The Circus Continues– Scott County Republican Leadership Election

Veritas readers are aware Scott County Republican affairs are one of our prime interests. We have continued to observe and occasionally report throughout the years but more from the outside looking in. This situation comes to us from  long-time friends and political associates.

The election of the leadership of the Scott County Republican Central Committee (SCRCC) — officers and executive committee is next week — March 6th.  We support Chuck Brockman and his slate for the positions as they understand the absolute importance of transparency and open communication within the organization if members are to be more than bumps on a log.

It is insulting and untenable that the current Chair Jeanita McNulty has not allowed sharing of contact information between members — we are talking Central Committee members, the essence of a board,  with actual statutory standing. It is outrageous really, and disqualifying in itself. There are other reasons but all of them can be traced to that inability to let loose.  We hope she steps down and reevaluates the situation for other service.

Below the hash marks  is our response to a letter from Scott County Republican’s, the official g-mail account of the organization.  That email decried an invitation to SCRCC members (those Brockman et al could get contact information for) which was never said to be an official meeting of SCRCC members but was offered as a casual way to inform SCRCC members of Brockman’s  candidacy and seek their support.  It is not too much of a leap to infer who sent the denunciation even though it did not appear signed. Hopefully readers will get the gist.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Subject title NOTICE OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES chosen by the sender(s) is a poison pen response to what is an entirely appropriate invitation to members of the SCCC to hear from someone running for Scott County Chair. What the heck is wrong with inviting the pertinent electorate to hear from a candidate at a timely physical meeting offering more ample opportunity for Q and A ?  Such an approach is largely necessitated given the constraints (unnecessary or by design in the choice of venue) of the election meeting. Only someone or some group who wants no challenge or competition would respond so pejoratively to a transparent communication process. The poison pen choice of words NOTICE OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES is calumny with the intent to delegitimize communication between members of the SCRCC. The communication signed “Scott County Republican Party” gets worse and even more revelatory from there. 

Common business practice other than from those with imperial presumptions is to have at least the prime author and or “lead” person responsible for the communication listed. Accordingly, was every SCCC  Exec. Comm member contacted to authorize this communication, and if not, then to say it is from “Scott County Republican Party” is misleading, and in context, imperial to say the least. Who in the current Exec Committee signed off on it and wants to actually put their name to a frantic effort to head off a voluntary campaign (or any informational meeting addressing Republican politics) sent to Republican office holders elected by their precinct caucus attendees? 

So we are left to rebutting “whoever wrote or authorized this letter”. 

In so many ways the response to thwart attendance at a legitimate campaign meeting is a campaign effort in and of itself, using the  auspices of the organization inappropriately and trying to muddy real issues with innuendo. 

One should ask ~~ what are he/she/they (hereinafter “they” “their”) truly scared of — being challenged for office? Imagine that — it is somehow disruptive and sinister to openly call for a meeting to present one’s bonafides.  And no big surprise – an internecine group is intent on subverting internal challenges to maintain their positions.  

Their response letter to a call for a meeting  to discuss the merits  of an identified candidate seeking the Chairmanship of SCCC  is an incredible travesty, an assault on openness, collegiality, while displaying imperial presumptivness and exercising a control fetish — perhaps in furtherance of their own internal partisan paranoia. 

I use “they”‘ measuredly as some Exec Committee members may not be aware of the extent of real problems and would not have signed off on such a letter had they been aware. We would like to know who did support the letter and on what honest basis.

Having listed the title of the communication they presume people can’t parse the words. the invitation was addressed to an electorate and clearly identified as a “Chuck Brockman for Chairman” event. Only by a fevered partisan imagination does one see that as insufficeintly clear and proper. 

This is NOT from, nor is it endorsed by the Scott County Republican Party Central Committee.  This is an intentional deceptive title to a meeting being held by a small number of people that are not all on the central committee.  They appear to have even reserved their meeting room under a false name.  These people are not to be trusted.  Your contact information may have been facilitated by illicitly acquired confidential committee contact information by the same group. 

The first part of the response paragraph is a (responding in kind)  “not to be trusted” attempt to impute something never said or maintained. No one said the meeting was  endorsed by SCRCC or an official meeting.   An official meeting is usually predicated with “official meeting”. An invitation to  a specific electorate to a campaign meeting was all that was actually set forth. How stupid or un-political do “they” think the SCRCC resipients are? 

The last sentence is the total giveaway of one of the primary problems seen with the existing leadership. “Your contact information may have been facilitated by illicitly acquired confidential committee contact information by the same group”

WHAT?! Think about that. A SCRCC member’s name and contact information is to be kept secret and apparently only the control fetishists are to be able to conveniently contact SCRCC members. Fellow members may not contact other members by e-mail or letter? The truth is that  “they” have inhibited at every turn contact information of delegates and SCRCC members,  to their shame.

Now the information can be garnered laboriously as the positions are covered by statute in the Iowa code.  Submissions are made to either state party, state auditor and or local auditor’s offices after the caucuses because of statutory responsibilities and then from that information more can be assembled.  Bits and pieces from one member or another might be assembled. It should not be necessary to do that to contact other board members.

Any SCRCC member who desires not to be contacted about their position by either constituents who elected them at their precinct caucuses or by collegiate members of the statutory decision making body they belong to, are in the wrong game or are a disgrace to open involved membership in this important body.  Keeping board members from contacting fellow board members is a violation of every precept of parliamentary reliability and organizational comity.

They are presumptively attempting to take over our executive committee to assist in their activities to unseat Governor Reynolds, our US Congresswoman Miller-Meeks as well as anyone who does not agree with them.    

The Kings and Queens of presumptivness say that! Incredible. Where does one begin with this childish immature nonsensical understanding of the purposes of a political party and internal elections? First of all,  while it is not true that primary election partisanship is consistent among people with concerns about the current leadership, even if it were true,  on what part of God’s green earth is it the job of the current leadership to protect the incumbents (however worthy) against primary challenges or elected precinct committee people interested in overseeing the fair treatment of all candidates?  Mesdames et messieurs please explain yourself as to how you have not exposed your actual game? 

This is entirely a partisan campaign speech using auspices of the organization sent to a list held tightly by them and denied to others. It ought to be actionable. The hypocrisy of condeming open internal commuication in the form of a meeting while using the SCRCC list for their own purposes is astounding.  For the members of this group with such imperial presumptiveness it should be realized that any number of slates can be properly proposed and under Roberts Rules must not be denied when properly advanced from the floor, nor any other nomination from the floor.  Further the report of the Nominations Committee is just that. It does not have a preference as to advancement and are often rejected or modified. What this one represents is the internal partisan choices of a group for the most part intent on withholding transparency and limiting SCRCC committee inputs, and apparently thwarting primary battles regarding incumbents. Wow. Just WOW. They want bumps on a log people.   

Exactly, and a vibrant informed active SCRCC would be helpful to that purpose led by transparent people not control freaks intent on protecting something or someone’s position.  

I guess we will see how small the concerns are and who the champions of SCRCC prerogatives and involvement are.  Lord knows evey effort has been made by the current decision makers to thwart SCRCC involvement and collegiality.  Everything is held close to the chest by them. 

As regards the statement “If we do not gain, or worse yet lose seats . . . ”  is, shall we say, rather self-serving. The advances in this county in registrations are commendable, but sober people will understand the Democrats have created an aura about themselves that has devastated their ranks. As for concern about “seats” —  we just went through a cycle with no challenger in a legislative district and minimal support in what turned out to be  an astoundingly close race in West Davenport. If the SCRCC can not come up with 5K to support a candidate and not give Dems a free ride, they are dropping the ball.   

In the 2022 cycle SCRCC leadership  failed to field a candidate in Senate District 49 and House District 98. In tough districts underdog candidates are given little help. 

In a special election just weeks ago Scott County precincts seriously underperformed Democrats to the extent that if just those Scott County precincts had produced a relative handful more votes each, Republicans would have carried the day. While marginal party people are not easily turned out for special elections — influencers, ie. party people — can be induced to pass the word and help obtain turnout.  At every internal juncture some members of the current SCRCC leadership inhibited if not thwarted involvement by others to timely contact delegates/ influencers in the relevant precincts.  Awareness and encouragement to not let that race go to chance or Democrat enthusiasm was soft pedaled. A mere 55 or so votes in each Scott County precinct would have carried the day for the entire Senate District. EVERY effort must be made with higher voting propensity people in special races and that was not allowed to be freely done.  

Carefully curated indeed. There is nothing official about a nominating committee other than it is a report by a group selected by the Chair.  It holds no parliamentary prejudice and is entirely subject to modification, substitution, being ignored.  Well, this is my current non-SCRCC member but long-time former member and current delegate reply — 

0

0