Long ago, before there was a race for the 51st district, Tom Kopko did a little work for a friend and fellow conservative, Faisal Gill, for which he was paid. When another candidate later entered the race, the idea that the chair of the 51st committee had done work paid for by a candidate was seen as a serious issue. Now, Tom had never endorsed Faisal, nor did he volunteer for his campaign, give him money, or provide any support, other than the work he was hired to do before there WAS a nomination contest.
But still, Tom Kopko, out of an overabundance of caution and to try as best he could to eliminate one issue from a host of issues it was clear the other candidate was going to raise over the next few months, offered to give his proxy to a person of the candidate's choosing. While the proxy could NOT be formally transferred, effectively Tom was removed from the 51st convention in place of a person chosen by Gill's opponent.
Further, two chairs were assigned the credentials committee, both chosen by the candidates. And the single chair of the elections committee at the convention was chosen by Gill's opponent, giving her a majority on that important committee charged with making sure nobody voted in the wrong precinct. It was that committee, majority run by Gill's opponent's people, that allowed the overvotes at the convention. It was Gill's opponent's choice for the convention that ran the meeting and made the judgments. It was a long-time republican committee member and strong supporter of Gill's opponent who was in charge of handing out ballots at the precinct that had 3 overvotes.
That being a long detour to the point of this entry, which is the rank hypocrisy of the Gill-haters at BVBL and Goodbye Ken. (I hate linking that site -- realise if you go there that most of what he says is false, for example the 11th CAN'T meet yet to handle the appeal because if hasn't gone through the 51st district meeting yet, also that Kokpo didn't run the convention, it was Gill's opponent's people that were in charge of the elections committee which screwed up, and there is no evidence that Kopko made ANY decisions that weren't entirely proper and fair).
See, these two blogs were the most vicious in their complaints that it would be impossible for a person who received ANY money from a candidate to be in charge of anything having to do with the election. That despite information from people like me that it was fairly common practice for people in charge of districts to receive money from one of the candidates for office.
So, where is their outrage over Becky Stoekel, 11th district chair and the person in charge of handling an appeal of the 51st convention? I now see that James Young has the same thoughts I have about this, and reports some interesting things.
See, unlike Tom Kopko, Becky Stoekel ENDORSED Gill's opponent. Unlike Kopko, Becky active worked for Gill's opponent, handling the negative attack flyers against him. Like Kopko, Becky was paid by Gill's opponent for work totaling over 4000 dollars, over twice what Gill's opponent claimed TAINTED Kopko. But UNLIKE Kopko, Becky received that money DURING an active nomination fight.
And now, having been a firm supporter of Gill's opponent, having received thousands of dollars from Gill's opponent, having sent flyers attacking Gill, Becky will be responsible for handling Gill's opponent's appeal of the 51st district convention.
Now, I don't think the money is an issue. Frankly, I don't think Kopko thinks the money is much of an issue, although in every way it's much more an issue with Becky than Kopko, being twice as much, being recieved to specifically attack Gill, and being DURING an active campaign, not before there was even an opponent.
But for those who were so "righteously indignant" over the Kopko payments, this should be a no-brainer. They should be screaming that Becky recuse herselve as Kopko did as much as he was allowed, or that she bend over backwards to prove her "fairness".
But instead, GoodbyeKen acts like even the idea is absurd, and BVBL has been completely silent about it, instead questioning (as best I can tell from the paragraph I can read) Kopko's required handling of the 1st level of appeal -- which he must certainly reject because the appeal is without merit.
That's what distinguishes thoughtful blogging from simple partisan sniping -- consistancy and adherance to stated principles. Something lacking from certain blogs in their desire for an "outcome-based" ethic. I note that both I and James seem to have the same position about Becky that we did about Tom. That's what principles mean, they drive how you make determinations.
James provides a list of other things Becky did at the convention, none of which bothers me. But what does bother me is that, being in a position where her judgment could be questioned, and therefore being in a position where we SHOULD expect her to go out of her way to ensure fairness, instead she simply cancelled a meeting, and tried to reschedule it outside the rules of the party, and on a day when people who support Gill wouldn't be able to attend.
And the allegation is that she postponed the meeting so she could pre-discuss the appeal (which wasn't even filed yet) with members of the RPV. I don't know that to be the case. I just know that it is very important that Becky Stoekel do everything in her power to ensure that her review of the appeal is fair, and if that means appointing someone as a surrogate like Kopko did, that might be the best way to ensure fairness.
And don't try to schedule meetings without the appropriate advance notice being given.