Are Paulites packing the DCRP?

Elephants-FightingAs Governor Ricketts preps his first State of the State address, we are currently looking at what some might compare to Franklin Roosevelt’s “court packing” going on in the Douglas County Republican Party (DCRP).

Unbeknownst to many members, more than a dozen members of the DCRP Central Committee were removed and replaced over the past few weeks.

In general, many of these booted members generally sided with Chairman candidate Brandon Petersen, and against Chairman candidate Jon Tucker. Tucker is a RonPaulite compatriot to current Chair Bryan Baumgart.

But here is the kicker: of those kicked off the Central Committee, many were not even notified that they have been chopped.

Where does this come from?

Well, in the party bylaws, a member can be removed for missing three meetings. However, at that point there is usually a discussion by the Executive Committee as to whether a person should be removed — and then that person would be contacted and could, if they wanted, give a defense for their absences (asked to be excused, had an emergency, didn’t receive proper notification, meeting held wasn’t formal, etc.).

Apparently in this case, no discussions were held, and instead the committee was later packed full of Tucker comrades. And we understand that the new members haven’t even been vetted or discussed by the full Executive Committee — as has been the course of conduct in the past for replacements.

The fact that this comes immediately before a party election (next Tuesday) gives it the stink of manipulation and the reek of something that Tammany Hall would have pulled off in turn of the century New York.

Was it all done “legally”?
Ah, nothing like getting the lawyers involved, yeah?
Or, ya know, there could have been a discussion.

But what fun would THAT have been?

(This is the kind if stuff you won’t be getting at the State of the State…)

We will be watching and keeping the party faithful updated.

**UPDATE at 11:45am 1/22/15**

We were contacted by DCRP Chairman Bryan Baumgart, and he asked that we post the following response:

I don’t typically read this blog, but I was directed to it this morning by some Exec Comm members that were concerned about the inaccuracies and encouraged me not to leave them unchecked.

Let’s start with the DCRP Constitution and its bylaws on membership.
“A vacancy in the office of any member of the Central Committee shall exist upon the happening of any of the following events: (3) with respect to members of the Central Committee, three unexcused absences in any twelve-month period. Excused absences from Central Committee meetings shall be granted at the discretion of the Chairman”

The purpose of this clause is to avoid a situation in which the party becomes ineffective because it cannot take action due to failure to meet quorum. This was the case repeatedly in the past as a large number of new members are elected at convention, but then never show to a party meeting or event after. (As insiders know, typically this is the result of the various factions packing delegates onto slates in order to help elect more members sympathetic with their side.) This clause remedies the problem by enacting automatic removal for three absences. It does not require a vote or discussion and despite what was asserted in the original post, the Exec Committee does not review each person removed for absences and vote on whether to remove them or not. That kind of subjectivity would not be healthy for the party. Therefore, I closely stick to the rules laid out in our Constitution and members failing to show or request an excused absence for three meetings are automatically removed per the Constitution, without discrimination. However, it has been my practice to grant excused absences whenever requested, whether they were warranted or not.

That brings us to the seats that have been vacated. Seats have been vacated each month due to members voluntarily resigning them or moving out of the legislative district, etc. New members have been appointed by LD chairs to fill those seats each month (not just the past two weeks as suggested). To clear up false information in the original post…there have been FOUR meetings since members were seated at County Convention in April. (August, September, October, and December). The Exec Committee voted to make the August meeting optional. The Exec Committee also voted to move the November meeting to December 2nd so it could be held in conjunction with a Christmas Party. That meeting was moved and announced in compliance with the DCRP Constitution which states “Each member of the Central Committee shall be notified at least ten (10) days prior to all meetings, in writing of the time, date and place of each meeting”. It was also one of the best attended meetings we held. That left September, October, and the December meeting to draw three unexcused absences from.

The seats vacated since the December meeting (third meeting) were members who were voted to their seat back at County Convention in April, but then never attended a meeting, nor called for excused absences. They hadn’t participated since being seated, nor indicated they planned to. Only these members who went completely MIA were removed.

I feel asking these people to now vote for chairman of the DCRP would be absurd. In fact, keeping them on actually violates the DCRP Constitution AND risks not meeting quorum for the election next Tuesday. It’s the reason these rules exist in the Constitution. On the other hand, we’ve got new members that actually want to be active and play a part in choosing the Chairman they will be working with. It only makes sense to welcome them.

That brings us to the new members who were seated. Let’s take a look at the relevant portion of the DCRP Constitution: “When the County Convention is not in session, any vacancy on the Central Committee arising from any cause shall be filled in the following manner: the legislative district Chairman shall fill the vacancy within thirty (30) days after notice thereof is given to the respective legislative district Chairman.”

This is exactly what was done. LD Chairs appointed members to fill empty seats within 30 days, as directed by the Constitution.

As for the accusation of “manipulation”. The rules were closely followed so that there would be no manipulation or accusations of merit. I didn’t contact a single person to be on the central committee myself. When someone contacted me requesting to be seated on the Central Committee, I first verified that they were a registered Republican in Douglas County, then checked to see if there was an empty seat in their LD. If there was not, I added them to the list for future adds and notified them, letting them know they could be added in the future at the discretion of their LD chair. If there was an opening in their LD, I emailed the respective LD chair letting them know, “so and so” requested to be seated in your LD and I passed along the contact info with a note asking them to let me know if they approve or not. In some cases LD Chairs got back to me and approved and the new members were added. In other cases, the LD Chair didn’t approve and that member was not seated. Not once, did I myself solicit any new members (though it would be within my right to do so).

