Category: CRA

I arrived Friday at the annual convention of the California Republican Assembly. My hopes for this group to become relevant to the political discourse in California suffered another setback when I came across a man about 30 years of age that was gathering signatures to qualify a ballot initiative. This initiative was to require all genetically engineered foods to be labeled as such. His argument was that then the market could decide whether to eat these types of food. Almost every delegate that he asked to sign this petition did so with no questions. The man then said that voters could decide in November.

I did something I normally don’t do and that was try to engage him in a conversation about this petition. I started with the fact that this petition will be found unconstitutional because it violates the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. He did not care.

I tried to argue that all food is genetically engineered. Anyone ever hear of Gregor Mendel? All plant breading is genetically engineering. He tried to say that wasn’t what his petition was about. I said what about engineering food to provide more nutrients. He flatly stated that this was not possible and nobody was doing this. At this point—were there any doubt—I now had all the proof I needed that this man was a fool; no evidence would convince him that this was folly. However, I did cast a few more pearls.

I told him that the presumption of such a petition would be that all food was genetically manipulated and that all food producers would have to prove that their food was not. All food would have to be tracked from grower to mill to feedlot or cereal producer or grocery store. Anything that mixed field A with field B would need to be tracked. I and my family have been in and around agriculture for many years and this man claimed his expertise was that he had his own garden. BFD! I then told him that 97 percent of the food in his local grocery store was from outside California and the only way his bill would work is if every food producer in the world was tracked by batch from the field to the local grocery store, Only then could his initiative be enforced. I told him that the bureaucracy required to track this would cost tens of billions of dollars. He did not believe me. I said that this program would dwarf the government intrusion of AB32.

He said it would be worth it to let the market decide. Consumers needed a label with this information. He repeatedly named Monsanto and Dow as the villains of this imaginary drama.

I told him that this petition was the brain child of liberals from San Francisco and asked him how he could harmonize signature gathering for such an idea with his identification with a conservative Republican political organization. I also told him if he really wanted to do some good in the food market that banning ethanol would be much more beneficial than this he was pushing. The only glimmer of hope in the whole conversation was when he agreed that banning ethanol would be a good idea.

If Republicans in Southern California are this naive then what hope do we have on issues such as water?

Thankfully, the next day this ballot initiative was overwhelmingly opposed by delegates at the convention. The dozen or so that voted to support it were—according to my source—were mostly residents of Orange County.

The California Republican Assembly (CRA) held a Board meeting on July 23rd. Much of the meeting was devoted to “Disciplinary Hearings” Related to 17 questionable units and eight members.

I attended the Fresno meeting and sat at one of the front tables. I had no vote in the proceedings and left the room only at the lunch break. Board members had to pay $35 to register for the event. This fee included some breakfast rolls and a box lunch. Any funds collected beyond the actual costs are normally split between the hosting unit and the state organization.

The meeting began shortly after 9 am. After the usual opening of such meetings (Pledge, invocation, etc.) some ground rules for debate were set and President Celeste Greig came to the podium. She began by describing the stream of emails that had been sent to her. Then she called Steve Frank to the front. Frank walked up to the podium carrying a large spool of string and some scissors. He was instructed to tie the string to Greig’s wrists and arms; since supporters of Karen England has apparently called her Frank’s puppet. After some laughter and applause Frank returned to his seat. Greig mentioned a raffle at the back of the room and then made appointments to several committees. Cliff Wagoner was made chair of the Charter Review Committee. Other members were appointed to this committee. Site Selection appointments were made and, Publication and Technology were combined into one committee and members were named. Some members previously asked to be part of these committees were replaced by others. Whether this was purposeful or due to a communications snafu is not known.

A report on the legal wrangling related to the TRO was made by Tom Hudson and Craig Alexander. The report was chronological from the first legal filing by Restore the CRA to the order to seek relief from the California Republican Party (CRP) via arbitration.

At this point the meeting was turned over to George Park for the disciplinary portion of the agenda. Park made some preliminary remarks to frame the issue that was before the Board. Most of these remarks centered on the actions of the former Membership Secretary, Peggy Mew.

