"How to Chair a Meeting Jack Murtha Style"
Updated: Saturday, 27 February 2010 5:00 AM CST
Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink | Share This Post
« | February 2010 | » | ||||
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
28 |
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF LINN COUNTY
and see
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.
The term none, means never, not at all.
To me it does not mean, "unless we feel like it", or "unless we decide we know what is best."
It just means it is not supposed to happen,
But then I have simple modes of thinking.
So when the Executive Board took it upon itself to change the meeting place last spring and later decided to close the Party Office.
Both of which were established by Votes of the Central Committee, what comes to my Mind is "That is wrong"
Yes I still think in such outmoded terms of Right and Wrong,
I lack nuance.
A Rule is Followed or it is Broken.
When I read in the
BY-LAWS OF THE LINN COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE
IX. RULES OF ORDER
Robert's Rules of Order Revised shall prevail unless modified by these by-laws.
I actually think Robert's Rules of Order are to Obeyed.
Silly me.
So when I see some one like John King rising to present a motion based on Robert's Rules of Order and QUOTING from a Text of them, only to be Ignored and Ruled Out of Order.
Again I have the simplistic reaction of
That is WRONG.
Taken in isolation, complaints about actions over the last year could be construed as "nit picking"
Taken in total they comprise a "Pattern of Behavior"
When anyone has risen to object to anything they deem to be irregular they are invariably ruled "Out of Order"
When a member of the Executive Board has spoken out of turn, not in keeping with the Strictures of Robert's Rules of Order they have been Recognized Ex post Facto, after the fact.
I do not make the claim that this is a local problem.
It is not.
I was at the last State Convention, if you were not in attendance I suggest you query someone who was to verify the following.
There was controversy over the selection of delegates.
The Convention was informed by a Member of the Rules Committee as to the Proper manner of amending the National Delegate List.
That method was implemented and when it was in the process there was a hasty motion to end debate.
The Chair recognized the Voice Vote as affirming closing debate and motions.
Had that been limited to the Decision by the Chair all would have been in order.
BUT
The Chair refused to hear Calls for Division.
I know this for a fact. I was there. I too called for Division.
Members holding microphones Called For Division.
It was not the case that the Chair did not hear.
It was the case that the Chair FLAGRANTLY violated
The Rules of Procedure.
Which seem to apply only to us, not to them.
We are told if we object that we are creating controversy which will hinder Republicans from being elected.
I say that is the Solid Wast Product of a Male Bovine.
WE have NOT created this controversy, we are reacting to Improper Actions.
So what should we do?
Our Committee is charged with the Management of Affairs of the Republican Party in this County, the Executive Board is charged with Routine Business between meetings and to advise and assist the Central Committee.
This not what is being followed.
Sit quietly while our Constitution, By-Laws and Rules of Order are ripped into shreds?
Wait to be told what decisions have been made by others for us to follow?
So that Republicans chosen by them can be elected?
This reminds me of a Soviet Era Anecdoti.
Where was the First Soviet Election?
Eden
God ripped a rib out of the side of Adam, made Eve
And said
Now choose a Wife
Anyone else feeling a pain in their side?
Two days wrong!' sighed the Hatter. `I told you butter wouldn't suit the works!' he added looking angrily at the March Hare.
`It was the best butter,' the March Hare meekly replied.
Yes, but some crumbs must have got in as well,' the Hatter grumbled: `you shouldn't have put it in with the bread-knife.'
The March Hare took the watch and looked at it gloomily: then he dipped it into his cup of tea, and looked at it again: but he could think of nothing better to say than his first remark, `It was the best butter, you know.'
After attending the February Central Committee Meeting, I feel like I was at a Mad Tea Party, and I do have the distinct impression that we were Buttered.
Those who have attended in the past will recall the Chair's statements insisting that the Constitution, By-Laws and Robert's Rules of Order be followed by the Body.
I said the statements have been made about the actions of the Body, because it would appear the the Chair does NOT feel such restrictions should apply to it.
