Navigation
Email Updates
| Subscribe to Boston Tea Party Updates |
BTP Marketplace
In coalition with...
NOTA's seat on the Nat. Comm.
In hindsight and after input from both the founder of the party & party members, I realize that the action I took to "remedy" a situation wasn't within my authority and violated the bylaws of the party.
I have only the best interest of the party in mind. I now ask for input from party members as to what action (if any) should be taken regarding the seat "held" by NOTA.
User login
Recent blog posts
- My Return to the Boston Tea Party
- BTP Response to the 2012 State of the Union
- Chair's Reply to Tiffany Briscoe
- Request for response from Ms. Briscoe
- 2012 National Convention
- Thread for Nominations for National Committee Officers
- Thread for Nominations for National Committee At-Large Rep.
- BTP Chair on RT America
- BTP Announces 2012 Presidential Ticket
- Local Candidate in FL
New forum topics
Active forum topics
Search
Comments
inDglass:
You should not have changed your vote after the poll closed. When the poll closes, it is closed. Period.
You do not have the authority under the bylaws to open the floor for nominations.
If you want to give in to Tom and the RBEC, the appropriate action is to move for the nat-com to open nominations. Then, they can vote on it.
The way you are trying to handle this now violates the bylaws two-fold. I would move to appeal it, but it wasn't even a nat-com action. It was just you.
Thomas L. Knapp:
"If you want to give in to Tom and the RBEC"
There's no way for Mr. Perry to "give in to" me, since I've demanded nothing.
inDglass:
Tom is obviously more concerned about semantics here than the real issue at hand. Tom has been undecided over the last two years whether or not he really wants to play a role in this party anymore. Now he only seems to show his face when he has a bone to pick with somebody.
Tom, we would have appreciated your constructive input during the convention in helping us get things done smoothly. Unfortunately, you must have been preoccupied with the LP convention. We did miss you. However, your after-convention bitching is not constructive and not welcomed. We really don't give a damn.
VTV:
Don't speak for "we" Doug. The majority of the party things what you did was bullshit. And that's going to be clear soon enough.
We are only talking about a single vote on a Nat Com, even when I was in the caucus I still voted the same as the Nat Com on virtually everything.
inDglass:
...when you felt like voting.
VTV:
Yes. When I was able to vote.
Why don't you stop acting like a child?
Todd Andrew Barnett:
Neil:
"When I was able to vote."
You were able to vote, dingus. You just didn't care to do it.
That's more than a legitimate reason to see to it that you don't get re-elected.
"Why don't you stop acting like a child?"
Why don't you stop acting like a prick who has an axe to grind with anyone who doesn't agree with you? If you did, that would be a start.
Knowing you, you'll never get it.
Thomas L. Knapp:
Douglass,
You needn't have "missed" me -- I participated in the BTP's convention as a voting member.
I'm not sure why you think I have a bone to pick with anyone -- or why you think that noting simple, indisputable facts and asking questions constitute "bitching."
The "real issue at hand" here is that a candidate who was not nominated, was not seconded, did not accept and does not exist somehow not only ended up on the ballot for an at-large position on the national committee, but was deemed to have won an election in which he/she by definition could not have been a candidate.
I tried to fix that issue with an appeal as provided for in the bylaws. The membership rejected that appeal. I don't have to like that outcome to acknowledge that it was the outcome.
I'm now trying to decide what the appropriate response to that outcome is.
My initial, knee-jerk reaction would be to assume that an organization which declines to follow its own rules is in a de facto state of self-dissolution.
I've asked if there's any reason for me to think otherwise.
The response, so far, has been to accuse me of "bitching." That response doesn't strike me as substantive.
inDglass:
The appropriate response would have been for a nat-com member to go ahead and move to open nominations. The motion would only require a second. A nat-com member today told me he/she would have seconded if Darryl had done it. Then nominations would have opened legitimately, and we could peacefully solve the problem through a completely new election (and those of us true libertarians around here would make sure there is an alternative to the RBEC candidates).
However, Darryl decided instead to break the bylaws again through two actions. He retroactively changed poll results, then he opened nominations without a motion.
What are we supposed to do to handle this abuse of admin privileges? Should we revoke his admin privileges? I feel like being an admin is almost necessary to effectively working as chair. Should we move to remove him as chair then? I suggest instead that Darryl simply fix the poll, and move for the nat-com to open the floor for nominations. If Darryl acknowledges and rectifies his abuse of admin privileges, I am willing to forgive and forget.
southernpatriot:
"I suggest instead that Darryl simply fix the poll, and move for the nat-com to open the floor for nominations. If Darryl acknowledges and rectifies his abuse of admin privileges, I am willing to forgive and forget."
I realize that I took an action I should not have taken, I have reset the poll results to the original outcome & have motioned the Nat. Comm. to open nominations.
inDglass:
I appreciate that you took responsibility. I have to take responsibility as well for not handling the elections during the convention in complete accordance with the bylaws as well. That put a mess in your lap right when you entered office, which we will finally be able to clear up now. I hope someone will second your motion, we can run a final election for the open at-large seat, and we can all move past this mess.