All seats vacated were done so without discrimination and in strict adherence to the Constitution. All members added were done so by LD Chairs per the Constitution, and without coercion. In addition…both candidates for Chairman received updated membership lists as changes occurred (both at the same time).

This is the way it has been carried out for the past two years of my term. In strict adherence to the DCRP Constitution. Apparently, one of the candidates must feel they won’t be favourable to newly seated members and feels justified in stirring the pot and making false accusations.

We then followed up with Bryan, asking:

1) were those who were kicked off, notified this was being done, so as to dispute if they wanted to?
2) was the Executive Committee consulted on the new members?

He responded:

As i point out in my comment, the Exec Comm doesn’t and hasn’t reviewed who is removed and who isn’t on a case by case basis. That kind of subjectivity would invite criticism and accusations of foul play. For example, currently the exec comm leans in favor of Tucker supporters who could, if wanted, approve the removal of any opposition while keeping his supporters. Not a good situation.

Finally, we asked:

OK, so the Exec Committee wasn’t consulted.

Doesn’t the Constitution say that removing a member will be done with consultation of the Exec Committee?

Also, to confirm, Central Committee members, who you found missed meetings, were kicked off without being notified, correct?

And he responded:

No, the Constitution states that 3 unexcused absences by members automatically results in removal. It does so like I just said, to prevent bias in picking and choosing who will be removed and retained by the Exec Comm. I think the part you are getting confused is the part that says if a member has six absences (even if excused) in a 12 month period, then the Exec Comm sits down to review whether it is appropriate to keep the member on if they aren’t able to participate. That’s the only time the Exec Comm would review. To discuss if the excused absences were warranted. We have not in the past and did not this time, meet to discuss members being removed. That happens automatically per the Constitutuion.

I do try to notify members if they have been removed by the Constitution due to absences. Anyone not yet notified will be. The Constitution doesn’t require it, but I try to as a courtesy.

***

So, there are a few open questions:

We have been told that in the past it has been the course of conduct that the Executive Committee DOES look into whether a Central Committee member should be dismissed and then who is replaced.

Baumgart says that’s not the case, and all he did was follow the letter of the Constitution.

But here is a murkier issue.

Baumgart says he doesn’t have to notify someone if they’ve been booted off the Central Committee, but that he tries to as a courtesy.

Hmm.

Well, what is the mechanism then for someone disputing whether or not they SHOULD have been kicked off?

For instance, let’s say I asked for an excused absence, and received approval of that from the Chairman. Was that verbal? Handwritten? Emailed?

Is that recorded in meeting minutes? We would think that is the ONLY way one could or should get the boot. How else could anything be confirmed?

A phone call? How can you verify?
A handwritten note? What if the dog eats it?
An email chain? What if it gets deleted, any number of ways.

What if your child is hit by a car on the way to a meeting, so you didn’t ask to be excused beforehand? Is that excused?

Well, if you are not notified that you have been kicked out, then HOW can you dispute it?

And what is the current record keeping process?

We already have commenters suggesting that a DCRP Central Committee member DOES have proof of an excused absence, but was STILL kicked off.

So what is the process for dispute?
One would sure hope that such a process is in place before an election takes place.

And another point:
Baumgart points to the Constitution where it says, “…any vacancy on the Central Committee arising from any cause shall be filled in the following manner: the legislative district Chairman shall fill the vacancy within thirty (30) days after notice thereof is given to the respective legislative district Chairman…”

But…when does that vacancy arise?
The moment someone misses the third meeting?
But then that puts us back into all the questions above, if not others.

***

Look, we get it. There was a hard strategy put in place to get members in who are favorable to a certain candidate. Now we would suggest that in this party setting, it makes more sense to get others to your side of the aisle using persuasion, instead of bum-rushing the door.

And we also get another point: you want to be on the committee? Then show up at the meetings.

But there a number of open questions that simply pointing at the party Constitution don’t answer.

We will let them hash it out on Tuesday.

120 comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Sweeper, do you have any info if the Paulites cared enough to boot people who missed 3 meetings, or did they just boot anyone they didn’t like?

  2. The BTOpranoes says:

    Or like the mafia families when they are infighting. That’s something you’d know all about BTO since you go around telling people you are a big time mafia gangster.

  3. Confused says:

    When does missing the three meeting come into affect? Is it based off of missing three in a calendar year, three in your life time as a member or three between County Conventions when members are added/reelected?

    I ask because there have been three meetings since the June county convention and one of those was deemed by the Exec team and the whole DCRP central committee to not count as skipped because of lack of proper notification.

  4. Unemployed In Holdrege says:

    BTO do you really think you can go on a NEGOP blog and trash talk the NDP for mere attention and think that you can get any sympathy? Do you notice for the months where you are not on here, usually when you can’t pay your Internet bill, all of those anonymous attackers also go away?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Parties are made of people and most people are lazy, they dislike discord and avoid showing up for it, in this case discord caused by Paulist zealots who apparently shut up long enough to pull off this legal ploy. If you like them hooray. If you don’t then they are Adolph packing their Reichstag. Confused? That’s fine. Strategy is supposed to do that to you.

    These are the same Paulist zealots who aimed to dump Terry and they did, and now they aim to dump Ashford and they might. Regardless what you think of them, they went by the rules and booted out a bunch of non-zealots who failed to show up, probably because they couldn’t stand the barking Paulists. But whose fault is that?

