A note from volunteer HQ. 

 

 

 

First, the delegate situation.  We realize it’s been awhile since we’ve been in touch, but that’s for good reason – we just did not have anything to confirm.  In case you’re not aware of why, the story on that is further down the e-mail. 

 

For those who intended to be delegates and attended the caucus – you know what happened.  We finally have confirmation that the names filed by us are the only ones accepted by the state for Jackson County.  Thus, you are a delegate.  Clear your calendars for April 19^th and May 31^st, as attendance is just as vital here, except it will be a lot easier.  We’ll send out district convention location information when we see it, or it will likely appear on www.mogop.org no later than about April 5^th. 

 

For those who told us you would be delegates but were not able to attend – Less strict requirements helped our cause.  At the caucus we found out soon enough that the Republican county chairman, Bunk Farrington, was not expecting that delegates HAD to attend.  That was obvious because he had a full slate of 187, but they’re lucky if they had even 130 total people there.  Thus, we no longer had to consider attendance either.  Because of that, and our caucus victory, you have moved on as an official part of the Ron Paul Revolution.  Obviously, you don’t HAVE to attend the further conventions, but you have been elected, and will receive official notice, and this is the time that we need you more than ever.  Please if you have any concerns, let us speak with you so that we can address them.  Anyone who was at the caucus can tell you that the most important thing for the usual attendee was merely being there, and that will hold true for the district and state convention.  And if you weren’t at the caucus, the 5^th district convention will be your chance to find out first hand how satisfying victory is.  Don’t worry, now that things are settled, we’ll get everybody on the same page.  In the meantime, recall the dates we’ve said endlessly during calls and meetings – April 19^th for district and May 31^st for State. 

 

A Possibility to Recognize.  Considering the Jackson County chairman’s and the State Republican party’s behavior, it is possible (even likely), that some or all of us will be challenged as delegates.  For now, we’ll just say that there is MUCH time to get ready for that, that we feel good about providing a devastating defense to such challenges.  We’ll do our best to update you in general regarding that. 

 

For those who would are interested in being nominated to be in a national delegate (for the Republican National Convention in St. Paul in September), please send an e-mail to Catherine.bleish@gmail.com.

 

George Burton pointed out a very interesting fact – He says that before the news that OUR caucus made across the country, there were about 16,000 precinct leaders signed up on ronpaul2008.  Now there are over 20,000!  YOU did that! 

 

NEVER underestimate the power of a small group of people united for a just cause!  Let’s perform some more freedom miracles TOGETHER! 

 

 

Thank you, and GREAT JOB!

 

Your brothers and sisters in freedom at the Westport Ron Paul Volunteer Headquarters

 

(816) 349-2283

 

 

PS. The "Intellectual Toolbox" follows. Please keep for your reference. It is intended to help you combat miscoverage, properly inform the public, and pressure the Republican Party to do the right things by shining the bright light of truth.  There is certainly an editorial tinge at times, but if you read it all, you’ll see it is well backed.  Please feel free to call us with any clarifications about facts or arguments.

 

What is included: 

 

1.  An account of the caucus  

 

2.  Why the initial chairman, Mr. Farrington, was WRONG in nearly every way a caucus chairman can be wrong. 

 

3.  Why any blanket challenge to the caucus will be WRONG in nearly every way a challenge can be wrong. 

 

4.  What in HAY has Mr. Farrington done with the caucus sign-in rosters? 

 

5.  A quick explanation of why it took THIS long to verify the delegate information. 

 

 

 

 

 

1)  An Account of the Caucus (to the best of my knowledge):  I’d like to tell you that merely reading the newspaper articles gave you the full story, but that just isn’t true. I know the important things I told Dave Helling for the page one Kansas City Red Star story, and I know how many of those things he didn’t bother to include.  If this doesn’t look to you like a "quick account", I’ll start off by saying the meeting was over three hours long. ;-)

 

Before the meeting, while the lobby was stuffed with people, many clearly Ron Paul supporters, the Jackson County Republican Chairman Bunk Farrington got everyone’s attention to explain the sign-in situation.  In doing so, he said that those attending had to be Republicans for the day.  Among other things, he explained being checked against the voter log and signing in. 

 

The caucus started off at least a half-hour late, as Mr. Farrington had seen our very good attendance numbers and had decided to negotiate a slate from the very beginning.  Of course, this is despite that he fully expected to be the caucus chairman, which according to the governing Robert’s Rules requires not only impartiality but the avoidance of any appearance of impartiality. He recruited Deb Wells as our person to make the deal with.  

