On February 9th, 2023, Dan Grimm was appointed as parliamentarian for the LD3 meeting by Candace Czarny. After a disorganized and terrible start, Candace abdicated, appointing Dan Grimm the temporary Chair of the meeting (which is a violation of the bylaws (LD3 Bylaws which state in ARTICLE IV – ELECTED OFFICERS, Section 3. District Chairman #4 “Presiding at all meetings of the District & Board unless he/she designates another member of the Board to preside in his/her stead.” Candace instead designated an outside, non-member of LD3 to preside over the meeting in clear violation.)

Dan proceeded to then knowingly miscall voice votes, misinterpret Roberts Rules of Orders and Bylaws, stall, attempt to confuse, and generally stomp all over the rights of the LD3 PCs in a dishonest display fitting a “Hired Gun”. It was unclear whether he was being paid or not, but it now appears that misusing corrupt Parliamentarians to squash the rights of PCs and the people is the preferred method of the establishment. Do not take my word for it, at the bottom is the video proof and here are what a few PCs in LD3 had to say about Mr. Grimm:

“I found him to be way inadequate and I sure hope we did not pay him to be there. We wasted more than an hour because he didn’t know what he was doing. He had to spend considerable time looking up The Roberts rules of order. He ended up correcting himself at least 2 or more times. I also wondered why when the vote was done, why it took so long to announce the results. In some cases it was easily 10 or more minutes just sitting there. I wouldn’t necessarily say he was unfair as he was just inept.”
– Carol T.

“There were two people, that I can recall, Mr. Ference and a woman unknown to me, had sited specific articles and sections within the Roberts Rules of Order stating that voice and stand up votes could not count the proxies. This is because the Proxy Grantor is only granting proxy for the election upon what is within the agenda. I stood and was allowed the floor for a point of inquiry and asked if Mr. Grimm if he could site any Section or Article written within the Roberts Rules to refute what is written in Roberts Rules that was brought to knowledge by both Mr. Ference and the unknown female. Mr. Grimm, instead of siting any written, Section or Article he stated that it was his opinion that the written Article and Section did not apply. I then asked if he was a judge? Not to be sarcastic but to understand if Mr. Grimm has the final word of judgement. After this question there were people yelling but I could see and hear that he stated no. That brought me to my third question of how he, Mr. Grimm could state his opinion would have authority and would supersede what is actually written for the body to follow. Then Mr. Grimm denied he stated the word opinion and at that moment I interjected by asking if he would like us the play back the video to show he did state opinion. Mr. Grimm continued to state he did not state opinion and then someone else took the floor.”
– Hal M 

“Dan grim told me he does parliament as a volunteer. I do think he was biased and knew he was wrong finding ways to justify his ‘opinions’ “
– Judy H

“Dan Grimm was to be the parliamentarian to help with following Roberts Rules but he ran our meeting which was the role of our chair. He also is supposed to be neutral, which he was not. Several times he cited his opinion and was avoiding the actual rules despite several people correcting him & showing the actual rule. He was asked numerous times to give the rules he was referring to but never did. He also did not follow the voice vote results of the body when the initial vote was clearly in favor of a YES. He developed a pattern of disagreeing on the rules/process, then when corrected, stalled for time, went around in circles and a few times then said he stood corrected and reversed his decision. He caused us to waste several hours which caused frustration and prohibited us from completing the agenda. He also did a poor job of facilitating the meeting and his actions were very biased. Moving forward we need a parliamentarian who knows Roberts rules, does not favor one side’s agenda/outcome and plays a support role, not replacing the job of chair to run the meeting.”
– Michelle S

“I had the sad experience to witness multiple instances of clear bias from Mr. Dan Grimm. Dan not only assumed the chair, he clearly lost his ability to hold a fair meeting, in my honest opinion! There were several examples of him calling for voice votes. When those voice votes clearly went against the agenda of Mrs. Czarny, Dan would say “It was too close to call” and wait for a call for a standing vote (division). At one point in the meeting, when the body became aware of this delay tactic, he actually urged members of the body to make a call for division, again stating a voice vote that he called for, he deemed “too close to call” yet again. The resulting standing vote revealed that there was a difference of over 50 votes in said “too close to call” voice vote!

These clear conflicts of interests should be stopped, and the LD3 body should have the right to vote on any further LD3 funds being spent on a biased referee and security forces. I’m specifically talking about hiring the co-founder of America Pack to act as security and two other Phoenix Police officers for a church hall the LD rents in Scottsdale. It would seem if we truly did need a police force to act as security (doubtful), we would be far better served using off duty police from the jurisdiction our hall is located in, Scottsdale!”
– Jeff F.

