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).

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.

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

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..!!!