Coverage of NVGOP Foot Dragging

[MozoVote]

Video Clip from KRNV News 4

Heres the link (http://www.krnv.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=2522278&h1=Date%20still%20unknown%20for%20the%20Nevada%20G OP%20convention&vt1=v&at1=Political&d1=145434&LaunchPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&rnd=61852192)

Finishes up, with an admission the State GOP is not returning their calls....

[SLSteven]

They picked up their ball and went home...Now we have to wait for them to grow up.

[wgadget]

Good luck with that.

As far as I'm concerned, they're a bunch of losers, and they violated BOTH of the Libertarian laws.

First, they did not DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO.
Second, they ENCROACHED ON OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO VOTE.

May they rot in Hades.

[Eric21ND]

Good luck with that.

As far as I'm concerned, they're a bunch of losers, and they violated BOTH of the Libertarian laws.

First, they did not DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO.
Second, they ENCROACHED ON OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO VOTE.

May they rot in Hades.
Here, HERE! Drag them through the mud in the media...tar...feathers...anal probs...all that!

[Thomas_Paine]

This has NOTHING to do with "growing up" this is official oppression, these cowards need to be revealed as the corrupts bastards they are.

[MozoVote]

Chatter on the Vegas Meetup is showing exasperation with the GOP. They are exploring the feasibility of re-starting the convention themselves. I'm not sure how they can get a quorum, if the GOP won't release the credentialed list. (Odds are if they do, the delegation will be rumped - the NVGOP would just appoint a slate of McCain stooges to compete with it.)

[SLSteven]

If the NVGOP fails to reconvene as they have promised they will appear inept or corrupt.

[HOLLYWOOD]

If the NVGOP fails to reconvene as they have promised they will appear inept or corrupt.

Just like the FEC committee failure on McCain's Finance fund raising Crap... Failure to Act.


Failure to Act on filing a Tax Return and see what happens... ask Wesley Snipes... charged with Civil Disobedience.

Ridiculous what the NV GOP are getting away with on the delegates... ELECTIONS TAMPERING! Someone has to file a LAWSUIT (class action) against the NVGOP!

[Bison]

They picked up their ball and went home...Now we have to wait for them to grow up.

Its going to be a long wait.

It actually would have been more entertaining if they all just held their breath :D

[MozoVote]

Robert's Rules of Order definately throws a lot of cold water on selecting delegates by mail-in ballots.

p. 408 "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a legal meeting"

p. 409 "Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws. Such possible exceptions include: Voting by postal or electronic mail..."

...Remember that 9 delegates were selected by ballot at the convention.... ;)

p. 409 "An organization should never adopt a bylaw permitting a question to be decided by a voting procedure in which the votes of persons who attended a meeting are counted together with ballots mailed in by absentees."

....

So basically, they can't do it by mail without adding that ability to the bylaws. Even if they change the bylaws, they cannot mix mail-in ballots with in-person ballots at the same meeting, which is what a re-convention would be, because it was not properly adjourned!

Also, the vote that passed at the convention was to take nominations from the floor, not by mail. This needs to be overturned to do mail-ins. If the meeting is continuing, then it would be a majority vote (not likely) to "Reconsider" the vote. Another avenue would be to could call a new convention more than 3 months after the previous one, which breaks the continuity of the session. But then you'd need a motion to "Rescind/Amend something Previously Adopted" and that takes a 2/3 vote.

Let's assume they worm their way around all those issues. The NEXT problem is that nominations by mail, and elections by mail, are different processes. You cannot use a nominating ballot as an election ballot, and page 423 specifically points this out. So they have to take the nominations, *and then* call for an election.

It's a lot of time consuming effort to go through, when they could just call for a friggin' convention, and get everyone together.

[torchbearer]

Robert's Rules of Order definately throws a lot of cold water on selecting delegates by mail-in ballots.

p. 408 "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a legal meeting"

p. 409 "Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws. Such possible exceptions include: Voting by postal or electronic mail..."

