Published on
Brevard County’s Republican civil war has turned into a full-blown legitimacy crisis.
On a local radio show this morning, State Committeewoman Marie Rogerson and Treasurer Randy Stackhouse tried to defend the November 24 “election” that seven people claim made John Dittmore BREC Chair and Josiah Gattle State Committeeman.
Their new story:
But that story does not match eyewitness accounts, and more importantly, it does not match Rogerson’s own written explanation of what happened.
Her “Nov 24 Meeting Rules” document, which she has circulated as a defense, describes a sequence of actions that cannot legally happen inside a meeting that is already in progress. Under Robert’s Rules of Order and the party’s own governing documents, the actions she describes amount to a separate, splinter meeting, not a valid continuation of the official BREC meeting.
This is not just political drama. It is a procedural hijacking.
Below, this article does two things:
Under RPOF Rules of Procedure, Rule 6, once Chairman Rick Lacey was removed, Vice Chair Dave Fosdick became Acting Chair and had to call an election within 60 days.
On November 24:
There were disputes about who counted as a member:
At some point, seven members, including Rogerson and Stackhouse, broke away from the main body. Witnesses say they moved to a side area or hallway, set up at tables with laptops and paperwork, and claimed they were “continuing” the meeting.
They say they:
Meanwhile, in the main room:
A pro-faction newsletter later claimed everything was “legal and without incident.”
On November 25, Acting Chair Dave Fosdick sent a letter to members calling it what it was: a “secret meeting” that did not have quorum and did not lawfully elect anyone.
Today on the radio, Rogerson and Stackhouse tried to reframe it:
Eyewitnesses are not buying it. They say the group was outside or off to the side, not at the center of the meeting, and that no election took place in front of the membership at any point before adjournment.
On air, Rogerson and Stackhouse made several key claims:
Online, Florida GOP Chair Evan Power congratulated the new “leadership,” but the grassroots response on X is skeptical. Posts under tags like #BRECChaos and #BRECScandal openly mock the idea of a secret table vote inside a crowded room being called a legitimate election.
The biggest problem for Rogerson and Stackhouse is not social media. It is Rogerson’s own document. Here it is below for your reference:
Nov-24-Meeting-RulesHere are the key lines from Marie Rogerson’s “Nov 24 Meeting Rules” memo, which she uses to justify the election:
“The Acting Chair and Secretary refused to preside.”
“The Treasurer may call the meeting to order.”
“The assembly may elect a chair pro tem.”
“Rules were adopted.”
“The election proceeded.”
“The meeting continued without the Acting Chair.”
She also claims there is some “sample procedure” from RPOF that allows a chairman to be elected without quorum. That “sample” does not appear in the RPOF Rules of Procedure, Rule 6, and even if it exists, it cannot override the County Model Constitution and BREC Bylaws that require a quorum at a duly called meeting.
On the radio, she now claims all of this happened “at a table in the room.” But those written lines describe something very different:
They describe the start of a separate meeting, not the continuation of an existing one.
And that is where Robert’s Rules comes in.
Robert’s Rules of Order (12th Edition, adopted by reference through County Model Constitution Article X) tells us exactly how meetings, officers, and elections must work.
Rogerson’s description fails at every point.
Quote:
“The Acting Chair and Secretary refused to preside.”
Under RONR §47:8–13, if a chair refuses to preside, the assembly must handle it openly:
That cannot happen quietly at a side table. It must happen in front of everyone.
No such motion was heard. No such vote was taken.
So either:
Either way, seven people at a table cannot privately decide they are now in charge.
Quote:
“The Treasurer may call the meeting to order.”
This is the most damaging line in her entire document.
Calling a meeting to order is something that happens before the meeting starts, not in the middle of it.
On November 24, Acting Chair Fosdick called the meeting to order in the main room. The meeting had already begun.
That means:
Her own words show the seven were starting their own session, not continuing the official one.
Quote:
“The assembly may elect a chair pro tem.”
That is true in theory. But what matters is whether it actually happened.
Under RONR §47:12–14, to elect a chair pro tem, the assembly must:
There is no claim that any of that happened in front of the 150 plus people in the room. No one reports any such vote.
Saying “the assembly may elect” does not mean the assembly did.
If no vote happened in the room, no chair pro tem was lawfully elected.
Quote:
“Rules were adopted.”
Under RONR §10:1 and §4:2, §4:12, adopting rules requires:
Again, none of this occurred in front of the members.
No one in the room heard any proposed rules read out loud.
No one heard a motion.
No one voted.
That means no rules were adopted in the meeting. Any “rules” seven people agreed to at a table were adopted privately, outside the assembly, which has no legal effect.
Quote:
“The election proceeded.”
The BREC Bylaws require:
“All elections shall be by secret ballot.”
Robert’s Rules fills in the details:
On November 24, none of that happened in the main room.
You cannot have a valid secret ballot election without ballots, tellers, and a reported result.
So no matter how many times they say “the election proceeded,” there was no valid election held in the meeting.
Quote:
“The meeting continued without the Acting Chair.”
Under RONR §40:9, a minority cannot “continue” a meeting apart from the assembly. The “assembly” is defined in RONR §1:1–3 as the body acting through the will of the majority.
If 150 plus BREC members:
then the meeting did not “continue” without the Acting Chair.
Instead, a small group held their own session that had no authority over the official meeting.
Rogerson and Stackhouse keep repeating that quorum is just “who is in the room,” not who votes. They cite Robert’s Rules and their own Facebook posts to say that quorum is based on physical presence.
It is only half true.
Robert’s Rules does say quorum is based on the number “present,” but present has a specific meaning.
That means:
BREC’s Bylaws require 40 percent of all members for a quorum. Even if we ignored that and used a majority default, seven is not enough.
Quorum belongs to the meeting, not to a table.
Taken together, the facts and the rules show:
Under:
the “election” carried out by seven people at a table or in a hallway is a nullity. It has no legal effect.
Vacancies remain:
If BREC members or RPOF officials want to challenge this, here are the key arguments and citations you can use:
If this matter goes to the RPOF Grievance Committee under RPOF Rule 22, or to the State Executive Committee for final authority under Article XII of the County Model Constitution, these are the arguments and citations that need to be front and center.
Lastly, Stackhouse claimed on the radio that the “rule” about members losing their positions after missing three consecutive meetings had been changed or no longer applied. That is false.
It is not simply a local “rule.” It is Florida law.
Florida Statute 103.131 states that every political party office is deemed vacant in certain cases, including when a member:
“fails to attend, without good and sufficient reason, three consecutive meetings, regular or called, of the committee of which he or she is a member.”
That is F.S. 103.131(8).
This is not something BREC or even RPOF can quietly waive or “update” in a bylaw. It is state law that applies to all political party offices in Florida.
If any of the seven who conducted the November 24 “election” had already missed three consecutive properly noticed meetings without good cause, then their seats were already vacant under Florida law. That would mean they were not legally members of the committee, could not vote, and could not hold office on November 24.
That issue alone is grounds for a further challenge and a detailed review of attendance records and notice.
