Convention-al Wisdom

I'm taking a break from the VERY busy business of running a City Council campaign to talk about participating this past week at the Kings County Republican Convention. Get ready for a really long posting.

Some of you may have read about the contention between our current GOP Chair, Craig Eaton, and his erstwhile critic, Dr. Arnaldo Ferraro of the Fiorello LaGuardia Republican Club. For the past two years, I've seen this animosity bubble over between Mr. Ferraro's supporters and what has always appeared to me as the entire remaining Republican Committee. Basically, if Craig said that the sky is blue, the opposition said the sky was red.

I don't profess to know anything about the root of this animosity, as I am still relatively new to the Committee. And I won't print rumor and supposition here. You know me by now - I try to deal in fact and first-hand accounts. I'll leave setting the scene to

Needless to say, this was a quick, dirty race. Allegations from all sides of proxy tampering, untruths, vicious attacks and all that comes with it were rampant. For my part, I received no campaign mail from either side - only a letter from a leader discussing a personal matter which has since been published online.


So let's fast forward to the Convention. As a Vice-Chair of the Law Committee, I was of course a part of the credentialing committee charged with examining proxies turned in by all party members. We examined each and every proxy to make sure that they were originally signed and dated by a County Committee member. After examining the proxies, each entry was logged into a computer spreadsheet that was programmed to not only log in all the names, but to override duplicate proxies so that the latest signed proxy was the only one that counted. If there were questions as to signatures, buff cards from the BOE were available for review. I didn't call any signatures into question, but I did disqualify proxies from both campaigns for being incomplete, or in some cases filled in by persons other than the member.

All of this was overseen not only by our Law Committee chair Ted Alatsas, but representatives of the Ferraro campaign. All were able to examine all proxies, all computer entries - everything.

The process was a model of transparency, in my opinion.

In between counting, I tried to talk to as many people as I could. I spoke a lot with many of the young people there that I had met at Brooklyn YR meetings.


So while the votes was being compared to the sign-in list of all the County Committee members present, time had to be filled - we're talking over a thousand proxies and over 100 attendees. So, all of the candidates in attendance were invited to speak.

By invited, I mean "Gene, we need to fill time. You're going to speak. Get ready."

Alrighty then.

The speeches were opened by Sen. Marty Golden. He has a knack for contemporaneous speaking. I always think he's at his best when he's prepared, but allowed to be Marty instead of sticking to a prepared speech. But anyways...

Mike Allegretti, who is running for Congress against Rep. McMahon, spoke next. I have to say, I really like Mike - he's young, he's energetic, and he's smart. Plus, he's a genuinely nice guy - that comes out a lot when you speak to him one-on-one. Regardless of what happens with my race, I will be helping with his campaign next year. He's someone you should make your business to get to know.

Next up was Joe Nardiello, a candidate running for city council against Brad Lander. He spoke well, talking a lot about the issues his campaign was facing. I could tell that he had a lot more to say, but Marty kind of gave him a nudge to wrap things up. Joe gave the kind of speech that you expect to hear on a campaign stop, talking about his opponent.

I was up next. I hadn't planned remarks, so I went for passion instead of your garden-variety issue oriented speech. The crowd needed to be pumped - after all, this was a convention, not an oil painting! So I gave 'em some hell. One time, I was so fired up that i lost my train of thought! After about a minute, I quickly exited the stage. Marty shook my hand, said "good job", and I went to check on how the count was going - my good friends Bob Capano and Marc D'Ottavio then spoke... I wish I had a chance to hear them. We all later posed for the photo you see below.


After another longish delay, the convention officially kicked off. Ted Alatsas was appointed presiding chair for the evening. (A word about Ted - I really have to complement his even-handedness throughout the entire process. He was fair, cordial and worked harder than anyone on this night.)

Right away, there were objections to the proceeding. My friend, Jonathan Judge (President of the YRs) and Fred Martorell, an attorney I am acquainted with who is a leader affiliated the Ferraro campaign, objected to just about everything you can object to - Ted's appointment as presiding chair, the proxy count, the method of the proxy count, rules for the evening. Everything. This fit in with the impression I've had for so long - much of the opposition is contrary for the sake of being contrary. This was their right, but it didn't endear them to the assembly. Every vote called for was in favor of Craig Eaton's supporters - consisting of what I believe was 80% of the people in the room (I believe that the one polled vote was 81 to 24)

The majority was none too pleased.