...Remember that 9 delegates were selected by ballot at the convention.... ;)

p. 409 "An organization should never adopt a bylaw permitting a question to be decided by a voting procedure in which the votes of persons who attended a meeting are counted together with ballots mailed in by absentees."

....

So basically, they can't do it by mail without adding that ability to the bylaws. Even if they change the bylaws, they cannot mix mail-in ballots with in-person ballots at the same meeting, which is what a re-convention would be, because it was not properly adjourned!

Also, the vote that passed at the convention was to take nominations from the floor, not by mail. This needs to be overturned to do mail-ins. If the meeting is continuing, then it would be a majority vote (not likely) to "Reconsider" the vote. They could call a new convention more than 3 months after the previous one, which breaks the continuity of the session. But then you'd need a motion to "Rescind/Amend something Previously Adopted" and that takes a 2/3 vote.

Let's assume they worm their way around all those problems. The NEXT problem is that nominations by mail, and elections by mail, are different processes. You cannot use a nominating ballot as an election ballot, and page 423 specifically calls this out. So they have to take the nominations, *and then* call for an election.

It's a lot of time consuming effort to go through, when they could just call for a friggin' convention, and get everyone together.

Is there any part of robert's rules that deals with a convention that is improperly adjourned?

[Badger Paul]

Do not do a rump! The will be no quorum and it will give the State GOP the excuse to simply rubber-stamp their own slate of delegates. Let them stew in their own treachery. They're the one's looking bad, not the Paul supporters. They're costing McCain the state and their idiocy will be blamed for it.

By the way, if they don't pick the full state delegation soon, there's a good chance they will lose their room deposits in the Twin Cities. There's a Super 8 Hotel in Hudson, Wisconsin which is just less than a half-hour from the convention site in case Nevada delegates need rooms. I live an hour away from St. Paul but I can't fit 32 people in my house.

[MozoVote]

I do not think it is a co-incidence that Bob Beers is hinting at a convention "In July". If it's after July 26 then it would break the meeting sessions of the previous convention, by standing recessed for over one quarter of the year. They will then declare it to be a "new convention" and try to start the votes over. You watch.

[SLSteven]

Do not do a rump! The will be no quorum and it will give the State GOP the excuse to simply rubber-stamp their own slate of delegates. Let them stew in their own treachery. They're the one's looking bad, not the Paul supporters. They're costing McCain the state and their idiocy will be blamed for it.

No matter what maneuverings they do now they can't stop our building momentum.

[MozoVote]

Is there any part of robert's rules that deals with a convention that is improperly adjourned?

In short, yes.

{p.84} "In the event of ... extreme emergency, if the chair believes taking the time for a vote on adjourning would be dangerous to those present, he should declare the meeting adjourned - to suitable time and place for an adjourned meeting (if he is able), or to meet at the call of the chair."

Now, of course it's a stretch to use this clause... a self-imposed time limit, when the following morning had been reserved as available, isn't an emergency. But whatever. Suppose for the sake of argument, Beers and Lowden make the case that there was a health hazard for so many people to stay in an unlit ballroom.

Bob Beers "recessed" the meeting. Even Robert's Rules confesses that {p.83} "The distinction between recess and adjournment may in some cases become so thin so that it must be judged in the individual context."

In effect, this was an adjournment, and when the convention re-convenes, it is an adjourned meeting.

But beware!

{p.87-88} "Important rules relating to the continuance of a question from one session to the next depend on whether no more than a quarterly time interval intervenes between the two sessions."

{p.82} "In the case of a state or national organization that holds annual or biennial conventions, each convention constitutes a session..."

{p.229} "When the adjournment closes the session in a body that will not have another regular session within a quarterly time interval ... The business that is unfinished at the time of adjournment falls to the ground."

THIS IS THIER PLAN. They will re-convene the convention more than one quarter after Beers recessed/adjourned the April 26 meeting, in an attempt to call the vote on 9 delegates from the districts unfinished business that can't be resumed. :mad:

[Join The Paul Side]

Those fuckers. :mad: