VA 10th District GOP Convention now over – fractious moments again

Well, its over, and that’s among the better things I can say about the convention. Vince over at Too Conservative disagrees and says it was great. The funny thing is we pretty much agree on much of what happened there.

So, what happened? Well, to cut to the major result, Jim Rich was re-elected Chairman of the 10th Congressional District Republican Committee, handily beating challenger Heidi Stirrup. I didn’t support Jim Rich, but not because of any ill will toward him or feeling that he’s somehow poison or anything like that. The simple fact of the matter is that I’ve been fairly politically well-read for a number of years now. I was very active in the LCRC during the 2003 campaign season and remained reasonably so throughout 2004. The climate in the committee made me feel very unwelcome and I drifted away, finally to return just after the first of this year.

The first I had ever heard of Jim Rich or the 10th District Committee was (in a fleeting mention) when I had the opportunity to sign up as a delegate when I signed up to rejoin the committee back in February. From that moment until the April 24 LCRC meeting, not one word. Suddenly there’s Heidi Stirrup telling us how she wants to be the Chairman of the 10th. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is that. Jim Rich never addressed our meetings. I never got an e-mail from him, or anything in the mail prior to this past week. Just over 3 years in personal contact with Northern Virginia politics and so little mention of even the existence of the 10th that it may as well have been nothing at all.

In a phone call yesterday, I found that Rich has been Chairman for 14 years. With a communications blackout like that, how effective a chairman could he have been? Not very, in my judgement, and that’s why I decided a change was likely in order. So I supported Heidi today. She, and we who supported her, lost. That’s democracy, folks. We followed the rules, we had our say, we cast our vote, and now we go with the decision of the majority.

Vince is right about one thing (well, more than 1, but I’m concentrating on 1 for the moment): There was an awful lot of yelling going on. Where I disagree with Vince is in my assessment that the yelling was justified. I’ve been part of deliberative bodies since college over 20 years ago. I hold memberships in professional organizations and am well familiar with both civil decorum and the Robert’s Rules of Order. The operation of this convention today was appalling. The Chair absolutely refused to recognize people that they clearly didn’t like. They simply overrulled motions that the Rules do not permit them to ignore. Vince mentions the literal snatching of a microphone from in front of Heidi Stirrup. He does not mention that this was the second time that action was performed. And, in Heidi’s case, it would actually have been marginally justified. Allow me to explain.

Heidi knew she was allotted 8 minutes. The people she chose to speak on her behalf were not prepared and they did not speak on her as a candidate. She ran out her clock and then, herself, ignored the bell rung to indicate she was out of time. Twice. Were I the Sergeant-at-Arms or the Chair, I would have powered off the microphone, rather than physically remove it from Heidi, but it was proper to keep her from unfairly extending her time. Hey, I was a delegate on her behalf and I wanted her to win, but she broke the rules. I didn’t like the lunge they used to grab the microphone, but that’s just me.

The “Group B” he speaks of attempted to advance a motion to revoke the credentials of certain people present who had, in the past year, donated monetary support to Democratic candidates who stood against Republican ones in elections. The young woman who stepped up to offer the motion – and I don’t, unfortunately, know her name – was clearly disliked by the Chair. They knew what her motion was going to be and they ruled her out of order when she tried to offer the motion just after the Credentials Committee report. The convention got quite a bit loud over that and, finally, another delegate prevailed in making the Chair understand that they must properly dispose of the motion according to Robert’s, not just dismiss it with a wave of their hand. What happened next was simply stunning.

The Chair recognized this woman and allowed her to begin to state her motion. They had already heard the motion themselves as they made her offer it to them off-microphone. After recognizing her and allowing her to begin her motion, they literally climbed up on stage with her and, in the middle of her motion, literally grabbed the microphone away from her and ruled her out of order. They did everything but toss her off the stage, bodily, and then simply proceeded as though nothing had happened.

You cannot do this according to the Rules of Order, and they know it. Which tells you everything you need to know about just how reliable this august body will be. Want to participate with them? Fine. Just understand what the Chairman will do when he decides he doesn’t like your perspective.

The merits of the motion are immaterial to how the Chair reacts to it. If the motion is properly tendered, the Chair is obligated by the Rules to run the vote exactly the same way as any other motion whether he approves of the aims of the motion or not. I disagreed with the motion and I felt that it did nothing but generate bad feelings and division. I would have voted against it. But that was my call, not the Chairman’s. His actions and those of his cohort were those of tyrannical thugs, not  participants of a democracy.

Want another example? Pop quiz: when a motion is offered, accepted, debated, and the question is called (meaning that a vote is to be taken) what does an “Aye” vote indicate? In every vote I’ve seen – and in all but 1 vote taken today – an “Aye” vote indicates that the voter stands in support of the motion and wants to see it passed. A “Nay” vote is the reverse. All the votes taken today but 1 followed that formula exactly. Until a delegate put forth a motion to remove a prohibition against offering amendments to any of the 7 resolutions being considered today. The Chair clearly didn’t like that amendment. So when the question was called, he asked all those “who reject the motion” to say “Aye.” He reversed the meanings of the vote – in this case an “Aye” vote meant that the voter was saying he did not support the motion and did not want it passed. This is also a violation of the Rules and it’s unethical as well. The Chair abused its power to influence the outcome of the vote.

The entire proceeding left a bad taste with me. Were it not for the speeches by Congressman Frank Wolf (I actually got to talk with him for a few minutes!) and Senator George Allen, the day would have been a complete wash, in my book.

I’ll write more about it later but I had to get this off my chest.