Comments by Katrina | Eastern NC Now
Browse all Comments by Katrina...
 |
Commented on Queen Garris Runs Amuck Again1/3 Another week, another installment of "Queen Garris." At this point, the nickname has been repeated so often that one might wonder whether the author believes repetition transforms rhetoric into evidence.
It does not. Let's start with one of Hoodwinks more serious accusations: that Frankie Waters has been "writing checks to Democrats." Fortunately, campaign finance records are public and searchable through the NCSBE website. And what does a search of Frankie Waters, Frank Waters, and variations of his name reveal? One. One contribution to a Democratic candidate. So, technically, Mr. Rhetoricson can say Waters once contributed to a Democrat. But portraying one contribution from more than 25 years ago as "writing checks to Democrats" creates a considerably different impression from what the public record actually shows. If there are more, produce them. The records are public.
Commented: Tuesday, August 11th, 2026 @ 12:43 pm
By: Katrina
|
|
Commented on Queen Garris Runs Amuck Again3/3 And there's some irony in lecturing everyone about democracy while labeling Republicans he dislikes "RINOs," Republicans he supports "conservatives," decisions he agrees with democracy, and decisions he dislikes dictatorship.
The BCRP doesn't belong to Carolyn Garris. It doesn't belong to the Executive Committee. And, despite what one might conclude from his columns, it doesn't belong to Hookwink Rhetoricson either. It belongs to the Republicans of Beaufort County who chose to participate. They showed up. They voted. They chose Carolyn Garris. Again, and again. Perhaps the problem isn't that Chairman Garris refuses to respect democracy. Perhaps it's that Mr. Richardson has has difficulty respecting democracy when he doesn't like the result. The writing is on the wall. Perhaps Hoodwink couldn't stay awake long enough to read it.
Commented: Tuesday, August 11th, 2026 @ 12:44 pm
By: Katrina
|
|
Commented on Queen Garris and Free Speech2/2 In fact, Robert’s Rules of Order is very clear on this point. Guests and nonmembers have no inherent right to attend, participate, or speak in a meeting. Their presence is permitted only by the courtesy of the assembly. That is standard parliamentary procedure, not suppression of speech.
You also misrepresent what occurred with your resolutions. They were not arbitrarily dismissed. They were ruled out of order by the parliamentarian because they were in direct conflict with the State Plan of Organization. Under Robert’s Rules, that is not only allowed, it is required. A body cannot consider motions that violate its governing documents. Before making broad accusations about corruption, secrecy, and violations of rights, you should take the time to actually read and understand the Plan of Organization and basic parliamentary authority. What you are presenting is not a defense of free speech. It is a collection of inaccuracies presented as fact.
Commented: Friday, April 10th, 2026 @ 8:56 am
By: Katrina
|
|
Commented on Queen Garris and Free Speech1/2 Hood, your entire argument rests on a fundamental misrepresentation of what the First Amendment actually does.
The First Amendment prevents Congress from creating laws that prohibit free speech. It does not apply to internal rules of private organizations, including political parties. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits an organization from setting reasonable limits on conduct during its meetings, especially when those limits are necessary to maintain order and prevent the spread of misinformation. Your claim that this was a “secret meeting” is simply false. The meeting in question was open to all Executive Committee members. That is exactly how Executive Committee meetings are structured. There is nothing in the State Plan of Organization that requires these meetings to be open to the general public, nor is there any requirement that nonmembers be given the floor to speak.
Commented: Friday, April 10th, 2026 @ 8:55 am
By: Katrina
|
|
Regardless, "Van Zant," the members of the committee were made known to Executive Committee. There is nothing in the State, District, or County Plans that requires committee member information, to include executive committee members, to be publicly disclosed. The Republican Party is not subject to open meeting laws, so there is no obligation to make that information public. The requirement is simply to maintain a list, which must be made available upon request by a registered Republican in the county. Even then, the requestor should be required to sign a Confidentiality and Use Agreement.
What is evident, however, is not a lack of transparency, but a lack of understanding. The rules are not ambiguous, and the process is not new. Continually misrepresenting how the Party operates doesn't expose wrongdoing, it just exposes a willingness to manufacture division where none exists.
Commented: Tuesday, March 31st, 2026 @ 2:54 pm
By: Katrina
|
|
Are you sure you were at the 2026 Beaufort County Convention? Ms. Nix (from CARTERET), never once stated you had to attend the Precinct Meeting to attend the convention. It was made clear at the Precinct meetings that you had to provide the Chairman a request to be elected a Delegate to the Convention in absentia, prior to the convening of the Precinct meeting, and was even displayed at the top of the precinct delegate list form. Reading is fundamental, Hood.
Four of the six resolutions you submitted on behalf of yourself and others were ruled out of order for the same reasons - they were in direct conflict with the State and County Plans of Organization. This was explained to you by Chairman Nix prior to the convening of the convention. The resolution you presented from the floor was called out of order because the point was moot, as the names of the Victory Committee were already provided at the Executive Committee.
Commented: Tuesday, March 31st, 2026 @ 10:47 am
By: Katrina
|
