Category: CRA

On his blog, Aaron Park has made a multitude of admissions against interest on this subject. For the Parks, the hill that they have chosen to die on is this one. Nevada Republican Assembly cannot be allowed to exist in any form. It must be exterminated. George and Aaron are the Daleks running around the state screaming, “Exterminate”. Thus Tom McClintock (or Barry Pruett) is The Doctor.

Please also note that current CRA President Tom Hudson went nearly psycho when the CRA did not endorse McClintock in 2014. He sent emails to thousands of people and in my opinion, he fought to prop up the Nevada RA for the purpose of making sure the Placer RA could never block a McClintock endorsement again. In so doing, this was the ignition switch for the current state of affairs within CRA. The Nevada RA was the first time where Alice Khosravy, Carl Brickey and Tim Thiesen stopped going after by-law violations.

Blog Post

This quote needs some explanation for the purposes of context.

First, Aaron admits that this is all about Nevada RA, “this was the ignition switch for the current state of affairs within CRA.”

Now let’s talk about the infamous non-endorsement of Congressman McClintock.

Aaron and George Park organized the 2014 CRA Spring Convention held at Knott’s Berry Farm in Anaheim. Per Google Maps, that’s about 429 miles from their homebase in Roseville. To add a little more importance to the convention, Aaron tried to get all the northern California CRA chapters to hold their local endorsing conventions in Anaheim. My chapter, refused to participate in such a crazy idea. Which part of local does Aaron not understand? My club had several email exchanges with him before he took us off the list of participating chapters.

During the local endorsing votes, Tom Hudson handed the gavel to Aaron Park and left to attend to some other convention business. While Hudson was out of the room, Park presided over the vote. Please understand that what Park did next was a deliberate break from the practice of endorsing within CRA. Park started with a motion not to endorse McClintock. A majority voted in favor of the motion and thus Tom McClintock was denied an opportunity to be endorsed.

This slap at McClintock caused much grief for John Briscoe. At the next Board meeting, Briscoe passed a resolution thanking McClintock for being a great conservative leader. I was one of the few folks in the room that voted against the resolution. I thought it undermined the right of local chapters to endorse. It wasn’t until much later that I found that Park effectively pulled his version of the Kobayashi Maru at the endorsing convention.

Nevada RA is clearly a thorn in Park’s side. Does he really believe that the sole purpose of the chapter is “…making sure the Placer RA could never block a McClintock endorsement again”?

Last year, Aaron was singing a very different tune on this endorsement.

Third – I am neutral. The attacks have only hardened my resolve to sit this one out. At a time of my choosing, when it is convenient for me, I may engage on behalf of either one of them, which one it is depends on Tom McClintock. Right now, this is a no-win thanks to the actions of one CRA officer (who I won’t name) who has inflamed this situation causing Steve Frank to get John Briscoe’s email. Our club spoke and the CRA Spoke and the discussion should be on why we did not endorse versus the attacks.

Blog Post

Ok, Aaron are you neutral or wanting to insure you can block a McClintock endorsement? The preponderance of evidence points to the latter.

And now for the bald-faced lie.

The Nevada RA was the first time where Alice Khosravy, Carl Brickey and Tim Thiesen stopped going after by-law violations.

Here again is Aaron projecting his feeling to others. This is a lie, and the greatest mischaracterization of all. This distortion is the cornerstone of all the Park attacks. Charter Review followed the Bylaws. That is their job. They try to fix broken units not euthanize them. These Board members are the focus of Aaron’s vitriol in this situation because Aaron’s side lost the Board vote. And for that we have had a continuous tantrum for five months from George and Aaron.

Let’s go back to the January 2015 Board meeting. Here was my take on this at the time.

Next was the Nevada County RA.

Charter Review wanted to discipline the group since the Jeopardy Letter had not had the desired effect. They have been messing with this group for four years but Nevada RA will not follow the rules everyone else has to follow. The vote Charter Review scheduled was to suspend the group and put them in the care of the regional vice-president; in this instance Aaron Park who was not present at the meeting.

This portion of the meeting was again mishandled, this time by Charter Review Chairman, Tim Thiesen, and CRA President, John Briscoe. First, Thiesen failed to make a cogent case as to why Nevada RA was in trouble to start with. Thiesen did not lay out in a concise format what happened or when. We were given disjointed fragments of information. Had this been done via email with an executive summary and a request to vote, I think it would have been a slamdunk; however, done in real time it was a disaster.

To add to the confusion, a representative from Nevada RA appeared to speak in defense of his unit. A motion was made from the malcontent wing of the CRA to allow this man to speak for five minutes. This motion was made after Thiesen’s disjointed presentation was concluded. The motion was approved and the Nevada RA rep was granted five minutes to speak. In addition three speakers from each side were allowed two minutes each to speak. Briscoe made two critical mistakes at this juncture. First he allowed the three speakers on each side their two minutes speaches to occur first and then allowed the Nevada RA speakers five minutes at the end to wrap this up.

The old axiom of he who frames the issue wins the debate proved true here. Thiesen failed to prove why the chapter was in trouble so the Nevada RA guy muddied up the waters even more. President Briscoe did not defend his Charter Review Committee and declined to vote on the matter. This was the last straw. The vote which required a two-thirds vote could not break fifty percent. The malcontents prevailed again. Nevada RA begged to be given until the March Convention and this was granted. I don’t think the extra time will solve the issue.

Blog Post

Park wrote,

20 CRA Board members voted to suspend the charter of the Nevada RA. Tom Hudson’s arguments managed to get 20 to vote no, causing the motion to fail.

Blog Post

Tim Thiesen may not be Perry Mason, but John Briscoe seemed to do everything in his power to disrupt the presentation against Nevada RA. He ever stopped Tim in mid stride to allow Jim Brulte to speak to the Board and get endorsed for re-election. Tim had no opportunity to present a cogent argument.

Here are the pertinent Bylaw sections:

ARTICLE V – TERMINATION OF CHARTER AND MEMBERSHIP

Section 5.03. Membership. By January 31, the Membership Secretary shall notify each chartered Republican Assembly with fewer than fifteen dues-paying members that its charter is in jeopardy. The Board of Directors shall also be so notified by the Membership Secretary. If the membership has not increased to a minimum of fifteen members within six months after the notice was sent, then the chartered Republican Assembly may have its charter and membership revoked at the next Board meeting.

Section 5.04. Discipline. Any Republican Assembly that fails to conform to these Bylaws may have its charter and membership suspended or revoked, or may be otherwise disciplined, by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Directors. At least thirty days prior to any Board vote on such matter, written notice of the alleged offense and the Board meeting to discuss it shall be provided to the last reported President and Secretary of such Republican Assembly by the Membership Secretary, Recording Secretary, or Corresponding Secretary. Acceptance of a CRA charter constitutes agreement by each Republican Assembly that the state Board of Directors has full authority to discipline any Republican Assembly for violation of these Bylaws, including the power to suspend or revoke its charter. Officers, agents, and members of a Republican Assembly whose charter has been revoked shall turn over all money and property belonging to that Republican Assembly to a duly-authorized representative of the state Board of Directors at a time and place designated by that representative.

What really happened was that since the motion to suspend the chapter failed to get a 2/3 vote, that the Board chose to offer Nevada one last chance to reform prior to the Annual Convention. The convention was scheduled in March (two months later). At this point, the Board could evaluate their response and then Nevada RA could have their charter suspended.

Nevada RA viewed this vote as a wake-up call. They thought the warning letters were just toothless documents sent as retribution for their support of Tom McClintock. In fact, the Nevada President was advised by a previous President to ignore the letters.

Carl Brickey and the others on the Charter Review Committee took the Board instructions seriously and worked to get the Nevada RA back into compliance. Brickey—then a CRA Vice-President—made this issue his personal project. Park had jurisdiction of the Nevada RA but there was so much “bad blood” between the Parks and Nevada that Brickey felt only someone outside this divide could work with Nevada RA.

Prior to the convention, these was a meeting held which again Park mischaracterizes to advance his narrative.

The Nevada RA had a meeting at 8:30AM on a Monday in 2015, 4 days before the CRA Convention in a vain attempt to paper over some by-law violations – at the behest of Alice Khosravy who called Barry to tip him off after then President John Briscoe told her he’d be handling the situation himself. Alice needed the votes from the Nevada RA for the 2015 convention for her plan to take out George.

Blog Post

Alice Khosravy, Carl Brickey and Tim Thiesen were all on Charter Review. Charter Review’s job is to help units in distress to again become units in good standing; not terminate them. Brickey was in attendance at this meeting of Nevada RA just prior to the Convention. He personally verified that all members of the Nevada RA were notified of the meeting and approved of the actions that were taking place. Most chapter members were present at the meeting.

At its conclusion, Brickey was satisfied that Nevada RA had put their two months of grace to good use and had fully complied with the instructions of the Board. This is not to say that Nevada RA was off the hook but any thought of terminating their club at the March 2015 Annual Convention was over.

Clearly, the Parks will settle for nothing less than the eradication of the Nevada chapter. However, if Nevada comes up for another charter suspension vote and survives, then they will be granted de facto immunity from suspension. This possibility is untenable for the Parks. So what do they do? They must first discredit the Charter Review Committee members.

Another lie in Aaron’s narrative is that Alice came to the convention with a “plan to take out George”.  Park has repeated this claim many times. However, Alice had no candidate. I’m sure she wished that she did, but Rick Marshall was not her choice.

Prior to the election of officers, I spent time with Alice and others that Aaron is currently attacking on his blog and was never told not to vote for George nor asked to support Rick Marshall. Yes we grumbled about George and his recent conduct. As a matter of fact, I even told Alice that if she wanted, I would be willing to run against George. She was not interested. At the election, I reluctantly voted for George.

So what does all this have to do with the Bylaws? Clearly, the Parks are unwilling to abide by them when the vote does not go their way. Are we ruled by laws or men? As members of the Board, the Parks must abide by the decisions of the Board. Yes, they can still dissent and express their opinion but they cannot undermine the whole organization in some sort of cosmic temper tantrum. If the Board’s actions are so disharmonious with their views then they should resign.

…to be continued

In his blog, Aaron Park has repeatedly taunted the majority with claims that none of the complaints lodged against he and his brother are violations of the CRA Bylaws.

For example:

“Note – none of Barry Pruett’s allegations, even if true and absent several lies, would constitute a violation of any CRA By-Laws.” 05-03-2015

Concerning the complaint by Mark Gardner, Park writes that the complaint “…lacks a single violation of CRA By-Laws.” 05-05-2015

“Meantime – three complaints in, still no by-law violations.” 05-06-2015

“P.S. There are still no alleged violations of CRA By-Laws …” 05-07-2015

“He (Dallas Thiesen) also accuses George of violating CRA By-Laws that don’t exist…” 05-08-2015

I would like to respectfully disagree with Mr. Park. To that end, I humbly submit the following:

Being a Board member implies a legal, civil and ethical responsibility 
The California Republican Assembly is a corporation registered in the State of California. As such, it is expected that the actions of the corporation, including its Board of Directors, are in accord with both State and Federal law. This corporation has stated that it shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and its Bylaws.

While these statements are reasonable to most folks, those with thicker skulls might need more proof so I would like to suggest at least the following:

All California based corporations are registered with the Secretary of State’s Office.
When a corporation is formed, it agrees to statements such as this: “The purpose of the corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity…” Corporation filing form from http://www.sos.ca.gov

Furthermore, the CRA is governed by its Bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order:

  ARTICLE XVIII – PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY

  Section 18.01. The most current version of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be the parliamentary authority for all matters of procedure not specifically addressed by these Bylaws.

When taken as a whole, I think it fair to say that CRA must abide by both state and federal law, its Bylaws, and Robert’s Rules of Order.

In addition—and I hope I don’t lose my target audience on this—the law and society in general have an expectation that corporations and their governing boards act in an ethical manner and within the rules they have established. Yeah, in essence, there is a moral component to the law. If they only taught Western Civilization in our schools…, but I digress.

So my contention is that CRA is governed by more than just its Bylaws, otherwise why require that our members be of “good moral character” ARTICLE IV – MEMBERSHIP Section 4.05.

