Last Wednesday the 13th of May, the Hamburg Demon-crats met to endorse candidates for the Town of Hamburg elections this year. Insiders report the meeting was contentious to say the least, but also it may have been outright illegal.
Let me explain. Every political party in WNY uses Robert’s Rules of Order to conduct their meetings and these rules of order are recognised as proper in every NYS Court Room. Apparently, on Wednesday evening, the Robert’s Rules of Order were tossed out and not used.
From what I am being told, the Demon-cratic Executive Board insisted that a slate of candidates be used for endorsing candidates. This in itself doesn’t violate the rules of order, however, prior to using a slate method, it must first be made into a nomination/motion, seconded, and then be approved by a majority vote of the membership in attendance. I’m being told that the “slate method” was forced upon the members without any nomination.
This is a huge legal mistake for anyone who wants to challenge the meeting legally. I believe the challengers would win in court. Why? Because many members subsequently tried to nominate individual members later in the meeting. It seems few people actually knew the rules or even what a “slate method” was.
For those of you who are not political savvy, a slate method is used by a parties leadership when it is expected that their candidates wouldn’t survive individual nominations. The “slate method” lumps all the leaderships nominees into one package for a vote. Under a “slate method” no single candidate can be ousted from nomination. The only way to defeat a slate is to nominate another full slate of candidates and vote them in over the other one.
Reports have been steady that at least two candidates walked out of the meeting in disgust. They were Hamburg Lawyer Dennis Gaughan and Hamburg Variance Appeals Board Chairman Vinny Gugliuzza. Both gave resounding addresses to the membership expressing their disappointment at the methods used for the endorsements as well as their displeasure with Chairman Vincent J. Sorrentino.
What really surprises me is that Dennis Gaughan and the many other members in attendance who are lawyers, didn’t know the rules of order. Had they known them, it would have been very simple to announce a “point of order’ and correct the slate problem. So the big question is….. how is it that some very prominent local lawyers don’t even know the rules of order for a political organization they wish to represent through election? The answer is political incompetence.
Well… at least my previous article has been confirmed and the Demon-crats have upheld my previous reports of those expected to be endorsed. Remember folks, when it’s Hamburg politics, you can most likely get the info here first.
My advise to Dennis Gaughan and the other candidates expected to run primaries is to unite and fight this endorsement process legally. Even if you lose, you force your party to do things properly in the future. Good Luck.
Dennis Gaughan did raise the point of Order and was told that he is out of order and that no matter what he said the slate method was going to be used no matter what he said. That is when Dennis Gaughan walked out of the meeting. Get your facts straight.
I’m glad he did if that is true. I was told by two people there that the actual words “point of order” were never used and that he and some other people simply stated their opposition to the slate method. If the words “point of order” are proclaimed, the rules state that that issue must be resolved satisfactorily within the Roberts Rules of Order before the meeting can continue.
So in simple terms, there are very specific meeting presendences that must be observed and typical bickering is not recognised in Roberts Rules. If Dennis called for a “point of order” and then specifically advised the Chairman that a vote on the use of slates must take place before the nomination of of any slate, then the Chair is required to call for that nomination, second and vote for the use of slates. If that didn’t happen then the meeting can be deemed illegal in a court of law.
Also, just so you know. I’m not blaming Dennis Gaughan completely for this problem. I have no idea how many actual meetings Dennis has had the opportunity to argue this kind of point. However, Vinny Gugliuzza has sat as Chairman of the Hamburg Variance Appeals Board for a couple years now and he should definitely know the specific procedures of Roberts Rules. So more of the blame for this lays with him.
One more thing. Why the hell didn’t Gaughan, Gugliuzza, Jewitt, or any of the other candidates that didn’t get endorsed simply join forces and create their own slate against Sorrentino’s slate? Talk about not using some common sense!
I hope they take this to court and win. I would love to see a Gaughan vs. Walters race for Supervisor.
I was a juror on a robbery case. Dennis Gaughan was the Defense lawyer. We found the defendant not guilty. Mr. Gaughan is a great actor in front of a court. Are you sure he did not want this result. He convinced this jury that his client was not guilty.
Gaughan, Collins, Gorman – three Irish lawyers. Collin’s office is next to Gaughan’s Office and if my friend has his history right Gaughan was Judge Gorman’s first campaign manager.
Question: Did Sorrentino win the endorsement meeting or did Gaughan? Vinny G may be a bonus prize for Gaughan. Gaughan can put Vinny G on the ballot.
A Gaughan and Walters race would be issues all over the place. Two lawyers arguing their case. Can I buy aa admission ticket.
i have already nailed down the popcorn, peanuts and chips
concession.
This is going to be a good one!
Mr. Gaughan did call for a point of order asking for individual balloting. He said that if the Dems wanted a devisive election, force the slate. He was ignored, he walked out, said he “knew where he stood.” Good for Mr. Gaughan, I say,
when is Vinny G. gonna get tired of getting pushed around by Sorrentino and come to the other side. He has put up with his S*#T for years now. Stand up for your self Vinny.
My understanding is that the instistance on slate endrosements was motioned, seconded, and put to a vote, and the vote was overwhelmingly for slate endorsements.
If Dennis Gaughn attempted to make a point of order, and then argued that the slate endrosements were devisive, he would be out of order, as his attempt at a point of order had no grounding in Robert’s Rules.
In no way am I saying that Sorrentino’s move was right (morally), and most likely the committee members voted to approve the motion because they did not want to cross him, but I am saying that if it was motioned, seconded, and put to a floor vote, there is no grounds for a law suit.
It is my understanding (from a friend who is on the committee and was present for the meeting) that Robert’s Rules were observed.
but I am saying that if it was motioned, seconded, and put to a floor vote, there is no grounds for a law suit.
A floor vote was never conducted. There are grounds for a lawsuit. Randy Hoak is a scoundrel of a politician who is as clueless as the Buffalo winter is long.
Randy I’d that you?