There has been in the Past and repeated during the February Central Committee Meeting a complete disregard by the Chair of the Rules of Order, the County Constitution, the By-Laws of the Linn County Central Committee, Robert's Rules of Order and activities that Traditionally occur as part of the Agenda,
There were those attending who patiently waited for the New Business period to rise and make Motions, as has been customary in the Past.
Myself I was primary waiting for the Traditional Call for New Members.
I have been repeatedly assured by the Executive Board during the period of the Past Year that the complete disgrace of our incorrect Membership Lists would be corrected by this just Passed Caucus.
I distinctly discussed with them during my participation in the Compilation of the Forms following the Caucus, that the Membership List should be purged and a New one created out of the Caucus Form As and that those who had previously been added to the Central Committee Lists under the designation in our By-Laws as Assistant Committee Persons, would be required to appear back before the Committee to be put back on the Rolls, myself included.
They decided to leave the Call for New Members OUT?
It would appear that the Chair is curiously selective about what portions of our proceedings that traditionally occur should be followed or feels that this only applies to the Body but not to it.
It would seem that we unwittingly voted to accept an Agenda that only included those items the Executive Board listed,
That was a rather clever Parliamentary Trick, and had that been the only action taken by the Chair it would have been in Order.
BUT
Robert's Rules of Order includes Suspending the Rules, which if voted upon by a Majority would have allowed extra items to be Moved and Voted upon and a Call for New Members made.
The Chair ruled that Motion Out of Order.
When Mr King rose to Challenge the Decision of the Chair and QUOTED Robert's Rules of Order he was Ruled Out of Order and Not Recognized by the Chair.
I present for you the Inconvenient Truth of Robert's Rules of Order for you to read yourself.
When a member wishes to appeal from the decision of the chair he rises as soon as the decision is made, even though another has the floor, and without waiting to be recognized by the chair, says, “Mr. Chairman, I appeal from the decision of the chair.”
If this appeal is seconded, the chair should state clearly the question at issue, and his reasons for the decision if he thinks it necessary, and then state the question thus: “The question is, ‘Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the assembly [or society, or club, etc.]?’” or, “Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?”
To put the question he would say, “Those in the affirmative say aye,” and after the affirmative vote has been taken he would say, “Those in the negative say no. The ayes have it and the decision of the chair is sustained [or stands as the judgment of the assembly].” Or, “The noes have it and the decision of the chair is reversed.”
In either case he immediately announces what is before the assembly as the result of the vote. If there is a tie vote the chair is sustained, and if the chair is a member of the assembly he may vote to make it a tie, on the principle that the decision of the chair stands until reversed by a majority, including the chairman if he is a member of the assembly. In stating the question, the word “assembly” should be replaced by “society,” or “club,” or “board,” etc., as the case may be. The announcement of a vote is not a decision of the chair. If a member doubts the correctness of the announcement he cannot appeal, but should call for a “Division.
The chair and co-chair shall be empowered to name such other officers as is determined necessary to carry out the aims and purposes of the organization subject to approval of the County Central Committee.
We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.
Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.
Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?
The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.
If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.
We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.
February 17, 2010
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America
Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation
Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council
Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center
Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator
David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union
David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform
William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government
Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness
Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com
Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority
Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring
Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review
We the undersigned join in our support of the guiding principles of The Mount Vernon Statement.
Current count: more than 21,500 signers.
Name:
The Storming of the Winter Palace on the 25th October 1917
In Honor of which I did something I have never done until tonight.
Yes THAT is what is BEST in Life!
One of the most common complaints one hears from the Public is,
" No one listens to us, we want to be Heard!"
Well, this Saturday Jan 23, the Iowa Party Caucuses will be held.
If you do not Show Up, Speak Up and VOTE, then no one WILL hear you.
Linn County's Caucus will be held, according to a notice sent out by the Linnn County Central Committee in Cedar Rapids at:
Washington High School.
