Can Biden Sign an E.O., Abolishing Congress' Authority to Impeach?
Can Congress Pass Legislation Which Outlaws Recalling Them?
Psychopathic Authoritarianism
OK, obviously the title is rhetoric, to point out the absurdity. Americans would never stand for such overreach from their federal government, right?
But, do patriotic Republicans in Florida demand the same from their party leadership? The simple answer is “We’re about to find out”.
This whole matter is complicated, yet simple. Complicated as in I will have to type, and explain a lot, but simple in that there is no ambiguity. The only way you can argue that the RPOF rule change means you can’t remove the Chair, is if you believe that the RPOF is modeled after the former USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and CCP China. And, I’m here to tell you that it is NOT. Not MY RPOF. So, anyone trying to make that argument is, in fact, causing reputational harm to the REC and RPOF and needs to cease and desist.
A Little History
The Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) is made up of 3 members from the Republican Executive Committees (REC)… The Chair, State Committeeman, and State Committeewoman, in each of the 67 counties.
Those 201 people make up the RPOF, not just a few misguided individuals, with personal agendas. Let’s not let a few rotten apples spoil the Party. This is your party. This is my party, and it has been since I turned 18. I’m not about to let a few greedy egomaniacal tyrants cause “reputational harm to the REC or RPOF”, and steal our party, just so they can engage in a “Personal-Glory-Story” propaganda campaign to feed their over-inflated egos.
I’m not going to stand by and watch that happen, and I doubt RPOF Chair, Christian Ziegler, is either. He’s not a fan of the CCP, or those who act like they are. Even the President of the United States can be removed from office.
Every 6-8 years, on average, the RPOF amends the 3 documents (RPOF Constitution, Rules of Procedure, and County Model Constitution - or CMC) which make up the collective “Rules”. We are now operating on our 4th or 5th set of rules, since the December Board elections, with even more rules changes being considered.
Removal of the Chair
The RPOF added a paragraph in Art. V, Section 1 (see below), which says:
“This Section does not apply to the County Chairman in their role as Chairman or Precinct Committee member, State Committeeman, or the State Committeewoman.”
By stating the CMC does not apply, it clearly means then, that Robert’s “Rules of Order - Newest Revision” (RONR) does. So, the removal of the chair must be left to RONR to control, per CMC Art. X (see below).
Some folks are now trying to say that the RPOF’s intent was to insulate the chair from removal. I can't attest to their intent, I lack the mind-reading skills, as we all do. I was not present at the debate of this rule change. But, I seriously doubt that Christian would seek to create 67 county dictators. Such an intention would be in conflict with the bottom-up nature of the County Party system in FL, as it would be in direct conflict with CMC Art. III, Sect. 8, para. 2 (see below), which states that the Exec. Committee directs the Exec. Board, not the other way around.
Additionally, nothing in our CMC discusses removal of the remainder of the board from only their board position. Some claim that this process is only for removing them from their office as a PCM/W, but again, that’s not what it says.
I have always held that I don't believe we should engage in removing REC members from their office, only as board members from their board positions. Therefore, RONR (Rules of Order - Newest Revision) dictates those control methods and procedures in 62:16, pasted in its entirety below. If the 40% petition threshold is met, the Special Meeting Announcement, along with the Agenda, will serve as full notice. Therefore, as defined in the first bulleted paragraph in 62:16, a simple majority of those present adopts the motion, because proper prior notice has been given. And, that's for the chair, as well as the other board members.
Any attempt to make the chair an unremovable dictator is a violation of every principle and tradition I know of, in order to create an organization of which the leader cannot be removed, under any circumstances. This would not hold up if challenged in a court, which may end up being the case. Again, I reference Cuba, Venezuela, and the former USSR as instances in which it has been the norm, and let’s not forget Biden’s buddies over at the CCP. This is NOT the behavior of the Republican Party.
“America-First”, or “Me-First”?
Republicans do not believe in “Rules for thee, and not for me”, as Tara Jenner is famous for repeating over the last decade. If she is now arguing that the board cannot be removed using a rule that does not even say that, exactly, does she still believe that?
