“Security Amendment” under consideration by Buncombe Republican Party

Here’s the full text of a “Security Amendment” under consideration by the Buncombe County Republican Party. The party’s executive committee decided to table the measure May 21 meeting, however, may decide to take it up again at a later date.

AMENDMENT TO BUNCOMBE COUNTY GOP PLAN OF ORGANIZATION

WHEREAS: Successful political parties apply a well organized approach to campaigning, and

WHEREAS: BCGOP is building a well organized approach to campaigning, and

WHEREAS: Opponents to BCGOP success are shown to use infiltration, intimidation, and violence to otherwise disrupt , delay, and destroy BCGOP efforts to build a well organized approach to campaigning, and

WHEREAS: Other groups (such as Occupy Wall Street) have scheduled training sessions to teach infiltration, disruption and distortion of Republican events. These training sessions instruct participants on how to use edited videotapes and staged controversies to paint conservative events as violent, fascist and racial, and

WHEREAS: The North Carolina Democrat party has engaged in a variety of other tactics designed to subvert the fair election process, intimidate voters, candidates and civic activists, and

WHEREAS: The North Carolina Democrat Party has an organized campaign to record and/or video tape Republican candidates and leaders so that the recordings may be edited, taken out of context and used to portray Republican leaders in an unfavorable light, and

WHEREAS: The North Carolina Democrat Party has sent one or more videographers to Buncombe County GOP events, including the Buncombe County GOP’s 2012 Lincoln Day Dinner, and

WHEREAS: The individual who attended the 2012 Lincoln day Dinner fostered the impression that he was a Republican supporter when in fact he was there to provide the North Carolina Democrat Party with material which could be edited, taken out of context and used against Republican Candidates, and

WHEREAS: The covert nature of the Democrat Party’s videographer was not revealed to the BCGOP until a volunteer working for one of the candidates present at the Lincoln Day Dinner recognized the individual, knew of his political background and reported his true identity and purpose to BCGOP officials, and

WHEREAS: Other organizations who are charged with preserving the fair election process have selectively shirked their duty leaving the Buncombe County GOP to take measures to protect itself. Specifically:

1. The U.S. Justice Department (under the Direction of the Obama Administration) has refused to protect civic groups with which it disagrees and has refused to prosecute Black Panther and union groups that openly intimidate voters, candidates, and election workers and

2. Felonious voter fraud and open violence are expected to increase by ACORN derivatives and union affiliates (SEIU etc.), and

3. There is a history of questionable activity (such as distributing James Taylor concert tickets at the exact locations and during the exact
hours of operation of Early voting polls in 2008) in Buncombe County, and

4. A complaint was filed with the Democrat majority Board of Elections by a past Chairman of the BCGOP requesting that the Board comply with its statutory duty to investigate the practice of distributing Concert Tickets together with a slate card containing only Democrat candidates at Early Voting locations during hours of poll operation, and

5. The Democrat members of the Board of elections refused to even second the Republican Member’s motion to investigate the practices of vote buying at early voting locations, and

6. The Buncombe County Board of Elections, under the Democrat leadership, refused to even investigate voter fraud that was conducted to assist Democrat candidates, and

WHEREAS: The BCGOP cannot rely on the hope that the Democrats in the Justice Department, The State Board of Elections, The local Board of Elections and other agencies (all of whom are charged with defending all person’s civil liberties) will behave differently in 2012 than they have in the past. ThisisunderscoredbytheDemocrat’sdeclarationthatNorthCarolinaisa“must-winstate”fortheNationalDemocratPartyandthe Obama Campaign, and

WHEREAS: The BCGOP Executive Committee business should be conducted in a safe and secure environment free from intimidation distortions and disruptions in 2012 and thereafter.

Be it therefore Resolved that The BCGOP Plan Of Organization be amended to include a new Article entitled “SECURITY,” Said Article shall take measures to address the privacy of the Executive Committee Meetings and insure that these meetings provide a safe environment for all members while building a well organized approach to campaigning. The new article shall read:

1) All Executive Committee members shall be required to sign a written statement acknowledging their duty to comply with all provisions of the BCGOP Plan of Organization.

2) Attendance at Executive Committee meetings shall be restricted to identified voting members of the Committee or their duly elected or appointed alternate.

3) Video Taping, Tape Recording or other types of recording, as well as the possession of recording devices, (outside of the official use by the duly elected party secretary,) are forbidden at BCGOP Executive meetings and events. Each attendee at any BCGOP event may be requested to sign a written acknowledgment of the policy prohibiting un-authorized recording of the event prior to being admitted to the event.

4) Persons wishing to speak at any BCGOP event must be first recognized (and given permission to speak) by the chairman or other individual presiding over the meeting or conducting the event. Any speaker failing to abide by this policy shall be considered out of order and may be removed from the event.

5) Guest speakers or other groups must be invited and vetted at least ten days before the Executive Committee meeting.

6) Local Law enforcement should be informed at least 48 hours ahead of all Executive Committee Meetings and other events so that
the agency can coordinate security and the available manpower to assist with security if needed.

