Eliyahf
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 52
DailyPaul link
The events described below were recorded on video. The quotes used in this write-up are the actual words that were spoken. I transcribed them directly from the video footage. In the interest of keeping this as short as possible, I didn’t transcribe some parts that were irrelevant or tangential.
On March 10th, 2012 at 5:00 PM CST I walked into the Fairfield, IA high school to attend my Republican County Convention in Jefferson County, IA. I was an alternate delegate, since my precinct only had three delegate spots. I found a nice seat on a table near the back corner. I had my water, some snacks, a laptop, chargers, and my phone, which records 1080p video. I knew it was going to be a long, stressful evening.
We were about to go into battle for liberty. For Ron Paul. We were fortunate to be in one of the most pro-Ron Paul counties in the entire United States. In 2008, Jefferson County, IA won for Ron Paul. We have people like Roger Leahy, Art Atkinson, Mike McConeghey, Ed Kelenyi, and many, many others who have dedicated countless hours organizing, strategizing, and volunteering for Ron Paul. We had been having weekly meetings for months. In the past week, we had met four times. Of the 93 delegates to our County Convention, we had identified and organized 53 Ron Paul delegates. And you thought you were organized?
The Convention begins
It’s 5:15 PM CST and we start with a prayer about Jesus, the Pledge of Allegiance, and some other minor business. The parliamentarians, Clyde Campbell, Dave Miller, and Phil Huff, are introduced.
The Temporary Convention Chairman, Marshan Roth, (hereafter referred to as “Chairman”) invites a bunch of hopeful local politicians up to talk about why we should vote for them.
First up is the Organizational Committee Report. The Chairman of the Organizational Committee reports that they “hereby recommend the appointment of Marshan Roth as Permanent Chair” to the Convention. Immediately upon finishing the Organizational Report, the speaker moves to adopt the report. Art Atkinson raises his hand and says, “I’d like to make another nomination.” Atkinson proceeds to make an articulate nomination for Mike McConeghey. After he is finished, his nomination is ruled out of order. Atkinson responds, “I’d like to make a nomination and I don’t want to lose the opportunity to nominate.”
After some confusion, the Chairman responds, “This report [the Organizational Committee Report] comes up for vote. It’s passed or failed. Then you have the opportunity to nominate, amend, whatever.”
Atkinson clarifies further but does not go up to the microphone so he can barely be heard, “Will the acceptance of this report mean the acceptance of the recommendations or is it just the acceptance of the report?”
The Chairman responds, “It’s the acceptance of the report.”
(We arrived at the Convention not knowing whether or not we would be given an opportunity to elect a Permanent Chairman--it was mysteriously not on the agenda. We had planned to nominate Mike McConeghey because our previous experience with the Chairman was that she didn’t always understand or follow the rules. Drew Ivers, the co-Chair of Ron Paul’s campaign in Iowa, and many others had informed us that it would take a simple majority to elect a Permanent Chairman.)
A motion to adopt the Organizational Report is made and seconded. It passes. Before Atkinson can stand up to nominate a Permanent Chair, a gentleman stands up and says, “Move to close all further nominations.”
“Second!” someone shouts.
The Ron Paul delegates roar in protest and the Chairman allows for nominations. However, before proceeding the Chairman declares (rightfully) that, in order to continue, the Credentials Report must be presented. This is because some delegates are absent and the alternates have not yet been moved to their places so they can stand in as delegates. This probably should have been done before the Organizational Report, which required a vote to adopt.
A motion to adopt the Credentials Report is made. Seconded. It passes.
Leahy immediately jumps up and moves to open the floor for nominations for Permanent Chair. Second.
The Chairman declares, “This [nominating a new Chairman] will need a two thirds vote.”
The vote to open the floor for nominations passes with a simple majority.
The Chairman announces, “We move for nominations for Chair.”
A Ron Paul delegate shouts, “Move to make the vote a paper ballot.”
“Second.”
The motion passes.
A woman nominates Marshan Roth (the current Temporary Chair). Second. Atkinson nominates Mike McConeghey. Second.
Ed Kelenyi stands and calls a point of information, “Can the parliamentarians inform us whether it’s a simple majority or two thirds vote and the basis for that, please?” He does not walk up to the microphone and is probably not heard by many of the delegates.