It should be noted that there was a reported "glitch" in the proxy count where incorrect proxy tallies were initially given. The incomplete count given earlier was replaced with another count that improved the number of proxies in favor of Mr. Ferraro. Obviously, this was not welcomed news to anyone. This news would cast somewhat of a pall on the evening - the losing side could cry "foul" based on an unfortunate technological aberration. But I once again applaud the transparency of it all.


When it finally came to getting down to it, emotions were running a little high. Ferraro supporters saw the writing on the wall as the time came to announce the slates for nomination to the Executive Committee.

The so-called "Eaton slate" was announced, of which I was included as part of the Law committee.

The so-called "Ferraro slate" was announced, of which I was included as part of the Law committee.

Wait... what?

Apparently, I hadn't mistakenly heard my name twice - it actually was said. I had been nominated by both sides to keep my position. Does that make me the most popular Republican in Brooklyn? Move over, Marty!

Anyways, once announced, each nominee for chair was given 5 minutes to speak. Instead of hearing from Mr. Ferraro, Fred Martorell rose to "introduce" him.

That introduction took 6 minutes.

Ted Alatsas then allowed Mr. Ferraro an additional minute to speak, and he did. Craig Eaton then followed and was allotted equal time.

A committee member called for others to abstain in the vote, which drew applause. Frankly, I can't stand fence-sitters. Leaders lead.

In the end, the votes cast for Craig Eaton was overwhelming, in my opinion. I was one of them.

Craig gave a victory speech, extending an olive branch to all to work with him in the coming year to keep the Party growing.

The convention then came to a close.


I think I've tried to make this a balanced recollection of events. I didn't go into the substance of speeches all that much because I didn't want to mis-characterize what was said. If I recalled something incorrectly, the hounds would be released!

So let me unload some (more) opinion right now.

I have had few dealings with the principals of the Ferraro campaign, but I will say that all were cordial towards me. I did see passionate arguments between sides, many of which will probably result in bad feelings, and that's unfortunate.

As far as winners and losers go, I would say that if I was the "most popular" Republican (I am So going to try to get as much mileage out of that notion as possible - damn my ego!), Jonathan Judge was among the least popular. I like Jonathan - I credit him with making me a bit more of an idealist than I was months ago. But, I think he took ideals past their point of reality. You can't drag a horse to water and force them to drink even if you shove their head into the stream, and that's what Jonathan was trying to do.

As I said, leaders lead, but leaders also listen to those around them. He didn't win many friends, and he probably lost supporters from the senior members of the Committee. I hope the YRs don't suffer as a result, as the reputation of younger Republicans was hurt, according to conversations I had post-convention.


There are lots of critics saying that the party isn't growing. Well, I'm living proof of that growth - I'm a young Republican that got involved a little over two years ago. I was not only welcomed aboard, but given a leadership role. When I expressed interest in campaigning for City Council, I was welcomed with open arms. I have received both moral and financial support from members and the party itself. Craig himself has shown up to every event I've had - even the sparsely attended ones.

I have heard the arguments for "change", and I fervently disagree. Craig has been in control for one term. Two years. He immediately came into office during the whole Vito Fossella drama, and as a neophyte chair, had little influence over candidate selection - especially with SI controlling 70% of the district. But to his credit, Craig called a special meeting of the KCRP where we interviewed candidates on our own, and made recommendations. Blaming him for the hand dealt by SI is laughable to those who know.

He then had to deal with organizing the party in the context of a national campaign. He was part of organizing support for Rudy, busing Republicans to primary battlegrounds and organizing volunteers. When Rudy's campaign flopped, he was the first to come out to support John McCain - the first of many "firsts" to come that brought greater visibility to the party.

This year, he showed leadership in filling the line for Mayor, making decisions that benefited the party as a whole financially and publicly. The fact that Brooklyn came out for Mayor Bloomberg first gave our party a solid financial base, but was a coup in press coverage. Word was now out that Brooklyn's party was rising. The "Draft Rudy" public campaign was another way for Republicans to break news. And he has since joined other "Draft Rudy" efforts, even traveling upstate to garner support for the initiative.

Finally, Craig had the foresight to become one of (if not, the) first chairs to openly support Ed Cox for State Chair. With his victory, Brooklyn should benefit from Mr. Cox's experience and financial acumen.

These successes far outweigh any perceived shortcomings.

