Replies

Three rules involved removal of term limits for National Committeeman/woman, State Party Chairman/Vice-Chairman, and SREC. I made a motion (eventually passed) that resulted in all three rules being adopted/not adopted in a single vote.

Were you for or against term limits? The reason I asked is that after talking to people it seemed like that term limits for Nat'l Committee Man and Women and the SREC would be removed but keep for Weddington and Barton(which I do not really understand). But since they were combined they all died.

Two other points. It seemed to me that Roberts Rules were selectively followed on what Sen. Shapiro wanted. I thought the parlamentairan was wrong a couple of times.

Also the platform needed to be voted on plank by plank. There are inconsistancies all over the place. Espically in the area of Free-trade and CFR. In the part on CFR they call to get rid of Shays-Meehan but then state they want to limit judicial contributions. It was fun though. This was my first convention and I had fun.

Two other points. It seemed to me that Roberts Rules were selectively followed on what Sen. Shapiro wanted.

I was sitting with my SD 15 delegation on the left side (PetronDE I think SD 17 was on the right, right?) and I agree that the parliamentary procedure wasn't by the book. On the Rule 43 final vote, I felt that the room was evenly divided in a voice vote (seemed that was from my seat; that's why I wondered about the right side) and that there should have been a standing vote or even a roll call. So what about the inconvenience, the rule was really important and we had already debated the rule for nearly an hour: it deserved a definitive, clear vote. Our SREC committeeman tried to ask for one right after Shapiro said the nays had it, but he was never recognized (and those that were subsequently recognized were ruled out of order b/c Shapiro had conveniently moved on to the Platform debate). I felt that this was unfair. I think maybe the leadership didn't want even the Rule 43 compromise to pass (even though it was supported by many delegations, addressed the RINO problem with accountability by adding the monetary incentive, and took out the legally questionable parts of the proposed rule going into the convention).

On a lighter note, I enjoyed meeting MAF and LurkerNoMore! -- I'm sorry I didn't make it to the dinner: I was a little overwhelmed with all the activity in my SD caucus, which finished too late for me to get the necessary info.

I supported term limits because most of the current leadership came in by using term limits to oust entrenched incumbents. I think that it is hypocritical for some of them (as entrenched incumbents) to now oppose term limits.

IMHO, two truths of most organization: (1) no one is irreplaceable; and (2) people in power think they are irreplaceable.

I am for term limits. Several reasons (no particular order).
1. A person in a single office for a long length of time will tend to get "stale". After a length of time in one position, it should be considered natural to "move up".
2. Without term limits, people get "elected for life". The only ways a person would leave office is either death, voluntary stepping down, or extreme inefficiency.
3. Term limits force more people to get involved. Often the incumbent runs unopposed. One reason is the assumed re-election of the incumbent, which almost always happens.
4. Nothing in the rule prevents someone from getting term limited, then after an election cycle out-of-office, from trying to obtain the office again.
5. If one office is term limited, then ALL offices should be term limited. That is called consistency, and the reason behind the motion.

Note: if I had not made the motion, several others would have attempted, and there was even one attempt (ruled out of order) while Rule 38 was debated.

I am NOT an expert on Roberts Rules; therefore, except for obvious errors, I would not have noticed.

I agree that platform should have been voted on plank by plank (or at least in groups). I only had a chance to read throughly the areas I am most concerned with, so did not notice inconsistancies regarding free-trade and CFR. I do not recall if anyone rose to argue against the blanket approval/dis-approval of the platform on that basis.

My first convention too. I intend to return.

Selectively followed? You are much too kind. I find it ridiculous that we continue to put up with chairmen who haven't a clue. Let's get an unbiased licensed parlimentarian to direct the debate and we will be done in half the time with delegates clearly understanding what they are voting for.

The rules committee chairman railroaded her agenda through at times declaring that there could not be any other reasonable opinion than hers. (NOTE: I was not for either of the proposed rules 43 and 44 in their email forms.) This was simply an abuse of power on her part.

Then we had Milton "Goebbels" Rister hiring kids to distribute his propaganda. Let's see, only 2 committee members backed the closed primary rule but somehow got a 24-6 vote to have the SREC select the chairman of the commitees. This is simply increasing the influence of the grassroots.

The change to rule 43 actually only required the candidates to put no comment on the platform which judicial candidates could have easily done, to be considered for SREC funding. It did NOT require adhearance to the platform, but was intended to just get the candidates to read it. In reality, the SREC gathers information on the candidates positions today before granting party funds. I will agree that for clarity purposes, the proposed changes could have been better worded.</soapbox>