2008 Summer State Central Meeting – My Thoughts
I’m going to start with this one since it was the last thing for me in Rochester for the Republicans.Â
There were 3 basic things of note that happened at this meeting of news.Â
Powergrab
The #1 thing for some of us was a proposed change to the By-Laws making it harder for Delegates of the Committee to call a special meeting. As my long time readers know, I have posted many times about how 20 people from the committee from 2 Congressional Districts could have called a meeting.Â
The change smacked to me of trying to make sure ‘trouble makers’ like me couldn’t try to organize to call a meeting. The change would now require 15% of Delegates from at least 4 Congressional Districts. What was troubling is that some people felt the need to name call and leave innuendo to say what they didn’t want.Â
Now sure I felt like this was directed at me, but it also had a lot to do with what had just transpired at the convention with the Ron Paul campaign. It sure appeared to me that Leadership is worried about not having complete control over when and why these meetings happen.Â
I can completely sympathize with those who wouldn’t want to have a special meeting for no real good and worthy reason. The party born costs of the meeting and for each member are good arguments not to waste time.Â
But no one was able to point out a meaningless reason that the existing (20 member) rule was used in the past. Leadership won the argument and had the changes they wanted.Â
Personally I believe 150% in majority rules, but I also believe the minority of an elected body should have the right to be heard. Especially if they hold contrasting positions to the leadership which can dictate the business. So what if the percentage used of 1.5% of members call a meeting, if the majority doesn’t agree, they can out vote them. This just smacks of more power grabs and dictation from leadership….. the opposite of grassroots.Â
Strib Lies
The #2 issue of the convention of note was a report about the FEC audit. Now even though I don’t think this FEC audit satisfies some of the old questions that arose during the Chairman’s race last Summer, it did squash the Strib story.Â
I’m not going to post the letter we were presented because I don’t feel it would be right. Who knows, it may have appeared elsewhere, but I haven’t had a chance to look at online news and blogs since Thursday afternoon. I will give you a couple main points that I feel clears the party on the FEC attack.Â
Since 2002 the MNGOP has had 40 requests for more information from the FEC. The DFL has had 37 or 38 for the same period. The Republican Party hired a firm to audit them and in turn help file amended reports, something completely with in the rules, and change procedures in order to better comply.Â
Personally I never had any real problem with this whole deal and feel pretty confident this is a non issue. Every single State Party across the country has had the exact same kind of FEC issues, and the Republican Party of Minnesota is average. Not the highest in terms of problems, but not lowest either.Â
The only thing that would have put that warm fuzzy feeling in my gut would have been something about how the Party was setting as a goal to have zero issues with the FEC next year.Â
The Blowup
The biggest blog worthy thing was an exchange between Chairman Ron Carey, Secretary/Treasurer Tony Sutton, and Joe Repya. Now after the leadership push to change the By-laws was passed, Joe, his wife, and I chatted in the lobby. Disgusted as heck we were all ready to walk away. Heck, I sure felt like not only did my opinion not matter, but that it wasn’t welcome.Â
I convinced the Repya’s to calm down, come back in, and just sit there the rest of the meeting. If we had just walked away Carey and his defenders would have won. I said that by us going back in and showing respect for the process we would seem like the better men.Â
During the Q&A on the FEC report, Joe Repya got up and asked 2 very legitimate questions and 2 very good answers. (This is from memory, and not an word for word transcript)
1) Why was there such a long period from when the audit started (mid-Summer 2007) to when the amended reports were finally filed (March)?
2) If the Strib was lying as Chairman Carey had stated over and over that day why had we not sought out a liable lawsuit?Â
I think those questions were legit and perfectly fair. The answer from the FEC report presenter easily answered the first one simply. Put simply every transaction since 2002 had to be examined, which was 10’s of 1000’s of ones, and every time one thing was found it created ripple effects to later years which would also need to be corrected.Â
The party was ready to start filing the corrects in January but there were technical computer and software issues with the FEC so it all had to wait for them. That was in March. ….. Sounds good to me.Â
Then Secretary Treasurer Sutton jumped up and things got ugly and very heated. I can’t acurately relay what exactly he said but he was taking the question as an attack on him as Treasurer. I took the question as asking if we were going to file a lawsuit on the paper for lying. Sutton was heated and there was a very tense back and forth. I didn’t hear all of what was said but I did see the gavel being used by Carey to get control back.Â
I think Sutton was out of line even taking the podium to speak at that moment especially when the question was to Carey and unrelated to what Sutton was saying. Carey, who was chairing the meeting, should have stepped in and ruled Sutton’s points non-germane or out of order. That could have been avoided in my opinion. Regardless of past tension, Leadership is supposed to be above the fray in my opinion.Â
After the dust up, Carey gave the answer to Repya’s question and it was a great answer. Liable suits have such a high bar and threshold and cost so much to do, it just wasn’t worth it. Cut and dry, and perfect. Again, the dust up between with Sutton and Repya should not have happened.Â
I should also note that after that, we broke our own rules and “adjourned” the meeting with out debate. We had not yet been offered the chance to bring any “other business” before the body so the motion to adjourn before we completed the agenda was debatable.Â
There was a group there who was going to try to bring up a vote about Chairman Carey and his handling of the Convention. I was not the leader of that movement. You all know clearly where I stand on that issue, but it was people who were disgruntled about the convention who were organizing that one.Â
Some people were going to try to reconvene the meeting based on the broken rule, and when asked if I would support it my answer was: never call a meeting or have a vote you know you can’t win. No matter how badly I think things went this weekend, a vote to remove Carey was not going to pass that body and would have probably given him an excuse and strengthened him is some people’s eyes.Â
This goes to everyone and all sides: Â Â We need to find some way to get more Republicans elected. Those of us who have lost trust with others need to focus on our own areas of responsibility and bust our butts there to win! SD51 & CD6 deserve my focus. Others have theirs. Sure I’ll reserve my blogging right to bitch and moan, but internal party power struggles and battles is a waste of time to simply argue and out procedure each other on right now.Â
We’ll meet again in December and can revisit the idea. If we lose more seats and the party leaders don’t find a way to rebuild the party and close the divides between all factions…. well a motion on leadership may be needed.Â
If leadership does do what it has to and unite this party to get more solid conservatives elected at all levels, then they have the right to pat them selves one the backs and will deserve our praise.
If not, well……
At the end of the day, as fellow Republicans, we should be able to at least look each other in the eyes and say hello when we are in a strange town and we cross paths out on the streets. Â
Sphere: Related Content
Actually the requirement for 4 congressional districts to call a state central committee meeting failed.
Translating from Aplikowskese to English
liable = libel
Unless the rules state that a motion to adjourn is out of order until the completion of the agenda, Roberts Rules allow for adjournment at anytime. Where they came up with the ruling at the State convention,to allow debate on adjournment is beyond me.
What would have be out of order is trying to reconvene the meeting after everyone had left the room. There’s a little thing called “notice” required for that to happen.
As to strengthening the standards for a Special State Central Meeting by the delegates. The previous language would have allowed 20 second alternates to have a meeting called. Any alternate does not have standing until a delegate vacates their position. As it stands with the new change, it still allows a minority to have a meeting called, By the way, it still only takes Delegates from only two CD’s
As for the “dustup”, I hope you will consider that Tony Sutton hold a personal liability as Treasurer for all finances of the Party. The Party finances are his responsibility, and while the accusations were aimed at Ron Carey, by innuendo, they also were directed at Tony Sutton.
What was happening was “character assassination by proxy”.
If I were in Tony’s position, (and I have been a CD Treasurer and dealt with the FEC and their regulations) I would probably done the same thing.
I think everyone at State Central was waiting for the confrontation between Joe Repya and Ron Carey. We all knew it was coming. Unfortunately, Joe Repya lost his temper, and in doing so, and in my view, lost a huge amount of credibility for anything he might wish to pursue in the future, and that is a shame, as I believe that Joe has a number of good idea’s that this party needs.
As for the Republican Party as a whole, I think it would be wise if people would do a little research on how the Republican Party was founded, and I think you could find a number of those same issues existed in 1854, that exist today.
There is a rule for the State GOP that states that if there are still items on the Agenda, then a motion to Adjourn is debatable. This is why the motion was actually debated on the convention floor, when it was brought up before, since Rowe was an Agenda item. And the way the Republicans set the convention call, the Registration was open the entire time…the whole process was sloppy.
I am still not clear about the 7 figure mistake. I was sitting up in the guest area, and I thought the questioning was fair, to start with, but then the speaker went overboard…I actually was wondering which was going to break first the gavel or the podium, when Ron Carey was pounding the gavel, that was the most intense pounding I have ever seen outside of construction…
Here are some thoughts for the next convention:
1) Setup an area for Silent Auctions, every 1/2 day should be a set of new items up for auction, a great and easy fund raiser. There would be a lot of people that would have bid on a few autograph copies of Rove’s book, President Bush pictures and autographs, Norm Coleman signs that are autographed, and other items.
2) Allow for sitting Republican Govenors and Senators to be automatic Delegates, since the majority of the state has already elected elected them. (Yes I was behind that movement this morning, to make sure there wouldn’t be a future challenge to Pawlenty, this would have looked really bad if this went to the National Convention…looked what happened to SD1…).
3) Each CD should have a party room each evening, and we should have a map of where each is located, it would be nice to drop in and talk with various candidates and network with them…each CD party room should also have a silent auction for some more fund raising.
4) Publish the Agenda, Rules, Abridged Roberts Rules of Order, Constitution on the web site, well before the Convention.
5) Get rid of dates from the Rules, and use generic time tables…like for the interview in person appearance of candidates for Delegate and Alternate befor the Nominating Comittee, just use “Thurday of the week of the Convention, from 9:00-am-8pm, at the convetion site” Then it is clear, consistant, and never has to be updated again..
6) Offer leadership, intro to Roberts Rules of Order, fund raising, BPOU classes, and BPOU brain sharing, on Thursday, before the Convention.
See you next time.
“The change smacked to me of trying to make sure ‘trouble makers’ like me couldn’t try to organize to call a meeting.”
Exactly as it should. Since there has never been a need, apparently, to call such an emergency meeting under the old rule, there should be no need to do so under the new rule, either. There is almost no foreseeable “problem” that could arise that would not be handled, on reasonable request, by your BPOU or CD leadership, or the State Exec Committee, or by Party staff. There is a SCC meeting every three months, at which any reasonable issue may be raised from the floor. Any emergencies affecting the whole Party and requiring an SCC meeting could be called by the Chair or by State Exec. If, for some unimaginable reason they did not, and 15% of delegates thought they should, the meeting could be called by that 15% and one would wonder if 15% could really convince 50% whatever motion(s) might be desired. So, yes, the only reason for the rule change is to keep small numbers of “troublemakers like [you]” from making trouble. Sounds reasonable to me.
As for attempts to “censure” or “vote no confidence” or whatever you’re talking about, I’m going to suggest that your efforts are better directed elsewhere and happy to see you looking that direction. Candidates don’t elect themselves, and Ron Carey alone cannot do much unless all of the BPOUs and CDs concentrate on the essential of getting our candidates elected rather than those other guys. Time for a sports analogy: If the ball bounces off the defender’s helmet, slips out of the receivers hands and the big offensive tackle stumbles and falls across the goal line with it, it’s still six points for the win. Or you could sit on the bench and grouse about it, I suppose.
Let’s throw in some facts on the FEC thing, shall we?
First off, the FEC hasn’t done an audit. They asked some questions – submitted those “requests for information” that you recognize are so common. Yes, they’re common, but most party units have enough control over their financial dealings that answering them is simply a matter of offering additional information or a quick explanation.
Not so the Republican Party of Minnesota. Their finances are in such total disarray that they couldn’t answer even the most simple of questions. Questions like “How much cash on had do you actually have?” resulted in multiple amendments with balance differences that range from $2 million to a negative $28 thousand.
The audit was one undertaken by the party itself, not the FEC. Most party units already perform routine audits and act like taking care of their donors’ contributions is an important responsibility. Not so the RPM, where the audit that was finally undertaken took over a year to complete.
You then proceed to mention “a couple of main points that [you] feel will clear the party on the FEC attack.” Goodness, where to start?