Which parts of the “America-First” platform that this board ran on, if any, do they still believe in? As one of the co-authors of that platform, I can promise you that I am not impressed. If you’re new to the REC, or were not present at the Nov/Dec meetings in ‘22, see the platform at the end of this article.
Official RPOF involvement, or a few rotten Apples?
Why was JC Martin, from Polk County, allowed to be at our Oct Special Meeting? No guests were allowed. Initially, this included a witness that I had for my defense. Dr. Sansone argued that point, and my witness was later allowed, but would have had to wait outside until her testimony. Also, due to the arbitrary limitation of 3 minutes to put on my defense, I had to reduce my witness list from 9 to just 1, me.
My understanding is that JC used to be the Parliamentarian for the RPOF, but according to some sources, he is not listed as a Certified Parliamentarian by the National Association of Parliamentarians, through a search for Certified Parliamentarians sought from NAP. So, it’s questionable as to whether he still represents the RPOF in some way. Under what authority was he there? And was he there, wearing his RPOF badge, in an official capacity for the RPOF, or was he wearing his badge merely to give that appearance?
And, why was he paid $150 to be there as a 2nd parliamentarian, in addition to the $750 that was paid to Brian Pelke, and an additional $150 for security? It is my understanding that moving forward, Brian has now resigned, but I foresee them hiring a replacement. All, because they need help to break the rules, instead of just following the rules. Even better… just follow the “America-First” Platform they all campaigned on, instead of the “Me-First” agenda they are pushing (again, see below).
Reputational Harm
The RPOF added “Reputational Harm”, as a legitimate cause for removal. The obvious problem is interpretation and definition. Since they included no definition, who decides the difference between reputational harm to the party, and whistleblowing the bad behavior of a few rotten apples? This is the sort of “weaponized propaganda” of regimes, such as the former USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and CCP China, and has no place in a Treasurer’s ‘Thought-Police’ Report:
And, “reputational harm” of the party is one thing, but butt-hurt feelings by a few egomaniacs, is quite another. Since when do Republicans get so easily offended? Since when do Republicans engage in “cancel culture” against those they disagree with? We shouldn’t seek to remove fellow Republicans from the party, or getting their email accounts shut down, their document e-sign accounts cancelled, or weaponizing county government agencies against them, just because they disagree with your brand of “Republicanism”. Whether you’re an avowed “Neo-Con”, or the emerging “America-First” majority, nobody should be “Me-First”. These are all serious abuses of power, and say more about those who engage in them, than the ones who are subjected to them. It screams “Democrat”, and indicates the growing problem of the “Uniparty”; when you can’t tell the difference in behavior between a few REC/RPOF members, and Antifa or BLM. The bottom line is, you don’t get to feel offended, as this comedian points out:
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/somNaMZQ9CygAGuz/?mibextid=ekPIOZ
You don’t get to say that if I call out your bad behavior, I’m harming the party. No, YOU’RE harming the party, when you behave badly. I’m demanding that you cease and desist harming the reputation of my party.
On Nov 6, 2023 SCOTUS handed down their findings on a Rutherford Institute-led case, Counterman v. Colorado, which will have far-reaching repercussions on violations of ‘Freedom of Speech’, involving elections and campaigning. All Precinct Committee Members represent their constituency for a 4-year term of office, and are elected by the Republican Voters of their precincts, or are temporarily filling a vacancy until the next Republican Primary in Presidential Election years. We all file a Florida Candidate Oath with the Supervisor of Elections (SoE), every June in Presidential Election years, and are governed by election laws. We are elected, non-governmental, party officials. We are NOT members of a private ‘Club’.
Petition for December 02 Special Meeting
If you have not yet signed the petition to call for a Special Meeting, now is the time to delineate whether we have a Republican Party, or a republican’t party. If you are a LeeREC member, and have not received the email inviting you to sign, and you wish to, please reach out to me. I’m on the list of members that the board won’t share. Are we going to stop the Great Reset, or are we going to have a Personal-Glory-Story Party?
If you are not signing the petition because you are afraid of retaliation... That should tell you EXACTLY why it is imperative for you to sign the petition. Please remember, signing the petition is not voting to remove. That vote will be by secret ballot. You are only signing to call for a special meeting.