Location:
2205 Forest Drive SE
Cedar Rapids, IA, 52403
Parking will be available in the North lot, adjacent to the performing arts wing of the school. The Caucus event will be held in the Main Auditorium. Designated parking spaces for handicapped and senior citizens and will be available. Additionally, volunteers will be on hand to assist as you arrive for the Caucus.
Time:
Check in - 12:00 p.m.
Program - 1:00 p.m.
Check in will begin at 12:00 p.m. and we highly encourage everyone to arrive early for credentials, materials and to be seated by 1:00 p.m.
The purpose of the caucus is to perform the following two functions:
1. Elect 2 persons, each Republican residents, from every precinct to serve on the Linn County Republican Central Committee
2. Elect delegates and alternate delegates to the Linn County Republican Convention to be held on Saturday, March 6th 2010.
You must be registered as a Republican to participate in the Caucus. Voter registration forms will be available at the Caucus for your convenience. Please arrive early if you need to register.
The Agenda will probably follow the following format:
I. We will meeting all together, Pray, Pledge, Speeches and other misc. stuff
II. Breakout into Precinct Meetings
1. Temporary Chair starts this part of the meeting. – The only job of the Temporary Chair is to elect the Caucus Permanent Chair and Secretary. The Temporary Chair will assist for the rest of the night regardless if the Temporary Chair is elected Permanent Chair or not.
2. Ensure that everyone has signed in on the computer sheets. If a person’s name is not listed on the sheets, they are required to fill out a voter registration form.
3. Ask for nominations for Permanent Chair (hold election if necessary.)
4. Count votes; declare winner and record on FORM A. Turn caucus over to Permanent Chair.
5. Ask for nominations for Permanent Secretary (hold election if necessary.)
6. Count votes, declare winner and record on FORM A.
7. Temporary/Permanent Chair explains the role of Precinct Committee Representatives.
8. Ask for nominations for Precinct Committee persons. – Proxy Nominations are allowed.
9. Hold election, declare winners and record on FORM A.
10. Fill out Form B which is for County Convention – You do not have to attend County Convention to attend District, State Conventions or to be part of the Central Committee.
11. Fill out Form C which is for being an Alternate for County Convention –
12. Fill out Form D is for Junior Delegates – I hope as many young people as possible are signed up.
At present I do not have a copy of the New Form A, but the following is a sample and I expect the final version to be similiar. At least this will give you something to base your expectations on.
There will be folks circulating to verify that the Form A and others are filled out correctly and the record of the Causcus is above reproach,
BUT
It is in YOUR best interest, indeed it is YOUR Duty and Responsibilty to ensure this as well.
An informed Public is an essentiial leg in the foundation of Democracy, but Citizen Participation is even more vital.
If you wish to be Heard?
Show Up, Speak Out
And VOTE!
I just ran into one of the most Byzantine, Convoluted and Backwards ways of lowering costs on something that I have ever encountered.
Cross Posted at Committees of Correspondence
Union officials told The Associated Press that they view the meeting Monday as a chance to forcefully make their case that the tax is bad policy and bad politics. Unions contend that the tax would be passed along to workers.
House Democrats prefer to raise income taxes on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples over $1 million and are reluctant to abandon that approach, saying the insurance tax would violate the president's campaign pledge not to tax the middle class. But they realize they likely will have to bend on that and other issues so that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can maintain his fragile 60-vote majority support for the bill.
The Senate wants to tax insurance companies on plans valued at over $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for couples. Most analysts say the insurance tax would be passed on to consumers.
But Obama has defended the tax as a way to drive down health costs.
"I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea, and that helps bend the cost curve,"
Obama said in an interview with National Public Radio just before Christmas. "That helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do."
Fox News' Major Garrett contributed to this report.
Let me see if I have this correctly. Obama thinks we spend more than we need to on insurance via our employee based Health Care Plans
SO His Solution is to TAX them make them cost MORE so we will not be able to afford what we have and will therefore settle for a cheaper Health Care Plan?
