I think Hirons reported that Maureen was at a BRAC meeting at the McCoart building. In fact, I think I saw her there because I went to the McCoart building, having missed the entire “Ferlazzi building” part of the meeting notice.

It would be hard to fault her for attending her own meeting when we scheduled our meeting over it.

I do think it odd she had nobody representing her at the meeting though.

As for the filing fee, it was Michele’s idea, and I thought it a good one, for the reasons stated.

And my call for division was not out of a desire to stifle discussion — I believe that it would have been a good opportunity to smoke out the people (the “type-a” types) trying to monkey-wrench the process, though the majority was overwhelming — but out of concern for the integrity of the process. The “yeahs” clearly had it, and Kopko’s ruling otherwise was simply silly. Better to have ruled the motion out of order in the first place, leaving challenge to parliamentary process, than to delegitimize himself by disingenuous rulings on who wins a voice vote.

And let’s make it clear: the actions of the so-called “type-a” types had nothing to do with GOP unity, or advancing the Republican cause, and everything to do with monkey-wrenching the process. Danziger had one legitimate amendment — the first one — but his second is designed to create a basis for challenging delegates. Some people finally came around to recognizing that later, but unfortunately, the length of the meeting was taking its toll by then.

As for the “thought the convention might be illegal,” RPV counsel’s letter put the final nail in that coffin. Suggestions to the contrary are the blogosphere equivalent to those who believe that Elvis is still alive.

It was fun to tell Corey that we proposed raising the filing fee because we wanted to “soak the rich”.

On type-a/type-b stuff: When the proposal for the convention was raised, Kopko started by explaining the board’s position. Then, before anybody could speak to the question, someone called the question, which is allowed. The vote clearly showed most people wanted to call the question and hold the vote without discussion.

But Tom ruled that the “neas” prevailed — a clear attempt to try to give the opposition a chance to speak to the issue. I thought that was a classy move, and one that showed his sensitivity to the task of keeping all the members happy (I voted to continue discussion). Unfortunately, when the “division” was counted, it turned out more than 2/3rds had voted to end discussion, so there was nothing more to be done.

Since only like 15 people voted against the convention, it does seem additional discussion would have been fruitless, but I wanted to get this on the record to counter the standard “a-type” complaints about the ideologues running roughshod over them.

I will also note that votes on amendments to the call (made by the “a-types”) were passed with large majorities.

So, other than one brief outburst by a concerned member who feared our convention would be illegal, I thought the process was cordial and not divisive.

To the thought the convention might be illegal, I figure the worst case is we hold the convention, then when the vacancy arises a new candidate gets the RPV to rule our convention illegal and we just have to do it again — hardly the worst thing in the world, and certainly not nearly so bad as the possibility of spending a third of the election cycle without a candidate while we go through the process of picking one.

And I say that as one of those who voted AGAINST the August 19 convention, which I have cleared my schedule to attend, assuming there will be more than one candidate.