    All zealots are creepy and dangerous. They are the yeast without which everything stays flat.

    If any Paulist CC members were lazy about showing up, they too have gotten the message.

  6. Anonymous says:

    That’s the problem…this whole thing isn’t legal. Everyone who missed the first meeting were excused and another meeting didn’t even have a quorum. There haven’t been 3 qualifying meetings yet!

  7. Anonymous says:

    SS says “There could have been a discussion”.

    Oh come on.

    What is it about strategy being opaque that doesn’t make sense to you?

  8. Anonymous says:

    “That’s the problem…this whole thing isn’t legal. Everyone who missed the first meeting were excused and another meeting didn’t even have a quorum. There haven’t been 3 qualifying meetings yet!”

    This is correct. Also the Constitution speaks to “Unexcused Absences” If anyone sent regrets to the chair they would also be free of the 3 meeting rule.

    Any vote held without the correct DCRP member list should be considered Null and Void.

  9. Anonymous says:

    There have been 4 official DCRP meetings since the June Convention.

    The dates for these meetings were August 26th, September 23rd, October 28th, & December 2nd. Notices that I could find in my email were sent out on 8/8/2014 & 8/25/2014 for the 8/26 meeting, 9/14/2014 & 9/22/2014 for the 9/23 meeting, 10/17/2014 & 10/27/2014 for the 10/28 meeting, and finally 11/18/2014, 11/25/2014, & 12/1/2014 for the 12/2 meeting.

    The August 26th meeting was the meeting a blanket excusal was granted for.

  10. Just a note that Bryan Baumgart asked, via email, that we post a response from him.
    He has just been responded to, and once he replies back, we can look at putting his response in the body of the post.
    Otherwise, he can feel free to post in the comments, just like everyone else.
    -Ed.

  11. Anonymous says:

    #15 read your DCRP Constitution: Article V, Section 5, Point 3: with respect to members of the Central Committee, three unexcused absences in any twelve-month period. Excused absences from Central Committee meetings shall be granted at the discretion of the Chairman, provided that following six such absences (excused and unexcused) by any Central Committee member in any twelve-month period, the Chairman, in consultation with the Executive Committee, shall review such member’s attendance and may refuse to grant any further excused absences to such member;

    If you missed it the key point was: Excused absences from Central Committee meetings shall be granted at the discretion of the Chairman

    The whole “in consultation with the Executive Committee” applies solely to those individuals who have missed 6 meetings.

  12. DCRP Member says:

    A majority of these members have missed 3 meetings. Have not emailed the chairman and asked for excused absences, did not make an attempt since the convention to be involved. Nancy McCabe must be bitching up a storm.

    Mind you we also had a single member pitch a fit at the August meeting and push for everyone to have an excused absence for that meeting if they missed. That was allowed.

    These 12 received the emails for the meetings and didn’t bother to do anything about it. OH WELL….

    Just a realization that Brandon is a lousy leader and would not likely do very much as the DCRP chair.

  13. Anonymous at 10:33am says:

    This DCRP Central Committee member was told by Bryan himself that the December party was not a required meeting. I’m sure he only communicated this to those he wanted to kick off the committee.

    In addition, he has emailed LD Chairs requesting they remove certain people and replace them with his friends. Bryan – don’t put things in email that you wouldn’t want used against you later on.

    Doing this in secret 1-2 weeks prior to an election is very sketchy. How can people not question the motives here? We all know he supports Jon Tucker. I have respected Jon and how he handles himself and hope he asks Bryan to conduct this election with integrity.

    I’m guessing this is what all Bryan’s leadership courses at Bellevue University taught him – deceive and manipulate.

  14. Anonymous says:

    A question I have for Bryan is whether or not there was a quorum at every single one of those meetings. Also, if he’s following the constitution, why hasn’t he ever mailed out notices as required?

    “Each member of the Central Committee shall be notifed at least ten (10) days prior to all meetings, in writing of the time, date and place of each meeting, ADDRESSED TO THE LAST KNOWN POST OFFICE ADRESS OF SUCH MEMBERS.”

  15. DCRP Member says:

    No there was not quorum at the september meeting from what I recall, but the Oct/November meetings more than met quorum.

  16. Re: #28 says:

    There was no November meeting.

    Instead we had a December Christmas Party and the email stated that it was ‘Not a Meeting’.

  17. Anonymous says:

    I find it troubling that the discussion (started by Sen Craighead) on the DCRP Facebook page is now gone…Have much to hide Bryan?

  18. As best I can tell, Sen. Craighead took down the post herself.

    There are extensive records kept. Sign in sheets verifying quorum at each meeting (all four), and absences. Attendance sheets indicating a member either signed in at the meeting, requested an excused absence, or neither. And membership rosters listing when a member was removed by the Constitution for inexcused absences or other reasons (such as voluntarily resigning seat or moving out of district, etc.) They also list when new members were seated by LD Chairs.

    The commenter above stating that an email stated the December meeting was “Not a Meeting” is false. Typically a meeting is held in November and then a Christmas Party in December. The Exec Comm voted to move the November Meeting to Dec 2nd and to host a Christmas Party following the meeting. That was the vote. It would not be within my authority to state that is is “Not a Meeting”. The email reminder sent out on the night of the regularly scheduled November meeting clearly stated that the November Meeting was moved to December 2nd. It included a note that there was “no meeting tonight”, because we didn’t want members mistakenly showing up that night for the regularly scheduled November meeting. Another reminder was sent out on December 1st clearly stating there was a meeting on December 2nd and another reminder that there was no meeting that night (December 1st).

