SCOTT REPUBLICAN LEADERS; “VERDICT FIRST, TRIAL LATER”
Editors note: while this series may seem like really inside baseball (and tedious to boot) we feel it has a lot of application to the understanding of Republican Party dynamics on more than one level and the tactics of proprietary interests. More generally, many readers can relate aspects of this to group dynamics and rivalries in other organizations as well. Pick your bete noire and change the names to chide the guilty.
In our first post recounting last week’s Scott County Republican Central Committee meeting, we mentioned that the agenda included central committee elections to fill some precinct openings, and also to intentionally create a couple of openings through the “recommended removals” of two precinct captains from different precincts.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcomes in any of the votes, the vacancy filling process makes no attempt to be as representative as the original central committee formation process (election from within the precinct) and the removal process had strong resemblance’s to a kangaroo court. Certainly ironies and inconsistencies were evident throughout.
The vacancy filling process used by the Scott County Republican Central Committee seems to be inappropriately focused. If there was a continuous posting of the vacancy on the county web site up to the time of the meeting or an e-mail or other notice to Republican caucus attendees of record within the precinct, letting them know of the vacancy they originally were responsible for filling, I am unaware.
There may have been a cursory announcement to the CC at large at a CC meeting or via e-mail but that is not sufficient or the proper focus of “notice.” Announcing vacancies to a group of Republicans by definition largely not from the precinct is not adequate. A continuous web posting of all vacancies and a listing of candidates should be maintained. The web site has been scrubbed and probably like most CC members I do not “do” Facebook so I will stand corrected if there was more than I was aware of.
The Iowa Code 43.100 anticipates filling vacancies in precinct committee positions. It provides that the positions may be filled by majority vote of the committee, or at a precinct caucus called pursuant to the party’s state constitution or bylaws. We use the former method in Scott County. The later seems the more representative route as it is how all positions are filled initially in order to provide for as much input as possible from the residents of the precinct.
Letting Republicans in the precinct continue to pick their own leaders could be done in a manner that is inexpensive and straight forward to organize. It will require some simple bylaw changes at the local level and possibly the state level, but the idea is to fill all open positions quarterly in each year through a caucus call for all precincts with vacancies. The meetings could be easily held on a Saturday at one location at one time, or stagger the times. If the times are staggered no more than a classroom sized room would be necessary. Current office HQ would likely be large enough for a joint session of several precincts. The time lag would not be much different than current experience. The caucus call would be advertised on the web site and free community calendar area of a newspaper.
Using the unrepresentative method, the election results last Tuesday to fill the vacant precinct positions were predictable, the establishment endorsed candidates won. In one case an experienced former CC member was elected. That precinct was uncontested and under the rules in effect his election was entirely appropriate. A contested precinct position was also voted on that night. A candidate was present, not the “recommended” one but one interested enough to show up. He made a fine statement indicating interest, experience and commitment to support Republicans. Regardless the absent establishment endorsed candidate won.
In other words the absent position was filled with a no show. No irony there. That should be embarrassing for his champions and suggests an affront by the nominee to the entire CC by not having the courtesy to show up for the election. How reliable or independent will this person ultimately be? We will see.
The process raises the issue, if someone can be elected but need not be present so that all the electors might evaluate them, then why not have wide open proxy voting since in-person evaluation of issues or people, questions and answers, is not necessary? Many members of the CC are simply there to rubber stamp certain matters and expeditiously go home. Why not allow them to save the gas?
And then came the purge. We were told by Chairman Davidson that the “Executive Committee” (we were not enlightened as to whether the decision was unanimous) felt it needs to deal with every complaint and bring them to the full CC. “Every complaint” was the term used. Their hands were tied she told us, tied, tied, tied! And apparently they are required to signal, err, make a recommendation about it as well! More on the general absurdity of such an approach to leadership responsibilities later, but first the issue before the CC that night.
CC member Sarah VanDeWalle had expressed in a statement on Facebook after the Romney / Obama foreign policy debate, words to the effect, that she hated Romney for his views (the context was foreign policy) but hated Obama immeasurably more. Parsing the words as provided us that evening, they did not constitute express advocacy to support someone other than our Republican candidates or to explicitly not vote for him. No representation was made in the accusation that she did not help on electoral matters that helped all Republicans. We were not informed of who the original complainant(s) were, only that the Executive Committee just had to parade the matter before the full CC with their recommendation to remove.
