentionally deceitful practices. However, nearly 40 errors were
identified over the 18 month time period, and most fall into one of three categories: misattribution of
contribution, failure to report contributions, and failure to deposit contributions in a timely manner.
Over a dozen instances of misattribution can be found, involved approximately $2,390 worth of
contributions. Equally frequent were the occurrences of failing to deposit funds in a timely manner,
resulting in at least $3,626 worth of funds being held up to two months after receipt by the
treasurer. Additionally, there were at least eleven instances of contributions failing to be reported at
all, totaling $680. And finally, $100 in funds were misappropriated and misreported on April 14.
Let me repeat the portion I put in bold print
there does not appear to
be any misuse of funds or other intentionally deceitful practices.
Does that sound like a crisis to anyone?
Do these type of errrors sound like an emergency?
DR-2 filed January 19, 2014
June 2013
• Check #1590 for $1000 was incorrectly reported as Fred Johnson, instead of Dee Ann
Johnson. [Reference: Deposit 6/10/13]
December 2013
• Check #4131 for $100 was incorrectly reported as Gene Brodrecht, instead of Sandra
Brodrecht. [Reference: Deposit 12/23/13]
• Check #1414 for $25 was incorrectly reported as Joe Golding, instead of Cindy Golding.
[Reference: Deposit 12/23/13]
• $3,526 worth of cash and checks received from 10/15/13 to 12/21/13 was held until
being deposited on 12/23/13. [Reference: Deposit 12/23/13]
• Check #1407 for $80 was incorrectly reported as Joe Golding, instead of Cindy Golding.
[Reference: Deposit 12/23/13]
• Check #2016 for $90 was incorrectly reported as James Knox, instead of Alicia Knox.
[Reference: Deposit 12/23/13]
• $100 worth of checks received in December 2013 was held longer than 7 days until being
deposited on 12/30/13. [Reference: Deposit 12/30/13]
It might be best if you look at the entire DR-2 Forms yourselves and make certain I am not selectively quoting it.
You can find the Full Form HERE
But if we are going to engage in a Financial Witch Hunt?
Why not bring out to the Light of Day a Check that was signed
Without the Legal Authority to Do So?
I mean that might be considered an Ethical lapse?
Signing a Check Illegally in Violation and Defiance of the Linn County Republican Central Commitee ByLaws?
You can find the Full ByLaws HERE
The ByLaws are very specific on how a check should be signed
All
checks shall be signed b the Treasurer and countersigned by the Chair or Co-Chair
Now let me explain. Where it say ALL that means every single one without exception
Where it say
shall be signed b the Treasurer and countersigned by the Chair or Co-Chair
That means the Treasurer MUST sign each check but that either the Chair OR the Co-Chair can countersign.
Is everyone clear on those two points? Is there any confusion??
It would appear that an Insurance Policy was on the verge of expiring.
It also appears that the Finance Commitee was looking at alternative Insurance.
It appears that the Chair had been INFORMED of these factors
It appears tha the Chair IGNORED the wshes of the body and it's designated Sub-Commitee and rushed through an Improper Illegaly signature by only the Chair and the Co=Chair at what seems to be called an Executive/Advisory Commitee Meeting
Now anyone may spend the next Geological Epoch looking through our County Constititution and ByLaws and nevery find anything with that label.
It apppears to be a creation of our present Chair by combining Executive Board meetings and Advisory Board meetings,
There are two other problems with the actions taken at this meeting.
In addition to a check that is not signed by the Treasurer being a violation of the ByLaws there was NO QUORAM of the Executives therefore NO decisions could Legally be made.
Another Issue was the Advisory Board is ADVISORY and cannot make Decsions for the Body,
Anyone with a problem with that needs to look up the definition of the word Advisory
Here is a Link to an Online Dictionary
So it would appear that under our Rules of Order the Executive Board lacked the number where it could legally make any decisiions,
In addition the Members of the Executive Board present could not legally sign a check by themselves but did so anyway.
And they did so in defiance of the wishes of the Body as expressed by the designated Sub-Commitee working ont the issue.