    This kind of misleading information and rumors are expected right before an election as both camps jockey for the upperhand. That is why I have decided to stick to the rules laid out in the Constitution.

  19. decisions, decisions says:

    “That is why I have decided to stick to the rules laid out in the Constitution.”

    I didn’t know sticking to the rules laid out in the constitution was a decision. I thought it would be a given for anyone worthy of the chairmanship.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Apparently this rule wasn’t followed in the past under other chairmen. I think it sounds like Bryan is trying to make sure that is rectified. How was this handled when Nancy was chairman?

  21. Anonymous says:

    I think this proves even more so that SS is someone close to Robyn Terry. It’s Robyn who is upset about this because she thinks the people who were cut were “Lee Terry people.” Whatever that means.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Who else finds it strange Bryan hasn’t said who was removed from the central committee, especially since he doesn’t always tell them?

  23. Sticking to the Constitution says:

    Let’s discuss this:
    A.
    3) with respect to members of the Central Committee, three unexcused absences in any twelve-month period. Excused absences from Central Committee meetings shall be granted at the discretion of the Chairman, provided that following six such absences (excused and unexcused) by any Central Committee member in any twelve-month period, the Chairman, in consultation with the Executive Committee, shall review such member’s attendance and may refuse to grant any further excused absences to such member;

    I personally think this is in direct contradiction with the previous part of the Constitution stating that a member is gone after three..automatically. bear with me here, but if someone had three excused absences and then was gone the next three meetings and they were unexcused, shouldn’t they be automatically removed per the previous Constitution entry? It’s extremely vague and can be interpreted a number of ways.

    B.
    What is the “12 month” period? The Constitution states ANY 12 month period. Is it Jan- December? June-May? October – September?

  24. Lawyer says:

    The 12 month period cannot start till after they are seated each term. If the Convention was in the Summer of 2014, their attendance starts at the following meeting.

  25. Brian T. Osborn says:

    It is good to see that so many DCRP and NEGOP members have a place to air their greivances with their party hierarchy, and they take advantage of it. We Democrats used to have one, until Vic Covalt decided that censorship was a foundation stone of Democratic ideals.
    I get abused by Vince Powers’ succubi for piggy-backing on Leavenworth Street with my rants. He sends out his drooling half-wits to spread their ad hominem attacks against me, and I really do apologize to Sweeper and you, his readers, for your having to endure all that. But, as Sweeper’s tagline states, this is THE place for Nebraska politics, and the NDP is a part of that. Thanks for the providing the soap-box, Sweeper!
    I believe you can all judge from the quality of the comments that I receive from Vince’s minions just how inept he and his followers are. Rather than debating the issues that I have raised against him, he sends his marionettes, under a variety of lame pseudonyms, to attack my character. The reason they do that is because they are all incapable of openly debating the issues like adults. The only time any rank and file Democrats ever hear from Vince himself is when he is exorting them to send money or he is inciting the masses to demonstrate their indignation over yet another supposed insult from yet another Republican. I find it hypocritical how his moral compass never points to a Democrat that has erred.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Paulbots, Paulistas, after two years you would think that the operators of this blog would have come up with a more fitting adjective.

  27. Hey, Bryan, the guy with congressional aspirations... says:

    Bryan Baumgart has a choice to make in the next 6 days and this decision will determine if he has a chance to ever be taken seriously. He’s indicated he wants to run for Congress. But when you try to stack the deck and deceivingly win an election, your hopes for holding elected office in the future are slim. Because these are things people don’t forget and something that opponents LOVE to exploit. Make the right decision, Bryan. Are you slimey? Or when in a tough spot, do you conduct yourself with integrity?

  28. Under consultation of respected attorney.

    “The provisions are pretty clear – 3 unexcused in a 12 month period and you’re off, to be replaced by the LD Chair within 30 days. I think people are having a hard time with the optics of it.”

    Fact: No one has removed members – it is an automatic loss according to the constitution – caused by the member who abandoned their seat.

    Fact: I didn’t make one single appointment to the Central Committee. I have never interfered with the LD Chairs or their choices to fill vacancies in their districts.

    I don’t make up rules when it’s convenient – I follow rules whether I like them or not. This has been the practice during my two year term. I remember taking a lot of heat when in 2013 we had a sitting senator and a legislative candidate among others, who abandoned their seats . There is no selection process allowed by the constitution, as it should be. We don’t pick and choose who gets to stay and go. That’s misinformation when people claim the Exec Comm gets to decide who is removed or not. There is nothing I or we can do to stop someone from abandoning their seat. It’s their choice.

    The reality is, this is out of our hands folks. The rules have to be followed whether we like it or not (despite past history). If we decide to make an exception to the rules we set ourselves up for a lawsuit. This includes the Exec Comm or Central Comm re-seating members who vacated their seats. Trying to undue or ignore the Constitution sets us up for big trouble.

  29. @Bryan Baumgart -> comment above says:

    Bryan – Assuming all is agreed to in your above statement:
    1) why have you not notified those members who were removed that they were removed?
    2) were you expecting them to show up tuesday night and notify them then? that is very inconsiderate of their time.
    3) why are you just now implementing the constitution when last spring, you held discussion in exec committee and at central committee regarding removing members? What you say above is not consistent with how you have governed.