The practical effect of this principle is that Board officers whose actions tarnish the image and reputation of the corporation can be removed. Those that violate state and/or federal law can be removed because failure of the board to act will be viewed as condoning the actions taken by the offending board members. Board officers are responsible for their actions and can be held accountable for them by the corporation, and civil authorities. In short, Corporations have a right to self-defense.

  ARTICLE V – TERMINATION OF CHARTER AND MEMBERSHIP

  Section 5.08. Termination and Discipline of Member

  (6) Otherwise violated the CRA Bylaws or brought discredit or disrepute upon the CRA, provided that at least thirty days before such disciplinary action, the member was notified in writing of the alleged offense and the Board hearing. CRA members shall be permitted to address the charges against them prior to the Board vote.

Thus removal of George and Aaron Park from the CRA Board for the violation of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is well within the rights of the Board. In fact, I think that it is the duty of the Board to do so.

…to be continued

I went on the Internet and did a quick check. The data breach is actually worse than first reported.

This is what I found from the General Services Administration, a Federal Agency

Here are their definitions:
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) – information about a person that contains some unique identifier, including but not limited to name or Social Security Number, from which the identity of the person can be determined. OMB Memorandum M-10-23 (June 25, 2010), updated the term “PII”: “The definition of PII is not anchored to any single category of information or technology. Rather, it requires a case-by-case assessment of the specific risk that an individual can be identified. In performing this assessment, it is important for an agency to recognize that non-PII can become PII whenever additional information is made publicly available — in any medium and from any source — that, when combined with other available information, could be used to identify an individual.”

Data Breach – Includes the loss of control, compromise, unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized acquisition, unauthorized access, or any similar term referring to situations where persons other than authorized users with an authorized purpose have access or potential access to Personally Identifiable Information, whether physical or electronic. In the case of this policy, the term “breach” and “incident” mean the same.

The following list contains examples of information that may be considered PII.
• Name, such as full name, maiden name, mother‘s maiden name, or alias
• Personal identification number, such as social security number (SSN), passport number, driver‘s license number, taxpayer identification number, patient identification number, and financial account or credit card number
• Address information, such as street address or email address
• Asset information, such as Internet Protocol (IP) or Media Access Control (MAC) address or other host-specific persistent static identifier that consistently links to a particular person or small, well-defined group of people
• Telephone numbers, including mobile, business, and personal numbers
• Personal characteristics, including photographic image (especially of face or other distinguishing characteristic), x-rays, fingerprints, or other biometric image or template data (e.g., retina scan, voice signature, facial geometry)
• Information identifying personally owned property, such as vehicle registration number or title number and related information
• Information about an individual that is linked or linkable to one of the above (e.g., date of birth, place of birth, race, religion, weight, activities, geographical indicators, employment information, medical information, education information, financial information).
Guide to Protection the Confidentiality of PII

Organizations should develop an incident response plan to handle breaches involving PII.
Breaches involving PII are hazardous to both individuals and organizations. Harm to individuals and organizations can be contained and minimized through the development of effective incident response plans for breaches involving PII. Organizations should develop plans that include elements such as determining when and how individuals should be notified, how a breach should be reported, and whether to provide remedial services, such as credit monitoring, to affected individuals.
Guide to Protection the Confidentiality of PII

PII is in two types

Linked
Linked information is information about or related to an individual that is logically associated with other information about the individual.

Linkable
Linkable information is information about or related to an individual for which there is a possibility of logical association with other information about the individual.

For example, if two databases contain different PII elements, then someone with access to both databases may be able to link the information from the two databases and identify individuals, as well as access additional information about or relating to the individuals. If the secondary information source is present on the same system or a closely-related system and does not have security controls that effectively segregate the information sources, then the data is considered linked. If the secondary information source is maintained more remotely, such as in an unrelated system within the organization, available in public records, or otherwise readily obtainable (e.g., internet search engine), then the data is considered linkable.
Guide to Protection the Confidentiality of PII

The same document quoted above goes on to state, “Federal agencies are required to report all known or suspected breaches involving PII, in any format, to US-CERT within one hour. To meet this obligation, organizations should proactively plan their breach notification response. A breach involving PII may require notification to persons external to the organization, such as law enforcement, financial institutions, affected individuals, the media, and the public.”

