Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15


December 1 8, 2 015 at 1 0:25:26 PM Eastern Standard Time


Friday, December 18, 2015 at 10:24:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
Marilyn Marks


Annotations in red font by Marilyn Marks.
I was included on the email thread.
Notes created 12.18.15
Joy Hoffmans email follows after several others-- beginning with mine of
yesterday afternoon to 33 Republican leaders, calling for a serious investigation
and potentially a new election when it appears that Leing did not achieve a
majority voteeven excluding the controversial proxy question. Hoffman is the
Chair of Chairs of the party, and the Chair of the Teller Committee.
--Leo Jankowski (ExComm and Bylaws Committee) responded to my email.
--Dick Elsner (Chair of the Audit Committee), who gave the nominating speech for
Leing, responded to Leo.
--Anil Mathai (ExComm and Rules Committees) then responded to all.
--Kay Rendleman, (Chair of Rules Committee) weigh in to support Anils
--Then Hoffmans entertaining email rolls in with hydra-headed lashing out in all
directions, fabricating rules, allegations, and even accusing Mark Baisley of
racism as his reason for requesting verification of George Leings win in the
National Committeeman race. She concludes that the Credentials Report details
may be compromised and not authentic when they are disclosed. Wow! What a
bizarre assertion! When Isaiah Hess (Credentials Committee) publishes it, it will
be easily verifiable, as at least 125 people were witnesses as to who was at the
meeting. And the proxies are easily verifiable as well. Hoffman stomps her feet
with a dozen or so the racist ate my homework excuses for the fact that her
Teller Committee results can likely never be verified. If she wanted to verify the
credentials report, she could. Any errors can be corrected.
Hoffman as Teller Committee Chairman refused to allow the candidates watchers
to observe the votes on the ballots or verify the ballot counts while the counting
was taking place.
From: Joy Homan
Date: Friday, December 18, 2015 at 4:19 PM
To: all members of Execu4ve Commi8ee, Rules Commi8ee, majority of Teller and
Creden4als Commi8ee, and 3 NCM candidates (email addresses suppressed by M.
Page 1 of 1 4

Subject: RE: NaKonal CommiMeeman awed elecKon---request for review and correcKve
I have been following the conversaKons for several days. There are several issues, and in
many cases, Anil, who was not there, has hit on several.

The Chain of Control of the Credential is in question. (Chain of control of
credential??? It is not even supposed to be a secure document, and the list of credentialed
voting members and challenged members is to be available for inspection by all, according
to Roberts Rules under which we operate. Hoffman is attempting to make this important
control document that is to be available to all into a private document to conceal from the
membership. Why?)

Now that Mr. Hess has broken the condenKal nature of the CredenKal CommiMee, a
very serious breach, in my opinion, occurred. (The CredenKals CommiMee work is in NO
WAY condenKal. The bylaws allow all members to inspect the credenKaling process, and
Roberts Rules allow for the inspecKon of the list of credenKaled and challenged
members who can vote.) I dont know what is true or not. As I have not seen
credenKals, I would be relying, as many, many of you, on word from other people. (The
easy answer is to publish the full credenKals report with the list of credenKaled voKng
members for the meeKng. It is required to be available to all. If there are errors, they will
be immediately obvious. ) This is the facts as I know them:
The CredenKals CommiMee was jammed into a very Kny area.
The CredenKal CommiMee was under incredible pressure because of that
small space (The credenKaling process is not a surprise, and it is incumbent on
the party to provide adequate faciliKes, not compromise the process through
inadequate faciliKes.)
There was aMempted inKmidaKon of CredenKal team.
A preliminary CredenKal Report was accepted as fact for the purposes of
voKng, not merely to hold the meeKng, although the Chair never gave a
subsequent amendment. This is SOP. ( Untrue. The audio recording plays back
a subsequent report in the nal report of the CredenKals CommiMee where
the new informaKon of 242 potenKal maximum votes was disclosed. The
SOP was followed.) Recording available at
It was never

Page 2 of 1 4

fully understood about the status of the 30 proxies that Isaiah was xated on
protesKng, in spite of the decisions of the SCC at the September, 2015 meeKng.
(The decision of the SCC in Sept was to retain the bylaw without amendment.
There is general agreement, including by the Chairman, that the bylaw does
not permit out-of-consituency proxies. The Chairman aMempted to extend the
non-compliant pracKce just one more meeKng, before purportedly planning
to address it in 2016. )
Therefore, as the State Party is not in possession of the Credential
Committee documents, the delegate packets that were not distributed or
any other document in regards to Credentials, it appears to me that any
attempt at this point to modify, complain or change the Credentials would
open up several lines of question.(And that is a good thing, to open up
questions and obtain satisfactory answers! Why would Hoffman consider
lines of questions a bad thing? Shouldnt members have the expectation
that their elections can be verified? )
I feel that Isaiah did the best he, and his commiMee, could given the
condiKons: screaming Bonus Members, harassing comments, too close
quarters and so on.
The fallacy that all proxies voted for Mr. Leing, is beyond fantasy. StaKsKcs
would point to the improbability of same. (No one said that all were voted or
Leing. It is standard procedure, generally a legal requirement in public
elecKons, that the quesKoned votes are subtracted from the winners total to
determine whether the outcome is potenKally aected by the quesKonable
votes. If so, the elecKon controversy proceeds with that number as the
threshold. Given that there is a secret ballot, that is the only fair assumpKon to
make. That is why it is in almost all states laws.)
To the Teller CommiMee:
10. There were teams of two for the purposes of counKng. There were 4
witnesses in the room---1 for each candidate and 1 from the State Party
11. Every step of the way, the proceedings were stopped to receive the
permission and consent of each witness. (But the witnesses were not
permiMed visual access to the contents of the ballots. They were not permiMed
to verify the count. Homan generated those nonsensical rules.)
12. MulKple checks and balances were in place during that Kme, as witnessed by

Page 3 of 1 4

the Witnesses. (But they were apparently ineecKve, given that we have a
count and a recount that do not agree, and neither of the totals is
mathemaKcally possible based on the number of fracKonal votes. The Tellers
report is just not credible.)
13. Due to aMempted inKmidaKon by an elecKon/candidate witness, last Kme,
visual observaKon was allowed, (but no visual access was allowed to observe
what was on the face of the ballotsthe votes!.) but no witness was allowed
to handle or touch either tellers or ballots.(I was in the counKng room in
March, as was Dave Gill and Nick Lundberg. There was no aMempted
inKmidaKon by anyone. This is a another bizarre red herring.)
14. Everything from the Teller CommiMee was surrendered to the State at the
CompleKon of the Teller CommiMee.
15. Someone aMempted to foist their ballot on me aler the Teller CommiMee
had concluded its job and was angry at the refusal, on my part, to count his
ballot. (That tells us that the denominator in the calculaKon should be reduced
by one in addiKon to the one we are aware of who lel without voKng to no
greater than 240.)

I can not prove or disprove anything that Isaiah has posted. (I dont have the
reference.) I think that is a violation of my personal business and confidentiality
as well as every member of the State Central Committee.(What is the violation of
privacy?? "Every member" of the 459 members of the SCC has had their privacy
violated over this??) The Colorado Republican Party, and its Committee is not a
public voting entity, such as a candidate, and our BUSINESS IS PRIVATE. (How
can the business be private when the meetings are open to the public and the
press?) It disappoints me greatly. Again, the reports are tainted as they are not
in the office, under appropriate security. (She is claiming that the easily
verifiable credential reports are tainted? The can be easily tested if published,
as over 130 people were present who will be able to note errors of inclusion or
exclusion. And we have a few video tapes and pictures of many people in the
room) I have no reason to believe in the authenticity of anything that will be
displayed, either online or elsewhere. (But it is so very easy to check that when
the list if published it will be verified easily by having numerous attendees review
it. )

Page 4 of 1 4

I have been fascinated at the aMenKon that has been given by members who were not
there and are upset by proxy, and those who are not party to this, but wish to cause
problems. ( Count me among those who wish to cause problems when elecKons
contain material irregulariKes and ocials are making wild excuses! ) Over Kme, I have
worked with ReKred Chairs Baisley and YMerberg. Both are worthy gentlemen and an
asset to the State Party. But what makes me most uncomfortable, is that this looks like
angry white guy who didnt get elected upset that a New face, and a Minority, at that,
did. (What a grasp of desperaKon. Those of us dissenKng are RACISTS? I supported
George Leing for the post, and I am protesKng more loudly than Baisley.) I am hoping,
beyond my wildest dreams, that this is not the undercurrent or the intent of this. (That is
such a ridiculous allegaKon made out of desperaKon that all Republican leaders in the
state party need to read.)

From: Kay Rendleman
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 12:35 PM
To: Same group as above
Subject: Re: NaKonal CommiMeeman awed elecKon---request for review and correcKve
Well said Anil

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Anil Mathai
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 12:06 PM
To:Same group as above
Subject: Re: National Committeeman flawed election---request for review and
corrective action

Good Afternoon All,

We have an awesome responsibility before us in all matters that come before the
CO GOP Executive Committee whether they are valid or not valid. Lets
evaluate the issue at hand to determine its validity. But before we do that:
Lets take moving variables (like geography) out of our discussion as we
all can conclude that a SCC Member from a Small County is equal to an SCC
Member from a Large County (all are equal under our platform and bylaws).
Lets take our personal positions on proxies out (in regards to its use, lack
of, or abuse, if any) of our discussion.
Lets take the candidates for NCM election off the table as that information
is irrelevant.
Page 5 of 1 4

Here are the issues that we need to deal with. Let us look at the process, the
question of concern, deal with the facts and determine if the concern is valid or
not AND if valid, then decide on effective and expedient corrective action.
Concern (my understanding): The Total Votes for election of a new NCM
exceeded that of the Approved Credentials Report, correct? If so, what are the



How many people were credentialed? According to the official final

report recorded by audio (https://soundcloud.com/user408365147/audio-20151gopcredentials) 250 people were credentialed, holding a total of 242 votes.
(However, Baisley reported on Thursday that he was told that 242.5 is
the correct number of votes credentialed.)
How many proxies were accepted and credentialed? According to
the official final report126 proxies were approved.
How many proxies were tossed out due to incomplete form, wrong person
carried it, etc.? According to the report- 5 for lack of a witness.
What was the final approved credential report (amount of SCC members
able to vote) for the election? 250 people, and 242 votes.
What was the vote count for each candidate? (This number keeps
changing in the reporting. The official teller report is Baisley 84, Leing
143.87, Ytterberg 36 Total=263.87 (this is from the audio file) [ The .87
was a mathematically impossible fraction on Saturday ] Baisley
reported that on Thursday, he was informed of a recount by GOP HQ
and the totals were Baisley 84, Leing 141.167, Ytterberg 36 for a total
of 261.167 (another mathematically impossible fractional result.)
Did that total vote county exceed the number of the approved credentialed
report? Yes, by roughly 19 votes, but the totals are inaccurate.
If so, why? INVESTIGATION time (assuming the CO GOP Leadership
with Candidates are doing this now?) (This should have been done by an
independent committee, NOT by staff, leadership or candidates.)
Did we follow the bylaws on credentialing? No, that has been
acknowledged by the Credentials Committee and Chairman House.
Was there an error in Credentialing duties and/or final report?
Unknown. We request that Isaiah Hess, Credentials Chair, publicly post
the list of voting members names credentialed and rejected.
Was there an error in Teller duties and/or final report? Appears so
based on changing numbers and impossible results.
If there are no issues, the election stands as is and no further action is
Page 6 of 1 4



If there are issues, then we have to go to Corrective Action.
Do we have an immediate Corrective Action if there was an error?
Will a recount be done? A recount has been done by staff
and Hoffman. See above. However, valid recount cannot be
now undertaken as security has not been maintained. Recounted
ballots counted number still exceeded eligible total.
Are the ballots secure? Likely too late to be concerned. Proper
custody likely already lost at the recount without proper
Will re-count be done by new tellers? Was undertaken by Joy
Hoffman and staff. The standard practice in recounts is that they
are performed by people independent of the original counters.
House had the recount undertaken by the same Chair.
Did the new numbers align with the approved Credentials Report?
No, see above.
If there is doubt on the Corrective Action or numbers do not align,
then a re-election must occur.
If there is no doubt during the Corrective Action and numbers do
align with Credentials report and winner is still same as current (with
over 50%), then issue is resolved and we can issue a report of how the
process was re-verified.
i. [sic] The CO GOP must
identify Preventative Actions to prevent this in the future.
Will we have a Preventative Action to prevent this in the future?
If errors were identified, we must have a team to determine future
preventative actions so no issues come up when we have our 2016 State

Ok those are my thoughts. We need to humbly ensure:

we followed our bylaws, then rules (if not in conflict to the bylaws and if
approved). [The Rules Committee failed to address the bylaws conflict for
this meeting.]

there is no actual (fact) or image (perception) of dishonesty

through this process. This serious and uncomfortable question needs
to be asked, evaluated and thoroughly answered. There are few
innocent explanations for this discrepancy, although it is possible that
some voting members got packets and failed to sign in. That should be
easy to determine.

If mistakes were made, we need to identify them and correct them

Page 7 of 1 4

including Corrective Action and Preventative Actions that might be

unpleasant but needed. This must not be a scapegoating process or
witch-hunt but an honest evaluation of how to make our process better
if mistakes were made. The party officials must not be allowed to just
say, we will do better next time. If someone has "stuffed the ballot
box," they should be asked to resign their posts.

If no mistakes were made, awesome! And our process evaluation

only makes us stronger and a clean election only build more trust. Yes,
the verifying documentation should be posted on line for all to see. We
will learn from our mistakes, and should not attempt to conceal them.
Our responsibility as CO GOP Executive Committee Members should be to
build greater Trust (via transparency and following of our bylaws and rules, if
applicable) with All of our Republican Voters and in turn many UAFs will come
back also. Again, how we deal with this issue will conclude with more of our
Republican voters trusting us (thereby helping us win) or not trusting us (thereby
not helping us and we lose). I am glad to be part of an amazing group of leaders
from throughout Colorado so Lets do what is right and honorable regardless of
what others say; our credibility could be at stake! Thanks and God bless.
Anil Mathai
-----Original Message----From: Dick Elsner
To: Leo Jankowski
Cc:Same group as above
Sent: Fri, Dec 18, 2015 11:03 am
Subject: Re: National Committeeman flawed election---request for review and
corrective action
I don't agree with your assessment. We don't have the time to run another
election before the RNC has their meeting, and I think by the vote count it is
pretty obvious that one candidate is preferred. I think that your assumption that
all of the votes would be subtracted from one candidate is terribly misguided. (No
one said to run the new election before January meeting. There are plenty of
good solutions for attendance at that meeting by a Representative of the party.
While yes, once candidate seems to be preferred, that is not our standard
required in the bylaws. A majority is required to winnot a plurality. Elsner is
arguing against the standard rules of election controversies. When votes are in
Page 8 of 1 4

arguing against the standard rules of election controversies. When votes are in
doubt, they are subtracted from the winner to determine whether the worst
case could impact the outcome. If so, there is to be a new election in most
situations in public elections. )
As far as the proxies, I find it interesting that the person who benefited most from
the inclusion of proxies two years ago in an election to fill a vacancy in vice-chair
is now complaining about us allowing proxies this time around. (A lot of people
are complaining about the violation of the bylaws, including some of us who were
supporting Leing.)
I also find it very disturbing that people are so interested in not allowing some
hard working Republicans to participate in the process. The weather on Saturday
is a prime example of what the small counties must deal with. It is not always
possible to get to these meetings, and if our State Representatives or Senators,
or an elected official can be there, the only choice is to give them our proxy. (The
body voted in September to retain the bylaw as is. If long distance attendance is
an issue, it is plenty easy to provide for remote attendance and remote voting, if
the members want that. I watched the proceedings 1600 miles away via Internet
on Saturday.)
I know that you come from a large county, so you don't understand the problems
that rural Colorado has. One thing I would like to point out is that the small
counties are the ones that increased our percentage of votes for Republicans in
the last election. A simple way to test this is to look at how the delegates to our
upcoming assembly are apportioned. All of the large counties lost delegates from
the last assembly, but many of the small counties increased their delegate count,
indicating they did a much better job of getting the vote out.
What you are trying to do is alienate a good many of the Republicans that carry
this party in off year elections. (Accusation that asking for compliance with the
bylaws Is trying to alienate Republicans who carry the party??? That seems
rather extreme.)
I agree that there are issues around proxies. I was hoping that the by-laws
committee would listen to the suggestions from the executive committee, but your
chose to ignore us. (Cant any member bring a bylaw proposal with 30 days
Richard Elsner
Park County
From Leo Jankowski
Page 9 of 1 4

