Well, this was more interesting than I thought it would have been. I figured that my previous post would have been a “capper” as in “the closing of a chapter”; write it, be done with it. I was wrong. A number of emails have come in over this but one came in that really showed the intent of what the takeover really meant. And this comment from Ronnie Abbot was amusing (from the post):
…but many of the 19 State committee members who were there to vote publicly denounced C4B the entire time. We all still would have voted for the slate that got elected. C4B had nothing to do with this change in leadership.
But the end result was that the Republicans who did vote that way were aligned with what the CfB intentions were – wipe out the Conservatives in the County. And no, Mr. Abbott CAN’T change my mind BECAUSE the desired end result was exactly that which was achieved. To the littlest jot and tittle. You voted for what CfB wanted, like it or not.
And one of the things that was CERTAINLY desired was a complete trashing of what the previous Executive Committee had put into place for governance – and that lasted for about 30 seconds as if that part of “The Rule Of Law” (e.g., the BCRC ByLaws) had never existed. They wanted what they wanted regardless of doing it the right way or not. Like it or not, those ByLaws existed. And these takeover Republicans are all about…what, exactly?
Emphasis mine – see if you get the pattern:
Hi Skip:
It’s worse:
1) Senator Lang attempted to have two positions added to the Executive Committee by election of State Committee Members. <it was> pointed out that this would require a change to the BCRC Bylaws. Elliot [Gould, Exec Dir of the NH GOP who was running the election] told Sen. Lang he would need to have the bylaws changed. [LOL]
Next – those State Committee members (aligned with the CfB and elected at the last meeting) decided that THEY were above “the Rule o Law” of the BCRC ByLaws:
2) The State Committee Members attempted to elect an EC Member at Large. <it was> pointed out that the bylaws specify that the Member at Large is to be elected by the General Members. Elliot removed their candidate from the ballot. [LOL]
Elitist, right? No commitment to the “little people” who formerly made up the “legislative body” of the BCRC. We want to do what we want to do…like this:
3) After the outgoing officers departed, and so as reported, a motion was passed to make all Belknap Reps and Senators members of the BCRC, again in violation of the bylaws.
Just couldn’t wait any time at all. It’s like it was merely a mob rule meeting. To which I was not surprised:
4) Two non-members (Lambert and Lange) were elected unanimously by the State Committee Members present to serve as officers, yet another violation of the bylaws. Most egregiously, the State Committee members imposed Lambert upon the GMs —imposed because the GMs had just voted in November to expel Lambert from membership due to inappropriate conduct towards a female GM at the previous (i.e., October) County Committee meeting.
Brings back stories I read about what took place during the French Revolution. This likely is not a comprehensive list of astonishing irregularities. But these four stand out in my mind at this time.
“GMs” being the General Members that had applied for and granted into membership of the BCRC. They were (emphasis on WERE) the ones that must do the voting on other members – and were the ones that voted Lambert out of their midst. The “State Committee members” made it clear how little they place in them – as if they didn’t exist at all. Only the State Committee “Elite” matter and if it hadn’t been for the presence of Elliot Gould, they would have completely turned it into a “good ole’ boy playground mentality” completely. Like a bunch of elementary school ADHD boys, they couldn’t wait to do things the right way; they wanted what they wanted and they wanted it NOW.
So if I was a General Member in attendence on Wednesday, WHY would I continue to attend if I was just told that I’m not of any account at all?
Nice going, Hough and Lambert, for running your first meeting! Right in line with highest regard for the Rule of Law previously exhibited by these two along with Harry Bean (RSA 91-A, RSA 24). Great role models!
Somebody else wrote in to say that they believed that the attendance rate would mirror that of the Laconia Committee under Hough’s esteemed leadership. Given the disregard and disrespect shown to the General Members Wednesday night, I’m betting that prophecy will be wrong – it will tank FAR more quickly.
None of the chuckleheads that were trying to run things have ever learned something very important – loyalty is earned from the bottom upwards. When the top people (from Tim Lang downward) violate that precept and disrespect those at the bottom, don’t be surprised when no one is left at the bottom over time.
If rules can be made up on the fly and on any kind of whim desired, who is going to stick around to be treated in such a fashion?