Recently, Craig has taken a lot of cheap shots - name-calling, insults, allegations - all from anonymous shadows on a less-than-credible website. I hope the people that I think are behind the website are really not associated with it. These potshots are unwarranted and despicable not only for their content, but for their cowardice. But even more so to me because having gotten to know Craig and having seen all the effort he's put forth, he surely doesn't deserve it.

They're also an slap in the face for people like me who are out there fighting the fight for the party - these keyboard jockeys talk big, but don't act. So to all of them, I repeat my mantra - pound pavement, not keyboards.

You've been invited by Craig Eaton to get involved. Instead of punking out and deriding the invitation as disingenuous, take him up on it. Judge him first-hand on his actions towards you. That's what I did - and look where I am. The "change" that you so desperately crave can also come from within.

I invite you as well - my election is weeks away. I'm going to need Election Day volunteers on every corner of the district. Help get the word out about the party. Pick any candidate you want. Get involved. Get in the trenches. Get out the vote.


Joseph Hayon said...

This is my first time I attended such a convention. Before the convention, I had already realized that there would be a lot of tension internally. I had heard a lot of garbage about both candidates. I found a little truth to be applied to both candidates respectively by attending the convention. Eaton should have encouraged the appointeed chariman to have a five minute recess after proxies from at least three county committee members were missing, including myself. I found that to be 10 times worse than Ferraros opposition to everything (although annoying). For me, it wasn't about opposition, it was about my rights, as a member of the county committee, being violated as Eaton stood by there silently.

It is not dishonest that Eaton never reached out to me when I informed him that I want to run for Congress in 2008. It is not dishonest that as a resident in the 9th congressional district, there was no republican candidate running in 5 years. It is not dishonest that we have just three republicans running for city council this year in Brooklyn. It is dishonest that Eaten chose not to have a 5 minute recess to double check my proxies, just because he has something personal against Jonathan Judge.

I realized that by voting against Eaton, I may never have help from him or the Republican party to run for Congress in 2010. However, there are times when it is important to voice your concerns unconditionally. Here my concern was a dishonest situation... maybe there really was a glitch in the computer system, but a fair and honest person should allow for the five minute recess requested.

Since Eaton had the majority of proxies, we all know that my proxies would not help make it or break it. I used my vote to voice my concerns on the dishonest style of handling the proxie count.

Gene Berardelli said...

Joseph - as I said to you at the convention, the proxy count was done by computer. Calling for a 5 minute break wouldn't have made a difference, as the counters were diligent enough to fix errors and work through the convention itself.

Your contention about calling for a recess is misdirected. Craig had no control over the voting process, the proxy count or over the proceedings and to infer that he did is incorrect.

The Law Committee Chair, Ted Alatsas was. He was in charge of the vote count. He was in charge of the process of counting proxies. and for running the meeting.

Also, the proxy process was overseen by members representing both sides. All information was accesible to all.

If Craig had exerted control, asked for a recess, or whatever, the process would have definitely been tainted and there would be a legitimate case for concern.

By the way, there are a LOT more than 3 candidates running in Brooklyn!

34th District: Jacqueline Haro (Republican⁄Conservative).

35th District Stuart Allen Balberg (Republican⁄Conservative).

37th District Michael Freeman−Salsberre (Republican⁄Conservative)

38th District Allan Romaguera (Republican⁄Conservative).

39th District Joe Nardiello (Republican)

40th District Hugh Carr (Republian⁄Conservative).

41st District Rose Lany (Republican).

42nd District Godfrey Jelks (Republican⁄Conservative).

43rd District Bob Capano (Republican⁄Conservative⁄Independence).

46th District ME (Republican⁄Conservative).

Brooklyn BP Marc D'Ottavio (Repubican/Conservative).

You'll have to ask each absent candidate why they were not in attendance, but they are on the ballot. The fact that we filled so many slots to run is in and of itself a small step forward.

As I stated in the article, Craig and the committee was installed in October 2007 - the party was in transition. I submit that he was not in a position to talk about Congressional candidates given the fact that the party had no money at the time and that he was still learning on the job. I don't think you had a million dollars to self-fund a competitive Congressional run.

I suggest you re-open any personal concerns with Craig himself, who invited all to contact him.

I say again that there was absolutely nothing dishonest in the whole process. Choose to believe me or not, but your belief won't change facts.

Joseph - I think you and many others have a lot of potential to be leaders. But you need to be better informed, and to be better informed, you need to be active in the party and participate within the framework.

