Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Subject:
Date:
From:
Priority:
(none)
Friday,
December
18,
2015
at
10:24:30
PM
Eastern
Standard
Time
Marilyn
Marks
High
Subject:
RE:
NaKonal
CommiMeeman
awed
elecKon---request
for
review
and
correcKve
acKon
I
have
been
following
the
conversaKons
for
several
days.
There
are
several
issues,
and
in
many
cases,
Anil,
who
was
not
there,
has
hit
on
several.
The Chain of Control of the Credential is in question. (Chain of control of
credential??? It is not even
supposed to be a secure document, and the list of credentialed
voting members and challenged members is to be available for inspection by all, according
to Roberts Rules under which we operate. Hoffman is attempting to make this important
control document that is to be available to all into a private document to conceal from the
membership. Why?)
Now
that
Mr.
Hess
has
broken
the
condenKal
nature
of
the
CredenKal
CommiMee,
a
very
serious
breach,
in
my
opinion,
occurred.
(The
CredenKals
CommiMee
work
is
in
NO
WAY
condenKal.
The
bylaws
allow
all
members
to
inspect
the
credenKaling
process,
and
Roberts
Rules
allow
for
the
inspecKon
of
the
list
of
credenKaled
and
challenged
members
who
can
vote.)
I
dont
know
what
is
true
or
not.
As
I
have
not
seen
credenKals,
I
would
be
relying,
as
many,
many
of
you,
on
word
from
other
people.
(The
easy
answer
is
to
publish
the
full
credenKals
report
with
the
list
of
credenKaled
voKng
members
for
the
meeKng.
It
is
required
to
be
available
to
all.
If
there
are
errors,
they
will
be
immediately
obvious.
)
This
is
the
facts
as
I
know
them:
1.
The
CredenKals
CommiMee
was
jammed
into
a
very
Kny
area.
2.
The
CredenKal
CommiMee
was
under
incredible
pressure
because
of
that
small
space
(The
credenKaling
process
is
not
a
surprise,
and
it
is
incumbent
on
the
party
to
provide
adequate
faciliKes,
not
compromise
the
process
through
inadequate
faciliKes.)
3.
There
was
aMempted
inKmidaKon
of
CredenKal
team.
4.
A
preliminary
CredenKal
Report
was
accepted
as
fact
for
the
purposes
of
voKng,
not
merely
to
hold
the
meeKng,
although
the
Chair
never
gave
a
subsequent
amendment.
This
is
SOP.
(
Untrue.
The
audio
recording
plays
back
a
subsequent
report
in
the
nal
report
of
the
CredenKals
CommiMee
where
the
new
informaKon
of
242
potenKal
maximum
votes
was
disclosed.
The
SOP
was
followed.)
Recording
available
at
https://soundcloud.com/user408365147/audio-20151gop-credentials.
It
was
never
Page 2 of 1 4
fully
understood
about
the
status
of
the
30
proxies
that
Isaiah
was
xated
on
protesKng,
in
spite
of
the
decisions
of
the
SCC
at
the
September,
2015
meeKng.
(The
decision
of
the
SCC
in
Sept
was
to
retain
the
bylaw
without
amendment.
There
is
general
agreement,
including
by
the
Chairman,
that
the
bylaw
does
not
permit
out-of-consituency
proxies.
The
Chairman
aMempted
to
extend
the
non-compliant
pracKce
just
one
more
meeKng,
before
purportedly
planning
to
address
it
in
2016.
)
6.
Therefore, as the State Party is not in possession of the Credential
Committee documents, the delegate packets that were not distributed or
any other document in regards to Credentials, it appears to me that any
attempt at this point to modify, complain or change the Credentials would
open up several lines of question.(And
that
is
a
good
thing,
to
open up
questions and obtain satisfactory answers! Why would Hoffman consider
lines of questions a bad thing? Shouldnt members have the expectation
that their elections can be verified? )
7.
I
feel
that
Isaiah
did
the
best
he,
and
his
commiMee,
could
given
the
condiKons:
screaming
Bonus
Members,
harassing
comments,
too
close
quarters
and
so
on.
8.
The
fallacy
that
all
proxies
voted
for
Mr.
Leing,
is
beyond
fantasy.
