GOP Bylaw Amendments: The Good...Generally
Well upon review of the proposed bylaw amendments, (some of which are generally technically amendments), the substantive ones generally break down three ways. Some amendments are very good amendments. Some amendments are very bad amendments. And one amendment/proposal is completely out of far right field. We'll break them into individual posts.
You can view the entire proposed new bylaws in an annotated version here, the recommendations of the Bylaw Review Committee here, and view comments from Anne Arundel Central Committee members here and here.
1. Prohibiting Central Committee members from supporting non-Republicans in partisan elections
This just makes common sense. We cannot have Republican Central Committee members publicly stumping for Democrats as we have seen here in District 31. I do not necessarily, however, think the provision referring to penalties set forth by the State Central Committee is the way to go, as these matters should be dealt with first and foremost at the local level. But this proposal only works if the proviso for primary elections are removed. That is a whole different ball of wax, but including the proviso of supporting "official" candidates in the primary could really gum the works up.
2. Introduction of Resolutions
This is really inside baseball stuff here. Basically, it would remove a provision require a resolution to go through the Resolutions Committee before it is submitted for discussion at a party convention. Common sense stuff here.
You can view the entire proposed new bylaws in an annotated version here, the recommendations of the Bylaw Review Committee here, and view comments from Anne Arundel Central Committee members here and here.
1. Prohibiting Central Committee members from supporting non-Republicans in partisan elections
This just makes common sense. We cannot have Republican Central Committee members publicly stumping for Democrats as we have seen here in District 31. I do not necessarily, however, think the provision referring to penalties set forth by the State Central Committee is the way to go, as these matters should be dealt with first and foremost at the local level. But this proposal only works if the proviso for primary elections are removed. That is a whole different ball of wax, but including the proviso of supporting "official" candidates in the primary could really gum the works up.
2. Introduction of Resolutions
This is really inside baseball stuff here. Basically, it would remove a provision require a resolution to go through the Resolutions Committee before it is submitted for discussion at a party convention. Common sense stuff here.
Labels: 2007 State GOP Bylaw Amendments, AAGOP Leadership Battle 2007
posted by Brian Griffiths at 8:17 PM
6 Comments:
Common Sense?
If I were a sinister convention junkie who wanted to get my own agenda through the convention, I could bombard the convention with resolution after resolution, pushing the convention well into the night until the votes were in place to accomplish what I wanted.
Have you ever been to a convention and seen how long it takes for just one vote to be completed? There is always confusion over LCD it takes 10 - 15 minutes for delegations to be polled and another then another 15 - 20 minutes for the actual votes to be voiced and counted.
By forcing resolutions into a committee, it prevents embarassing resolutions from ever coming to the floor and keeps tight controls over the agenda which allows the convention to be completed in a reasonable period and somewhat predictable from beginning to end.
Fair...however, who says that a Resolutions Committee of any organized body always has the best interests of the organization at heart? I'm not suggesting that that has happened at the state level, just suggesting that perhaps Committee members need to have an option available to petition their resolution directly.
So do you believe just because someone is on the CC they must support a complete moron just because he happens to be a Republican? Like we saw here in 31.
Nobody said they have to support....just don't support the Democrat. I think it is well known which candidates people did and did not support, even in instances where such support was not publicly acknowledged.
Worse yet David, with the endorsement provision as it is written, those people could have been endorsed officially by the MDGOP.
Personally if I had my way all parties would be abolished and people would vote on who they thought the best person for the job was.
Post a Comment
<< Home