Category: CRA

After many emails over the last two days, I was able to get CRA to find a way to keep several members on the Board that were slated for removal.

This started by my asserting that the March 2 Board meeting was invalidly noticed 13 days instead of 14 as required by the Bylaws. By my math Feb 17 to Feb 28 was 11 days plus two in March equals 13 days. It helps when Bill Gates agrees with you. Try A3=A1 minus A2 in Microsoft Excel and you get this:

While the CRA was not willing to concede they blew the meeting notification, the leadership has pledged that they will reassign these wayward souls to the Board to fill their own vacancies. This keeps the March 2 meeting legit and keeps the Board mostly status quo. Had I not raised a ruckus, five to eight folks would have been tossed off the Board. This likely would not affect the outcome of any races for officer’s elections but it has the appearance of mischief.

Per CRA Bylaws, Board members are only allowed to miss two meetings during a two year term. The removal from office is automatic; thus when you miss the second meeting, you are never notified of the removal, it just happens. You are cut-off. It has been the practice that no communication is made with a person being removed. You just notice that your email box is quieter.

A few years ago, I was removed as Voter Registration Secretary after missing one meeting; not two as required by the Bylaws. I didn’t know I was off the Board until I heard I had been replaced. By then it was too late. It turns out that I was never marked as present at a Board meeting concurrent with a CRP Convention. After an hour of this two hour meeting, I had to attend a meeting with Steve Poizner held in an adjoining room. This was during his run for California Governor. My purpose attending the meeting was because I was the CRA Voter Registration Secretary. The irony was that doing my job cost me my job.

Once a vacancy occurs, the President has the option of filling the vacancy with the person of her choice or leaving it vacant until it can be filled. When CRA is less than three weeks from their Convention and the deck chairs start getting shuffled, it has the appearance that people are trying to tinker with the vote.

Once I got word of the offer to restore people to the Board, I began to dial back the rhetoric. I went from napalm to small arms fire. I was about to get nuclear on the subject but thankfully that was not necessary.

I am grateful to Tom Hudson and Karl Heft for engineering this arrangement. Furthermore, Celeste Greig had to sign-off on this in some capacity. Thanks for finding a way to do the right thing.

The Sith Lord says he’ll believe it when he sees it but I will give the Board the benefit of the doubt.

The way money is handled can be either an orderly process or a chaotic, clumsy and haphazard one. Order prevents fraud, disorder invites it.

I have twenty years of experience in accounting including payables; receivables; payroll; sales and employment taxes; just to name a few areas that I have worked. In business, anything received in the mail is opened, date stamped, and routed to the appropriate person for further handling. When handling money, tasks should be divided between various employees and subjected to processes that verify correct handling of funds.

In offices where I have worked, all checks were copied twice. One copy was kept with the deposit slip and the other attached to the invoice that the check was paying. This was kept in a vendor file. In a matter of minutes I could lay hands on any invoice or payment that I ever touched and present it to the boss or outside auditor.

In volunteer organizations, these types of practices are important to maintain. When, I was a treasurer in my local CRA chapter, I have made copies of all deposit slips and all checks that make up the deposit. I also kept copies of membership applications for all people joining the club. I also have copies of all checks written and invoices that were paid with these checks. When these types of practices are not followed then you lose control of the funds and chaos begets more chaos.

This is a tale of chaos resulting in people in CRA not following Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or the governing Bylaws.

As currently written, membership dues and applications are sent to the Membership Secretary. The Membership Secretary updates the records and verifies applicant’s voter registration and stuff like that. The funds are sent to the Treasurer to be deposited.

As a result of the 2011 leadership fight, the Membership Secretary is on the look-out for mischief. Red flag items include large checks that pay dues for large groups of people instead of individual checks from members, unsigned membership applications, and the like.

Additionally, certain clubs have a reputation for bouncing checks. Checks received at conventions have even a higher rate of being bounced. In the past, it has been possible to show-up at the convention, pay dues with a fraudulent check, vote for the officers of your choice and go home leaving CRA holding the bag.

Instead of supporting processes that are designed to protect individual officers and the group as a whole from fraud, certain officers try to circumvent this process. When that officer is the statewide President then it becomes a bigger problem.

It is not unusual for an owner of a small business to take shortcuts when it comes to money; oh the stories I could tell about that…; however, the President of a corporation with franchises all over a state like California is another matter. This is effectively what CRA is, a California corporation with many franchises. For the President to ever touch a check from a member is a violation of established procedures. She may occasionally cosign a check that pays a bill—I’m assuming two signatures are required to write a check; this may not be the case but should be—but generally check handling should be left to others.

