Category: CRA

Over the week-end, I spent time at the annual convention of the California Republican Assembly.

The good news is that the convention was at Knott’s Berry Farm. The bad news is the park was closed due to weather. My family elected to “pay the mouse tax” as the Sith Lord calls a pilgrimage to Disney. My wife and two of the kids went to Downtown Disney to see The Lego Movie, eat lunch and shop. Meanwhile, daddy took a test for his on line accounting class and then went to the Saturday session of the convention.

Sunday saw my wife and kids get an early start and go to church while daddy attended the business meeting. Following this meeting was the first meeting of the newly elected Board. It is during the Board meeting that I saw something that was unusual and remarkable. I saw a candidate go from first to worst because of their position on abortion.

Under the CRA Bylaws, if there is no active club in a district—be it Assembly, Senate or Congressional—any endorsement in that race must be done by the State Board. One such race was the 55th Assembly District. In the race, three Republicans are actively campaigning: Ling Ling Chang, Phillip Chen and Steve Tye. Ling Ling had been working the group all week-end and even had a chance to speak during the Saturday Luncheon. Going into the endorsement proceedings she was the favorite. Phillip Chen was a distant second and the only question was could he get enough votes to prevent Ling Ling from receiving the require 2/3 vote needed for endorsement. Nobody had even heard of Steve Tye and I was surprised that he too was in the room.

Prior to the endorsement discussion I had met both Ling Ling and her husband. Both seemed like nice folks and I was planning to vote for her.

As the endorsement for AD 55 began, CRA President, John Briscoe started by introducing the man who was in charge of candidate surveys. Instead of going over all the questions, he said he would only go over the questions where the three candidates differed. Of these questions, the most glaring deficiency was that Ling Ling had left several life questions blank. This was a big yellow flag for the Board.

It was decided that candidates would go in alphabetical order (by last name) so Ling Ling was the first to address the group. She started by saying she was glad she was able to address the group and mentioned the prayer breakfast. After a few more comments, she then got to the blank questions on abortion. She stated that she was supportive of abortion for “the Reagan exceptions and the first few months”. Translation, she was for abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother and during the first trimester. Then she was asked if she supported keeping the pro-life plank in the state party platform. Instead of saying yes, she said she would “support whatever the party wanted.”

First, I appreciate her honestly in answering the questions; but given her views why even try for our endorsement?

Phillip Chen then came up and said he was 100 percent prolife. He rolled-out his credentials that he was an evangelical Christian and loved God, country and family. Chen was then followed by Steve Tye who conducted himself well also.

After clarifying that No Endorsement would also be an allowable vote, the first of three ballots was conducted. On the first ballot, Ling Ling Chang got five votes, Tye got six, and Chen got about half. Many also voted not to endorse. As the person with the least number of votes, Ling Ling was then dropped from further consideration. Just like that, the perceived front runner was finished.

On the second ballot, Chen got 28, and the rest were divided between Tye and No Endorsement. On the third ballot, Chen got 29 votes because I changed from No Endorsement to Chen. This gave Phillip Chen the bare minimum needed for the CRA endorsement.

I was startled that my switch changed the proceedings from a deadlock to victory for Chen.

I did feel bad for Ling Ling. I felt she was just tone deaf to some issues that make conservatives passionate. (This opinion is due to the wording of a few other questions she answered in the candidate survey.) I am not saying that she had to agree with us or lie to get our endorsement, but she needed a more affirmative and confident answer. It could be that the issue hit too close to home and she did not want to speak about it publicly. If that’s the case, she needs our prayers.

Today Craig Alexander went public with a letter stating that he resigned from all the CRA Board and leadership posts that he currently holds.

… my resignation as a Vice President that go beyond my no longer carrying that title. I also resign from all committees of the CRA Board of Directors including the CRA Special Litigation Committee…

I also resign as the Chairman of the OC CRA President’s Council. I resign as the Chairman of the OC CRA Elections Committee and from the committee itself.

Craig is an attorney that has been involved in CRA for many years. Recently he has found himself on the losing end of several votes. At the April 2013 Convention, he was a backer of Celeste Greig for CRA President and more recently, he tried to thwart the de-chartering of the Republican Assembly of the Greater Santa Clarita Valley. Once it was clear that RAGSCV would be de-chartered, he and fellow attorney Chris Mays tried to bifurcate the issue so the territory for this club would still exist and allow for a reconstituted group to take its place. This was subsequently slapped down by the CRA Board on its July 4th vote.

In the process of de-chartering this second Santa Clarita group—which was chartered over the top of an existing club—the Sergeant at Arms revealed that he was aware that this second Santa Clarita group was created as punishment because the existing club in Santa Clarita did not support Celeste Greig in her Presidential contest versus Karen England. Reportedly, had things gone according to plan, this smaller group would eventually be given much if not all of the Santa Clarita area at the expense of the larger group. However, the plan never moved on to that stage.

As documented elsewhere, Celeste Greig and Steve Frank were among the ring leaders of this plan that was executed in 2011. At the special CRA Board meeting to de-charter RAGSCV on June 22, 2013, the Sergeant at Arms stated he knew about this conspiracy back in 2011 and not until later did he decide that this was wrong. That is why in 2013 he was working to correct this injustice to the existing RA Chapter in Santa Clarita.

The irony is that this unpunished confession by the Sergeant at Arms—which Craig Alexander claims lead to his resign from the Board—would not have been revealed if Alexander had not tried to derail the proceedings at the June Special Board meeting. The Sergeant at Arms felt that without his revelation to the Board that the vote to de-charter the fraudulent unit might fail. He spoke to get others at the meeting to understand the seriousness of the wrong that had been committed. In 2011, he stood silently on the sidelines and did not object but now he needed to speak-out to right the wrong that he had been secretly laboring to correct.

