MassGOP State Committee's Special Meeting Set for March 4

Public Meeting? (0.00 / 0)

To attempt to address a question that I have received a few times, I have been given no indication that this is a private meeting - any less than any other State Committee meeting.  The only difference is that instead of having been set by the Chairman (as our calendar is in December for the following year) this was called per the MassGOP Bylaws by a minimum of 15 State Committee members.  Nothing in the Bylaws makes a Special Meeting to be a private one.

That having been said, I wouldn't be surprised if a motion was made, perhaps very early on, to go into Executive Session and thus make it a private meeting.

Please note that while the agenda of the special meeting is to address the matters outlined above, according to Article 5, Section 3, paragraph b: "This section shall not restrict the State Committee from discussing additional business at any special meeting."  However, I know of no other business likely to come before us, at this time.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 21:09:10 PM UTC

Is there any criteria for going into Executive session... (0.00 / 0)

...or can it be done for any reason (with a vote of the majority attending, I assume)?

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 22:17:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not that I am aware (0.00 / 0)

I recall only having one instance of a motion to enter into an Executive Session and that was the State Committee meeting immediately after November's election.  

At that point the majority vote was in order to have a closed meeting to speak frankly and directly about the election results.

The postponed Summit was established as a closed meeting by its very definition.

This special meeting, I defer to my previous statement.  I have no idea if a motion to enter into Executive Session is planned by anyone but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens.  

I only note this as if anyone was planning on attending, who isn't a State Committee member, I would hate for them to spend the time driving on over only to have to sit back in the lobby.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 22:54:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unity Meeting (0.00 / 0)

Brock,

Your comments on the rescheduling of the Unity Meeting are spot on and I hope that the decision to reschedule that very important meeting is discussed at this special State Committee meeting, if not I will be very disappointed in the State Committee.

---

by: ConsEph @ Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 00:03:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Makes the unity meeting pointless (0.00 / 0)

Brock -

First, and as always, thanks for telling us what is going on.

Also, I saw your comment on the postponement of the unity summit and agreed that a unilateral move felt wrong.

But let's pretend that it went on as scheduled for a minute, ok?

The unity meeting is March 2. The new special meeting is March 4.

To start, I am not sure what the unity meeting would really be about. It is a good idea, but the content isn't obvious to me. I think the best thing to get people together is to get people working on something. (I have the feeling that the current signature-gathering is probably doing more to move people forward than anything else.)

HOWEVER..... we can't ignore what a significant part of the state committee wants in its investigation. And look at those 15 people. 14 of them publicly endorsed Rick Green ahead of the election. One, state committeeman Ureneck, endorsed neither ahead of time.

So this is the losing side wanting an exhaustive investigation of the election that cannot change the result. That's right, not one Hughes supporter is interested in this degree of confrontation.

NOTE: I was at the election and was very unhappy with the way it was conducted. I think the SC should decide to improve the process and perhaps issue a reprimand of some sort at some time. However, I thought the length and tone of the letter requesting the meeting was far too much. Again, if this is really about the integrity of the SC - and I believe it is to some degree, why aren't Hughes supporters signing on to it?

Regardless, there is going to be a very confrontational special meeting on March 4. Two days after the scheduled "unity summit". That seems rather farcical to me.

My hope would be that Green's supporters get their satisfaction at the meeting (not sure what that is other than process improvements) and that some sort of unity summit happens after the special meeting.

But this meeting on the 4th certainly doesn't feel like these people want unity at the moment, does it? Yes, they will say this is about the dishonorable scene at the election. But they could have gone about it in a different way than this. It could have been handled with fewer questions and during a regular meeting, and with the support of those who endorsed Hughes. Heck, I like Chairwoman Hughes a great deal and I was outraged at the ballot screw-up at the election. Are there no others like me? (But when I saw the tone and long list of questions in the letter, I said, 'no thanks, man.')

The SC cannot both sow division and seek unity in the same week. Can it?