    No matter if it is constitutional or unconstitutional, all this being done last minute is very fishy and reeks of election manipulation. It is good thing you’re vacating this leadership position.

  30. @Bryan Baumgart -> comment above says:

    And, Bryan – your statement above is false. There are email records of you emailing LD Chairs this week requesting certain people be added and others be removed.

  31. Ricky says:

    Oh right Birther Byran Baumgarner “doesn’t usually read this blog”. Ha ha of course he does.
    I would not blame him if he did not read this post however, what could be duller than infighting among the Douglas County Republican Party?
    I’d rather be in the dentist’s chair undergoing a root canal than attend that meeting next week of the Repubs.
    Boys boys boys get a grip on yourselves and stop pouting; it’s not your fault Lee Terry lost and now the D2 seat might be in the Dems hands for years to come.
    Oh wait it is the fault of the DCRP Ashford is in congress.

    ricky

  32. Anonymous says:

    Bryan, YOU could have (at your discretion) granted an excused absence so everyone could stay on the central committee for the vote for chairman. But YOU didn’t.

  33. Anony says:

    Leavenworth Street has a long history of forcing division within the party. Andrew Northwall and Rod Edwards want a weak party so candidates have to go to consultants like them for help. Many believe they contribute to LS. Is it any surprise then that they are the loudest voices of opposition to following the rules. It’s time to end the infighting, ignore Leavenworth and build the party. That won’t happen under Brandon Petersen since Edwards and Northwall control his every move.

  34. Anonymous says:

    I just confirmed that both candidates did receive the membership list showing: a.) current central committee members, b.) members who had vacated their seats for various reasons including lack of attendance, c.) and all empty seats in each legislative district, in the exact same email at the exact same time on December 8th 2014. So both candidates had the same information at the same time. Why is this all of a sudden an issue now? Seems to me Brandon must have got outworked pretty badly and now he’s trying to undue the past 9 months by asking that the rules be ignored. This is the same Brandon who wants to be chairman?

  35. Anon at 6:36PM says:

    You did not confirm that both candidates received the updated membership list on December 8th because one candidates states that he did not receive it, and will publicly state as such if he is asked! Don’t post comments you know are false, Scott Petersen.

  36. Anonymous says:

    If Jon Tucker, Scott Peterson or Bryan Baumgart are involved with the DCRP leadership at all moving forward, I’m resigning my central committee seat and will refuse to help the county party, just the candidates I support

  37. Facts are hard... says:

    While we are on the topic of following the constitution to a “T”

    ​​4. Notices Each member of the Central Committee shall be notifed at least ten (10) days prior to all meetings, in writing of the time, date and place of each meeting, addressed to the last known post office address of such members.

    Technically we haven’t had a proper meeting since convention.

  38. Anonymous says:

    To Anon at 6:36: Me thinks you are being lied to by one of the candidates. I just saw the email from Bryan Baumgart to one Jon Tucker and Brandon Petersen containing the stated attachment, sent on December 8th 2014 at 17:11. In the same email he suggested a formal letter announcing intent to run and provided the membership file.

    To Anonymous at 6:02: You stated that Bryan could grant an excused absence at his discretion to keep people on the CC. This is NOT accurate. The Constitution automatically removes members after three unexcused absences in a 12 month period. The Constitution grants Bryan the authority to accept requests for excused absences at his discretion (which I believe he has always accepted all requests), but it does NOT give him the authority to override the Constitution and reseat members who vacate their seats by not attending nor requesting excused absences at three meetings. Which I believe the members who vacated their seats in question are the members who have never showed up or asked for an excused absence at any meeting since being elected. Not a single one!

    To 5:35: I think it was pretty rude and inconsiderate of members not only to not show up to the meetings they were elected to show up to, but they didn’t even call to give a heads up. How many times has the party not been able to conduct business because quorum wasn’t met because of these rude people? It happened all the time before Bryan took over and started holding to the rules. Which by the way he has been consistent with. The only discussion I remember coming up regarding removing members was one that was cut short very quickly when it was pointed out that no votes are required to vacate seats or fill them. I believe it was DeeDee Kelly that set everyone straight.

    To 5:41: You straight up lied brotha! As Bryan pointed out, members aren’t removed by LD Chairs so why would he ask LD Chairs to remove anyone? I realize this blog is anonymous, but you guys really take advantage of that liberty and throw out all sorts of misinformation. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

  39. Anonymous at 8:17 says:

    I do remember how frustrating it was to find and hire babysitters, drive all the way to the meetings, and then find out quorum wasn’t met and we couldn’t hold a meeting. All of that for a social gathering. It was annoying and extremely rude of these people. I hope they aren’t the ones asking to remain on the Central Committee and vote for Chairman. They’ll never show up and we’ll keep wasting time thanks to their apathy and laziness. Seriously…who are the crazies suggesting this?

  40. Anonymous says:

    I do remember those meetings without quorum…when Scott Petersen ran them..and when he lengthened them to 1.5 to 2 hours from 30 min previously.

  41. @ Facts are hard says:

    Now THAT is funny!

    What say you now Bryan? Let’s follow one rule but not all?

    Looks to me like this is pretty open and shut and you have aparently wasted everyone’s time since convention as you were not able to properly notify members of meetings.

    I am sooooo glad you asked us all to read and follow the DCRP constitution!