Subject: Re: National Committeeman flawed election---request for review and

corrective action
Hi all,
Please see the below post from Mark Baisley posted last night on Facebook. I
have added the bold below for emphasis.
I apologize for my appearance of tranquility on the topic of the National
Committeeman vote challenge. Much has happened, and continues to
happen regarding the vote count from Saturday. Since I am running this to
ground as the Bylaws Committee Chairman, I wish that it were Luke Kirk or
Anil Mathai who was the conservative / liberty candidate, but alas Since I
introduced the challenge here earlier, I will offer this update:
Chairman Steve House and I have spoken several times this week and he
shares my angst about the discrepancies. On Wednesday, Steve called Teller
Committee Chairman Joy Hoffman in to the office and directed that the
ballots be recounted along with two GOP staff members. As would be
expected because of the impossible mathematical outcome of 263.87,
there was a different total. The numbers that they arrived at Wednesday were
36 for Ytterberg (no change), 84 for Baisley (no change), and 141.167 for
Leing (down from 143.87, a difference of 2.703). [note that these are still
mathematically impossible numbers]
Very obviously, something went terribly wrong at Saturdays meeting. The two
most troubling factors are (1) that the [newly-revised] vote total of 261.167
exceeds the credentialed votes by 18.667 votes and (2) a violation of the
bylaw regarding proxies was permitted and even validated by majority
vote. The reality is that bylaws cannot be suspended by the committee,
even with a 100% vote.
Chairman House is giving me complete access and is listening to my
reasoning. I am not ready to predict the outcome of this challenge. But, we
should all insist on a level of integrity that will finally restore confidence in the
Republican Party processes. That trust was obliterated at the state assembly
in 2004 and the shortsightedness of centralized control has been keeping
virtue at bay.
The following comments are mine (not Mark's)The results considering the new (but still inaccurate) counts are as follows:
Page 1 0 of 1 4

141.167 (Leing) (~54% of preliminary but likely inaccurate 261.167)

84 (Baisley)
36 (Ytterberg)
I disagree slightly with Leos calculations below IF we assume that Leing got 261.167
votes (although the fraction is impossible), and we know that the credentialed maximum
votes is 240 or lees (Tina Griffiths left without voting, and Hoffman mentions above another
uncast ballot), there are at least 21.167 illegitimate votes. (261.167 less 240 maximum
possible = 21.167). Subtracting 21.167 from 141.167 Leing votes gives Leing 120 votes of
240 total or exactly 50%. Not a majority.

When we remove the total excess votes (votes above the credentials report total
possible of 242, although Mark reports 242.5) from the victor, the numbers are:
122 (Leing) (50.6%) (Assuming all votes were cast)
84 (Baisley)
36 (Ytterberg)
Considering the inability to verify the result, the razor thin margin and additional
factors impacting the result (the excess vote count may be higher if people left
without voting or abstained, the credentialing of certain proxies in direct
opposition to the bylaws), the right thing to do is to call a new meeting and
hold a new election to fill the National Committeeman vacancy, after a thorough
review is done to evaluate the source of the problem.
Thanks and regards,
Leo Jankowski
Member, Bylaws Committee
CD-1 Rep to the Executive Committee
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Marilyn Marks wrote:
To Teller, Credentials, Rules, and Executive Committees
December 17, 2015
RE: Colorado GOP National Committeeman flawed election
Members of the Credentials, Teller and Rules Committees:
As a long time activist for fair elections in Colorado, I am writing to urge you to
take action to thoroughly evaluate the December 12, 2015 election for National
Committeeman and take action to ensure that a fair and accurate election was,
or will be conducted. If the Colorado Republican Party does not conduct clean,
fair, transparent elections for its internal operations, we have no credibility when
we attempt to promote fair election legislation or conduct in public elections.
This is an urgent matter of core principles requiring our immediate attention.
Page 1 1 of 1 4

Summary of Election Result Issue

George Leing was the declared winner with 143.87 votes of the total votes
counted of 263.87. One of the most glaring problems is that Credentials
Committee and Chairman House declared 242 votes as the maximum possible
number of eligible votes.
In addition, there were 30 ballots issued to proxy holders who were not qualified
under the bylaws to receive ballots. This complex question resulted in a floor
debate and vote where the body essentially decided to ignore its own bylaws in
order to permit these improper proxies. No parliamentarian was present to
advise against the inappropriate procedure to ignore bylaws. The 30 improper
proxies were included in the 242 stated maximum potential vote count above.
Additionally, there are fractional votes permitted under the bylaws which on
Saturday were in either 14, 1/3 or 12 vote increments. A fraction of .87 as a
resulting tally is not mathematically possible.
During the Teller Committee report, Chairman House announced that 122.5
votes were required to win the election on the first round. Yet the total votes
were purportedly 263.87, and a majority is required to win. 122.5 votes is not a
While Leing was credited with 143.87 votes of 263.87 counted, (54.52%), it
appears that few of the reported numbers are accurate (whether or not one
considers the 30 non-compliant proxies.)
Depending on the assumptions made, Leings total votes range from 43% to
54.52% of the votes cast. There is no clear victory for Leing, based on the
facts made public to date.
Post-election review
On Saturday night as I puzzled through the numbers reported by friends and
those available on audio recordings, I posted the question of the impossibility of
the reported numbers on Facebook page Colorado GOP Watch
Further questions were advanced, and both George Leing and Mark Baisley
inquired of headquarters, seeking answers. Chairman House offered Baisley
the opportunity to review the ballots and records for himself, which has not yet
occurred. (I have urged Mark to undertake this review through a committee
Page 1 2 of 1 4

process, where custody of questionable ballots is undertaken with multiple

witnesses, under agreed upon guidelines.) Questions have been posed to
various committee members, but no substantive responses have been
Various comments have been posted on the GOP Watch page (linked above)
from members of the Teller and Credentials Committees. They further detail the
confusion in the management of the election process.
What could have happened?
There are numerous possibilities, ranging from innocent error to intentional
rigging of the election. We all hope for the discovery of an innocent arithmetic
---Simple arithmetic errors could be at fault in the ballot counting room,
although Im assured that so many people tested the count that addition errors
are unlikely. (Yet a .87 fractional vote is impossible to achieve, but it is the
official total.)
---Simple arithmetic errors could be the source in the credentialing process,
causing an error in calculating the number of voters present in person or by
---Ballot packets could have been issued to legitimate voters who erroneously
failed to sign in and be counted in the total number present.
---Ballots could have been illegitimately taken from inventories of unused
ballots and fraudulently voted.
There are a variety of areas where material irregularities could have occurred.
The Committees have a responsibility to correct their work and attempt a
resolution. If simple resolution and answers are not immediately forthcoming
from Headquarters, I urge the committees that conducted the election to
organize an investigation of the problem, and depending on the findings,
determine whether a new election is merited.
Why not just let it go?
Some argue that the remaining term is only through mid-July, and there will be
a new election in April for that office, and little harm is done if the wrong person
is in office. The message this sends to voters and Republican candidates is
devoid of principle.
Page 1 3 of 1 4

That office holds a much coveted delegate vote at the July convention.
How can the party take a stand for fair and transparent public elections, if this
unverifiable, flawed election is allowed to stand as acceptable? Imagine the
loss of credibility with voters. Imagine the lack of confidence suffered by wouldbe convention delegates as they consider running at the state convention.
How can our legislators promote fair election legislation without being ridiculed
by the Democrats for the low standards we adopt in the party elections?
A New Election is Merited
While many of us want to learn that simple math errors or other innocent
explanations can be documented to verify the outcome of Leings victory, as a
practical matter, it seems unlikely, given what we know.
Additionally, the 30 proxies permitted although fully acknowledged (even by
Chairman House) to be in violation of the bylaws, should not have been
permitted on the theory of past precedent. Bylaws rule, period. But they did not
even meet the test of past precedent. House allowed proxies to be held by
state party officials, including himself, when that practice had been forced to a
close in 2013 as non-compliant. House was also improperly carrying proxies.
The impact of the improper votes is not known, and whether they impact the
outcome is most likely impossible to know.
It was also reported that candidates observers were not permitted to have
visual access to the voted ballots in the counting room to determine that the
votes were being properly tallied.
Summary and action request
Given that it appears that the election is unverifiable, please organize a joint
committee process to address the details of the election and determine if the
outcome can be verified using current bylaws and election rules. If not, please
consider a joint recommendation to call for a new election.
Allowing the party to hold flawed elections with no accountability sets a
shameful tone and culture for the party going into 2016 with so many important
elections. Please contact your fellow members and follow through with your
duty to ensure a fair and transparent election for National Committeeman.
In the interest of full disclosure, I supported George Leing for chair and asked
Page 1 4 of 1 4

friends to vote for him. Therefore, I am not displeased with the declared
outcome, but I quite unhappy about the process. This process is unfair to all
three candidates, including George, who should not be required to take office
under a cloud that will follow him through his tenure.
I am happy to answer any questions about the process I undertook to review
the data, or any other question you may have.
Please ensure that your fellow committee members receive a copy of this
email. I did not have addresses for all.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marilyn Marks
cc: Executive Committee

Page 1 5 of 1 4