Really Right

Well, score one for the Park Brothers. In an email on April 5, 2011, Aaron Park fired off an email about Ron Givens. Givens recently joined the Sacramento Republican Assembly as their membership director.

This year I was asked by our Chapter President, Tim Snipes, to serve as Membership Director and was unanimously elected to that post.  I am thrilled to be a servant in Sacramento and have brought 17 new members to the SRA in just the last few weeks, many of whom were registered as DTS and have joined or re-joined the Republican Party.  I will continue to grow our membership using the same transparent means that I live out in life: Honest communication and sharing the vision of what it means to be an Authentic Conservative. http://rongivens.com

In Park’s email, the meat of the issue can be summarized in two excerpts. The first reads:

Ron Givens took a Democrat ballot in 2008 as a Decline-to-State Voter and did not register Republican until late last year (September 21, 2010), according to my sources.

Later Givens fired-off a rebuttal that reads in part:

Like many conservatives, years ago I was disgusted at the leftward drift of the Republican Party, and that disgust lead me to register as a Decline To State voter for a couple of years.  During this time, I supported conservative candidates and causes, and was extremely active in the Yes on 8 campaign.

In 2008, Rush Limbaugh coined the term “Operation Chaos,” encouraging his DTS listeners and Republicans in open primary states to pull Democrat ballots in the Presidential Primary and vote for Hillary Clinton – because by that time it was apparent that our presumptive nominee, John McCain, would fare much better against Hillary than Obama.  That is exactly what I did.

I researched Operation Chaos and it appears that Givens has a problem with his explanation.

In late February 2008, Limbaugh announced “Operation Chaos,” a political call to action with the initial plan to have voters of the Republican Party temporarily cross over to vote in the Democratic primary and vote for Hillary Clinton, who at the time was in the midst of losing eleven straight primary contests to Barack Obama. Limbaugh has also cited the open primary process in the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, which allowed independent voters to cross over into the Republican primaries to choose John McCain over more conservative candidates (such as Fred Thompson), as an inspiration.—Wikipedia

Operation Chaos began at the end of February 2008 and was in full swing in March. However, California’s Presidential Primary took place Tuesday, February 5. http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2008/primary/index.html
This was weeks before Operation Chaos was launched. There are no articles on Google that I can find that Operation Chaos even existed prior to February 26, 2008 and most assuredly it is never mentioned in connection to the presidential primary in California.

California did not have an open primary in 2008, but DTS voters were allowed to vote in the Democrat primary. The reasoning offered by Givens does not seem to agree with the chronology of historical events.

Also worth noting is that Givens registered as a Republican on September 21, 2010—at the same time Meg Whitman’s poll numbers are in decline and days before “Nannygate”. As a DTS, he can vote for anyone in the General so why change his registration now?

Park’s second point is that Givens is not just soft on crime, he embraces and excuses criminals.

Recently, I learned that Ron Givens—a candidate for CRA Sergeant-at-Arms, backed by Karen England—is a leader in the organization called UNION, a prisoners’ rights advocacy group that lobbies for alternative sentencing, reduced sentences, loosening sex offender laws, overturning Three Strikes, elimination of the death penalty for murderers, and the like. View their website here: http://www.1union1.com

According to a post on the American Chronicle—http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/154128.  Ron Givens is headed out on a tour of New Zealand to speak against their proposed Three Strikes law, which Conservatives are proposing for that country.  Quoting the post: I agreed to send Rev. Ron Givens, one on our most dynamic UNION members, to tell them about the absolute financial and humanitarian destruction that the Three Strikes Law has caused to our State. . . Rev. Givens will begin a rigorous speaking tour in New Zealand on May 12 bringing the stories of how the law passed based on lies and he will be sharing letters written by our UNION families and professionals about the injustices that took place in their cases.

Interestingly, Givens has never denied his involvement with UNION or the trip mentioned in the article quoted by Park. It is difficult to do so since both the American Chronicle article and Givens own website feature the same photo of him.

f you do a search of Givens biography, it states that he has been involved with the prison chaplain program and is often called “Reverend”. The seminary that he attended is an extension of Capital Christian Center. It is called Capital Bible College. Capital Bible College graduates of the Bible and Ministries program meet the educational requirements of the Assemblies of God denomination. “Licensing and ordination is also available through other recognized denominations and ministerial associations. Graduates have met all or part of the license and ordination requirements for: Church of the Foursquare Gospel, Calvary Chapel, Christian Evangelistic Assemblies, Wesleyan Methodist, Evangelical Church Alliance, and others.” http://capchrist.edu/?page_id=17 Givens does not list any denominational affiliation on his website nor does he claim to be a practicing minister in any local congregation. Assembly of God ministers are usually called “Pastor” not “Reverend”.

How this education ties in with Givens embracing UNION (United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect) is something that he does not disclose on his website. This group appears to be a fringe Liberal special interest coalition.

We must combine all humanitarians into one voting group, whether the issue is sex offender laws, medical neglect, prison brutality, three strikes, mandatory minimums, objection to the death penalty, legalizers, homeless advocates, schools not prisons folks, and those who object to abuse of foster children because one group alone is too small to generate the necessary crowds to gain clout and recognition. –UNION website

This group is not Prison Fellowship Ministries. It does not advocate the gospel of Jesus Christ as Charles Colson’s group does as a solution to break the cycle of crime and redeem the criminal. Prison Fellowship differentiates between property and violent crimes and has some non-conventional ideas that are different because they are derived from Scripture. It advocates restitution while this is not stated as a core value of Givens’ group. UNION is not a victim’s rights group. It is a criminal rights group.

I have been involved in a many parts of the Church and I have never encountered a consistent unified worldview that can accommodate UNION, Republican, Proposition 8 and conservative in the same breath. While some Catholics view Life as the most important value and some of their views get close to some points of UNION, Givens is a Protestant and only those embracing the “Social Gospel” at the expense of the Gospel of Christ would throw-in with UNION. I just don’t get it.

As for the three strikes laws, I did some research and Givens is definitely nibbling at the margins.
California’s prison population as of December 2009 was 168,830. California prisons held 32,439 2nd Strikers, and 8,570 3rd Strikers (approximately 41,000 inmates). http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/CDCR_Year_At_A_Glance2010.pdf So Givens is flying to New Zealand to decry the injustice of 5 percent of the prison population being incarcerated for a third strike. In the old days we called these fellows three time losers. Some folks just can’t follow the rules.

It just seems incongruent for Givens to be calling himself a conservative Republican. On his website he claims, “I am pro-life.  I am pro-family.  I am pro-2nd Amendment.  I stand against big government.  These are not new convictions, I have held them deeply for years.” I’m just not sure what definitions that he would attach to his claims. IS UNION his idea of standing against big government? Is the Second Amendment there so we can be protected from the prisoners that UNION helps get released back into our neighborhoods?

Earlier I quoted his website where he claims “… sharing the vision of what it means to be an Authentic Conservative”. I don’t know what he means by “Authentic Conservative”. The folks that I run around with never use that term. I ran it thru Google and came up with Andrew Sullivan, Patrick J. Buchanan and Mike Huckabee. These guys cover a lot of ground. Of the three, I think he means the Huckster.

We know the unions in California have threatened to play in the Republican elections in the 2012 cycle. If I was to execute the plan they have announced I would recruit folks like Givens and start placing them in GOP groups in the off year so all my pieces would be in place for the 2012 cycle.

Is Givens a prototype sleeper or just an enthusiastic newbie? In my book he has two strikes right off the top. Operation Chaos had nothing to do with his vote in February 2008 and his affiliation with UNION is very troublesome.

Update 04-12-2011
A Republican that I respect has contacted me about Ron Givens. He says Ron is a “solid conservative” that occasionally is dissatisfied with the Republican Party. He also verified that Givens did work for some Republicans in the last election cycle.

Membership Section of State Bylaws over the years.

As Amended: May 5, 1991

Section12.03. Qualifications for Membership. Members of each Chartered Republican Assembly shall be those American citizens of good moral character who are registered with the Republican Party, in the geographical area of that Chartered Republican Assembly, except that those registered in an area where there is no Chartered Republican Assembly may become members of a Republican Assembly in a nearby unit until a new Republican Assembly may be Chartered Republican Assembly and must continue to comply with those Bylaws, and must pay such annual dues as may be fixed.

As Amended: April 28, 1996

SECTION 12.03. Qualifications for Membership. Members of each Chartered Republican Assembly shall be those American citizens of good moral character who are registered with the Republican Party, in the geographical area of that Chartered Republican Assembly, except that those registered in an area where there is no Chartered Republican Assembly may become members of a Republican Assembly in a nearby area until a new Republican Assembly may be chartered. Each prospective member must be accepted under the By-Laws of his Chartered Republican Assembly and must continue to comply with those By-laws, and must pay such annual dues as may be fixed.

As Amended January 13, 2001

SECTION 12.03.  Qualifications for Membership.  Members of each chartered Republican Assembly shall be those American citizens of good moral character who are registered with the Republican Party, in the geographical area of that chartered Republican Assembly, except that those registered in an area where there is no chartered Republican Assembly may become members of a Republican Assembly in a nearby area until a new Republican Assembly may be chartered.  Each prospective member must be accepted under the bylaws of his chartered Republican Assembly, must continue to comply with those bylaws, and must pay such annual dues as may be fixed.

As Amended April 23, 2005

SECTION 4.04. Membership Requirements. In order to be eligible to join CRA, a person must be an American citizen of good moral character who is registered to vote as a Republican in the State of California.

As Amended March 7, 2010

Section 4.04. Membership Requirements. In order to be eligible to join CRA, a person must be an American citizen of good moral character who is registered to vote as a Republican in the State of California.

Note the following blog entry if reviewed by Rush Limbaugh would require either Trouble Coming by Randy Stonehill or Eve of Destruction by Barry McGuire as the bumper music for the segment. A quick review of the previous post on this matter would help add further context.

The results of the California Republican Assembly State Board move to disenfranchise many of their delegates in hopes of thwarting a challenge to President Celeste Greig were appropriately enough released on April Fool’s Day. Before commenting further, here is the official announcement from the Membership Secretary.

Dear CRA Board Members:

The vote on the Greig-Hudson motion regarding the upcoming CRA Convention, conducted from Tuesday, March 29 to Thursday, March 31, had the following results:

Eligible to vote: 49
Voted: 47
Did not vote: 2

Yes: 31
No: 15
Abstentions: 1

Having received a majority of “yes” votes by the CRA Board of Directors, the motion is hereby approved.

Best regards,

Janine Heft
Corresponding Secretary,
California Republican Assembly (CRA)

As this vote was underway, I emailed both Karen England and Celeste Greig and asked them both to request their supporters to dial back on the rhetoric. I also proposed a middle way for Celeste to consider.

In my unit we get four delegates. At our last meeting we brought up the subject of who should choose the delegates, the club as a whole or the president. The motion to let the president decide was made and passed unanimously. All members present were asked if they wished to be delegates. Several members were emailed about the opportunity. The president had zero responses from anyone to be a delegate. After he began calling the more active members, he was able to get a list of four.

Anyway, two of the names that we submitted are disqualified under your proposal. One delegate lives four blocks outside of our northern boundary. Another lives just over the county line, in a place that has a paper club that has not met in at least five years. Oh by the way, this delegate is the father of one of the members you selected to be on the Credentials Committee. Both people helped in the campaign last year and have been members in good standing up until the current controversy. To get these folks caught-up in the current controversy is unfair to our club and our delegates. How can we be expected to grow our club in the current toxic environment. Given a choice, I think we would rather not have delegates at the convention than have their first exposure to the statewide CRA organization be this nightmare.

Interestingly, the vortex of this controversy is centered in Placer County. In the email traffic that I have seen, it has been Karen England squaring off with Aaron and George Park and Tom Hudson.

Tom Hudson is an attorney and member in good standing with the California Bar. He is often looked to for legal advice and provides counsel in parliamentary procedures. He is approachable and pleasant to speak with at various CRA functions. However, I have found that like many parliamentarians, his advice while delivered with authority is often what will help the chair or move to the outcome he desires and may not in fact be in accordance with either Robert’s Rules of Order or the governing bylaws of the organization. Perhaps lawyers are trained that in public you never say I don’t know or let me look that one up and I’ll get back to you.

An experience that I had with Tom many years ago relates directly to the controversy now. It touches on the Yolo County CRA chapter with which Karen England is now a member. It touches on the CRA Board refusing to act in accord with its bylaws and discipline a paper club, and Tom Hudson giving advice contrary to the CRA state bylaws while speaking as the representative of the State Board.

A friend of mine and I were residents of Yolo County and members of the Yolo CRA chapter. Some of the members that rose to leadership in the group began to view their time in office not as representatives of the CRA and the members that elected then but as the owners of the chapter. Think Gollum in Lord of the Rings. “It mine, my precious.”

We documented a number of abuses and went in person to the State Board meeting that was held in Napa to request relief from the State Board. Below is the text of the letter that we presented.

April 24, 1999

State CRA Board,

During the past year, we have been experiencing a number of difficulties with the CRA chapter in Yolo County. These difficulties are of a nature that we feel that they need to be brought before the state organization. We have attempted to get the current president of the chapter to correct these problems and he has remained intractable in his disregard of local and state Bylaws and in ignoring Robert’s rules of order and other things that traditionally govern a political organization. We would normally bring our complaints (to) the senate district Director, but he is an officer in the Yolo County Republican Assembly and is fully aware of the misconduct that is transpiring in Yolo County and is a willing participant in its activities.

Since we cannot appeal to the Senate District Director, we have reluctantly chosen to appeal to the State Board.

Below is a partial list of recent areas of improper activities of the Yolo County group.

1 Per their by-laws, the group was required to meet monthly for a general membership meeting. In addition, a monthly board meeting was also required. However, in 1998, an election year, the Yolo Chapter held its last meeting of the year in March. They did not meet again until February of 1999.
2 This lack of meetings did not prevent the chapter president from making many decisions in the name of the group and conducting activities in the name of the membership without approval of the board or general membership.
a the chapter president endorsed candidates in the name of the Yolo County RA for countywide office without conducting formal meeting or an endorsing convention.
b dues were collected from at least one individual in the county that we are aware of but the apportioned dues to the state organization were never paid.
c Campaign contributions were collected and expenditures were made without the consent of either the board or membership. These include both cash and in kind contributions that were never reported to the Fair political Practices Commission, as is required by state law. One of the signers of this letter, William Tolson, resigned as treasurer of YCRA when this lack of accountability was manifested. This was May of 1998.
3 During the general election campaign of 1998, the president of the Yolo County RA, an ex-officio member of the county central committee, refused to work with the county central committee and support all of our Republican nominees for partisan office.
a In several instances, he misrepresented himself to republican volunteers as the county party and directed the efforts of these volunteers to personal projects and preferred candidates and away from coordinated activities with both the county central committee and Lungren for Governor campaign.
b As president of a Republican volunteer organization, he was permitted to work out of the county campaign headquarters of the local party. While he was working at the headquarters, he actively dissuaded activists who desired to work for Republican nominees other that those he personally supported from volunteering their services to the local party and the Lungren for Governor campaign.
c Furthermore, he pressured the area precincts coordinator of the county party to provide separate walking packets and precinct lists for his volunteers, which included only literature of candidates he approved, and for special exclusionary use of headquarters during the last days of the campaign.

While all of these things during 1998 were offensive to us, it was our hope that a new president would be elected. However, the bylaws were again ignored and no nominating committee was formed in December as require(d). no election was held in January as required by the bylaws. Furthermore a meeting was held in February to elect officers but no meeting notification was sent to the membership. Via word of mouth, we found out about the meeting. We attended the meeting and no quorum was present and no officers were elected.

As a result of the feeling of disenfranchisement from this type of leadership, William Tolson, availed himself of the opportunity at the republican state convention and joined the Sacramento chapter of the CRA. He had formerly been a member of the Sacramento chapter while attending college.

In March, another meeting was held without any meeting notification to the members. In fact the president commented that he purposely did not inform certain individuals because they were not welcome. This action occurred with the knowledge and approval of the senate District Director, who is also the Vice-President of the group. Furthermore, a new set of bylaws was adopted without any prior notification to the members.

Highlights of these bylaws changes include:
Removal of the meeting notification to members
Removal of meeting notification requirement for nominating committee for club officers
Membership is forfeited for non-payment of dues after 60 days upon notification instead of 60 days after notification as previously required
Any member whose dues lapse and wishes to rejoin the chapter must be approved by a 3/5 vote of the executive board
Any member missing two consecutive meetings looses voting rights
To regain voting rights, member must attend two subsequent meetings
Meetings were changed from monthly to bi-monthly and executive board meetings to quarterly

In light of Article VI Section 3, Item g, what is the function of members of the chapter?
“The Board of Directors shall be vested with the power and the duty of transacting all the business of the Assembly. It shall be responsible for carrying out the objectives and purposes of the assembly and shall make such rules and regulations as shall be deemed advisable provided only that such rules and regulations are not in conflict with these By-laws.”

There is no similar statement empowering the general assembly and there are no restrictions provided by the bylaws on actions that can be taken by the governing board.

As a result of these changes and the manipulation of the election process, Carl Brickey, a former secretary of the chapter, has joined the Sacramento Republican Assembly.

The sprit and tenor of these bylaws is not in sync with a grassroots organization who claims the cornerstone of its existence is that of limited government, fair representation, fair elections, open debate and the rule of law.

As a result of the above we humbly ask that the state CRA consider the following actions:

1 Audit the records of the Yolo County Republican Assembly, including financial records, FPPC reports, and minutes of both regular and board meetings.
2 Instate generic bylaws from the state organization and require reorganization of the Yolo County republican assembly, under the supervision of the state board.
3 Take disciplinary action against the chapter president and senate district director.

Our intention in bringing these matters to your attention is to restore the integrity and reputation of the Yolo County Republican Assembly. We trust that this matter will be dealt with discreetly and we wish to direct this matter to the appropriate authority within the state organization.

After arriving at the State Board meeting in Napa, we inquired who would be the best person to speak to about this and we handed off to Tom Hudson. Tom read the letter reproduced above and sent us away with a promise to look into it. No action was ever taken by the Board and we have no indication that the matter went beyond this discussion in the parking lot at the Napa meeting. Eventually Tom counseled us to join the Sacramento unit since we were welcome there.

It wasn’t until we were attending the State CRA convention as delegates of the Sacramento RA that we discovered that what Tom told us to do was in direct violation of the state bylaws. Per the bylaws were only allowed to be a member of the Republican assembly where we lived.

Section12.03. Qualifications for Membership. Members of each Chartered Republican Assembly shall be those American citizens of good moral character who are registered with the Republican Party, in the geographical area of that Chartered Republican Assembly, except that those registered in an area where there is no Chartered Republican Assembly may become members of a Republican Assembly in a nearby unit until a new Republican Assembly may be Chartered Republican Assembly and must continue to comply with those Bylaws, and must pay such annual dues as may be fixed.

A few years after our experience with the State Board the bylaws were amended to allow membership in any unit in the State. Reportedly, others had similar problems with their local chapters. The ironic part is Tom Hudson likely had a hand in helping to write this into the Bylaws.

In light of all this you might be asking why if Tom Hudson knows all this would he craft a rule that all delegates must live in the area where the club is chartered when he knows the history of this section of the bylaws. It goes back to getting the outcome that he desires verses following the rules. Tom is supporting Celeste Greig. Due to conflicts with the Placer CRA group, Karen England is a member of the Yolo group. By crafting the rule the way he did, it disenfranchises Karen England as well as many of her supporters. It results in a favorable outcome in Toms eyes so it is a justifiable action. Simply put its gotcha politics.

Another gotcha moment was a week ago when Karen England said she could support the principals of Grieg’s Contract with the CRA. In response the webmaster for Contract with the CRA added the verbiage that to support the contract was an endorsement of Greig and her slate. They took an olive branch from England and an opportunity for common group and turned it into a gotcha moment.

Then the Park Brothers released the following email on March 31. The email begins with a banner “From George and Aaron Park” followed by the CRA logo.

Take it from us, we know Karen England better than most. We have endured the full force of her bully tactics for years.
Like the letter her lawyer sent us – Karen chooses to handle political disagreements with deceit and threats of legal action.
Her Northern California supporters were distributed throughout the delegations of CRA units in Southern California.
Like any bully, she uses surrogates to fight her battles for her. Yet, she seeks to be the leader of the California Republican Assembly, the conscience of the California Republican Party.
Now that the fraud Karen and her supporters have perpetrated is being exposed—-
Let us share our experience, as a warning about the kinds of rotten things that Karen England is likely to do if we stick to principle, enforce our rules, and refuse to seat fraudulent delegates:
She will threaten to sue all of us;
She will try to get an injunction to shut down the CRA Convention;
She will complain to the District Attorney;
She will complain to the FBI (we’re not kidding!);
She will complain to the Fair Political Practices Commission;
She will complain to the Federal Elections Commission;
She will complain to the City of Sacramento Code Enforcement Office that the Convention does not have all the proper permits;
She will complain to the County of Sacramento that the host unit does not have a business license to run the Convention;
She will threaten to sue the hotel for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act;
She will complain to the legislators and tell them to threaten us on her behalf;
She will complain to the California Republican Party and seek to have CRA de-chartered;
She will complain to the NFRA and seek to have CRA de-chartered;
She will complain to the World Court at the Hague, accusing us all of being war criminals!  OK, maybe she won’t do that, but you get the idea.
Sound far-fetched? Those of us who are part of the Placer CRA Majority on the Placer County Republican Central Committee have lived with many of the above bully tactics.
You have been warned!