StaKsKcs
would
point
to
the
improbability
of
same.
(No
one
said
that
all
were
voted
or
Leing.
It
is
standard
procedure,
generally
a
legal
requirement
in
public
elecKons,
that
the
quesKoned
votes
are
subtracted
from
the
winners
total
to
determine
whether
the
outcome
is
potenKally
aected
by
the
quesKonable
votes.
If
so,
the
elecKon
controversy
proceeds
with
that
number
as
the
threshold.
Given
that
there
is
a
secret
ballot,
that
is
the
only
fair
assumpKon
to
make.
That
is
why
it
is
in
almost
all
states
laws.)
9.
To
the
Teller
CommiMee:
10. There
were
teams
of
two
for
the
purposes
of
counKng.
There
were
4
witnesses
in
the
room---1
for
each
candidate
and
1
from
the
State
Party
11. Every
step
of
the
way,
the
proceedings
were
stopped
to
receive
the
permission
and
consent
of
each
witness.
(But
the
witnesses
were
not
permiMed
visual
access
to
the
contents
of
the
ballots.
They
were
not
permiMed
to
verify
the
count.
Homan
generated
those
nonsensical
rules.)
12. MulKple
checks
and
balances
were
in
place
during
that
Kme,
as
witnessed
by
Page 3 of 1 4
the
Witnesses.
(But
they
were
apparently
ineecKve,
given
that
we
have
a
count
and
a
recount
that
do
not
agree,
and
neither
of
the
totals
is
mathemaKcally
possible
based
on
the
number
of
fracKonal
votes.
The
Tellers
report
is
just
not
credible.)
13. Due
to
aMempted
inKmidaKon
by
an
elecKon/candidate
witness,
last
Kme,
visual
observaKon
was
allowed,
(but
no
visual
access
was
allowed
to
observe
what
was
on
the
face
of
the
ballotsthe
votes!.)
but
no
witness
was
allowed
to
handle
or
touch
either
tellers
or
ballots.(I
was
in
the
counKng
room
in
March,
as
was
Dave
Gill
and
Nick
Lundberg.
There
was
no
aMempted
inKmidaKon
by
anyone.
This
is
a
another
bizarre
red
herring.)
14. Everything
from
the
Teller
CommiMee
was
surrendered
to
the
State
at
the
CompleKon
of
the
Teller
CommiMee.
15. Someone
aMempted
to
foist
their
ballot
on
me
aler
the
Teller
CommiMee
had
concluded
its
job
and
was
angry
at
the
refusal,
on
my
part,
to
count
his
ballot.
(That
tells
us
that
the
denominator
in
the
calculaKon
should
be
reduced
by
one
in
addiKon
to
the
one
we
are
aware
of
who
lel
without
voKng
to
no
greater
than
240.)
I can not prove or disprove anything that Isaiah has posted. (I dont have the
reference.) I think that is a violation of my personal business and confidentiality
as well as every member of the State Central Committee.(What is the violation of
privacy?? "Every member" of the 459 members of the SCC has had their privacy
violated over this??) The Colorado Republican Party, and its Committee is not a
public voting entity, such as a candidate, and our BUSINESS IS PRIVATE. (How
can the business be private when the meetings are open to the public and the
press?) It disappoints me greatly. Again, the reports are tainted as they are not
in the office, under appropriate security. (She is claiming that the easily
verifiable credential reports are tainted? The can be easily tested if published,
as over 130 people were present who will be able to note errors of inclusion or
exclusion. And we have a few video tapes and pictures of many people in the
room) I have no reason to believe in the authenticity of anything that will be
displayed, either online or elsewhere. (But it is so very easy to check that when
the list if published it will be verified easily by having numerous attendees review
it. )
Page 4 of 1 4
I
have
been
fascinated
at
the
aMenKon
that
has
been
given
by
members
who
were
not
there
and
are
upset
by
proxy,
and
those
who
are
not
party
to
this,
but
wish
to
cause
problems.
(
Count
me
among
those
who
wish
to
cause
problems
when
elecKons
contain
material
irregulariKes
and
ocials
are
making
wild
excuses!
)
Over
Kme,
I
have
worked
with
ReKred
Chairs
Baisley
and
YMerberg.
Both
are
worthy
gentlemen
and
an
asset
to
the
State
Party.
But
what
makes
me
most
uncomfortable,
is
that
this
looks
like
angry
white
guy
who
didnt
get
elected
upset
that
a
New
face,
and
a
Minority,
at
that,
did.
(What
a
grasp
of
desperaKon.
Those
of
us
dissenKng
are
RACISTS?
I
supported
George
Leing
for
the
post,
and
I
am
protesKng
more
loudly
than
Baisley.)
I
am
hoping,
beyond
my
wildest
dreams,
that
this
is
not
the
undercurrent
or
the
intent
of
this.
(That
is
such
a
ridiculous
allegaKon
made
out
of
desperaKon
that
all
Republican
leaders
in
the
state
party
need
to
read.)
From:
Kay
Rendleman
Sent:
Friday,
December
18,
2015
12:35
PM
To:
Same
group
as
above
Subject:
Re:
NaKonal
CommiMeeman
awed
elecKon---request
for
review
and
correcKve
acKon
Well
said
Anil
Sent
from
my
BlackBerry
10
smartphone.
From: Anil Mathai
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 12:06 PM
To:Same group as above
Subject: Re: National Committeeman flawed election---request for review and
corrective action
Here are the issues that we need to deal with. Let us look at the process, the
question of concern, deal with the facts and determine if the concern is valid or
not AND if valid, then decide on effective and expedient corrective action.
Concern (my understanding): The Total Votes for election of a new NCM
exceeded that of the Approved Credentials Report, correct? If so, what are the
facts?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
needed.
e.
If there are issues, then we have to go to Corrective Action.
Do we have an immediate Corrective Action if there was an error?
a.
Will a recount be done? A recount has been done by staff
and Hoffman. See above. However, valid recount cannot be
now undertaken as security has not been maintained. Recounted
ballots counted number still exceeded eligible total.
b.
Are the ballots secure? Likely too late to be concerned. Proper
custody likely already lost at the recount without proper
witnesses.
c.
Will re-count be done by new tellers? Was undertaken by Joy
Hoffman and staff. The standard practice in recounts is that they
are performed by people independent of the original counters.
House had the recount undertaken by the same Chair.
d.
Did the new numbers align with the approved Credentials Report?
No, see above.
e.
If there is doubt on the Corrective Action or numbers do not align,
then a re-election must occur.
f.
If there is no doubt during the Corrective Action and numbers do
align with Credentials report and winner is still same as current (with
over 50%), then issue is resolved and we can issue a report of how the
process was re-verified.
i. [sic] The CO GOP must
identify Preventative Actions to prevent this in the future.
Will we have a Preventative Action to prevent this in the future?
a.
If errors were identified, we must have a team to determine future
preventative actions so no issues come up when we have our 2016 State
Convention.
we followed our bylaws, then rules (if not in conflict to the bylaws and if
approved). [The Rules Committee failed to address the bylaws conflict for
this meeting.]
arguing against the standard rules of election controversies. When votes are in
doubt, they are subtracted from the winner to determine whether the worst
case could impact the outcome. If so, there is to be a new election in most
situations in public elections. )
As far as the proxies, I find it interesting that the person who benefited most from
the inclusion of proxies two years ago in an election to fill a vacancy in vice-chair
is now complaining about us allowing proxies this time around. (A lot of people
are complaining about the violation of the bylaws, including some of us who were
supporting Leing.)
I also find it very disturbing that people are so interested in not allowing some
hard working Republicans to participate in the process. The weather on Saturday
is a prime example of what the small counties must deal with. It is not always
possible to get to these meetings, and if our State Representatives or Senators,
or an elected official can be there, the only choice is to give them our proxy. (The
body voted in September to retain the bylaw as is. If long distance attendance is
an issue, it is plenty easy to provide for remote attendance and remote voting, if
the members want that. I watched the proceedings 1600 miles away via Internet
on Saturday.)
I know that you come from a large county, so you don't understand the problems
that rural Colorado has. One thing I would like to point out is that the small
counties are the ones that increased our percentage of votes for Republicans in
the last election. A simple way to test this is to look at how the delegates to our
upcoming assembly are apportioned. All of the large counties lost delegates from
the last assembly, but many of the small counties increased their delegate count,
indicating they did a much better job of getting the vote out.