A parliamentarian responds, “Two thirds vote. Section 59.”
People are shouting, “Can’t hear!”
Leahy stands up and reads emails from David Chung, a member of the Republican State Central Committee and a local authority on Robert’s Rules of Order, and Drew Ivers that say it requires only a majority vote to elect a Permanent Chair.
A woman stands up and declares that the parliamentarians in the room are the ultimate authority.
The Chairman reads aloud the same email from Chung, interpreting it as saying a two thirds vote is required. People are confused.
Leahy attempts to refute the Chairman’s interpretation of Chung’s email, but doesn’t go to the microphone and no one can hear him. Finally, he goes up to the microphone and makes his case. The confusion persists.
After some general hubbub, a woman stands up and attempts to convince others that this kind of stuff is not important and that if we don’t move on we aren’t going to be able to elect delegates or take care of other essential business. She threatens to use the Sergeant at Arms.
After more confusion and deliberation, the parliamentarians have a decision. Miller walks up to the microphone and declares, “If this was just a meeting that started up tonight, then your majority requirement would be in place. We are representing the Caucuses. The committees were appointed and they have given special reports. That one report [the Organizational Report] has already been adopted and once a report is adopted from a Committee that requires a two thirds vote to change that vote. Right now the report was accepted that she [Roth] be appointed chair.”
Basically, Miller is saying that because we adopted the recommendations of the Organizational Report it now requires a two thirds majority to elect a Permanent Chairman. Recall that Atkinson was not allowed to nominate a different Permanent Chairman before the Organizational Report was voted on.
Ballots are handed out. The vote is 53 for McConeghey and 40 for Roth. Since McConeghey didn’t get two thirds, Roth is elected Permanent Chairman. This simple procedure has taken almost two hours.
Next up is the Rules Committee Report. Kelenyi reads through the rules. A motion to adopt the rules as presented is made and seconded. A two thirds vote is required to adopt them. The motion fails.
After some confusion, the motion to pass the rules is voted on again by paper ballot.
A woman stands up and attempts to convince people that the rules are not important. That we need to move on to the important stuff: “Right now what we’re doing is just like formality type stuff.”
(The Ron Paul delegates did not want to adopt the rules as presented because rule number 12 only allowed for one vote to elect all 12 district delegates and all 12 alternates. This way, each county delegate would only get to vote for 12 people, but the 24 people with the most votes would go on to district: the top 12 as delegates and the rest as alternates. We wanted a separate vote for delegates and alternates so that each county delegate would get to vote for 24 people. Since we had the majority this would allow us to elect 12 Ron Paul delegates and 12 Ron Paul alternates.)
The ballot vote to pass the rules as presented is finally announced as a tie at 46 to 46. The Chairman suggests sending out ballots again because no side got majority.
Leahy asks, “Question - is it a two thirds?”
The Chairman responds, “No, it is a majority plus one.”
Leahy responds, “No, my understanding was to adopt the rules required two thirds.”
After some stalling the Chairman corrects herself and apologizes for the confusion.
Leahy moves to amend the proposed rules to allow for a separate vote for delegates and alternates. Since the rules have not yet been adopted, only a simple majority vote is required to amend them.
A gentleman stands up and moves, “As an amendment to this motion, I propose that we add, ‘In the event that the proposed rule [Leahy’s amendment] does not pass, rule 12 as published will be automatically adopted and accepted as a part of the rules of this Convention.’”
“Second.”
Confusion ensues. Most people present don’t understand Robert’s Rules of Order and are at this point completely lost. The Chairman defers to another woman, who explains, “They are trying to make sure that whatever happens in the first motion - in Roger’s motion - that there will be a resolution after that. Because if Roger’s motion just goes and you vote on it then we still don’t have rules. If the amendment to Roger’s motion passed then we have a resolution no matter how the vote goes.” (Note that her explanation is not entirely correct.)
Leahy stands up to attempt to clarify, “These are proposed rules, and as such, it only takes a simple majority to amend the proposed rules. The full approval takes two thirds and amending them after they’re approved takes two thirds, but this [the amendment before the rules have been approved] can handle a simple majority.”
