Category: CRA

The California Republican Assembly’s 80th Annual Convention is now officially over. I would like to give my analysis and comments in no particular order.

First, the circular firing squad report.
Prior to the convention, three known targets were scheduled; Nevada RA, and Steve Sarkis and Baron Knight.

Nevada RA
After weeks of raising hell about this chapter, the Park boys just let it go. Literally nothing was said at the Convention concerning this chapter even though George and Aaron Park had been denying access of information and reports to the Charter Review Committee for weeks. They wasted dozens if not hundreds of manhours of the committee’s time over this issue and then simply dropped it.

Appeal of Sarkis and Knight
Nobody actually had the guts to put this on the convention schedule but saved it for the last item of business on the last day under the euphemistic label of Other Business. The CRA Board presented their case against Sarkis first. The Board was given 10 minutes to show why a lifetime ban was a fair and just sentence. Sarkis was not present so his case was made by Knight. Knight finished most of his defense case in the allotted 10 minute timeframe. Then Tom Hudson and CRA President John Briscoe advanced a motion that changed the sentence from life to five years. This motion was approved. Then Knight—via a motion—was given a one year suspension instead of five. After the motion was approved, Knight objected and asked that the one year suspension be reversed. He claimed he was innocent; so now the Board gave a 10 minute presentation on Knight and then Knight was able to offer his defense. A series of votes were then held; a one year suspension was defeated, then a five year suspension was defeated. In the end, Knight’s suspension was overturned and he is now a member in good standing with the group (assuming his dues are current).

This outcome is most unsatisfactory for me. Knight clearly did things deserving of some type of disciplinary action.

The biggest loser in this was John Briscoe. Briscoe’s team was thrown under the proverbial bus by their leader. I agree that the original sentences from the September 2014 Board meeting were too severe but John agreed to the punishment at the time. His failure to defend his Board is an inexcusable lapse in leadership. Unfortunately, other leadership problems were on display at convention.

Convention shortcomings were evident even before it began. Missing were printed schedules, handouts of relevant materials and lack of meeting rooms. Delegates were exposed to a form of politics that even one-ups Nancy Pelosi’s famous you have to vote for it to know what’s in it. CRA delegates got to vote on stuff they never even saw. They adopted committee reports that weren’t complete or had been edited for content after the committees had met. Thus what was voted on was not the same as what committees had voted upon when they had met. Not even electronic copies or overhead projections of relevant documents were available prior to votes. Occasionally, selected parts were hastily read. Again President Briscoe was apparently OK with this also.

The scheduling was very inefficient. The Saturday afternoon session began over 30 minutes after the lunch banquet was finished and was concluded 2 ½ hour before the evening meal; thus 3 hours of business could have been conducted on Saturday instead of Sunday. (The entire general session on Sunday was scheduled for three hours and forty-five minutes.)

Folks like me wondered why the Resolutions Committee killed the Saturday Only convention resolution when there was literally enough time to do everything in one day and then go home. Oh, but nobody except the Resolution Committee ever saw the resolution because it wasn’t in the committee’s report when it was submitted for adoption on Sunday.

On Sunday, the officer elections were held. Only two contested races were on the ballot; Membership Secretary and National Committee Man.

George Park faced challenger, Rick Marshall for Membership Secretary. Park wasn’t my first choice after doing his best Peggy Mew impersonation for the last several weeks. I was willing to consider Marshall as a worthy candidate until he opened his mouth to say why he was running. Marshall was clearly a leader of the malcontent wing of the group. His whole platform was griping about the move to annual dues which we just implemented in January of this year. Marshall has clearly never been the Treasurer of a local chapter before and was talking non-sense. I think Solomon said that even a fool is regarded as wise when he remains quiet. Marshall could benefit from this advice.

Bill Cardoza faced-off with relative newcomer, Johnnie Miller for National Committee Man. Miller is from a new chapter in south-central Los Angeles. Miller, a rare black face in a very white crowd, looked good in his three piece suit and with a name that could be mistaken for an adult beverage, he proved a formidable foe. Miller was the third person Aaron Park had tried to recruit to oppose Cardoza.

