I was there, I'm new to meetings and since I just moved here, this was my first CCRP meeting. There were two main subjects to deal with last night. The first was the elections. There were four elected positions up for election. Then there was a large rules change that affected several areas of the rules and needed 2/3rds vote to amend.
When I got there, I talked to some people about not knowing who is who and that hopefully I could get seated by some Ron Paul supporters. I was assured that it was a very friendly crowd tonight. In fact, there were lots of young faces there. Since I'm new, I did not have voting rights until January. I was told by some people that a lot of things are resolved by voice vote, so I'm glad I was there.
Keep in mind that the CCRP is so firmly Ron Paul supporters that they swept the elected board positions and got many favorable changes made. What was refreshing was to see how this change has actually made things more fair to all. Prior to the official start of the meeting, the Sergeant-at Arms Richard Meyer gave a brief explanation of Robert's Rules and which terms to use and when they are properly used. I feel that gives new people a better sense of what would be going on and ensures everyone is on the same page about how to use the Rules.
In our chairs we found two pieces of paper. A conservative slate and a second piece of paper that only had one name for each elected position. I'm new here, but I'm pretty sure the conservative slate was ours since it carried so many endorsements from e-board members and we had 2/3rds control of the e-board. Also, as each candidate spoke, I detected statism in the speeches of those candidates from the small paper. They spoke of education being last here in Nevada and putting aside our differences (establishment-speak for "you Paulites need to get on our train"). Neither of them won, but it did come down to a run-off election. I wish I could say for certainty what this means but I felt pretty good about the outcome. Richard Meyer won one of the positions.
The second major issue was a rules change that was being presented as a package. It changed like 5 different areas of the rules. It needed 2/3rds vote to pass. After listening to the explanation, it appears that it's passage would reduce the concentration of power from being in a few hands to more hands. Also, it meant that committees could only be appointed by elected leaders as opposed to some committee appointments being made by non-elected members of the leadership. There was some Q&A and at one point, a man spoke about the ability of state law to over-ride party by-laws, etc., A lot of people felt that he was trying to filibuster or up to some shenanigans. A personal point of information was made questioning the motives of the last speaker. Then a vote was cast to end discussion and to move forward with the vote. The measure passed 187-70 after abstentions were excluded and "no" votes were measured. After that, someone motioned for adjournment, it was seconded multiple times and then passed. Meeting over.
I really thought that there was going to be some shenanigans pulled beyond what happened. I thought they were going to try and get some people removed from elected positions but there weren't any recalls, etc.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: