MassGOP State Committee’s Special Meeting Set for March 4

( – promoted by Rob “EaBo Clipper” Eno)

FYI, Executive Director Nate Little sent out this email to the State Committee members earlier this evening.

Dear State Committee Members,

The Massachusetts Republican State Committee will be holding as special meeting in accord with a request received by the Secretary on February 13, 2013. Attached is the agenda and related documents.

The meeting will be at the Newton Marriott on March 4 and will begin at 7pm.

Agenda:

1.  Special meeting of the State Committee in accord with the Special Meeting request received by the Secretary on February 13, 2013

As a reminder:

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

About Brock N. Cordeiro

  • 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.  

  • edfactor

    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?

  • Vote3rdpartynow

    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.