Cardoza tried to campaign for the office while Miller did not. Cardoza started his campaign on Saturday morning by forwarding an email from Aaron Park informing Bill that he would face an opponent. When I first saw the mail, I thought Park had sent it as a hit piece. Upon further examination, Cardoza had sent it. Unfortunately for Bill, it was not a hit piece and the mail was several days old.

The next campaign efforts that I noticed were on Sunday morning. Cardoza had three pieces that he gave out; mostly while folks were in line waiting to vote in his race. This is the first time I ever saw someone soliciting votes during polling. I kept joking with my neighbor in the line that Cardoza couldn’t do that within 100 feet of a polling place.

Cardoza is a follower. Watching him try to say he is a leader was rather pathetic. Yes, he’s been in CRA for many years. He very well could be the oldest active member in the group. He and I are definitely in the top five folks still active. Anyway, he has always found his way to the side in power. He’s a lieutenant and will never be anything more.

Every time Cardoza was able to get in front of a microphone during the convention, he trumpeted his position as chaplain of CRA. Too bad he knows nothing about theology, the group desperately could use a chaplain like that. Cardoza talked repeatedly of being there since the Christians took over in 1988. Hey Bill, this might be a newsflash to you but there was nothing Christian about how Barbara Alby and company took over the CRA. Machiavelli couldn’t have been prouder of your efforts in ‘88. We are still dealing with the fruit of this poisonous tree.

Morgan beat Cardoza handily in the race. After the results were announced, Cardoza was allowed to speak. What most thought would be a concession speech was instead an awkward, rambling recitation of all Cardoza’s accomplishments which was then followed by a brief congratulation to the new officeholder.

This reminds me of Aaron Park’s introduction of a State Assembly member at the Saturday luncheon. Aaron finished his introduction by saying something to the effect that this Assembly Member was so popular in his district that not even Jesus Christ himself could beat this guy. Many of us including the elected official were clearly uncomfortable with these words.

While talking about the convention with the Sith Lord, he speculated that the Nevada RA fiasco was partially a diversion to keep the Charter Review Committee from knowing the current membership numbers in the group. Based on what I know, I think his speculation has merit. It stands to reason that if the state party is hemorrhaging members that its chartered clubs would be too.

Oh, lastly the Board meeting held after the convention was a truncated affair. Newly elected President Briscoe did not fill any vacancies or appoint any committees; even though business was moved from the convention to a Bylaws Revision Committee.

I sense the days of everyone having a chance of being on a committee are over. I fully expect the remaining inner-circle to occupy most vacancies. Briscoe holds power now only because he didn’t face an opponent for re-election. He won’t get a pass next time…if there is one.

My final thought is that CRA is woefully equipped to deal with the new political realities of California. They are too stuck in the past with a broken and defective paradigm. They really think they can control the CRP platform in 2016 and laugh in my face when I tell them that they already lost it last month. They are like a person exposed to a lethal dose of radiation, they are dead but still walking around waiting for their body to catch up with reality.

The California Republican Assembly has often touted the quote attributed to Ronald Reagan that the CRA is the “conscience of the Republican Party”. But what happens when Republicans do the unconscionable? What happens when the California Republican Party throws Reagan under the bus?

Reagan often said that he never left the Democrat Party, they left him. Now the Republican Party has left Reagan too. So what do we do now? Do we stick with a suicidal Party that has blocked all grassroots access to the Party while consolidating all power at the top or tell them to kiss our grits? If the Log Cabin debacle is not the proverbial bridge too far then what is?

When Lincoln was President and in the era thereafter, the Episcopal Church was known as “the Republican Party at prayer”. The troubles in the Republican Party have finally reached the place that they mirror where the Episcopal Church has been for decades. Apostasy is rampant and the leadership has locked out the true believers. So like the proverbial frog in the pot do we get out of the boiling water or stay until we are turned to soup?

I, for one, tire of tilting at windmills or to quote the Kenny Rodgers song, “you got to know when to fold ‘em”. In this spirit, I have proposed that the CRA pass the resolution that appears below. My question to skeptics is, “if not now when?”

Resolution to Terminate Affiliation with California Republican Party

Whereas, the CRA is a grassroots Republican organization; and

Whereas, the CRA believes in the rule of law; and

Whereas, the CRA affirms the Judeo-Christian values upon which or country was founded, and

Whereas, the CRA is committed to promoting the values of life and traditional families; and

Whereas, the CRA has dedicated itself to promoting conservative candidates; and

Whereas, the California Republican Party is a top down organization that does not follow its own bylaws in matters of candidate endorsement and chartering of volunteer organizations; and

Whereas, the California Republican Party has insulated itself from any accountability to rank and file Republicans by abolishing Party Primaries and Central Committee elections and failing to implement any system of binding input from the millions of registered Republicans in the State; and

Whereas, the California Republican Party has betrayed the core principles of traditional family values as stated in its Party Platform, and

Whereas, in top two races, the California Republican Party requires the CRA to support their endorsed candidates even at the expense of supporting candidates better aligned with our stated principles; and

Whereas, this incongruity between the values of CRA and behavior of the California Republican Party has become so divergent as to be irreconcilable,

Therefore be it resolved that the California Republican Assembly hereby severe its association as a chartered volunteer organization of the California Republican Party.

The 80th Annual Convention of the California Republican Assembly begins one week from today. The good news is that Michael Reagan is the keynote speaker on Saturday night. The bad news is that the event—which should be a celebration of effectiveness of CRA—is instead poised to be the biggest circular firing squad assembled since Karen England tried her hostile takeover in 2011. Ironically, this convention is being held at the very same venue.

Already on the docket are Baron Knight and Steve Sarkis. Both men are appealing CRA Board votes concerning their suspensions. These votes are the result of the Anaheim Republican Assembly mismanagement under then Chapter President Sarkis.  Knight was given a five year ban from CRA and Sarkis was handed a lifetime ban. Both men have appealed to the full convention to hear their cases.

I think it is likely that both sentences will be overturned or severely truncated. While the order of appearance before the body may matter to the outcome, I just don’t think folks come all the way to Sacramento to burn fellow members at the stake…whether they deserve it or not.

The biggest likely winner in this dust-up is Tom Hudson. Hudson has emerged as leader of “the loyal opposition”. The biggest losers from this confrontation are sitting President John Briscoe and the Park brothers—George and Aaron.

Plans are afoot to change the number of high value targets on trial from a double header to a trifecta. If they get their way, Park, Briscoe and Park plan to paint a target on the Nevada County Republican Assembly and then go nuclear on them. By a four to three vote, the Charter Review Committee voted to defer sanctions on Nevada RA until a after the Convention. Nevada is slowly bringing itself into compliance—albeit, kicking and screaming much of the way.

The Parks are on Charter Review, and they are not happy that they lost on their motion to punish Nevada RA now. Please understand that they need a 2/3 vote to decharter Nevada RA, and already failed at the last Board meeting. In fact the January vote by the Board was either a tie or one vote over half depending on whose count you believe. How they think they have the votes at Convention is just insanity. In fact, they want to decharter Nevada RA on the first night of the Convention at the Friday afternoon Board meeting. Nevada RA could then appeal the vote to the full body on the following day. If Nevada wins there, they have defacto immunity for the rest of their existence.

If this were to unfold this way, I predict that John Briscoe will be defeated for re-election and Tom Hudson will emerge as the supreme leader of CRA. Furthermore, the Parks will quit CRA. Yes, they are that angry and taking all this that personally. Why Nevada has gotten under their skin like it has is just amazing.

To prevent this scenario, I have let it be known that if this topic comes up when I’m at the Board meeting, that I will motion to defer this matter to a Board meeting following the Convention. To employ the old phrase, “there are bigger fish that need fryin’”. Why the Parks are expending so much energy on a tangent like this is shortsighted.

At the January Board meeting, President Briscoe did everything that he could to disrupt and undermine the debate and vote on Nevada RA and now he lets it be known that he was for the action recommended by Charter Review?! John, your future in CRA might be dicey but you could always utilize your parliamentary skills as the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The other adventure in bomb throwing and self-immolation at the Convention is my resolution to sever the relationship between CRA and the California Republican Party. CRA existed before CRP and is a private corporation but it also has subjected itself to the CRP because CRA is an officially recognized charter organization of the California Republican Party. Thus CRA must support the CRP endorsed candidate in the General Election even if a better qualified Republican is running in the race.

Some folks have said that we should wait to break with CRP until we see if the platform is lost. Newsflash; we lost the platform a week ago, 861 to 293. The proverbial pot is boiling; do the frogs stay or go? We will have the answer next week-end.

I foresee a high probability that I will be a Decline-to-State voter very soon if things continue as they are. Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Party, the Party left me.” I’m feeling that way now.

This weekend, I attended a Board meeting of the California Republican Assembly. This spectacle was chaired by their president, John Briscoe. It is the first of three board meetings he has scheduled for the first three months of 2015—technically there are two on the same weekend in March, but I digress. Briscoe can’t find a way to do the business of the Board by either email; teleconference or other modern means so he has the Board make the trek to the other end of California every few weeks to handle their business. 2014 saw at least five such meetings.

The main highlights of the meeting were the endorsement of CRP officers running for reelection (their convention and elections will be held next month) and the farce that is the Nevada County Republican Assembly.

Former California senator and current head of the California Republican Party, Jim Brulte, dropped by the CRA Board meeting and gave a speech about his accomplishments as chairman. He found a way to paint a rosy picture of success by denying the Democrats 2/3 majorities in the Senate and Assembly but left a few small items on the cutting room floor.

Under Brulte’s leadership, no California counties held regular Central Committee elections last year; in fact several counties have abolished the practice altogether. Others might hold elections once every four years but whether this will actually occur in 2016 remains to be seen. This means the current leadership in many counties will remain static; their succession is no longer elected by or accountable to voters but only an internal matter determined by a small insular group. However, these Central Committees still presume to speak for all Republicans in their county without any voter input. It is rule by oligarchy.

Brulte, like many in CRA and other Republican groups, thinks that rules are only for others and not binding on them as well. He claimed that the State Party respected to endorsement decisions of Central Committees and declined endorsement in races where Central Committees had spoken. This was a bald-faced whopper but nobody on CRA’s Board seemed to care.

John Briscoe muffed the endorsement vote for Brulte. He allowed Harmeet Dhillon (CRP Vice-chair) to remain in the room as well as many others not on the Board. Such votes are supposed to be closed decisions. Brulte got two NO votes from the Board. During the endorsement votes, Briscoe never asked for abstentions and neither the current or former parliamentarian—who were both present—corrected him on the oversight. This was some sloppy meeting management by the CRA President.

Next Dhillon was also endorsed. This time she was outside the room but Brulte was present when the vote was held. Later in the day, a regional VP from the central valley was also endorsed. The Sith Lord says this guy was missing from action for most of the last election cycle but he talks a good game.

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.

The malcontent wing as I label them consists mainly of Tom Hudson, all members present from the Sacramento RA and San Joaquin president Jim Shoemaker. They view their function in the group to oppose the current leadership just to be a pain in their butts. I think their real beef is not with President Briscoe but any member with the last name of Park. Since the Park brothers support Briscoe, they must oppose him. Simple and childish but it seems to be the only explanation.

Another thing I found out about the event was that several in attendance did not pay for lunch but helped themselves anyway. While the rest of us had to shell out thirty bucks; these guy thought they could just freeload. Thiesen was in charge of the event and they took roll at the door so how did this occur? Tim clearly does not run a tight ship. I was disappointed but not surprised. Having been stuck with the bill before, I am sensitive to this particular form of theft. In my case however, Denny’s would not give out individual bills and people were left on the honor system. Instead of paying some literally left us with the bill.  Sith Lord and I split the $100 tab that nobody else paid.

The last item that will certainly be back with a vengeance is the Convention committee assignments made by Briscoe. Briscoe said his criterion was that nobody from last time would be a chairman again this year and one person per committee. Tom Hudson about had an aneurism when he found out his assignment. Under previous CRA Presidents he typically was on the three or four most powerful committees and usually served as chair or vice-chair, but this time he was just “Joe Member” on one committee. He had a tantrum from the floor but was shutdown by Briscoe. Sith Lord says that following the meeting Hudson vowed to oppose every item coming from the Bylaws Committee. I think he will oppose just about everything at the convention from every committee.

Hudson is setting himself up as the alternative to Briscoe but the real question is will he run a slate at the convention to try to wrest control of the CRA from the current leadership?

The Board of the California Republican Assembly is voting on approval of the formation of the Sutter-Yuba Republican Assembly. While you would think that Board members in northern California would be supporters of growth in the North, this is not universally true. A few malcontents have voiced opposition because they have been denied the opportunity to stand before the Board at a formal meeting and opine about their concerns that having two tiny counties represented in one chapter would be an offense.

Sage wisdom such as this has been put forward to delay the vote:

Not only do the two counties have different elected officials, but they are also distinctive in terms of their demographics, geographies, economies, histories, and politics. – Tom Hudson

Yeah right. Yuba City is in Sutter County and Marysville is in Yuba County across the Feather River Bridge. The towns are about 1,500 feet apart during the rainy season but somehow they are different in terms of “demographics, geographies, economies, histories, and politics”. The only thing they differ on is which has a higher unemployment rate and more folks on government assistance.

Charter Review Chairman, Carl Brickey, fire off a rebuttal to Hudson that reads in part:

1.  Sutter County has a population of approximately 93,500. Yuba County has a population of approximately 73,000.  This combines for a total population of approximately 166,500. This makes the purposed unit population for the proposed territory is smaller than most other CRA units in the state.
2.  The Sutter-Yuba Republican Assembly would be in one Assembly District, one Senate District and one Congressional District.

Hudson has had a spotty track record of interpreting the Bylaws and providing good counsel. Had he been any good at running his parts of the CRA meetings over which he presided, there would have been two or three fewer Board meetings during the last few years. In addition, there is his assertion earlier this year that CRA chapters were not required to have minutes of their meetings even though they are subject to Robert’s Rules of Order and Secretary is a required position. Such comments—which he reportedly still stands by—undermine any credibility that I would like to grant him.

Hudson also says,

I am not permanently opposed to the concept of chartering this combined Sutter-Yuba Republican Assembly.  Since we have a Board meeting already scheduled, I do not see any reason to rush into a decision on chartering this new group without a discussion.

It has been discussed at two previous Board meetings where Hudson was in attendance. His objection after a Board vote was called is the first question anyone has raised with Charter Review about this chapter. Unfortunately, this type of grandstanding is typical in CRA. Also the motion on the floor is vote Yes or No not delay; Tom is out of order.

The thing you need to know about Tom is that facts are secondary to him; he gets his way by bluffing. If he can make a statement with enough assertiveness and with enough force, people tend to defer to him because he is an attorney and therefore folks assume he has a superior understanding of the rules. This is not the case. Tom picks which direction that he wishes to push a discussion and then makes assertions of fact –true or not—that move the discussion his way. He knows that he who frames the issue wins the debate.

My advice to Tom and his minions is to allow the group to grow. Anybody that wants to identify themselves as Republicans anywhere in California should be welcome. CRA has booted enough folks out of the group over the last few years why don’t we let some new ones in?

I can’t help but wonder if Tom is setting himself up as the loyal opposition to John Briscoe in preparation for a possible run at the top spot in CRA.

Here is an update.

As I mentioned in my last blog, some local CRA chapters are enjoying the “hunting license” granted to them by the State Board thanks to the precedent set by granting the Santa Clarita chapter the power to purge undesirable members; i.e. those folks that are concurrently members in the Conservative Republicans of California organization.

Word is that the president of the Anaheim RA has rejected 22 members or applicants for new membership based on the Santa Clarita decision. Please note that Anaheim never even amended their bylaws, their president just made a unilateral decision. The Anaheim president conveniently takes this action just weeks before officer elections. He needs to be sure he keeps his job as president; perhaps his new title should be Fuhrer or Czar.

Lest you think this purge is limited to CRC members and other malcontents in southern California. Word is that the head of the San Joaquin RA is weighing his options to remove angry Libertarians from his midst. You may know these angry Libertarians better by their self-identification as Tea Party members.

These purges are in direct contradiction to other parts of local and statewide bylaws but now that the Board let the proverbial genie out of the bottle who will put a stop to this idiocy?

The CRA President—John Briscoe—condoned the committee vote to allow such arbitrary decision making.  He was on the conference call when the vote was taken. As you may recall, the committee recommended to the State Board that the Santa Clarita bylaws change be permitted by a four to one vote.

Where was our beloved parliamentarian when all this was going on? Answer: present and very silent.

Like Barbara Alby, Celeste Greg and others I have witnessed in my years in and around CRA, playing by the rules is not a sure bet. Any way to put your thumb on the scales is fair game. They only know power politics. Too bad all these self-identified Christians never read their Bible. I challenge you to look up all the biblical verses on fair scales and measurements. The Bible says “God hates” those that purposely stack the deck in their favor to gain advantage over others. CRA thinks they are God’s gift to the Republican Party and the State of California and yet their actions dishonor their Lord.

CRA has made a terrible decision and most of their leadership is oblivious to the implications of their vote. Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun. The irony that the draconian bylaws written by Markham Robinson and Ed Hernandez for Yolo County RA back in the 1990’s are now the rules of the whole statewide organization is too rich to ignore. Another irony is that both had Tom Hudson’s blessing.

CRA needs to hold an emergency vote to stay their previous decision until it can be discussed at their next Board meeting. Failure to do so will just be one more reason for conservative folks to register as Decline-to State.

Last Saturday, the California Republican Assembly put on a display of incongruity so amazing, I’m struggling with how to describe the hypocrisy and irony that made the meeting such a disaster.

The train wreck of expediency over principle concerns the Conservative Republicans of California group founded by Karen England, Steve Frank and others ejected from CRA. Please understand that CRC is basically a paper organization with fewer than five active chapters in a state of almost 40 million residents. Think of the United States versus Granada in a military conflict. (Oh we did that once already.) How a group with no members in the room can cause such an irrational and emotional response in a CRA Board meeting was amazing to witness.

The first place CRC raised its hydra like head was when Aaron Park made a motion to unilaterally forgive Mark Pruner and another political operative—Mark Spannagel—from the remainder of their five and ten year banishments from CRA. Aaron’s reason was to get in good with some elected officials like Doug Lamalfa. It was argued that this unilateral act of charity would be a way of putting the unpleasantness of the mass membership purge of 2011 behind CRA and show that the group—under the leadership of John Briscoe—is interested in looking forward. It was admitted during debate that neither Pruner nor Spannagel had asked for forgiveness of past misdeeds or expressed any interest to again be involved with CRA. When the motion came to a vote, it failed by a wide margin.

Then CRC was brought up again under the report presented by Carl Brickey. It seems the Santa Clarita RA had a bylaw amendment that needed Board approval. Below is the text of their revision of membership.

Section 2. Qualifications. Regular membership of the Assembly shall be limited to those American citizens of good moral character who: 1) are registered to vote as members of the Republican Party; 2) are otherwise eligible to be CRA members, 3) do not belong to another CRA unit and 4) do not belong to the organization currently known as the Conservative Republicans of California at a state or local level.
(Bold items are changes to existing language)

When Brickey presented this item of the report, not a single person in the room asked why the committee recommendation was four to one to approve and not unanimous like all the other items before his committee.

I got up and said that both CRA and CRC are chartered by the California Republican Party and thus we have no right to tell another equally chartered group they were not welcomed in CRA. I said this is wrong and we literally have no right to approve a bylaw that is contrary to our charter. How we feel about CRC is not this issue. In effect, I argued principle—as I always do.

Others—including the Park brothers—saw no problem with this bylaw change. These are the same guys that 45 minutes before we arguing for forgiveness of Pruner and Spannagel in order to put the past behind us and now they are OK with banning CRC members? Others of the CRA brain trust said that this was a local issue and if that’s what this local chapter wants then they are OK with this amendment because the CRA Statewide Board is not making this the policy of CRA as a whole. OK so why was the Statewide Board voting on this then? The amendment was approved with three NO votes including mine.