CRA on the other hand thinks it is exempt from reporting any release of PII.

The PII article on Wikipedia.org is interesting; especially footnote #19. ”In 2011, the California State Supreme Court ruled that a person’s ZIP code is PII”
Wikipedia Personally Identifiable Information

Under this ruling, not only was the disclosure of bank routing and account numbers a disclosure of PII but also all the member spreadsheets and membership forms that were scanned and posted on the Internet.

Based on the above, the Park brothers appear to have a serious problem.

Last night as folks were turning in for the night and David Letterman was wrapping up his evening program, an email was dispatched to George and Aaron Park with the first batch of charges to be made against them at the CRA Board meeting to be held May 30th. The initial email was sent to a small group and later today might be sent to the whole Board. I do know that more complaints are in the “pipeline” and will be forthcoming.

From what I know PII (Personally Identifiable Information) is looking like the thing that will hang them on a gallows of their own creation. The irony is that this wasn’t even on the radar when the May 30 meeting was called.

It will be interesting to see if the Parks regard this procedure as a crock and boycott the meeting or stand and fight. Perhaps they will just pick-up their toys and go home. In thirty days or less we will know.

Aaron Park circulated a series of campaign tracts to members of the CRA Board and then posted them on his blog on April 17th. This begins my analysis of Aaron Park’s political tracts.

CRA Coup Attempt Exposed – Part One
http://www.rightondaily.com/2015/04/cra-coup-attempt-exposed-part-one/

Why the push for a May 30th Board Meeting to Oust George and Aaron?

The push for the May 30th meeting was begun by John Briscoe. He backed down and seven of the CRA VPs and some others felt that the meeting was overdue. The meeting after the CRA Convention was not valid—no quorum was established—and the necessary appointments needed to fill Committees created by the Bylaws were left vacant. The Parks were not invited to this conference call because their fate was part of the discussion.

Prior to resigning, Briscoe had asked the Parks to resign several times.

I go thru all this to say that Aaron does have reason to feel that the May 30 meeting is to oust him and his brother. They can still resign from the Board, that way they might stay in CRA but be confined to Placer County. Some say they have burned that bridge too and they just need to go.

And this brings us to the main topic of this tract, the alleged fraud of Santa Clarita RA. Aaron proclaims:

Massive Fraud in Santa Clarita RA!

It is simple. Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright, David Gauny, Dana Schlumpberger and John Rogers from the Santa Clarita Valley RA are hiding something huge. They along with Mark Gardner, Tim Thiesen and Carl Brickey want George and Aaron Park out of CRA badly:

Why, because – “over 10% of the SCVRA’s Membership is fraudulent.”

Ok, let’s define terms and then see if Aaron’s claim holds up.

Fraudulent: The description of a willful act commenced with the Specific Intent to deceive or cheat, in order to cause some financial detriment to another and to engender personal financial gain.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraudulent

The same website also defines Specific Intent: The term specific intent is commonly used in criminal and Tort Law to designate a special state of mind that is required, along with a physical act, to constitute certain crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually interpreted to mean intentionally or knowingly.

So, if we combine the two then fraud is: The description of a willful act commenced with the state of mind to intentionally or knowingly deceive or cheat, in order to cause some financial detriment to another and to engender personal financial gain.

I will stipulate that “financial” is not the type of gain that Park is alleging here so what can it be?

I don’t think bragging rights to who has the largest CRA chapter is the issue so I can only conclude that the fraud that Park is alleging is related to Convention delegates.

The important question, is Park’s allegation true?

Look at the CRA Bylaws:

Section 11.06. Representation and Quorum. Each chartered Republican Assembly in good standing shall be entitled to select Delegates to each CRA Convention as follows: three Delegates for the first fifteen members and one Delegate for each ten additional members. Representation shall be determined by the records maintained by the Membership Secretary, as of thirty days prior to the Convention.

So for each ten members, Santa Clarita Valley is entitled to another Convention delegate. Assuming Aaron it correct that twenty odd folks should not be on the Santa Clarita rolls, then The Santa Clarita could send an extra two delegates to the convention.

So at this point I think it is fair to ask, did Santa Clarita send delegates to the Convention that they were not entitled to send?

Membership Secretary George Park determined that Santa Clarita could send sixteen delegates to the convention. So if fraud is the motivation for the inflated membership numbers that Park alleges then a reasonable person would expect that Santa Clarita would have maxed-out on their Convention delegates to take advantage of the fraud they are perpetrating, right?

Unfortunately for Park, Santa Clarita could only muster twelve delegates. Therefore, Park would have to rule out all other possible errors in the membership records and then disqualify fifty members before the delegate count might qualify as fraudulent. Plus he would still have to prove knowingly deceiving or cheating.

Now please remember that the Credentials Committee was not allowed access to the membership records to verify any delegate counts because George Park did not want the privacy of member records to be breached and for any membership information to become public.

Or was it just to keep the Placer RA records from scrutiny? You see this issue cuts both ways. Credentials had reports that Placer was the group cooking the books and when folks expressed interest in their records that’s when Park pulled the plug on any access.

The other issue that may be at play here is that George invoiced clubs all over the state for membership dues in 2015. These dues were based on old membership lists and his only instructions to the chapters was to add new members and pay the balance. He did not asked that people that had not paid dues be deleted or the list of members be verified before submission.

My chapter was invoiced for 35 members but only 24 had renewed their membership. Thus George’s membership roster contained a 31 percent error from 2014 to 2015. The membership difference in Santa Clarita seems to be within this margin of error.

But again, George was OK with the Santa Clarita delegate number 30 days prior to the Convention and had there been a problem it should have been given to the Credential Committee and not to his brother 30 plus days after the convention.

Now that CRA has adopted the Investigative Committee as a delay tactic and bought some individuals some time they don’t deserve to re-group, let’s do something that hasn’t been done yet, let’s go thru Aaron’s five posts from April 17th.

First, what is the purpose of the five posts and what type of evidence is actually presented?

Well, the first thing that you notice is that all five posts have a common theme and conclusion.
The theme is that there is rampant fraud in CRA, these guys therefore are bad (Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright, Tim Thiesen, Mark Gardner, and Carl Brickey) and out to get Aaron and George Park.
Aaron & George are they only ones that can protect CRA from this evil. In other words, this is a campaign tract.

The five political tracks are nothing but a series of hit-pieces designed to evoke an emotional response so that Board members would vote YES to the proposed July 25th meeting.

I have had extensive email exchanges with a devout Park supporter that actually thinks Aaron deserves a Pulitzer for the journalistic expose’ that he has presented. Amazing. Furthermore, this individual thinks this whole thing is my fault because my blog post of the previous day goes after the Park brothers and John Briscoe. I have no power, I’m just a guy with a keyboard.

Park’s logical fallacies are too numerous to dissect, his leaps in logic and guilt by association are laughable.

Aaron’s overall theme is erecting the straw man of fraud and the wrapper is vote Yes.

Here are the variations of the conclusions from the five tracts. Each repeats the same lie. A vote YES will move the Board meeting from May 3o in Santa Barbara to Fresno on July 25th. No, it actually would create a second Board meeting at Harris Ranch which is nowhere near Fresno.

#1
Want to stop the Fraud and the Lynching? Vote Yes and support John Briscoe and give the Parks a fighting chance to defend themselves versus the Alice Khosravy / Wendy Albright / Tim Thiesen / Mark Gardner / Carl Brickey Kangaroo Court – move the board meeting to July 25th in Fresno.

#2
If you believe in Fairness, if you want to see the fraud dealt with – then vote Yes on the motion to move the board meeting from Santa Barbara to Fresno. If you support the fraud and you are interested in the lynching of the Park Brothers then join Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright and their crew and vote no.

#3
If you believe in Fairness, if you want to see the fraud dealt with – then vote Yes on the motion to move the board meeting from Santa Barbara to Fresno. If you support the fraud and you are interested in the lynching of the Park Brothers then join Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright and their crew and vote no.

