Largest MO Caucus Adjourns WITHOUT Conducting Business – No Delegates Selected

[LostNFoundNTx]

as has been explained the camera was put away, and we made a motion, however, the temp chair completely disregarded roberts rules of order and would not hear any motion.

Everyone else disregarded the rules as well. The rules specifically cover in detail the orderly process of the membership overruling the chair when it comes to a violation of the rules. On the video, I heard a number of instances of foul language, speaking without privilege, and more. Here's what people don't realize:

At any point where the membership disagrees with the progression of the meeting according to the rules in effect, there should never be more people speaking than there are differences in opinion. This means that in considering a yes/no situation, no more than 2 people should be speaking at once. From the point where the chair ignored the point of order regarding an incidental motion to suspend the rules blocking the usage of cameras, everyone who wished to suspend that rule should have silently listended to that person standing in place of the chair taking a vote on the issue. To maintain order, that person could have even called it as a standing vote. After this vote was validly taken according to the rules, 1) edit** see below, 2) the room would have been quiet and in-order, and most importantly 3) it would be obvious to everyone in the entire room that the chair was being the disruptive voice in the process.

Edit: Originally I stated 1) cameras would then be allowed. Actually, since the point of order was that the chair did not give the floor to the person making the incidental motion to suspend the rules this should have been 1) the person making the incidental motion to suspend the rules would have the floor to make that motion, which could then be quickly followed by a majority vote covering it since suspending a standing rule is not a debatable motion.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

http://edokes.com/contact/

636-364-8683

[email protected]

606 Davidson ct
St. Peters, MO 63376

[email protected]

Www.facebook.com/eugenedokes (no longer available, he possibly deleted!!!)
Here's his other Facebook http://www.facebook.com/docdokes?ref=ts

Eugene Dokes | Coldwell Banker Gundaker
Address: 917 N Hwy 67 # 202, Florissant, MO, 63031
County: Saint Louis
Real Estate Agency: Coldwell Banker Gundaker
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone (314) 921-7600
Fax (314) 921-7547


Be somewhat respectful but let him know he's started a fire he'll never be able to put out.

He just lost his election yesterday by pissing off the wrong breed of republicans.

We have to do everything within our power to let him know both these things.

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

I along with others, were handing out Roberts Rules cheat sheets...

The thing I found most frustrating when I started studying the full set of rules is realizing that the cheat sheets make one gigantic assumption: that at least the chair will follow the rules with the exception of occasionally overlooking a detail unintentionally. When that goes out the window, maintaining order when no one knows the rules of dealing with such a situation falls somewhere between nightmarishly difficult and impossible.

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

Tossing in another nugget from the rules: if the chair attempts to adjourn the meeting in violation of the rules and the members maintain order in handling the situation, the chair can be replaced at the direction of the members to continue the meeting (RONR (11th ed.) p. 650 ff., and others). The exception to this lies in the fact that the chair can adjourn the meeting without a vote in the event of a "riot" (or fire, etc.). Based on my initial observation of the videos, if the leadership was intentionally trying to close the meeting then the audience unfortunately gave them the opportunity to claim this exemption. Even if no one was truly in danger, the argument could be made that the commotion was turning into a "riot".

Edit: RONR (11th ed.) p. 450, ll. 20-22, p. 451, ll. 24-28.

It is the duty of the presiding officer of an assembly:

...
11) To declare the meeting adjourned when the assembly so votes or - where applicable - at the time prescribed in the program, or at any time in the event of a sudden emergency affecting the safety of those present (§8, §21).

RONR (11th ed.) p. 86, ll. 26-30. (This is in §8 as referenced by the previous quote.)

In the event of fire, riot, or other extreme emergency, if the chair believes taking time for a vote on adjourning would be dangerous to those present, he should declare the meeting adjourned - to a suitable time and place for an adjourned meeting (if he is able), or to meet at the call of the chair.

The good thing about this is since the presiding officer chose to go this route, the chair has the duty to schedule an adjourned meeting to complete business.

 

[Liberty Rebellion]

The thing I found most frustrating when I started studying the full set of rules is realizing that the cheat sheets make one gigantic assumption: that at least the chair will follow the rules with the exception of occasionally overlooking a detail unintentionally. When that goes out the window, maintaining order when no one knows the rules of dealing with such a situation falls somewhere between nightmarishly difficult and impossible.

Your mileage may vary, friend =) Brent Stafford was our chair in 08 when we won the caucus. In fact, he was so impartial he told me he couldn't talk to me that morning as I was on the rules committee but was so tired from organizing all morning I almost didn't remember what I was supposed to do.

