MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of State Central Committee

FROM: State Central Ad-Hoc Committee
RE: Report of the Committee for the 2
nd
District and Virginia Beach
________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND: State Senator Frank Wagner had announced his intention to run for 2
nd

District Chairman against then-Chairman Gary Byler. Instead of seeking another term, Byler
elected to bow out in favor of Curtis Colgate, a long-standing member of State Central
Committee. Virginia Beach represented a near supermajority of the delegates for the 2
nd

District convention, which breaks down as follows.
Accomack 49 votes 5.6%
Hampton 53 votes 6.2%
Newport News 114 votes 13.1%
Norfolk 87 votes 10.0%
Northampton 15 votes 1.7%
Virginia Beach 552 votes 63.4%
TOTAL (without Virginia Beach): 318 votes 36.5%
TOTAL: 870 votes 100%
The use of slating has a history in Virginia politics dating back to Revolutionary times, where
members of the Virginia House of Burgesses would send delegates to the First and Second
Continental Congress to represent the will of the majority.
In more recent times, the practice of slating was used to send delegates to the State
Convention due to limitations placed on the size of delegations imposed by the Party Plan, as
outlined in Article VIII, Section H of the Party Plan. By the early part of the 2000s, these
1
limits were eased in an effort to allow more individuals to participate in conventions, as the
practice was increasingly used as a tool to remove opposition votes from unit representation.
Thus while instruction was specifically prohibited by the party plan, slating still remained
a permissible practice under Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR).
Yet the practice of slating is not what is at issue in either Virginia Beach or in the 2
nd
District
Committee. What remains at issue is the following:
1. Was the vote to slate candidates at the Virginia Beach unit committee proper?
2. Was the Virginia Beach mass meeting properly and uniformly conducted?
3. Was the vote at the 2
nd
District Convention to recognize the delegates slated off from
Virginia Beach proper?
1
Instruction of delegations where the delegation is instructed by a unit or district committee to vote a certain
way -- is specifically prohibited by the Party Plan under Art. VIII, Sec. H, sub. 4
1
4. Was the vote of the 2
nd
District Committee to overturn the result of the convention
proper?
Based on the evidence below, we find the following:
1. 2
nd
District Executive Committee did not issue a proper call for the 08 May 2014
meeting where the results of the convention were vacated, per Roberts Rules of Order
Newly Revised (RONR) and the State Party Plan. Article VII, Sec. B, sub. 1 (p. 17) of
the Plan states that the call shall include the agenda for the meeting. RONR is
equally clear in II. 28-35 that agendas for special meetings must clearly and
specifically describe(s) the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be
brought up. Neither of these two very basic criteria were met in the issuance of the
call for a special meeting.

Yet even if these prerequisites were properly met, organizational meetings cannot
have their results overturned by a vote of an executive committee or a future
meeting of the body as a whole without following the procedures embedded in RONR,
their own organizational bylaws, or the Party Plan. The appropriate venue to
challenge the results of the convention was at the convention itself, or through the
provisions allowed in the bylaws.

2. The issue addressed above is symptomatic of an issue regarding the Credentials
Committee of the 2
nd
District Convention on 26 April 2014 specifically, whether the
Credentials Committee is empowered to seat delegates according to the Rules of the
Convention. This answer is emphatically clear in RONR Part II, Art. XII, Sec. 71:
2