7) Pending the formal adoption of this Amendment at the appropriate county convention, this Amendment shall serve as an Advisory
resolution to the Chairman by the BCGOP Executive Committee. Immediately upon its first reading and the first vote of a majority of members of the BCGOP Executive Committee, this Amendment shall authorize the chairman to conduct meetings in harmony with the spirit of this amendment and to take necessary steps necessary to expell disrupters and videographers from the BCGOP Executive Committee Meetings.


SHARE

0 thoughts on ““Security Amendment” under consideration by Buncombe Republican Party

  1. sharpleycladd

    It’s the DemocratIC Party, not the Democrat Party. Other than that, the spelling is surprisingly good.

  2. Dionysis

    Don’t forget that it was Rush Limbaugh that began to use the pejorative and childish ‘Democrat Party’. You know, their patron saint, whose bust is now enshrined in the halls of the Missouri capitol, watched over with taxpayer dollars. But I digress.

    A few questions come to mind:

    Is there any independent evidence apart from this ‘videographer’ to substantiate the claim that “opponents…use infiltration, intimidation, and violence to otherwise disrupt , delay, and destroy BCGOP efforts…”?

    Did this ‘videographer admit the Democratic Party planned to do those things?

    Has the Republican Party ever sent someone to infiltrate any Democratic organization or event (leave out Rush’s ‘Operation Chaos’)?

    What is the source of the assertions regarding the Occupy movement? How do you know this? Do you have operatives inside?

    Has any member of the Democratic Party, Occupy Wall Street or any other group disrupted the BCGOP more than Don Yelton?

  3. Barry Summers

    “This security amendment reads like they are deathly afraid of the Andrew Breitbart treatment.”

    Sounds like they might have some things to hide, too.

  4. Thunder Pig

    To answer your question, Dionysis:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54MFTfANOYg

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psQFLjYLuuk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1-2UZqIbZw

    and, most apropos:

    http://www.mountainx.com/article/22247/Controversy-looms-over-URTV-board-meeting

    You guys should really pay more attention to what has gone on in the past.

    Personally, I think video taping meetings of political parties is fair game and could be accomplished without actually having a person present. I don’t know whether or not it meetings of political parties are covered by open meetings legislation, but p
    erhaps an intrepid Mtn X reporter could look into it: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/north-carolina/open-meetings-laws-north-carolina

  5. D. Dial

    I think political party meetings do not come under open meeting law. Rule of thumb is, if the tax payers support a group or entity then that comes under OML.

    What got the controversies going at URTV was an attempt to do things in secret, behind closed doors. Some of us felt that since the public was paying the bills, they oughta be obeying the laws governing open meetings. Besides, if things were on the up and up, what did they have to hide?????

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFfV2Ge4HQI

  6. D. Dial

    I think political party meetings do not come under open meeting law. Rule of thumb is, if the tax payers support a group or entity then that comes under OML.

    What got the controversies going at URTV was an attempt to do things in secret, behind closed doors. Some of us felt that since the public was paying the bills, they oughta be obeying the laws governing open meetings. Besides, if things were on the up and up, what did they have to hide?????

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFfV2Ge4HQI

  7. Thunder Pig

    Interesting, Davyne.

    The political parties receive tax money and the tax payers do pay for primary elections. I would think that makes them a public body. (BTW, I record the meetings of my local party, but do not post video online of party business…except where requested by our chairman). I do not record or report what goes on in closed sessions, though.

    In a recent budget meeting, I found out that the runoff election will cost Macon County $40,000.

  8. D. Dial

    That’s a good point, but I think most monies come from private donors….to all parties. But I’m FOR transparency. Things are just better with the antisceptic of transparency.

  9. Thunder Pig

    That’s a big 10-04 on the edit option. :-)

    The states give money to the parties and the feds do, too. You outta see how much they give the DNC and RNC for their annual party conventions.

    Here is the check off for financing the parties in North Carolina with tax payer money:

    http://www.ncdp.org/pages/tax-check-off-information

    http://ncgop7.com/?p=1870

    In my opinion, that should open up all party business (except occasional closed sessions) to public scrutiny…including audio and video recording.

  10. Dionysis

    “To answer your question, Dionysis”

    Okay, I clicked on each of the four links you provided. The first one is a two hour long video, and after watching about 8 minutes of an empty room and the wait staff putting out cutlery, I went to the next video (perhaps you can identify at what point something relevant to my questions occurs…I’ll go back and watch if so).

    The second video was Heath Shuler giving a brief speech (typical platitudes) to a small group and then leaving without taking questions.

    The third was the new Registrar of the Deeds being cornered by someone pressing him for any relevant experience for the job. Obviously he had none, but how this is linked to any of my questions escapes me.

    The final link is to a three-year old Mtxpress piece about URTV Board meeting and its attendant controversy.

    None of these address the questions I raised as far as I can tell.

    I do favor open meetings anytime any taxpayer dollars are involved.

  11. Dionysis

    Just a added note to my post of yesterday…if the point is that video cameras have an effect on speakers, no debate. But that is a generalized reality. However, the questions posed earlier are specific to the topic, i.e. is there any substantiation of the claims made specific to BCGOP behind this ‘security amendment’?

    If so, no one has offered anything yet. Just claims.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.