I will need your help in organizing volunteers to help me on Election Day and to give out literature. I promise that once I have a firmed-up event that I will contact you so you can get more involved.

Avrohom Gordon said...

I'm not 31 years old, and I'm no attorney. I'm a 21 year old college student who is fed up with what's happening in Albany, and in City hall, and is interested in doing something about it. For a long time I didn't even know that there was any sort of Republican organizations in Brooklyn. During the '08 campaign I was very disappointed in how republicans were running their campaigns (and governing where in power), both on the local and national level, but had no idea on how to get involved or how influence.

On the night of November 4th, I was surfing the web and found links to the Brooklyn GOP website, and to the Brooklyn YR website. I was very surprised but happy to find that there were active republican groups in Brooklyn, which looked inviting to young people. I filled out the online "JOIN THE REPUBLICAN COUNTY COMMITTEE TODAY" form on, as well as the "JOIN US ONLINE TODAY!" on Within a short while I got a welcoming email from the YR club, as well as information on their next meeting and different ways I could get involved with the party and the club.

Weeks went by and I got no response from the Brooklyn GOP, so I tried again and I still have not gotten a response. The only “correspondence” I have had with the chairman was a post card in the mail requesting that I designate him as my proxy for last week’s convention.

About a month before petitioning started, I informed my district leaders through Jonathan Judge that I was interested in joining the county committee. When the time to petition started and still didn’t hear from them, Jonathan helped me with getting a petition, and a list of people I needed to get signatures from. I understand that the chairman can’t be blamed for the lack of responsiveness of my district’s leaders, but the way I see it the current leadership doesn't want to reach out and grow, and is skeptical of young people (they don’t know their motive?). From what I see, Jonathan Judge and the BYR club is doing more to grow our party and get young people active in our party than the chairman and all the committees.

At the convention there was a clear majority supporting Eaton. But does that mean that those who disagree cannot get a chance to speak? I think the chair deserves credit for acting as a fair moderator, but the reaction from the committee members was shameful. They looked threatened by anybody who brought a motion to the floor that didn’t come from the leadership, (by defeating each motion with such vigor and passion) and afraid to discuss any disagreements. Quite frankly most committee members just wanted to get home. While I understand it was late, what is the purpose of the convention if not to discuss our disagreements and debate our differences of opinion until we come to a consensus, so we can come out stronger and more united as a party? Instead of looking at the opposition as rebels, look at them as the thing that makes us a party. If anybody who has a slight disagreement with the party leadership was told to find another party what would the state of our party be? My vote was to protest the way things currently are at county committee.

I respect and applaud what you do for our party, (you are in unique position as the only executive committee member that got 100% of the vote for and 100% of the vote against,) and good luck on the campaign trail.

Gene Berardelli said...

Joseph - I'm upset that you've been shut out, and I'd like to help you "break through" so to speak. I hope that people read this, see your frustration and contact you. I think you have a lot to offer and seeing the day-to-day things will be helpful for both sides.

Let's talk soon.

Gene Berardelli said...

CRAP - I'm sorry, Avrohom, I misread my email to see who the comment came from!

That is such a bad job out of me! I feel like an ass!

The offer still stand to both you and Joseph!

Jonathan J. Judge said...

Gene, as a friend, I must say that I don't think you're doing our newer colleagues a service by what you say in this post. I do understand that you may feel a certain allegiance for the prevailing side, and maybe a comparable distaste for the other side because of rumor and your interpretations of their behavior. But if you're just as serious about fixing this party as I am, we have to validate the concerns of everyone involved, whether we like them personally or not. And we certainly do our party no favors by excusing what's wrong no matter who the perpetrators are.

So I'll address this in a point-by-point fashion:

1. I don't believe anyone is objecting to the process of verifying proxies per se. What everyone *was* disturbed by was the disregard of the county committee to rectify "Glitchgate" that clearly affected every single proxyholder. There was something quite distasteful about the fervor with which most AD delegations voted against a mere five minute recess only to have the glaring mistakes thrown back in their faces about 10 minutes later.

2. Moreover, the rules changes were not designed to undermine Ted as presiding officer, but to prevent in the future the possibility of someone hostile and biased from presiding as chairman pro tem without the consent of the county committee. An assembly should always choose its chairman, temporary or permanent, to ensure impartiality. That's standard Robert's Rules and American parliamentary procedure, and our bylaws should reflect that.