 

[Paulatized]

Here's the spin from the New York Times, which Drudge links to: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/disruption-closes-a-missouri-caucus-before-vote/

Did anybody else notice the last line of this article?

A statement released by the Missouri Republican Party said that it plans to reach out to all parties involved in the dispute and “will come to an agreement to ensure that St. Charles County is fully represented throughout the nominating process.”

The rules about how exactly those delegates would be selected is still in the process of being written.

What is that suppose to mean? Still making the rules up as they go?

 

[Corey]

Srsly, wtf. Everyone who supported Dr. Paul should've remained seated. That would've been 2/3 of the people in that gym... and if they arrested every one of them, it would've been FRONT PAGE in every sunday paper. And guess what, they'd have a much more difficult time spinning the arrest of hundreds of people at a caucus that was "canceled" than the hand they're currently playing (which is to simply throw 2 "ron paul supporters" under the bus).

Sigh.... this could've been a history-books making moment...

This X 1000

Intention is not to criticize. I think everyone did an amazing job. But it will come to this, sooner or later.

 

[otherone]

yeah, dude was trying to pull that unity shit. He was like... "remember were all friends and the only enemy should be Obama."

I just finished rereading Animal Farm.

This entire event follows the plot identically.

"Remember, Comrades, do we really want Jones (Obama)back?" cried Squealer (Dokes).

Napoleon (Ehlen) used his Dogs (police) to run off Snowball (Stafford)

amazing.

 

[otherone]

What is that suppose to mean? Still making the rules up as they go?

Some animals are more equal than others.

 

[sailingaway]

Everyone else disregarded the rules as well. The rules specifically cover in detail the orderly process of the membership overruling the chair when it comes to a violation of the rules. On the video, I heard a number of instances of foul language, speaking without privilege, and more. Here's what people don't realize:

At any point where the membership disagrees with the progression of the meeting according to the rules in effect, there should never be more people speaking than there are differences in opinion. This means that in considering a yes/no situation, no more than 2 people should be speaking at once. From the point where the chair ignored the point of order regarding an incidental motion to suspend the rules blocking the usage of cameras, everyone who wished to suspend that rule should have silently listended to that person standing in place of the chair taking a vote on the issue. To maintain order, that person could have even called it as a standing vote. After this vote was validly taken according to the rules, 1) edit** see below, 2) the room would have been quiet and in-order, and most importantly 3) it would be obvious to everyone in the entire room that the chair was being the disruptive voice in the process.

Edit: Originally I stated 1) cameras would then be allowed. Actually, since the point of order was that the chair did not give the floor to the person making the incidental motion to suspend the rules this should have been 1) the person making the incidental motion to suspend the rules would have the floor to make that motion, which could then be quickly followed by a majority vote covering it since suspending a standing rule is not a debatable motion.

The crowd, made up of supporters of ALL candidates, was furious. Even Santorum candidates had no clue what was going on and only knew they weren't allowed to vote. You act like WE were the problem. There were all sorts of orderly objections made, and calls for vote on rules, and calls for division of the vote by people on the floor with their hands raised. The Romney coordinator as well as the Paul selected chairman did this. Many others did. THEY WERE IGNORED. Nothing could 'give the floor' because they refused to countenance the rules. The parliamentarian was SHUT OUT. That is WHY people were yelling. Yes, since the only cameras left were people's cell phones in the bleachers, you hear the yelling above the orderly motions, but you can see and hear those, which were on the floor closer to the organizer, if you try. You really sound like your purpose here is to build a case that it is all our fault, against all evidence. Is it? That has seemed a common thread amongst ALL your posts.

It is VITAL we know the rules, so in post mortums we have the upper hand. But if they are ignored at the location and hired police are sicced on those properly continuing a caucus aborted in violation of the rules, the rules do not have the answer for the moment at the location. Here they clearly had decided based on the illegal straw poll they did as people checked in to match who was voting for which candidate, and how many supporters of each were there, that it was better to just let the process end in 'chaos' they themselves provoked, than to let Ron get 140 delegates, which is what would have happened given the representation there.

worse, from that straw poll they now have the addresses of who supports whom for gerrymandering purposes and they have already said the district should be 'broken up' for any recaucus because it is 'too big', 'clearly'.

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

You really sound like your purpose here is to build a case that it is all our fault, against all evidence. Is it? That has seemed a common thread amongst ALL your posts.