Effectively with such a recommendation the Executive Committee becomes the complainant. But we are told that neither the Chairwoman or “the Executive Committee” interviewed Sarah VanDeWalle in the more than two months that transpired after the alleged transgression. The first time Sarah VanDeWalle had any “official” contact regarding the matter was also the notice of the action to recommend her removal! In fairness it should be pointed out that we are also told that some member(s) of the Executive Committee did not support the recommendation of removal. But as far as Chairwoman Davidson and the majority of the Executive Committee was concerned, verdict first, trial later.
It is the sort of thing that a Chairwoman not auditioning for a role as Torquemáda, or Pontius Pilate (“let the rabble decide as I wash my hands of it”, knowing full well what the rabble would decide after the set up), and cognizant of bigger things to concern herself and the CC with, would have handled on her own. The original complainant(s) could have been counseled that it really did not rise to the level of CC or Executive Committee action as the CC member (based on what was before us) did not call for support of someone other than the Republican nominee and only a personal emotion was expressed, no false or dishonest statement by omission was made. Rather than creating some grand drama the Chairwoman might have made a phone call to the accused and upon verification requested more discretion.
Upon reflection it must seem ridiculous to experienced board members that “every complaint” (Judy Davidson’s statement) that comes her way, warrants Executive Committee action and apparently the attention of the full Central Committee. We suspect she really meant “when a disfavored element might be castigated regardless of the merit.”
Only three minutes were provided Ms VanDeWalle to defend herself as there is no facilitation of communication within SCRCC apart from meetings, a hall mark of dysfunction in groups. In her brief time Ms VanDeWalle made a contrite apology, related to us the work she had done for Republicans, and asked for the support of the CC to continue in her roll. With so little time to rebut the jackals, if not for her then for other interested individuals, a vote was taken.
The vote was 28 to remove and 36 to retain. Justice managed to prevail. We are told some Executive Committee members changed their opinion and voted against removal. We wonder if there was any embarrassment as to their decision to recommend removal without interviewing her or to allow the matter to be foisted on the CC. Had they done so the whole matter could have been put to rest. But perhaps that was not the purpose.
That 28 of the voting members present (estimated at 64 — as the official number of voting members present was not announced during the meeting, only vote totals) still voted to remove Ms VanDeWalle was no doubt a disappointment to her. However we were surprised it was not a closer vote. There will need to be more emphasis on discipline among the ten or so that went wobbly on that vote and did not stick with the administration.
There was not much wobbliness connected to the second exclusion vote. CC member Jordan Schneider was brought up on charges of writing a disparaging letter to the editor about our congressional candidate John Archer. If copies of the letter were handed out at the meeting for the voting members to evaluate I did not receive one and only independently reviewed the letter this weekend in preparation for this article.
In the three minutes allotted for her defense (accusations can be effectively made in little or no time) Ms Schneider made no apology for what she wrote on the basis that she stated only “facts.” She did maintain that she did work for Republicans. Such activity probably inured to Archer’s benefit more so than a nondescript letter to the editor as she did not identify herself as a CC member or a Republican. Her status is not that of readily identified spokesman for the Party. Her letter received no comments in the online rendition of the newspaper.
Based on the information provided and in response to the actual motion (removal) I voted to retain Jordan although I later found the singularity of her letter and the umbrage she took over the application of the term “small businessman” link here while perhaps arguable, overwrought in the scheme of things. Large investors do have influence over the management of an entity. Regrettably she had nothing to say about Loebsack as if statements he made in the course of the campaign were unassailable. Democrat Loebsack as a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus rates full liberty loving approbation on many many scores.
On balance, I will bet that Jordan Schneider in the course of her political involvement and teaching career has had a lot to say castigating spend thrift big government socialism and supported and worked for Republican principles, other Republicans, and helped in Republican voter integrity and get out the vote efforts regardless of her feelings about candidate Archer. All of those activities inure to the benefit of all Republican candidates. Parsing strictly, Ms Schneider did not explicitly advocate not voting for Republican candidate Archer or explicitly call for voting for Loebsack.