None of which seems to matter to the present Chair who has developed a Pattern Of Behavior of ignoring and violating the County Constition, ByLaws and Rules of Order if they find them Inconvienient
This ends the Story of the Check that Should Not Have Been Signed But Was
Tommorow we will look at the Checks that Should Have Been Signed But Weren't
Friday, 5 December 2014
Against Orders
The Military has a saying.
Actions taken Without Orders are not Actions taken Against Orders
That is because Actions Taken AGAINST Orders are a Really Big Deal.
That is what we have in the Linn County Republican Central Commitee.
Actions taken Against Orders and a Really Big Deal.
Before we go into details, we need to look at some general facts, like who gives and who receives Orders?
Our County Constitution can give us some information on that
VIII. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The Executive Committee shall consist of the Chair, Co-Chair, Secretary and Treasurer of the
Linn County Central Committee. The Executive Committee shall transact the routine business
of the Linn County Central Committee during the interim of the meetings of the Linn County
Central Committee. Any business transacted or action taken shall be reported to the Linn
County Central Committee at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Executive
Committee is subject to the orders of the Linn County Central Committee, and none of its acts
shall conflict with actions of the Linn County Central Committee.
I feel I need to emphasis some things here.
The Constitutuion says that the Executive Committee is subject to the orders of the Linn County Central Committee.
It does NOT say hat the Executive Committee is subject to the orders of the Linn County Central Committee.
If they FEEL like it.
Another thing to reflect upon would be consequences for not following orders
In Article VI Section 3 of the State Constitution it says
3. Any County chair or co-chair may also be removed by the Republican State Central Committee upon recommendation of the appropriate District Executive Committee for failure to fulfill the duties of the office. When a District Executive Committee recommends removal of a County Officer, that Officer shall be entitled to a hearing before the Republican State Central Committee before that Committee votes on the removal question.
For a simple Committee Person it is not so complicated and the procedure is found in the ByLaws
III. REMOVAL OF COMMITTEE PERSONS
Any member of the County Central Committee who, without good cause, misses two (2)
consecutive meetings of the County Central Committee, whether they are regular, specially
scheduled or instructional meetings, or who fails to promptly carry out his or her assigned
duties within the time specified under the organization's program which the Committee has
adopted may be removed by action of the county Central committee and a replacement
selected to fill the vacancy caused by his removal. No removal shall be effected until the
member is given an opportunity to be heard at the next meeting after which his or her
removal is introduced.
So we have means and methods, what could trigger them,
Earlier this year the Central Committee debated and voted to provide incentivs for a absentee ballot drive.
We gave the Executive Board Instructions and Speclai Authority.
The Executive Board was given the Charge to determine whether our Motion created any potential Legal Issues with Campaign Law and if that were to be the case we enabled them to modify the wording of our motion to comply with any regulations.
It turned out there were NO Legal Issues. That was determined by one of our members gettting to State for the Reconrd that NO Legal Issues existed.
BUT it turned out that the Chair refused to sign checks to honor the Decision of the Body, because?
They did not think it was a good Idea?
Recall above where I showed the County Constitution does NOT Say the Executives only have to follow the Orders of the Body if they FEEL Like it?
There was a Gentleman in the rear of the room who brought this matter up TWICE and he had a valid point,
To paraphrase his discourse
The Chair could ONLY modify the wording of our motion if there were Legal Issues.
The Chair did NOT have the Right or Authority to simply over ride the Decision of the Body.
By itself this may or may not rise to the level of an Impeachable Offense worthy of bringing to the District Executive Committee for recomending to the State Board that the Chair be Removed.
However in the Next few posts I intend to illustrate a
Pattern of Behavior that does rise to that level.
I will return Monday to continue this discourse
Thursday, 4 December 2014
What Part Of NO Do You Fail To Understand?
It never fails to amaze me when someone cannot seem to comprehend the meaning of a simple sentence.
in the Linn County Republican Central Committee we have at times a
Cool Hand Luke version of Failure to Communicate.
This at times results in Violations of our County Constitution and/or ByLaws
One of the first times this cropped up for me was oddly enough after a Communication Subcommittee meeting.
I was sitting with our Chair and Webmaster and the Chair mentioned that there were some who wished to move our monthly meeting from it's present location to the downtown Library.