#4
If you believe in Fairness, if you want to see the fraud dealt with – then vote Yes on the motion to move the board meeting from Santa Barbara to Fresno. If you support the fraud and you are interested in the lynching of the Park Brothers then join Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright and their crew and vote no.

#5
If you believe in Fairness, if you want to see the fraud dealt with – then vote Yes on the motion to move the board meeting from Santa Barbara to Fresno. If you support the fraud and you are interested in the lynching of the Park Brothers then join Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright and their crew and vote no.

I plan to go thru the five tracks only because they are now the starting point of the mandate for the Investigative Committee. Please note that blogging is my hobby not my source of income as it sometimes is for Mr. Park so I may not get to them all in the next week.

I was minding my own business today and decided to read my email. Typically, Sunday is a slow day for news but wow! What my friend sent me was a bombshell. After reading it, all I could think of was the line from Forest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

What the email contained was just as ridiculous as the idea of giving 7th century barbarians supersonic jets and nuclear weapons; …but enough about Obama’s foreign policy.

It was the vote totals for the online vote to approve the Briscoe/Park delay and witch hunt committee. Depending on how you count it, the vote result is somewhere between 28 to 32 Yes votes and 28 No. The variance is due to four folks voting and then resigning from the Board before the voting period closed. A question has been raised if votes by people no longer on the Board should be counted.

The vote totals were announced by Tom Hudson as 32 Yes, 28 No. Hudson, who is not even president yet (Briscoe’s resignation date has not happened yet), has decreed it to be so.

The practical effect of this vote is that CRA will not inform authorities or the five Ventura folks that their data was posted on the Internet because this has now been classified as an email rumor that needs investigation and verification.

The Investigative Committee’s Mandate

I am asking for your Yes vote to approve a committee which will have full authority to investigate any and all allegations in email/blogs published/sent Friday, April 17.

Serious allegations have been raised both regarding the content and proprietary information used in the emails by the authors. This committee’s work will not be limited to Friday’s allegations but wherever else their investigation may lead from the allegations.

The committee will be charged to report to the entire CRA board at the next board meeting the results of their investigation to date. By passing this, the board directs all CRA units, board members and others associated with CRA to provide whatever records or documents that are requested by the committee in a timely manner. This committee is not intended to circumvent any other pending board action.

The following board members shall be appointed:

Chair, Vice President Dale Tyler

37th Senate District Director Jay Peterson

Recording Secretary Greg Powers

This committee is designed to remove the data breach as an issue between now and the May meeting.

The other day a Board member told me that the Board can’t act between meetings only the President. Well I think they found a way. As a result of this vote, not just individuals can be held liable for what happened but now the entire Board has put themselves on the hook for this release of private information.

Concerning this committee, Tom Hudson wrote on April 22, 2015:

The facts are in dispute and John Briscoe is in the process of appointing a committee to investigate the facts and report back to the CRA Board.

John Briscoe has not refused to comply with California law—and at this point, we do not have the facts to support the assertion that any laws have been broken.  We’ll see.

The good news is that everyone is taking this very seriously and I think we will get to the bottom of it fairly soon.

Misters Park, Park, Briscoe, Hudson, et al., The fact is that personal information of five members of Ventura Republican Assembly were posted on the Internet for just over seven days; From April 17 to April 24, 2015. It is the FACT that the information was released not why that is the issue.

CRA released private and personal information of members simply because they paid their dues to Ventura RA. They had an expectation of privacy when they paid their dues. Their private information was released. Such a violation is not limited to release on the Internet. For whatever reason, CRA lost control of the information, it was compromised. This triggers the statute. This is a fact.

Mister A. Park, got the information from G. Park—who happens to be the statewide Membership Secretary of CRA and the brother of A. Park. This is a fact.

Furthermore, said act of releasing personal information has been reported to the FBI, Attorney General of the State of California, and local law enforcement. Some media outlets are also aware of this situation. This too is a fact and one that CRA does not take seriously.

One of my sources-that also was going to report this incident to law enforcement—says that per statute, CRA is facing $5,000 per day fines until the release of information is reported to authorities. At that rate, ya’ll will be approaching a quarter million dollar fine by the May 30th Board meeting. I hear the Treasurer is good but you might need a good attorney by then.