A Real Point Of Clarification
Posted by Andy on June 2nd, 2008
Here’s a letter from Rudy Takala. He was the BPOU leader that Ron Carey attacked at the State Convention.
Sphere: Related ContentTo: Marty Andrade; Andy Aplikowski; Chad Everson; Drew Emmer
Having seen myself mentioned either explicitly or in passing on three different blogs, I thought I would clarify some of the subtext surrounding the state convention. Specifically, I’d like to comment on the proposed change to Article IV of the party constitution and on the amendment to the bylaws at State Central that raised the requirement for calling a special session of the committee from twenty delegates to fifteen percent, or roughly forty delegates, of that body.
The proposed change to Article IV was as follows: “If the State Executive Committee determines a BPOU is not fulfilling its responsibilities, the State Executive Committee shall have the authority to take all actions it deems necessary or proper to fulfill the BPOU’s responsibilities.”
This was the result of an incident that took place earlier in the year involving McLeod County and my own BPOU, Pine County. As many are already aware, some of McLeod County’s officers sent a letter to Norm Coleman and to state GOP headquarters stating that they were hesitant to support the Senator given his liberal voting record. That took place in October of last year.
A month later, it was mentioned at a meeting of the State Executive Committee that their body might be able to declare McLeod County dissolute on the grounds that they were not fulfilling a constitutional requirement to support “endorsed candidates.”
In response to that incident, I and others threatened to remove Ron Carey if he and his committee removed McLeod County from the party. After all, decisions to remove officers at the local level should belong to the delegates that elect them; they should not belong to higher powers that may or may not be representative of the grassroots. If our decisions can be negated by party officials who we are two or three votes removed from being able to affect, we really have no voice in this party.
As I explained to the state convention when I got up to the microphone, it was a centralization of power by the State Executive Committee. It was meant to strip away the voice of conservatives who spoke out against leadership. The amendment was inspired by party officers who view the grassroots only as fodder for campaigns; they believe that activists who express their opinions are more trouble than they’re worth. My speech received four ovations.
When I was done speaking, Ron Carey slammed his chair back, ran to the microphone, and spoke out of order to direct a personal attack against me. In essence, he said that I was a dishonest BPOU chair who took too long getting his delegate lists to the party. (Funny thing, I thought it was Carey who wouldn’t share his lists with the Huckabee or Paul campaigns. Either I was misinformed or there’s a double standard.) He made it clear that the amendment would have been used against my county, and probably against McLeod. Fortunately, it failed by a vote of 66% to 33%.
Given that context, I think it’s understandable why Carey presented two amendments at State Central making it harder to remove him. As mentioned, one that passed raised the number of delegates required to call a special session of State Central from fifteen to roughly forty. A second required that the delegates come from four, rather than two, congressional districts. It failed by a mild margin.
When one delegate asked Carey why anyone would call a special session of State Central, he said “I don’t know-maybe to change the paper in the printers.” I found it nearly amusing how dishonest he was; he tried to trivialize the issue as though it had nothing to do with him.
Nonetheless, I opted not to speak on either amendment. The body’s composition favored him slightly, so I didn’t see it making a difference.
His answer to another question was notable. When asked if the State Central delegate list would be shared with anyone wanting to call a special session of State Central, he replied, “I don’t see any problem with that.” Shortly after, he railroaded the meeting to adjournment before there was a chance for consideration of “Other Issues,” right after he finished pounding his gavel in the middle of Joe Repya’s attempt to speak.
There were plenty of people who didn’t seem ready to leave quite yet and who were, ironically, talking about calling a special session, so we’ll see how honest he was about sharing the delegate list. Given his past behavior, I doubt there was much sincerity to that promise.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
With the fear that maybe I am repeating myself.
I think this shows what is right with the party - that this is not some large group of lemmings always follow the state party.
This is the only Amendment that there was no question that party leadership wanted, and if I recall it failed by the largest margin of anything.
And as for the changing the requirement for a meeting.
You and the chair were having a argument. He threated to remove you.
In retaliation you threatened to call a special session of State Central to remove the chair (something which requires 2/3 vote if I recall).
Luckily, like Andy, it appears that you thought it through and realized that this would accomplish nothing except tick off a bunch of people who have to give up another Saturday for no reason. Another example of maturity overcoming righteous anger.
Now it something like this can not be done by someone less mature, because instead of just having to get 10-20 people, you have to convince 15%.
As I said before, if someone can’t convince 15% of the people in one on one conversations of the validity of their argument, how can anyone hope that calling a special session a giving a short speech will convince 66% of the people.
I would say that a BPOU has a right to say they are not going to waste their time on a candidate they don’t support.
I would also say that they also have a duty as a member of the party to respect the parties endorsement and not work against that endorsement. So you don’t have to put a Coleman sign on you r parade float, but also should not put a “we hate Norm” sign.
If what I heard was correct, some BPOUs did not turn in delegate lists.
This is not disrespecting the chair, this is disrespecting the party.
Those list belong to the party and the BPOU - give them to the party and if you want use them for what ever purpose, but not sending them in is wrong.
This however is not ground for the State taking over a BPOU.
Again, just tell the BPOU - no list - no delegates, period. Seems simple to me.
And as to the letter to Norm. Until this weekend we had no endorsed candidate, so all was fair up until then. (So in the above example, a BPOU you could have an “I Hate Norm” sign on a parade on May 1 but should be supportive or silent on June 1.)
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Good points, Sam. Especially pertinent is your point about debate over candidates during the leadup to endorsement. Evidently, some think we shouldn’t debate about the candidates. Whoever leadership says we should support, we support, right? Not in my book. Not until after the endorsement, anyhow.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Going To Extremes…
Because of circumstances beyond my control, I was not at last week’s Republican Party State Convention. I gave up my seat to a newcomer since I was not sure that I was going to be here for the convention or not (more on this later). However, I was…..