What you are trying to do is alienate a good many of the Republicans that carry
this party in off year elections. (Accusation that asking for compliance with the
bylaws Is trying to alienate Republicans who carry the party??? That seems
rather extreme.)
I agree that there are issues around proxies. I was hoping that the by-laws
committee would listen to the suggestions from the executive committee, but your
chose to ignore us. (Cant any member bring a bylaw proposal with 30 days
notice?)
Richard Elsner
Park County
From Leo Jankowski
Page
9
of
1 4
When we remove the total excess votes (votes above the credentials report total
possible of 242, although Mark reports 242.5) from the victor, the numbers are:
122 (Leing) (50.6%) (Assuming all votes were cast)
84 (Baisley)
36 (Ytterberg)
Considering the inability to verify the result, the razor thin margin and additional
factors impacting the result (the excess vote count may be higher if people left
without voting or abstained, the credentialing of certain proxies in direct
opposition to the bylaws), the right thing to do is to call a new meeting and
hold a new election to fill the National Committeeman vacancy, after a thorough
review is done to evaluate the source of the problem.
Thanks and regards,
Leo Jankowski
Member, Bylaws Committee
CD-1 Rep to the Executive Committee
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Marilyn Marks wrote:
To
Teller,
Credentials,
Rules,
and
Executive
Committees
December 17, 2015
RE: Colorado GOP National Committeeman flawed election
Members of the Credentials, Teller and Rules Committees:
As a long time activist for fair elections in Colorado, I am writing to urge you to
take action to thoroughly evaluate the December 12, 2015 election for National
Committeeman and take action to ensure that a fair and accurate election was,
or will be conducted. If the Colorado Republican Party does not conduct clean,
fair, transparent elections for its internal operations, we have no credibility when
we attempt to promote fair election legislation or conduct in public elections.
This is an urgent matter of core principles requiring our immediate attention.
Page
1 1
of
1 4
That office holds a much coveted delegate vote at the July convention.
How can the party take a stand for fair and transparent public elections, if this
unverifiable, flawed election is allowed to stand as acceptable? Imagine the
loss of credibility with voters. Imagine the lack of confidence suffered by wouldbe convention delegates as they consider running at the state convention.
How can our legislators promote fair election legislation without being ridiculed
by the Democrats for the low standards we adopt in the party elections?
A New Election is Merited
While many of us want to learn that simple math errors or other innocent
explanations can be documented to verify the outcome of Leings victory, as a
practical matter, it seems unlikely, given what we know.
Additionally, the 30 proxies permitted although fully acknowledged (even by
Chairman House) to be in violation of the bylaws, should not have been
permitted on the theory of past precedent. Bylaws rule, period. But they did not
even meet the test of past precedent. House allowed proxies to be held by
state party officials, including himself, when that practice had been forced to a
close in 2013 as non-compliant. House was also improperly carrying proxies.
The impact of the improper votes is not known, and whether they impact the
outcome is most likely impossible to know.
It was also reported that candidates observers were not permitted to have
visual access to the voted ballots in the counting room to determine that the
votes were being properly tallied.
Summary and action request
Given that it appears that the election is unverifiable, please organize a joint
committee process to address the details of the election and determine if the
outcome can be verified using current bylaws and election rules. If not, please
consider a joint recommendation to call for a new election.
Allowing the party to hold flawed elections with no accountability sets a
shameful tone and culture for the party going into 2016 with so many important
elections. Please contact your fellow members and follow through with your
duty to ensure a fair and transparent election for National Committeeman.
In the interest of full disclosure, I supported George Leing for chair and asked
Page
1 4
of
1 4
friends to vote for him. Therefore, I am not displeased with the declared
outcome, but I quite unhappy about the process. This process is unfair to all
three candidates, including George, who should not be required to take office
under a cloud that will follow him through his tenure.
I am happy to answer any questions about the process I undertook to review
the data, or any other question you may have.
Please ensure that your fellow committee members receive a copy of this
email. I did not have addresses for all.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marilyn Marks
cc: Executive Committee
Page 1 5 of 1 4