I received the membership records from the former membership secretary some fifty odd days after the last convention. So that was about the beginning of June…What I received, I don’t even know how to explain in nice terms. It was a disaster. It is a disaster…But, as a result of reviewing the records, and the very lack of records that I received, it seems to me, based on what seems to be in the CRA treasury, and based on the dues that should have been reported from our units, and based on what I imaging, our best guess is on membership, we are short some ten thousand plus dollars in dues.

The simplest explanation for this is that Peggy Mew showed more members on the books than CRA appears to have received in dues. This is due to a combination of two issues.

The CRA Bylaws include the following passage: “Section 4.08. Remittance of Dues to Chartered Republican Assemblies. Each chartered Republican Assembly shall receive forty percent of the membership dues collected from members assigned to it.” Since the stock dues are $25, sixty percent or $15 goes to the state organization for the first member in each household. My chapter collects $15 for each additional member of the household. Sixty percent of $15 is $9. Given these rates per member and the $10K shortage, Mew appears to be carrying about 700 deadbeat members. Given the membership inflation that CRA is known for, this is not unexpected.

However, part of the discrepancy may be the result of how Mew would calculate the date dues of members were paid. Supposed you joined a chapter in June. Sometime in August, your unit treasurer sent a check for new members to the Membership Secretary. She might hold the check for a period of time before it was deposited. Next year a newly elected office in your unit might ask her when your dues expired. If she responded to your inquiry—which was a less than 50/50 proposition—you could easily be told your dues were up in October. You just got five free months of membership! I won’t say this always happened but I know that it did occur. Now amplify this one example over a few thousand members and the result is a chaotic mess.

I imaging the record dump that Park received from Mew was not much different than the old story of the CPA that got a shoebox full of receipts from some shopkeeper in the town square just days before the filing deadline. I have no reason to believe this problem is the result of fraud, I just think Mew did not pay attention to detail. In her defense, this is a voluntary position but a critical one.

Park then went on to deal with the rogue units—many of which were the dreaded “paper clubs.” Park reported that each unit was contacted via telephone, certified mail, snail mail and email—if the contact information was available. He stuck primarily to the officers listed on the information that he had. If the contact information was bad then the unit was in danger of being dechartered. If contact was made and the membership and other information was not provided or did not prove accurate the unit was also in danger.

Park made it known that he did change some of the recommendations that were on the written report that was circulated. Further modification was made as the process was rolled-out. Many units whose charters were revoked would be assigned to a CRA vice-president in their area along with Charter Review oversight to see about reconstituting the unit.

One member of the audience argued against dechartering units as follows,

“This is a self correcting problem. If these people really are paper units then they’re gonna disappear…As a general principle, I don’t think we need to be evicting units left and right. I think we should let is self correct, correct itself. If they really are a paper unit they’re gonna go away, expire. If they’re not, they’re gonna renew and then we’ll know…”

Shortly after this statement Tom Hudson replied,

I want to make sure we are all clear on what we are doing here. Don make a very important point that I think is true. In saying that if something is a paper club, that it will go way on its own. Well I agree with him but this is that process. There is no process in the Bylaws that says things just disappear into thin air…This is the process for how that happens.

It was announced that members on the rolls of dechartered units will be sent a letter notifying them that they are now members at large and encouraging them to either join another chapter or form a new unit in their area. Such members have all the rights of CRA membership except to be delegates to the state convention.

Of the seventeen units in the report, only two responded to the proposed actions of the board. Here is the disposition of the seventeen units.
• Alpine Heights, Camp Pendleton, San Diego, Stanton were the first four units discussed. They were all dechartered.
• Next eight chapters in the Corona area were all dechartered. These units were: Citrus, Circle City, Corona Hills, Kinesco Valley, Norco, Rimpau, South Corona, and West Corona. It was hoped that the area vice-president and the Charter review Committee could encourage members to reconstitute one or more units in the area.
• Mid-empire—a plaintiff in the ongoing litigation—was dechartered.
• South Butte and Ladero Ranch units were put on probation. The term used at the meeting was “Jeopardy”. If corrective actions were taken, they could be restored to full status.
• Yuba was dechartered.
• Lastly, Yolo County was dechartered. This should have happened in 1999 but the Board at that time refused to act.

Yuba and Yolo were dismissed in the course of the noon meal. Then the issue of removal of individual members was addressed. This portion of the meeting was begun with the intent to ban some members for life. However, comments by Norm Reece had a significant impact on this portion of the meeting.

I frankly think the CRA is made up of a lot of godly people. You know I just think that is a given. I think forgiveness and repentance is part of our Christian principles. I really feel as a Christian; for life? I just have a problem with that…That changes my vote.

As a result of Reece’s comments, no one was given a lifetime ban. The individuals listed below that were banned can re-apply to the Board for membership when their suspension is completed. Here are the results:
• Paul Dillon 5 years
• Karen England 10 years
• Tim Lefever 10 years
• David Reed 10 years
• Tom Rogers 10 years
• Mark Spanigal 5 years
• Scott Voigts 1 year
• Rick Marshal No action

Voigts, almost got off scot-free. He was part of the litigation but has done some positive things for CRA. The Board was reluctant to find agreement on his fate. This was due to comments made by Craig Alexander.

Conspicuously absent from the list was former Membership Secretary, Peggy Mew. Much of the chaos at the last convention was enabled by her obstruction and manipulation of club data in her possession.

My final comments on the meeting are related to what I believe is a flawed legal theory put forward by Tom Hudson and Craig Alexander several times over the course of the meeting. This involves the legal concept of “standing.”

The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.

Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

Hudson and Alexander both expressed the belief that removing the Mid-Empire Republican Assembly and the individuals named in the complaint against the CRA as members of the organization would somehow result in them losing standing for both the current legal challenge as well as any future challenges that they might make. Since no one disputes that they were members at the time of the April convention, I think this is wishful thinking and has no practical effect on anything. Quite the opposite, I think it gives England more ammunition to use when she and the others in Restore the CRA take their case to arbitration at the California Republican Party.

Did CRA win the battle in such a way that they may ultimately lose the war? Not likely but you never know.

Round two of the dust-up in the California Republican Assembly is scheduled for this Saturday. Rumors of “scorched-earth” retribution are circulating among both camps of the current dispute. The only written account that I have seen is from the Restore the CRA faction lead by Capitol Research Institute President Karen England. The email is short on facts and overflowing with sarcasm and disinformation; however, I have heard that some claims in their email are being considered by the newly elected board. Possibly on the agenda are plans de-chartering several units and then having trials of certain members that could face expulsion from the organization.

De-chartering some CRA units is based on their compliance with Restore the CRA’s request that local units withhold membership information for the Credentials Committee headed by George Park prior to the April convention. As far as I can ascertain, former Membership Secretary Peggy Mew has never turned her records over to the new Board or her replacement George Park. As a result, Park has no information that documents the existence of these rogue units. Since no records exists that prove these non-complying groups are legitimate, they will be deemed to not exist. If they wish recognition then they will have to go thru the chartering process—which is expected to be revised at the Saturday meeting.

If such an action were to happen, it should be done in an affirmative manner that says these are legitimate units in our records, any groups not on this list must submit themselves to the chartering process since the Board has no record of their existence and they refused multiple attempts requesting the information. However, the rumor is that each group in danger of losing their charter will be tried individually in front of the whole Board. A separate vote will then be taken to remove each chapter. I really hope the folks in charge have more sense than to adopt such a vindictive and time consuming strategy.

The other rumored agenda item is the trial and expulsion of several members that were leaders involved in Restore the CRA—including Karen England. I think such a move is beyond the legitimate boundaries of action that should be considered or taken by the Board. Such a move would be a sign of weakness by the current leadership and proof that England was correct in her diagnosis of the state of the CRA.

A friend tried to explain the current situation to me this way. Two factions in Placer County are fighting among themselves and this has spilled over into the CRA. Simultaneously, at least two factions in Orange County are also at war with each other. Many involved on opposing sides are CRA members. It just so happens that the two groups on the losing side in Placer and Orange have united to challenge the side in power in CRA. Whether this explanation adequately captures the outlines of the conflict, clearly folks from Placer and the O.C. are the focal points of the current controversy.

Lastly, since the CRA conflict is pending arbitration by the California Republican Party, it seems reasonable to think any heavy-handed retribution by the current CRA leadership against England and the Restore the CRA folks could turn into a suicide pact for the group. England has a lot more friends in the CRP and than in CRA leadership. CRA should tread lightly or there may be hell to pay.

I can see it now on Saturday morning…
The command is given to form the circular firing squad. Then as the Republicans face each other across the circle the order is given, “Ready, Fire, Aim.” Yep, just another day of Party politics.

The convention is now over. Celeste Greig was re-elected along with the rest of her slate. The important Bylaws Amendments were not even discussed. The Sunday session was rather tame compared with the previous day’s festivities. Litigation plans were clearly well underway and something will probably be filed tomorrow.

The biggest looser from the convention was clearly Peggy Mew; the Membership Secretary that conspired with Karen England to fix the election was thrown-out of office. Yesterday, she repeatedly refused to reveal any membership records even as the paper clubs she was vouching for were systematically being disqualified from having their delegates seated. The only rational explanation for her refusal to reveal the records was that there were no records.

Peggy let it slip that yesterday that “every chartered club was entitled to two delegates”. At the time I thought it was a strange comment to make in the context of the discussion. Now I think it was a window into her approach to the convention. If a club didn’t have delegates then she helps to find some.

Peggy assigned delegates to dormant clubs with no active members. As a result, these delegates were incapable of answering such basic questions as:
Who was your club president?
When did you meet?
How were you selected?
Even Karen England could not name the president of the club that she claimed membership in. I was told that the interview with her was embarrassing.

There is an old saying that should serve as a warning to Karen and her legal team. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” I think the next round of litigation could backfire on Karen and her friends and out them as empty suits running a bluff worthy of a world-class poker tournament. After the TRO last week if Peggy produced the records as requested and they showed what she purported then Karen world be president today.

The issue is will Peggy turn over the records to her successor or refuse to comply. If the records are released then everyone will know whether this is a bluff. If she refuses then we know that way also. I think either way she has a problem.

If the clubs denied the seating of their delegates are real then England will be back for round two at the next election; however, if she was gaming the system then I doubt we see her again.

Many folks were and are emotionally invested in this controversy. My sympathy goes out to those newbies that were used as cannon folder in this warfare. Most will never know how they have been manipulated. Emotion often trumps logic in such situations. I look back at my time with Barbara Alby and her minions when I first got involved in CRA. Demonizing the “other guys” and vilifying other people is a shortcut to power and is not a legitimate tool of leadership.

The contentious CRA convention began today with a visit from the Sacramento Police Department. Apparently fisticuffs broke-out when some folks that were not credentialed tried to force their way into the delegate meeting’s morning session. About 125 people were not seated by the Credentials Committee.

After many false starts, the Committee met last night to decide who would be credentialed. The court order not to take residency into account was meticulously followed. The Committee was charged with verifying that the delegates were legitimate. Delegates are awarded per the Bylaws based on the number of members in each chapter. However, the Membership Secretary would not provide any rosters of membership. As stated in the emails from Karen England, Peggy Mew—the Membership Secretary—decided that only she could decide who was a legitimate delegate. This is what the debate was about for most of the day.

The majority of the Credentials Committee voted to verify the number of delegates seated based on the club membership for all clubs. 52 chapters complied. About 40 did not. 8 chapters submitted no delegate list.

Prior to the meeting last night, the Credentials Committee has found many irregularities in submissions. Here are some examples: the same person was submitted as a delegate for three different chapters; registered Democrats and Decline-to-State voters were submitted; at least one name submitted is a registered Republican in Illinois; and many names submitted were not known to be members.

To avoid the appearance of partiality, any chapter that submitted a roster that seemed in order was allowed to seat their delegates. The one know drawback to this approach was that due to a lack of records, the Committee could not verify that all dues were current.

At the morning session today, the 52 delegations were seated without many changes to the list. At the afternoon session which was still going at 4:30 pm, when I finally left, the delegations that did not follow the instructions of the Charter Review Committee were being denied any delegates.

My biggest complaint in the proceedings was that George Park was presiding over the Credentials Committee and the Convention session that decided delegates. Since, he and brother—Aaron—were the chief apologists for Celeste Greig, it seems to me that someone else that appeared more impartial should be running the credentialing process. While deciding the fate of delegates in the afternoon session, George took a volatile situation and made it even worse. He did not strictly follow Robert’s Rules and in between voting on the fate of dubious units he kept handing the microphone to others that kept defending the actions of the Credentials Committee. He also made comments that were provocative and unnecessary. He took a long session and made it even longer. If he needed a break he could have yielded to someone else to keep the meeting moving.

