Even though the process was unnecessarily contentious last night, Mr. Baugh came to the right conclusion regarding the vote that took place. The following is submitted straight from Robert’s Rules website:

Do abstention votes count?

Answer: “… IF THE VOTE REQUIRED IS A MAJORITY OR TWO THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT, OR A MAJORITY OR TWO THIRDS OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP, AN ABSTENTION WILL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS A “NO” VOTE… ” [RONR (10th ed.), p. 387, l. 7-13; p. 388, l. 3-6; p. 390, l. 13-24; see also p.66 of RONR In Brief.]

Article XIII of our bylaws state in part, "...Endorsements of Republican incumbents removed from the list are granted upon a two-thirds
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE of the Central Committee members voting."

58 votes were cast. Only 36 of those votes were in the affirmative.

The vote was valid; the results stand. Janet Nguyen was denied early endorsement by the Republican Party of Orange County. Today, the sanctity of our voting process was upheld by our Chairman, Scott Baugh, AND our Parliamentarian, Kermit Marsh.

That's the way it's supposed to be.

Tim,

Thanks to your voting skills. You were great last night. Poor Kermit couldn't even get the first count right. The whole process was shameful.

Kermit, thanks for tanking Janet's early endorsement!

Tim,

Abstentions are only counted if "the vote required is two-thirds of the members present." The bylaws only require a vote of "two-thirds of the members voting," not "two-thirds of the members present." Abstentions should not have counted.

Tim, job well done and we have high expectation of you in the future.

Tim:

That post is an outright lie. The gold book you were carrying has no such text on page 387, 388 or 390.

Additionally, there is NO TEXT on the official site: http://www.robertsrules.com/

You are a fraud.

I looked up page 387 of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition (the book you carried into the meeting) and there is no mention of the above text in lines 7 through 13.

I flipped over to page 388, looking at lines 3 through 6 -- not there either.

Then I took a look at page 390 - here is where Tim Whitacre modifies what is actually written on the page and then omits the context to perpetrate the fraud.

The previous page has the actual heading of the passage as "Modifications of Usual Bases of Decision."

That's right, the passage following is not a usual bases for decision! Forgot to list than one didn't you.

Starting at line 10, page 390 actually reads:

"Voting requirements based on the number of members present-a majority of those present, two thirds of those present, etc.-while possible are generally undesirable. Since an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote, these bases deny members the right to maintain a nuetral position by abstaining. For the same reason, members present who fail to vote through indifference rather than through deliberate neutrality may affect the result negatively. When such a vote is required, however, the chair must count those present immediately after the affirmative vote is taken, before any change can take place in the attendance"

The above quote ends on line 24.

That's a far cry from the text you posted, Tim.

Your book considers bylaws that call for this unfair type of vote "generally undesirable."

How else would you explain the fact that alternate Troung Diep and another one of the members walked out of the room during the vote only to walk back in afterwards?

Thankfully, your book does't call for this "generally undesirable" basis where an abstention has the same effect as a negative vote.

What's controversial?

If you want to look up two thirds defined, you look in the index of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition, and it points you to page 388.

Right at the top of page 388, it reads as follows:

"A two-thirds vote--when the term is unqualified--means at least two thirds of the votes cast by persons legally entitled to vote, excluding blanks and abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting at which quorum is present."

Unless the bylaws specify otherwise, only no votes count against yes votes.

The vote was

36 Yes

10 No

That's not controversial. That's a landslide.

You don't need to be a lawyer to figure that out.

"Check again, Tim",

You're talking semantics and spliting hairs. Regardless, it was clarified more than once - before the vote - by Kermit that the effect of an abstention vote would count as a "no" vote. There was no protest and no "misunderstanding" until Janet's side realized they had lost the vote. Only then did it become relevant all of a sudden. Everyone who abstained knew they were voting no, that's why none of the abstention voters complained about the outcome.

According the Official Roberts Rule of Order website
http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#6

Under frequently asked questions
Question 6:
Do abstention votes count?

Answer:
The phrase "abstention votes" is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an "abstention vote."

