So, Michael McNeely May End Up Going The Douglas County Convention After All

At least, that’s what the Douglas County Sentinel is reporting:

Michael McNeely, the chairman of the Georgia Republican Black Council, will be going to the Douglas County GOP Convention in March after all.

Douglas County GOP Chair Bert Blood said he spoke with Georgia Republican Party Chair Sue Everhart Monday morning and confirmed that the vote at Saturday’s precinct meeting to keep McNeely out of the convention was invalid.

Emphasis added.  According to Chairman Blood, Chairman Everhart said that the only reason a precinct would have to vote would be if more people than allocated delegate slots for that precinct:

Blood said Everhart told him the only reason to have a vote on precinct delegates would be if there are more people seeking delegate status than members present. Only five members were present, so Blood said the vote was invalid.

This is an interesting twist (not unlike Justin Timberlake Instagram-ified to some folks) to the story and interpretation on how the precincts are supposed elect delegates.


  1. CadeThacker says:

    Ugh, GAGOP needs to get the act straight. What happened to Michael was rude and disrespectful, but my understanding was completely legitimate. I’ve been told for 5 years now that each precinct meets according to Roberts Rules of Order and is a functioning working body and they vote just like the larger delegations.

    Now(!?) Sue is saying that no, everybody is in as long as you stay under the limit?

    Quick somebody find a parliamentarian because I think Sue is shooting from the hip and missing. Somebody just needs to nominate Michael from the floor at the county convention and he should attend as a guest.

    Am I wrong?

    • Vicki says:

      EXACTLY, Cade. As I posted on another thread:

      This doesn’t make any sense.

      What was done to the McNeelys was ethically wrong.

      But it was procedurally correct. When a precinct meets at a PMM, it’s like its own little mini-convention. Majority rules, and if a majority wants to keep someone from becoming a delegate, whether it’s for petty political reasons or whatever, they CAN do that.

      But now this story says, “Douglas County GOP Chair Bert Blood said he spoke with Georgia Republican Party Chair Sue Everhart Monday morning and confirmed that the vote at Saturday’s precinct meeting to keep McNeely out of the convention was invalid… Everhart told him the only reason to have a vote on precinct delegates would be if there are more people seeking delegate status than members present. Only five members were present, so Blood said the vote was invalid.”

      Sue’s reasoning is logical, but the rules are clear: even if there are only 5 members present, 3 of those members can keep 2 of those members from being elected as delegates, even if there ARE fewer people seeking delegate status than slots available.

      Like I said, what was done to the McNeelys was petty and wrong. But it was valid under the rules. (Under those same rules, by the way, the McNeelys could still be voted in as delegates to the District & State Conventions, even if they aren’t delegates to the County Convention themselves. THAT is how this should be resolved — NOT by Sue Everhart pulling decisions out of her rear end that violate the rules themselves.)

      And by the way, if Sue Everhart now gets to willy-nilly declare PMM votes to be invalid and to just declare that people are hereby anointed as delegates, will she be tipping her scepter in the direction of all the folks who were denied delegate status under the (BLATANT violation of the rules) “point system”?

      • Jawgadude says:

        Sue is WRONG! Yes, McNeely should have been elected to the delegate list… but each precinct DOES function under Roberts Rules of Order and is autonamous. You do not have to be present to be elected as a delegate to the county convention.

        Example: A precinct is allotted 15 delegates. Five people attend the precinct caucuses from that precinct. 3 of the people (majority) band together and elect a full slate of 15 delegates and 15 alternates from that precinct (those elected on this slate to not have to be present to get elected). The 3 people in the majority leave out the other 2 people who attend. IT IS LEGAL.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          The question is if the GOP can continue to chop off two-fifths of its interested participants.

          The majority can continue to deny the minority a voice, at least until the minority gets pissed off and leaves which puts us right back at

          exhibit A:

          The shrinking, dying GOP.

        • Napoleon says:

          I think we should just give Sue the lists and let her fill in who the delegates are for the county conventions in each county. Why bother having an election? In fact, why bother even having a convention? We should just let Sue choose her predecessor. If she wants to, we can just have “reinterpret” the rule on term limits so she can give herself three more terms or, better yet, Chairman for Life!

      • eschristian says:

        I’m told that the “point system” has caused the Newton & Rockdale GOP’s PMM votes to be invalid but have not gotten to see the ruling from Sue Everhart – have only been told from a reliable source. Investigating as we speak. I have not been online or had my phone on since yesterday evening so it may be covered somewhere else already – trying to find out.

        Agreed @” (BLATANT violation of the rules) “point system”.”

  2. PegM says:

    I am not equipped to agree or not agree if the vote was legal or not. But on the face of it, it is a disgrace go manipulate for personal reasons. Gamel should grow up and act like a man, not a conniver to exclude someone he doesn’t like. The spirit of the action Gamel took was just wrong.

  3. Nonchalant says:

    Root cause–incompletely thought out system, not taking into account human nature. This situation not ever happen again, or it might be happening all the time. Beyond my kin. But it is clear the system had no safety valve to allow for flexibility/shenanigans.

    Possible solutions, each with its own pitfalls. Offered more for thought train starters, less as necessarily being the ultimate solution:

    1. Precincts not using all their delegate slots, but who rejected folks, have next year’s slots proportionally reduced from what they sent vice what they could have sent, rounded down. In this case, next year the precinct in question gets 1/3 (15 possible, five sent) times five sent, or 1 allowable delegate. Introduces penalty algorithm for those trying to “gatekeep”.
    2. Unused precinct slots go to county for at-large nominations. Pitfalls, to be sure.
    3. Unused precinct slots go to state, for same. Pitfalls, to be sure.
    4. Add your own idea. Season to taste.

    Basically, this type of issue can be solved if someone wants to. They just have to want to. If the GOP can’t get the spirit of New England town halls down, someone else will, eventually.

    • Nonchalant says:

      I’d like to reiterate, each one of the above also has its own problems. They would need their own mitigation measures.

    • eschristian says:

      You can’t legislate good behavior and bad behavior is human nature. We just have to have enough folks with integrity in the system to make sure it’s not corrupted.

      Just my 2 cents.

  4. rightwingbrown says:

    I like Mr. Mcneely and am glad he will be a fellow delegate at the county convention next month. Especially after what I witnessed on Saturday. However, I am worried about Chairman Everhart’s decision and if it was correct on a procedural basis.

  5. Charuth Cutestory says:

    So Sue Everhart is planning to overstep the rules in order to allow McNeely to participate? Wasn’t McNeely excluded by people who simply followed the rules?

  6. eschristian says:

    I think the conclusion to this…

    What was done to McNeely was agreeably by all an unethical petty abuse of the spirit of the rules.

    And, for us who are not expert in the rules – we need a better break down somewhere of the rules – or maybe experts could sit down with us and explain them. I appreciate the folks who are experts on the rules on here that have helped us to try to understand them. I did not know the rules the morning of our PMM but I knew enough to know it is wrong to block new people from participating – with a ton of open seats and that promotes party growth how?

    This is what I need to know…

    When we show up to the PMM and break up into caucuses:

    1) We break up into individual precinct caucuses – based upon our voting precinct.

    2) We choose a Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary for our individual precincts and these folks fill out the paperwork for delegates/alternates to be given to the County Chairman, to be sent to the GA GOP – correct?

    3) Then we vote/don’t vote??? for a slate of delegates for our precinct. If I’m understanding correctly – we vote for those present (and not present) that we want to be our delegates & alternates – correct? Also, do people present get a priority over people not present? And then we are to vote for our delegates and majority rules in that decision – correct?

    4) Also, if there are 10 open spots and 5 people show up (and no votes for anyone not there), then you have 5 people up for vote to be a delegate? People present being voted on – when there are open seats cannot be designated alternates (based upon how many “points”/”merits” they have) – correct? If there are open seats they are delegates if they are voted on by the majority?

    5) If there are 10 people that show up (or requested to be added that are not there) and only 5 seats are available and all are approved – then it would be 5 delegates & 5 alternates (chosen who is a delegate & who is an alternate by majority rule) – correct?

    Sorry to make it so complicated but in my county – not sure if we are to do a redo PMM or what – awaiting info as to exactly what GA GOP ruled in regards to Newton/Rockdale GOP & their “points/merit systems”. I just want to make sure it is done correctly this time around!

    Thank you in advance for your help and input – sincerely. 😉

    As far as, Chairman Sue Everhart – I give her credit for trying to do something about what happened to McNeely BUT I just hope the scenario above occurs and McNeely’s name is added by the local party before it arrives to the state and rules aren’t broken to fix this. We can’t ignore rules, even to fix unethical behavior. What they did to McNeely was petty and stupid and I am so glad it was exposed, which should pressure their local party to do the right thing and fix this so no rules have to be broken!

  7. Doug Deal says:

    I lean against the decision, but a case could be made for it, due to this provision of the rules:

    9.15.A) Conventions shall attempt to elect a number of Alternates equal to the number of
    . Delegates and Alternates to the County, District, State and National Conventions do
    not have to be present and in attendance to be elected as Delegates or Alternates to the
    Convention at which they are elected to serve as Delegates or Alternates to another convention.

    Since they did not fill their delegate slots, and denied available delegates, they in effect made no attempt at electing an equal number of alternates as delegates. Because by rule, delegates are filled first, it could be interpretted that unless you fill your delegation, you are not attempting to elect an equal number of alternates and delegates.

    The rules are rife with such rules that are impossible to follow. It works on the assumption that party activity would operate at the level where most precincts would elect full delegations.

    I would love to give input to changing the rules to make sense, but I am just a peon from Macon.

    There are a number of logical problems with how delegates are selected and it would be easy enough to take over county delegations inappropriately if enough people had the will power. The delegations should reflect the consensus of the party members of the area they represent, not just go to the most motivated cheaters and those with axes to grind.

    If I could change the delegate selection rules, I would give the precincts only the ability to pair down the list to ther maximum number and allow anyone who fills out a form declaring their intent to serve to be automatically elected as a delegate unless the number exceeds the slots available. If it does, those people become alternates until that list is filled and then the precinct can vote who’s in or who’s out.

    A single person with a list of names should not be able to elect those people as delegates without those persons signing up for consideration and declaring themselves in accordance with the definition of membership in the first paragraph of the state rules.

Comments are closed.