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 15:51:18 PM UTC

These things can't be swept under the rug Ed (5.00 / 2)

Ed,

First let's get something straight:

NO ONE IS REMOTELY QUESTIONING THE LEGITIMACY OF KIRSTEN'S ELECTION ON THE SECOND BALLOT.

NO ONE IS REMOTELY SUGGESTING THAT SHE SHOULD BE REMOVED, STEP DOWN.

NO ONE IS REMOTELY SUGGESTING THAT SHE WAS IN ANY WAY INVOLVED WITH THE NONSENSE THAT HAPPENED WITH THE FIRST BALLOT.

That said, let's address more specifically some of points about the special meeting.

This request for this investigation has absolutely nothing to do with the unity, in the sense that no one is trying to divide the party with this investigation.

The rules call for 15 people to sign the petition. And so in order to follow the letter of law, ONLY 15 people signed. Lest the establishment attempt to throw out the request because there were more than 15.

There were several others, including Hughes supporters that would have gladly signed the petition. (one of those people is your favorite state committee person who readily offered to sign the petition!)

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the end result of the second ballot.  It has to do with an extremely flawed process and quite possibly an attempt by one or more individuals to steal the election on the first ballot.

This is in no way an indictment of Kirsten Hughes, the duly elected Chair of the MA-GOP. No one is remotely implying she had anything to do with any possible malfeasance. In fact Ms. Hughes should welcome this investigation and insist on it! If State Committee members didn't call for it, she should have done it on her own. The individuals involved did it in her. We have every reason to believe it was unbeknownst to her. Hence it is in her best interest that this be addressed and the individuals involved be dealt with, so that we can indeed move forward IN UNITY!

One person involved is simply the "hired help." He needed to fired a long time ago. This isn't the first problem we've had with the man, who is an officer of the court! The man allegedly assaulted a female State Senator from North or South Dakota (I forget which) at the Tampa RNC Convention. Not to mention he was one of chief engineers if delegate caucus debacle.

We can no-longer tolerate this blatant corruption and hubris.  It's time for the MA-GOP to clean up its act.
We all have been and to want to continue to be supportive on our new chair. This is an opportunity for her to show leadership. She can fire this individual tomorrow. He serves at the pleasure of the MA-GOP. No grounds are needed. But plenty exist already, before we even begin to look at the controversy from January 31st.  

Ms. Hughes deserves the opportunity to run the party without this cloud of corruption hanging over her head.
It's bad enough that Scott Brown shafted her, first by threatening not to run if she wasn't elected. Then by announcing he wasn't running the day after she won the election.

You're implication that those calling for this special meeting don't want unity, is a completely false premise Ed. Quite the contrary. This investigation is necessary to further unity. For Pete's sake Ed, you should be calling this investigation and every other Republican in the state that is aware of the facts should be calling for it too.
The two state committee members involved, ought to be screaming for it, so that their names can be cleared.
How  can there be unity if we continue to sweep chicanery and malfeasance under the carpet? How can their be unity, if people (including many of those who endorsed Kirsten Hughes)don't trust the leadership or the process.

Do you expect people to allow this sort of blatant corruption to go unchallenged Ed ?????????????????
Do you expect us all to sing Kumbaya??????????????
This isn't about our ideological differences Ed. This is about whether or not we allow a select few to run the party by what ever corrupt means they choose to do so.
Do you really think Republicans are going to open their wallets, give of their time, and treasure, to people who have shown over and over again they cannot be trusted.

This investigation has the potential to be the best thing that ever happened to the MA-GOP. Kirsten made it clear during her campaign that she's independent. She owes her allegiance to no one. She's her own person and she wants to rebuild the party from the grassroots up. Well, do you expect the grassroots to support party whose leadership sweeps corruption under the carpet?  This is a tremendous opportunity for Kirsten to assert herself as the Chair. This is her moment to show her stuff and independence. She is the duly elected Chair of the MA-GOP. Others who hold different titles are not. Yet everyone knows who has been calling the shots for years. Well, those people aren't the Chair. Kirsten is. This is her opportunity to show she is the Chair. The best thing she can do for herself and the party is fire one individual, before this meeting even takes place.