Here is a portion of Alexander’s email from June 30th:

During the board meeting we were discussing and debating the topic of the proposed de-chartering of the Republican Assembly of the Greater Santa Clarita Valley (RAGSCV).  RAGSCV had been created in July 2011.  As it turned out there were irregularities with the unit’s creation and territory as it impinged upon SCVRA’s territory.  There were many facts to sort out and I was also concerned about the manner in which the review of this situation had been conducted.  It would be fair to say that the meeting was contentious and I (and others) asked more than one pointed question of the people involved on both sides.

During that discussion Sgt. At Arms Aaron Park (who was in favor of the de-chartering of the newer RAGSCV unit) stood up and told the entire board that he had lied to the board about the newer unit that was being considered for de-chartering.  That after the April 2011 CRA convention, that he and two other Board members (who are no longer on the CRA board) decided to promote and create the new unit on top of the older unit as punishment for the SCVRA’s support of another candidate for CRA President during the 2011 convention.  Vice President Steve Macias posted this on his blog post:

“After over an hour of lively debate before the board, Sergeant-at-Arms Aaron Park stepped forward to lend clarity to his role in the chartering of the RAGSCV. Aaron explained that the charter was intentionally pushed through against the bylaws for “political revenge.” Aaron elaborated that the new group was part of a plot to retaliate against the SCVRA’s refusal to support President Celeste Greig. “Bob Hauter, Steve Frank, and I lied,” confessed Park. “We perpetrated a lie, we lied to the board of directors. We knew what we were doing.”

 To date, Park is the only one to come forward.”  (http://www.stevemacias.com/end-of-cra-drama/)

Like everyone else at that meeting, I was shocked by these statements.  Right after he made these statements, I asked Aaron publicly if he was tendering his resignation from the board.  Mr. Park did not offer his reisgation.  We then voted on the de-chartering issue.

 

Alexander then spent the rest of his June 30 email trying to make Aaron Park the issue instead of the fraudulent CRA chapter. His lawyerly tactic was that a vote to give the territory formerly held by the de-charter RAGSCV back to the older Santa Clarita RA was somehow a vote to support Park. He asked Board members that agreed with him to switch their vote to “Abstain” and let him know via email that we agreed with him.

Thus I would ask of you two things:
1.  1. Cast your vote to Rohit Joy to ABSTAIN on the vote for the SCVRA units territory;
2.  2.  Send only to me a separate reply to this message if you agree or disagree with my conclusions about Mr. Park needing to be off the CRA Board of Directors and off these committee assignments.

Alexander’s resignation letter today was again about Park. His four page letter can be summarized thusly, “if the Board won’t go after Park then I quit”.

Were Alexander some sort of innocent and disinterested party in all this then I might be more inclined to agree with him; however, he is not. Craig Alexander has been up to his armpits in intrigue at various times in CRA.

What? Political groups have intrigue? That’s a surprise? … NOT.

Craig has been involved in CRA Black Ops for a long time. He hasn’t been willing to volunteer the information but the “Sith Lord” has the goods on him should it come to that.

My point is not that I can play tit-for-tat with the best of them but that this bickering has to end. Someone has to be the first to be wronged and not retaliate. There is no such thing as “perfect justice” in this life. God is the one that balances all things at the end.

How does an unending quest for purity—be it ideological or ethical—help to grow a group? It can’t. We are all human. We are often wrong and wrong others. We act with only partial information and usually see only our perspective or see it as best anyway.

Somewhere, somehow, we need to turn a corner and adopt a different paradigm of doing things. Yes, Aaron was wrong and did a bad thing or at least acted badly. However, he is one of the few folks in CRA that has owned-up to his actions. Greig, Frank and others just threw a tantrum then picked-up their stuff and left. To this day, they admit no fault.

I know Aaron. He is often full of bluster and bravado. You know where he stands on any issue. I think he means well but sometimes he acts with his emotions and not his intellect. (Don’t we all?) Aaron is trying to influence the political process and on occasion does make mistakes. Nevertheless, he has a good track record and access to information this is often not public knowledge.

Unlike Mr. Alexander, I don’t want to call a special meeting of the CRA Board to throw Aaron out on his butt. Yes, I think Aaron needs more scrutiny in the future and I fully expect him to get it. Aaron is one person on a Board that can number over 100 people.

To me, the difference between Alexander and Park is easily distinguished.

On numerous occasions, Celeste Greig and her minions (including Craig Alexander) failed to follow the rules. In difficult situations, Celeste typically used an ends justifies the means approach. I don’t recall one instance where Alexander publicly called-out Greig for her lawlessness or cavalier attitude towards corporate bylaws and ethical behavior. As a result of the silence of Alexander and others, Greig caused much damage to not only the CRA but the Republican brand in California. At least Park saw the error of his ways and worked to correct the excesses of Greig’s antinomian behavior.

John Briscoe is trying to put an end to past wrongs and wrongdoing and start fresh so CRA can finally begin to grow. I think Briscoe should be given the chance to lead. I think Board members from Greig’s time as President—even Aaron Park—should be allowed on the Board, just not as a majority.

Celeste Greig was on display this week-end in all her glory. As the President of a statewide organization, her behavior during the Convention of the California Republican Assembly these last few days has been akin to that of a petulant child and not the leader of “the conscience of the Republican Party.”

Friday during the final Board meeting she presided over before Sunday’s election of officers, she had the boldness to ignore the agenda and deny certain officers the right to give committee reports because she had personal differences with them. She simply skipped the agenda items and declared that the meeting was adjourned.

Also, despite many promises, those thrown off the Board due to missing the illegally noticed March meeting were not reinstated. However, two new people were added to the Board.

Lastly, Celeste tried to clarify her infamous comments on rape. All she really did was double-down on the same comments made at the CRP convention.

Later on Friday, despite the best efforts of Steve Frank and Bill Cardoza, Celeste-who appointed the members of the Credentials Committee-was unable to gain any meaningful advantage from this body. The fate of seven chapters was debated. Three of the chapters never sent any delegates so no action was taken on them. Frank was only able to bring up three chapters for challenge. Fresno, Kings and Ventura RAs were challenged. Frank hoped not to allow their delegates to be seated. Fresno and Kings were settled quickly. Frank was beat back in his vigorous efforts to refuse the newly formed Ventura RA chapter from being seated. The evil club from Santa Clarita was only able to seat one delegate. The list they submitted only had one valid delegate and no alternates. Their bylaws require delegates live within their territory and three of the submitted names were not seated as a result of violating this provision. The net result was that the stage was set for a fair fight on the day of the election. One Sunday, turnout would be the key to the CRA Presidential election.

On Sunday, Celeste started the meeting with the report of the President. During her report, the CRA banner that was hanging on the wall behind and above her head fell off of the wall. It was never re-hung. I took this as a bad omen for her.

Shortly thereafter, voting took place followed by several overly long committee reports on Bylaw changes and Resolutions. These reports were placed in this part of the program to allow all ballots to be counted. In the midst of the Bylaw reports, Steve Frank approached Celeste-who was seated at the front of the room next to the podium—and whispered into her ear. A few minutes later, she left and never returned.

After the Resolution Committee reports were completed, the election results were announced. Results were given in the opposite order of the ballot. This allowed the Presidential results to be announced last. There were 164 people eligible to vote; however, two did not. Celeste Greig received 78 votes and challenger John Briscoe received 84 votes.

Typically, at this point in the process, the outgoing President will congratulate the winner, pledge support and offer help during the transition. Greig did none of this. As I found out later, she had checked out of her hotel room and left the convention long before the results were announced. Such behavior is all anyone needs to know about her character. This display of contempt for the CRA and what it stands for is inexcusable.

I subsequently learned that last time Greig lost an election that she dropped out of the CRA for about eight years before re-appearing. This is the behavior one expects from a child not someone that is in their seventies and is a veteran of the political process.

Greig is the first sitting CRA President to loose since the Nixon era.

Most of Grieg’s geriatric supporters also disappeared. I think many will not attend another CRA event. The only exception might be Steve Frank. Frank for the first time in many years is off the Board. He was the lone looser in the race for Vice-President. There ended up being six VP openings and seven candidates.

Briscoe was quick to introduce more transparency in the Board and also more accountability for Board members. Jobs were given to VPs and Senate District Directors. Two clubs were de-chartered and four were referred to the newly established Chapter Review Committee. A new era has begun in CRA. Perhaps the post Alby era has begun.

Darth Vader exercised his will at CRA Convention

“Up from the grave he arose;
With a mighty triumph o’er his foes;”
Or so the old hymn goes;
Bob Haueter thinks he knows;
Why Park stepped on his toes.

Bob Haueter as you may recall was one of the problem folks named by George Park that was listed as a current member of the evil Santa Clarita CRA chapter. The only problem is that Bob moved to Texas many months ago and thus is ineligible to be a member of CRA. Anyway, Bob has done his best impression as a guest on “The Walking Dead” and fired-off a lengthy tome from beyond the CRA grave yesterday to give his side of the story. His “Tales from the Crypt” is an interesting read but falls short in many places.

In his letter, Bob makes many admissions against interest. He thinks they bolster his case when in fact they prove Park was right. Due to its length, I won’t go thru the whole thing but I will point out the contentions that caught my eye.

Bob opens with this salutation, “Greetings fellow CRA members”. This salutation is part of the problem, BOB thinks he is still a CRA member and so does his club. Since by his own admission, he resides in Texas, Bob cannot be a member of CRA. Sorry Bob but our Bylaws are really clear on that issue.

Bob laments that we are having an internal struggle and then says,

Is it any wonder there aren’t any state wide elected Republicans, or that the State Assembly and State Senate are controlled by Democrat super majorities and the State’s Congressional Delegation has been reduced to just 15 members out of 53?

So what’s the fight about? In reality it will be a battle of distinctions without differences.  The real issue will be who controls, for their own narrow self interest the endorsement of the CRA.

OK; so it is all CRA’s fault that the Democrats have cleaned our clocks and own the State? No, it’s more complicated than that; however Barbara Alby and her followers are complicit in the decline we have experienced. (See my blog article on Gary North v Barbara Alby.) The current fight is the old Alby forces fighting for control v the post Alby membership.

The next paragraph is another admission against interest if you parse it just a little. “The real issue will be who controls, for their own narrow self interest the endorsement of the CRA.” The only contention of controlling endorsements for self interested reasons made thus far in this controversy is that Bob’s former employer, Congressman Buck McKeon and some fellow travelers in CRA leadership (Greig and Frank), have manipulated endorsements. Bob tells us more about what he and his friends have done in the past and how he really views CRA. CRA is to be controlled by the political elites to get endorsements.

Sorry Bob, I joined CRA so I could be the one endorsing the folks that I feel best represent my values not so I can grant legitimacy to candidates and consultants that try to buy CRA endorsements. I thought that is what we fought Karen England about two years ago. We purged many clubs funded by candidates and consultants but not all.

I joined the CRA in 1979.  At the time our party was controlled by a group of go along get alongs. Unfortunately CRA was part of the problem, “The Conscience of the Republican Party” did not reflect the conservative values it was founded on. It took many years but we succeeded in returning the CRA to a Conservative organization that accurately reflected its heritage and one that we could be proud to be a part of.

Bob here displays the romantic view espoused by Alby that CRA was a conservative organization that she and others helped return to its conservative roots. The fact is that during its history, CRA has been on all sides of many issues. It has been liberal and conservative. It was founded as a “progressive” Republican group. It has been for progressive taxes, flat taxes, consumptions taxes, etc. CRA’s history is not one of principles that are the bedrock of its existence. This paradigm was given to CRA by Alby and her allies.

This weekend you’ll continue to fight amongst yourselves but instead of fighting for conservative values against moderate and liberals, you’ll be fighting against those that wish to use the CRA for a purely personal accumulation of power. A fight where the winner is rewarded with the power to decide who gets our assistance and endorsement and then reaps the rewards from that assistance.

Yet another admission against interest. The winner of the CRA Presidential election “is rewarded with power to decide who gets our assistance and endorsement and then reaps the rewards from that assistance.” OK, Bob first it is not “our assistance” because you are not a member. Second you are talking of a top-down organization not a grassroots one. The President does not decide who gets our assistance. We do not work for the CRA President, we work locally for local candidates that we choose to support, and whether the CRA leadership likes them is irrelevant. We are neither their slaves nor employees. Again CRA is a Grassroots group. Grassroots equals decentralized. Most in CRA do not work to “reap the rewards” unless you think more freedom, less government and, lower taxes is a reward.

Bob then thumps his chest to say how hard he has worked for various politicians. Then he laments,

I am saddened to see the depths that CRA has sunk to. Where personal attacks based on innuendo and manipulated emails are used to attack fellow members just so someone can achieve profit off our organization.

George Park is clearly in mind here. This is a false characterization of Park’s information campaign. Had CRA leadership done its job, Park would not have to go to the Internet to deal with these issues. They were not dealt with in 1998 as I have documented elsewhere on this blog and things got progressively worse. Two years ago was a corrective action but it was not a completed action. Everything Park put out publicly was documented and never refuted by Celeste Greig, Steve Frank or anyone else. Park only used a portion of the stuff that was available to him. It is worse than he stated.

That the day before the convention, Steve Frank has to get a former member from Texas to take up his cause is illustrative of how weak his defense really is. The only person that can “profit off our organization” is Steve Frank not George Park. Frank has a financial interest in the 25th Congressional district during the 2014 election cycle. More on this later.

This latest round of attacks against Celeste Greig and Steve Frank have set new limits…or better put…new lows.  My gosh, Celeste and Steve, they are pillars of our organization with reputations beyond reproach.  When people like Celeste and Steve are attacked its time to question the attackers.

Steve Frank threw Celeste under the bus three weeks ago and now Bob does us the favor of joining them at the hip again. If Celeste is so great why is the only press coverage that she gets for CRA related to rape and Todd Akin? Sorry Bob, no one is “beyond reproach”; ever read Romans 3: 23?

Unfortunately, many in politics build a good reputation early on in their careers and coast on that reputation for the rest of their political lives even when they act contrary to their reputation. We all know politicians that say one thing at election time in their districts and then vote the opposite way in Sacramento or Washington. Celeste Greig and Steve Frank acting contrary to their early reputation in CRA and that conduct is not unusual.

Bob then begins to tell his story about the formation of the Republican Assembly of the Greater Santa Clarita Valley (RAGSCV). This portion of his tome is worth an extended look. Here he is talking about how his faction lost control of the other Santa Clarita RA chapter and were later forced to form their own club.

Unfortunately there were some in town who wanted to control the CRA for its ability to endorse in local elections.  Two of the leaders of this group were Wendy Albright and Alice Khosravy.  They literally bought the election with Alice standing in the parking lot handing out cash to folks they had recruited to become members.  This included folks who weren’t even registered Republicans.  They won by 3 or 4 votes.  We were so disgusted afterwards that we almost quit the CRA.

This is a rather pregnant passage as it once again tells us more about Bob than you might see at first glance. Bob makes Alice sound like some crazy ACORN member trying to buy voted from homeless people by passing out cash in the parking lot. He makes it sound like Alice gives people money, and then they charged into some nearby building and paid their dues, and then voted as instructed.

The only problem with this tale of fraud and woe is those stinking Bylaws don’t allow such conduct. Isn’t it funny that every time someone on Celeste’s side of the controversy says or does something the Bylaws keep getting in their way. Their lament reminds me of Democrats complaining about the Constitution being an obstacle to their utopian dreams.

All CRA chapters require that membership dues must be paid at least 30 days prior to a member being allowed to vote in officer elections. Some clubs even require members joining 60 days in advance. Furthermore, local CRA chapters can reject membership applications to their chapter. This action is subject to review by the State Board.

The irony of the charge of members not being registered to vote is that Bob’s righteous CRA chapter is the only one that lists members not registered to vote and membership of folks residing outside of California. The club he is complaining about is ten times the size of his group and has no such known violations. I know that Park has personally verified the membership of both groups looking for such problems.

The only conclusion that a rational person can draw is that Bob is telling a bald-faced lie that he hopes no one will notice.

Bob then recounts his version of getting his new Santa Clarita club chartered. He omits a few relevant facts but I wish to go on further into his letter as he begins has close. He begins with this premise, for Bob to be correct and Celeste to be righteous then George Park must be lying. Bob then asks why?

Again, within this statement you will find admissions against interest.

Well I can’t tell you precisely why but I can speculate.  It’s been rumored that Congressman Buck McKeon, one of the highest regarded members of Congress and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, may retire at the end of this term. I don’t know.  What I do know is if and when Buck does decide to call it quits there’s going to be a mad scramble to fill the seat.  We only have 15 Republican seats left and they don’t open up that often.  So the CRA’s endorsement in the 25th CD will be important.  Look at the units George is going after: Northridge, RAGSCV and Antelope Valley…all within the 25th CD.  Then, add to that, George comes all the way down from Northern California to help Charter a new unit in Simi Valley…yep its in the 25th CD as well.  That leaves just one question; what’s in it for George?  Why the sudden interest in the 25th CD?  What’s he get for making sure a unit that hates Congressman McKeon, the SCVRA, gets the power to control the endorsement in the 25th CD.  Maybe you should ask him, or his new friends Alice and Wendy.

Buck McKeon’s name just keeps coming up in this controversy. Buck paid many of the dues for members in Bob’s beloved CRA chapter from his vast campaign war chest. (Didn’t Karen England get booted from CRA for facilitating such acts?) This is one of Park’s many complaints about McKeon. Not until this Tuesday’s article in the online version of the San Francisco Chronicle did Greig admit to any ties with McKeon when they reported that Buck has endorsed Celeste.

Bob then goes on to point out that Park has been going after RA chapters in northern L.A. County. Park says they are problems because they are not complying with the rules and Bob implies that Park has a financial interest in the 25th Congressional District.

Bob is missing the elephant in the room with his comments. The problem RA clubs that Park is trying to deal with are the ones geographically closest to where CRA President Celeste Greig and her colleague Steve Frank live. One would think that if Celeste is the dynamic Republican leader that she claims to be in her campaign literature then the clubs that she can interact with the most would be the fastest growing most dynamic clubs in CRA. The fact is that the opposite is true. Celeste no longer even has a local CRA chapter to belong to since her’s died of inactivity many years ago. Steve Frank is also a homeless CRA officer.

Bob also neglects to mention that there are other vibrant CRA clubs in the 25th but they are ones that don’t regularly interact with Frank and Greig; an important omission.

The foremost player in this drama with a financial interest in CD 25 is Steve Frank. Steve is pushing Tony Strickland as the natural heir to Buck McKeon at rallies and events throughout the district. Steve is a political consultant working for Strickland. Steve and Celeste need Bob’s bogus RA group and others like it to engineer the endorsement of Tony next year.

So there you have it. The last installment before the Convention begins at 4 p.m. today.

Contrary to recent claims by Aaron Park, my read is that Celeste thinks her re-election is a done deal. Whether she can do it on a straight up or down vote or needs Frank to go nuclear on the Credential Committee we will know soon.

Emperor Steve Frank has instructed his apprentice Darth Cardoza to cancel all diplomatic efforts to resolve the CRA credentialing process and fall back to the night of the Star Chamber. Frank has determined that only the cover of darkness can be used to wrest victor for certain defeat. Unfortunately for the rest of us, Frank has determined that victory is defined as the total annihilation of half of the CRA universe.

Of the 45 or so CRA chapters that are sending delegates to the CRA Convention that is just days away, Steve Frank plans to refuse seating any delegates from half these chapters for reasons that he has manufactured in his own mind. He has had to manipulate Credentials Committee Chairman Bill Cardoza to set-up this jihad. OK, manipulate is a strong word, Frank has simply withheld any instructions from Cardoza so Bill has failed to take any action.

Cardoza thinks he can convene a meeting Friday night, set up operating rules for the committee and then let Frank flood the zone with smoke and mirrors and then present a completed report to the body for approval by 9 A.M. Saturday morning. Only if Frank has staged a draft of the final report ahead of time could this be accomplished.

Any delegates not recognized by the report will be presumed to be invalid. Only a motion from the floor by a seated delegate can get the recommendations of the Credentials Committee overturned. Each chapter must then be approved by those previously hand selected by Frank and allowed to vote. In addition, this process assumes that the chair will recognize the person making such a motion. Worst case scenario for this part of the meeting is Steve Frank presiding over the meeting and Cardoza presenting the report.

This gambit should fail but I would be foolish to think this will be a fair fight.

Some members on the Credentials Committee think that if things go badly they can break quorum and stop the non-sense. I disagree, such a move would make Frank’s task easier. Frank, Cardoza & company would declare victory and present their prewritten report as the Committee Report and then all they need to do is ram it through on Saturday.

My recommendation is for George Park & his allies is put their report out first and then use that as the beginning point for any action of the Committee. Park has said that his presumption is that all delegates should be seated unless there is a compelling reason to set them aside for a harder look. Chapters not paying dues or delegate residency questions are the usual grounds for these problems. Park has reportedly resolved most issues except for about three clubs. One of the three problem clubs has no dues paying members but wants to send delegates. Clearly this is highly irregular and should be examined.

Park’s best move is the axiom, “he who frames the issue, wins the debate.” If Park goes until Friday without presenting his report and suggesting a framework for the committee to operate from then he will unnecessarily cede ground that will be costly to win back. In fact inaction might result in the dissolution of the organization. As Gary North is fond of saying, “you can’t beat something with nothing.”

To be continued…

CRA Membership Secretary George Park has fired what could be his most devastating shot at Celeste Greig thus far. Here is the bulk of the email.

Contrast this with Chatsworth Northridge Republican Assembly (CNRA), a proported franchise of Congressman Buck McKeon’s just like the RAGSCV.  This unit fits the classic definition of a “Paper Unit” or “Zombie”, as it seems to come to life at the most special time of year. (Hint, anytime that requires delegates) Twice in the last 13 months, it has been “reorganized”.

This is also CRA President Celeste Greig’s home unit.

CNRA was born in President Celeste Greig’s living room in 1991, with the help of Steve Frank (View the original minutes here).

The most recent “reorganization” appears to have occurred on March 18th in CRA President Celeste Greig’s living room. She notified me 9 days after the fact on March 27th, the same night she headlined the Buck McKeon RA (RAGSCV) fundraiser (View the invitation here) with guest Democrat Ed Headington (who ran against SCVRA member and current Assemblyman Scott Wilk).

Her email reads, “Last Week as the highest CRA member in Los Angeles County and statewide President, moreover as the founder of the Chatsworth-Northridge R.A. it has been painful for me that for the last few years there has not been any activity with the Unit, there for I called and attended a re-organization night meeting, on Monday, March 18, 2013, in Chatsworth, CA.” ( View President Greig’s email here)

By her own words, she acknowledges that the unit has been dead for a few years.

CRA President Celeste Greig also indicated that the reorganizational meeting did not result in a board of directors being elected. In addition, she indicates that two of the eleven alleged members were going to join sometime after Easter. Furthermore President Greig did not report whoever these members were to the CRA Membership Secretary.  Where are the membership applications?  Why is there no roster?

So why did the President of the CRA call a reorganizational meeting without notifying a single other CRA officer except Steve Frank and why were there no officers elected at this alleged meeting!?  How can one hold a “reorganizational meeting” without electing a board?  Exaclty what was “reorganized”?  Another question that needs to be asked is this: Why does Congressman Buck McKeon view the CNRA as just another one of his “CRA franchises”?

There is a key issue that will play heavily in part two of the Greig-Frank Living room Dilemma – the By-Laws of the CNRA have a residency requirement.  (They are linked here)

Re-read Celeste’s email, you will see that she does not know the by-laws of her own home unit as she has accepted the transfer of Steve and Leslie Frank on behalf of the non-existent officers of the CNRA. (See Link) (Click here to read Steve Frank’s transfer request.)

This email and linked attachments illustrates that Greig is indeed treating the CRA as her little Cub Scout Den. Just like the Democrats that Steve Frank keeps claiming that we should be fighting, Greig finds the rules she has sworn to uphold as impediments to doing what she wants. No wonder the CRA is such a mess; we want to hold the Democrats to a standard that we are not willing to uphold ourselves. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Look at this extended portion of Greig’s email which Park quoted above.

Last week, as the highest CRA member in Los Angeles County and statewide President, moreover as the founder of the Chatsworth-Northridge R.A.

It has been painful for me that for the last few years there has not been any activity with the Unit, there for I called and attended a re-organization night meeting, on Monday, March 18, 2013, in Chatsworth, CA.

I collected individual checks (which you accepted last year), all payable to CRA for the amount of $25.00 each.

My neighbors are also going to join and will be given me their $40.00 check when they get back from their Easter vacation, so I know that you’ll join on my excitement that the Unit once again is going to be alive, functional and ready to work hard to elect and re-elect Conservative Republicans in the area, moreover to increase voter registration.

However, at this time we do not have a Board yet, nor a checking account (there was none at least for the last few years that I know of), my goal right now is to get more members, we are planning to have another meeting early in May and then elect a board.

So at this time we have 11 members (including myself and Mr. & Mrs. Steve (Leslie) Frank who live about seven or eight miles from Chatsworth.

Walk thru this email and marvel.
Celeste is highest ranking CRA member in LA County but she can’t attend the reorganizational meeting in Ventura which is right in her backyard while us poor shmucks in Sacramento are on the road before 4 a.m. so we can attend! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Celeste’s home CRA unit had no activity for last few years, so why is the club still on the books? Perhaps she has taken the same leadership skills used on her own unit and applied them to the State organization; after all it worked so well for Tom Del Beccaro in the CRP. Perhaps this explains Park’s assertion elsewhere that CRA has lost 1,000 members since the 2011 Convention.

Notice that the reorganizational meeting is noticed to others on the CRA Board only after it has taken place; contrast that with Ventura RA where about 90 Board members received multiple advanced notices.
Celeste then talks about collecting dues. This is the first of two mentions in the email where she admits to collecting dues from individual members. According to her account, she took them directly to the bank and deposited them. The good news is that she did make copies of the checks. The bad news is that she never had anyone complete membership applications because later she states,

“…therefore today I’ll be going to the nearest Wells Fargo branch and make the deposit for $200.00, I have make copies of the checks, and I’ll be sending them to our CRA Treasurer Mr. John Fugat for accounting purposes and send you a separate list, as I’m waiting for more of their information such as phone numbers and email addresses that are not on the checks.”

As quoted above, Park asserts that he is still waiting for the Chatsworth roster.

Then as Park points out, Steve and Mrs. Frank have a problem. They can’t be members of Greig’s phantom CRA unit because the Bylaws on file with the Membership Secretary require that Frank must live in Chatsworth-Northridge in Ventura County. This requirement dates back to model bylaws issued in the heyday of WordPerfect and MS DOS; it requires that members must be registered to vote within the boundaries of the local Republican Assembly; not eight miles away.

The bottom line is Celeste failed to revive her old unit with the necessary number of people to have an active CRA chapter. Technically this leaves both Frank and Greig as homeless in terms of a local chapter. They are members at large.

Steve Frank, the only advocate for the re-election of Celeste Greig as CRA President, has noticeable shifted his tactics in the last few days. While he has never attempted to rebut any evidence or allegations against Greig, he has—up until recently—tried to discredit the message by smearing the messenger; George Park. Park has crushed Frank & Greig with a tsunami of evidence that both have failed to act in a professional manner and in accord with established CRA rules and procedures. What I have published on this blog is only a portion of the available evidence.

Now each time Frank’s candidate is hit with another email from Park, his reaction is to release a copy of his resume. This is damage control for Frank but does nothing for Greig but let her twist slowly in the wind. Frank is distancing himself from Greig and trying to rehabilitate his own reputation. He is like a political consultant that has successfully drained the client of their bank account two weeks before the election and then left them to fend for themselves; while he goes off to a help himself to someone else’s campaign loot.

This is not just a metaphor for Greig’s campaign for President; this is what consults regularly do ever two years to their clients. Now you know why our guys usually loose. Every two years, our party hires the same consultants and gets the same results, only the candidate names change, the rest of the apparatus remains the same.

Frank is currently in strategic withdrawal and trying to position himself to keep his reputation in tact so he can live to fight another day. Whether Celeste realizes that she is under the bus yet is a debatable point. I think behind the scenes Frank will try to narrow the margin of defeat for Greig via his games in the Credentials Committee but there are very few uncommitted players left on the board.

My other reason that I think Frank is done with a vigorous defense of his client is that he has outed two key moles—folks funneling information to him. Here is the account from Aaron Park:

I have not seen a campaign as bizarre as this one has been.

Recently, Steve Frank exposed Bill Cardoza as the source of some of his information when he responded to en email from Placer CRA President Ed Rowen by forwarding an email Rowen sent to Mr. Cardoza complaining about the prospect of Steve having access to Placer’s roster. The only way he could have received a copy of that email would have been from Mr. Cardoza.

Last night – I received a forward of an internal Briscoe campaign email from Steve Frank that was forwarded to him by CRA Board Member Steve Macias. Mr. Macias admitted that to me in a phone call then emailed me to say that he was not going to pull his endorsement of Celeste, thereby confirming that his forwarding of the email was a deliberate act.

Why Mr. Frank exposed the leak in our (Team Briscoe) campaign team is beyond me.

Both Cardoza and Macias have been sources of valuable information to Frank so why did he burn them? Cardoza was likely leaking data and had been accused of such but Macias was operating below anyone’s radar and funneling inside info from Celeste’s opponent. Whether coincidence or not, Macias has ties with John Stoos but I am not aware that Stoos has any current interest or involvement in CRA.

Steve Frank’s conduct in this whole mess is a mystery. Maybe for him all politics really is local and friendships transcend principle and common sense. Or maybe he has an economic interest in the outcome. However this election turns out, we are witnessing the last hurrah of people that Barbara Alby brought into CRA in the 1980s and 90s. I wish they would “go quietly into that good night” but they want one last bite at the apple. Perhaps Celeste’s motives to run for President are not too different than Jerry Brown wanting another turn at being Governor. I can hear Carroll O’Conner singing, “Those were the days.”

As I sit down to write this blog, the next step in the Celeste Greig/Steve Frank campaign for continued control of the California Republican Assembly is underway. Credentials Committee Chairman, Bill Cardoza, is emailing every club roster one at a time to others on his committee and who knows who else. This is not simply names of members but home addresses, telephone and email addresses as well. As of this writing over 89 such mails have been sent.

Cardoza and his committee have no need to review this information. He is charged only with credentialing delegates. The Membership Secretary, George Park, is charged with verifying chapter membership. Chapter membership is what determines the number of delegates that a group can have. They should be complementary in nature not confrontational.

Clearly, Cardoza is positioning the Committee to nullify all work done over the last two years by Park and trying to re-invent the wheel. As I have stated before, I believe Park to be fair and conscientious in his work as Membership Secretary. This effort is the latest attempt to give Steve Frank a lever to try and find grounds to disenfranchise delegates not favorable to his slate.

Again, Steve Frank should resign immediately from all three committees to which he is assigned due to the inherent conflict of interest not only as a candidate in the upcoming elections but as the campaign architect on behalf of Celeste Greig. He is not an impartial and disinterested party trying to see that the rules are evenly enforced.

The other issue that I must raise is that Bill Cardoza is needlessly and wantonly exposing the CRA to both civil and criminal prosecution for this data dump of personal information. As I keep saying, the CRA is a California Corporation not a Cub Scout Den. Cardoza is making public, information that should be kept private. It appears to me that he is violating the Statewide CRA Bylaws by doing anything with this information. Only the entire Board has the authority to do what Cardoza is unilaterally doing.
• Does Cardoza know if he just compromised any information about an undercover law enforcement agent?
• Or a just handed some identity thief your private information?
• Did he violate State or Federal privacy laws just so Steve Frank could have more ammo?
He doesn’t know and he doesn’t care. I know that members of his committee have expressed these concerns and his only response is to continue emailing more personal information.

At the very least, he is a fool for not scrubbing the personally identifying information from these lists before making them public. He also, clearly does not have the technical expertise to operate Microsoft Excel or he could have reduced everything he is currently spamming into one file, password protected it and then sent it to others on his committee.

I know some people will think I’m harsh but I have been in, under, and around computers for twenty years. Cardoza is sending the information unsecured thru a public network to multiple public servers, to multiple computers that are not secured; furthermore, some likely have viruses and rootkits that enable other to view the contents of the hard drives. How many people that receive this info have unsecured wireless access to their data? How many will take their computer to their local Best Buy where the data will be backed-up and then viewed after the computer has been repaired? Public Wi-Fi at Starbucks? My point is that once all this has been released, he has no control where the info will go or to whom.

Cardoza’s unilateral actions are not good news for the Credentialing process. His Committee has still not met; even though the Convention begins in less than two weeks. He has released no reasons for this data dump. Several chapters have previously instructed Cardoza in writing not to release their information; but he did anyway. He has still not proposed written guidelines that will be used to perform the duties his committee. He appears to be out of his depth in his handling of the Credentialing Committee. He appears to be doing the bidding of others; following and not leading.

One Credential Committee member responded to concerns of this email tsunami raised by another member with the assertion that he couldn’t trust that Park’s info was accurate. My response is that Park takes his obligation as a Board Member seriously and knows that he has a fiduciary responsibility to be accurate. Park is a Board officer of a corporation. Park has the same responsibility for accuracy as the Treasurer does to make sure the bank balance is correct.

Lastly, if this release of personal information does go FUBAR, the CRA, its Board, and Cardoza (personally) will be held responsible in any judgment that is rendered.

I really tried to sit-out the email war today between George & Aaron Park v Steve Frank. However, the rhetoric has gotten to the point where I need to chime in again. Two issues surfaced today that deserve comment.

First, something I was aware of went public today in a big way. The Park brothers have been tracking the fact that Steve Frank is calling individuals to ask for their support in the upcoming CRA elections. It appears that Frank is working a list of delegates obtained by Bill Cardoza, the chairman of the Credentials Committee. This is based on two chunks of data: George Park didn’t provide the list to Mr. Frank and the persons contacted had requested to Cardoza that their names not be share with Frank.

The theory is that the only Board members with lists are Park and Cardoza. Park and Cardoza are both on the Credentials Committee. Cardoza is the Chair of the Committee. Park has the list due to his duties as Membership Secretary. Cardoza was going to work off info shared by Park but suddenly opted to request his own information. Cardoza has fumbled this task badly and kept requesting and countermanding information requests.

Please note that Cardoza has not called any meetings of the Credentials Committee and Cardoza is conveniently out of town for the next week on business. This leaves all the heavy lifting of the committee to be done at the last minute. Thus far, no materials have been shared with Committee members. They have not conducted any official business.

Many suspected Cardoza’s real task was to acquire lists for Frank to use to assist Celeste Greig. Some outside the Greig camp suspect that Frank would use data to find grounds to disenfranchise delegates using his powers on multiple committees related to the convention. Frank is on Bylaws, Credentials, and Rules Committees. He is also a candidate for one of the CRA Vice-President slots.

Is any besides me bothered by the obvious conflicts of interest bundled into Steve Frank? Frank can have his cake and eat it too. What a dream gig. He is both a candidate and a person able to select not only the people that can vote for him (Credentials); but the rules under which they can vote for him (Rules & Bylaws). He is not just a committee member but Chair of the Rules committee. One can’t help but utter the phrase, “Russian Election”.

Clearly the fact that Celeste Greig has to rely on Frank to fill three committee slots and be a candidate on her slate is proof the she either has a small bench of supporters or she needs Frank to keep his thumb on the scale to tilt things her way. You would think that a political operative of her vast experience would know to avoid such blatant conflicts of interest. Frank is reportedly an attorney and as such he knows to avoid such dilemmas.

The second issue today that is subtle but making a bigger splash is related to the Board vote on the Committee assignments mentioned above. Janine Heft, Corresponding Secretary, sent out a ballot for several committees that are related to the upcoming convention. These assignments were the choices made by Celeste Greig. The list was in the form of a consent calendar, it was up or down on the whole thing.

The vote via email provisions of the Bylaws require that a majority of Board members must vote or the motion is deemed to fail. As a result, many members purposely did not participate in hopes that this motion would be unsuccessful.

The rumor mill version of the voting was that with a day to go the measure was failing and the Greig team began calling in an attempt to get enough votes for the committee slate to be approved.

Heft reported that the measure had passed with 39 YES votes but what she never gives out is the size of the voting universe? How many people could have voted but didn’t? In this particular vote that is an important number. Yesterday Tom Hudson reported to me in the course of another discussion that the max size of the Board can be is 111. This number assumes that all 40 senate districts have both a director and deputy director.

Here are samples of this vote being discussed today.

Aaron Park

First off, in an email Steve Frank revealed that I did not vote on the convention committee appointments. The only way he could know that is if the corresponding secretary broke with her long-time policy of not revealing how board members voted on on-line board votes and told him.

Steve Frank

Aaron, what I said was you did not vote against me for the Credentials Committee.  The Secretary announced that the vote was 39-0—NO ONE VOTED AGAINST ME.  It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that.  Since no one voted against me, and you are a voting Board member, you could not have voted against me, since the vote was 39-0.

If the reports of lobbying for the vote had not happened, I think Park would have reacted differently to Frank’s comment. However, Aaron truly believes that since there were reports of members being lobbied to vote that Heft in fact did let someone know the vote was in trouble.

He wrote,

“…on the night of vote deadline I got two panicked emails from Celeste forwarded to me. She was demanding people from the board vote. The verbage in those emails indicated that less than a simple majority had voted on the appointments. Celeste could have only known that if she was given the information by someone who was tracking the votes.”

I don’t know what to make of this whole thing. I can see both points of view. I know that there is more information that has not been released publicly but I don’t see an upside to dragging Heft into the presidential sparring.