April 30 mutiny meeting ruled OUT OF ORDER

That’s the ruling from the veteran parliamentarian of the Buncombe County GOP:

Executive Committee Members of the NCGOP

Dorothea Scott Alderfer
Senior Parliamentary Advisor
Buncombe County GOP

Called meeting of the NCGOP Executive Committee
April 30, 2016 10 A.M. Raleigh, NC

DATE: April 16, 201632120651

I question the validity of this meeting for the following reasons:

1. The Chairman against whom charges have been made cannot be present to defend himself as he will be out of the country. Prior notice of this out-of-the country commitment was given by the Chairman January, 2016.

2. Prior notice of this meeting to Chairman Harnett by registered mail has not been received in a timely manner as is required.

I question the proposed Agenda.

I can find nowhere in the NCOP Plan of Organization where the Executive Committee has the authority to either appoint or elect the NCGOP Party Chairman.

Therefore, I recommend that this meeting be cancelled.

For the record, Mrs. Alderfer has served nine different county chairmen in Buncombe County and has served her county’s district convention numerous times.  *Sounds like the lady MIGHT know what she’s talking about.* 

25 thoughts on “April 30 mutiny meeting ruled OUT OF ORDER

  1. My only problem with this is that part questioning if the executive committee has the power to elect a chairman.

    The Executive Committee is the convention when the convention is not in convention so it is one of the duties to fill vacancies if they happen between elections


    with that said the Executive Committee has replaced Chairman and Vice Chairman when someone stepped down from one of the positions. This used to be a trick leading up to a chairman’s election at convention that the current one steps down to get the person the establishment wanted in office and ready for the next term have the ex comm vote in someone about 3 months out and then they are almost guaranteed to win at convention

    With this issue happening before the upcoming convention in NO WAY should the EX COM vote to remove the chairman or VOTE on a REPLACEMENT. The Ex Comm Less than 30 days out from the next convention has to The DUTY to allow this issue to be taken up at the convention

    NO WAY should the EXCOMM in this case vote to pick a new chairman – Let the Full convention deal with this matter

  2. OF COURSE, Joyce Cotten, Tom Stark and the other ringleaders of the lynch mob knew that Hasan Harnett would be out of the country on April 30, so they decided that was a good day to throw the rope over the tree. According to this Buncombe County leader, they knew it as early as January. What they have done with setting this ExCom meeting is manifestly unfair and they knew it when they set it up that way.

    While the opinion of an honest and objective GOP parliamentarian with long experience is all well and good, that is not who will be doling on the rulings at the ExCom meeting. Instead, we will have Stark who very much has a dog in this fight, and is indeed essentially the chief prosecutor of Harnett. Someone should object to Stark making rulings or even presiding for bias and conflict of interest. Expect them to try to railroad this right through. If they do, I hope that Harnett takes it to court and rubs their noses in it. If that causes any backlash against any general election candidates, that will be the fault of the lynch mob more so than Harnett.

    I also hope that Harnett is talking to some criminal investigators about digging into what some of the characters in this mess were up to.

    1. Does Stark’s wife head up the state board of elections?????
      I hope that Harnett get the ACLU to take this battle on because there is not rules governing these parties. We are headed to the democrats becoming the socialist party, and then you will have the libertarian party and popular party.

  3. The 10th District Chairman at the 10th District convention April 16th, a member of the Central Committee, weighed in on this issue officially at that meeting. He said: “The responsibility lies with one person : The Chairman brought all this on himself.”
    Wow. Sounds to be a predetermined outcome with an extreme lack of objectivity, professionalism and due process.
    It is disheartening especially to see a leader, especially a fellow Christian praying one minute and attacking someone who is not there to defend themselves the next before the evidence has even been heard.

    1. I suppose one good thing out of all this drama with Hasan, is that the most inflexible and obstinate members of the CenComm have had to expose themseleves.