From my point of view what should Karen do?
She can’t appeal to the CRA Board because they are not willing to be bound by their Bylaws. She needs to appeal to an outside authority to referee this fiasco. She could go to the California Republican Party Board but much of the non-sense thus far is internal to the CRA. Other than get CRA stripped of recognition by the CRP which does nobody any good what can she do? I think her only recourse in the time remaining is probably the courts. If I had the funds I would probably consider it. The legal opinion that was given to Scott Voights sounds suspiciously like my previous blog.

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1100422530046-176/Voights-CaliforniaRepublicanAssemblyPolicyProposal.pdf

“… we believe that the proposed Policy conflicts with the CRA bylaws, may violate state law, and that implementation of the Policy would require an amendment to CRA’s Bylaws which is approved by CRA delegates at a convention.” The Sutton Law Firm

If I were England and wanted to get relief in the Courts, I would get an injunction to block Greig and the CRA Board from enforcing the policy. If they took any action in violation of the court order I would have them removed as officers of the corporation.

As I keep saying, if Greig and company would follow the Bylaws and trust the process she would probably still win. All this is destructive, counterproductive and totally unnecessary. After this election is over how does anyone expect this group work together? As usual we will spend our time fighting each other and ceding the battle to the Democrats. I’m glad we’re all God fearing folk in this group because I’d hate to see how pagans would treat each other.

Updated material follows. The “nuclear option” went live today here is an analysis.

The nuclear option reads as follows:

It is the policy of CRA that Convention Delegates and Alternates must reside in the geographical boundaries of their respective chartered Republican Assemblies.  In order to prevent massive voter fraud, this policy will be implemented immediately and communicated to unit presidents, Board members, and proposed Delegates and Alternates as soon as possible.  The CRA Board of Directors requests that the Convention Rules Committee and the Credentials Committee adopt fair and even-handed policies and rules to implement this Board policy.  In order for the Credentials Committee to identify and communicate with Delegates and Alternates who may reside outside the boundaries of their respective chartered Republican Assemblies, four new members are hereby appointed to that Committee to help implement that effort…

Oh, the vote is due 03-31-11

Per President Celeste Greig, please vote (YES, NO, ABSTAIN), no later than the end of Thursday, March 31, 2011, on the motion below concerning the upcoming CRA Convention.

Two sections of the CRA Bylaws have a direct bearing on this proposal. They read as follows:

ARTICLE IX
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 9.04. Special Meetings. The Board of Directors may, without meeting together, transact business by mail, by voting on questions submitted to them by or with the approval of the President. Fifteen days shall be allowed for the return of the votes by mail, facsimile, or electronic mail to the Corresponding Secretary. The voting shall be considered closed at the end of fifteen days, provided that the majority of the members of the Board shall have returned their votes by that time, or it shall be considered closed at any time prior thereto if and when all of the Directors have returned their votes. If, at the expiration of the fifteen-day period, a majority of the Board of Directors has not returned their votes, the measure being voted upon shall be deemed to have failed. The Secretary must preserve all ballots received until the next meeting of the Board of Directors, at which meeting the Board of Directors shall order the disposition of the ballots. In cases where a hearing is required by the Bylaws of the CRA, voting by mail shall not be permitted unless authorized by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board of Directors.

Clearly a two day voting window is a violation of the State Bylaws.

ARTICLE IV
MEMBERSHIP
Section 4.04. Membership Requirements. In order to be eligible to join CRA, a person must be an American citizen of good moral character who is registered to vote as a Republican in the State of California.

Thus anyone can join any Republican Assembly as long as they reside in the State of California and are a registered Republican. If you can live anywhere and be a member, it is only logical that you could be a delegate too.

