Monday, July 02, 2007

McQuigg adds details about 51st convention.

I've been continually frustrated by the amount of baseless, false, and uniformed "discussion" surrounding the 51st convention. Try as I might to correct the errors, they persist.

One common error I've noted again and again is people blaming the credentials committee for election problems, which were in fact the responsibility of the ELECTIONS committee, which Ruth Griggs (Lucas Choice) was in charge of.

Fortunately, Greg at BVBL has come around to understanding this at long last, and has posted an e-mail from Michelle McQuigg which explains this in simple terms that all should understand:

There seems to be confusion about my role in the 51st District Convention.

Mike May and I co-chaired the Credentials Committee not the Elections Committee. We had nothing to do with the actual voting.

The Credentials Committee was the only committee that had co-chairmen as well as 2 people from each campaign—an even number of members. The details were immense. Everything was checked and rechecked. The committee met 27 hours in less than 2 weeks. Everything the committee did was in pairs—a representative from each campaign worked together on everything we did. When the copies of the forms were made, there was a representative from each campaign at each copier—the campaign representative for the forms being copied put them in the copier in case the machine jammed and destroyed the original. The list of delegates was reviewed and rechecked several times. The packets with name tags and lists were put together and reviewed by a team with a member from each campaign.

On the day of the convention, 20 check-in tables were set up with a member from each campaign at each station. Once check-in closed, each check-in team counted the number of people they signed in by precinct, filled out a report and both signed it. Then members of the committee—again one from each campaign—reviewed it and picked up the packets. The co-chairman separately totaled the numbers from each tally sheet.

My only involvement was with the Credentials Committee. The Elections Committee was in charge of the election and was chaired by Ruth Griggs (Lucas supporter) and had 2 members from each campaign. After voting was closed, Ruth requested Credentials to come in to meet with the Elections Committee to ask a few administrative questions. Once that was done, we were asked to leave. That was the only activity we (Credentials) had with elections.

Why didn’t I immediately comply with Julie’s request for copies of the check-in sheets made late Sunday after the convention? I didn’t know what the process was at that point and who was supposed to have the records and who and how the copies were to be made. There were no RPV guidelines and there were no agreed upon guidelines. The Credentials Committee operated in pairs—one person from each campaign. Until or unless both sides agreed with what to do with the information and the process to follow, then I needed a legal opinion from RPV as to what to do. RPV was slow…Finally, both sides agreed to give it to the convention chairman – not the 51st district chairman who had a business relationship with one campaign nor the 11th district chairman who had a business relationship with the other campaign. On the evening of agreement, I gave the records to the convention chairman, who made copies and gave them to each campaign.

Thank you,


While one or two commenters still don't seem to get it, Greg does, and hopefully the uninformed masses will again listen to Greg who this time is right, and there will be one less falsehood.

Note also the process for totalling people by precinct. Each checkin station had people from BOTH campaigns, who BOTH added up the totals and signed off. Then a PAIR of people from the credentials committee (NOT the chairs) reviewed the math and signed off. THEN the chairs simply added up all the numbers.

So the "math error", if it is true, was committed by a member of Lucas's campaign, and signed off by ANOTHER, trusted member of her campaign, from the credentials committee -- according to this e-mail. Which is fine, people make errors -- but I'm tired of the Lucas supporters blaming other people for their problems, when they had their OWN people involved at EVERY step of the process. THEIR person led the elections. THEIR volunteer allowed the wrong people to vote in Lake Ridge. THEIR volunteers made a "math error".

Unfortunately, there are still people blaming McQuigg personally for the actions of the credentials committee in following the RPV plan regarding participation in the convention. These complaints are also baseless. And in fact, if anybody from the Lucas campaign wanted to override the credentials committee, they only had to raise an objection at the convention, and get a majority vote.

But I've been told there was no challenge made at the convention, and the vote to accept the credentials committee report passed UNANIMOUSLY. That means that ALL of the delegates, including both Gill and Lucas delegates, agreed to ALL the delegates chosen by the credentials committee. So if you want to blame someone, blame the entire convention.

UPDATED: The Credentials Committee report was adopted unanimously by the committee.


Charles said...

In case Greg decides to block my comments again, here are the two comments I made to his blog:

COMMENT 1 (would be 13th on his list):

Michelle: Thanks, I've been trying to point out you weren't responsible for elections, but maybe now that Greg has come around people will believe it.

Lyle said: "The only actual error Michele’s committee made was in reporting the number of delegates credentialed in Civic Center. "

According to Michelle's note, every sheet was signed off by TWO people, one from each campaign. So if there was an error in one of the reports, it was an error signed off by a Lucas member as well as a Gill member.

JM said: "How did Michele McQuigg imagine that the precinct ballot box officials were going to prevent invalid votes, if they didn’t have a list of who could vote and who could not?"

A list would have been great. However, each delegate had a precinct name ON their credential tag. THAT should have prevented people from voting in the wrong precinct. There was no way for a non-credentialed delegate to get a credential tag -- that was how to prevent invalid voters.

Those tags were controlled by both campaigns as well, and when a voter voted, they were marked by the campaign people at the voting box.

Still, a printout of valid voters by precinct would have probably added the extra check that some volunteers apparently needed to not sign off on people with the wrong precinct tags.

OP: You have facts not in public that you don't want aired before Kopko makes a ruling?

JM: At the time McQuigg spoke, she was not on the credentials committee. Further, as the elected representative for the district, she was there to introduce Bill Bolling.

BTB said "about who the credentials committee allowed to vote. Rules were bent here, to favor Gill."

There is no claim of any rules being bent. The committee was evenly divided between the campaigns, the RPV recommendations were followed, and nothing publicly stated has suggested there is ANY credentials claims in the appeal -- and credentials could have been challenged at the convention.

Charles said...

BTW, as I expected, having read those two comments above, BVBL I presume deleted them, and has banned yet another set of IP addresses.

There's lots more IP addresses where they came from, eventually NOBODY will be allowed to read BVBL's site. How petty can a person be? What was in those two comments above (other than the truth) that offended him so?

I will note that I could comment anonymously from multiple IP addresses and BVBL would never know it was me. But that's not my style, I will continue to use my name and identifying information, and I will continue to comment to his site until BVBL has the guts to send me an e-mail explaining why he is afraid to have his commenters read the truth.