Republican Caucus Resolution

Republican Precinct Caucus Resolution Rules for February 5th, 2008

 

 

 

(click to enlarge)

From: B.I. [mailto:brooks@forethought.net]
To: jh@adapt-a-life.com; Andraija@aol.com

J.H.

Thank you for making my point about “self-selected.”

Brooks

From: jh@adapt-a-life.com [mailto:jh@adapt-a-life.com]
To: B.I.

BROOKS:

THE INSTRUCTIONS ALSO SAY ONE STATEMENT IS TO BE FOR AND THE OTHER IS TO BE AGAINST. THE COMMITTEE IS A STANDING COMMITTEE AND AUTOMATICLY HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GETTING BOTH POINTS OF VIEW EXPRESSED. THAT IS WHY WE WENT TO THE FOR AND AGAINST PROCEDURE.

INDEED THE RESOLUTION WILL BE SENT TO ALL 18 PRECINCTS. WE WOULD LIKE THE SPONSOR TO GIVE CANDID POSITIONS ON FOR AND AGAINST. IF THEY DON’T THE COMMITTEE WILL HAVE TO DO IT.

WE HAVE ALREADY HAD ONE OTHER PERSON WANTING TO USE THE AGAINST ARGUMENT AS A BACK HAND SLAP TO PROMOTE THEIR RESOLUTION WHICH IS FAR WORSE THAN WHAT YOUR’S SAYS. FOR MEANS TO PROMOTE IT AND AGAINST MEANS TO DEFEAT IT.

THE FOR AND AGASINT IS NOT A PART OF THE RESOLUTION. IT IS THERE FOR HOPEFULLY CLARITY SAKE.

BY THE WAY THE CHAIRMAN IS AN EX-OFFICIO MEMBER OF ALL COMMITTEES SO I DO HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE MY INPUT.

YOUR RESOLUTION HAS A GOOD CHANCE OF PASSING. DON’T MESS IT UP WITH WHAT MOST PEOPLE WILL THINK IS UNFAIR OR ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS.

J.H.

From: ECRF@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ECRF@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of B.I.
To: jh@adapt-a-life.com; Andraija@aol.com

For “arguments against” you may use the first wording or the second. Either one will do.

The rules sent out by Brian Graves say nothing about editing by a “resolutions committee,” or yourself for that matter. The rules specify that resolutions provided by January 22 will be placed in the caucus materials for 18 precincts, and “will be introduced at all 18 precincts.”

Please do so.

Sincerely Yours,

Brooks Imperial

From: jh@adapt-a-life.com [mailto:jh@adapt-a-life.com]

Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 12:55 PM

To: B.I.

Subject: RE: FW: [ECRF] Feb. 5, 2008, Elbert County Caucus Resolution

BROOKS:

I KNOW OF NO ONE WHO IS A SELF-SELECTED PARTY OFFICIAL. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF ELECTION BATTLES FOR LEADERSHIP POSITIONS IN THE PARTY. IF YOU INSIST ON USING THAT TERM THEN PUT IT UP IN THE FOR ARGUEMENT WHICH IS ANOTHER AGRUMENT TO CHANGE THE PROCESS. I THINK THIS NEW WORDING IS A BETTER ARGUEMENT FOR YOUR RESOLUTION THAN THE ONE YOU ORIGINALLY STATED

I AM SURE THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE WILL FEEL THE SAME WAY

J.H.

> Ok.

> Argument Against:

> Preserve the status quo where small groups of self-selected party officials control the electoral process.

> Brooks Imperial

> —–Original Message—–

> From: jh@adapt-a-life.com [mailto:jh@adapt-a-life.com]

> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:39 AM

> To: B.I.

> Subject: Re: FW: [ECRF] Feb. 5, 2008, Elbert County Caucus Resolution

> BROOKS:

> I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF COPYING YOUR RESOLUTION OVER TO THE RESOLUTIONS FILE AND READ YOUR FOR AND AGAINST AGAIN. THE LAST HALF OF THE AGAINST ARGUEMENT IS ACTUALLY A STATEMENT FOR THE RESOLUTION. WILL YOU CHANGE THAT SO IT IS ACTUALLY AN ARGUMENT AGAINT THE RESOLUTION?

> J.H.

>> From: ECRF@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ECRF@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

>> B.I.

>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:07 AM

>> To: Andraija@aol.com; jh@adapta-a-life.com

>> Cc: ecrf@yahoogroups.com

>> Subject: [ECRF] Feb. 5, 2008, Elbert County Caucus Resolution

>> Resolved that the Caucus system in Colorado is irreparably broken and should be replaced with petitions requiring reasonable numbers of voter signatures according to office.

>> Argument for:

>> Ballot petitions would establish a linkage from the start between the voting electorate and their prospective candidates for representative office.

>> Argument against:

>> Ballot petitions would disempower party officials by preventing small groups of self-selected citizens from controlling the electoral process.

>> Sponsor:

>> Brooks Imperial

>> 12300 County Rd. 118

>> Kiowa, CO 80117

>> (303) 621-9100 home

>> (720) 733-1403 work

>> brooks@forethought.net

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ECRF/

Leave a Reply