My daughter is in college in Southern California and a member of our Sacramento County unit. If a convention was held in Orange County and due to the cost of travel, it was necessary for her to be a delegate I would have no problem with that. It would allow our unit to be better represented by someone that we know and at a cost savings to members of our unit. Sure the folks attending the meeting locally should be offered the delegate positions first but if we need her and it works with her schedule then why not call on her?

However, such a generous membership policy was not always the case. I have a copy of the 1991 CRA Bylaws because I was at the Spring Convention and had several resolutions adopted that my friend Donna and I wrote. As a result, I kept my newsletter from the event as a souvenir. If you can find a copy, look at the following section:

ARTICLE XII
REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLIES
Section12.03. Qualifications for Membership. Members of each Chartered Republican Assembly shall be those American citizens of good moral character who are registered with the Republican Party, in the geographical area of that Chartered Republican Assembly, except that those registered in an area where there is no Chartered Republican Assembly may become members of a Republican Assembly in a nearby unit until a new Republican Assembly may be Chartered Republican Assembly and must continue to comply with those Bylaws, and must pay such annual dues as may be fixed.

Because of other adventures that I had in the CRA, I know that this was changed sometime after 1999, when the requirements to live within the boundaries of the chartered club were dropped and residence anywhere in the State was instead adopted.

When I get into the tall grass with issues like this, I often hearken back to the Tom Cruise movie The Firm. The challenge of his character was how to get out of the mess he was in without tarnishing himself and losing his ability to practice law. He decided that if he would follow the law that he would be on safe ground and he could find a legitimate way of punishing the bad guys. In short should you cheat or behave honorably?

I think supporters of both Celeste Greig and Karen England should follow the rules and may the best person win. The irony of all this is that a Bylaws amendment has been written to deal with the delegate issue and it is likely to pass at the upcoming convention. After this gathering it should be a mute point.

Celeste has had two years to decertify the charters of the “paper clubs” that she now fears. She also could have set some delegate guidelines at the January 2011 Board Meeting but she lacked the foresight to do that. If she and her team failed to move on these issues when they had the time to do so then that’s too bad. The die is cast and to try to change the rules after the delegate deadline is destructive to the organization and says that the actual character of Celeste and her public persona are greatly divergent. Trying to suspend the Constitution to save the Union only worked for Lincoln because he had a bigger army.

The knives have come out for the fight over the leadership of the California Republican Assembly. In a contest that harkens back to the old MTV Celebrity Death Match, it’s incumbent Celeste Greig vs Karen England.

Celeste Greig started this term as one of ten vice presidents in California. After the CRA president—Ken Mettler—resigned to run for state assembly, she was promoted to replace him. Greig has served most of the two year term. She has been active in the CRA periodically for more than three decades. She has had some exposure on a national stage as a representative of Republican and conservative causes. In the early days of the program, she was a guest several times on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. She is strongly rooted in her views and values.

Karen England has been the president of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) for many years. I know her best as the person that runs the City on a Hill summer camp for high school kids. England is often the lone voice at the capitol dissenting the crazy anti-family legislation that spews forth from liberals in Sacramento. Karen has served many terms as a vice-president in CRA. Most recently she was the National Committeewoman charged with representing the CRA the at the convention of National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA).

Unfortunately, both candidates have their downside. Neither is an ideal candidate for the leadership of a volunteer grassroots organization that has gone from a paid membership of over 100,000 to one that now is lucky if they have three thousand. Both have some shady folks in their corner that tarnish the reputation of those around them. Heretofore, my biggest complaint is that they don’t respond to email correspondence from CRA members unless there is a potential benefit to them personally.

The rhetoric has been escalating for several weeks but supporters of Celeste Greig are preparing their version of the nuclear option. What they are planning will insure a victory over England but this short-term victory will likely destroy the organization. The reality is that if they follow the rules they would probably win on a straight-up vote, get the reforms that they seek and still beat England. This shortcut will be as divisive as the take-over of Barbara Alby and company in the late 1980’s.

From a look at the bylaws, what is being proposed cannot be done; however, this may not stop Greig and her supporters from trying. While I have promised not to disclose the particulars of the proposed course of action, I strongly argued that the tactics about to be employed are the wrong way to deal with England and her people. Once again, the God fearing folk in the Republican Party are resorting to power politics and not letting Scripture guide their lives.