Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Unity Is An Earned Commodity

By Greg L | 26 June 2007 | 51st HOD District, PWCRC | 45 Comments

Tonight’s PWCRC meeting included a plenty of calls for Republican unity in order to help our candidates win in November, and those calls make a lot of sense.  The purpose of the committee is to get Republicans elected, and unity is an important part of accomplishing that goal.  With a fractured party, this goal is a lot harder to accomplish, and good candidates to some degree risk suffering some negative impacts if the support structure behind them isn’t effective.

This Thursday the 11th District committee will meet, although Tom Kopko, in his role as the sole member of the 51st District Committee is being as exhaustive as possible in considering the Julie Lucas appeal, and hasn’t rendered a decision on the appeal at this point.  I would expect that their agenda will include some discussion on this topic, although I’m not sure whether they will have the authority to take any action while the appeal is still mired at the legislative district level.  I hope that their discussions will focus around restoring some degree of confidence in the convention process and addressing the problems observed in this and other recent conventions.  In order to achieve unity, it will be critical to restore some degree of confidence in the candidate selection process.  Without that, regardless of who the nominee for the 51st District will eventually be, that unity will be difficult if not impossible to earn.

Unity is an earned commodity, after all.  It requires that we have confidence that the process is fair and equitable, and our commitment to the process is what builds confidence and earns unity.  Until we adequately address the issues that threaten this unity, unless we actually earn unity, calls to be unified aren’t likely to be very effective.  Show activists that their contributions will be thwarted by an unfair process, and they’re more likely to walk away than join hands with those they may feel are responsible and work to serve their interests.  Earning unity by letting dissenters bleed away, instead of demonstrating that unity is deserved, just isn’t productive in the long term either, although it can appear to provide a relatively quick but costly resolution.

The hardest test of leadership is dealing with issues such as these.  These issues are not to be swept under the rug amidst calls for unity, but addressed head-on so that confidence, trust, and unity can be earned.  Until that happens, and perhaps it will as the folks involved are hardly stupid and frequently remind us that they are motivated by larger goals, calls like this are more annoying than worthy of serious consideration.

Some of the things I am hoping will result from the 11th District and RPV are more clear and defined procedures to be used for conventions.  By defining the process in greater detail and ensuring that that process is auditable, we can restore confidence in the legitimacy of future candidates.  I also hope that a thorough investigation of what happened at the 51st District Convention will help to establish where weaknesses are and provide a solid basis for establishing these more thorough and improved process definitions.  Lastly, although there is no perfect choice to be made in the appeals process, an honest and thorough description of what happened and a commitment to learn from it will help others to accept whatever decision is rendered and allow some of us to accept that while mistakes were made, we’re moving forward in a responsible manner.  We can’t resolve everyone’s concerns here, but we may have an opportunity to resolve those for many.

Unity cannot be achieved without fairness, and to the extent we can establish that in the aftermath of this convention, we have the opportunity to earn unity, rather than just explain how important it is and beg for it.  I hope the leadership of the PWCRC uses this opportunity well.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

45 Comments

  1. Anonymous said on 26 Jun 2007 at 2:45 am:
    Flag comment

    He’s riding it out….too bad a bunch of folks didn’t just surround him and kick hiss 85% body fat a……oh sorry….

  2. Loudoun Insider said on 26 Jun 2007 at 7:56 am:
    Flag comment

    How convenient for Kopko to call for “unity” now.

    And what’s taking him so long with the appeal???

  3. hey ho Kopko's gotta go said on 26 Jun 2007 at 8:13 am:
    Flag comment

    Kopko knows he has time on his side. The longer he stretches this out, the harder it will be for the 11th or RPV to invalidate the convention. The decision would be rendered too late.

    The real outrage will come in November, when Gill gets his clock cleaned, and the seat goes Dem. The district is Dem leaning, and Gill’s questionable associations, bad judgement, and horrendous driving record will give the Dems some serious ammo to use against him. Gill will be on the defensive for the entire campaign.

    Some have said that the Muslim community will make the difference. I say that is a bunch of crap. Although the majority of Gill supporters at the convention appeared to be muslims, we now know that they didn’t show up in sufficient numbers to give Gill a win. Their impact will be even smaller, in the general election.

    When this seat is lost, Kopko must go. He has a losing record as the coach of the team. The membership, what is left of it, is losing confidence in him. He must be removed. However, if the lethargic and the frustrated aren’t willing to mount a challenge now, then take him out next year, when his term expires.

  4. GOP Stalwart said on 26 Jun 2007 at 8:35 am:
    Flag comment

    LI- in a recent email sent by TK, he claims he needs reports from the RPV observer and the 11th CD Chairman to complete is review.

    I don’t believe TK or anyone else so far has ever said anything disparaging about the RPV observer, but after blasting the 11CD Chair as being “unofficial and self-appointed”, and recently labeling her as “biased”, “pre-judging” and “disqualified” why would TK give a hoot about her report? Why would she even bother to provide one?

  5. freedom said on 26 Jun 2007 at 8:51 am:
    Flag comment

    Extremely well stated, Greg…and many of those roughly 45 people at the meeting last night felt and unfortunately still feel the same way.

