It was the Best of Times. It was the Worst of Times
It was a Time of Hope. It was a Time of Despair.
We had Everything. We had Nothing.
Our Novemenber Central Committee meeting in a word was so much like the above paradoxical literary couplets as to be amazing.
We were told the SKY IS FALLING
Ethics Violations, Penalities Fines OH MY
We were ALSO told
We were told
" RPI conducted an independent investigation and provided me with the following summary:"
A member of the State Central Committee however has stated that to THEIR knowledge there was no RPI investigation.
There may however have been a Legal Opinion requested by them based on information given to them.
The question of the origin of "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." is a mystery to me.
To complete the couplet paradigm not one but two positions were affected.
A Parliamentarian was disposed of and a Treasurer was persuaded to step aside until matters were resolved with RPI and the State Ethics Board.
The disposal of the Parliamentarian was not a surprise to me.
I mean if you continually tell someone that what they have done, what they are doing and what they wish to do would be a violation of the Group's Constitution, ByLaws and Rules of Order one of two things will happen.
They will modify their behavior OR they will develope some way to get rid of you.
I recall the first time these concepts came up. I was at the Starlite sitting with the Chair and the Webmaster after a Communications Subcommittee meeting.
The Chair announced there were some who wished to move the meeting to the Cedar Rapids Library and while they COULD make that decision it might be better to let the Committee do so.
I informed them that the Chair did not have that authoirity. A little matter of the County Constitution which says
And since the time and place of the monthly meetings had been set by a vote of the Central Committee it had to remain the same until the Committee voted otherwise.
Boy did they NOT like THAT. Gave me all kinds of arguments, while I set thinking is this a problem of Reading Comprehension or just a Total Disregard for our Rules of Order??
I mean to ME "subject to the orders of " means what it says, unless of course we are operating under "Alice throught the Looking Glass" rules where words mean what they are TOLD to mean .
I forsaw a problem that would eventually arise so my removal was not a surprise.
I do think it would have been courteous to inform the person affected.
It was strange to discover one was not the Parliamentarian by having the Chair announce there was no Parliamentarian in attendence.
Of course the reason for the Treasurer asked to step aside was because--
Hmm along with these financial issues could it ALSO have been because the Treasurer told the Chair that since the Committee had voted upon and authorized payments they were REQUIRED to sign the checks paying those funds.
You know that pesky little section I quoted above about who gives Orders.
But the Chair REFUSED. Because they did not feel like doing what the Committee had voted to authorize?
Then in addition to the Checks that Were Not Signed But Should Have Been.
There was the Check Which Was Signed But Should NOT Have Been.
An Insurance Policy was going to expire!
The Sky Was Falling.
A check HAD to be signed.
It did not matter that the Body had not aurhorized the payment.
It did not matter that the Finance SubCommittee which the Chair had declined to recognize at a previous meething had TOLD the Chair that they were looking at another Company.
No that Check had to be signed and since the Treasurer for the above reasons refused to sign it the Chair convinced the Co-Chair to sign a check with them.
Why does this matter?
Just a little detail of our ByLaws which state
All checks shall be signed b the Treasurer and countersigned by the Chair or Co-Chair.
Now if a check is NOT signed by the Treasurer? What should it be called? Some might say the answer is
ILLEGAL
But we have now an Update on progress.
An update which lets us know
"To date, the IECDB has reviewed our records and they have identified additional issues beyond those stated above"
What the Update does NOT say is that the additional issues were given to us on wait for it--
Dec the 9th
The Original DR-2 form can be seen HERE
The Report with additions marked in Red HERE
Yes there are quite a few questions that could come to mind.
Like instead of asking the Treasurer to step aside and going to the trouble of appointing an Interim Treasurer why was this issue not handed to our Financial Committee.
Oh well it does not matter the latest info from a member of the State Central Committee is that RPI does not have Any that is NO interest in pursuing this issue further.
And my information is that the Executive Director and Legal Counsel for the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board is drafting a letter which should state that they also will not be taking this matter further,
So all of this appears to be OVER.
I do understand that on the issues of Violations, Penalites and Fines OH MY! Someone from this Committee called the Ethics Board and ARGUED with them about not punishing anyone.
So if at this months meeting if everything is NOT returned to normal
We will have to ponder if there were other reasons for asking the Treasurer to step aside rather than the ones stated.
Updated: Thursday, 15 January 2015 3:00 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