 

Once the meeting started, it went smoothly enough at first.  Farrington was voted in as chairman, and because of our numbers he conceded Ron Paul participation in the committees, as well as conceding that the secretary could come from our numbers. 

 

Cutting to the chase, a vote happened that for all practical purposes allowed us to truly understand our voting strength (the vote was 130 to 74). At that point, I believe that the details of the initial compromise delegate slate had been shared with the assembly.  If not, it obviously was shared with the assembly later.  The question on many minds was whether we should accept such a slate since we clearly had greater numbers, and could vote in any slate we desired.  Someone (indeed one of our core people) decided he did not like the compromise, and rolled the dice on getting a nearly-full slate made up of only Ron Paul people elected.  The compromise slate would have given us 107 out of 187 delegates.  The chairman, in a less-than-impartial fashion, didn’t like that someone else had their own ideas.  Rather than having to sit and potentially preside over his slate being defeated, he decided to leave.  He did so without turning over the chairmanship to anyone.  As if impartiality hadn’t been damned enough by his negotiation of the compromise slate, Mr. Farrington damned it some more by grabbing the opportunity to be dramatic and denouncing the activities, trying to pin the developments on Deb Wells, as though she had some power over free and equal caucus participants.  Deb told him that she can’t control 200 people (paraphrase).  Mr. Farrington said something to the effect that you don’t break your word in politics, and then… left. 

 

A short editorial (but factual) comment here – Mr. Farrington was absolutely and positively doing the exact opposite of what he should have been doing, and the implication he projected was utterly wrong.  Check out further description below.

 

Back to the meeting.  After Mr. Farrington left, the assembly got a little loud with someone saying that it was time for "real" republicans to stand up, and (editorial comment) imagining that somehow we thought that we were all Democrats and would stay seated.  Umm… we all stood up.

 

Our Secretary (Ralph Munyan) had to take the floor to tell people that a five-minute recess would be taken so that Robert’s Rules could be consulted to figure out what to do in the situation. 

 

After 5 minutes, Ralph Munyan said that as senior officer he would take over, but invited people to show him differently with the rules if they could.  No one objected, or said they knew differently, and the meeting continued. 

 

Somewhere after Mr. Farrington left, many others decided to "protest" and leave too.

 

Also sometime soon after Mr. Farrington left, there were several police officers in the auditorium (five? Ten?).  They said nothing and did not interrupt the proceedings in any way, and then left without incident. 

 

There was heated debate on the two delegate slates.  The second slate (all Ron Paul – no compromise) won only by ten votes (72 to 62?), even though many of the "non Ron Paul" people didn’t bother to stick around to vote.

 

At some point during the meeting after Farrington (and others) had left, it was realized that the roster sign-ins, which are required for caucus filings, were missing.  At the end of the meeting, makeshift sign-ins were used.  The voter lists were also missing. 

 

Many platform amendment resolutions submitted by the Ron Paul groups passed, with nearly no changes. 

 

Life was good.

 

 

 

2) Why the initial chairman, Mr. Farrington, was WRONG in nearly every way a caucus chairman can be wrong. 

 

Please look at Robert’s Rules and you’ll find that the whole idea is that the chairman is merely a referee.  He is charged merely with running the meeting smoothly and fairly. In some regards, he can be considered to have LESS power than ANYONE ELSE, in that he cannot even vote except to break a tie or to cause a draw. 

 

At the other extreme, by Robert’s Rules, any member can make a motion.  Any member can make an objection.  Any member can make a point of order.  Any member can second.  Any member can nominate.  Thus, ANY member can offer a slate of delegates.  Deb Wells did NOT go back on her word. The initial slate still existed and was eligible.  She was clearly stunned by the developments.  As we’ve said several times about the meeting, Mr. Farrington clearly confused an open and public caucus with backroom politics.   

 

By leaving, the only true practical thing Bunk (and supporters) accomplished was to sacrifice their own representation.  The slates had not been VOTED on. They still had a chance to affect things.  You lose your right to affect the results when you voluntarily disappear.  You don’t regain them by unfairly trying to negate the whole process afterwards.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

There will be some who try to point to some small "mistakes" that the replacement chairman may have made, and act as though that is cause for throwing out the entire caucus.  Robert’s Rules says that the rules are made to serve assemblies, and not the other way around.  They’re made to help the will of the assembly be properly heard.  They’re not meant as a means to second guess, nitpick, and invalidate results of a fair and proper caucus.  Jackson County completed a fair and proper caucus.  Even in a court of law, the principle is that in order to appeal a ruling, a lawyer must first preserve his right by objecting to the supposed error at the time.  Robert’s Rules is not a tool to review meetings minute-by-minute in order to overturn their results.  Results of a caucus should only be overturned when it was clearly unfair and consistently out of order, where people tried to preserve their rights but were nonetheless shunned.  Jackson County was not such a suspect or unfair meeting.    