When this report of the credential committee is presented it is read either by
the chairman of the committee or by the reading secretary, or official reader, if
there is one. In all cases, it, and all other reports, should be read from the
platform. When the chairman of a committee cannot read so as to be heard,
the report should be read by a reading secretary, or official reader, who
should be appointed in every large convention, solely for the purpose of
reading resolutions, reports, etc. If there is a case of contest between two sets
of delegates and there is serious doubt as to which is entitled to recognition,
the committee should omit both fromthe list and report the fact of the contest.
If the committee, however, thinks the contest not justified, it should ignore it
and enter on the list the names of the legitimate delegates. (1) A motion should
be made to accept or adopt the report, which, after it is stated by the chair, is
open to debate and amendment. (2) No one can vote whose name is not on
the list of delegates reported by the committee. (3) Upon the motion to
substitute one delegation for another, neither one can vote. So upon a motion
to strike out the names of a delegation whose seats are contested they cannot
vote. But upon the main motion to accept the report, (4) all persons whose
names are on the list of members as reported by the committee and amended
by the convention are entitled to vote, and they alone. When this report has
2
http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-12.htm
2
been adopted, the president should immediately call upon the program
committee for a report. The chairman of that committee submits the printed
program and moves, or someone else moves, its adoption. (5) This is open to
debate and amendment, and when once adopted by a majority vote cannot be
deviated from except by a two-thirds vote of those voting, or by a majority
vote of the enrolled membership. (numbers added for clarity)
The 2
nd
District Credentials Committee read out its report without challenging any
names submitted for consideration to the committee as a whole. This fact is
undisputed by both parties. In which case, the following procedure according to
RONR is followed:
1. A motion was made to accept the report.
2. Those names listed on the report were entitled to vote by virtue of remaining
unchallenged by the Credential Committee.
3. No motions to strike or substitute were proffered.
4. The motion to adopt the Credentials Committee report passed.
5. Once adopted, a 2/3 vote is required to overturn.
Moreover, in a ruling dated 12 August 2011, General Counsel specifically states Once
the Credentials Committee report is adopted by majority vote, it becomes the official
roll of voting members of the Convention for the conduct of all official business.
3

No vote was taken to overturn the results of the Credentials Committee report, nor
were names or delegations challenged by either party via motions. Therefore, the 2
nd

District Convention Credentials Committee acted properly, and the vote to
accept the report of the Credentials Committee was properly performed.
3. Pertaining to the Virginia Beach GOP, the question was raised as to whether or not the
call for the Virginia Beach Mass Meeting was properly called. We believe that the
Virginia Beach call was properly issued.

4. Pertaining to the use of slating, there is nothing in the State Party Plan that
prohibits the use of slating to determine delegations to district or state
conventions.

5. Pertaining to the conduct of the Virginia Beach Mass Meeting in the selection of
delegates to the district convention, the opposition of the slating properly motioned for
a division of the house. This motion which requires a precise count was performed
by hands raised with no tellers other than the Election Committee (typically tellers
are appointed from both camps to ensure a fair vote, or more accurately prevent one
or both sides from alleging improprieties this was not done here).

3
http://rpv.org/sites/default/files/20110812_GCRuling_ConductLegislativeDistrictCommittee.pdf
3
RONR states that hands raised is an appropriate method of counting votes, a vote
which carried with 643 305 with 948 participants present according to the minutes
of the Virginia Beach Mass Meeting, slightly over the 2/3 vote required.

It was at this moment that the opposition asked for a division of the house by recorded
vote. Again, RONR Part I, Art IV, Sec. 25 is very clear on the procedure to be
followed:
4

A Division of the Assembly may be called for, without obtaining the floor, at
any time after the question has been put, even after the vote has been
announced and another has the floor, provided the vote was taken viva voce,
or by show of hands, and it is called for before another motion has been
made. This call, or motion, is made by saying, "I call for a division," or "I
doubt the vote," or simply by calling out, "Division." It does not require a
second, and cannot be debated, or amended, or have any other subsidiary
motion applied to it. As soon as a division is called for, the chair proceeds
again to take the vote, this time by having the affirmative rise, and then when
they are seated having the negative rise. While any member has the right to
insist upon a rising vote, or a division, where there is any question as to the
vote being a true expression of the will of the assembly, the chair should not
permit this privilege to be abused to the annoyance of the assembly, by
members constantly demanding a division where there is a full vote and no
question as to which side is in the majority. It requires a majority vote to
order the vote to be counted, or to be taken by yeas and nays (roll
call) or by ballot. These motions are incidental to the question that
is pending or has just been pending, and cannot be debated.
(emphasis added) When different methods are suggested they are usually
treated not as amendments, but like filling blanks, the vote being taken first on
the one taking the most time. In practice the method of taking a vote is
generally agreed upon without the formality of a vote.

When the vote is taken by ballot during a meeting of the assembly, as soon as
the chair thinks all have voted who wish to, he inquires if all have voted, and if
there is no response he declares the polls closed, and the tellers proceed to
count the vote. If a formal motion is made to close the polls it should not be
recognized until all have presumably voted, and then it requires a two-thirds
vote like motions to close debate or nominations. If members enter
afterwards and it is desired to reopen the polls it can be done by a majority
vote. None of these motions are debatable.