Absolutely not. First and foremost, the temporary chair has the duty to follow the rules, and should have the experience and patience to work with a large assembly where a majority of members are likely to know only a subset of the full rules but are willing to participate in a polite and orderly fashion. Failure of the temporary chair to follow his only real duty was the direct cause of the caucus breakdown, and his behavior was completely outside of anything the other members could do. This is something everyone clearly agrees on, so it seemed fruitless for me to continue to point this out.

What people don't point out frequently is as long as the members of an assembly work in an calm, orderly manner then it's possible to fully recover from the situation. Sure, it's nearly impossible to keep a crowd calm when someone's standing there intentionally and constantly provoking an emotional response, but it doesn't change the fact that the rules provide a manner of handling the situation if people can manage to avoid responding out of turn to the poor behavior of the chair.

 

[BKom]

Absolutely not. First and foremost, the temporary chair has the duty to follow the rules, and should have the experience and patience to work with a large assembly where a majority of members are likely to know only a subset of the full rules but are willing to participate in a polite and orderly fashion. Failure of the temporary chair to follow his only real duty was the direct cause of the caucus breakdown, and his behavior was completely outside of anything the other members could do. This is something everyone clearly agrees on, so it seemed fruitless for me to continue to point this out.

What people don't point out frequently is as long as the members of an assembly work in an calm, orderly manner then it's possible to fully recover from the situation. Sure, it's nearly impossible to keep a crowd calm when someone's standing there intentionally and constantly provoking an emotional response, but it doesn't change the fact that the rules provide a manner of handling the situation if people can manage to avoid responding out of turn to the poor behavior of the chair.

I can't stress this enough. I have read most of this thread and I was involved in the Nevada debacle of 2008. There is literally nothing you can accomplish by following the rules when the party is practicing what I call "The Deaf Convention Chair" gambit. They chair merely ignores everything coming from the body of the convention, rules on his own out of order motions, and does whatever the party has pre-planned no matter what the actual convention delegates try to accomplish, no matter how they try to accomplish it. We've seen this in LA, TX and now in MO.

There is no way to overcome it. And it always works in the establishment's favor because when everything breaks down, they simply appoint delegates or use the bogus slate they've pushed through over the objection of the convention.

The chair clearly had this strategy planned out and that's why he didn't want a clear recording of it. I will repeat: I know a bit about party rules and Roberts Rules and they don't make any difference against this gambit. I would appreciate if there's some advice from a rules expert that will overcome the "deaf chair" maneuver. But I don't see how that's possible.

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

The chair clearly had this strategy planned out and that's why he didn't want a clear recording of it. I will repeat: I know a bit about party rules and Roberts Rules and they don't make any difference against this gambit. I would appreciate if there's some advice from a rules expert that will overcome the "deaf chair" maneuver. But I don't see how that's possible.

It's addressed in (RONR (11th ed.) pp. 650-653). A member of the assembly can stand in place of the chair (without recognition of the chair) to take a vote if the chair chooses to ignore a non-dilatory point of order 3 times. If the entire room is quiet except for the presiding chair (who is ignoring the member) and the member taking a vote in his place, it's easy to simply listen to the person taking a vote in his place. What effectively happens is the chair, who is behaving out of order, is simply ignored by the members in the room while they vote to remove him.

 

[sailingaway]

It's addressed in (RONR (11th ed.) pp. 650-653). A member of the assembly can stand in place of the chair (without recognition of the chair) to take a vote if the chair chooses to ignore a non-dilatory point of order 3 times. If the entire room is quiet except for the presiding chair (who is ignoring the member) and the member taking a vote in his place, it's easy to simply listen to the person taking a vote in his place. What effectively happens is the chair, who is behaving out of order, is simply ignored by the members in the room while they vote to remove him.

I'm agreeing with parocks or whomever it was that our guys need mini bull horns so the designated guy ONLY can calmly overcome crowd noise as if he had a mic. It is never ONLY us at the meeting and everyone is upset, we can not keep them quiet, whatever we do.

 

[Carpenter1966]

18 pages, 4 just while I was catching up. Wow!

I was at Cass County Caucii. No additional cops called, but Santorums and Romneys people pulled off a good un. See first straw vote below:
342 attending:

Sanitarium -- 162
Paul -- 88
Rommunnist *-- 37
Newt -- 27

//////

Paul took 28% of the 314 cast.

Santorums peeps did not submit alternates, violating rule 9.a). Chair Ron Johnson(newt supporter) filled their alternates with his own to proceed. (we should have stopped it right then and there).

