The following is an email I received this morning from Grant Cermak. Grant is the Republican party endorsed candidate running for the state House of Representatives (District 58A). It is a summary of the State Convention held over the weekend.
"The State Convention was exciting – filled with teamwork,
fun, battles, wins, and losses. We won several battles over the course of
the weekend. First and foremost we demonstrated to the convention at the
large the way the leadership in the party has marginalized and railroaded us.
This upset the body of the delegates and I personally had many delegates,
Senate and House District Chairs, a couple Congressional District Chairs, and
many long-time Republicans tell me that they were upset with the party
leadership and the way the leadership conducted the convention. At several
points they used the rules against us then turned around and violated their own
rules.
Early on Saturday we challenged the rules of the
convention. Our attempts to make the convention open and fair were
defeated and the rules were adopted en masse. Immediately a challenge was
brought to the literature that we distributed on the floor supporting our
delegates and alternates because rule 7 stated:
“Any and all materials distributed at the convention will
contain a disclaimer containing the name of the organization or the name and
address of the individual paying for said material. The sergeant-at-arms
will confiscate any material not having such a disclaimer and the person or
persons distributing the material will have their credentials revoked and barred
from the remainder of the convention.”
The sergeant-at-arms immediately confiscated our materials
and threw it out of the convention. This was no small thing as about
10,000 pieces of our literature was confiscated. A letter to candidates
seeking the position of National Alternate or National Delegate
indicated:
“Applicants will also be notified of the Federal Election
Commission’s (FEC) requirements and guidelines for those seeking the position of
National Delegate or National Alternate as well as the ground rules for the 2008
State Convention.”
Though no such warning about a disclaimer was presented
before the proposed rules were distributed. Additionally our literature
was distributed before the rules were adopted. Thus our literature was
yanked for breaking a rule that was applied ex post facto (see Article 1,
Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution - No bill of attainder or ex post facto
Law shall be passed)! This would be like prosecuting you for a crime you
committed yesterday if we passed the law today. It was extremely unfair and
unjust.
Later in the convention we heard a ruling from the
nominations committee where they eliminated many of the applicants to National
Alternate and National Delegate. This was no surprise to us as this had
happened in every Congressional District meeting. When we tried to change
the rules to allow for floor nominations (which would have allowed more people
on the ballot) we were defeated. We raised a point of information asking
if all the individuals on the ballot had met with the nominating committee
according to rule 25 section a:
“Individuals wishing to be considered for the position of
National Delegate or Alternate must meet with the nominating committee in
Rochester, Minnesota on Thursday, May 29th, 2008.”
The committee indicated that it would make a report on
this question later. We waited for 2 hours with no response so I waited at
the microphone for an hour (through all of Norm Coleman’s speech and some
business thereafter) and was finally recognized by the chair. I asked a
point of information asking to hear the report from the nominating committee on
whether all of the candidates had met with the nominating committee. They
responded:
“No. Some of the candidates did the interview by
phone.”I had called Brian Humphreys (an employee of the State Party) on
Wednesday asking if I could have a later time or if I could do the interview by
phone. He told me unequivocally that I could not. Due to our
inexperience with parliamentary procedure we did not make the correct motions to
get the ballots thrown out but we did expose the hypocrisy and unfairness of
leadership. The party had created an illegal ballot (according to the
rules they rammed down our throats). This was our turning point! (On
Sunday the convention voted to change the rules to allow Tim Pawlenty to stay on
the ballot though he did not meet with the committee according to
rules).
After this critical point we had the hearts and the minds
of the convention turned to see that we were not trying to create chaos or ruin
the party. We simply wanted a chance to run our own people and fight in a
fair way. Later on we were able to make a motion to suspend the rules and
vote to strike a part of the party platform:
Section 4, Part R. “The legal age of purchase
tobacco in Minnesota should be raised to 21 years of age”.
It was a small victory but I do not believe we would have
had a chance to pass it without the preceding events.
Later that night at the various hospitality suites we were
approached by party regulars and McCain supporters. These folks gave us
their sympathies, pointed out our parliamentary procedural errors, and indicated
their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the party leadership. They indicated
that they were willing to make coalitions with us and help us. This was
huge! We were winning the battle for the soul of the party.
The fundamental disagreement we have is whether power
should be concentrated at the top or the bottom. Our constitution and our
republic have set up the rules to favor local rule and individual rights.
Yet within our own party we have allowed power to concentrate at the
top.
A good example of this attempt to consolidate power was
presented in the proposed changes to the constitution of the Republican
Party:
“If the State Executive Committee determines a BPOU is not
fulfilling its responsibilities the State Executive Committee shall have the
authority to take all actions it deems necessary or proper to fulfill the BPOU’s
responsibilities”.
This change would essentially allow the party leadership
to remove any BPOU leader that did not conform to the party line or change
delegates or really do whatever it deems necessary or proper! This was a
gross grab at power and was not ignored on the floor. Many delegates spoke
out against this change and questioned why these changes were necessary.
At one point Ron Carey descended to the convention floor and took up the
mic indicating that this was an attempt to give authority to the party to remove
rogue BPOU leaders that refused to comply with party demands. Does this
sound like the fight between the federal government and the states to you?
It should! This resolution was defeated (garnering only 33.9% of the
vote) but even that is frightening. Why would we want the State Executive
Committee to have such power over the local BPOU chairs?!