What is important to note here is that the motion to call for a division of the house was
not recognized by the temporary chair. While we make no recommendations
here, we do conclude that the conduct of the Virginia Beach GOP Mass
Meeting was below the standards deserved within the Republican Party of
Virginia, and further that the opposition did call for a proper division of the house and
4
http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-04.htm
4
was not recognized. In the interest of fair play and proper procedure, all motions
ought to be properly acted upon unless such privileges are indeed being abused.

6. Furthermore, we are very much concerned that the integrity of the vote was not
preserved by selective or non-enforcement of the Party Plan with regards to the
Statement of Intent a mechanism used to ensure that only Republicans and those
supporting Republicans participate in our party processes.

The Party Plan states in Article VIII, Sec. A, sub. 3 that all participants in a Mass
Meeting, Canvass, or Convention may prescribe the use of a particular filing form for
the required statement, in which case the official pre-filing form must be included with
the call published on the RPV website. The Virginia Beach GOP call for mass
meeting did indeed include a section regarding Qualifications for
Participation, faithfully copied from the Party Plan. This section was not
enforced.

An argument could be made that may does not preclude shall. We find this
argument to be unconvincing, as Art. 1, Sec. 1 of the Party Plan indicates may be
required in the section outlining membership and participation. Were it the will of the
Virginia Beach GOP to allow Democrats and independents to participate in the mass
meeting, the call would simply have to delete and remove the lines regarding the
Qualifications for Participation which the Virginia Beach GOP did not do either in
2014 or 2012.

7. Because of the improprieties detailed in points 5 and 6, it is self-evident how the
procedure and the participants would have been disenfranchised by the result of the
selection of delegates, and further how this would have spilled forward to an improper
result for the Virginia Beach GOP chairman election. Therefore, we recommend
that Virginia Beach be instructed to hold a new mass meeting specifically
for the purpose of electing a chairman, and recommend that the seat
remain vacant until that time.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOTIONS
The members of the committee felt it appropriate to mention that all members strove to
ensure that the report be constructed in a fair and impartial manner. The committee
additionally feels it necessary to disclose that all three members did support Curtis Colgate
either verbally or in writing. It is no small secret that the distaste for slating as a tactic is
profound among members of the Republican Party of Virginia leadership. These concerns
were foremost in our minds when approaching this issue.
5
In addition, RPV staff has spent countless hours sifting through not only events in the 2
nd

District a total of four submitted appeals regarding 2
nd
District and Virginia Beach alone
before they were condensed into the ad hoc committee but for four additional appeals as
well. This has not been a pleasant process to observe or contend with, and hopefully moving
forward we can act accordingly when these very public rifts occur. More unites us than
divides us, and sometimes we lose and win fights but there is another day ahead, and
general elections to win.
The committee recommends the following motions be enacted:
1. I move the adoption of the ad hoc committee report on the 2
nd
District Convention and
the Virginia Beach Mass Meeting; and further,
2. I move that the State Central Committee recognize Curtis Colgate as Chairman of the
2
nd
District Committee; and further,
3. I move that Virginia Beach be instructed to hold a mass meeting for the express
purpose of electing a chairman, and instructs RPV staff to observe and report on the
results and conduct of the mass meeting.
With regards to slating, there is nothing in the Party Plan or in RONR that prohibits the
practice. Such methods are indeed proper within the scope of the Party Plan.
The Virginia Beach Mass Meeting the source of many of the problems in the 2
nd
District
was properly called and improperly conducted. We recognizes that sometimes mass meetings
can become heated, and that many times the conduct of the meeting is only as good as its
worst members. As leaders of the Republican Party of Virginia, we encourage State Central
members to reinforce process over personalities, and avoid these sort of confrontational
meetings in the future. Five minutes of courtesy typically avoids five months of controversy.
Furthermore, we determine that the issue of whom a credentials committee can seat is clear
from both the perspective of RONR and previous General Counsel rulings, and do not find
that 2
nd
District Committee acted improperly.
Lastly, we would like to remind members of State Central Committee that we remain a body
of last resort with regards to the procedural operations of the Republican Party of Virginia.
No organizational body can bind a future body, and once constituted no group can upend the
organizational formation of that body until its term expires. What the State Central
Committee decides is what is proper, and we encourage fellow members to do so in a spirit of
fairness and co-operation.
We recommend the adoption of the report with the above motions attached, and consider the
matter resolved.
6