Also, with all due respect to the current officeholders, the seemingly countless committee chairs with a full vote on the Executive Committee is really bad party governance at work. It is evident that, in 2007, when all these positions were created, the strategy was to water down the influence of the elected District Leaders with the handpicked allies of the Chairman. This way, 25 of the 40 Leaders, elected by the Republicans in their districts, could vote against the Chairman, and the handpicked 25 Committee Chairs, accountable solely to the Chairman, could side with the Chairman, their good old pal, so he would get his way. If that's not the case, why are they full voting members then? Most deliberative assemblies only give Committee Chairs voice but no vote on Executive Committees.

These were legitimate organizational policies to be hashed out. I'm surprised you viewed this negatively.

3. In finishing the proxy issue, I find it curious to legitimize error and breaches of the rules as though Wednesday were some kind of popularity contest instead of a convention. Politics without principle, is one of the seven deadly sins Gandhi says, not politics without popularity among a select few. Should a lawyer throw an innocent client under the bus because it might be unpopular to defend him? I guess in order to endear ourselves to the crowd, we should have sat back, done nothing, allowed Republican votes to get lost, and cast our votes based on coercion and anticipated retaliation? Don't you see the problem with that? That sends a clear message to all Republicans: we hate you if you don't do what we dictate, so don't bother showing up. No wonder we lose so badly in Brooklyn!

4. Until I discovered the Brooklyn YR Club in 2005, my story started out exactly the same way that Joseph's and Avrohom's did, and you will find many, many others who share it as well. There's something fundamentally pathological about the overall mentality of the party towards new, young Republicans. That needs to change if we want our party to have a future, although the Brooklyn YRs will keep pushing for reform, inclusion and training young people on how to get in the political process regardless. But that begs the question, Gene, how did you get so involved in the party so quickly?

Jonathan J. Judge said...

5. I am also disappointed at your characterization of Jim McCall's abstention. He was taking a side. He was being practical while being principled. He acknowledged that Eaton would win. But he then stated that voting for Eaton simply because he would win would send the wrong message about his tenure as Chairman. And Jim McCall had reason to question Eaton's case for his re-election after the complete lack of a countywide mobilization to win him that Civil Court Judgeship against Noach Dear in 2007, which you may recall tons of Democratic clubs endorsed McCall over Dear. More telling is the number of other former candidates who favored a change in leadership, largely because they have expressed similar discontent with being ignored or maybe downright disregarded as candidates.

6. Finally, like I have said before, our Chairman has the ability to turn all of this division around if he is willing to put the past behind him and start anew with everyone in our party. I ask that you as a candidate encourage him to publicly and genuinely extend the olive branch to all Brooklyn Republicans so bygones may be bygones.

We really need to pull together as a party in Brooklyn, but only if everyone, including our Chairman, genuinely enters into this with a spirit of mutual cooperation, respect and reform.

Gene Berardelli said...

Jonathan, I appreciate your comments. Allow me to respond in kind.

I feel an allegiance to people who have earned my respect. Craig and many others have done that in both deed and action. However, unlike others, I bear no ill will towards anyone. I have my first conversation with Lucretia Regina-Potter (who I hope will forgive me if I misspelled her name!) that night, and it was a pleasant one. I have run into Fred Martorell in the hall of Brooklyn Supreme Court on several occasions and have always had cordial exchanges. I had just met Dr. Ferraro last night, and I have no ill will towards someone I don't know.

To address your points:
1. In my opinion, acquiescing to a five-minute recess would have been an admission that there was something systematically wrong with the proxy tallying system - when it actuality, there wasn't. Both sides participated and consented to the process. By not allowing any recess, the message was clear - the numbers may have to be revised, but the process was right. The fact that the count was indeed revised

2. I have no problem with your argument here. I will just note that there was precedent to establish the Temporary Chair as it was at this convention. And going beyond form and looking at substance, Ted Alatsas is above reproach. In the future, this should be re-examined.

As far as our committee chairs argument, it is my understanding that in the era before Craig took office, conversation was stifled, new input was resisted and a handful ruled over many, and that the expanded Committee Char system was to allow fresh ideas, new voices and to sweep out the old ways, which you seem to advocate in a way.

In fact, it's that system that cleared the way for people like me and you to come on board. No other committee in the City allows the YR President to sit on the Executive Committee.

