Some days ago we commented on the proposed changes to the Constitution of the Scott County Republican Central Committee (SCRCC). The proposed changes are available here. We had a little fun with three of the proposals. Two of them related to what the
Chairman, Chairs, Co-Chairs, Chairwoman, Chairpersons are to be called. Hopefully that will get settled for all eternity according to the current head honcho’s wishes.
There is also a proposal to add language from Robert’s Rules to make sure everyone knows that “conduct which is injurious to the organization or its purposes, tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work.” is grounds for removal from the Central Committee. We asked previously why the other thirteen pages of Robert’s related to the rights of the accused are not included, given that Robert‘s says stating the provision is not necessary. Why be so selective in invoking Robert’s as regards accusations but not the rights of the accused?
Donating to Democrats Injurious?
And by the way . . . , theoretically, will giving substantial donations to Democrats, or being a high profile conduit for same, be considered “conduct which is injurious to the organization . . . disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work? ”
Should, theoretically, gifts to Friends of Jim Lykam (D) be considered hampering Republicans in their work? Should Chairing an organization giving a substantial amount of money to Democrat Senator Tod Bowman, when Republicans are desperate to take over the State Senate, and to Lykam, be considered hampering it in its work? One more egregious than the other . . . perhaps, but what if it is the same person? What assurances should be demanded regarding continuation of such activity?
Should the “injurious” provision for the Constitution apply to delegates as well? If not why not? How about giving to Democrat Jim Hancock for County Supervisor . . . should such giving be a disclosure item prior to election for Republican office, if not disqualifying per se? What about aiding as such a high profile Democrat like Bill Gluba for municipal political office even if the office is officially non-partisan (apparently only to Republicans)?
Should direct gifts to Democrats be an item for disclosure as part of receiving the benefit of the dais when running as a Republican? Do the Texas Democrat names Garnet F Coleman, R Christopher Bell, Ellen R Cohen implicate anything or anyone as regards this provision? Just asking. How about Arlen Specter or Jon Corzine when Republicans need the US Senate?
Theoretically, how about someone giving $1500 to Cheri Bustos, should that be a consideration and disclosed regarding communications into and out of Scott County from our brothers and sisters across the river?
One More Thing —
We also ask, given that it has been found necessary to give Robert’s such reliance, why Robert’s is not given deference as regards challenges to rulings of the
Chair, Chairman, Chairwoman, Chairperson? Replete within Robert’s is the provision that rulings of the Chair, Chairman, Chairwoman, Chairperson typically requires only a majority vote of the assembled. The SCRP Convention Rules Committee offered no change to the 2/3 provision. Just wondering why, given that the powers-that-be are saying they are just cleaning things up.