Our Chair mentioned that they COULD make that decision themselves but thought it would be better for the Committee to do so.
Boy when I looked at them and said, "You do not have the authority to do that."
Did I ever start a fuss. Both the Chair and the Webmaster had vehement and fervent reasons why I was wrong.
But Ito quote W. C. Fields, I sat with calm confidence of a Christain holding 4 Aces,
The 4 Aces were in fact a portion of Article VIII of our County Constitution which states
"The Executive
Committee is subject to the orders of the Linn County Central Committee, and none of its acts
shall conflict with actions of the Linn County Central Committee. "
Now that is a simple declarative sentence and means exactly what it says.
The Linn County Central Committee gives orders to the Executive Committee not vice versa
AND
NONE of the actions of the Executive Committee
Like deciding where a meeting shall be
Shall conflict with actions of the Central Committee
Like deciding where a meeting shall be
If there is anyone who cannot comprehend the complexity of that statement?
I am willing to meet them, dictionary in hand and attempt to explain it.
I realize this may be difficult, because we have had quite a few examples of Violations of the County Constitution and ByLaws
I will be pointing them out one case at a time in the next few posts,
I decided putting ALL of them in a single post would make the post too long and wordy
Here is a Copy of the entire County Constitution
Wednesday, 3 December 2014
J'accuse
I accuse
"a common generic expression of outrage and accusation against someone powerful."
There have been a lot of accusations lately.
The November meeting of the Linn Couunty Republican Central Committtee was full of hysterical exhortations.
Go Go Go. Do Do Do. Crisis Crisis ACT ACT ACT
The ETHICS Commitee the RPI!!
We must DO something!!!
A carefly choregraphic agenda was rushed to fruitition,
Now that the hysteria is in the past reflection indicates something much different
We were given to believe that there was some Crisus that DEMANDED action by the State Ethics Board and the State RPI.
The situation was DESPARATE!!
Now bear in mind this meeting was on November 18
BUT according to an email by Megan Tooker Director and Legal Counsel of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board on Monday November 24 it was the previous Friday that they received anything from the Linn County Chair?
This is what I received from Xxxx. I was out of the office on Friday so I didn’t see it until this morning. We’ll take a look at it and be in touch with you if we have any questions for you.
And I find WHAT was received to be VERY confusing considering the drama and hysteria of the meeting.
To Quote the Summary of the DR2 Document
After looking over the various LCRCC financial statements and DR-2 forms, there does appear to any misuse of funds or other intentionaly deceitful practices.
(emphasis added)
Now I ask anyone reading this. Does the above sound like a CRISIS?
Interesting note about the RPI legal counsel we were told demanded draconian measures in this catastrophe.
By the Wednesday after the Tuesday meeting they were no longer employeed by RPI neither the reason and where they had relocated being forth coming.
Now the DR-2 form sent to the State Ethics Board almost3 days AFTER our Monthly meeting where were lead to believer their was some Sword of Damocles Investigation hovering above the head of the Central Committee
DID list some errors.
It seems there were quite a few instances where checks from couples had the wrong spouse listed as the originator,
I mean that IS the sort of thing we put people in prison for isn't it?
Therre were deposits not made in a timely manner BUT I will note that at the November meeting the Treasureer still had yet to receive the take from the October meeting's Chilli Cook Off,
Not that this situation in any means effects the Central Committee in ANY negative manner.
Well MAYBE we might lost a few fractions of a cent daily interest?
I will provide here a link to the
LCRCC DR-2 Report
so everyone can SEE all the horrible issues in it.
As for myself?
To paraphrase Hamlet?
I smell something Rotten in the County of Linn
UPDATE: I forgot to mention there was one check where the Treasurer used the wrong checkbook and wrote it on the LCRCC account rather than another organization with which he is afilliated
Upon discovery of his mistake he cut a second check to correct the error and notified the Ethics Board of the mistake
From what I can see THAT is the most serious error.
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
Setting the Record Straight
When things are rushed. There is a CRISIS and we must act now Now NOW.
Events may become confused and out of order.
It is fitting that we take some time to reflect and
Set the Record Straight.
