(Interesting development. – promoted by Rob “EaBo Clipper” Eno)
I just received this email from State Committeeman Steve Aylward:
In accordance with our bylaws, 15 members of the State Committee have Requested that a Special Meeting be held to discuss the voting irregularities that occurred at our meeting of January 31, 2013. The request was emailed to our secretary at approximately 12:05 AM on February 8th 2013. A hard copy has been mailed to her today February 8, via Certified Mail – Return Receipt Requested. A copy was also sent to her by US MAIL, as well as to our Executive Director. Our Secretary is also included on this email.
As a courtesy, I made sure to inform our new Chair last night that the meeting request was forthcoming.
The attached Word Document outlines some of the questions we would like answered. The questions likely will give rise to perhaps other questions.
We are not questioning the character or integrity of any participant. Our questions center on process and judgment, and a plan for the future.
Stay well in the storm.
Attachment to Appendix Form I
Request for a Special Meeting
Request Date February 8, 2013
The undersigned request a Special Meeting of the State Committee be called in keeping that the requirement set for in our by-laws.
The purpose of the meeting is to review the voting procedure for Chair as it took place at the State Committee meeting of January 31, 2013. The requestor expect the following be accomplished:
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to the criteria used to rule any ballot ‘invalid’, especialy in light of our policy that the ballot cast represents the intent of the voter.
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to what employee of the State Committee determines that a vote is valid or invalid, and under which authority or rule said employee(s) make such a ruling.
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to why two paid employees of the Massachusetts Republican Party, and a paid Consultant of the Party, whose future employment could possibly be dependent upon the outcome of the election, could be allowed to oversee said election.
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to why notification of an invalid or spoiled ballot was not provided to the State Committee prior to any announcement of the result, and in doing so providing the State Committee people, the representatives of the people, the opportunity for a final decision on the spoiled ballot.
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to why the roll call includes names of people not on the committee.
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to the reason for the absence of our Parliamentarian.
• That the State Committee be provided with an explanation of who had control of the ballots from the first vote, after the results of the first ballot vote were officially announced.
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to the markings, if any, on the two ballots counted as ‘Abstain’ in the first round of voting.
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to how and when and by whom it was discovered that a ballot, or ballots, from the first vote had a candidate name written on the back.
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to when and by whom discovery of the ballot mentioned above was in fact reported to Mr. Brent Anderson, who used that information as a basis for his motion to re-count the first ballot.
• That explanation be given to the state Committee under which rules Mr. Scott Conway was also informed of the ballot mentioned above prior to all other State Committee members being informed.
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to the procedures used to count and verify the ballots.
• That explanation is given to the State Committee as to why the ballots are removed from the room in which the voting took place.
• That the State Committee be provided with any other pertinent facts about this voting procedure which it deems pertinent.
• That the Chair, the General Counsel and all other participants in either of the two vote counts be prepared to answer questions from the State Committee members relative to the events of January 31, 2013.
• That any other further questions or concerns be answered regarding voting irregularities.
In order to facilitate the analysis, it is requested that all of the documents used at the time, including both sets of ballots, the ballot box, and any notes taken by any person involved in the vote count be available to the State Committee. Additionally it is requested that any and all participants in the vote count, whether State Committee member or not, be invited to attend and answer questions at this Special State Committee meeting.
It is important to add that this call to meet is based solely on concerns above process and judgment. The concern is that meetings and voting going forward be conducted in a fair, professional and transparent manner, with full attention paid to decorum and procedure. With our grassroots, the public and the media in full attendance, it is our duty to ensure that we as a committee always act and appear professional, and competent.
Any questions regarding the details put forth above can be directed to either Steven Aylward or Tim Sullivan of the State Committee.
The roster of Signatories is as follows:
Name Phone Number
1. Steven Aylward
2. Tim Sullivan 3. Horace Mello
4. Brendan O’Connell 5. Michael Cowett 6. Joe Ureneck 7. Michael Gilleran
8. Patricia Doherty 9. Robert Cappucci
10. William Gillmeister
11. William McCarthy
12. Sandra Martinez
13. Helen Hatch
14. Peter Buckley
15. Sheila Richardson
Please note that I DID redact the phone numbers for posting on this public blog.