  42. Sick of infighting says:

    Well then, why can’t we elect someone OTHER than these two? If it’s really as bad as it seems, why not postpone the election and have two different candidates run? Or, better yet, have Jon Tucker and Brandon Peterson withdraw their candidacies?
    I nominate Ian Swanson for Chairman. He worked for the Terry campaign and also supports Rand Paul. From what I know, he has friends in both camps. I think it needs to be an outsider, because that’s the only way to end this nonsense.

  43. Anonymous says:

    Kind of hard to mail out notices when you don’t have any money isn’t it? Nancy McCabe and Andrew Northwal left the party with almost $50,000 in debt and no office or organization. There wasn’t even ld chairs to operate under. They just completely disregarded the Constitution altogether. Andrew even went so far as to steal the database to use in starting his own company so he could charge candidates to help them communicate with you using the information he collected. And you wonder why notices can’t be mailed out? Come on!

  44. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous @7:34am (aka Scott Petersen)

    Interesting to see you’re still bitter towards Nancy and Andrew. And there was no one willing to pay all $40 in postage for each round of notices?

  45. Old White Man says:

    I am so excited for the never ending unintentional comedy of Baumgart for Congress that I can barely stand it! Can we please make this happen!!! That would be the biggest train wreck in the history of train wrecks.

  46. Anon says:

    Personally I think it’s a dumb waste of money whether the DCRP has it or not to mail out notices for all the meetings when everyone has email and social media these days. Much more efficient.

  47. longtime DCRP member says:

    The DCRP has not held a proper business meeting for two years. The members have been left in the dark as to the financials, no vip speaker has been secured or announced for the annual fundraising dinner and the leadership itself has concentrated on little else than censuring it’s own elected officeholders. It is time for a wholesale sweep of the Party Leadership. I would welcome NEGOP intervention if it might be an option.

  48. Is that you Scott? says:

    I have known Andrew for a longtime. He would not steal anything. The DCRP database is off the County Voterfile which anyone can get. I’m sure the DCRP database came in handy in the races Andrew won with Ted Cruz in Texas, Grahm in SC, Christie in NJ and the dozen other races he won across the country.

  49. Anonymous says:

    I remember several years ago when it was decided, voted on and approved that notifications would be done by email rather than paid postage in order to save the party money rather than continuing to spend wrecklessly when we were so far in debt. Most everyone had email and it was approved as a way to start trying to get out of debt. The vote wasn’t even close. Why wasn’t the Constitution updated to reflect this change?

    Paid postage notices haven’t happened in forever. Even way back under Brian Boescher notices were done by phone, although not 10 days before. I guess the real question is why this is all of a sudden an issue. No one complained about it well, ever, as far as I know. Certainly no one complained about it or following the membership rules as laid out in the Constitution the past two years under Baumgart. It wasn’t until one of the candidates realized that he would be hurt by the rules being followed that he started squaking about this. This kind of petty chidlish behavior is unbecoming of a chairman and I will absolutely NOT be casting a vote for that candidate, Brandon Petersen. I encourage my fellow members to do the same.

  50. Just a thought says:

    If Baumgart contacted LD chairs with names of those who were removed and names of those who could replace them… Why were those who were removed not contacted?

    Many of these members were new to the DCRP — are we sure they even received the email notifications? Doesn’t Bryan pride himself on bringing new people to the party? Additionally, some elderly folks may not have e-mail or facebook. Are we sure we did everything to contact these people? Did we try calling them? Try mailing them?

    Maybe John Proud should have been calling these folks about the meetings rather than making “support Jon Tucker for chairman” calls.

  51. Anonymous says:

    It doesn’t matter if it’s dumb or the central committee decided to ignore the constitution; its a requirement that’s not being followed.

  52. No Email? says:

    Pete Pederson who is like 80 was one of the people Bryan kicked off. I know him well and I am pretty sure regular communication via email to him is not much of an option.

    Let’s be inclusive and do things the right way – not just the easy or convenient way. As you mentioned, Bryan, we want to make sure every part of the constitution is meticulously followed.

    Good.

    So do your job and properly schedule our first meeting so we may elect a new chair and stop making a public mockery of the DCRP (again)

  53. Chair elections says:

    No. It is not too late for someone else to run. There is nothing in the rules about announcing your intent to run ahead of time. Someone can announce that night.

  54. Rod Edwards says:

    Anony 6:33
    I have been divisive to the party? Really? Here is my policy. I will work with anyone for a common goal; I have worked with Bryan and Scott P on numerous projects. I don’t hold grudges or seek revenge. It does me no good. I have worked with the RLC and appreciate what they stand for and their passion. I would absolutely work with the RLC again. I can disagree with someone without having to kick them to the curb. Novel idea…right?

    Since my name has been brought into this discussion I will comment. I have been privately exchanging messages with Bryan. I have been trying to find a solution to this mess and get to the complete truth. I have shared no messages I have exchanged with Bryan. Have I been critical of the actions they have taken? Yes…to him privately. So, seeing this it was either posted by Bryan or someone he shared our exchanges with.

    I have a major problem with what is going on. I have asked for some documentation that should have been very easy to provide. I have seen none. I do not believe the rules have been equally administered for the last few years. This is a problem. And if we are talking about following the rules, there has not been a call to meeting in accordance with the constitution for years. That is a very important rule not followed.