While these two matters were different neither rated being brought to the CC meeting as removal actions. Did the Executive Committee seriously think removal was their only option in dealing with such a matter? Both cases could have been handled short of “recommended removal, ” one with a phone call and the other an official admonishment short of removal. Regardless, the desire for drama prevailed. Ms Schneider was voted off the island by a vote of 42 to 22. She was unbowed in her departure.
One of the ironies in the purge votes that evening was to come from the reading of the minutes of the previous CC meeting wherein, as instigated by the Executive Committee we believe, it was decided by the majority of the CC to disallow video taping of the proceedings of the CC meetings. It was not a refined resolution limited to executive sessions. Unsworn guests are still permitted and their interests not investigated. However a member’s Facebook wall posting was thought to be worthy of monitoring and recording and as evidentiary for building a case exposing wrongdoing, but CC meetings may not be videotaped in the interest of note taking (audio recordings are deficient in many circumstances) or accuracy or legitimate furtherance of committee activities? One is important evidence to disperse for the record or to characterize, depending, . . . the other is to be disallowed for what . . . plausible deniability?
We note that the State Central Committee has no apparent general proscription regarding recording meetings (link TIR) and we expect any attempt to implement such a policy would raise howls from all corners. For the record we do not object here to proscriptions limited to executive sessions.
There is still another aspect to the castigation of mere precinct CC members for, in one case, an offhand personal statement made, and the new found obligation to bring things to the full CC based on a complaint by a fellow Republican or anyone for all we know. It is that the Republican Party of Iowa Platform at 24.7 reads “We insist that the Republican Party and its candidates stand for honesty and integrity in all political advertising. We expect political campaigns to be conducted in a positive and truthful manner.”
Falsehoods or gross distortions, unrestricted and unapologized for, by implication harmful to the brand, integral and reflective of a campaign, eleventh hour attacks in primaries, official candidate material and vocalized statements . . . prominent Republican to prominent Republican . . . are ignored by the purveyors of this inquisition, oblivious to the platform. No official censure, no rebuke, no defense of the honor and integrity of the platform or a victimized candidate on a point by point basis, no referral to the Central Committee with or without recommendation. One can easily make a case of far worse, far more hurtful things being written or stated in primaries that don’t require monitoring Facebook, instead they are placed on your front door, made as a robo call, sent to your mail box — these are not passive things, but intentional things that often damage more than a particular primary candidate including other Republicans with the same views.
Skip the egregious primary example of just a couple of years ago conducted by Roby Smith and Steve Grubbs, which reflected all of the “qualities” listed in the preceding paragraph, think back just to last year and the presidential primaries. What a horror those also were. A prominent county organization in a key state at a key time could have made a powerful statement . . . knock it off !! That could have been the prescient cry! Instead some people, not all of the Executive Committee, but beyond them as well, now choose to get incensed with some Micky Mouse comments ignoring effective fratricide that seriously hurt the cause. Sheesh. R Mall
Coming soon — the “all in” election and some follow up thoughts.
When Bryan Seivers was CHAIRMAN of the CC he did nothing to remove Michael Elliot from the CC in spite of clear violation of the rules. (Elliot ran as a petition nominated candidate) But a fellow precinct person of good standing from Liberty Township was publicly castigated by this same former “leader”.
The other “leaders” Ortega, Adamson, and Davidson were all members of the executive committee at the time of Elliot’s infraction. Have the rules changed ? Or do these “leaders” simply want to remove a certain element from the CC?
Sounds like the CC is continuing the war on women to me.
We can get 60-80 people in a room to wring hands over a 12,000 vote loss to Obama in the county, point fingers at the RNC and act like we have some kind of outreach plan to improve things… AND don’t forget spend an hour on burning two women at the cross for speaking the TRUTH that none dare else speak… BUT we cannot get more than 2 or 3 of us in this room to attend a county board of supervisors meeting where they bond for millions of dollars of equipment on no bid contracts, guarantee public sector unions 2% raises, create whole new taxing authorities with no caps, cede authority to the UN via Agenda 21, and pass an $80M budget without reading it…. how about this group start monitoring the 4 of 5 republicans on the board of supervisors rather than each other’s facebook postings? It is embarrassing to behold and the exec committee should be ashamed of themselves.