In the usual situation, where either a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required, abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast. On the other hand, if the vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a "no" vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 387, l. 7-13; p. 388, l. 3-6; p. 390, l. 13-24; see also p.66 of RONR In Brief.]

Not sure why this point of abstentions counting is so difficult to understand.

1) The past practices of the Central Committee regarding other endorsement votes have been treated this way…..this isn’t new people.
2) This is the way the state legislature of California treats abstentions.
3) The chairman reversed the abstentions don't count ruling.
4) After the vote failed, it can't be brought up until the regular endorsement process, which is post March 7th, and is proper procedure.

Regarding Truong Diep, no one can be forced to vote, period. Members can voice a "not voting" or "Abstain" or simply take a walk (others beside Diep did as well). Ask anyone in the Legislature about members taking a walk. If 15 Senate Republicans all voiced “abstain” the state budget wouldn’t pass with a 2/3 vote of the present (all Democrats) senators. Abstaining members are not excluding from the process. Chuck DeVore abstained and still made motions and participated in the process. Truong Diep can as well.

It looks like both Tim's book and the web site (not the actual text) still agree:

"Abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote" and that an abtention is not a vote.

The vote remains: 36 yes to 10 no.

Anon @ 11:53 PM,

And you forgot to add the conclusion:

". . . . And Janet Nguyen fails to receive the endorsement from the Orange County GOP". Please give it a rest and stop beating on a dead horse.

Anon at 10:36PM,

There is no "fraud" as you so desperately suggest. I accurately quoted from the following website:

http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html

If you had actually took the time to dig a little deeper it is right there, easy to find on google under "abstention vote." The site clearly delineates between Robert's Rules Newly Revised in Brief, and the 10th Edition, Newly Revised, I carry with me to every meeting (which, by the way, I left at my seat when I departed just after the vote to take a fellow Member to the bus depot). At the top of that site before the Q & A it states,

"The questions in this chapter are based on queries repeatedly received on the Question and Answer Forum. Questions 1 through 20 derive from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief."

Additionally, besides being correct in my original defense of the outcome of the Committee's vote , the fact that a roll call vote was taken thereby covering ALL of the Members present, makes your secondary argument over specific verbiage pertaining to "members present vs. members voting," moot.

The vote was valid; the results stand.

No revote. Smart! If Janet Nguyen wants to put it up for a second try, she'll lose again.

The endorsement battle has hardly begun yet and she can't even muster enough votes to get the GOP nod early.

Muster support? That voice vote was strong, the opponents are looking to split the party. The opposition to Janet doesn't even know who their own candidate is! Is it Dina Nguyen, Hoa Tran, or Trung Nguyen? How about Andrew Nguyen? What about Andy Quach? We love competition in our party!

Lots of Janet Nguyen haters out there, and for good reason.

Janet, you reap what you sow, and you are reaping it now big time. There is justice after all!

"You are a fraud."

Tim Whitacre, a fraud? No way! Say it ain't so! Tim is an upstanding gentleman. On what grounds do you have to call him such filth?

He's an example of what more central committee members should be like! This county is run by republicans, and if those of us who don't like republicans don't want to vote for them, then we should let the democrats win because that's the right thing to do. I applaud Tim for his actions. I do think it is against the bylaws for him as an elected member to support democrats, but if it's the ethical thing to do than so be it. this party would be so much better by endorsing democrats then let republicans win. Tim is leading the charge on that! Let's keep making central county blue, tim!

I'm extremely dissapointed in Mr. Whitacre. He is supposed to be the GOP's golden boy in Santa Ana, and all he does is help democrats get elected. He never just volunteers for campaigns either, he just looks to see who gives him the money.

For the haters out there that are trashing Tim Whitacre, you must either be a Janet employee or you're part of the OC GOP establishment who are way too eager to keep the Board of Supervisors all "Republican".

Tim is the only person on the Central Committee who is keeping Scott Baugh and company in line. The audacity that the executive committee displayed on Monday night in making sure that Janet gets the early endorsement is mind boggling.

GO TIM!!!

"Tim is the only person on the Central Committee who is keeping Scott Baugh and company in line."

Well then, why doesn't Tim Whitacre run for the Chairman position on central committee?