    My biggest problem is lack of leadership. What type of leader allows a large chunk of his organization to go AWOL without reaching out to them? Those who were around when I was President of YRO know that I did this often. An effective leader does not only cater to their supporters, they bridge the gap and create a stronger team. Have we seen this the last few years? The divided state of the county party falls solely on the lack of effective leadership.

    For the record, I really have no dog in this fight. I like and respect both candidates. I will work with whoever is elected but I want to see the process is done the right way. At this time I have zero confidence in the process. That is on Bryan. I am willing to help him fix it, just like I have told him in our private exchanges. So, Bryan…?

    And finally, candidates reach out to me because I win. When the past Chair of the DCRP needed help with one of his candidates this last election he reached out to me. I helped and we won. To say I want a weak party is about as ignorant of a statement as I could imagine. But with that comment you are admitting the DCRP has been ineffective. THAT is not on me. I was forced out of the DCRP in 2012. Maybe you should stop kicking people with succesfull political experience out of the county party.

  55. The rest of the story... says:

    Let’s quit skirting around the issue. Air the dirty laundry. It is the worst kept secret that Nancy McCabe organized the slates at convention. Most of the members that vacated their seats were delegates that Nancy rounded up and convinced to show up and vote her slate in order to gain as much control on the central committee as she could. She was successful. The problem is that those delegates don’t really care. It isn’t a surprise to anyone that they didn’t show up. In August, Nancy began the calls to vote not to include the August meeting as required. She did so because she was trying to keep her delegates (control) on the central committee long enough to influence the outcome of the January chairman elections. In the end she failed. She couldn’t convince her delegates to show up or call in for an excused absence to even one meeting, and they ended up vacating their seats after the December meeting. When Nancy finally realized what happened, she was livid that she lost her control of the central committee. She didn’t even have time to find replacements and lobby ld chairs to seat her sympathizers on the central committee. In short, Nancy McCabe failed. She lost her control over the central committee and her chance at influencing the outcome of the election for chair. Her solution? Start an upheaval and throw out false accusations this way and that. Make as much noise as possible. Point the finger at Chairman Baumgart. Call for a do-over. She is so desperate to regain her control that she will stop at nothing to rile up her cronies and make as much noise as possible. Sad really. Meanwhile, the fingers point at Chairman Baumgart for following the rules. And now you know the rest of the story.

  56. DCRP Member says:

    Pete Pederson voluntarily resigned his seat due to health issues. Stop spreading lies. If you don’t know, don’t assume. You know what they say about assumptions.

    And Bryan hasn’t removed anyone. He can’t. The Constitution doesn’t allow the chairman or the executive committee of the central committee to remove members for absences. Only members can do that. They voluntarily vacate their seats by triggering that clause in the Constitution. The chairman, the executive committee and the central committee are not allowed to seat members either. Only ld chairs can. It’s an important protection in the Constititution to prevent the central committee from being stacked.

  57. The Rock (Constitution) says.... It doesn't matter says:

    None of this matters as near as I can tell because Bryan hasn’t actually held any official meetings. I don’t think you get to ‘automatically’ enforce one part of the constitution and not others.

    I think Bryan should do the admirable thing and follow the ENTIRE constitution and call for our first official meeting since convention. Don’t forget to mail people this time! Remember 10 days in advance!

    Otherwise, if he continues down this path I see his support melting down faster than a snow cone in hell!

  58. Letter of the Law (Constitution) says:

    Directly from the DCRP Constitution:
    “4. Notices
    Each member of the Central Committee shall be notifed at least ten (10) days prior to all meetings, in writing of the time, date and place of each meeting, addressed to the last known post office address of such members.”

    Last know postal address. Anything short of a notice sent via US Mail to the “last known postal address” does not qualify as official notice of a meeting. Thus, there can be no official meeting.

    What kind of shape is the DCRP in if we cannot afford to send a postcard to members? If they wanted e-mail to be the method, why didn’t we change the Constitution?

  59. Policy Wonk says:

    Can we get back to talking about legislation, please — instead of this college-aged nonsense. Let the adults take back the party and all of the kids sit to the side please……….this **** is embarrassing…..

  60. Ne state Senators Larson and Murante says:

    Since this is the most boring article Mr Street Sweeper ever produced I will interrupt to question who are the GOP mainstays in the Nebraska Unicameral?
    So Senator Tyson Larson lives out there in the boonies but has a Georgetown education. I read his bio and he went to Weeping Water HS and now lives in O’Neil Ne.
    He was just re-elected and his campaign meme on facebook was a hand gun. This guy is carrying the water for the far right GOP; introducing Voter ID legislation and charter schools language. (Which reminds me the charter schools proposal would only affect Omaha and Lincoln. Larson lives in The Last Picture Show territory, and he has no children. Nobody knows less than this guy about educating children).
    So Larson lists on his bio his occupation is “entrepreneur”; meaning he is unemployed living in mom and dads basement as a 28 year old. His degree at Georgetown was in Theology. Nebraska should be wary of this Christian Taliban type. Not so secretly insinuating himself in the highest level of state government in an attempt to incorporate the far right philosophy of Catholicism into state government.
    And Senator John Murante is the Chair of the Government Military and Veterans Committee of the Unicam. He will facilitate the attempt to enforce Voter ID onto Nebraska voters.
    This guy’s claim to fame is that he married into the Big Fred’s pizza restaurant business. If I am not mistaken Murante took over the business when Big Fred passed. Somebody correct me on this if I am wrong.
    Murante has a bachelors degree from UNL. He is a graduate of a Catholic HS in Omaha. This is not a Rhodes Scholar we are dealing with.
    My point is these lightweights are the people trying to bring awful legislation like Voter ID to Nebraska? One kid who is looking to make points with the far right constituents and donors. and the other guy runs a pizza joint he inherited?
    This is the best you can do Ne GOP?
    Give me a break we can defeat these people.

    ricky from omaha

  61. Anonymous says:

    Why didn’t anyone warn me that I should have popped a big bowl of popcorn and poured myself a nice drink before reading this thread? I haven’t read a more entertaining thread on LS EVER. How does Nebraska remain a “Red” state with The Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight trying to organize themselves into some bare semblance of a political party? And don’t get me started on running a business. Who pays you guys? All I can say is “be grateful.”