The woman further clarifies, without walking up to the microphone, “If we don’t have that simple majority on your vote then it automatically goes to what’s up there [rules as originally proposed with only one vote for delegates and alternates]. If we have a simple majority on your vote then your amendment goes into effect.
Leahy asks, without walking up to the microphone, “How can that rule [the amendment to Leahy’s amendment] be part of the Convention? That has to come with the two thirds that approves the whole thing. So it seems like it violates some principle.”
The woman responds, “It’s just language. The intent is that it’s a resolution no matter which way the vote goes.”
Leahy: “Can you correct the language then?”
Woman: “The language will come after the vote.”
I estimate the majority of the delegates can’t hear this exchange.
“Call for the question!” someone yells.
The Chairman declares, “That’s it! Discussion closed. We got to call for vote.”
The amendment to Leahy’s amendment passes. The Chairman announces, “The ayes have it. That will be added to Roger Leahy’s motion.”
It seems like only a few people are following what’s going on.
Finally, the amendment itself (Leahy’s original motion to have a separate vote for delegates and alternates) is called to vote and passes. The Chairman declares, “The rule passes. Now we have a two thirds to adopt the rules as amended. That is with Roger’s two ballots.” People are still very confused.
Parliamentarian Campell stands up to clarify, “These rules will be put in this number 12 and it requires a two thirds vote. If it does not receive a two thirds vote, so we can move on, the original number 12 and the original rules will be what we’ll be operating on the rest of the night.”
Leahy calls a point of order, “The rules require a two thirds vote to adopt.”
Campell: “But with the amendment on number 12.”
Leahy: “No. Point of order.”
People are screaming at Leahy to sit down and shut up.
The parliamentarian is attempting to convince people that if the rules are not adopted (which requires a two thirds majority vote) with Leahy’s amendment we will automatically revert back to the original rules due to the amendment to Leahy’s amendment. The reality is that Leahy’s amendment passed, which made the amendment to Leahy’s amendment moot. In fact, the amendment to Leahy’s amendment was moot regardless of the outcome, because even if Leahy’s motion failed it would still require a two thirds majority to adopt the rules.
The Chairman announces the question has been called and immediately announces a vote to adopt the rules as amended, which requires two thirds. The confusion has not abated. The vote fails. The Chairman announces, “It did not pass; 63 are needed. It reverts back to the original.”
55 out of 93 delegates (about 59%) voted to pass the amended rules and the Chairman is claiming we have rules in their original form with only a single vote for delegates and alternates. People are outraged.
A man stands up and asks, without going to the microphone, “The original rules as I understand it were voted, did not pass, because they did not receive two thirds approval...The original rules did not pass or did pass?”
Several people shout, “Did not!”
“Why do we have a set of original rules now that did not pass?” the man asks.
The Chairman responds, “You have to have a set of rules to continue on with this. Right now we have no rules.”
“That’s right! We have no rules.” The man states emphatically.
Parliamentarian Miller stands, without going to the microphone, and attempts to claim, “The amendment to the amendment basically threw back in the original rules.”
A man stands and says, “The rules that were printed there were approved by 38 votes. If that’s Democracy...”
A woman stands and walks up to the microphone, “In the interest of getting delegates to the Convention I think we need to stop bickering. It is a minor point.”
After lots of confusion, a woman stands up and makes a motion that, “We suspend Robert’s Rules of Order that say that we need two thirds to pass the rules. The purpose for doing that would be then to get a simple majority, which with this group we can actually accomplish. And then we can move forward.” Second.
The Chairman announces, “This will take a 50% plus 1 to pass.” People are confused. They don’t even know what they’re voting on. After further clarification, the motion is voted on. It passes.
A man stands and is immediately recognized by the Chairman. “I move we accept these rules,” he says as he holds up the original rules with only one vote for both delegates and alternates.
People are outraged. The Chairman announces, “We have a motion to accept these rules. The original rules. It is now at a 50% plus.”
Confusion. People shouting, “Which rules?!”
Someone shouts, “As amended!”
Chairman, “The amendment did not pass!”
Shouts: “The amendment did pass!”
The Chairman calls for a vote to accept the original rules (without separate votes for delegates and alternates), which now only requires a majority to adopt. The vote fails. Whew!
Someone makes a motion to adopt the rules as amended, allowing for separate votes for delegates and alternates. Second. It passes. It’s been almost three hours. We finally have rules! Hurrah!
Next is the Nominating Committee Report presented by Ed Kelenyi.
Everything is going smoothly now. Ballots go out for delegates after nominations from the floor. As the ballots are counted, we move on to the Platform.
(I had prepared an entirely revised Pro-Liberty Platform in hopes that we would be able to reject the entire platform and then vote, with a simple majority, in favor of the revised one. In the end, we were not able to accomplish this, mostly because we had been fighting all evening and were tired and hungry. We should have fought on, but we didn’t. We gave up. We sent an absolutely horrendous platform on to District. At least I get to be on the District Platform Committee and will try to salvage what I can.)
The ballots for delegates are counted. We got all 12 delegates for Ron Paul!
The ballots for alternates are finally counted, but many people have already left and we are in the process of moving tables and chairs back to their proper positions. We got 11 out of 12 alternates for Ron Paul! Our fight for the amendment to the rules paid off. The last alternate was a tie between William Burnes (a Ron Paul delegate) and the Chairman (Marshan Roth). The tie was broken with a coin flip, as per the rules, and Roth won.
So, What did We Learn?
Although we were fairly successful in the end, the whole process was fraught with confusion and frustration, and we ran out of time and energy to push for some other important things, like changing the platform. As organized and prepared as we were, we still allowed chaos and misunderstanding to trump the rules on many occasions. To avoid the traps that we fell into, you must:
I leave you with three of my favorite quotes:
“God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.” - Frédéric Bastiat
“These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.” - Thomas Paine
“I am only one; but I am still one. I cannot do everything, but I can still do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do.” - Helen Keller
The events described below were recorded on video. The quotes used in this write-up are the actual words that were spoken. I transcribed them directly from the video footage. In the interest of keeping this as short as possible, I didn’t transcribe some parts that were irrelevant or tangential.
On March 10th, 2012 at 5:00 PM CST I walked into the Fairfield, IA high school to attend my Republican County Convention in Jefferson County, IA. I was an alternate delegate, since my precinct only had three delegate spots. I found a nice seat on a table near the back corner. I had my water, some snacks, a laptop, chargers, and my phone, which records 1080p video. I knew it was going to be a long, stressful evening.
We were about to go into battle for liberty. For Ron Paul. We were fortunate to be in one of the most pro-Ron Paul counties in the entire United States. In 2008, Jefferson County, IA won for Ron Paul. We have people like Roger Leahy, Art Atkinson, Mike McConeghey, Ed Kelenyi, and many, many others who have dedicated countless hours organizing, strategizing, and volunteering for Ron Paul. We had been having weekly meetings for months. In the past week, we had met four times. Of the 93 delegates to our County Convention, we had identified and organized 53 Ron Paul delegates. And you thought you were organized?
The Convention begins
It’s 5:15 PM CST and we start with a prayer about Jesus, the Pledge of Allegiance, and some other minor business. The parliamentarians, Clyde Campbell, Dave Miller, and Phil Huff, are introduced.
The Temporary Convention Chairman, Marshan Roth, (hereafter referred to as “Chairman”) invites a bunch of hopeful local politicians up to talk about why we should vote for them.
First up is the Organizational Committee Report. The Chairman of the Organizational Committee reports that they “hereby recommend the appointment of Marshan Roth as Permanent Chair” to the Convention. Immediately upon finishing the Organizational Report, the speaker moves to adopt the report. Art Atkinson raises his hand and says, “I’d like to make another nomination.” Atkinson proceeds to make an articulate nomination for Mike McConeghey. After he is finished, his nomination is ruled out of order. Atkinson responds, “I’d like to make a nomination and I don’t want to lose the opportunity to nominate.”
After some confusion, the Chairman responds, “This report [the Organizational Committee Report] comes up for vote. It’s passed or failed. Then you have the opportunity to nominate, amend, whatever.”
Atkinson clarifies further but does not go up to the microphone so he can barely be heard, “Will the acceptance of this report mean the acceptance of the recommendations or is it just the acceptance of the report?”
The Chairman responds, “It’s the acceptance of the report.”