During the September meeting of the Central Committee there were several incidents that could benefit from reflection.
At the start of the meeting Bill Barrow attempted to make a presentation to the Body and was ruled Out of Order by the Chair.
Before we go into details I must confess that when the decision of the Chair was challenged I was in error.
It does not take a 2/3rds to reject the decision of the Chair but a simple majority.
This means the record in the Minutes is incorrect the decision of the Chair was in fact not sustained but rejected and Mr Barrow was illegally and improperly prevented from making his presentation,
There was a discussion of the Parliamentary details among the 3 Parliamentarians mentioned in the meeting and a few others my analysis is as follows taken from that dialogue.
I regret that I was unable make the position I took clearer at the full meeting
Might be because I was not at my best health wise at the time.
To recount the events.,
Mr Burrows came to me concerned that the Org Committee had made
no progress to fulfill the Orders given to it by the Full Body to present a
charter for adoption,.
The scheduled meeting had bee canceled, the reason I was give
was that the Chair would be absent.
Mr Burrows asked me if a meeting could be called at the request of two members
Looking in RRoR I found
It is the duty of the chairman to call the committee together, but, if he is absent, or neglects or declines to call a meeting of the committee? it is the duty of the committee to meet on the call of any two of its members.
This in the field of Symbolic Logic is known as an OR Statement the conclusion
"meet on the call of any two members" is True if ANY of the conditional statements
are true.
I found that canceling for being absent met the conditions.
Earlier in this discussion I mentioned another clause which states
A meeting of a special committee may be called at any time by the chairman or by any two of its members, every member being notified.
Mr Chung asked whether the Org Committee was a Special or Standing Committee
I confess the status IS in limbo until A Charter for it is adopted defining it
SO
I will fall upon a statement Made here by Mr Peletier
(Please allow me to state here there is NOTHING which denies ANY sub-group of our Committee from meeting at anytime, just not as an "official" committee of the body.)
I find myself in total agreement and will here after refer to this as the Peletier Principle
So we have two parliamentarians in agreement that there was nothing improper
or illegal about a portion of the Org Commitee meeting on their own to try to
Fulfill the Orders of the Full Body
As for this statement
At this meeting they approved a charter change and wished to see it approved at the Central Committee meeting
Incomplete they first attempted to present it to the Org Commitee, and were rejected
whereupon the Org Committee by Majority Vote Tabled Action on the Charter.
I will revisit that later point later.
Mr Burrows then came to me and asked if there were a procedure
to present a proposed Charter to the Full Body for consideration
I informed him there was. It is called a Minority Report
"If the minority submit a report, (or more properly, their "views,") it may commence thus: "The undersigned, a minority of the committee appointed, etc., not agreeing with the majority, desire to express their views in the case." After the committee's report has been read and the motion to adopt has been made and the question stated, it is usual to allow the minority to present their views, but if any one objects to its reception the chair should put the question to vote on its being received. It requires a majority vote to receive it, the question being undebatable. "
Now there may be as has been pointed out in this discussion different interpretations
of Robert's Rules of Order, but I do believe that there can be only ONE interpretation of the phrase
the question being undebatable
I find that in keeping with the Pelletier Princlple Mr Burrows and the other 9 members of the Org
Commitee did nothing Illegal or Improper.
I find that the Chair Illegally and Improperly blocked a vote by the Full Body as to the question
of whether or not to hear Mr Burrows Minority Report
I Note that the Chair's decision was upheld by the Body and I find Myself at Fault for not clarifing
this for tham, For that lapse in my Duties I have regret
I find as well that the Org Commitee by Tabling Action on the Charter did so In Violation of their
Instructions from the Full Body
Constitutiing Failure to Perform their Duty as defined in
Article III of the By=Laws
who fails to promptly carry out his or her assigned
duties within the time specified under the organization's program which the Committee has
adopted may
The Org Commitee was given Two months to return a Charter
if they had come back with a reason they were UNABLE it would be
accpetable
Choosing the do something else instead? NOT Acceptable
It is due to the Leniency of the Full Body the were given addtional
time.
Dan Kauffman
There are two other items that need clarified.
The Chair in announcing that Mr Barrow was Out of Order stated that was the result of the two parlaimentarians she was able to contact,
But One Parliamentarian stated in a discourse on the subject
(Please allow me to state here there is NOTHING which denies ANY sub-group of our Committee from meeting at anytime, just not as an "official" committee of the body.)
While the other during the email thread stated
That he had looked at it briefly but need to do some research,
Now others may disagree but neither sound to me like a categorical statement that any gathering was an illegal and improper meeting.
The second oddity was the Chairs statement that they were unalbe to contact me.
Odd when you consider that I am listed as one of their Facebook friends and if they did not remember that they could have gone to the LCRCC Facebook Group page, pulled up my profile and sent a message there.
But it is true that not everyone is up to speed on 21st Century Social Media so maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt?
But what really puzzles me is that since I am the ONLY Dan Kauffman in the Cedar Rapids Phone Book and since phone books are NINETEENTH Century technology,
Should have been able to contact me that way,
If they were in fact being forth coming whent they stated they had no way to contact me,.
What do you think?
Monday, 1 December 2014
Consensus Versus Rule of Law
It is said that when leaving the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
He is said to have replied
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
That for over 200 years has been the question.
Whether we will remain a Constitutional Representitive Republic where the Rule of Law Limits Government and protects the Rights of the Individual
Or whether we will bow to the Tyranny of the Majority ie the Rule of Consensus.
I have been told I have at times been too picky about Constitutions, ByLaws and Rules of Order
I stand GUILTY of that Charge.
I believe in the Rule of Law and given a choice between turning a blind eye to Violations in pursuit of what do they usually claim?
"moving forward as a unified committee with a shared vision"
I find that personal priniciples and integrity require me to stand up against Violations of Constitutions ByLaws and Rules of Order
And since Robert's Rules of Order happen to be part of our ByLaws I demand they be respected as well despite the attitudes of some who say
"arguing points of Roberts Rules of Order in such manner as to stop meaningful conversation, or in order to try to set someone up for failure."
Hint when someone violates Robert's Rules of order NO ONE is setting them up for failure they have BROKEN the Rules.
That is the difference between me and those who think
"If you want to see something positive you will have to
remove and exclude those who chose to not work with
others."
I say follow the Constitution, ByLaws and Rules of Order or accpet the consequences
THEY say do as we tell you to do and stay silent or be removed for not thinking the same as we do.
Consensus Uber Alles
Friday, 28 November 2014
I Don't Think That Word Means What You Think It Means
I Don't Think That Word Means What You Think It Means
People sometimes have problems with meanings.
Particularly when they need certain meanings for expediency.
When it is too much trouble to just do things the proper way
Toward the end of the November meeting of the Linn County Central Committee, just before the well choreographed rush to adjourn, an announcement was made that there would be a Party rather than a Meeting in December.
My initial reaction was, well everyone knows that, but under what authority has this been done?
You see, the Body needs to VOTE on these things or they have no legal standing,
I mentioned this to a friend who was attending one of the Exec/Advisory Board meetings and he brought it up.
He was informed that the Body did not need to give permission because
1) The Constitution only requires 6 meetings a year
And
2) The Chair Calls meetings.
Those facts ARE True.
What is also True IS
1) The Full Body has voted to have a MEETING each 3rd Tuesday of the month at 7:00PM at the Long Branch unless modified by a vote of the Full Body
And
2) Along with the Chair, meetings may be called by the Co-Chair, 20 Members of the Central Committee and at times the Secretary.
There is nothing in the above Truths that gives any person or group authority to over ride the Vote of the Full Body EXCEPT the Full Body PERIOD.
So we have two options, either these people think the members of the Central Committee are so STUPID that they will accept any explanation for violating the County Constitution, ByLaws and Rules of Order without question,
OR
They themselves are so clueless that they actually think their rationale justifies their actions.
Which might actually be even more alarming.
What is painfully obvious as well, is they are very shaky on the meaning of the words advisory and advise.
They seem to think it means make decisions.
Maybe the Secretary should bring a copy of Webster's Dictionary to the Next Business Meeting?
Newer | Latest | Older