    Effective leadership, requires integrity, honesty, and with it, a sense of fairness — and sometimes, a leader’s display of those attributes will not support his/her personal view, but nevertheless, they will engender respect.

    With effective leadership, organizational unity comes automatically, without asking. There is unity within the PWCRC, but a mere handful, and dwindling — and we all know what a “handful of unity” will bring to a number of good candidates in November.

    Unfortunately, unified or not, the clock toward November is still ticking, and last night, there wasn’t much effort toward Republican party unification, only pleas, and pleas just won’t work. When will it just simply “be too late” to recover? I’m afraid we’re there already.

  6. Rusty Griswald said on 26 Jun 2007 at 9:36 am:
    Flag comment

    Just ran across this interesting tidbit……..

    From: “Bryanna K. Altman”
    Subject: More changes at the PWCGOP
    Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:26:45 +0000

    Dear members of the Executive Committee,

    Effective immediately I will no longer be
    serving as Tom’s appointee to Membership as he
    has removed me from the position without
    discussion. Tom has accused me of being
    reckless and has blamed me for the
    cancellation of the Spring Gala and loss of
    possibly $1250 in deposits and fees paid
    upfront for the event. I had no involvement
    whatsoever with the contracts, deposits or
    check requests.

    To clear up any confusion and to protect my
    integrity against these bold and false
    accusations I am writing to you directly.
    Nancy Pratt, as the event Chairman and Vicki
    DeLacy called through the list of committee
    members and Friends Of the committee. They
    were only able to secure 20 ticket sales.
    Nancy has been doing events like this for
    years and said it has never been this bad.

    Why? Because our Republican base and hard Rs
    are concerned or embarrassed about Toms
    actions in the 51^stConvention furthermore
    they are furious about the counties Sanctuary
    Policy, and the Presidents Amnesty Bill.
    Congressman Eric Cantor was unfamiliar to
    many and unable to draw enough interest to
    offset these concerns. Scott Lingamfelter is
    hosting an event with Speaker Howell in
    Warrenton the same evening which Tom failed
    to disclose. Had he done so earlier, we may
    have avoided signing contracts or cutting
    un-refundable deposit checks.

    People requested their names be removed from
    our call and email distribution lists. I
    have followed up with calls to some of these
    folks and encouraged them to help us keep the
    party together. This is exactly what the
    Democrats want. I suggested to Tom via email
    an alternative to the gala. A casual Pep
    Rally which he responded by saying it had
    merit. He later decided to cancel without
    any further discussion.

    I encourage you to save the Committee and the
    reputation of all Prince William Republicans
    and remove Tom Kopko from office by a 2/3 rd
    vote. Tom would best serve us by stepping
    down, though it is doubtful that he will on
    his own. It is with great disappointment
    that our Committee is being jaded by the
    continuance of his irrational behavior.

    It has been my pleasure to serve on the
    Executive Committee and I believe that I have
    served this Committee well and honorably. I
    hope to see you on the campaign trail as we
    continue to support our Republican
    candidates. I am hopeful that Fred Thompson
    will announce his candidacy on July 4th.

    All the best,

    Bryanna

  7. John Light said on 26 Jun 2007 at 10:04 am:
    Flag comment

    HAVE to comment on this one. Concerning Bryanna’s e-mail/memo about her removal…interesting that NOW she is calling for Tom to be removed. I may be wrong so PLEASE correct me if I am, but has she been asking for Tom’s removal PRIOR to her being “fired”, or is she a “johnny-come-lately.” If the former, fine, if the later, she is a hypocrite.

    Too many people will go against someone ONLY after that person has directly affected them. Last night was the perfect opportunity to take address Tom about his dragging of his feet concerning the 51st. Too many people on here call for Tom to step down (which he won’t since he has the full support of the 51st District Comittee) yet offer no-one as an alternative to him.

    Bad things happen when good people do nothing. We can blog all we want and vent to each other over the phone day in and day out, but until we all get our acts together and do the right thing, Tom will keep doing what he is doing, Faisal will keep accepting money from questionable groups, and Paul Nichols WILL be having a 2nd home in Richmond.

    Did ANYONE see Faisal at last night’s meeting???

  8. freedom said on 26 Jun 2007 at 11:03 am:
    Flag comment

    No, John….according to his “campaign manager” he was out knocking on doors…:) :)

    As for Bryanna, John, not necessarily hypocritical….some, and I suspect that Bryanna may be one of those…are still holding out hope for Mr Kopko to do the right and honorable thing for the 51st District, the PWCRC and all Republican candidates up for reelection.

  9. 99 Day Charlie said on 26 Jun 2007 at 11:39 am:
    Flag comment

    Wow Byranna! Wasn’t this the person who just a few months ago was Tom Kopko’s CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR SUPERVISOR? Of course, she resigned that position less than 24 hours before Kopko announced that he was not going to run. I’ve seen rats on a sinking barge with more loyalty than this lady.

    Let’s look back and see how quickly this woman has changed her tune about Tom Kopko even just on BVBL.

    March 14th : Kopko never left PWCRC as Chairman, the Committee should give him a standing ovation for his willingness to take action to uphold our Conservative Republican values. It’s not ego, it is pride, integrity and leadership.