(We arrived at the Convention not knowing whether or not we would be given an opportunity to elect a Permanent Chairman--it was mysteriously not on the agenda. We had planned to nominate Mike McConeghey because our previous experience with the Chairman was that she didn’t always understand or follow the rules. Drew Ivers, the co-Chair of Ron Paul’s campaign in Iowa, and many others had informed us that it would take a simple majority to elect a Permanent Chairman.)
A motion to adopt the Organizational Report is made and seconded. It passes. Before Atkinson can stand up to nominate a Permanent Chair, a gentleman stands up and says, “Move to close all further nominations.”
“Second!” someone shouts.
The Ron Paul delegates roar in protest and the Chairman allows for nominations. However, before proceeding the Chairman declares (rightfully) that, in order to continue, the Credentials Report must be presented. This is because some delegates are absent and the alternates have not yet been moved to their places so they can stand in as delegates. This probably should have been done before the Organizational Report, which required a vote to adopt.
A motion to adopt the Credentials Report is made. Seconded. It passes.
Leahy immediately jumps up and moves to open the floor for nominations for Permanent Chair. Second.
The Chairman declares, “This [nominating a new Chairman] will need a two thirds vote.”
The vote to open the floor for nominations passes with a simple majority.
The Chairman announces, “We move for nominations for Chair.”
A Ron Paul delegate shouts, “Move to make the vote a paper ballot.”
“Second.”
The motion passes.
A woman nominates Marshan Roth (the current Temporary Chair). Second. Atkinson nominates Mike McConeghey. Second.
Ed Kelenyi stands and calls a point of information, “Can the parliamentarians inform us whether it’s a simple majority or two thirds vote and the basis for that, please?” He does not walk up to the microphone and is probably not heard by many of the delegates.
A parliamentarian responds, “Two thirds vote. Section 59.”
People are shouting, “Can’t hear!”
Leahy stands up and reads emails from David Chung, a member of the Republican State Central Committee and a local authority on Robert’s Rules of Order, and Drew Ivers that say it requires only a majority vote to elect a Permanent Chair.
A woman stands up and declares that the parliamentarians in the room are the ultimate authority.
The Chairman reads aloud the same email from Chung, interpreting it as saying a two thirds vote is required. People are confused.
Leahy attempts to refute the Chairman’s interpretation of Chung’s email, but doesn’t go to the microphone and no one can hear him. Finally, he goes up to the microphone and makes his case. The confusion persists.
After some general hubbub, a woman stands up and attempts to convince others that this kind of stuff is not important and that if we don’t move on we aren’t going to be able to elect delegates or take care of other essential business. She threatens to use the Sergeant at Arms.
After more confusion and deliberation, the parliamentarians have a decision. Miller walks up to the microphone and declares, “If this was just a meeting that started up tonight, then your majority requirement would be in place. We are representing the Caucuses. The committees were appointed and they have given special reports. That one report [the Organizational Report] has already been adopted and once a report is adopted from a Committee that requires a two thirds vote to change that vote. Right now the report was accepted that she [Roth] be appointed chair.”
Basically, Miller is saying that because we adopted the recommendations of the Organizational Report it now requires a two thirds majority to elect a Permanent Chairman. Recall that Atkinson was not allowed to nominate a different Permanent Chairman before the Organizational Report was voted on.
Ballots are handed out. The vote is 53 for McConeghey and 40 for Roth. Since McConeghey didn’t get two thirds, Roth is elected Permanent Chairman. This simple procedure has taken almost two hours.
Next up is the Rules Committee Report. Kelenyi reads through the rules. A motion to adopt the rules as presented is made and seconded. A two thirds vote is required to adopt them. The motion fails.
After some confusion, the motion to pass the rules is voted on again by paper ballot.
A woman stands up and attempts to convince people that the rules are not important. That we need to move on to the important stuff: “Right now what we’re doing is just like formality type stuff.”
(The Ron Paul delegates did not want to adopt the rules as presented because rule number 12 only allowed for one vote to elect all 12 district delegates and all 12 alternates. This way, each county delegate would only get to vote for 12 people, but the 24 people with the most votes would go on to district: the top 12 as delegates and the rest as alternates. We wanted a separate vote for delegates and alternates so that each county delegate would get to vote for 24 people. Since we had the majority this would allow us to elect 12 Ron Paul delegates and 12 Ron Paul alternates.)
The ballot vote to pass the rules as presented is finally announced as a tie at 46 to 46. The Chairman suggests sending out ballots again because no side got majority.
Leahy asks, “Question - is it a two thirds?”
The Chairman responds, “No, it is a majority plus one.”
Leahy responds, “No, my understanding was to adopt the rules required two thirds.”
After some stalling the Chairman corrects herself and apologizes for the confusion.
Leahy moves to amend the proposed rules to allow for a separate vote for delegates and alternates. Since the rules have not yet been adopted, only a simple majority vote is required to amend them.
A gentleman stands up and moves, “As an amendment to this motion, I propose that we add, ‘In the event that the proposed rule [Leahy’s amendment] does not pass, rule 12 as published will be automatically adopted and accepted as a part of the rules of this Convention.’”
“Second.”
Confusion ensues. Most people present don’t understand Robert’s Rules of Order and are at this point completely lost. The Chairman defers to another woman, who explains, “They are trying to make sure that whatever happens in the first motion - in Roger’s motion - that there will be a resolution after that. Because if Roger’s motion just goes and you vote on it then we still don’t have rules. If the amendment to Roger’s motion passed then we have a resolution no matter how the vote goes.” (Note that her explanation is not entirely correct.)
Leahy stands up to attempt to clarify, “These are proposed rules, and as such, it only takes a simple majority to amend the proposed rules. The full approval takes two thirds and amending them after they’re approved takes two thirds, but this [the amendment before the rules have been approved] can handle a simple majority.”
The woman further clarifies, without walking up to the microphone, “If we don’t have that simple majority on your vote then it automatically goes to what’s up there [rules as originally proposed with only one vote for delegates and alternates]. If we have a simple majority on your vote then your amendment goes into effect.
Leahy asks, without walking up to the microphone, “How can that rule [the amendment to Leahy’s amendment] be part of the Convention? That has to come with the two thirds that approves the whole thing. So it seems like it violates some principle.”
The woman responds, “It’s just language. The intent is that it’s a resolution no matter which way the vote goes.”
Leahy: “Can you correct the language then?”
Woman: “The language will come after the vote.”
I estimate the majority of the delegates can’t hear this exchange.
“Call for the question!” someone yells.
The Chairman declares, “That’s it! Discussion closed. We got to call for vote.”
The amendment to Leahy’s amendment passes. The Chairman announces, “The ayes have it. That will be added to Roger Leahy’s motion.”
It seems like only a few people are following what’s going on.
Finally, the amendment itself (Leahy’s original motion to have a separate vote for delegates and alternates) is called to vote and passes. The Chairman declares, “The rule passes. Now we have a two thirds to adopt the rules as amended. That is with Roger’s two ballots.” People are still very confused.
Parliamentarian Campell stands up to clarify, “These rules will be put in this number 12 and it requires a two thirds vote. If it does not receive a two thirds vote, so we can move on, the original number 12 and the original rules will be what we’ll be operating on the rest of the night.”
Leahy calls a point of order, “The rules require a two thirds vote to adopt.”
Campell: “But with the amendment on number 12.”
Leahy: “No. Point of order.”
People are screaming at Leahy to sit down and shut up.
The parliamentarian is attempting to convince people that if the rules are not adopted (which requires a two thirds majority vote) with Leahy’s amendment we will automatically revert back to the original rules due to the amendment to Leahy’s amendment. The reality is that Leahy’s amendment passed, which made the amendment to Leahy’s amendment moot. In fact, the amendment to Leahy’s amendment was moot regardless of the outcome, because even if Leahy’s motion failed it would still require a two thirds majority to adopt the rules.
The Chairman announces the question has been called and immediately announces a vote to adopt the rules as amended, which requires two thirds. The confusion has not abated. The vote fails. The Chairman announces, “It did not pass; 63 are needed. It reverts back to the original.”
55 out of 93 delegates (about 59%) voted to pass the amended rules and the Chairman is claiming we have rules in their original form with only a single vote for delegates and alternates. People are outraged.
A man stands up and asks, without going to the microphone, “The original rules as I understand it were voted, did not pass, because they did not receive two thirds approval...The original rules did not pass or did pass?”
Several people shout, “Did not!”