What followed was the three dozen Rommunists enjoined Santorumites to seal and 51% + defeat of the first (and only proportional delegate awarding) vote. Then it was essentially over. We were offered and forced to accept 11 alternates. 0 actual delegates. Romney was given 5 delegates and 6(?) alternates. I dont recall if Newt got a thing.

The proportional should have been:

Santorum 22
Paul 12
Romney. 5
Newt. 4

I ripped the County Chair a brand new sphincter on my way out. I am an alternate and I will be in Sedalia next month. And I'll be leaving my bond money with a friend nearby.

Btw: we did rile up Santorums peeps enough to have the Chair threaten to adjourn ours without delegates as well. But as stated elsewhere, they'll just award them in closed meeting next week anyway.

 

[BKom]

It's addressed in (RONR (11th ed.) pp. 650-653). A member of the assembly can stand in place of the chair (without recognition of the chair) to take a vote if the chair chooses to ignore a non-dilatory point of order 3 times. If the entire room is quiet except for the presiding chair (who is ignoring the member) and the member taking a vote in his place, it's easy to simply listen to the person taking a vote in his place. What effectively happens is the chair, who is behaving out of order, is simply ignored by the members in the room while they vote to remove him.

And when you do that, the police come and arrest you. Say what you will about the rules, but the guy with the microphone is in control and can't be practically removed unless you tackle him, tape his mouth shut and chain him to a wall. And you will be arrested. I think you see the common thread here. YOU will be arrested. This ain't the Chattanooga Boat Club having a meeting. It is a criminal enterprise, The Republican Party. They have determined that they can shut down any meeting because they control the venue. And if they do control the venue, you have no recourse. Once they shut down the meeting, no matter how illegitimately, you are trespassing and will be arrested. Notice that "arrested" is the common ending here.

So, practically speaking, where do you "stand" to take the chair's place in the building the party establishment has rented with a microphone the party has also rented?

 

[sailingaway]

18 pages, 4 just while I was catching up. Wow!

I was at Cass County Caucii. No additional cops called, but Santorums and Romneys people pulled off a good un. See first straw vote below:
342 attending:

Sanitarium -- 162
Paul -- 88
Rommunnist *-- 37
Newt -- 27

//////

Paul took 28% of the 314 cast.

Santorums peeps did not submit alternates, violating rule 9.a). Chair Ron Johnson(newt supporter) filled their alternates with his own to proceed. (we should have stopped it right then and there).

What followed was the three dozen Rommunists enjoined Santorumites to seal and 51% + defeat of the first (and only proportional delegate awarding) vote. Then it was essentially over. We were offered and forced to accept 11 alternates. 0 actual delegates. Romney was given 5 delegates and 6(?) alternates. I dont recall if Newt got a thing.

The proportional should have been:

Santorum 22
Paul 12
Romney. 5
Newt. 4

I ripped the County Chair a brand new sphincter on my way out. I am an alternate and I will be in Sedalia next month. And I'll be leaving my bond money with a friend nearby.

Btw: we did rile up Santorums peeps enough to have the Chair threaten to adjourn ours without delegates as well. But as stated elsewhere, they'll just award them in closed meeting next week anyway.

Make a record but keep your cool. Well done on delegates, though, in a tough situation!

 

[Carpenter1966]

I wanna know what happens in Sedalia, should a RINO fail to show. If I am called upon to be seated, being an alternate, am I bound? Or can I then cast my vote for Paul? If I do, will I face anything beyond being booted? Because I am so done with the GOP and their crookedness.

 

[Carpenter1966]

Btw, the camera ban was State-wide, we were told.

As for bull horns(or lack of), employ the OWS people's mike check, if you dare. Have the speaker /chair speak, and crowd repeat back in unison. It also keeps speakers brief as it is a slower tedious process.

 

[sailingaway]

Btw, the camera ban was State-wide, we were told.

As for bull horns(or lack of), employ the OWS people's mike check, if you dare. Have the speaker /chair speak, and crowd repeat back in unison. It also keeps speakers brief as it is a slower tedious process.

two points, I would not mimic occupy because GOP voters have been taught to revile them. I think the mini bull horn looks more authoritative, anyhow.

Re camera ban, my understanding is that NO rules on that existed until rules would be adopted at open of business at the meeting, which didn't happen.

Regarding voting against being bound, I wouldn't. We want everyone to follow the rules, that is why we are so pissed at St charles. It hurts Ron if we don't and makes it harder for US to claim the rules, if we don't. We plan on no one having a first ballot win. THEN our guys will mostly be unbound, ACCORDING to the rules.