January 6, 2016
In an unexpected diversion from efforts to “MAKE OUR COURTHOUSE GREAT AGAIN” and a highly important effort to bring transparency to district court utilization through a recent Rule 12 public information request Judge Candidate Eric Yollick now has a target of opportunity in his sights, the Montgomery County Tea Party.
Yollick initially made known his displeasure with MCTP after the group announced its’ candidate recommendations and endorsements for the Republican Primary in various local and state races including Yollick’s own race for 9th District Court. MCTP picked rival Kate Bihm over Yollick a former MCHD board member and 1st ADA Phil Grant.
Yollicks’ vetting video, profile and MCTP assesment can be viewed online at usvotesmart.com.
In a very rowdy press release first published by County Citizen Yollick denounced the MCTP vetting committee as “blithering idiots” and belittled the groups small official membership. Not wanting the excitement to ebb Candidate Eric Yollick has fired another round at the MCTP in an email addressed to County Citizen by challenging the vetting and endorsement event that was attended by at least one sitting Texas Supreme Court Justice in a claim that the proceedings lacked a quorum. Yollick writes ~
Please note that when bylaws fail to address the quorum for a meeting, then Robert’s Rules of Order requires a majority of the members to constitute a quorum. Please see Rule 64 of Robert’s Rules of Order (Revised).Therefore, MCTP failed to have a quorum at their endorsement membership meeting this past Monday, because their bylaws do not address the number of members necessary for a quorum. They claim to have 47 members. A quorum would be 24 members. Only 21 members (not counting the 35 Yollick supporters whose membership applications and dues were rejected in violation of MCTP’s website page on membership) were present. Only 17 of those 21 voted in favor of the endorsements. 8 of those 17 were the 8 blithering idiots of the vetting committee.
I’m very disappointed in your conduct. I request that you remove the name “Tea Party” from your organization and replace it with the phrase “Liberal Democrat.” That is more apt. You don’t confront candidates with allegations. Rather, you are under the direct control of a special interest group – bail bondsmen – who have a strong financial interest in seeing that their chosen candidates win.