This lengthy chronicle is intended as a political analysis and critique in furtherance of Veritas PAC’s original goals and purposes, which include to “promote fair and objective campaign practices among Republicans.” The periodic posts in this series are available in their entirety under the category Raw Deal at right.
Sheesh, the Caucus Cheat Sheet
“Caucus Cheat Sheet” . . . is a rather ill-advised name for a caucus instruction document that should invoke integrity, especially in a predictably intense and rivalry infused political season leading up to the caucuses. Whether the title was carried through from another source or previous use, it is a name that would not seem to be required, but it was nevertheless adopted, (one would think regrettably by now), by Scott County Republican Chairwoman Judy Davidson. In the scheme of things a mere name on a document is small potatoes compared to the damage to the integrity of the Iowa caucuses and the first in the nation status the Chairwoman could have avoided by being more open and even-handed in fact and appearance with presidential preference groups.
As readers are well aware from these pages, Ron Paul supporters have decried the process used and exclusionary results as regards the confirmation of delegates at the Scott County Republican Convention. They have other complaints as well but those are not the focus of this political analysis. The information promulgated by Chairwoman Davidson, used to train caucus leaders and inform all caucus attendees transmitted repetitively by various means and venues, indeed still posted as of March 31, contained consistent verbiage regarding how delegates are able to go on to Republican District and State conventions.
The first use of “The Caucus Cheat Sheet” as found in my files occurred in an e-mail* dated December 2, 2011 from Chairwoman Davidson to presumably a large list of Republicans who would be likely involved in caucus night activities. Her cover letter (no words changed but bold emphasis mine) read as follows “I wanted to send you information about what to expect at your caucus and hopefully answer any questions you may have regarding the caucus process. Please also take a look at the following “Caucus Cheat Sheet” which will provide you with everything you ever wanted to know about the caucuses. It is a lengthy document, but it has a lot of good information.” So the Chairwoman wanted to at least imply that the “Cheat Sheet” document was definitive.
Reading into the document, the part of the “Cheat Sheet” pertinent to this analysis sets forth the following direction: In addition to voting for President, delegates will be elected to the Scott County Republican County Convention. Interest forms will also be completed for the District Convention and the Iowa State Convention. Those interested in attending the District/State convention need to be voted upon at the County convention. Any registered Republican is eligible to attend . . . In order to attend the District and/or State Conventions, one must first be a delegate to the County Convention.
Pretty straightforward. A reasonable person might conclude that everyone to be elected to go on to district and state must first attend and stand to be elected at their precinct caucus. Ron Paul supporters certainly were well marshaled according to these published instructions and eager to comply. Many got elected at their precinct caucus and expressed interest in going on to the district and state conventions.
This is significant because the Chairwoman in some fit of objectivity has never yet stipulated, that we are aware of, that there were more than ten (the amount her nominating committee deigned to allow) Ron Paul supporters who wanted to be district and state delegates, who rose to offer their services before their precinct peers, as opposed to or in the absence of others, and might have properly presumed by her statements that at least they would be part of the primary pool from which to obtain delegates for district and state.
We will see later that the Scott County Republican Nominating Committee, whose membership included Chairman Davidson, a move that might be interpreted as self-serving for a chairperson, disregarded the standards she promulgated to mere precinct chairpersons. But first more details memorializing what caucus attendees were told. Evidence of the total flummox that was made of the convention and delegate process, arguably compromising the integrity of the system.
The Cheat Sheet Extravaganza
The December 2nd e-mail from Chairwoman Davidson, referenced above, was not the only place she emphasized reliance on the “Cheat Sheet” document or its operative elements as regards district and state delegates.
December 5, 2011 — e-mail from Chairwoman Davidson to caucus chairs and secretaries with a subject line “Important Caucus Training” emphasized the importance of the meeting on December 7th, that it was “vital that you attend” and that it was the time to receive all your caucus materials and other information. ”
December 7, 2011 — another day of infamy? The well attended training session as it turned out was to be immortalized by C-Span (see pertinent transcript below).
December 19th, 2011 — an e-mail from Chairwoman Davidson with subject line: “Caucus update . . . PLEASE READ CAREFULLY” referred back to the December 7th caucus training event and to an expected posting of the C-Span coverage of the session. The clear implication was to further promulgate the caucus instructions set forth at that caucus training session by linking to the video when the link became available and use it for review and dissemination.
December 29th 2011 — The C-Span video documenting the training session became available as we were so informed by Chairwoman Davidson via e-mail on this date. The pertinent parts of the video regarding delegates to district and state are viewable and audible here by going to approximately the 56 minute (56.00) point after beginning the video. The referenced segment ends at approximately 59 minutes. A transcript of that part of the session follows, bold emphasis mine, but arguably present in the original as spoken by Chairwoman Davidson:
We differ in some of the counties in this next process.
We are asking for people to indicate their interest in attending either the district or the state convention.
We are asking for people to be to indicate their interest in attending either the district or the state convention.
In order to attend the district or the state convention you have to be a County delegate.
So if you are not elected as a County delegate you are not allowed to go to the district or state convention.
If people are interested in attending the district or state convention ask for their names, and either they can fill out their green form as it says on your agenda or you can fill it out.
No money is collected. The difference being at our county convention, we will submit a list of names for the district and state convention. And we have to vote on all those people.
It’s usually never a problem cuz we usually don’t have quite as many as we need and sometimes we have to find a couple of additional people.
Chairwoman is interrupted by a question about the location of district and state conventions and responds, returning to subject . . .
People can go to both. If they are county convention delegates you can go to both the district and state convention, or just one.
So the dates are selected already and they are on your information.
Okay. If somebody is not sure of their calendar as to whether or not they can attend but they think they might want to attend I would encourage them to submit their names because we can usually all fill the slots.
Again, I’d rather have people. I’d rather encourage people and have them submit their names rather than hesitate because it’s its fairly (inaudible) we can do a pretty good job of (inaudible) about finding to fill any open slots.
Beginning at approximately 1.12.25, Todd McGreevy, I believe a Ron Paul supporter, seek some clarification on delegates, The Chairwoman responds at 1hr.13’10”
“ to become a county delegate your voted on at the caucus. County delegates must be voted on at the caucus. District and state we are only talking interest.”
December 26th, 2011 — e-mail from Chairwoman Davidson with subject line: Romney and Santorum in Davenport this week, and important caucus info. Therein the Chairwoman makes it a point to digitally include once again “our ‘Caucus Cheat Sheet'” again with the same language as the December 2nd e-mail already noted. “In order to attend the District and/or State Conventions, one must first be a delegate to the County Convention.”
December 29th, 2011 – E-mail subject line: Final Caucus Update Chairwoman Davidson supplies the C-Span link and refers people to it as a refresher, presumably having reviewed it, offering nothing to suggest it was not authoritative.
Prior to January 3rd Iowa Caucuses — precinct leaders were mailed or received by other physical distribution the caucus “Cheat Sheet” in packets with the aforementioned item intact, “In order to attend the District and/or State Conventions, one must first be a delegate to the County Convention.”
Prior to January 3rd Iowa Caucus — Official Caucus Agenda distributed — intended to be followed as the evening progressed and referred to with action items identified as “explain” and “ask.” Item 22 of the agenda — Ask county convention delegates if they are interested in attending the district, (April 21), and/or state convention (Saturday, June 16, Des Moines). Must be county convention delegate to attend and can attend both or just one. (bold emphasis added).
To top all of this off, the Scott County Republican Web site features a blog spot called The Right Side of Iowa, those pages contained a post as early as December 27th, 2011, and which is still present as of March 31st 2012. It contains the perhaps by now infamous Caucus Cheat Sheet wherein we see: In order to attend the District and/or State Conventions, one must first be a delegate to the County Convention. Page captures for that document are set forth below, see the relevant quote in the third section.
Now what would a reasonable person conclude from these repetitive statements? The unavoidable import of this is that people were lead to believe through the mail, through E-mails, through Web sites and in person, stated definitively and incorporated as part of the caucus agenda that 1) One must first be a delegate to the county to go on to district and state and 2) the only mentioned modification prior to the county convention, never put into writing and de-emphasized then, only offered as an aside in response to a question, was that “we usually don’t have quite as many as we need and sometimes we have to find a couple of additional people” — as stated by the Chairwoman in the C-Span video.
Compliance Problem
Readers will see upon reviewing the entire matter that there are contradictions with how the Chairwoman complied with her own statements, but also that there seems to be no basis for some of her so definitively stated assertions set forth as directions. ** No wonder many Republican caucus attendees and county delegates, new and old, who wanted and deserved better, felt misled by the Chairwoman and furthermore that she participated in the invention of conditions for delegate status unsupported with reference to the Scott County Republican constitution or bylaws, or resolutions that anyone was made aware of, and that the whole regime was not operated consistently.
The Nominating Committee upon which the Chairwoman appointed herself, served actively, (her involvement with the committee was not merely ex-officio) including presumably appointing and perhaps soliciting every other member of the committee, did approve of individuals to go to district and state conventions as alternates or delegates in contradiction to the words of the “Cheat Sheet,” who were not voted on at their precinct caucuses. All this in spite of, we are most recently told, there being more than enough interest from delegates who did attend and get elected at their precinct caucus, the criterion extensively promulgated by the Chairwoman.
This is a fact particularly well known by the Chairwoman herself as she was out of the country and did not attend her caucus but appointed herself as delegate. In addition, Susan Frazer a former Scott County Republican Chairman, and her husband Kevin Frazer were also nominated by the same committee, yet like the current chairwoman, were not elected to the county convention because they too were out of the country, a fact known to the Chairwoman and others on the Nominating Committee. Likewise other members of the Chairwoman’s family were not present at their precinct caucus yet were nominated by the committee she served on. As Chairwoman she might have been expected to instruct the Nominating Committee that such inclusions violated her instructions to others.
It should be engraved here that given her approach as a three term county chair, I doubt that former chairman Frazer was aware that she and her husbands presence would be used to elbow out delegates or alternates who attended their caucus and desired to be delegates to district and state or that there was interest beyond the numbers allocated to Scott County. Some people may have been just plain used.
The individuals identified above are mentioned after only glancing at the list finally provided by the Chairwoman to Ron Paul organizers who requested it during and immediately after the Scott County Convention where it was approved in spite of objections raised but not entertained or helped as a parliamentary matter by the Chairwoman. The list was only provided two weeks after the requests and after the Chairwoman told the Quad-City Times that everyone who wanted to be on the list was on the list. It was apparently provided only as a roster of sorts in .xls format, truncating all contact information including street address columns that would facilitate more thorough research. This later aspect should be understood as foot dragging and petty shortchanging of available information that should be made available regarding delegates and alternates which are official Party positions.
There were apparently others selected by the Nominating Committee to go to district and state who did attend their caucus but were not elected to be delegates to the county, another “violation” of the Chairwoman’s instructions (assertions ) as regards district and state delegates. Verification and continued research on that is hampered by the quality of the county delegate and alternate pages (forms B and C) provided to the County Auditor. Iowa Code 43.4 provides that the county central committee certify to the (Auditor) the names of those elected as committee members and delegates to the county convention. Some precincts were missing or totally unreadable. An e-mail that was sent by me as a central committee member on March 14th to the Chairwoman requesting (among other matters) information on obtaining the in-house lists (e-mail copied to Executive Committee members) was never honored.
So we have clear examples of people not elected at their precinct caucus including the Chairwoman herself ** and members of her family, husband and presumably daughter, in the face of her instructions to others that “County delegates must be voted on at the caucus” and “In order to attend the District and/or State Conventions, one must first be a delegate to the County Convention” find themselves as district and state delegates as a result of the committee work the Chairwoman activley participated in. Others, politically savy, who did attend their caucus, who did get elected to be a delegate to the county convention, who did during and after the caucuses indicate their desire to go forward as delegates, were never slotted, elbowed out by people who ignored the rules they made up, or added rules and criteria unsupported by established organizational documents.
But the instructions given caucus attendees and leadership’s compliance are not the only contradictions. We have also seen that the Chairwoman has stated that 1) “we usually don’t have quite as many (delegates and alternates) as we need,” to 2) just minutes after the convention was completed, “Everybody who expressed an interest is on that list ” to 3) as posted on the official blog site, “the committee actually had more people interested than slots available.”
While more could be said then has been said here about the “criteria” used by the Nominating Committee in their selection process, it all smacks to this observer of Animal House tactics employed in the movie by that name. Therein we find Dean Vernon Wormer using “discretionary” tactics to achieve a desired result.
Dean Wormer: Greg, what is the worst fraternity on this campus? …. a shame that a few bad apples have to spoil a good time for everyone by breaking the rules.” …. Well, as of this moment, they’re on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!
Make that double secret criteria and you have my point.
Rules Shmules?
Either oblivious or purposeful regarding the contradictions in statements and practices already in play, the Chairwoman seems to have doubled down one way or another to further aggravate confidence in the system. Having appointed herself to the Rules Committee for the convention, the Chairwoman was part of their review and submission and ultimate approval at the county convention.
And what do the County Convention rules say? Incredibly, under Section II PARTICIPATION; Item E. “The nominating Committee shall propose delegates and alternates to the District and Slate Conventions first from delegates to the county Convention elected at the most recent Precinct Caucuses. Seats still vacant may then be filled by a random selection process.”
So now the defense of the Nominating Committee’s process, if it is to be defended, must maintain that a presidential preference group, arguably with an above average interest in being delegates to district and state, and who achieved something like 90 delegates elected and present at the county convention, perhaps a third of the authorized strength of the entire convention, all of them elected at the precinct caucuses as per the “rules,” ends up with a reported ten nominated delegates using the only properly operative criteria (however deficient in this analyst’s judgement) that of the RULES committee.
This from a universe, perhaps it might be said “massaged,” that we are now told was more than enough to fulfill our allotment of delegates such that it was not necessary to go outside the universe called for by the rules, even though that is what happened. Ron Paul supporters may well believe this to be a violation of the Rules, the Chairwoman’s instructions and the “Cheat Sheet.” Of course unless said rules, instructions, and “Cheat Sheet” were only intended for observance or consumption by others.
The Nominating Committee will have to maintain that all county delegates were indeed called and that of the 90 or so Ron Paul supporters, only ten wanted to be a delegates and another thirty five or so only wanted to be alternates, no other conglomeration or preference group responding in that ratio. Local Ron Paul organizers think otherwise and that at the very least, that they were discriminated against in being relegated to “back of the bus” alternate delegate status,inferior in part because of the gamble being seated as an alternate entails with reference to the time and costs of a distant convention.***
Ron Paul organizers have some additional evidence to back up their objections beyond probabilities, including flesh and blood people who raised their hands in response to a related show of hands survey at the meeting they called on March 22. Some of these may have been the ones referred to in the QC Times article referenced above as well. The responses included complaints ranging from: sending in their requests “on the green sheet” and never receiving a call ; or never making the cut after a call; or being relegated to alternate status.
Even more specifically I have a copy of an E-mail from Mike Angelos to Carol Earnhardt, putative Chair of the Nominating Committee, dated February 11th, where he asks for her consideration to be a delegate to the District and State Conventions. Mr. Angelos co-chaired the Ron Paul effort in Scott County and did not make the bus at all. Michael Elliott, the other local co-chair of the Ron Paul for President campaign, a bonafide Republican presidential campaign that unquestionably brought new people into the Party, was relegated to alternate status. Note, the powers that be locally have no trouble taking credit for these Republican registration increases as an amalgam, relative to Democrats, on their watch. I personally credit Barack Obama and interest groups in opposition to his policies, more than the immense draw of having registration material available at a fair booth or the anemic proselytization undertaken by the local Party.
We can expect that there may be some aspects of this matter that the Nomination Committee, with the aid of a high profile Romney supporter as appointed by Chairwoman Davidson, (a Chairwoman who could find no room for a high profile Ron Paul supporter for mere purposes of lending some credibility to the process), might try to parse in this or that communication or document. I should think it will require convolutions approaching Bill Clinton levels.
I will be especially curious to see how the RULES Committee which Chairman Davidson appointed herself to, triangulates with the Nomination Committee, which Chairman Davidson appointed herself to, and the Cheat Sheet regarding the concept of “elected at the caucus” which she promulgated and all of their contradictions as to implementation. Perhaps a primer to understand the convolutions regarding the matter would include that: “elected at the caucus” does not really mean “elected at the caucus;” RULES committee (whose work requires a two thirds vote to overturn) is really the “guidelines committee” which is somehow trumped by a Nomination Committee. Oh yes, and “random” really means “hand picked” using criteria you make up as you go along.
A Tangled Mess Caduceus
This installment is not done quite yet. It will not be lost on some readers that the title of this post, “Tangled Mess” was indeed a double entendre. That the district and state delegate selection “process” was a tangled mess of ignorance, or confusion or uncaring willfulness as to fairness or appearances is the opinion of this observer. But the tangle did not stop at the March 10th county convention.
We are informed through sources in a position to know that Chairwoman Davidson, upon hearing the location of the call for a reconvening of the Scott County Convention at Tanglewood Pavilion, in spite of determining that there was no confusion as to who would be billed, tried to inject herself in an unseemly way into the ordinary business process established by the owners for the rental of their facility and rent both of the establishment’s facilities using a medical groups name with no stated purpose for the space on that date.
If the medical organization which Chairman Davidson was supposedly somehow representing, perhaps on an emergency basis, did have a need for both facilities on that date with such short notice, we will so inform our readers with apologies. We believe and are so informed that Tanglewood’s owners, who have been very generous personally to Republican interests, are understanding sorts and will not consider any overwrought knee jerk phone call representative of Republicans or the person making the call, and continue the warm relationship.
———————————————————————————————————
* all e-mail traffic identified herein are retained and available for review. All Scott County Republican Central Committee members would have received the same notices.
** Nowhere can we find supporting governing documentation for the Chairwoman’s assertion prior to the precinct caucuses and county convention that one must be first a delegate to the county convention to be a delegate to district and state. The assertion as closest to a “true rule” was not implicated until the RULES committee report approved at the Scott County Republican Convention. Republican Party of Iowa Constitution and Bylaws are linked at right. They are silent on the matter as best we can determine. The Scott County Republican Party Constitution and Bylaws are not available online at this writing but we will endeavor to provide what we have as an update to this post. They appear to be silent on the matter. Chapter 43.4 of the Iowa Code which deals with political parties states that “delegates to county conventions of political parties and party committee members shall be elected at precinct caucuses.”
By our unprofessional reading, the code does not seem to require or prevent that the district and state delegates be elected first as delegates to the county. That seems to be an assertion for whatever purposes by the Scott County Republican Chairwoman, however not observed. If a mandate from the Republican State Central Committee exists to that effect we will amend our critique. However the Chairwoman would clearly still be in violation of such a mandate.
*** The mess created may be aggravated at the district convention in that no anticipation seems to have been given to the likely process for alternate seating which in 2010 called for a numerical process.
