The truth is non-partisan

I attended the Nodaway County Republican Caucus, earlier today where you were both in attendance. The process was unethical and unparliamentary. At the least it denied the rights of the citizens of this county to participate in the democratic process. Those of us, who were denied our rights, felt betrayed because we had been conciliatory in electing Mark Allen as chair of the caucus meeting.

A number of us had come to the caucus with resolutions for the state republican convention platform. We did not have an opportunity to put forward the resolutions for voting and discussion when in the normal business of the meeting we should have been allowed to.

After the selection of delegates chairman Allen quickly requested a motion to accept a set of resolutions he had brought. The motion was made and seconded. Then he called for the vote. I requested the opportunity to discuss the platform as did my wife. He called us both "out of order" and went on with the vote without discussion. The vote was held, before I could claim that his actions were unparliamentary. He counted the vote twice, the first time getting only 10 votes. The next time the count was 11 to 10 for the motion.

We then asked to allow amendments and other resolutions. However, he refused, saying the vote had been taken. One of his supporters saw the process was flawed and unfair and asked to have the chair's decision overruled. We couldn't get two-thirds vote to override the chair's decision.

Here is information about the role of the chair from http://www.rulesonline.com/start.html#rror-10.htm

"The chairman cannot close debate unless by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote; nor can he prevent the making of legitimate motions by hurrying through the proceedings. If members are reasonably prompt in exercising their right to speak or make motions, the chair cannot prevent their doing so. If he has hurriedly taken and announced a vote while a member is rising to address the chair, the vote is null and void, and the member must be recognized."

Here is a stated purpose for Robert's Rules of Order:

"The application of parliamentary law is the best method yet devised to enable assemblies of any size, with due regard for every member's opinion, to arrive at the general will on the maximum number of questions of varying complexity in a minimum amount of time and under all kinds of internal climate ranging from total harmony to hardened or impassioned division of opinion." RONR (10th ed.), Introduction, p. XLVIII

As my representative and the chair of the committee, I was disappointed that you did not protect my rights and prevent this charade from happening. I'm disappointed because I thought the process would be fair and ethical and follow established rules of order.

When we fail to give voice to other opinions and fail to follow republican principles, we lose the basic freedoms our founders fought for. We are no better than other oligarchies like Russia and Mexico.

// posted by John Fisher @ 3:29 PM