The FEC doesn’t “attack” parties, even under the Bush administration. Rather their role is to ensure compliance with the law. The problems with the RPM were so glaring that even this FEC couldn’t stomach looking the other way. Hence, the letters asking for more information — letters it took the RPM over a year to answer. But now that the answers are in, the FEC finally has enough information to do what it’s been stymied from doing all along: determine how many campaign finance laws may have been broken.
“The Republican Party hired a firm to audit them and in turn help file amended reports, something completely with in [sic] the rules…” The FEC certainly allows amended reports to correct errors, but you miss the point that this is far from the end of the matter. The FEC now has the info to undertake its investigation, and determine if there was illegal activity. To say that the filing of the amended reports is the end of it is like Robert Beale filing amended tax returns next week and them claiming that now he doesn’t have to go to prison.
“Personally I never had any real problem with this whole deal and feel pretty confident this is a non-issue.” What other law-breaking actions are you ok with? Some people are just fine with “illegal” immigration, but you go into spittle mode when it comes up.
We eagerly await your determination as to which federal statutes can be ignored and which ones can’t.
The only reason for the proposed rule change is rumor of a group of state central delegates who were unhappy with Ron Carey’s Huckabee endorsement wanting to call a special meeting to take him to task over it. It’s a reaction to that rumor, and I think Andy’s got it right that it’s an over-reaction that smacks of a fear of the delegates, bordering on paranoia and a further attempt to centralize power.
The way the bylaw changes were structured and voted on, it was possible to create a situation wherein (approximately) 150 state central members from 4 congressional districts would have been required to call a meeting. The way the voting broke down, it’s now about 50 delegates from at least 2 CDs that are required to call a meeting. Not outrageous in itself, I suppose, but as a reaction to the possibility of such a meeting being called to Take Carey to task, it seems very heavy-handed and protectionistic.
I liked Carey’s answer to a question about whether a state central member would be given the list of other members to even make such a scenerio come about: “It might be reasonable to consider that.” or something to that effect.
Carey’s ruling that the motion to adjourn wasn’t debatable was plain wrong, and it was pretty clear to me that he was afraid of what might come up in “other business” if the meeting wasn’t summarily adjourned at that instant.
Dan,
I think you are right about why it was brought up but Jerry has a point.
It is ridiculous that 10 people could force the party to spend the money to have a meeting.
It takes 2/3 to do most anything, so all this would do is allow a small group to harass the party.
With the future of the Ron Paulians future unknown, it is not inconceivableness that they could elect 10 of their folks to state central. They could then call endless meeting after meeting to delay and harass the party.
I don’t see getting 50 folks (or even 150) as a huge hurdle to call a special meeting.
We have an executive committee which is elected to handle most emergencies.
The only reasons I have heard so far seem about folks upset that their guy wasn’t supported or someone with a short temper who is sore loser and wanted a public forum to complain.
It you are concerned about the party, show up at your CD meeting and tell you Chair you want an issues. If it is a big deal, the have your CD executive vote to force their chair to do something at exec.
As for adjourning, even if “other business” is on the agenda and their is a rule that says a motion to adjourn is debatable until all business is completed, other business is not business so the ruling is correct.
Even if there was debate, are you telling me that the people in the room didn’t know what people wanted to bring up? Just because 25% still want to talk and complain doesn’t mean the other 75% need to stay and listen.
The State Central Committee is a different form of the Republican party. It is not something made up of a large mass of people. It is made up of party leaders and devoted activists. It is a representative body and it is the duty of Party establishment to purge it if dissent is not welcome. People are elected to State Central and we have to pay dues for the meetings. I find the fiscal argument to be a little lame, especially since we have never wasted any party money to have a special election yet.
Sometimes CD Chairs do not listen to the activists. Some only listen to the Executive committee and party Chair. State Central is a special body and seems designed to be a private venue for internal party business.
We have serious problems with this party. Some of us care very deeply about repairing them so we can once again be a party on the verge of majorities in Minnesota. Some of us are worried about he direction the party leaders are taking it. Sure, I was not one who was mounting a challenge, and once again the establishment/Carey folks got me confused.
I did rise to speak against the powergrab. I was defeated. I didn’t make any motion. And I did tell Repya to not say a word.
I really do wish some day you would have the courage to reveal your identity. You drag me through the mu here an awful lot. I should at least be able to look my accuser in the eye.
Oh and as for not having to deal with the minority, I expect that Party leaders and other State Central establishment sympathizers will release its lit of topics it is willing to hear before the next round of those elections in 2009 so that none of us who question things will bother running. Afterall, if we’re not welcome, it is your duty to say that we aren’t before we are elected to represent our Districts.
I don’t think this issue is dealing with a minority, I think it is dealing with a very small minority who want to harass. Look at the link you posted from the Ron Paul site on rushing the stage, citizens arrest etc… Imagine a hastily called state central meeting with this kind of nonsense.
My guess is the state exec looked at what was suggested by some folks who had a legitimate concern (you) and thought about calling a special meeting. But as you noted, you did not think you had anywhere near the votes so it was not worth calling a meeting. You understand that once you see you lost a vote, calling for a similar vote twelve times is just harassment and accomplishes nothing. You made your point, used rational thought and behaved like an adult
The same can not be said about the Ron Paul folks.
After losing vote after vote, they continued to try and delay the meeting.
And the stupid motion to censure – good grief, who cares – why not pass a motion calling the chair a big poopy pants – has the same outcome – nothing.
So as I said, I don’t think making someone finding 50 people to hold a special meeting is a big burden. If you can’t convince 50 people one on one, you surely not going to convince more than that with a two minute speech.
The Ron Paul folks are similar to some of the folks who supported Joe Repya – they confuse folks who do not support your guy as folks who do not share some of their beliefs.
I’m not a huge fan of the direction the party is going, but I was even more concerned with Joe as leader of the party (a concern that appears to have some validity based on state central – although no one can be proud of the exchange). What did Joe accomplish at the meeting – making himself look bad and weakening his argument and position.
Same for Andy – It appears that you probably share (as do many conservatives) some of the same concerns the Ron Paul supporters have, but feel that Ron Paul is not the right guy to move those ideas forward.
But since you did not support Ron, you appear to them as the devil incarnate.
So while the Ron Paul folks talk about the party alienating them, they are doing a great job of alienating people who would probably be glad to assist with some of the changes moving forward.
If you do not like the way the party leadership is going, then do something about it at your CD elections. The CD Chair reports to his CD executive committee – use that power to do something.
But I would suggest that the time to do something is the Second Wednesday in November.
We have our candidates, let’s work on beating the DFL until then – and then start working on 2010 and 2012. We can complain all we want about our candidates, but I don’t know about you – I am not going to let McCain or Coleman decide for me that my great local representative deserves to be replaced by a DFL candidate. And as Andy has pointed out – I think the DFL in St. Paul are having a bigger effect on us right now and your local BPOU can have a bigger impact on them instead of holding a rally to complain about the gold standard.
A
[...] Anti Federalist wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe Ron Paul folks are similar to some of the folks who supported Joe Repya – they confuse folks who do not support your guy as folks who do not share some of their beliefs. I’m not a huge fan of the direction the party is going, … [...]
It was never possible for 10 people to call a State Central Meeting. It required 20 from at least 2 different congressional districts. It WAS 20 members, meaning delegates and alternates could be part of that mix of 20. Now, alternates are out of the equation. 15% of the delegates with representatives from at least 2 congressional districts is the threshold. The numbers may be perfectly reasonable, and it could have been made much tougher if the language hadn’t been changed from “members” to “delegates” of the committee, it could have resulted in a requirement to muster 15% of the members, which is a body numbering near 1,000.
It appeared to me that the object was to require about 150 members from at least 4 congressional districts as opposed to 20 from 2. Fortunately, it didn’t break down that way in the voting.
I still find the proposals to be very reactionary, and unnecessarry.
Sure, the chairman can call a special meeting in case of emergency, but what if the chairman is the emergency? There is only one reason I can imagine the delegates would call a special meeting: To remove or otherwise discipline a party officer. It’s not hard to imagine why an officer might prefer that to be more difficult.
[...] at this meeting of news.? Powergrab the 1 thing for some of us was a proposed change to the By-http://www.residualforces.com/2008/05/31/2008-summer-state-central-meeting-my-thoughts/Worcester decides final budget The Daily TimesSNOW HILL — If there are days of luster for a county [...]