This raises so many questions.
• First, the fact that this came before the Board means that the Statewide CRA organization has made it the policy that any chapter can reject members based on other affiliations that members may have. These words come to mind, “Have you now or ever been in the past a communist?”
• Second, CRA has no access or right to access CRC membership lists so how do they know who is a member of that group? Ironically, CRC is based on the very same principals as CRA just different leadership.
• Third, under the current Bylaws of CRA, this rule does not affect current CRA members, only those wishing to join in the future. Thus, this sell-out of principle—if applied in accordance with the rest of the CRA Bylaws—will do nothing to help eject the eight members in Santa Clarita that are a thorn in their side. Santa Clarita has over 150 members and can’t abide a few angry folks?
• Fourth, any members of Santa Clarita that are ejected have the right under the Statewide Bylaws to appeal the decision to the State Board.

Later in the meeting, Aaron Park made a pitch that CRA should consider Director’s and Officer’s Liability Insurance. This was just the cherry on top. Park votes to create a litigious situation for the CRA Board and then offers to sell them insurance in case anybody takes them to court for acting stupidly.

CRA deserved to be sued in 2011 and they deserve it today for this stupid and ill-advised vote.

OH, and just to prove they really did open Pandora’s Box, by Monday, CRA leadership had been contacted by several other chapters wanting exclusionary language added to their Bylaws to trim the unwanted from their ranks.

Way to grow CRA… sorry fellows but I expected more.

The governing Board of the California Republican Assembly met on Saturday just because it was tradition to have a Board meeting concurrent with the convention of the California Republican Party. The tradition—which traces itself to the heyday of Barbara Alby—used to be for the purpose of plotting voting strategy for the Sunday morning General Session of CRP. Now however, CRA has too few troops to command at the CRP gathering and nothing of significance is allowed to get to the floor for a vote (since CRP is a top-down group run by its Board); thus holding this meeting just two weeks after the CRA Annual Convention had no real purpose.

On Saturday, just to fill time, a few candidates were allowed to speak to the CRA Board and a few more were hastily endorsed with no serious vetting. In between a few committee reports and assignments were dealt with—nothing that couldn’t be done by conference call or a few emails. Then, after over an hour of nonsense, the big event—Congressional District 4 finally was brought before the body.

In the agenda, it was listed as “Resolutions.” A resolution was introduced to thank Tom McClintock for voting right. Chairman John Briscoe felt this was reasonable and assured us that he had talked to Tom McClintock on three occasions about the CD-4 situation. Even though this resolution was clearly a slap at the CRA chapters within the McClintock district, it was passed overwhelmingly by the Board.

Then the CD-4 endorsement vote was brought up. The thinking seemed to be like this…”we papered over the mistake made by the local endorsing convention for slighting the Congressman by passing our resolution, and we didn’t actually undercut the local groups because we stopped short of using the words “support” or “endorse” in the resolution, and now we need to put this mess behind us.” Any effort to call a second endorsing convention in this race was killed. Several reasons were given but the one that mattered was the likelihood that a second endorsing convention would also yield no endorsement, thus bringing further disgrace on the CRA.

I find it disturbing that the CRA Board was so willing to undercut the decision of local chapters and still proclaim itself a grassroots organization. The four chapters involved were treated dismissively. Worst of all, a congressman that has done nothing to build the party in or around his district, comes away from the whole thing as untouchable. Power triumphs over principle once again.

Tom Hudson has “buyer’s remorse” (or a bad case of jelly spine) after the local endorsing convention that he helped organize failed to deliver an endorsement for Tom McClintock. The endorsing convention was held in conjunction with the annual convention of the California Republican Assembly in Buena Park.

The organizers of the Buena Park convention were the Placer County Republican Assembly. Yeah, I know Placer County is at least 350 miles away from the convention site but I’m just the messenger. Anyway, the Placer folks (including Hudson) wanted as many local endorsing conventions held at the convention as they could schedule. These votes were scheduled on the morning of Saturday March 1st; the first full day of the annual convention.

Some people like me went ballistic and said they wanted local endorsing conventions held in or near the district. Those that felt like me argued that candidates, delegates, rank & file CRA members and the public should be invited. It was a way to endorse candidates in an open and transparent process. In addition, the filing period was still open at the time the annual convention was held.