  62. Big Fred's Boycott says:

    Announcing the boycott and picketing of Big Fred’s Pizza on Pacific st. and 120 st in Omaha.
    Picketing a so-so pizza place is like the last resort, but when Senator John Murante acts with impunity and calls one of the worse people in America to tout his voter suppression bill the people have to act.
    Kris Kobach is a jerk of the highest order, and the Sec of State from Kansas was the invited guest of Big Fred’s by chance owner and manager Sen John Murante.
    Murante and fellow far right jerk Tyson Larson want to impose voter suppression laws in Nebraska,and with the Unicam dominated by the GOP, there is nothing the fair-minded people can do about it legislatively.
    And so the people take to the streets, like we have done with numerous picketing of pols that support the pipeline and other stuff like police brutality.
    We will choose a Saturday night, perhaps next Saturday the night before the Super Bowl, and have picket signs and bullhorns discouraging patrons of Big Fred’s of dining at that average pizza joint.
    So watch social media for more information on the picketing and boycotting Big Freds Pizza.

    ricky from omaha

  63. Anonymous says:

    I boycott Big Fred’s because it takes 45 minutes to get a salad. The REAL Big Fred, God Rest his soul, has been rolling in his grave for years.

  64. Anonymous says:

    Big Fred’s may have shitty food, but Ricky’s protest won’t turn any customers away and it’s only a boycott of the participants would have otherwise eaten there. My guess: none of Ricky’s accomplices would normally eat at big Fred’s.

    P.s. The only votes that voter ID suppresses are those of the people who can’t legally vote in the first place.

  65. To Ricky says:

    Murante did not inherit Big Fred’s through his marriage. he is Big Fred’s grandson. If you’re going to attack, at least do your homework.

  66. Big Fred's Boycott says:

    45 minute wait for a salad at Big Fred’s? They deserve to be boycotted!
    Obviously the place is a shadow of it’s former self, and we would be doing people a favor by letting them know not to eat there.
    So this guy inherited his job, typical GOP affirmative action.
    And who does he and Larson think they are? Bringing the worse person in America to Lincoln.
    And they want to suppress voters?
    BOOO
    Boycott Big Freds Pizza!

    ricky the non pizza eater from now on

  67. The Great DCRP Purge of 2015 says:

    The real story here is that despite all the justification and excuses of DCRP “leadership”, there is one irrefutable fact: written notices were were never sent. Haven’t been sent in what? Couple of years? That means that DCRP has held nothing but improper meetings, and that the people who fell victim to The Great DCRP Purge of 2015 were in fact never guilty of unexcused absences from improperly held meetings. Get it? Got it? Good!

  68. Results says:

    The results last night for the DCRP Election were:
    56 – Jon Tucker
    50 – Brandon Petersen

    Realize, this is after purging 17 members and adding 14 pro Tucker votes, less than 1 week ahead of the election.

    This clearly would’ve gone another way if the past and current DCRP Chairmen hadn’t worked together to adjust the situation to their benefit. Ironic when these guys talk about the so-called ‘Establishment’ locking out people and creating an exclusive club. Pot meet the kettle.

  69. Anonymous says:

    I think you mean, if 14 members hadn’t voluntarily vacated their seats the election may have turned out differently. Then again, maybe not. Twelve of the 14 hadn’t been to a meeting outside of convention in four years and many may not have bothered to even show for the election. Several didn’t even know they were on the DCRP Central Committee until notified. Of those 14, one is moving out of Douglas County, another was reseated on the Central Committee and made it obvious she was casting her vote for Brandon. Of the remaining empty seats, only six were filled by the LD Chairs in the month prior to the election, and if I remember correctly the tie vote goes to the Chairman and we all know Bryan was voting for Jon Tucker. Assuming all six of the members seated after the December meeting showed up to vote and every single last one of them voted for Tucker, then the tie would have still gone to Tucker. Check your math. There was no way Brandon could have won, even if he got his way and the Constitution was ignored and participating members were removed and replaced by the old members who never participate in DCRP activities, and they all voted for him.

  70. Facts are Facts says:

    Brandon lost with 50 votes against Tucker’s 56 votes. This is 5.6%.

    17 people were purged that supported Brandon. This would be 16%.

    14 people were added that supported Tucker. This would be 13%.

    A clear lead was erased. They clearly added a lot more people, and Brandon Petersen still only lost by 5.6%. The vote was clearly manipulated to retain power.

  71. Anonymous says:

    Wrong.

    Brandon lost 50-56 votes (6 votes)

    14 people vacated their seats on December 3rd.
    6 members were seated by LD Chairs before the January 27th election. One stated at the meeting she was voting for Brandon.

    That left 5 votes for Tucker at most. Still, short of what would have been necessary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.