Dan Grimm has previously been caught on recording/email falsifying meeting minutes as was called out in Republican Briefs. BRIAN FERENCE: In my prior Republican Briefs post, I mentioned that an anonymous whistleblower had exposed corruption of the MCRC Chair with an unedited audio clip of the executive board regarding a recommendation for LD3 revote. Dan Grimm, as the elected secretary, it appears that you have inadvertently admitted that the recording is valid in an email 1/12/2023 to the EGC. Then you attempted to hide behind “bonds of confidentiality” while also stating “Based on the discussion conducted at BOTH Executive Board meetings and the context for each situation, LD11 vs. LD3, Chair Mickie Niland’s recommendation to each LD is consistent with that discussion, even if the final wording released in the recording doesn’t completely reflect that parallel discussion. “This is critical due to 12A Robert’s Rules of Order: The Framing of Main Motions: 10:9 Wording of a Main Motion which clearly states: “If a main motion is adopted, it becomes the officially recorded statement of an action taken by the assembly. A motion should therefore be worded in a concise, unambiguous, and complete form appropriate to such a purpose.” This means that prior discussion is irrelevant. Dan you know this as a parlimentarian. The only possible conclusion can be that a willful and purposeful falsification of the recommendation and meeting minutes has occurred in order to deceive the PCs in LD3 and their Board in order to front some agenda or favoritism.  This is gross misconduct, an ethical violation, and a clear violation of the Secretary’s Oath of Office. Dan, how can you continue to deny this failure of fiduciary responsibility? Faced with this failure of the most basic duty of the secretary, how can you continue as a candidate for MCRC secretary?

Video Evidence (at bottom)

At the February 9th LD3 Meeting, Parliamentarian Dan Grimm tried to count proxy votes during a standing vote. The point of information was made that proxies were not counted during the State Meeting and the question was specifically asked for standing votes and Proxies were not counted. Dan of course said he disagreed because of “Robert’s Rules of Order”. When he was asked to cite the section of Robert’s Rules and said “No”. He was then accused of “Making up a rule”. Here are the Actual rules and sections:

PROXIES

Proxy Votes are NOT counted in a voice vote or rising vote as was modeled at the State Committeeman meeting. This specific question was asked and proxy votes are not counted in this type of vote.

#45:2 One Person, One Vote. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one-and only one- vote on a question.

#45:56 Absentee Voting. It is a fundamental Principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting…

45:70 Proxy Voting. A proxy is a power of attorney given by one person to another to vote in his stead; the term also designates the person who holds the power of attorney. Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies unless the laws of the state in which the society is incorporated require it, or the charter or bylaws of the organization provide for it. Ordinarily it should neither be allowed nor required, because proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly…

Then a PC stands up and reads from the LD3 bylaws which expressly states that Proxies are only to be used in meetings where an election or vote on bylaws is scheduled. Using Proxies during a standing vote on the February 9th meeting VIOLATES THE BYLAWS.

In the 2nd video, Dan falsely states that Robert’s Rules does not address Proxies. This is false, they are mentioned several times referenced above.

In the 3rd video, Dan admits he was lying about proxies.

In the 4th video, Dan bizarrely announces on a motion vote that we will “Count the No votes first to save time.” A lengthy process ensues, all in an attempt to run out the clock and try and get the time to run out without any business being done. Over 25 minutes are then wasted. This is again AGAINST Robert’s Rules of Order which states in 29:5 Procedure for Retaking a Vote. “When a Division is demanded, the chair immediately takes the vote again, first by having the affirmative rise, then by having the negative rise.” NO TIME WAS SAVED AT ALL AND COUNTING THE YES VOTES FIRST WOULD HAVE BEEN FASTER.

In the 5th video, we see LD3 Video Testimony from BOTH SIDES admitting Proxy Fraud and Election Fraud During the Dec 1st Election.

This is corroborated by the Maricopa County Investigation under former Chair Mickie Niland which concluded rules and bylaws were violated.

In the 6th video, we hear eye witness testimony that during a recent Roberts Rules of Order Training put on by Dan Grimm and Mike Peck, Peck admitted he lies and breaks rules to move meetings along because the body doesn’t know any better. Dan was then questioned on if he did the same thing.

Dan Makes Up Rules

Dan Makes False Statements and Ignores Bylaws on Proxies

Dan Grimm Admits he was Lying about Proxy Votes

Dan Grimm Says Counting No Votes First Will Save Time, Then Stalls For Over 25 Minutes

LD3 Video Testimony BOTH SIDES Admit Proxy Fraud and Election Fraud During Dec 1st Election.

Eye Witness Testimony During Roberts Rules Training by Dan Grimm and Mike Peck, Peck Admitted He Lies and Breaks Rules