    2. And that justifies a planned bushwhacking at a time they knew Harnett would be out of the country, and timed to make it difficult for regular members to attend but oh-so-convenient for the legislators who helped them save David Lewis’ worthless rear end?

      1. How many people really want to travel across the state for a meeting so close to the state convention? Seems like it’d just honk off undecided members, especially if they wasted a day to be there and quorum cannot be met.

        The mood of that room is going to be very sour regardless of where people stand on Hasan.

        Somebody should ask Billy Miller to weigh in on the call to meeting and whether he thinks it met the POO.

    3. yep this district is controlled by Mc Henry who is bucking for next Governor. He don’t realize that this crap will give the next governor to Cooper. He also controls Buncombe County by having his staff in the upper crust of the BCGOP. It is not who you know any more but whose butt you kiss.

  4. I would also question the validity of the signatures that were needed to be obtained in order to call the meeting. It is claimed that the signatures were received yet they are nowhere to be found. The signatures of those who called the last central committee meeting were provided to demonstrate that the threshold was met. How can they claim to have received the signatures yet no one can see them? Who specifically has called the meeting? Would they try that anywhere else? “Yes, board of elections, I collected the signatures needed for this measure, just trust me.” Um, what? Where are these signatures?

    1. This is a very good point. Normally, the party secretary would check the signatures, but that is Kim Cotten-West, daughter of Joyce Cotten, one of the chief plotters. The email came from another one of the chief plotters, Tom Stark, who could be referred to as the Grand Dragon of the lynch mob. Neither of them would be neutral and objective to check anything.

      Hasan Harnett should send a designee to demand a copy of the signatures and then try to verify them, both on the impeachment petition and on the meeting call. I do not know that anyone has copies of true signatures to compare them against. Anyone could have signed anyone’s name. The only way to verify is to call each one.

      I also wonder if they have put a copy of the charges in Harnett’s hands in time for the two weeks notice. If they have not either had it personally hand delivered to him or have a postal service green card signed, they should be SOL. Stark. when he was defending Lewis, demanded that and he is in a box now on allowing a lesser standard on this one. If Harnett has not been personally served within the time period, which has now passed, they need to call the meeting off to avoid everyone having to travel there for nothing.

      1. You are so right about the need for verifying the signatures to both petitions and how to verify them! I have strong doubts about whether they actually have the number of signatures they claim.

    2. Chances are, a huge number of those signatures were provided by the legislators (there’s over 70 in the House alone), the rest like came from District Chairs and their tame slates of At-Large Members, probably from establishment-controlled Districts like the 9th and the 10th. So getting 1/3 probably wasn’t that hard. Where it gets tricky is the 2/3 they’ll need to vacate the Chair. If the meeting isn’t well attended due to the time, distance, and proximity to the State convention, the chances improve that they get their 2/3 majority.

      1. Once quorum is established for the meeting would it not be 2/3 of the room and not 2/3 of the whole body

        1. Actually Patrick, I stand corrected since you brought that up….the POO establishes that 25% of the Executive Committee must be present to transact business. BUT Article VII (7)(a)(1) says that a removal from office must be by a 2/3’s vote of the respective committee…..I would interpret that as a committee of the whole…if they try to run this through on 2/3 of whomever shows up for the meeting, IMHO they are on tenuous legal ground.

          And one other thing….the POO clearly spells out that the presence of ex-officio members (i.e. – the legislators) has no effect on quorum….I would argue that this sword cuts both ways, which is to say that while the legislators get to vote, there is still a valid requirement for non-ex officio members to be there in sufficient number to execute the business at hand, in this case, a disciplinary action which I believe demands the physical presence of at least 2/3 of the full State Executive Committee.

          1. First of all I am happy to be corrected at any point
            I am just trying to understand all of this and use what I remember happening in the past as my guide

            Secondly it seems we need a lawyer to fight for the ex-com members at the meeting trying to stop this since the lawyer that will be ruling on the meeting rules has already called a portion of the room Confederates and the meeting has not even started yet

      2. Isn’t Harnett entitled to face those against him? Has he been provided with the list of names who have signed the impeachment? There can be no doubt that they were provided to Lewis.

        Any legislator with their fingerprints on this should pay the price in November.

  5. I email one person in leadership and the Political Director “That I would like to see the 50 signatures for the charges as well as the 1/3 that called for the meeting”.

  6. I understand that the Chairman told them in January that he would be out of the country on April 30th, and yet they voted to have a meeting trying to remove him on the day he would not be able to defend himself. I believe everyone should be able to face his accusers and defend himself.

    So, ask yourself who is not working with who? Why, didn’t the CC come to the EXC and ask for directions in this matter as they should have?

    Ask yourself why: Central Committee members being required to take an oath of confidentiality and not report the procedures of the Central Committee to the Executive Committee is in complete contradiction to both the spirit and letter of the NCGOP Plan of Organization?

    Ask yourself: Do we need a CC?

    1. The CenComm needsto be elected by the ExecComm, so that it’s clear who has been “handed the keys” from whom.

      And the ExecComm should be elected at county convention so that there’s no more meddling by the district chairs who is “on his slate”. Every county gets at least one ExecComm member and the rest are divided up by population.

    2. How can anyone argue that it is fair to set a meeting of this import on the very date that the target of the meeting has told them months ago that he would be out of the country on business? Isn’t that dirty pool on its very face? How can anything that comes out of a group that plays this way be trusted? Or for that matter out of a group that operates with gag orders to keep party information from the Executive Committee, county chairmen, and other party leaders?

  7. Does Hasan have the funds to fight off the offensive? Are there among those working against him party-paid staffers? He is doing this job as a volunteer, is he not? Those of us who support his right to serve the seat into which he was duly elected should help him foot the bill or shut up. It’s easier to be brave when your pockets are full.

    Does anyone know Hasan’s financial situation? Doe he need financial help?

  8. That this civil war within the party has gotten to this stage is an ominous sign for the November election. North Carolina is a critical state on electing a sane president and in keeping the Senate majority, among other things. The latter greatly impacts Supreme Court appointments which impacts our Constitutional liberties..

    Lets look at best case scenarios for repairing the damage with either outcome.

    If the chairman prevails, he needs to take immediate steps try to calm this situation down. I would suggest he form an advisory council of some party leaders from the era before the present ”establishment” formed, announce that (the PR is important), and use it as a sounding board going forward, as well as using its members to try to bring around the Central Committee on working constructively with the chairman. The chairman should try to use the Executive Committee more often if problems with the Central Committee persist. The present Executive Director has been a lightning rod in this whole fiasco, and should be found a respectable position somewhere to which he can move on. A new ED should be someone who can be more of a bridge between the chairman and party governing bodies instead of trying to be a rival authority figure to the chairman. There are some other controversial staff at headquarters, but given the proximity of the election and the PR damage of a perceived purge, no efforts should be made to further change headquarters staff. There should not be any attempt at retribution on those who were behind this, as that just prolongs the conflict in the face of a critical election.

    If the chairman’s enemies prevail, what they would have done would already be perceived by many as an overreach, and further overreach would make the resulting bitterness within the party infinitely worse. They should respect the outcome of the last convention in terms of grassroots figures holding the chairmanship and vice chairmanship. Any factional change there will make this feud like the Hatfields and McCoys, while keeping the same factional lineup would help smooth over a very rough incident. The best way to do that would be to elevate the one grassroots person with a mandate from the last convention, vice chairwoman Michelle Nix, to the chairmanship. The vice chairmanship should then go to someone respected by the grassroots as a conservative fighter. One name that comes to mind is Jim Duncan, who was also a successful county party chairman. Again, a new ED would be necessary for the same reasons above, but no other headquarters staff should be changed, again for the same reasons.

    What has already transpired has done great damage to the party at a time we need to be pulling together, and frankly there have been things both sides should have done differently. We need to step back from the brink before we do even more severe damage.

Comments are closed.