My insiders in Sioux Falls are giving me updates on this morning’s Minnehaha County GOP meeting as they happen. The Minnehaha Central Committee will be voting soon to overthrow Tornow in Minnehaha County, with a huge mandate, as they voted on adding it to the agenda with a vote of 37 yes 16 no and 6 abstained.
If you have that many voting to add it to the agenda, it’s a good indication that R. Shawn might not just be a former attorney-at-law, but former GOP Chair as well.
Stay tuned..
Overthrow R Shawn? The best lawyer in the state lb for lb- S. Nelson. Going to need some heavy equipment.
Ps- couldn’t happen to a nicer guy
Can it possibly be that the far right has finally learned their lesson about him?? Maybe there’s hope yet for the GOP!
Today’s “no confidence” vote against Mr. Tornow highlights the need for better leadership. Minnehaha Republicans deserve a sensible, energetic, courteous chair – not a querulous, indignant jerk. I agree with those favoring home-grown (i.e. South Dakota-raised) candidates. Someone with deep roots, someone who can leverage a wide network of friends, family, classmates, & co-workers. A well-connected leader with a *positive* public reputation would help the GOP recruit talent, raise money, & win elections. That’s the job. An effective Minnehaha chair would bring in $20,000 per year, spend conservatively, and keep finances in good shape, not bankrupt the party. The ideal candidate is strategic, media savvy, and selfless – because the chair should serve others, not glorify himself.
So what happened, is there a new chair?
The no confidence vote passed, but Tornow gaveled the meeting as adjourned (without taking a vote to adjourn, I might add) before they could bring a motion for his removal. There still were items on the agenda that they hadn’t yet discussed and he just ended the meeting because he got mad. If someone else had done that, Tornow would be screaming from the rafters that the chair shouldn’t be allowed to throw a temper tantrum and prevent the people from having their say. Such a hypocrite.
Net result: Tornow is still chair but the central committee has slapped him on the wrist.
I heard that someone tried to bring a resolution that would prevent the Minnehaha GOP from taking sides in the primary, but Tornow wouldn’t allow it saying that’s something that would need to be passed by the SDGOP as a as new bylaw. The resolution bringer argued that other counties have their own bylaws and resolutions to that effect, including Lincoln. Since it doesn’t contradict the state bylaws, it’s absolutely fine. Then Tornow apparently said no we can’t do that and moved on.
I’m not an attorney. Then again, neither is Tornow! But even I know Tornow’s wrong. Think he’s actively misleading his central committee because he doesn’t want to be prevented from using GOP resources to help Penny BayBridge and other far right candidates? Or do you think he’s so incompetent he doesn’t understand the basics of bylaws? Or any laws for that matter!
According to Robert’s Rules of order, no vote is needed to adjourn, only a motion and second
Adjourn. To bring the meeting to a halt. Second required, not debatable, and not amendable. Alternatively, instead of a motion, the chair can ask if there is any further business. If there is no response, the chair can say, “Since there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned.”
Read this:
https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/roberts-rules-of-order-for-adjournment/
“What Are the Basic Rules for Adjournment Under Robert’s Rules?
For board members who aren’t familiar with Robert’s Rules, a cheat sheet that includes the basic rules for adjournment can be helpful.
The basic rules for adjournment are:
A board member cannot interrupt a speaker who has the floor
A motion to adjourn must be seconded
A motion to adjourn is not debatable or amendable
A motion to adjourn must have a majority vote
There is an exception to the rule that a motion to adjourn is debatable. If the motion to adjourn clarifies when adjournment will occur, or it sets a specific time when the group will adjourn, this part of the motion can be debated or amended.
When a motion to adjourn fails, ordinary business continues. The motion to adjourn cannot be reconsidered, but it can be renewed later in the meeting.”
Notice the fourth basic rule for a motion to adjourn:
A motion to adjourn must have a majority vote
Here’s another one — Robert’s Rules for Dummies!
https://www.dummies.com/article/business-careers-money/business/general-business/roberts-rules-for-adjourning-a-meeting-189683/
Notice that it specifically says a motion to adjourn:
“Must have a majority vote.”
Makes sense. Otherwise, the chair and two of his allies can railroad everybody else in the meeting, which is exactly what Tornow did!
From Tim H’s post: “Alternatively, instead of a motion, the chair can ask if there is any further business. If there is no response, the chair can say, ‘Since there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned.'”
That didn’t happen here, Tim. Tornow didn’t ask if they had further business. In fact, they were in the middle of the agenda — they most clearly had further business. If Tornow had asked if there was further business, I know several people who would have shouted that they did — including a vote of no confidence in the secretary (Tana Brummet) and, once that passed, a motion to remove Tornow and Brummet. No matter how you look at it, Tim, Tornow improperly adjourned the meeting.