The current CRA President is frequently handling money from members and depositing funds in the corporate bank account. By doing so, she is bypassing both the treasurer and membership secretary and thus the system of checks and balances established to protect the organization. From what I know, she does not make copies of these checks and deposit slips; instead she simply sends an email as the mood strikes her stating that Bob, Mary and Steve paid their dues. If she happens to forget then the treasurer has to hunt her down and see what she has been up to in order to reconcile the account.

Along these lines, another money handling screw-up has surfaced.
On February 22, 2013, Membership Secretary George Park sent an email about paying dues and other deadlines to chapter Presidents and Board members. The applicable portion for this discussion appears below:

6. When mailing membership dues to me, please use the following mailing address, with no signature requirement. My mail box is locked and very secure; I will not accept FedEx, UPS or any US Mail that has been sent with a signature requirement. Again, use regular US Mail with no signature required.

On March 14, 2013, this email was sent to CRA President Celeste Greig and others:

Please see the letter that has gone out to all CRA Units. Please also note Item #6. I just rejected a certified mail envelope sent to my office. I will not accept certified mail or any postal mail that requires a signature. I also will not accept Fed Ex or UPS packages. All membership mail must be sent to my home address and not to my office. I have consistently reiterated these details in multiple communications since I have been membership secretary. I wanted to bring this to your attention as an FYI. Thanks

Yesterday, April 9, 2013, Park sent out an email that included the following:

(Click Here) to see an email sent to CRA President Celeste Greig after I rejected a Certified Mail Envelope that she mailed me. This email was cc’ed to the entire CRA executive board on 3/14/2013.  Why was Celeste collecting the RAGSCV unit dues?  Why did she send their dues registered mail with a signature required?

Once again, Greig is interjecting herself into the money end of the corporation. Why is she handling dues for a local chapter? Where is the treasurer of the chapter? Why can’t they send in their own dues like the other 50 odd chapters? Why send money to Park with a signature required? For about seventy-five cents—which is cheaper than the postage Greig paid—she could have sent the money with a delivery confirmation that requires no signature. Again, she should not be handling money.

Yesterday Steve Frank again interjected himself into this controversy. Please note that Frank is a past President of the CRA Corporation. As someone in the business world and a past president, he above all people should know that the president should stay out of the business of handling money. Instead he fires back at Park stating,” Now he is upset that a club did not trust him to accurately record their membership and instead sent its membership checks to the CRA State President.”

Besides Frank again re-inventing the Bylaws to suit his bias, this is a personal attack on the Membership Secretary. Some folks may not like the stuff they hear George Park say but I have known him for a few years now and he impresses me as a man of integrity. Park took a shoe box full of junk and has done a good job of rebuilding the mess left by Peggy Mew. Somehow, I think that if I was to research it, that Mew was likely the Membership Secretary when Frank was CRA President. Thus one could say that Park is cleaning up the debris that Frank and others failed to deal with when they had the chance.

George Park is doing his best and is trying to get local chapters to follow the rules that have always been there, just not enforced. He takes his fiduciary obligation as a corporate officer seriously; others like Frank and Greig treat CRA like a Cub Scout den leader meeting.

Update
Sith Lord thinks Steve Frank Presidency was before Peggy Mew was Membership Secretary.

The CRA elites have been hard at work behind the scenes to insure that the status quo is maintained. As stated earlier, part of this strategy is keeping clubs that violate the rules—but vote the right way—in good standing so they will vote for the Greig Slate. (Please note that challenger John Briscoe has no slate.)

Antelope Valley RA has been given a pass after disgorging two years worth of paperwork and dues. They sent in rosters for 2012 & 2013 and a check for dues and as a result, they have been declared as a chapter in good standing. Please note that they were given a pass on paying any dues for 2011 and submitted their dues after the paperwork deadline for the upcoming convention. The stated reason for being given a pass on 2011 dues is that no current members have records that go back that far.

Antelope Valley did not follow the rules set forth in the State Bylaws but was given a pass in part because they have powerful patrons that neither faction in CRA feels they can afford to cross; in particular, George and Sharon Runner. Runner and his wife are listed as members of the Antelope Valley RA. AVRA claims a few other elected folks as members also.

Putting his best spin on this yesterday, Membership Secretary George Park released a statement praising the return of the prodigal son.

For over two years, the previous leadership of the unit simply never communicated with the CRA Membership Secretary and had not paid dues to CRA. Thanks to the efforts of CRA VP Tim Thiesen, we were able to make contact and in a conference call were able to resolve all the issues that existed.

The AVRA is one of the oldest units in the CRA and the new leadership is now fully reconnected with the CRA. VP Tim Thiesen made this possible through multiple phone calls. Thanks to Tim’s efforts AVRA is now go to go.

“I am truly grateful to Tim Thiesen for helping bring the Antelope Valley Republican Assembly back in to the CRA fold”, said George Park, CRA Membership Secretary, “It is gratifying to see the earnest commitment from their new president toward growing CRA and the Conservative Movement in the Antelope Valley!”

“Leadership means connection”, said Tim Thiesen, “and connection means sharing information and treating everyone fairly regardless of their opinions. To move CRA forward, the era of suspicion and stealth need to end.”

Reconnecting with the AVRA, on the heels of the wildly successful reorganization of the Ventura RA are two serious signs of progress in the direction of building a stable, healthy CRA going forward in Northern L.A. County and beyond.

Park can sure make lemonade from lemons.

Being Steve Frank must be a lot like working as the White House Press Secretary for Barack Obama. Frank gets trotted out in public every few days to put lipstick on the sow that is the CRA Presidency of Celeste Greig.

Today, George Park dumped another steaming load of Greig’s past actions on her doorstep. An hour later, Frank was dutifully trotted-out to again attack the messenger.

In today’s installment, Park once again concentrated on the Republican Assembly of Greater Santa Clarita Valley. On their current membership roster, this group is claiming members:
• Living in Texas and Washington DC.
• People that never joined the club or paid dues.
• Not even registered to vote.

Frank and Greig defend the legitimacy of RAGSCV despite the fact that the Bylaws they are pledged to support require that CRA members must live in California and be registered Republicans in the Golden State.

Frank accused this malfeasance on the fact that Park is not doing his job.

The irony is that Frank and Greig are the reason that clubs like these are not disciplined for their failure to follow the rules. Park’s emails are informing the Statewide Board of the problems in the organization and making sure that the appropriate committees must confront these issues while not allow those enabling this aberrant behavior to sweep it under the carpet. In addition, Greig is exposed as failing to lead, thus building the case that she should be replaced as President.

Frank has ignored my advice to get a good rhyme to cover his crimes and instead opted for, “End the Fraud.  Let CRA grow—end the Drama.” You can tell what Frank believes by what he accuses the other guys of doing. He projects his values and tactics on to his enemies because he figures that they operate from the same motivation that he does. Let’s break down his slogan.

• “End the Fraud”: Park would agree that ending the fraud is his goal—the fraud perpetrated by Frank and Greig.
• “Let CRA grow”: The growth Park wants is orderly and organic, the growth Frank wants is cancerous and destructive.
• “End the Drama”: Ending the Drama is stopping the special treatment and exemptions allowed by Greig and Frank. If everyone followed the same rules there wouldn’t be any drama.

Being Frank is difficult when you have nothing to work with. He can’t defend the record of the incumbent so all that he can do is attack Republicans that desire to do the right thing. Being Frank is more like Obama’s press secretary than I imagined.

Maybe RINO should be Republican Incumbents Need Obfuscation.

Background
These threads are in chronological order to provide some context. Additional details on the CRA Presidential race are found at http://www.rightondaily.com

Aaron Park, CRA Sergeant at Arms replied to a campaign email from Celeste Greig:

Madam President:

I wanted to report in on my activities this month.

Along with CRA membership secretary George Park – we drove 830 Miles Round Trip to Ventura County to clean up a *mess left behind by SDD Steve Frank. I am pleased to report that the Ventura RA was successfully reorganized with 35 members at the time (they now have 38) – most all of whom have never been CRA Members.

I’d like to make a specific request that we reach out to local Tea Parties in Ventura to let them know about the values of CRA and that there is now a functional Unit in their area.

Celeste Greig, CRA President wrote the following:

Yes, I know that must of you are saying “Not another drama, lets just move on and ignore the park brothers”, well that is what we have been doing for the last 5 years or so, and look where it has taken us.

Then she added:

What mess *? Steve Frank WAS NOT in charge or President of the Ventura County R.A. he only went and met with Regina Risolio last week to get the existing records from her, she was the President, NOT Steve, he was not even on the board, we have been trying to re-activate the Unit for a long time, and had good, solid conservative people who wanted to be part of it, not anymore.

After Park recommends that the CRA President reach-out to the Ventura Tea Party, their President George Miller, attacks::

Mr. Parks:

I have NO idea what you and your brother are smoking up there, but:

1. “Reorganizing” a CRA chapter which is supposed to be “Conservative,” using RINO’s, if not out and out Progressives, will win you no favor in Ventura County, from actual Conservatives and real Tea Parties.

2. Steve Frank was not running the VC CRA chapter. He came in very recently after the fact and tried to revive the corpse. From the looks of your shrinking membership (notwithstanding your phantom units and bought “members),  it doesn’t look as though there’s much of real substance left.  Add to that its endorsements of non-Conservatives, why bother?

2. We brought some Tea Parties into CRA in 2011, right before you staged your mischief surrounding the CRA Convention. At that time, most of us either exited, changed plans to join, or cut back radically on CRA participation. We haven’t forgotten.

4. Is this mere incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to destroy CRA and what it stands for? Your latest stunt seems to suggest the latter.

Regards,

George Miller

Please note that Celeste Greig was the one that inserted the idea that Steve Frank was “President of Ventura County RA” not Mr. Park as Miller claims.

Mr. Miller,

I received your email last night and wished to respond to it. Clearly someone gave you my address because we have never corresponded before.

Before responding I want to tell you a little about myself. I have been in CRA since about 1989 when I was recruited by Barbara Alby in the Narthex of Capital Christian Center in Sacramento. I have seen many changes over the years.  I was active in the Congressional campaigns of both Tim LeFevre and Barbara Alby. My daughter had attended City on the Hill youth camp that is sponsored by CRI. In 2011, I was supporting Karen England for President. My blog on the conflict between England and the Parks, et al was the basis of the court action taken against CRA.

cra_battles_to_verge_of_extinction—update
cra_battles_to_verge_of_extinction—update2
cra_delegate_amendment
cra_hit_with_tro
cra_board_loses_in_court

I arrived at the April 2011 convention ready to vote for Karen England until I saw the circus that was staged on her behalf by Capitol Staffers and others. It was clear that she arrived with a host of paper clubs and was resorting to classic protest tactics I had only witnessed utilized by Leftists. It was a great disappointment to behold.

cra_delegate_fight
cra_elections

I also have disagreed with Aaron Park and others in their treatment of Rodney Stanhope. However, I have had a good relationship with Aaron and George Park for many years.

Unlike you, or Steve Frank or Celeste Greig, I was at the re-organizational meeting for the Ventura Republican Assembly.

Everything Steve Frank said about the meeting prior to it actually taking place was false except that Mike Osborn would attend. Frank’s complaints prior to the meeting were that Osborn worked with Charles Munger and some of his appointments to CRP were from outside Ventura County. These arguments are rather weak. CRA endorsed most of Munger’s slate for the CRP. Celeste Greig had ample time to recruit opponents to the slate and did not. In the old days CRA ran a complete slate for all CRP offices and had an effective proxy drill. Secondly, a County chair can appoint whoever they want to appoint.

Mike Osborn is the County chairman of the Republican Party of Ventura County. The CRA is chartered by the Republican Party. It has been the practice that County chairs will be present at Republican events in their county. This is doubly so when a new group is organizing. I spoke to Mr. Osborn at the Ventura RA meeting and he claims to be pro-life, a supporter of the Second Amendment and wants lower taxes. That may not cover all 14 points of the CRA but it puts him squarely in the Republican column. What Mike Osborn seems to lack is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ—something that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

The Steve Frank email that was forwarded to you by Celeste Greig prior to the re-organizational meeting was full of bullet points designed to put a wedge between your group and the CRA. You did not show due diligence to check the truth of Frank’s assertions or attend the meeting as an observer. You were welcome to come and check it out. Like Steve Frank, you did not attend the meeting but you are perfectly will to misrepresent it because it fits your narrative.

Better yet, if you wanted to, you could have had your Tea Party friends show up at George’s meeting, paid memberships and taken the Ventura RA right from under his nose. Since that didn’t happen it makes me wonder why you even inserted yourself into this issue.

No one claimed that Frank was running the VC CRA chapter as you assert in point 2 of your email. Frank—as a Senate District Director—was charged with helping to grow and assist CRA chapters in his assigned area. As I understand it, Ventura went from five chapters to zero. It appears that not until Frank and Greig did a headcount of possible delegates for the April 2013 Convention did they set their sights on reviving the chapter.