The agenda includes officer reports and swearing in new members, so if the secretary provides minutes to approve, along with the meeting notice, it will count towards a business meeting, which we have not had in the 4th quarter. The Oct Special Meeting does not qualify due to lack of statutorily mandated items. Not signing is only kicking the can down the road. Let's put this issue to bed so that the next scheduled meeting can actually be productive. We are running out of time while America burns.
CMC, Art. III, Section 8, paragraph 2
...The Board shall be subject to the orders of the County Executive Committee, and none of its acts shall conflict with action taken by the County Executive Committee.
CMC, Art. V: Removal From Office
Section 1
Members or officers of the County Executive Committee may be removed from office upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the membership of the County Executive Committee present at any regular or special meeting after ten (10) days notice to the membership of the County Executive Committee that a motion for the purpose of removal of a member or officer will be considered at a said meeting, provided that such two-thirds vote constitutes at least a majority of the full County Executive Committee. The removal shall be for cause that includes violation of rules, processes or procedures outlined in the Republican Party of Florida Constitution, Rules of Procedure, County Model Constitution, a violation of the Republican Party of Florida Oath of Party Loyalty or reputational harm to the County Executive Committee or Republican Party of Florida. However, any person wrongfully removed for violation of oath of office may qualify for reinstatement and reimbursement, including attorney fees as provided under Florida Statute 103.141. Removal shall be valid through the end of the respective member’s term of office.
This Section does not apply to the County Chairman in their role as Chairman or Precinct Committee member, State Committeeman, or the State Committeewoman.
This Section does not apply to members of the State Legislature that reside in the county.
Section 2
The member and/or officer cited with removal charges shall be served by certified mail at least ten (10) days prior to said regular or special meeting at which time the removal motion is to be heard with a complaint which shall set forth in particular the reasons for the removal charge.
Section 3
Every political party office of the county committee shall be deemed vacant in the following cases:
(a) by the death of the incumbent;
(b) by his or her resignation;
(c) by his or her removal as set forth above in section 1;
(d) by his or her ceasing to be a resident of the county, district or precinct for which he shall have been elected or appointed;
(e) by his or her refusal to accept the office;
(f) the conviction of the incumbent of any felony;
CMC Art. X:
"The latest revision of “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised” shall be constituted as the authority governing the rules of procedure, except as otherwise limited by the laws of the State of Florida, the Rules of Procedure of the Republican Party of Florida, and the Constitution of The Republican Party of Florida and the constitution and the bylaws duly adopted by this organization."
Robert's Rules 62:16:
Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be removed from office by the society’s assembly as follows:
• If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve “for __ years or until their successors are elected,” the officer in question can be removed from office by adoption of a motion to do so. The vote required for adoption of this incidental main motion is (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when previous notice (as defined in 10:44) has been given, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice. A motion to remove an officer from office is a question of privilege affecting the organization of the assembly, and so also is the filling of any vacancy created by the adoption of such a motion.
• If, however, the bylaws provide that officers shall serve only a fixed term, such as “for two years” (which is not a recommended wording; see 56:28), or if they provide that officers shall serve “for __ years and until their successors are elected,” an officer can be removed from office only for cause—that is, neglect of duty in office or misconduct—in accordance with the procedures described in 63; that is, an investigating committee must be appointed, charges must be preferred, and a formal trial must be held.
Note: The second bulleted paragraph does not apply to the REC, because we do not elect them for a term of 2 years "AND" until the organizational meeting. If it were "and", they would not take office at the time of the election, but at a later appointed time, similar to POTUS.
Bingo! And thank you for pointing out how ridiculous the RINOS thing k and behave. Sticks and Stones!
Thank you for your thoughtful and instructive discussion of the rule change regarding removal of officers. I think it would be best if membership votes to eliminate this change because of the confusion it will cause. It is poorly written at best, and can be construed to mean that REC Chairs answer to the RPOF and not their members.
Whatever the intention is, the reality of this language is to cause confusion in a time of major power struggles. I don't see that anything is gained by this added paragraph.