Lastly, the club I belong to had not voted to select any delegates for an endorsing convention—only delegates for the statewide convention. We planned to select endorsing convention delegates at the first meeting after the convention (which we did.) Traditionally, delegates to the annual convention have a large economic cost to attend while endorsing delegates can carpool to the event since it is held closer to home. In addition, the announcement for the endorsing conventions in Buena Park also said that participants had to pay the registration fee of $40 in order to vote. I also protested this as being a “pole tax”.

I went so far as to tell the folks from Placer that neither I nor any people from my club would participate in an endorsement vote for any contested election in an area where we had jurisdiction. Buena Park was simply too far and too soon to hold such a vote.

Those that protested were able to pull endorsements in their area off of the endorsement schedule. Most races in Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties were removed within days of the February 14th call for endorsement conventions.

Hudson gave his full throated support for endorsement votes at the Buena Park convention. I know he was aware of concerns raised by people like me. Then at the Buena Park convention, he was present at many of the endorsement votes that were held on Saturday morning. Before, during and for the rest of the convention, Hudson was OK with the process and its results; then on Monday—his first day back to his job with the State—he has a change of heart.!?

Clearly someone contacted him and pressured him for reconsideration. Hudson decided that what’s in the past—that he agreed with at the time—was suddenly invalid and he had called for a new endorsing convention to redo the vote. This call was revoked by CRA President John Briscoe.

So on March 11th, Hudson sent an email blast to the CRA Board. To me this was the key sentence:

It is my position that there has not been a valid CRA local endorsing convention in the Fourth Congressional District and we need to hold one right away so that we can endorse Tom McClintock for Congress.

Please note, he does not say this is now a contested race and I think we should take another look at CD-4 but he says the purpose is “so we can endorse Tom McClintock.” Why? Both Republicans in the race are conservative.

Hudson is the parliamentarian of the CRA Board and he often uses this position to obfuscate issues with voluminous amounts of nonsense that sound good at the time but upon further analysis are distorts or outright fabrications to get him to the outcome that he desires.

Besides the famous incident that I chronicled on this blog with him and the Yolo County Republican Assembly many years ago, the most recent example was ironically on the last day of the Buena Park convention. Hudson argued for a good ten minutes that local RA chapters were not required to maintain minutes of their meetings. He stated this was not required under the CRA’s Statewide Bylaws or under Robert’s Rules of Order. OK so why is Secretary a required officer?

After insulting our intelligence at the CRA meeting with that whopper, he has the stones to claim the Buena Park endorsement isn’t valid because he didn’t have minutes from that endorsing convention!

Talk about talking out of both sides!!

This might become a major focus of the CRA Board meeting on Saturday in Burlingame. What a colossal waste of time if that happens. Tom, your side (whatever that is) lost, get over it and move on.

I have more I could say about this but I will keep my powder dry…for now.

Another piece of news out of the CRA convention was that Congressman Tom McClintock was denied an endorsement for re-election.

McClintock has a reputation for being an arch-conservative but he seems to never find time in his busy schedule to help anyone else in his Party get elected. Just ask Dan Lungren, Peter Tateishi, Jack Sieglock, and any other Republicans that have run in and around his district in recent years. Even when his chief of staff decides to run for office, McClintock can offer only symbolic support.

Furthermore, I have been told that his representative in the Placer County Republican Party (Central Committee) is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage—truly a reflection of his publicly stated views and values…NOT.

McClintock may be many things but the word “leader” is not one that he deserves. The people that he tends to surround himself with are reportedly difficult and do not always share conservative values. He also doesn’t play nicely with conservatives that live in his district. (During most of his time in office, McClintock has lived outside his district in Elk Grove.)

As a result of his “army of one” attitude and hostility toward conservatives, Placer CRA denied him the endorsement. Reportedly after the filing period closes, they will endorse him then since he will be the only Republican on the ballot.

Tom can give a good speech but he has little to show for his years of service. Like many, he is living off a reputation that he ceased to deserve many years ago. He is on the same path as Dan Lungren except he is not in a competitive district so he will be in Congress as long as he likes. I wish he would either lead or get out of the way.