www.taxaflora.com

Aristotle discussed the concept of inertia with his philosophy students. More recently Isaac Newton addressed the subject in his First Law of Dynamics although he did not refer to the idea as inertia. The basic idea, paraphrased, is that an object at rest remains at rest while an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an external force. The same thing is true of people and in particular Grangers. In the Grange one of the more common comments is “but we have always done it that way.” Change does not come easily in the Grange. Inertia rules.

In the approximately 12 years I spent at the State level elections followed the rule of inertia: If you were an incumbent you would be returned to office until you notified the membership that you were no longer a candidate. New members to the Grange complained about the system used to nominate candidates. Since campaigning for office was contrary to bylaws how was one supposed to be nominated? Those that became impatient with the process sought ways to evade the restrictions set by the bylaws.

This year it was evident to me that the proper nomination process had been bypassed. People that had never received the necessary three nominations suddenly received nominations from over half the Granges participating even though the incumbent had not declared they were retiring. It was evident that the process was being acted upon by an external force. What was unclear was where that force had originated.

Various subordinate Masters had inquired of me as to what could be done when someone presented a list of who should be nominated. I wrote a Master’s Column for the Grange Bulletin devoted to examples of  the rights and wrongs of nominations.  Ed Luttrell, the National Master, did not approve of an example I used in the article and informed me that he had a right to discuss with his friends who should be nominated for office. At the time I wondered why he was so upset. Now I wonder if it was because the hypothetical example was so close to the truth. My belief is that the Officers of the Grange should keep their choices a secret so as not to improperly influence the opinions of others… whether they are friends or not. I used a statement in the oath of office to bolster my claim: “I will not take advantage of my position to bias in any way, either directly or indirectly the political or religious opinions of any member of the Order.” Ed’s opinion was that the statement didn’t apply to Grange elections but instead applied to events outside the Grange. As National Master Ed is the ultimate judge according to Bylaw.

tbc…

When people choose to be contrary sometimes a little reverse psychology may work to advantage. After Ed Luttrell was voted out of the Master’s office in the Oregon State Grange he still managed to represent his Subordinate Grange as a delegate at the State Session held each year. Ordinarily the Subordinate Master and spouse are the two delegates allowed each Grange but if they are unable or unwilling to attend the state session the Grange can elect two other members as delegates.  Apparently the Master at Ed’s Grange chose not to attend meetings of the Oregon State Grange and Ed was chosen as an alternate delegate. Ed enjoys entering into debate on issues before the delegates and often exercises his privilege to speak. The problem was that a number of members automatically voted against anything that Ed spoke for. Whenever the vote was going to be close it seemed that resolutions, good resolutions, went down to defeat if Ed spoke for passage. Perhaps a little reverse psychology is needed.

The problem of exerting influence became even greater when Ed became the National Master. He still had the right as a delegate and as a member of the Oregon State Grange to speak before the assembly. But, I would wager that even though Robert’s Rules of Order allow the chairman to speak after handing over the gavel, removing from the chair, and speaking as an ordinary member, the other delegates may not be able to separate the man from the office. Robert’s Rules emphasizes the need for the Chair to remain impartial. On certain occasions… which should be extremely rare…  when the chair believes a crucial factor has been overlooked and the duty to speak outweighs the duty of office and only then should he speak. Even though Ed is not wearing the National Sash when he speaks other members see him as the National Master. He can no longer be viewed as being impartial.

tbc…