    March 15th: This election year we need to work together to make sure ALL Republican’s get elected and if Tom did run for Coles it would have been huge loss to PWCRC and all other Republican candidates. As a Coles resident, I believe my interests would have been better represented by Kokpo but opted to encourage the greater good for all Republican’s this election year.

    Then things went south in their relationship and on June 22 Bryanna wrote: After the appeal process ends, the litmus test with GOP voters will be based on how the Committee responds. There is no question that if Kopko tries to sweep the 51st convention under the rug, and the Committee fails to take action that our Republican candidates will lose volunteers and votes by abstention. Bearing in mind some loss to Independent votes, the “anybody but” factor, nonparticipation, lower voter turn out than in last years special election, and the GOP’s closest to Kopko are in trouble. Just look at the VPAP reports, I’d say they are already feeling the pinch.

    And now she is calling for Kopko’s resignation. Wow! Publicly, at least on BVBL, Bryanna went from calling Kopko a man of “integrity and leadership” to saying he is a man of “irrational behavior” in only 99 days. In just over three months she went from stating that Kopko should help run the county to saying that he should not even be allowed to run the PWCRC. And I though Al Gore was a flip-flopper.

    All the while, amazingly, touting her self worth and importance in the Republican Party. Either this woman is a horrible judge of character, a political opportunist or a just a totally ignorant political wannabe. My guess is all three!

    I agree that Kopko should go, but his first offense, in my book, was taking advice from Bryanna Altman. After that decision, can we really be surprised and any of the other bad choices he made.

  10. Henry said on 26 Jun 2007 at 11:41 am:
    Flag comment

    Too often the abused do not speak out until they are disenfranchised. Clearly Kopko has a scapegoat to blame for his lack of credibility. The party will always have differences of opinions, but when your head skunk will lie, cheat, and steal, you get us all sprayed with the same stink – that is why people are bailing.

  11. Jonathan Mark said on 26 Jun 2007 at 2:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    In March the Gill campaign was lethargic. It had called off its campaign kickoff and not rescheduled it.

    While Kopko had secretly been on Gill’s payroll all along since January, no one knew about it until Gill’s first quarter campaign finance report, which Gill filed in April.

    At some point after March it may have become impossible to overlook or rationalize Kopko’s behavior. I don’t blame people who realize belatedly that they have been had.

    It has happened to me. I voted for my (Democratic) congressman Jim Moran in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 2000. I got mad at him in 1998 and then forgave him. I rationalized his behavior.

    Then I realized in a moment what a mistake I had made. I was watching Moran’s speech at the June 2001 American Muslim Council national convention, the one where Moran repeatedly addresses the now-imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi as the leader of the AMC by name.

    Gill was working with Alamoudi at the AMC in June 2001 in putting on that very convention.

    So I understand why anyone might overlook bad behavior by Kopko, Jim Moran, or anyone. What is most important is where people stand today, not how long it took them to reach their current level of awareness.

  12. Bryanna said on 26 Jun 2007 at 3:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    For the record, I have no intentions of ever seeking public office.

    I supported Tom over Marty, NOT because I am an “opportunist” but because of Tom’s conservative views for smaller government, lower taxes and controlled growth. As a resident of the Coles District I want to protect our open space, add more trails and parks, and protect the quality of quantity of our water supply that we rely on from the Occoquan.

    Our parting ways is a direct result of the 51st Convention. To clarify, that does not mean that I believe Tom did anything dishonest, or to even state that the process was flawed. I am not qualified to do so nor did I participate in the convention process.

    I do not agree with the public statements that Tom has made against Julie in the past and most recently Becky. This is unacceptable behavior and in poor judgement. Though some on the Committee may want to sweep this under the carpet and move on, I am not afraid to speak up and voice my dissatisfaction.

    Moreover, I believe that PWCRC’s endorsement of Gill has awarded the 51st seat to the Democrats and I also believe that Julie could have saved it.

    As Republican’s we will have huge differences of opinion on this, and we all may need to agree to disagree and move on. I know I can but evidently some cannot.

  13. Bryanna said on 26 Jun 2007 at 3:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    correction…quality and quantity of our water supply

  14. Jonathan Mark said on 26 Jun 2007 at 3:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Moreover, I believe that PWCRC’s endorsement of Gill has awarded the 51st seat to the Democrats and I also believe that Julie could have saved it.”"”

    Prior to Gill’s putative nomination none of Gill’s supporters ever denied on BVBL that HOD-51 was a safe seat for the right nominee. On the contrary, Jim Young et al sang Gill’s praises as the right candidate to win in November.

    Now that Gill is the putative nominee we hear all htis poor-mouthing from Young et al that HOD-51 is not a Republican or even a predominantly Republican seat, that it has no Republican incumbent in it (false, McQuigg (R) is the incumbent) et al.

    Gill’s supporters knew all along that Gill was going to lose. They didn’t care.

    The claimed surge in ethnic votes that was going to propel Gill to a sweeping victory at the convention didn’t happen. Outside of the two overvoted precincts Gill lost. That is agreed.

    And if Kopko had followed RPV rules and the two overvoted precincts had been thrown out then Gill would have lost.

    When confronted with the information that Gill is the former chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council a certain percentage of Republican and Independent voters will not vote for him. Some will vote for Paul Nichols. Some won’t vote at all.

    In the end, that will sink Gill. That and his lack of any ability to mobilize the several thousand ethnic voters that would be needed to make up for defections from the Gill-Alamoudi-Terror Lobbying camp.

    Again, Gill lost outside of the two overvoted precincts. That is inconsistent with a broad appeal or an ability to mobilize thousands.

    No one knows what the actual vote count was in those two overvoted and pro-GIll precincts, because Kopko and McQuigg lost control of the voting process.

    Kopko and McQuigg did not restrict access to ballots and ballot boxes to those who were legitimate delegates. Now McQuigg wants a new, higher-paying job restricting access to legal documents.

    As if! McQuigg couldn’t even restrict access to ballots and ballot boxes. Why would she be more competent running a court house? Does McQuigg even know anything about running a court house?

    After Faisal, McQuigg’s is the most annoying candidacy this year. Annoying people have a right to run for office. But they usually lose.

  15. John Light said on 26 Jun 2007 at 4:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan, not sure if McQuigg knows how to run a court house, but, by judging from the number of speeding tickets Faisal received just this past year I would say that HE sure knows the inner workings - lol

  16. James Young said on 26 Jun 2007 at 4:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM, once again, you lie where the truth would suffice, with your handy little construction “no one ever denied.” What the Hell does “none of Gill’s supporters ever denied on BVBL that HOD-51 was a safe seat for the right nominee” mean, anyway? That phrase contains so many qualifications as to be virtually devoid of meaning or significance. I guess it’s just SOP for Democrats in the Clinton age. Or for those who are beneath contempt.

    I have said here (I believe) and elsewhere (certainly, at NLS, mainly) that only a fool would consider the 51st District seat a “safe Republican seat” except in the hands of a Republican incumbent. And I said it long before the 51st District Republican Convention. And even then, one could make the argument that Michele McQuigg was sometimes imperiled.

    I do believe that Faisal Gill can win in November. It seems to me unlikely that most people who are sensible enough to vote for Republicans are stupid enough to take seriously the likes of you.

    BTW, JM makes mention that “if Kopko had followed RPV rules and the two overvoted precincts had been thrown out then Gill would have lost.” What “RPV rules” are those? Where are they published? When Greg got the rules wrong, I pointed to chapter and verse. Aren’t you (as usual) simply citing something you heard from someone else (in this case, Greg and/or “Team Lucas”)?

  17. freedom said on 26 Jun 2007 at 5:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh, who rang Jimmy’s bell??? :)

  18. hey ho Kopko's gotta go said on 26 Jun 2007 at 6:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I do believe that Faisal Gill can win in November. It seems to me unlikely that most people who are sensible enough to vote for Republicans are stupid enough to take seriously the likes of you.”

    How’s that Flavo-aid tasting Jimmy? Gill’s going to get creamed in November. The district has been leaning Dem for a long time. Gill is toast. Too bad we have to lose the seat, but at least it’ll be another reason to can Kopko.

  19. 99 Day Charlie said on 26 Jun 2007 at 8:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    AHHHH, once again Bryanna back tracks. At least she is consistant in that.

  20. James Young said on 26 Jun 2007 at 9:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, “ho,” I will certainly agree with you that “The district has been leaning Dem for a long time.” It was held by David Brickley, after all, for a very long time.

    As for “canning” Kopko, there is little doubt that most of those here will contrive any reason they can to do so. Whether they will actually show up and associate themselves with their rants publicly is, of course, another matter. Or do you mean “another reason” like Corey Stewart’s victory, Mike May’s victory, etc.?

  21. AWCheney said on 26 Jun 2007 at 9:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Interesting, Jimmy, that those two victories are the only two that you can lay at the feet of Kopko and his PWCRC band. It’s fortunate that our other elected Republicans had their own organizations/operations, isn’t it.

  22. GOP Stalwart said on 27 Jun 2007 at 6:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Young - you are right, the RPV has no such written “rule” about dealing with over-voted precincts. Probably because it’s never happened before and no one thought it was needed. HOWEVER, it was the opinion of both observers AND 3 people at RPV that the over-voted precincts should not be included in the count.

    I borrowed someone’s copy of Roberts Rules of Order and found where it says that in a case like this the “ballot vote is null and void”. How come Mr. Kopko hasn’t checked with RPV or Robert’s?

    Please explain to me why Mr. Kopko “needs” these reports to render a decision on two very simple matters — correcting a math error on the credentials report and disqualifying over-voted precincts? As i understand it, both observers agreed at the time that the over-voted precincts should not be counted, so there won’t be much surprise there. I’m not sure, but i would expect that these reports wouldn’t include anything about the math error since i doubt these people have copies of the convention documents.

    Maybe these reports can shed some light on the problems with convention itself and maybe Mr. Kopko can learn something about how to run a fair and transparent convention so we don’t have this problem in the future, but he’s just using them now as an excuse to continue to stall the appeal.

    According to the Potomac news article, Mr. Kopko is “investigating” EVERYTHING including “intentional errors”… does he think there was cheating? Is it his intention to throw out the entire convention? If not, he should be focused on the issues in the appeal and get on with it.

  23. hey ho Kopko's gotta go said on 27 Jun 2007 at 1:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Is it his intention to throw out the entire convention?”

    Stalwart,

    You make a great point. Kopko can’t just ignore what the Roberts rules say, nor can can he discount the RPV reccomendations, whithout sacrificing his last shred of credibility and legitimacy. So, his only course of action to protect himself, and eliminate the cloud of illegitamacy that would be hanging over Gill’s candidacy, would be to invalidate the convention results, have a quickie fire-house primary, or mass meeting, and hope that Lucas can’t get herself oriented in time.

  24. Jonathan Mark said on 27 Jun 2007 at 4:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Kopko can’t just ignore what the Roberts rules say, nor can can he discount the RPV reccomendations, whithout sacrificing his last shred of credibility and legitimacy.”"”

    He lost that a long time ago. My guess is that Kopko will run out the clock on behalf of his employer, Faisal Gill.

  25. Bryanna said on 27 Jun 2007 at 4:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    The ideologue mentality fails to recognize that consistent success requires a pragmatic approach. Just because a candidate is a conservative Republican doesn’t mean they’re the most electable candidate.

    If winning (R) seats is the mechanism used to gage the effectiveness of the Republican “machine” then the leadership in PWCRC failed to deliver our best GOP candidate in the 51st.

    McQuigg barely beat Earnie Porta her Democratic opponent in the last delegate race. Why take the chance of putting a candidate that has never been elected to a public office when we can have a strong Republican like Julie Lucas who has been elected to public office not once but twice, has track record of success, name recognition within the community and has demonstrated fiscally conservative values when she stood alone in her vote AGAINST the school adminstration building?

  26. James Young said on 27 Jun 2007 at 5:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, Old Whithered Wench, “those two victories” are the only races entirely within the jurisdiction of “Kopko and his PWCRC band,” so they’re really the only ones that are relevant. “Kopko and his PWCRC band” had no role in George Allen’s missteps, though significantly greater influence in the 1st and 10th Congressional Districts, and a lot on the Eleventh. Republicans won every congressional race, if memory serves. Even Jackson Miller’s District lies mainly in Manassas and Manassas Park. He won, too, didn’t he?

    Which of “our other elected Republicans” ran since Kopko became Chairman in April 2006?

    Stalwart, perhaps you could direct me to the page of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (10th ed.), which is the governing authority under the Party Plan, to which you refer. I think I found it — and if I have, the observers were dead wrong in their recommendation — but I’d certainly like to know if you’re referring to something different.

    Your comment sent me back to my copy, and the closest thing that I could find was on page 402, lines 26-34, where it holds that “if one or more ballots are identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote, and it can be established that there are not other such ballots, these ballots are excluded in determining the number of votes case for purpose of computing the majority. If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void and a new ballot vote must be taken.”

    So the problem (for Lucas), “ho”, is that application of this rule does not change the result, since: (a) there were no ballots “identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote,” since the overvotes easily could have been cast by people voting in the wrong precincts (remember, “Team Lucas’” self-serving assumptions are not evidence, and there has been nothing but surmise about the source of those ballots); and (b) regardless, those ballots were assumed to be for Gill, and were “excluded in determining the number of votes case for purpose of computing the majority.” Application of the second sentence yields an identical result: even if one assumes that “any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote,” the second part of the two-part test (”there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result”) is not met, since those ballots were assumed to be for Gill, thrown out for purposes of the totals, and he still won.

    Robert’s Rules do not invalidate an election without evidence that the irregularities would affect the results. Put simply, there is no such evidence here, unless “Team Lucas” contrives a way to disenfranchise whole precincts of voters.

    As for “ho’s” comment that “Kopko can’t just ignore what the Roberts rules say, nor can can he discount the RPV reccomendations, whithout sacrificing his last shred of credibility and legitimacy,” Kopko would only “ignore what Roberts rules [sic] say” if he allowed the appeal from something not appealed to the Convention as a whole, and, if he considers the merits, attempts to reverse its determination by recounting ballots after disenfranchising whole precincts of voters.

    Finally, Bryanna, whether Julie is the strongest or more Conservative candidate or not is now a moot point. She couldn’t even get the GOP nomination, which discredits the claim that she is a stronger candidate. I am somewhat surprised that you would waste your time by continuing this nonsense, no matter how you feel about Kopko.

  27. Jonathan Mark said on 27 Jun 2007 at 6:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have a doctorate in engineering from UVA, ‘87. However, what follows uses only high school algebra.

    “”“if one or more ballots are identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote,”"”

    We seem to agree that condition is met, since in the two overvoted districts the number of ballots was larger than the number of delegates.

    “”"and it can be established that there are not other such ballots,”"”

    It CANNOT be so determined.

    In fact, the number of invalid votes could easily be larger than the number of overvotes. Let D be the number of delegates, Ov be the number of Overvotes, H be the number of persons who went home without voting, R be the number of recorded votes, V be the number of Valid votes, and I be the number of invalid votes.

    (1) Then, by definition: R - D = Ov, where R >= D

    We also know that the the number of Valid votes equals the number of delegates minus the number of Delegates who went home early without voting.

    (2) So: V = D - H

    And we know that all recorded votes are either valid or invalid, so:

    (3) R = I + V

    Substituting (3) into (1) gives:

    (4) I + V - D = Ov where I + V > = D

    And substituting (2) into (4) gives:

    (5) I + D - H - D = I - H = Ov

    Or:

    (6) Ov + H = I

    Equation (6) says that the number of Overvotes plus the number of Delegates who went home without voting equals the number of invalid votes.

    However, we don’t know how many Delegates H went home without voting. If H > 0 then I > Ov. Thus I >= Ov but has no known value.

    Therefore the requirement of Roberts Rules of Order that “it can be established that there are not other such ballots” fails. The remedy in that instance is irrelevant, since that instance did dot occur.

    “If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, “”"

    Since no one knows which ballots in the overvoted precincts were cast by persons not entitled to vote, the invalid ballots are by definition “unidentifiable”.” Therefore the above condition is met.

    “”"and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result,”"”

    There is indeed such a possiblity, since Ov + H = I. We don’t know what H is, so I could be larger than Gill’s narrow putative victory over Lucas. So the above condition is met.

    “”"the entire ballot vote is null and void and a new ballot vote must be taken.””"

    The conditions for a new ballot vote are thus met. Whatever it is that Kopko thinks he is investigating is not relevant. Kopko cannot know how many invalid votes there were because he cannot know how many people went home without voting.

    Kopko’s entire “investigation” is simply a dilatory delaying tactic by a PAID employee of Faisal Gill.

  28. Jonathan Mark said on 27 Jun 2007 at 6:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let us further examine Young’s contrived accounting of the overvotes scandal:

    “”"there were no ballots “identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote,” since the overvotes easily could have been cast by people voting in the wrong precincts”"”

    A person voting in the wrong precinct is not entitled to vote, just as a person voting in the wrong country is not entitled to vote.

    A citizen of Switzerland but not the US cannot vote in US elections. Such a person is “not entitled to vote” when discussing US elections. That they could have voted in Switzerland is irrelevant.

    A resident of Precinct X is no more entitled to vote in Precinct Y than is a citizen of Switzerland. The persons Jim Young described, even if they exist, are “identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote.”

    “”"(remember, “Team Lucas’” self-serving assumptions are not evidence, and there has been nothing but surmise about the source of those ballots);”"”

    The source of the extra ballots in the two precincts is irrelevant. They were cast by persons not entitled to cast them. Whether those casting the ballots were residents of another precinct, another country or another solar system is completely irrelevant.

    “”" and (b) regardless, those ballots were assumed to be for Gill, “”"

    No one knows how many such ballots there are. We know from my previous posting that the number of such Invalid ballots is equal to the number of overvotes PLUS the number of delegates who went Home without voting.

    No one knows how many delegates went home without voting, so no one knows how many invalid ballots there are. If you assume the invalid votes were for Gill then the number of invalid votes potentially changed the election results in the two overvoted precincts.

    “”"and were “excluded in determining the number of votes case for purpose of computing the majority.””"”

    Young simply repeats like an idiot that all invalid votes were excluded. What is the basis for that claim? In fact, it is far more likely that at least one Delegate in the two overvoted precincts went home without voting. That means that not all invalid votes were excluded, since no one knows how many invalid votes there were.

    “”"Application of the second sentence yields an identical result: even if one assumes that “any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote,” the second part of the two-part test (”there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result”) is not met, since those ballots were assumed to be for Gill, thrown out for purposes of the totals, and he still won.”"”

    Since James Young HAS NO IDEA how many invalid votes there were his perambulating about excluding all of them is simply errant nonsense. He and the Gill people cannot exclude all invalid votes becuase THEY DON”T KNOW HOW MANY THERE WERE!!!!!!!!

    “”"Robert’s Rules do not invalidate an election without evidence that the irregularities would affect the results.”"”"

    Wrong. Jim Young is not an accurate reader. There merely needs to be a possibility that the irregularity COULD have affected the result. Robert’s Rules states: “if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void and a new ballot vote must be taken.”

    What part of the above does Jim Young not understand?

    “”"Put simply, there is no such evidence here,”"”

    All that is needed is the possibility that the number of persons who went home without voting in the two overvoted districts, and therefore the number of invalid votes in those overvoted districts, was large enough to affect the results of the voting.

    All I ask is that James Young read RRoO carefully and do the algebra, or show where the algebra I presented is incorrect.

    There is no evidence that Kopko knows what algebra is. I would not trust him to analyze this type of problem. And really, no one should trust me either. But I am sure that there are mathematicians or algebra teachers in the PWCRC who can analyze these results.

    And if there are not then such experts can be found. Although, really, it is only the innumerate who would argue that Young’s reasoning holds, and that the number of invalid votes could not have been larger than the number of overvotes.

    The question is whether any of that matters. What I see is a establishment, led by Kopko and McQuigg, that was hell-bent on nominating Gill and was willing to break the rules to do it.

    And they still are.

  29. Bryanna said on 27 Jun 2007 at 7:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Clerk of Courts race was overshadowed by the 51st and there too were irregularities that strongly favored the conservative McQuigg over Moderate Lucy Beauchamp.

    In that convention TK elected not to open a dialog on whether to re-issue the Call, he acted swiftly and independently doing so just when Beauchamp left for a week vacation, and then closed the re-filing date on the day of her return.