3. I don't disagree with what you said - I was only trying to give context to your objections. I said that everything you objected to was within your right, but that it didn't endear you to the majority of the convention. This will harm your ability to put forth legitimate reform ideas.

As it stands right now, we could both have the same idea, but people will listen to me, and not to you. It's horrible to say, but I think it's a fair assessment. You've become your own obstacle to reform.

4. I'll be glad to tell you. In short, my years of work in my community was recognized. I am the general counsel of my neighborhood civic association, and as such have worked with all sides pretty successfully. I'm not going to go through the resume, but it is through that work over the years, and becoming acquainted with people in government, that I was invited to be a part of the party leadership.

Maybe that's why I have such a problem with many YRs today - I sense that there's this idea of entitlement. Simply because they filled out a voter registration card entitles them to be a leader. I admire their passion, but I think many are unwilling to work from the bottom-up.

Jonathan, you and I have paid our dues. Joesph and Avrohom and others like that we know and support are starting on a road that we have walked. While I support them on their journey, many are doing themselves a disservice by acting immaturely - anonymous attacks, foul language, generally bad behavior.

In April, I made you a promise - you work from your end and I'll work from mine and we'll one day meet somewhere in the middle. I am still committed to that effort. I know you are as well.

so let's move forward together. I can't help the past, I can only help make sure it doesn't happen again. If you and others are still shut out, I will be the first to stand up and complain.

Gene Berardelli said...

Didn't see your additional comment, so here goes:

5. Mr. McCall's comment was, in my opinion, was the worst kind of fence-sitting. He didn't like Craig, but didn't want to vote for Ferraro. He said as much. Just like we tell people who don't vote that they have no right to complain if they don't participate, Mr. McCall made a similar "punt".

I do recall 2007 - that was the year that Craig officially transitioned from Mr. Singer. How Craig can be responsible for a void in leadership when he came into office a month before the election, I cannot know. Shouldn't the blame be with the lack of leadership BEFORE Craig came into office? If the party was disorganized and didn't support candidates then, I would think that Craig wouldn't be to blame for that!

6. As I stated, Craig opened the door. Barrel through it now! Don't wait to be told "come in, have a seat" It's been done already. Take him up on his offer.

If you want me to act as a intermediary, I will.

Joseph Hayon said...

Gene -- Although I reserved doubt in the proxy count, I never posted that the proxy count was fraud. I merely pointed out that when I objected to the count, a five minute recess was not granted. Although legally Eaton has no control over anyone (including Alatas), Eaton is very popular among the county committee members and has the same type of influence that a Rabbi or Priest has over their congregation. When a person, who has such influence to right a wrong, stands by idly, he is clearly displaying a form of approval.

I am glad to know that there are more than three candidates running in Brooklyn, but why not where I live? Ten candidates is clearly an improvement, but why didn't anyone call me and ask me to run in Council District 47? There is clearly not enough outreach in our party. It may not be Eaton's fault (which I happen to believe), but it is still his responsibility.

Clearly I did not have a million dollars to fund a congressional campaign in 2008, but at least have a candidate. Don't look like a dead party. I was there, willing to put my name in public, willing to put in the effort, win or lose,... and I was turned away. A poorly funded campaign is better than no campaign.

Even when Craig told me that I need to volunteer first, he never directed me to a campaign to help out. I was never invited to be active within the framework of our party (fundraising events is not active, helping campaigns like yours is active), and I made good faith effort to contact as many Republican party leaders as possible.

You are correct that I need to be better informed, and one way to be better informed is for me to receive correct information at the convention. At the convention, they should have, at the very least, pointed out that there are 10 candidates in Brooklyn.

I would love to help you and any candidate that supports the issues that I believe in. After November, I would love to set up an appointment to meet with you and Craig.

Gene Berardelli said...

Joseph: To me, a five minute recess would have created more problems than it would've fixed. Once done, it causes a precedent, and then anytime anyone disagreed with whatever, a five minute recess would be asked for and voted, and we'd still be at the convention!

Why did no one ask you? No one asked me! I got in touch with the leadership, I said I wanted to run, I was interviewed, and then endorsed by the party. Just like everyone else. Heck, Joe Nardiello didn't even do that, and he's now working with the party leadership!

You keep putting the obligation on Craig to inform you of everything, that's not his job. If you want to do something, then you do exactly what you did when you came to me - introduce yourself, and ask how you can help. And that time is coming VERY soon, by the way. Rest assured, I will be calling you.

We'll talk soon! Take care.