No Tim, you shouldn't challenge Baugh. You should run for Council against Sarmiento! You'd be fantastic on the council. I think you can do it!

Semper Fi!

"Dina Nguyen for Supervisor"

Cut out the personal attacks or you'll be banned. I'm deleting the offending posts.

This is your only warning.

we apologize Jubal. It's just a group of us very die-hard Dina Nguyen fans who wnat notihing more than to see her elected to the position. Were very excited about her candidacy.

I don't care how excited you all are. Don't turn the comments into a pre-school free-for-all. If you can't muster intelligent, rational arguments for your candidates, then kindly refrain from commenting.

Jubal, I'm very discouraged with the editing of those comments. Do you not realize what we're trying to do here? We told ourselves a long time ago that because of Janet not willing to play along with us, we set out a mission to destroy her professionally and politically. Regardless of those statements were true or not, they are interfereing with our plan to take her out -- that's the whole point of this! Edit some more of those posts and we WILL make some calls and have this entire blog shut down. Janet is going to be destroyed and no one is going to stand in the way of us doing that.

Alan Nguyen

Alan Nguyen, aka Janet's paid blogger........ are you trying to play with Jubal's mind? He knows you.... since the day you were born. Your false threats(i.e. trickery)only can back fire.

Tung Tran; First,Dina's supporters do not get paid from Janet, like you guys. Second, Dina will compete with dignity, not with blind hatred. Which you are hired to falsely portray her......
We are too smart for under-paid want a be political consultant's pre -school level,pol.smear 101 stuff. Ask Jubal....
I know Dina will take on Janet fairly and win respectfully...... yes, even with your loosing efforts.

A Watchful Eye needs to get eyes checked or call Janet for more memory chips.
Janet's sad story has been consistent that "a fragile woman is being attacked by maho men".
Asking others to save her from her imagenary monsters ......convincing some naive yet nice people..... it was unethical but, in certain degree, successful political gadget in her part.
Now how can she explain about her bloody attack against another female, Dina?

NAV NART = JANET

What happened at that event? Who attacked whom? Who was your aide? Is he George Cooney? Or Monkeybone?

Yea it was George Clooney, way to make an intelligent comment. Or was that the lamest attempt at sarcasm I've seen since an Andrew Dice Clay stand up routine?

You ask Tran why he had to call off his attack dogs last sunday when trying to save face. The Community is catching on. Just look at the Trannies response to the press conference Janet had last friday, panic is setting in, that's why they're throwing up all the mud they can

Darn, ya got me! Yep it's Janet, I thought I was being clever by using Nav Nart as my alias. I never thought anyone would catch on.

Set down the drink for a minute and try to use some common sense. Oh wait...

common sense, it's called split- personality syndrome. One person can actually live with many different personalities in one physical body. Mostly disturbing....

HA, I just got it!!!! Nav Nart spells Tran Van backwards which I guess must mean Van Tran! Ugh, you Janet bloggers are shady people it's sooo frustrating!!!!!!!! That's why we're going to beat you back with Dina as THE candidate for the republicans. You Janet bloggers are going to be sorry you messed with us.

Alan Nguyen

Just like BRITNEY!!!!!!!!

Janet Nguyen just doesn't know when to quit. She's under a serious electoral threat and still want to pick fights on the blogs. What's wrong with her? Doesn't she understand that she needs to solve her many problems, instead of causing more.

serious electoral challenge?

FYI - Joe Dunn is out of the race

"And by the way, again, if you're going to talk trash get your facts straight. The election is June 3rd."

Imagine time... three days after the election and Janet fails to make the runoff she will lose a lot of things and it'll be easy to do. Come after us all you want, but at the end of the day she WILL be out of office and the vietnamese community can have TRUE representation with Dina Nguyen. Give it your best shot.

Alan Nguyen.

Janet doesn't have to worry. Last election she won by a landslide! Easy going from here, with or with out Joe.

There is no serious challenge for Janet. The race is between Trung and Dina........... Janet has been written off from the list when Dina made the announcement to enter the primary. The community will be best served without Janet in any kind of public offices.

All of you:

First and last warning: no personal gossip or attacks. I've deleted the offending comments. Anymore and you're both banned. First and last warning.