“Why do we have a set of original rules now that did not pass?” the man asks.
The Chairman responds, “You have to have a set of rules to continue on with this. Right now we have no rules.”
“That’s right! We have no rules.” The man states emphatically.
Parliamentarian Miller stands, without going to the microphone, and attempts to claim, “The amendment to the amendment basically threw back in the original rules.”
A man stands and says, “The rules that were printed there were approved by 38 votes. If that’s Democracy...”
A woman stands and walks up to the microphone, “In the interest of getting delegates to the Convention I think we need to stop bickering. It is a minor point.”
After lots of confusion, a woman stands up and makes a motion that, “We suspend Robert’s Rules of Order that say that we need two thirds to pass the rules. The purpose for doing that would be then to get a simple majority, which with this group we can actually accomplish. And then we can move forward.” Second.
The Chairman announces, “This will take a 50% plus 1 to pass.” People are confused. They don’t even know what they’re voting on. After further clarification, the motion is voted on. It passes.
A man stands and is immediately recognized by the Chairman. “I move we accept these rules,” he says as he holds up the original rules with only one vote for both delegates and alternates.
People are outraged. The Chairman announces, “We have a motion to accept these rules. The original rules. It is now at a 50% plus.”
Confusion. People shouting, “Which rules?!”
Someone shouts, “As amended!”
Chairman, “The amendment did not pass!”
Shouts: “The amendment did pass!”
The Chairman calls for a vote to accept the original rules (without separate votes for delegates and alternates), which now only requires a majority to adopt. The vote fails. Whew!
Someone makes a motion to adopt the rules as amended, allowing for separate votes for delegates and alternates. Second. It passes. It’s been almost three hours. We finally have rules! Hurrah!
Next is the Nominating Committee Report presented by Ed Kelenyi.
Everything is going smoothly now. Ballots go out for delegates after nominations from the floor. As the ballots are counted, we move on to the Platform.
(I had prepared an entirely revised Pro-Liberty Platform in hopes that we would be able to reject the entire platform and then vote, with a simple majority, in favor of the revised one. In the end, we were not able to accomplish this, mostly because we had been fighting all evening and were tired and hungry. We should have fought on, but we didn’t. We gave up. We sent an absolutely horrendous platform on to District. At least I get to be on the District Platform Committee and will try to salvage what I can.)
The ballots for delegates are counted. We got all 12 delegates for Ron Paul!
The ballots for alternates are finally counted, but many people have already left and we are in the process of moving tables and chairs back to their proper positions. We got 11 out of 12 alternates for Ron Paul! Our fight for the amendment to the rules paid off. The last alternate was a tie between William Burnes (a Ron Paul delegate) and the Chairman (Marshan Roth). The tie was broken with a coin flip, as per the rules, and Roth won.
So, What did We Learn?
Although we were fairly successful in the end, the whole process was fraught with confusion and frustration, and we ran out of time and energy to push for some other important things, like changing the platform. As organized and prepared as we were, we still allowed chaos and misunderstanding to trump the rules on many occasions. To avoid the traps that we fell into, you must:
- Record your Convention on video so if rules are broken you have evidence
- Know Robert’s Rules of Order. Yes, the book is thick. Cry about it. Your freedom, your children’s freedom, and your grandchildren’s freedom depend upon it.
- Listen carefully to everything that is said. Most of the confusion, which was so conveniently taken advantage of, was because people weren’t listening or couldn’t hear.
- Always be sure that everyone can hear you when you speak. Make sure the Chairman recognizes you to speak, and go to the microphone! If someone speaks without first being recognized, call a point of order.
- Demand the actual written language of any motion or amendment from the Secretary. Do not trust others to interpret or explain anything to you.
- Anticipate the moves of your enemies by learning to think like your enemy. Don’t expect the rules to be followed. Consider all possible outcomes.
- Always be fair, kind, and respectful, while clearly articulating the lack of such behavior in your enemies. Study Gandhi.
- Own the power that you have and use it wisely. Never shy away or hide from it.
I leave you with three of my favorite quotes:
“God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.” - Frédéric Bastiat
“These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.” - Thomas Paine
“I am only one; but I am still one. I cannot do everything, but I can still do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do.” - Helen Keller
Last edited:
