RPCC Platform tabled

Very, very good meeting last night on the RPCC Platform. We had intended to make a motion to table the platform as soon as the meeting started. Luckily we held off!

The rank & file began voicing their opinions for and against various language in the platform. We sat by and rolled with the punches. Mayor Akers was compared to Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson several times.

We had a loose coalition of people from various groups that pulled together to at least stall this platform.

Acknowledging the letter sent from, Jim Irvine, of Buckeye Firearms Association, the pro gun control language was immediately removed from the platform on a motion made by Chairman Frost. It is alleged the pro gun control language was an oversight. I don’t buy this.

How in the hell do you advance a GOP platform coming out for gun control, and have no pro life language?

The laundry list of items was removed from the Home Rule portion of the platform.

Attempts were made to remove the reform of public sector pensions / Double Dipping. Bruce Trakas spoke out against removing this. A vote was taken and this language will be kept on the platform. Great Job by Bruce!

The supporting of minority candidates topic was good!

Platform proposed to increase minority participation in the party and increase minority candidates. It was noted that there were NO minorities on the platform committee.

I laughed as I looked around the room and saw several minorities sitting in the crowd. Sure was nice to see Virgil Brown Sr. among other "minorities" in the crowd. If we were sincere, Mr. Brown Sr, Jr. or any others in the room could have been on the committee.

I know of one black women that is a tremendous addition to our Central Committee and would be a great asset on any committee.

Mr. Brown Sr. and many of the Cleveland precinct people voiced their opposition to reducing Cleveland Council seats. Richard May spoke frankly about the shortcomings of these ideas. He elaborated on how this would be a godsend to the dems of the area and the size of the proposed wards would be unrealistically to large.

The meeting was scheduled to end at 7:30pm. At 7:28pm, I called for a motion to table the platform. I explained it is unrealistic, in the format this is being debated, to expect our party to leave this room tonight with a platform that will lead us to success.

A oral vote was taken, the no’s screamed louder they yeas. I then immediately asked for a division of votes and a hand count was taken. This hand count showed the true vote and changed the outcome.

We WON! 57 for, 54 against!

Had this been put to a vote to accept or defeat the platform, I believe we would not have been successful. I will be working to have the platform completely redrafted and resubmitted to the party for review. I will be contacting central & executive committee members of our party urging them to submit their views to the RPCC on what our platform should reflect. Should their opinions not be included the next time the platform is debated, our support against this will grow.

But speaking with Chairman Frost after the meeting and explaining my position and concerns, I do believe our party will do the right thing. I am fully confident that this platform will be reworked with close cooperation and input from the rank & file.

If our concerns are not addressed, we will work to have the platform defeated and/or tabled again.

The following is from an email forwarded to me from a fellow RPCC Central Committee member. The original email is from a "New" Central Committee member and her take of the meeting.....


......And it was quite interesting. I arrived at 5:20 PM. I was on the very first row and first seat by the camera crew.

I like Rob Frost. He seems to truly enjoy being the Chairman and appears to be quite knowledgeable; however, he, respectfully, really should brush up on Robert's Rules of Order.

When a committee chair gives a report, it should be "moved" by the committee chair for adoption. No second is required. Then the debate goes from there...motions can be made to strike out words and insert others or add words, etc. "Aye" is in favor and "nay" is opposed.

When something is "tabled" and seconded, the vote occurs immediately, no hesitation. (When Ralph made his motion the first time to table the entire platform and it received a second, it should have been voted on immediately. If I 'm not mistaken, it superseded the motion on the floor.)

The second time around Ralph made the motion to table (and seconded); then the chair asked whether "we" have the room until 9:00 PM. That was not relevant and out of order. And the chair shouldn't have added "until the next meeting" as that was not part of the tabling motion being made, but put the maker of the motion on the spot to agree.

And any suspending of the rules, I don't believe is the chair's call exclusively...it requires a 2/3 vote of the body, as does the limiting or extending of the debate. Everything else is pretty much a majority vote. (The rules of debate should be voted on by the body at the beginning of the meeting.)

When the "question" is called (and seconded) the debate stops immediately and it requires a vote, no discussion. And 2/3, not just the majority must agree to call for the previous question...

I just love a lively debate provided Robert's Rules of Order are followed to ensure the playing field is equal. :0) For those kinds of intense debates a CERTIFIED parliamentarian should be on hand. I’m not sure if the guy giving Rob parliamentary advice was such a person, but maybe he was and Rob wasn’t totally listening to him. That was a tough crowd with MANY opinions; Frost did well under fire.

The debate over whether to endorse two candidates from Rocky River was amazing! And in many ways out of order by Robert's Rule of Order standards. The entire debate was highly entertaining.

The dynamics in the room was very interesting. I look forward to the next meeting. :0)