Neither Party in the 2011 CRA Convention battle is blameless. I am one of the few that publicly advocated following the existing rules to get thru the controversy. Had Karen England followed the rules and done thing according to the Bylaws she could have won. Celeste and her friends weren’t sure that following the rules would work so they shaded things to their side. For new folks coming into the group, it was not our finest moment.

I can understand your reluctance to be involved in CRA; however, with this email you have inserted yourself not only into an internal CRA controversy but you have chosen sides by the way you have done it.

One last irony that you remind me of is that it was Charles Munger that gave money to the Tea Party in Placer County to take-over their Republican Central Committee and boot out the CRA members.

I wish the Tea Party would either stay out of CRA affairs or pay dues so they can have a voice in what happens. Taunting from the sidelines does not advance either group. It only causes more folks sour on politics and register as DTS.

Sincerely,

After declaring that he is through with CRA and screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’; Steve Frank failed to complete his stated mission of jihad on Saturday.

Sunday from his recovery room he released yet another tirade. Below are the portions relevant to his aborted resignation.

I am a CRA Senate District Director—I have resigned as that.  Why?  Because I am also a CRA Past President and can have only one vote at a convention.  So, like I did two years ago before the CRA convention, I resigned as Senate District Director so someone can replace me.

OK Steve, no place in your rant—see post below—did you qualify what you were resigning from, it was I’m moving on; CRA has forsaken its values and I’m moving onto somewhere where I can do more good. You dissed the organization as a whole.

Later in the message he continued:

While I will not be active in CRA—do I really want to continue internal fights that take energy and resources from defeating liberals and Democrats? (I will continue my CRA membership)
Instead I will:
*continue publishing our CRA principles and values in my newsletter every day
*continue doing several radio shows each week promoting our CRA principles and values.
*continue speaking 2-3 times each week around the State to conservative groups and monthly debate liberals on our CRA values and principles.
These are positive things for CRA. AND I WILL ONLY DO POSITIVE THINGS FOR CRA.

Steve, the big issue that folks have with you and many Republicans is not what you say; it’s what you do and how you do it. It’s the backroom, back-stabbing, always calculating for advantage that folks have against you. You’re not sure you can win in a fair fight so you find ways of putting your thumb on the scales just to make sure you win. Can you say, “Santa Clarita?”

I’m glad to see that you are turning over a new leaf and promising from now on that “I will only do positive things for CRA”. Unfortunately old habits die hard. We will see if you continue you old ways or do better. I think it more likely that you are sorry you got caught, than sorry for what you have done.

Yesterday I attended a Board meeting of the California Republican Assembly. I’ve attended a lot of meeting for various organizations and this one was noteworthy for what was done incorrectly.

The highlights or takeaways or whatever metaphor fits the best were related to endorsements for candidates running for positions on the Board of the California Republican Party—the election for these positions will be during their spring convention.

I walked in the door just as Jim Brulte was being introduced. Brulte is the only announced candidate that has stepped forward to run for chairman of the California GOP. Brulte spoke for about five minutes and then fielded a few questions. Brulte did take two questions from me.

My first question was an attempt to get Brulte to promise that in the future, the CRP should not expend their limited funds in general election races where both candidates were Republicans. Please spend money fighting against Democrats. He did seems to agree that would be a better use of our resources.

My second question was concerning CRP candidate endorsements. I was trying to get Brulte to have the CRP adopt a primary system that did not vest all power in Central Committees and the State Board but allowed input from rank and file Republicans. Brulte had no interest in dealing with this issue. The current system was supposed to be only for the 2012 election cycle but no permanent solution has been proposed yet. I think it likely that the current system is here to stay. It is a top down model and works well in an authoritarian/elitist system. As long as this system is in place then the Republicans have no claim to being a “grassroots” Party.

Immediately following his remarks, the chair entertained a motion to endorse Brulte. She called for yea votes, then said “all opposed step outside” and the asked for any abstentions. I wanted to vote “no” based on the brush-off to my second question but I was not allowed to do so. Shortly after this vote, the Secretary called the role for purposes or establishing a quorum.

When a Chairman cannot follow Robert’s Rules of Order I loose respect for them. The rest of the body didn’t want the Chair to look dumber by pointing out that their endorsement vote was illegal and therefore void under both CRA’s Bylaws and Robert’s Rules.
• Quorum was not established prior to conducting business
• No one was allowed to speak in opposition to the nomination which was the case in all other endorsement votes held yesterday

As is often the practice of the Parliamentarian, he was silent on this snafu.

The Agenda for the meeting was poorly done. The main purpose of the Board Meeting was supposed to be to discuss endorsing candidates for the CRP Board and this was not even on the Agenda! The layout was not done as multi-level outline but resembled a grocery list.

My other gripe is much more delicate to discuss. A candidate for another office appeared at the Board Meeting seeking endorsement for his run for a CRP office. Except for Brulte, all other candidates were asked to leave the room. Once this other candidate left the room, the meeting took a trip into the Twilight Zone or some other infrequently charted waters.

An individual got up in front of the group and then stated that he had been sober for ten years and had not been arrested in 17 years but he said that the candidate that we had just heard could make no such claim. Wow!

Then a second person got up and began to talk about the candidate. His attempt to speak was curtailed by the chair. He was frustrated that he was unable to unload on the character of this individual and his conduct during the most recent election cycle. The person complaining was promised that he would be able to bring this up under new business. When he again tried under new business he was shut down by the chair. Clearly this candidate has hit a raw nerve in the minds of several that claimed to know him.

The endorsement was tabled in the remote hope that someone more palatable would be found at a future date.

This incident was one of those where the political response diverged from the biblical one.

The character assassination card was played against this person. He had no opportunity to respond to the accusations since he was not allowed in the room. No evidence was presented that the accusations were true and his reputation was hurt. Lastly the person could have been blocked from getting the endorsement without the tactics that were utilized.

I sensed that there was likely a basis in fact for the accusations but it was equally clear that the endorsement could be blocked without resorting to their use. Disclosure in this way was a punitive act.

The Christian response would be to pray for the person and if he claimed to be a believer then go to him in order that he might repent. Putting someone out of the church is a different issue from blocking a political endorsement. I think some well-meaning folks went too far.

I think my conclusion that we are not yet ready to lead is still true. We need a new paradigm before those in the church are ready to lead in the political world. We need to have a political worldview that is an extension of our faith not a contradiction of it.

The following was released by Chris Orrock—President of Elk Grove Republicans—in response to the verbal meltdown that Barbara Ortega had Monday night after their endorsing meeting. Reportedly she used language that would make most sailors blush as she went after her opponent Peter Tateishi—to his face—and every Party group she could name. The only other person on this year’s ballot to promote this level of unity in Rebublican ranks is Barack Obama.

Today, the Presidents of the Cosumnes Republican Assembly, Elk Grove Republican Club, Sacramento Conservative Republicans of California and the Sacramento Republican Assembly took the extraordinary step of reprimanding Assembly Candidate Barbara Ortega and called upon her to apologize for her false claims and accusations against the California Republican Party, Sacramento County Republican Party and all of the Republican Clubs in Sacramento County.
This measure comes after Ortega made accusations of collusion and unethical practices against the clubs, elected Republican Officeholders, and official parties in Sacramento as well as the California Republican Party.  Ortega stated at the Elk Grove Republican Club that the club and its membership had “rigged” the system against her to support the efforts of her opponent.  She accused club members and the elected members of the Central Committee of intentionally misleading her and denying her opportunities to participate in candidate forums and endorsement meetings.  She continued to berate the state party, local party and local clubs that had voted to endorse Peter Tateishi.
“Her behavior and tone at the meeting was unacceptable and should not be tolerated by any candidate” said Carl Brickey President of the Cosumnes Republican Assembly.  “To accuse our volunteers and elected central committee of collusion and of unethical practices is baseless and false.”
“We are saddened today to have to take this measure against one of our own candidates, but her statements cannot go unanswered” said Tim Snipes President of the Sacramento Republican Assembly.  “As a party, we do not attack our own, especially the grassroots volunteers who make our party great.”
“Sadly, Ortega has a history of making poor decisions and failing to act appropriately in public.  We had hoped she would have learned from her arrests years ago for driving under the influence, which she plead down to a wet and reckless, battery of an officer and resisting arrest” said Chris Orrock President of Elk Grove Republican Club. “It does not appear that she has taken the time to grow from these unfortunate experiences and continues to behave in a way that is not becoming of any candidate running for office.”
Ortega’s claims at the Elk Grove Republican Meeting can all be proven as not just untrue but completely false.