    TK notified Mrs. Beauchamp by email, an email she never received. TK later admitted he had a problem with his email. As a result Lucy missed the filing deadline and when she called TK to resolve it, he said “Take it up with RPV!”

    Thus a life-long Republican, with county wide name recognition, re-elected to serve as the Chairman of Prince William County School Board repeatedly is running as an Independent.

    Unfair and biased leadership, isn’t leadership at all. Kopko needs to go before Unity can be taken seriously.

  30. JasonCW said on 27 Jun 2007 at 9:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM - loved your character in that movie - “A Beautiful Mind” — classic!

  31. JasonCW said on 27 Jun 2007 at 9:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    To:Republitarian,

    You speak the truth. There appears to be a small cult that (claims to) rule the party. Kopko, Gill, and McQuigg will soon be the only memebrs left to drink the Kool-aid after November. How does one get to be the “chairman” of the party anyway ?

  32. AWCheney said on 28 Jun 2007 at 2:50 am:
    Flag comment

    “Well, Old Whithered Wench, “those two victories” are the only races entirely within the jurisdiction of “Kopko and his PWCRC band,” so they’re really the only ones that are relevant.”

    Well Jimmy boy, let’s take a look at the actual PWC (a supposedly “safe” Republican County) election results in 2006 and see just how effective Kopko’s leadership has been. Granted, Wolf and Tom Davis won their portion of the County, without a lot of help from the PWCRC, which wasn’t necessary…they had their own operations and are generally considered “safe” candidates. Then we get to the good stuff:

    U.S. Senate
    Webb (D) 50.51%
    Allen (R) 48.13%

    You say “Kopko and his PWCRC band” had no role in George Allen’s missteps…” (one of which was depending upon the local organization for his campaign presence), yet when was the last time that a Republican U.S. Senate candidate DIDN’T win PWC by an overwhelming margin? SBE online records don’t go back that far.

    1st Congressional District
    Oddonnell (D) 55.11%
    J.A. Davis (R) 43.24%

    Good thing she had the rest of her District to fall back on.

    50th House of Delegates District
    Rishell (D) 50.09%
    Miller (R) 49.85%

    A difference of only 11 votes, and only then because Miller largely depended upon his own organization in those County precincts. Granted, the City of Manassas Park did just a tad worse than the County (Rishell: 50.38%; Miller: 49.31%), but we all know what happened to THAT Republican Committee. It’s a good thing that the City of Manassas Republican Committee was sufficiently organized to pull it out and get him 52.80% of the total vote.

    As I should have said Jimmy, it’s not surprising that those two victories (Stewart and May) are the only two that you can lay at the feet of Kopko and his PWCRC band.

  33. AWCheney said on 28 Jun 2007 at 3:00 am:
    Flag comment

    BTW, 2007 is likely to look A LOT worse.

  34. AWCheney said on 28 Jun 2007 at 3:16 am:
    Flag comment

    Correction, I had the 50th District percentages reversed…Jackson won the PWC portion by only 11 votes, thanks to his own organization there.

  35. Bryanna said on 28 Jun 2007 at 9:26 am:
    Flag comment

    In the 2006 Special election, Tom Davis provided generous staffing resources in PWC and Senator Jay O’Brien loaned his aid to the race for Chairman. High voter turn out for Davis allowed Corey Stewart to draw in additional support with voters to who he was relatively an unknown.

    Less than one year later times have changed, mistakes have been made, and as Greg said, the people who stand to lose the most in 2007 are the candidates closest to Kopko, CS, FG, MM, and MM.

    Voter turn out will be lower in 2007, and party loyalty doesn’t run as deep since the most recent debacle in our Administration. Voters are turned off. Newt Gingrich is turned off. People care least about Party and most about honesty and integrity. PWCRC has become the far right conservative GOP party which doesn’t serve the majority of Republican’s. 37% of American’s consider themselves Democrats, 31% Republican and 31% Independent. If PWCRC forces out those other than their far right base, the Moderates and Independents in PWC have grown stronger and need to be taken seriously this election.

    Looking at the numbers, factoring in the disharmony brought on by conventions, the unelectable Faisal Gill and robot’s McQuigg & May, it is sound and sensible logic that a change in leadership is the only hope of the PWCRC redeeming itself in time for November and possibly even saving the Chairmanship.

    The Chairman of the PWCRC is determined by convention. In the case of Murphy (the encumbent ) vs. Kopko, Kopko won by only 1 vote. I concur with the logic applied by Ms. Altman. Denial on the part of the Prince William GOP to stand behind questionable practices will be most harmful to the GOP in November. The executive body of the Unit by electing to make a change in leadership is going to be more effective than a Chairman with questionable ethics making a plea for party unity.

  36. Bryanna said on 28 Jun 2007 at 9:37 am:
    Flag comment

    Jason, the Chairman is a 2 year term and Kopko has just completed the first year of his first term. Some of the good folks that campaigned for Kopko are the angriest and I believe would be willing to take action now to remove him if they had a strong and interested nominee for the position but they’re taking on more than Kopko.

    There is another piece to this, the faction expects the Chairman to abide by their rules. Murphy must have been a thorn in their operation, so it runs a bit deeper. Faction is DD, CS, FG, and their stooges are MM and MM.

  37. Jonathan Mark said on 28 Jun 2007 at 11:32 am:
    Flag comment

    State Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R) is just over the line in FC. He travelled to Woodbridge to campaign for Faisal Gill on 3/31/07, along with Bolling, Lingamfelter, McQuigg and others.

    Cuccinelli then advised Gill in the latter’s campaign for the nomination. Cuccinelli told someone that Greg L and Jonathan Mark are full of excrement. I was surprised that Cuccinelli knew my name.

    What impact, if any, does Ken Cuccinelli have in PWCRC politics?

    Also, Grover Norquist was at the 3/31/07 Gill campaign kickoff rally. Norquist’s patronage of Gill had a lot to do with getting Gill hired at DHS for three years and keeping him there after Gill’s Alamoudi scandal broke.

    Charles of Two Conservatives photographed Cuccinelli posing with Bolling and Norquist at the 3/31/07 rally. Interestingly, Norquist was not wearing a Gill button, while Cuccinelli and Bolling were.

    Someone told me that Norquist has very little influence in the PWCRC. Is that the case?

  38. CONVA said on 28 Jun 2007 at 12:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    The PWCRC chairman should be considered to be “Mr./Ms Outside” stroking the 11th district committee, RPV, and other significant politicians. The Vice chairman should be “Mr./Ms Inside” orchestrating the units activities and monitoring the various other chairs, districts, etc. Brian Murphy did an excellent job in the above scenario as chairman. His problem resided with his Vice chairs. During the committee debate/vote for Vice chair to fill a vacancy, Bob Fitzsimmonds essentially shot down the best candidate with the comment, “Ruth Anderson is a good republican but needs more experience in organizational management”. A preposterous comment to make about a retired USAF LtCol. You would think he should know better as I understand his father was in the Air Force. Consequently Faisal Gill was elected as Vice chair. We all know what a loser he panned out to be. When he resigned, we were then blessed with Mike Wooten, another person completely void of organizational ability. Neither Gill nor Wooten made enough meetings, or came late to be able to keep up on events. The result was Brian trying to be all things to both positions. Brian had to rely on many non-office holders to carry the ball. Some of Brian’s decisions raised the hackles of members without knowing that Brian was essentially hamstrung and they migrated to Kopko. Now we are reaping the fruits of that decision. Many of Kopko’s initial supporters are now lamenting about their decision.

  39. Bryanna said on 28 Jun 2007 at 11:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Everyone seems to agree that to win seats and unite Republicans the members of PWCRC need to find a candidate for chairman and replace Kopko. Can any GOP be a voting delegate in the PWCRC Chairman’s convention? This needs to be acted on quickly because the machine needs to be tuned up if they’re going to pull Stewart out of the hole.

    Stewart demonstrated too much enthusiasm for Gill in the 51st, and when the Dem’s attack Gill this fall, the voters may end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

  40. freedom said on 29 Jun 2007 at 7:01 am:
    Flag comment

    I’m sorry, Anon, but Stewart is “in the hole” that he dug for himself….although a supporter of his from the beginning, his decision on the Gill issue…the most significant issue and decision he faced since being on the BOCS, makes him a one-issue loser.

    He doesn’t deserve to be “pulled out” of the hole. Oh, not to forget the others who dug holes for themselves either…and you know who they are.

  41. freedom said on 29 Jun 2007 at 7:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Unity within the PWCRC will come with responsible leadership; a leader that is not beholden to the CS, FG, MM, DD, SL cabal….Ruth Anderson could and would provide that kind of leadership! …but at this point, she would probably refuse…:(

  42. Bryanna said on 29 Jun 2007 at 7:36 am:
    Flag comment

    Freedom you are so right!

  43. anon said on 29 Jun 2007 at 12:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Republitarian. The Prince William County republicans are hardly a far right party.

    McQuigg voted for a very anti libertarian cameras at traffic stops. Looks like big brother to me.

    Mike May comes from Tom Davis camp with an 2006 American Conservative Union rating of 56%. Most other Virginia republicans get 80 to 90 or 100 per cent.

    Gill has close ties to Clinton funderaisers and is from the Bush administration which is not a conservative administration.

    If anything these “conservatives” are out of step with the mainstream of the conservative movement.

  44. freedom said on 29 Jun 2007 at 5:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Agree, Republitarian…it’s time to “clean house”! ANYONE who doesn’t understand or would ignore the threat, yet would support Faisal Gill as the Republican nominee, isn’t my kind of Republican. Simply stated, there is something very seriously wrong in their judgment facilities.

    Oh yes, and don’t bother reminding me, I know the mantra, “not ALL Muslims are terrorists.”

  45. Bryanna said on 1 Jul 2007 at 9:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Freedom, yes and raising concerns means you’re a biggot! Why is it so important to get an unelectable candidate elected?

    Gill demanded an apology from the President 90 days before 9-11, he claims to work as a lobbyist but is unregistered, and everything he touches is shrouded in scandal. Why would S.L. and C.S. put their careers on the line? If anything it validates my concerns.

    As far as I’m concerned throw out the 51st., and lets do it again. I saw cars with out of state plates and Gill stickers. I was there at 7:30, thought we’d begin at 9:15 a.m. and vote by 9:45 and I’d be on my way. Didn’t happen, I couldn’t wait any longer, left without voting.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2672