And THAT is his idea of LOWERING Costs???
Two of the three Iowans who serve on the Republican National Committee say a petition outlining ten key G.O.P. policy positions is designed to help show “grassroots” Republicans that the party’s platform means something.
Steve Scheffler, Iowa’s Republican National Committeeman, is part of a “conservative steering committee” that has pushed for reform of the national party.
“We wanted the RNC to make a difference as opposed to being a mere social club,” Scheffler says. “We felt that the party needed to do some things, make some statements that would give our grassroots some faith that we were going to try to be accountable to them.”
First off, I would have preferred a title more like, "A couple of Iowans say", because this gentleman does NOT speak for me.
Further on it this missive he states:
“In my view these 10 points are not a litmus test and so we’re not saying you have to agree with all of them,” Scheffler says. “…But, you know, if you want RNC funding, then there ought to be certain standards and there should be a benchmark by which you ought to qualify for that money.”
Now isn't that cute? Not a litmus test but "there should be a benchmark by which you out to qualify for RNC funding?
Makes one wonder just what his definition of a "litmus test" is. Makes one also wonder what his definition of Democracy is.
In case it has escaped his attention, I feel compelled to answer Mr Scheffler, there is ALREADY a benchmark which qualifies a Republican Candidate for RNC funding.
It is called a PRIMARY, Mr Scheffler,
It is called the WILL OF THE VOTERS!
What gives YOU the right or idea that YOU can decide these things for US?
The Party Structure exists to express the Will of the Republican Voters
It does NOT exist to decide what our Will should be.
When the Day comes that the Party refuses to fund candidate that We the Voters select with donations that We the Voters gave the Party?
We should donate to the candidates of our choice and not a Party which thinks it can use that money to support candidates that they choose and not the ones we choose.
They have in my opinion misunderstood the lesson of NY 23, it was the Party's choice the Voters rejected and now we have those who want to make the Party's choice here superior to the choice of the Voters.
You may wish to read the rest of this article, I would not advise doing so on a full stomach.
Posted by GoSlash27 on 11/28/09 10:16 AM Last updated 11/28/09 10:18 AM |
With all the public fervor being displayed at the town hall meetings, TEA party rallies, anti-amnesty protests, and the massive groundswell of grassroots support for uniquely conservative policies, the Democrats should be understandably nervous about their prospects next year.
But they have a powerful ally in the Republican party's unique ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Their mind-boggling ability to alienate their own base, as well as the vast majority of independents remains unchallenged.The moment they get the Democrats in their sights, they take a deep breath, slowly exhale, turn the gun around so it's pointed at their own face, and squeeze....
We have seen an example of this phenomenon right here in the Cedar Rapids District 33 debacle; a race that the Iowa Republican party seemed determined to lose (and succeeded spectacularly), but the truly telling example of Republican political self-immolation is documented at the Republic of Dave blog.
In the wake of their loss in the NY-23 special election (in which they hand-picked the liberal candidate over the conservative one and split the base, thus ensuring their own defeat), the official response from the national RNC Vice Chairman is to subject all future candidates to a 10 point litmus test.
The 10 points:
Now... setting aside the fact that this list is outrageously specific and undermines philosophy in favor of policy positions, let's begin by focusing on what kind of candidates it would exclude.
Aside from myself, (not sure about #4, adamantly opposed to #6 and #7, and personally offended by #8), this handy new definition would disqualify a few other well-known figures that the Republican party has always feigned admiration for, such as Thomas Jefferson, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. Locally, it would almost certainly exclude every candidate that could ever hope to harness grassroots support.
#1: I swear (or affirm) to faithfully execute my desired office and will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Iowa.
This (essentially the oath of office that every elected representative takes) *is* what conservatism is all about, and anybody seeking office under the Republican label should be absolutely passionate about it. Senator Barry Goldwater defined the role of a truly conservative public servant when he said:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can."