Friday, September 28, 2007

Making It Up As They Go Along

Or, "Gill-Haters Arguments So Specious, They Don't Bother To Repeat Them."

Greg is reporting that the Eleventh Congressional District last night denied Julie Lucas' appeal from Tom Kopko's decision --- as the 51st District House of Delegates Committee, of one --- affirming the results of the 51st District Convention. I give him credit: I hadn't gotten wind that Lucas had appealed at all, and certainly don't have a copy of the decision. I will attempt to post it if I get a copy.

But oh, my! How the Gill-Haters are screaming!

First, there's Greg himself, who complains that:
the appeal was denied not on the basis of any arguments made for or against the appeal, but because Julie hadn’t obtained an additional twenty-five signatures to support it — a requirement not found anywhere in the Republican Party Plan. If you can’t defeat the arguments in a brief, apparently the Party can invent new procedural rules that weren’t followed because they hadn’t previously existed.
Now, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, 'cause Greg can't seem to help himself, but once again, he's caught claiming that something can't be "found" in the GOP Party Plan simply because he didn't look very hard for it. One of his commenters quickly noted in response that:
4. All appeals, under sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 of this section must be made in writing within thirty (30) days after the decision appealed from and the appeal must be accompanied by a petition signed by at least twenty-five (25) Party members (except as provided below) of the respective Unit, Legislative District or Congressional District affected. When an appeal involves a mass meeting, party canvass or convention, then for purposes of this paragraph the term “Party members” shall mean mass meeting participants in the case of a mass meeting; canvass voters in the case of a party canvass; or delegates in the case of a convention. If fewer than one hundred twenty-five (125) persons voted in such mass meeting, party canvass or convention, then the petition shall be signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of the voters at such mass meeting, party canvass or convention.
Party Plan, Article X, Section B(4). To paraphrase Greg, I guess if you can't defend the arguments in a brief, you deny that technical requirements plainly stated in the Party Plan don't exist.

The funny thing is, this is nothing new. Back about sixteen years ago, a candidate who ran against John Frey for Fairfax County Clerk of the Circuit Court, Ferrell Egge, likewise brought an appeal, this one, to the then-Eighth Congressional District Committee, upon which I served as Parliamentarian. And like then, Egge didn't get the required number of signatures to perfect his appeal, which was promptly dismissed. And Egge was never heard from again.

Unlike Lucas' "Brain Trust," charitably described. Having well and thoroughly destroyed Lucas' efforts to overturn the results of a vote by withdrawing his appeal from the ruling of the Chairman at the Convention, O.P. Ditch is still favoring us with his serially-uninformed and unauthoritative complaints. And complaining that the reason behind the rejection of Lucas' arguments was not his own mistakes, but Kopko's delay in issuing his ruling (of course, they would have complained about his failure to investigate had Kopko been more prompt; must be nice to have your cake, and eat it, too), and the silly notion that "we don’t have a 'Party' but a 'Committee.'" But see here ("The Plan of Organization of the Republican Party of Virginia"), and here (referring to the "Prince William County Republican Party").

I guess the real question here, though, is who is more ill-informed. Greg, who claims that the reason for dismissal was a lack of necessary signatures? Or O.P., who claims that the signatures were provided?

It's delicious to watch the Gill-Haters arguing among themselves. No wonder they didn't bother to get those technical requirements right.

Pesky rules.....


Charles said...

Does Greg even know how to read? I can't believe how many times he insists things aren't in the party plan when they are clearly IN the plan.

Charles said...

To answer your other question, OP Ditch was clearly saying that they submitted the same set of 25 signatures.

The funny thing is, wouldn't those signatures be on a form that included the petition language? And wouldn't have said "petition to appeal the convention to the 51st district?

And since the language of the 11th district appeal wasn't the same, wouldn't it have been obvious, even if they didn't read the rules, that there was a problem submitting a signature page with the wrong language on it?

Or did they submit a signature page that was devoid of descriptive markings?

BTW, I finally got around to writing up why the 11th district was right in it's interpretation of the RPV plan, and also why the RPV plan requirement is correct.