.

One More Try: St. Charles County Republicans to Caucus Tuesday

GOP faithful to gather at 7 p.m. on April 10 at the St. Charles County Convention Center.

The St. Charles County Republicans are ready for round two of the caucus process.

After the first attempt to caucus ended prematurely, St. Charles County residents will get a . The caucus is scheduled for  7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, at the .

The first caucus on St. Patrick's Day, at , went unfinished after a brouhaha between rival candidate supporters. A dispute arose over the use of recording devices. Supporters of Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum bickered and things escalated.

At approximately 11 a.m., rules for the event were given to the crowd, which included no videotaping. The crowd became upset with the rules and started to become verbally aggressive with event organizers and St. Peters' police officers at the scene. To deal with the unruly crowd, the officers at the caucus requested more officers to respond to the scene for crowd control.

Event organizers made the decision to shut down the event and asked for police assistance to clear the building to prevent further problems and restore order. Two people, Brent Stafford and Kenneth Suitter, were arrested for trespassing after receiving numerous warnings to leave the school property.

Tuesday's caucus will be run by David Cole, chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, who will serve as the temporary chairman for this caucus. The party’s general counsel will serve as the parliamentarian. Recording devices will be allowed on Tuesday. 

The results of the caucus could have major implications in how delegates for the second and third districts are allocated. Then again, maybe not. But after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s string of victories in various primaries, the race for the GOP nomination for president is very close to being over.

Previous caucus coverage:

Cary April 10, 2012 at 02:37 PM
This a a horribly skewed article about what happened at the St. Charles County caucus. I was there, and this article depicts an extremist view from one side only. It was the St. Charles Republican Central Committee who was responsible for the failed caucus. Why else do you think the MO GOP is running it this time around? The Central Committed, led by Bryan Spencer, Eugene Dokes and Matt Ehlen intentionally shut down with no delegates awarded, since they were not going to be successful with a premeditated rigging of the results. Don't believe me? Check out this video, shot at a Pachyderm meeting shortly after the caucus, when Bryan Spencer is caught on video discussing how the Central Committee had planned the outcome of the caucus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuQIMfMVMYg
Mike Ridgway April 10, 2012 at 04:45 PM
I agree, Cary. A terribly researched and horribly written article. Mr. Barker. I have a question for you. The rules that were distributed, were they valid and enforceable? If so, how so? I contend that they were not. They were crafted by individuals who had no authority to adopt rules and enforced by tea pot dictators who had the audacity to use armed law enforcement officers to enforce what can only be described as the most massive infringement of civil rights in Missouri in years, if not decades. The Department of Justice should be investigating this incident. And based on everything that I have been able to learn in the research I have done, Bryan Spencer, Matt Ehlen, Eugene Dokes and Cheryl Bates, among others, should be doing time in a federal penitentiary sooner than later. It's time that so-called ournalists such as the author of this article had the integrity to question, with at least a modicum of skepticism, their sources, rather than placing the blame on those that their sources so outrageously victimized.
Mike Ridgway April 10, 2012 at 04:50 PM
EVeryone needs to watch the video in Cary's comment. The premeditation which Bryan Spencer admits to, and his utter lack of remorse are bad enough. That everyone in the room (with the possible exception of the person who caught this "on film") seems to agree that they have to stand tough in the face of the public criticisms speaks, in my mind, to a criminal conspiracy to alter what can only be referred to as a federal election. Anyone have a mind to hold these people responsible for their crimes?
Joe Barker April 10, 2012 at 04:57 PM
"I agree, Cary. A terribly researched and horribly written article. The rules that were distributed, were they valid and enforceable? If so, how so?" I wasn't at the first caucus, but the facts in this article come from the police report. The police were called into the caucus because things had gotten unruly and things had to be shut down. Everything I've read and seen said the main disagreement was over the video recording equipment. This article doesn't say anything about who was right or wrong or anything like that. It simply says they tried to have a caucus, things got out of hand, and it was ended early.
Mike Ridgway April 10, 2012 at 07:06 PM
The police report? Bwahahaha! Would that be from the guys on the ground or the guys in the helicopter. In case you didn't notice, Joe, the police were the bad guys in this one. They are hardly a primary objective source. Maybe if you were to consult a parliamentarian instead. Or someone who knows something about Republican Party rules. Send me a private email, Joe, and I'll give you my best advice on how to change just a couple of things in your article so that there is no question as to where the fault lie. miketangoromeo@gmail.com or friend me in facebook www.facebook.com/mikeridgway.
Mike Ridgway April 10, 2012 at 07:19 PM
Let's take your misstatements one at a time. And for fun, we'll do it in reverse chronological order. 1) >> It simply says they tried to have a caucus, things got out of hand, and it was ended early. << Notice the reliance on the passive voice here. So question: Who tried to "have a caucus?" The people who got shut down or the people who did the shutting down? Why did things get "out of hand?" Because the people who got shut down acted in a premeditated way to decry actions on the part of the shutter downers, or because the shutter downers acted in a way to railroad the majority out of having their way? Thanks to someone who videotaped Bryan Spencer AFTER the fact, we know the answer to this question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuQIMfMVMYg Did Spencer, Ehlen, Dokes, and company have the authority to shut down the event? You might need to consult a parliamentarian, bu I don't. Only the assembly can vote to adjourn. The assembly did no such thing. The motion to adjourn was out of order because it was made by the chair himself. Further, it was out of order because there was still business to be done. The business didn't get done. It would have gotten done had a proper election for a chair been held. No such election occurred. The failure to allow the assembly to elect a chair was an egregious violation on the part of the temporary chair, Eugene Dokes. And thanks to Bryan Spencer, we now know that that too was premeditated. How are we doing so far, Joe?
Mike Ridgway April 10, 2012 at 07:32 PM
Joe Barker misstatement number 2: >> Two people, Brent Stafford and Kenneth Suitter, were arrested for trespassing after receiving numerous warnings to leave the school property. << This is a gross misrepresentation. It gives the impression that the police came up to them individually and told them that they had to leave and that they refused. The video of Brent Stafford's arrest clearly contradicts this lie. Multiple YouTube videos record the fact that Brent was surrounded by an innumerable multitude of attendees who were trying to do the work of the caucus given the fact that the motion to adjourn was illegitimate and given the fact that when a chair vacates his post, that the assembly has the right to elect another chair and continue the business for which the assembly was called. Stafford was arrested not because he refused to leave. He left when handcuffed without any resistance. He was arrested because he was exercising his right to act.. If there were any truth at all to Mr. Barker's claim here, then every other person who was still "loitering" on the grass of the school would have been arrested. There was no need to arrest anyone. The question is where did the order to arrest originate. In the fertile minds of mindless police, or in the more sinister minds of Spencer, Ehlen, and Dokes. Well, ask the police. They place the blame for the decision to quash proceedings squarely on the officiators -- i,e., the officiators should be indicted and prosecuted.
Matt West April 10, 2012 at 07:47 PM
Yes, however the failure to mention that that the rule was made illegally by the sub-committee BEFORE the caucus in private meetings, is a key piece of information pertaining to this event. The reason for the disturbance was certainly due to the rule around the video camera. HOWEVER you fail to state that the sub-committee was at fault for this because they had absolutely not right to enforce the rule and calling the authorities was essentially a violation of the first amendment rights by those arrested. Sorry Joe I would have to agree with the above, this article was written with either lacking major knowledge of what actually happened at the event or for some reason a desire to leave out the part that the Sub-committee was at fault. Your right the article doesn't say who was right or wrong or anything like that, but when you put in half facts it leaves readers with a wrong impression on what happened. The way your article reads puts more emphasis on the "brouhaha between rival candidate supporters," rather then the actual issue at hand, the wrongful placement/enforcement of the video rule followed by not allowing the caucus to actually vote on the rule and the fact that the police department infringed on several peoples amendment rights.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »