Raw Deal 3.0 — Scott County Prime Example of Need for Caucus Reforms

Letter to the Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) Caucus Review Committee,    Bill Schickel,  cc to RPI  Chairman A J Spiker  and Executive Director Chad Olsen.   The Iowa Republican is also following the committee’s work. Their input can be viewed here.

Dear Caucus Review Chairman Schickel,

This communication is directed to you as Chairman of the Iowa Caucus Review Committee because the assignments of the three subcommittees —  the Public Information Subcommittee, the Operations and Tabulation Subcommittee, and the Training Subcommittee  — it seems to me have little to do with what is wrong or went wrong with our caucus-to-conventions process at least in Scott County.  Frankly those “committee mandates”  seem more as exercises in wool gathering.  Or let me put it in a more positive light . . . if that is all we have to worry about in every county then we have little to worry about.

I am far more inspired by your introductory statement in your communication of April 18th.  That statement gets to the heart of what needs to be fixed, at least in Scott County.    Therein you stated  “Having open, honest and transparent caucuses is in the interest of not only Republicans, but all Iowans–indeed all Americans, . . . It is important that we have a process that gives a cross section of people in different parts of the state a chance to participate.”  I could not agree more.

Accordingly I offer the following statement as argument in pursuit of your summation of what should be the spirit of the caucus process. After trying to set the stage as to the importance of the caucus-to-conventions process, I set forth  by way of the example set by the leadership of Scott County a partial listing of what not to do.  I hope the implications and suggestions for corrections are inherent.  From talking to Republican leadership experienced in other counties I also understand that there is a wealth of already implemented safeguards available by example from other counties that the entire state should be appraised of.

While I believe that the 2012 caucus to convention process in Scott County has been egregiously unfair to Ron Paul supporters you should not presume that my opinions stated herein are motivated by support for Ron Paul to be the nominee.  That is not the case.  My motivation is that fair play for all is the only reliable unity builder, the same thing your comments endorse, and that we want and need the enthusiastic participation of Ron Paul supporters throughout the process.

For the record I voted for Santorum in the caucuses and am a minor financial contributor to his campaign.  Fairness is a motivation also informed by my experience of over thirty-six years with the caucus process.  As an “insurgent” social conservative especially through the late 1980’s we experienced some of the same tactics (frankly not as blatant in some matters) now regrettably ignored by some social conservatives whose ox is perceived as not being gored by unfairness inflicted on Ron Paul supporters.



CONFIDENCE IN THE CAUCUS TO CONVENTIONS SYSTEM REQUIRES FAIR RULES IN EVERY COUNTY

The Iowa Republican caucus system is an electoral methodology established by the Code of Iowa and designed to begin the process of producing the Republican Party’s local and state governance; the mechanism for the Iowa Republican Party’s ballot presence as provided by state law; and Iowa Republicans’ contribution to the selection of the President of the United States.

Subversion of the authenticity of that process whether the result of proprietary attitudes, power plays,  ineptness or incompetence at any stage of the process at every level should be the concern of the committee, not merely technical minutia regarding tweaking already reasonably up to date, secure and timely reporting mechanisms (or regurgitating already admitted mistakes and errors that are not likely to be repeated given the price paid for the failure — resignation by the Chairman).

The selection of the membership of the County Central Committee is a process that begins and essentially ends at the caucuses (presuming the bulk of the positions are filled). County Central Committee members have an important roll to play in party affairs and overall local effectiveness. Their effectiveness is dependent on the degree of their individual commitments and the leadership they select.  County Central Committee members also have rolls that interrelate with the convention delegate process and indeed membership can overlap, and often does to a great extent.

However, convention delegate status  involves responsibilities beyond the county party’s administration in that their responsibilities are focused on influencing matters relating to state and national party platforms and policies, certain local and statewide political determinations (nominating the Republican Lt Governor candidate in appropriate years and filling certain ballot vacancies), determining party administration, and most notoriously in certain years including this one, having an influence on the selection of the party’s nominee for President of the United States . . . and all that these powers and influences entail.

Delegates have an important roll, a roll specified in Iowa law, that political organizers understand and concerned caucus attendees volunteer and contend for.  That others do not or are unconcerned with all the various implications is their political shortcoming. Often presidential preferences are a proxy for policy (platform) preferences and other political matters. The strength of the sentiments in pursuit of these important matters are reflected by a vibrant turn-out at the caucuses and further enhanced in unity and cohesiveness when fairness is demonstrated toward all contenders.

It follows from your April 18th statement that support for the continued extraordinary status given Iowa’s first in the nation presidential caucus system depends on the integrity and transparency of the delegate selection process as directed by those responsible in each county across the state.  In order to get more than a laughable few to show up in the future, word must be endemic that it is worthwhile to show up for a variety of reasons because one’s views about candidates and platform matters will be carried forward.   However if the system is susceptible to being highjacked  because of insufficient safeguards at the county level or viewed as such because of a lack of transparency and appearances, that word will get out, and it will be harder and harder to get people to show up or argue for the system’s continuation or against the logic of replacing it with a grouped primary.  The representative integrity of the system must be jealously guarded.

A bad apple does spoil the bunch because it is used from the outside as a notorious example to fuel critiques of our privileged status.  Such bad apples also fuel internal rot. If it is well understood by potential participants that there is an insufficiency of rules to protect the integrity of the process,  the less people will show up out of disgust with such a jaded system, denigrating the meaningfulness of the caucuses.

Fortunately we are told many or most counties have built in rules to lend confidence in the caucus to national convention process as being significantly representative of the will of the attendees at the precinct caucuses. However one large Iowa county, Scott, has not.  In Scott County no rule requires that in contested presidential years the delegates that go on to district and state have any relationship to what occurred at the precinct caucuses.  And that fact has been aggravated by willfulness and other rule deficiencies.

The mechanism for corruption of the process and destroying confidence is simple enough. Use lax rules and disregard of appearances or any serious attempt to maintain unity and cohesiveness with all presidential preference camps in order to protect hegemony over the political processes. Essential aspects of the following were perpetrated in Scott County especially after the caucuses:

• Control communication by inhibiting, restricting or denying Central Committee (CC) members or delegates from one preference camp from pressing their case with fellow Central Committee members or delegates on the same basis as the ease by which others (hostile leadership) are able to communicate.

• Have no set full Central Committee (CC) review of crucial policy decisions prior to implementation by apparently willful manipulative sub-entities.

• Make key appointments to the District and State Delegate Nominating Committee and Rules Committee after the caucuses, even after an intervening CC meeting, with no work available for review between the last CC meeting and the County Convention where delegates to District and State Conventions are finalized.

• Keep an unusual rule requiring two-thirds to overcome the ruling of the Chair of the County Convention . . . a rule not seen at Iowa Republican District or State Conventions or groups serious about parliamentary protections.

• In a seriously contested year obliterate any pretense at appearances and disallow even one member of an out of favor (to the existing power structure) presidential preference camp that has demonstrated a substantial showing at the precinct caucuses, a seat on a delegate nominating committee or convention rules committee.

• Use the above powers to keep a presidential preference camp’s strength to approximately 8% of the delegates to the district and state conventions when the unity conducive integrity approach would call for approximately 20% to 30% or two and one-half to three and one half times as many delegates.

• Repeatedly distribute caucus instructions as authoritative, referring to them as providing “everything you ever wanted to know about the caucuses” with a key misleading error about the delegate selection process, repeat the error in a caucus training session immortalized on CSpan that was further recommended as authoritative, impart the misleading error, distributed ubiquitously, that “In order to attend the District and/or State Conventions, one must first be a delegate to the County Convention,” impart the implications of the statement into the rules and then famously disregard them by way of a ham handed super secret “nominating selection criteria” sprung on county delegates which provided potential delegates no opportunity to challenge their applicability en masse or to individuals.

• Create a seating “protocol” for alternates to the district and state conventions “in alphabetical order” that could not be more absurd as an adult formulation on a matter that people compete to achieve!  Imagine –  your an “A” person  . . .  you practically know you are in before you make the trip.  At the other end of the sequential spectrum if you are a U, a V or a W person you don’t even bother to make the trip.

• Ignore the utter shortsightedness and political ineptness of operating in this fashion while bleating on about to others about “unity” and cohesiveness and the meaningfulness and fairness of the Iowa Caucus system locally.

Indeed under the willful use of the lax Scott County rules, one preference camp with as high as 49% support could have been denied any delegates to the district and state conventions thwarting sentiment from the caucuses.  To say the least that would have been “highly unlikely” in many other counties because of built in transparent rules requiring some proportionality and leadership with a sense of appearances and fair play.



RECOMMENDATIONS 



Mr. Chairman — all counties should be induced to sincerely operate with appropriate rules in the manner you suggested. I recommend all counties be provided substantive recommendations to insure: transparency, timeliness, communication, inclusion,  proportionality,  auditabilty.  Reference various counties that have pursued rules to this effect and evaluate them for their adaptability to non-presidential years as well.  Instill in the process a spirit unity whereby competing presidential preference camps are embraced as good and valuable Republicans necessary to our success in the fall.



Sincerely,

Roger Mall

Scott County Central Committee Member D63

PS  Please distribute this to the various committee members as you see fit.  More elaboration on the opinion expressed here is available by visiting

www.veritaspac.com   —    the subject is archived in the category contained therein RAW DEAL – Scott County Leadership and Caucus Integrity

0

0