The only time that the forces of Karen England almost gained some ground was when a prospective delegate came into the room and spoke of how he had come all the way from San Diego to vote. He tried to sound like a conservative warrior that he earned the right to be there. Park exposed him as a fraud by asking only one question. How were you selected as a delegate? Like anyone skilled in politics when faced with a yes or no question, he began to filibuster and it was clear he had no idea how or why he was a delegate. I told my wife the story of this young man and I was told that he works for Karen and is a Facebook friend of my daughter.

Thus far, two things are clear. First, England lost the battle today thanks to overreaching & not having Peggy Mew work with the Credentialing folks. Second, before noon on Monday a court action will be filed claiming the CRA violated the TRO issued by the judge.

For claiming to be a conservative leader, Celeste Greig has proven that she is not. She is tone-deaf to the ramifications of her inaction. Rule number one: politics is perception. I think what happened today was within the rules but the way it was done has resulted in the maximum damage to the organization.

Karen England has proven that she won’t take the high road victory. I went to the convention today planning to vote for her but the way she and her inner circle conducted themselves today made me change my mind. In the morning session our good friend Ron Givens was leading the charge against Park. Later Mike Spence took the lead.

The conduct of England’s forces were the same tactics that I have seen when the prochoice lesbians show up at a prolife rally or when harassing sidewalk counselors in front of an abortion clinic. How and why Karen got a bunch of Republican staffers from the capitol to behave like this is very disappointing. If she had followed the rules leading up to the convention she would have won.

The bad news is that she brought in a bunch of people with no history with the organization and has been feeding them a diet of half-truths and bald-faced lies. Karen has poisoned the well and inoculated these newbies against holding both sides accountable. Everything now is personal.

As I watch this and listen to Karen, I think I am seeing many of the same tactics unfolding that Barbara Alby used in the 1980s to take over CRA. The difference this time is that it is happening to the folks Barbara brought into the organization. In a sense, the cycle is coming full circle. My question is after Karen captures the organization at the next convention and purges all the dissenters, will the CRA still exist?

I am amazed at the extent Karen has gone to in repaying Aaron & George Park and Tom Hudson for the harm she feels they have done to her. Truly hell hath no fury…

Update

My initial comments on this matter were based on this release from Restore the CRA.

Moments ago in a Sacramento courtroom, the judge granted a Temporary Restraining Order against Celeste Grieg, George and Aaron Park, Tom Hudson, Craig Alexander and their assorted minions prohibiting them from using the “policy” passed by the Board at the end of March that purported to restrict delegates to the geographic boundary of their unit club in clear and obvious violation of the current CRA Bylaws.

The Judge made clear that “this temporary restraining order which preserves the existing CRA Bylaws” will be in effect this weekend for the CRA Convention. All CRA Convention delegates qualified on March 26 by submission of the delegate lists should attend the Convention, register and vote.

President Celeste Greig, the Park brothers, Tom Hudson, Craig Alexander and the CRA mechanisms they control are now enjoined by the Court from interfering, directly or indirectly, with your right to vote.

PLEASE LET RESTORE THE CRA KNOW if any of them attempt to further interfere with your rights to attend under the current Bylaws and vote your conscience.

Units are NOT required to send George Park, Joe Sturges or anyone else their Bylaws or any other information not specifically required by the current CRA Bylaws. The Membership Secretary has performed the actions need to certify delegates on all lists sent to her. This essentially means that units and delegates should do what they have done in prior conventions which has been accepted as proper practice. All delegates need to plan on attending convention and exercise their right to vote.

Violation of this Court Order will mean that perpetrators are in contempt of court and subject to both civil and criminal penalties. Lawyers in contempt may additionally have action taken against their license to practice law by the California Bar Association.

Congratulations to Karen England, CRA VP Scott Voigts, Tom Rogers and the Mid-Empire RA for their courageous leadership on behalf of honest grassroots leaders and upholding the institution of CRA and the rule of law!

While the judge did issue a temporary restraining order, it only nullified the CRA Board vote not to seat otherwise qualified candidates who lived outside the boundaries of their local chapter. Contrary to the claim in the release above, nothing was said about the Membership Secretary having the final say on who was a delegate.

Here is the heart of the judge’s decision:

The few cases identified by defendant CRA of irregularity in the RA delegate selection process can be appropriately dealt with by the CRA Credentials Committee without the wholesale deprivation of voting rights by delegates selected to respresent their RA pursuant to the existing bylaws.

Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order
IT IS ORDERED that defendant California Republican Assembly (CRA) appear on April 28, 2011, which is 15 days from April 13, 2011, when the TRO issues, [See CCP 527(d)(1]). at 2 p.m. in Department 53 of this Court, located at 800 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be ordered, preliminarily restraining and enjoining defendants, their agents, or any other persons acting with them or on their behalf, from taking any action directly or indirectly to disqualify and refuse to seat, pursuant to the policy approved by the CRA Board of Directors between March 29 and 31, 2011, otherwise qualified delegates that have already been selected and presented to CRA for the CRA Annual Convention.

Defendant’s response, if any, is to be filed by April 20, 2011. Plaintiffs’ reply, if any, is to be filed by April 25, 2011.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pending the hearing and determination of the order to show cause, defendant CRA and its officers, employees, agents and any other persons acting with them or on their behalf, are restrained and enjoined from taking any action directly or indirectly to disqualify and refuse to seat, pursuant to the policy approved by the CRA Board of Directors between March 29 and 31, 2011, otherwise qualified delegates that have already been selected and presented to CRA for the CRA Annual Convention on April 15-17, 2011.

No bond is required for this temporary restraining order which preserves the existing CRA Bylaws. The subject of an appropriate bond, if any, shall be taken up at the hearing on the preliminary injunction.

Contract with the CRA released to following statement two hours after the judge slapped them down.

Karen England put all of her eggs in one basket and the Sacramento County Superior Court just stomped on it!

After hearing evidence of massive voter fraud, specifically including the misrepresentation by Karen England and her campaign, a Sacramento judge said that the CRA Credentials Committee could deal with such irregularities according to the CRA Bylaws.

The Judge ordered CRA not to implement the Board policy from March 29, which stated that delegates must reside inside the boundaries of their local units.

The Judge’s order specifically says, “The few cases identified by defendant CRA of irregularity in the RA delegate selection process can be appropriately dealt with by the CRA Credentials Committee without the wholesale deprivation of voting rights by delegates selected to represent [sic] their RA pursuant to the existing bylaws.”

We agree with the Judge, this means that the application of many CRA bylaw provisions will result in several people being denied credentials to serve as delegates to this convention.

The CRA By-Laws will be strictly enforced.

In plain English this means that if a delegate can’t produce a letter of transfer that was send to the Membership Secretary and both the presidents of the old and new clubs then they will not be seated.

Section 4.06. Assignment to a Chartered Republican Assembly. Members will be assigned to the chartered Republican Assembly listed on their membership forms. Where no preference is listed, the membership Secretary may assign a new member to any chartered Republican Assembly where the member lives, works, or attends school. At any time, CRA members may transfer membership to any chartered Republican Assembly they are eligible to join by notifying the Membership Secretary and the President or Secretary of both the new Republican Assembly and the old Republican Assembly (if any). No person may be a member of more than one chartered Republican Assembly at the same time.

I wonder if the gang at Restore the CRA is willing to go for another TRO once this process starts whittling away their delegates.

Given the volatile environment that is swirling around the upcoming convention, I would like to make a proposal that is outside the current debate. I think we should adopt the framework for deciding delegates & chartering new units (see blog entry below for a possible framework) and suspend the Bylaws to allow officer elections to be delayed until the next regularly scheduled meeting in October.

While unconventional, my idea would allow for both sides to enter into a campaign with known rules that would not be changed after the names of delegates have been submitted. It would allow an even playing field for both sides to compete.

I think both sides feel that the process has been tarnished by the other. I see the outcome now as bitter, divisive and fertile ground for years of retribution on both sides. The CRA/CCR split still haunts this organization and that was about 25 years ago. CRA went from claiming over 100,000 members to having less than 2,500 paid members.

I have been in CRA for almost 24 years. The trend lines during that time has not been favorable. The only reason the fish in this pond are getting bigger is because the lake dried up long ago and a shrinking puddle is all that remains.

The way both sides are conducting themselves, it would be right that we wander for another generation in the wilderness. Currently I foresee only three possible outcomes. Either the CRA implodes, or it is taken over by outside interests or it is putdown like a sick animal. Greig and England are spending their time fighting over the wishbone while the rest of the carcass was consumed long ago.

******
I fully expect Karen England to try something in the courts to get an injunction against the current CRA leadership. What form this will take I’m not sure. Will she effectively halt the convention or just try to get more delegates seated? I wish I knew. In the long run, a “time out” might be just what both sides need.

I’d rather be in church on Palm Sunday instead of taking a vote on Sunday.

******
My last thought on this issue—however this turns out—is that the current leadership will regret not dismantling the paper clubs when they had the ability to do so. The number of paper clubs in CRA is shockingly huge.

The CRA was issued a court order that their Board vote was invalid and all delegates will be seated as per rules at time the names were submitted. It also appears that the Credentials Committee has been stripped of their jobs and their duties were given to the Membership Secretary.

I told ya.

As the CRA Convention draws near, I thought it would be good to post the two Bylaws amendments related to the current controversy. If the existing bylaws were followed or the Board had agreed to abide by the first proposal, the impending meltdown could have been avoided. Both Celeste Greig and Karen England have endorsed this proposal before the Board vote.

Section 13.11. Residency of Delegates. No more than one-third of the Delegates representing a chartered Republican Assembly may reside outside the territory that was previously approved for that chartered Republican Assembly by the State Board of Directors. If disputed, residency shall be determined according to voter registration records. If such records are unavailable or inconclusive, residency may be established by other evidence, such as a California driver’s license. At any time during a Convention, if the number of Delegates residing outside the territory of the chartered Republican Assembly exceeds one-third, including Alternates who are substituting for absent Delegates, then the surplus out-of-territory Delegates shall be treated as non-voting Alternates. The decision about which out-of-territory Delegates to treat as non-voting Alternates for this purpose shall be made according to the order that the Delegates were named on the list of Delegates and Alternates sent to the Credentials Committee by the President or Secretary of the chartered Republican Assembly prior to the Convention. Disputes shall be resolved by the Credentials Committee or the Convention. The Convention shall have discretion to adopt rules to prevent the same delegation from being challenged more than once under this Section.

Purpose for this Change: This amendment is designed to restore the representative nature of CRA delegations, with units primarily represented by delegates who live within their jurisdictional boundaries. When units send “delegates” from hundreds of miles outside their boundaries to represent them at CRA Conventions, it makes a mockery of the representative nature of the Convention. What is worse, the ability for units to send out-of-district delegates creates opportunities for fraud, corruption, and manipulation by outside interests. Even when units appoint out-of-district delegates with the best intentions, there may be inadvertent damage to the representative nature of the Convention, so the process should be curtailed. The two-thirds residency requirement is a compromise intended to allow units to deal with special situations. Some CRA members have more than one residence or have good reasons to join units outside of their place of residence. This amendment will allow them to be delegates as long as they do not exceed one-third of their unit’s delegation. If there are too many out-of-district delegates, the extra ones can participate as Alternates.

The second proposal deals with chartering new units.

Section 10.10. Conditions of Organization. The organization of the new Republican Assembly shall be completed, under the direction of the accredited representative(s) of the CRA; provided that the new Republican Assembly shall have:
(a) Ratified the Bylaws of the CRA.
(b) Adopted its own bylaws.
(c) Elected its own officers and directors (if any) and committees, and accomplished its organization in accordance with its bylaws.
(d) Certified to the Membership Secretary that its officers, directors, committees and members have been instructed in their duties by the accredited representative(s) of the CRA.
(e) Certified to the Membership Secretary that it has held at least four regular meetings as an organized body. The unit shall give notice of its four initial meetings to the local State Senate Director and any other CRA officer assigned for that purpose by the CRA President or the Board of Directors.
(f) In addition, for the newly chartered Republican Assembly to be eligible to send delegates to a CRA convention under either Article XIII or Article XIX of these by-laws the new Unit shall:
(1) Apply for its Charter at least 180 days prior to the next regularly scheduled convention; (2) Send to the Membership Secretary at least four sets of meeting minutes no later than 30 days prior to the next regularly scheduled CRA convention.

Purpose for this Change: This amendment is designed to assure that new units to the CRA are created for the purpose of representation and growth of the CRA in the territory outlined in the new Unit’s charter and not solely for the purpose of obtaining an endorsement of a particular candidate just prior to the endorsing convention.