To the parliamentarians out there: Is this legal?

At the 99th Legislative District Republican Committee meeting on December 14, 2009:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

To download, click here (139 KB MP3).

I don’t have a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order so I’m not too familiar with parliamentarian procedure. Anyone want to help?

Cross-posted at On The Right and Virginia Virtucon.

8 Comments

  1. LarryG says:

    private group not using state funds doing it’s own thing.

    Do you want the State or Feds to tell pvt organization what they can have or not have in their bylaws and operational procedures?

    shame. shame.. you’re the one always carping about the big, bad intrusive government..!!!

  2. Uh…did I say anything about the government? The committee is supposed to follow the Party Plan, their bylaws, and Robert’s Rules of Order. If they don’t, they’re in violation of their own rules.

  3. LarryG says:

    so.. what’s the penalty for being in violation of your own rules?

    see that’s the way the Republicans do business anyhow… to heck with rules ..just do it – right?

  4. Charles R. Lawson says:

    If he’s requesting that a part of the regular meeting not be reported upon, then he’s wrong. If he’s actually going INTO executive session, then the material discussed while in executive session is secret.

    If a chairperson chooses to discuss something that went on in a previous executive session, then that’s his own fault for bringing it forward in the public meeting forum. That can and probably will be reported upon.

    That’s from a former parliamentarian and president of a fraternal organization and from my most recent copy of Robert’s Rules of Order (10th Ed. Newly Revised, blah blah blah)

    Perhaps this is another slip by Mr. Webb, who previously told me that myself and Mr. Cupp were breaking some form of rule by not supporting Ms. Crabill for Delegate. Somehow, I was not to speak my mind against a candidate who proved herself unworthy of our nomination or the office itself. Did I speak out in support of the opponent? No. But apparently, I was not to have my free speech rights unless it was speech in the correct direction.

  5. That was recorded after executive session had ended and the meeting had returned to regular session.

    They were apparently talking about the campaign and how to go after Jeff Sili for refusing to support Crabill’s candidacy in executive session, someone made a motion to have the Chairman draft and send a letter to RPV to censure Sili, and then they returned to regular session to hear the motion. (It was approved 4-0).

  6. Charles R. Lawson says:

    Well…how the motion was bandied about in executive session is of course privileged information, however, anything that goes on beyond the confines of the exec. session is fair game. Mr. Webb should probably invest in a new copy of Robert’s Rules.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. To the parliamentarians out there: Is this legal? « On The Right
  2. To the parliamentarians out there: Is this legal? « Virginia Virtucon

Leave a Reply