 

With that in mind, the thing to remember is that as a rule, for the parts of the caucus that some may latch on to try to unfairly invalidate the proceedings, there were not objections.  The Robert’s Rules provides for objections, as well as points of order to ask the chairman if something is in keeping with Robert’s Rules, and also provides for a process to override the decision of the chairman.  Those tools were left conspicuously unused. 

 

Some might claim NOW that the Secretary shouldn’t have taken over.  First, Robert’s doesn’t fully anticipate the situation we found ourselves in after Mr. Farrington irresponsibly abandoned the caucus.  Second, our secretary was the only other OFFICER there, so he had to do something.  Third of all, he consulted Robert’s Rules.  Fourth, when he announced the decision to take over rather than elect a new chairman, no one objected even though he gave them the opportunity.  Fifth, anyone could have moved to elect a chairman instead.  Sixth, even if they had moved to elect a chairman, we already had the numbers, and likely would have just nominated and elected the same guy (or another of our own) anyway. Seventh, in the case of an overwhelmingly fair meeting, it is NOW too late to claim the secretary shouldn’t have taken over.  

 

By now you probably understand the scope of power of the chairman, and know perfectly well that if someone tries to claim that the meeting was stopped just because Mr. Farrington walked out, then that someone is… misinformed.  As you would expect, the chairman has no right.  Someone has to move to adjourn the meeting, and then it has to be voted on.  No one did. 

 

Regarding any other details that might be second-guessed, suffice it to say that the new chairman acted quite deliberately, with exemplary fairness, and consulted often with his parliamentarian (one who can advise on Robert’s Rules).  The initial chairman didn’t even have a parliamentarian.

 

All this is not to say we have some guarantee that someone won’t try to challenge on these very bases, and there is no good reason to believe that the state Republican Party might not be tempted to entertain such a challenge.  That’s why it is important to tell people what happened, and why a challenge would be unfair – your friends, the media, the state and national Republican Party.

 

Note: There is a challenge they might get a foothold with.  I won’t go into it here, but rest assured we’re thinking about it.  If you get challenged individually, let us know.   

 

 

 

 

 

4. What in HAY has Mr. Farrington done with the caucus sign-in rosters?! 

 

That’s a great question.  We don’t know.  The new caucus chairman tried to communicate with Mr. Farrington on multiple occasions regarding getting the caucus sign-in rosters.  They are required to properly file the caucus results.  Deb Wells once got through to him.  We filed the results, with an explanation as to why we did not include the roster, and explaining that we continued to try to get them.  That was 9 days ago.  This is outright wrongdoing, and an outright attempt to sabotage a proper and fair caucus.  We don’t know that such a transparent attempt will be entertained for even two seconds at the state offices, but it is possible.  It never hurts to expose wrongdoing.  It may be the case that he has shared that list with the state, but if so, he hasn’t told us, and neither has the state. 

 

Don’t be surprised that if someone will keep records that are clearly NOT his, than someone else in the same camp might try to challenge our filing as incomplete since we don’t have those records.  Seems to be the way they’re playing.   Just be ready to shout it from the rooftops if they do.   

 

 

5.  A quick explanation of why it took THIS long to verify the delegate information.  Simply enough, the state wouldn’t allow us to see the filings. 

 

We had people in Jefferson City a week ago, so they would have time to review the filings to ensure all our people across the state were seated, and challenge the filings if they were not.  That timeline was quite reasonable, since it was two days after the filings were due, and the challenges were due by the end of business on the following Tuesday (two days ago), and had to be in writing and have specific evidence or testimony. 

 

No, we’re not sure how we’re expected to challenge delegates when we don’t know who was on the list.  It is not as though our people expected to see the entire state all at once, so certainly they could have continued inputting data with nearly the entire state while our people looked at a small fraction of it at a time.  Nonetheless, the Missouri Republican Party executive director had no good solutions.  His explanation as to why we could not see the filings basically amounted to "it’s not going to happen". 

 

On Monday evening, the party finally shared a list of delegates with Debbie Hopper. While the addresses were missing (even though they’re technically needed in order to challenge) they did have the names.  We were able to compare our names submitted to that list. 

 

 

 

So... there you have it.  We’ll send out some more e-mails regarding reassurances about the district convention, and meetings and coordination for it.