---

by: John DiMascio @ Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:24:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ed .... 2 things (5.00 / 3)

1.) Simple J Malarkey gave you a 5 for your comment.  Think about that.

2.) It seems like the Hughes people are exteemly defensive.  Look some crazy shit went down on January 31st, and people want to know a little more about the process.  That's all.  Nothing to be afraid of if you're clean ya know what I mean?  

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 14:43:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not black and white (0.00 / 0)

Mr. RRRR -

Why is it people are so damned pigheaded around here?

I was there at the meeting. When I heard about the rejected ballot, I was very irritated. I thought "What a fiasco - and in front of the party and the public." Thankfully, they voted again and it was over. I didn't have a big preference ahead of the election, but I was happy Ms. Hughes had won. I met Rick Green after the vote at the bar, and thought he was a great guy. He was a much finer man than many of his supporters.

I expected that, after the dust settled, that the SC would change how it does voting. Maybe the guy who rejected the ballot would be relieved of his duties. (That seemed right.) I didn't know. I just thought the SC would make changes at the next meeting.

When I saw the letter posted on RMG, which was very long and seemed like an inquisition, I thought, "Oh, man. This seems like sour grapes."  After all, isn't this the SC investigating itself? Also, I would learn later that this was an effort by Green supporters - of course, which made it feel less worthy. A "bipartisan" letter with a different tone and some Hughes supporters still could have achieved reform and accountability on this.

But of course, when it comes to the far-right of this party - you're either with them or against them. That's how immature they are.

As for Mr. Malarkey liking my comment originally - I have no problem with that. Yes, he's a troll on this site, but there are times when he has more integrity than many of the people who post on this dying website.

---

by: edfactor @ Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 12:35:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Dying website" // " far-right of this party - you're either with them or against them. That's how immature they are." - Ed (0.00 / 0)

Ed, I can see this is getting personal.  That's bad, because it's clouding your judgment.  

You believe the vote was a "fiasco" but what seems to bothers you the most is the damn letter requesting a little clarification on the process.  So if it were up to you Ed, you will allow "transparency" IF people ask for it politely.  But if it "seems like sour grapes" forget it everything is off?  It sounds like you're the one being immature.

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 14:54:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

edfactor (0.00 / 0)

I sometimes can't keep straight who said what on this site as I'm taking it all in, but I thought I found you reasonable and relevant in the past.  I must be confused because your comments on this string are the most unreasonable, irrelevant and absurd of any.  Without responding to every absurdity on point, suffice it to say you would have been content if this matter and/or letter had been "bipartisan" with some Hughes supporters.
1- They can chime in any time . . . waiting.
2- They accomplished precisely what they wanted, albeit by one measly vote, which is why they did what they did, so why would they want to change anything, and finally,
3- what went on with the campaigning, i.e. Scott Brown's calls and promises, but even more so with the voting itself is so patently wrong and egregious it's an embarrassment.

My God, we are, or should be screaming about what the dems do with elections and what have you, but that is a direct assault against their nemesis, us.  And here we have our own doing it, flagrantly in front of all, and you want to call sour grapes?  I'd rail against any Republican caught being deceptive in any capacity, but here we have it right among ourselves and against our own.  Despicable, but keep complaining about who did or did not sign the letter Ed.  That, after all is worthy of more attention by you than apparently doing anything about those within our party stooped so low as to cause the letter to be written.  

Let me know when Hughes chimes in or does anything about it.

---

by: Term Limits @ Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 04:49:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The State Committee meeting should be canceled....... (0.00 / 0)

There will be only lawlessness and danger on our streets because the Sequestration will be underway.  All hell breaks lose on 3/1.  The fact that you are planning events after the sequestration is underway shows the Republican Party is out of touch.

What?  Its the truth.  Read it here.

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 17:53:57 PM UTC