Larry Roller: The Lies of An Illegal Chair? Part 1

You decide...

If you have read Roller's article in the NewsLeader, you might have picked up on the hypocrisies, exaggerations, and untruths that the article was riddled with.

As an outside observer to this meeting, I feel it is right to comment and set the record straight on his fabrications.
_________________

1. In his article, Roller states that the loser in any election should congratulate the winner. He said that he did not receive this congratulation. He is right. And he shouldn't have. The first part of the meeting under which he was elected was illegal. No rules were ever adopted and no Permanent Chairman to elect Roller was ever elected--all the way to Jim Bailey's outright refusal to vote on and credential delegates to the Conventions.
1. How is this the case? Roller’s statement that there is no doubt that he was duly elected is a fabrication. Because Jim Bailey was never elected as Permanent Chairman of the Mass Meeting, he did not have the authority to conduct or oversee the initial vote for Chairman (See the Handbook for Mass Meetings, Conventions and Party Canvasses: Second Edition: Article V, Section D, Part 3). Parliamentarian Keith Drake even ruled that because a Permanent Chairman had never been elected at the Mass Meeting up until the point at which Michael was elected, that fact canceled all business conducted by Jim Bailey that only a Permanent Chairman was authorized to conduct. This included the election of Larry Roller.
   
2. Dr. Kurt Michael fulfilled ALL of the requirements required to run a legal and effective Mass Meeting. It was not until a vote of no confidence was held to oust the Temporary Chairman from his position, did the Mass Meeting finally conform as it should to the State Party Plan of Organization.
2. Dr. Michael's email, that Roller makes mention of did ask for the 6th District to look into and possibly try to resolve the Mass Meeting situation. However, the point that Roller forgets is that Dr. Michael's e-mail was not an appeal, only a notice. Not only that, the email sent by Dr. Michael to the 6th District did not meet the qualifications for a legitimate appeal. Dr. Michael did not appeal. Larry Roller did. And by Roller's doing so, the playing field shifted to now have Roller proving that Dr. Michael shouldn't be the chair. Not the other way around.
1. Furthermore, Roller goes on to state that Dr. Michael did not file a statement that, "attest[ed] to his being duly elected as unit chairman, and the statement must be attested by at least 25 signatures of persons who were in attendance at the mass meeting and voted..." According to the State Party Plan of Organization, only those who are to appeal the decision of a Mass Meeting must obtain and collect the signatures on a petition as well as include a statement of appeals. Since Dr. Michael did not file and Roller did, that task fell to Roller, not Dr. Michael. (See Article X, Section B, Part 4)
3. Roller then goes on to cite the report a special "fact finding" committee (appointed by Fred Anderson, 6th District Chairman) compiled, that showed evidence that he was rightful Chairman. Roller somehow forgot to mention that the establishment of such a committee was ILLEGAL.
1. How so, you might ask? Anderson’s appointment of a ‘fact-finding’ committee to investigate the disputed chairmanship before the actual deliberations of the Sixth District does not conform to the Republican Party of Virginia Plan of Organization. The only provision that it provides for in an appeals matter, is a committee that is only relegated to these members only: State Chairman, all State Vice Chairman, and one General Assembly Committee Member appointed by the Joint Republican Legislative Caucus. This body is recognized as the Appeals Committee and is the only committee sanctioned by the Plan of Organization (See Article X, Section A, Part 1). Even Robert's Rules of Order are clear that before forming a committee like this, the concept must go before the standing body (in this case the 6th District) and made into a motion, second, debated, voted on, and approved. Only then, could they disperse to conduct their inquiry (See pgs. 215 - 216). This did not happen. Regardless of the 'fact-finding' committee's outcome, since they were in direct violation of the Plan of Organization and Robert's Rules, their ruling is meaningless and ultra vires.
4. Roller goes on to state that Dr. Michael refused to show up for the illegal 'fact-finding' committee's inquiry, while he [Roller] obliged them. What he doesn't say is why Dr. Michael did not show.
1. Why didn't he show? Michael’s inability to attend the Saturday meeting based on Anderson’s mistake of forgetting the date on the original email is defended by Robert’s Rules of Order. By the same token, Anderson’s mistakes as far as this entire situation goes, are in direct violation of how discipline should take place. (See pgs. 215 – 216)
5. Roller later makes this statement: "The only appeal was when Michael contacted Fred Anderson by e-mail requesting a meeting with the 6th District." We have already addressed that Dr. Michael never appealed to the 6th District (See 2 - 2.1) and why Dr. Michael's email did not meet the requirements for such. But what we have is Roller caught in another complete fabrication. At the 6th District meeting, 'fact-finding' committee chairman Vito Gentile, told the body that Roller had indeed submitted an appeal to the 6th District outlining his [Roller's] reasons why he was the legal chairman. For Roller to state he did not file an appeal is not true.