Tuesday, December 22, 2009

If we deny it, it didn't happen

Well, that seems to be the perspective the ousted Lucas County Republican Party chairman Jon Stainbrook is taking regarding last night's vote to remove him.

Stainbrook trotted forth an individual named Ben Roberts, who was identified as the parliamentarian for the Party. Roberts said 'he' didn't recognize any of the votes that were taken to remove Stainbrook and central committee chair Megan Gallagher.

I guess he should go back and read Roberts Rules of Order. According to this official guide, members do have the ability to call a meeting to order and appoint a temporary chairman. This is what the body did last night.

Members do have the ability to present, second and vote on a motion to suspend the rules. By voting in favor of this motion, the body was able to address items on the agenda that were not part of the published meeting notice. This is what the body did last night.

The spin put on this meeting by the local paper is just appalling.

One of the claims made in this report is that many of the individuals present were not members of the central committee. Since there is a sign-in sheet, this should be easy to determine. If, indeed, the people voting were members of the central committee, then the votes should be valid.

Look at the terms used to describe the event:

"raucous attempt by enemies of Chairman Jon Stainbrook"

"opponents claimed they elected a new chairman" (emphasis added)

"Ironically, the attack on Mr. Stainbrook’s leadership occurred just a few days after he was successful in lining up ... Karl Rove" (emphasis added - isn't calling something 'ironic' expressing an opinion?)

"anti-Stainbrook forces"

"Stainbrook overthrew the “old guard” of the party that he said was still allied with disgraced former chairman Noe."

"Stainbrook has won plaudits"

The story focuses on Stainbrook's claim that this whole event was orchestrated by former state representative and current Board of Elections member Lynn Olman. Of course Stainbrook thinks that - he always believes someone is out to get him, which is why he lives by vendettas, constantly trying to 'get even' with those he thinks have wronged him in some way. Sadly, other than Stainbrook and Gallagher's claims, there is no evidence that this was orchestrated by Olman - as opposed to a large number of Republicans who serve on the central committee.

In the end, Stainbrook has only himself to blame for the general dissatisfaction members of the committee have with him. His actions against fellow Republicans - endorsing new taxes, endorsing a Toledo city council member who raises taxes while not endorsing Sylvania Township trustees who lower taxes, threatening lawsuits every time you turn around, as well as his close relationship with John Robinson Block, the publisher of The Blade and someone who has never had the best interests of the LCRP at heart - all contributed, I'm sure, to the decision by the majority to remove him.

But it's not over. Stainbrook is denying the actions and claiming to still be chair. And, of course, he's threatening legal action.

So there are now two claims to party leadership in our local GOP. Fortunately, there are provisions in Ohio law for when two competing organizations claim to be the official party for a county. Ohio Revised Code 3517.05:

If more than one organized group claims to be the rightful county central or executive committee, each such group shall file a list of its officers and members as provided in section 3517.06 of the Revised Code, and the board of elections with which such lists are filed shall certify them to the state central committee of the party concerned. The state central committee shall meet within thirty days after receipt of such certification and forthwith determine and certify which committee shall be recognized as the rightful county central or executive committee.

I don't expect there to be questions about the 'rightful' central committee since those members are duly elected during the even-year primaries. So the question will be about the executive committee and whether or not the meeting was properly called to order and motions properly heard.

And as I explained in my previous post, it doesn't hurt that one of the individuals charged with deciding which party is the 'official' one happens to be the newly-elected chairman of the central committee.

Stay tuned....

4 comments:

Roman said...

When under the "Strong Publisher" form of government, things like this pass as reality for some citizens.

Too many people, for too many years have been reading, and believing anything published by "One of America's Newspapers" as the final word. It is certainly not!

There are many new sources for information out there in the 21st century. Just because it is writted down does not make it true.

Someday, the people of NW Ohio will take back the government and we can begin to move forward.

Tim Higgins said...

Denial may be the key word in the soon to be ended term of Jon Stainbrook. Many in fact, have denied that Stainbrook was ever a Republican (but that's beside the point I suppose).

It appears that reality rarely intrudes on Mr. Stainbrook and that the only view that counts is his (and of course that of his mentor in Pittsburgh), as has been proven in his sense of time when delivering paperwork and allegedly in the production of signatures for such paperwork.

Strange that he should object to someone stacking the deck at a meeting however, as this is exactly how he came to power.

Michael Temple said...

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson

Dictators and tyrants rarely give up power willingly. It must be taken from them, often by force. It will be no different this time. Stainbrook is a two bit dictator who was never a Republican and he is going to fight to the 11th hour to defend his little kingdom.

What I found interesting at the meeting is a handful of Stainbrook's cronies who showed up almost 40 minutes late and only after receiving frantic calls from Stainbrook were yelling that "we were acting like a bunch of Republicans" I guess I could be wrong, but I thought all of us were Republicans...at least that is what Stainbrook keeps telling us.

I also read in the paper that Stainbrook said that somehow we could only vote or discuss items on the agenda that had already been on there without any deviation, well if that were the case then we should just crown him king forever. Why would anyone ever allow a vote to remove themselves from power? They wouldn't, if that is really how it worked he would simply never put it on the agenda and it could never be voted on and he would stay in power forever. That is the most idiotic piece of logic this guy has ever come up with.

As if he didn't have enough contradictions in his desperate grab for power he also claimed that his side had the majority of votes and the sign in sheets would show that. Well, two things come to mind. First, why did he need a majority if we supposedly couldn't vote to remove him because it wasn't on the agenda?

Second, If he is so certain he had a majority then why did he try and shut down our motions and not let us have a vote? If he truly had the majority he could have simply sat there quietly and let us put our motion to remove him forward and simply defeated it and to demonstrate civility and legitimacy he could have even allowed a paper ballot to show beyond the shadow of doubt he was the person still in charge. Interestingly he didn't do that and that is what the issue is at hand. He didn't have the majority and he couldn't stop our very legal and legit motion so he tried to shout us down, declare us illegal, use the cops to drag us out, delay the meeting until he could round up his cronies, etc.

To any person willing to think and use logic, which apparently doesn't include The Blade or Stainbrook the tactics he employed stink and are deplorable. He is NOT the chairman any longer. Jeff Simpson is the rightful chairman and once we go through the painful process of forcibly removing Stainbrook from power he will be thankfully go down in history as the worst chairman in our history.

Maggie Thurber said...

Michael - thank you for raising the questions about Stainbrook's contradictory statements.

When it comes to agendas, Stainbrook is partially correct about them. Most times, agendas are published and need to be amended or modified in order to add items to them. However, voting to suspend the rules accomplishes the same thing and that is my understanding of what was done. So regardless of Stainbrook's partially correct interpretation, it's negated by the actions the body took.

I think, however, that the agreement of just about everyong that Stainbrook will fight against his fellow Republicans to keep control is part of his overall problem. He spends way too much time fighting against fellow Republicans - often over petty perceived slights against him personally, sometimes FAR in the past.

Google Analytics Alternative