St. Charles Co. GOP Central Commitee Issues Statement on Saturday's Disorderly Caucus

1

1stAmendguy

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,327
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/31...sues-statement-on-Saturdays-disorderly-caucus

The St. Charles County Republican Central Committee released a statement on Monday, in which they addressed a few issues from the caucus.

"Regarding the prohibition of recording devices at the caucus: This was a house rule adopted by the county party to insure that official business of the caucus could not be disseminated to members of other political parties and, to ensure that the voting preferences of individual caucus goers stayed within the confines of the venue. Privacy is a basic tenet of our electoral system and the Committee's well meaning intention was to preserve that fundamental right only. However house rules were to only remain in effect until a permanent chair was elected."

St. Charles County GOP chairman Eugene Dokes issued the followed statement in regards to the selection of the caucus chair:

"It was not our intention to disenfranchise anyone from exercising their free speech rights," said Chairman Dokes. "I deeply apologize for any confusion during the process. We worked hard to follow Robert's Rules of Order. We put together house rules, and conducted a voice vote. Adding to the confusion was the fact that many people were handed copies of rules before the caucus that were not approved by the rules committee. Many became aggressive and belligerent when asked to follow house rules. At one point, a woman's hat was ripped off her head and thrown on the floor and at least 5 people rushed the podium. We would have continued the meeting after the selection of the chair but the police asked us to shut it down."

"I am working with the state party and with all the campaigns to find a solution to make sure that St. Charles County is represented at the congressional, state, and national conventions. It is my highest priority to make sure that we will not lose any delegates," says Dokes.
Click to expand...
 
Dokes needs to watch the video. He seems a little confused :confused:about what happened.

This story doesn't seem to have any legs in the media so now they can do what they want.
 
Yeah, Eugene, you're just afraid of getting sued. We saw what happened.

Please, please, please someone in St. Charles county run against him and take his position!
 
"It was not our intention to disenfranchise anyone from exercising their free speech rights," said Chairman Dokes. "I deeply apologize for any confusion during the process. We worked hard to follow Robert's Rules of Order. We put together house rules, and conducted a voice vote. Adding to the confusion was the fact that many people were handed copies of rules before the caucus that were not approved by the rules committee. Many became aggressive and belligerent when asked to follow house rules. At one point, a woman's hat was ripped off her head and thrown on the floor and at least 5 people rushed the podium. We would have continued the meeting after the selection of the chair but the police asked us to shut it down."


21. Questions of Order and Appeal. A Question of Order takes precedence of the pending question out of which it arises; is in order when another has the floor, even interrupting a speech or the reading of a report; does not require a second; cannot be amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it; yields to privileged motions and the motion to lay on the table; and must be decided by the presiding officer without debate, unless in doubtful cases he submits the question to the assembly for decision, in which case it is debatable whenever an appeal would be. Before rendering his decision he may request the advice of persons of experience, which advice or opinion should usually be given sitting to avoid the appearance of debate. If the chair is still in doubt, he may submit the question to the assembly for its decision in a manner similar to this: "Mr. A raises the point of order that the amendment just offered [state the amendment] is not germane to the resolution. The chair is in doubt, and submits the question to the assembly. The question is, 'Is the amendment germane to the resolution?"' As no appeal can be taken from the decision of the assembly, this question is open to debate whenever an appeal would be, if the chair decided the question and an appeal were made from that decision. Therefore, it is debatable except when it relates to indecorum, or transgression of the rules of speaking, or to the priority of business, or when it is made during a division of the assembly, or while an undebatable question is pending. The question is put thus: "As many as are of opinion that the amendment is germane [or that the point is well taken] say aye; as many as are of a contrary opinion say no. The ayes have it, the amendment is in order, and the question is on its adoption." If the negative vote is the larger it would be announced thus: "The noes have it, the amendment is out of order, and the question is on the adoption of the resolution." Whenever the presiding officer decides a question of order, he has the right, without leaving his chair, to state the reasons for his decision, and any two members have the right to appeal from the decision, one making the appeal and the other seconding it.

--- seems in every video I have seen the call for a point of order were ignored.


and more importnatly


25. Division of the Assembly, and other Motions relating to Voting. A Division of the Assembly1 may be called for, without obtaining the floor, at any time after the question has been put, even after the vote has been announced and another has the floor, provided the vote was taken viva voce, or by show of hands, and it is called for before another motion has been made. This call, or motion, is made by saying, "I call for a division," or "I doubt the vote," or simply by calling out, "Division." It does not require a second, and cannot be debated, or amended, or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it. As soon as a division is called for, the chair proceeds again to take the vote, this time by having the affirmative rise, and then when they are seated having the negative rise. While any member has the right to insist upon a rising vote, or a division, where there is any question as to the vote being a true expression of the will of the assembly, the chair should not permit this privilege to be abused to the annoyance of the assembly, by members constantly demanding a division where there is a full vote and no question as to which side is in the majority. It requires a majority vote to order the vote to be counted, or to be taken by yeas and nays (roll call) or by ballot. These motions are incidental to the question that is pending or has just been pending, and cannot be debated. When different methods are suggested they are usually treated not as amendments, but like filling blanks, the vote being taken first on the one taking the most time. In practice the method of taking a vote is generally agreed upon without the formality of a vote.

When the vote is taken by ballot during a meeting of the assembly, as soon as the chair thinks all have voted who wish to, he inquires if all have voted, and if there is no response he declares the polls closed, and the tellers proceed to count the vote. If a formal motion is made to close the polls it should not be recognized until all have presumably voted, and then it requires a two-thirds vote like motions to close debate or nominations. If members enter afterwards and it is desired to reopen the polls it can be done by a majority vote. None of these motions are debatable.


---- never done after multiple calls for division.
 
Protect the privacy of voting preferences? wtf In Laclede County delegates were selected by secret ballot, and not all delegate candidates stated their preference openly.

This Dokes guy is a douche!
 
A comment concerning the hat ripped off the ladies head balony.

I know for a fact that the story about the woman who got "her hat ripped off" is not the whole story. It happened right in front of me. A woman took her hat off and put it over another mans ipad camera, and he threw the hat on the floor. I laughed and applauded the man.
 
One of the articles I read maybe today, maybe yesterday, said something about three people in the same family being on that committee. Anyone that can source that? Good place to start the opposition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Trump Fires Top US General and Navy Chief
Replies
2
Views
99
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Voluntarist
Record Slim House Majority Faces New Problems As GOP Lawmaker Announces Exit
Replies
3
Views
503
unknown
unknown
Swordsmyth
Republicans Strike Deal To Cut $1.5 Trillion From Budget, Paving Way for Trump's Agenda
Replies
13
Views
409
spudea
S
W
Freedom Caucus Blasts 19 Republicans For Killing Bill To Define Genders
Replies
1
Views
273
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Occam's Banana
CO - voting system password breach
Replies
13
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top