On Saturday we were presented with another interesting
development – we would be hearing from the contest committee. This
committee was convened to review the findings of the CD1 convention where Jake
Dettinger was voted in as National Delegate. The rules of the convention
indicated that an individual must receive 40% of the convention delegation vote
to take the position. It was found that in the first vote two of the
initial “winners” did not receive that amount. So the convention re-voted
and Jake Dettinger took a slot. This was the published result of the
convention and was the final decision of that body. The state party
decided to step in and overturn the will of that convention by convening the
contest committee.
The contest committee report indicated that the rules were
misunderstood by the CD1 convention and that Jake Dettinger should be stripped
of his delegate status. They presented these findings to the convention.
Jake stood in opposition to this ruling and humbly asked for 4 minutes for
he and his opponent to present information to the body. He was denied.
He used his mic time to indicate how unfairly he was treated – his
opponent was given a month to prepare arguments and collect evidence while Jake
was given only one day. He was not even made aware of the challenge until
the day before he was to appear in Rochester before the conference committee.
Even though this was a challenge to the findings of the CD1 convention the
onus was put on Jake to defend himself and the finding of the
convention.
A motion was made to exclude the convention from voting on
the matter and limit the vote to only those in CD1. This was denied as
well. Eventually the convention voted and overturned the will of the CD1
convention, stripping Jake of his delegate status. Does this sound like
the fight between the federal government and the states to you? It should!
This is the exact same thing that is happening in California and
Oregon.
Through our defeats we learned. Through our small
victories we rejoiced. Overall we left the convention with a strong
feeling of encouragement and strengthened resolve. We will sharpen our
skills with parliamentary procedure. We will seek leadership positions.
We will not be shut out or marginalized."
"The State Convention was exciting – filled with teamwork,
fun, battles, wins, and losses. We won several battles over the course of
the weekend. First and foremost we demonstrated to the convention at the
large the way the leadership in the party has marginalized and railroaded us.
This upset the body of the delegates and I personally had many delegates,
Senate and House District Chairs, a couple Congressional District Chairs, and
many long-time Republicans tell me that they were upset with the party
leadership and the way the leadership conducted the convention. At several
points they used the rules against us then turned around and violated their own
rules.
Early on Saturday we challenged the rules of the
convention. Our attempts to make the convention open and fair were
defeated and the rules were adopted en masse. Immediately a challenge was
brought to the literature that we distributed on the floor supporting our
delegates and alternates because rule 7 stated:
“Any and all materials distributed at the convention will
contain a disclaimer containing the name of the organization or the name and
address of the individual paying for said material. The sergeant-at-arms
will confiscate any material not having such a disclaimer and the person or
persons distributing the material will have their credentials revoked and barred
from the remainder of the convention.”
The sergeant-at-arms immediately confiscated our materials
and threw it out of the convention. This was no small thing as about
10,000 pieces of our literature was confiscated. A letter to candidates
seeking the position of National Alternate or National Delegate
indicated:
“Applicants will also be notified of the Federal Election
Commission’s (FEC) requirements and guidelines for those seeking the position of
National Delegate or National Alternate as well as the ground rules for the 2008
State Convention.”
Though no such warning about a disclaimer was presented
before the proposed rules were distributed. Additionally our literature
was distributed before the rules were adopted. Thus our literature was
yanked for breaking a rule that was applied ex post facto (see Article 1,
Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution - No bill of attainder or ex post facto
Law shall be passed)! This would be like prosecuting you for a crime you
committed yesterday if we passed the law today. It was extremely unfair and
unjust.
Later in the convention we heard a ruling from the
nominations committee where they eliminated many of the applicants to National
Alternate and National Delegate. This was no surprise to us as this had
happened in every Congressional District meeting. When we tried to change
the rules to allow for floor nominations (which would have allowed more people
on the ballot) we were defeated. We raised a point of information asking
if all the individuals on the ballot had met with the nominating committee
according to rule 25 section a:
“Individuals wishing to be considered for the position of
National Delegate or Alternate must meet with the nominating committee in
Rochester, Minnesota on Thursday, May 29th, 2008.”
The committee indicated that it would make a report on
this question later. We waited for 2 hours with no response so I waited at
the microphone for an hour (through all of Norm Coleman’s speech and some
business thereafter) and was finally recognized by the chair. I asked a
point of information asking to hear the report from the nominating committee on
whether all of the candidates had met with the nominating committee. They
responded:
“No. Some of the candidates did the interview by
phone.”I had called Brian Humphreys (an employee of the State Party) on
Wednesday asking if I could have a later time or if I could do the interview by
phone. He told me unequivocally that I could not. Due to our
inexperience with parliamentary procedure we did not make the correct motions to
get the ballots thrown out but we did expose the hypocrisy and unfairness of
leadership. The party had created an illegal ballot (according to the
rules they rammed down our throats). This was our turning point! (On
Sunday the convention voted to change the rules to allow Tim Pawlenty to stay on
the ballot though he did not meet with the committee according to
rules).
After this critical point we had the hearts and the minds
of the convention turned to see that we were not trying to create chaos or ruin
the party. We simply wanted a chance to run our own people and fight in a
fair way. Later on we were able to make a motion to suspend the rules and
vote to strike a part of the party platform:
Section 4, Part R. “The legal age of purchase
tobacco in Minnesota should be raised to 21 years of age”.
It was a small victory but I do not believe we would have
had a chance to pass it without the preceding events.
Later that night at the various hospitality suites we were
approached by party regulars and McCain supporters. These folks gave us
their sympathies, pointed out our parliamentary procedural errors, and indicated
their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the party leadership. They indicated
that they were willing to make coalitions with us and help us. This was
huge! We were winning the battle for the soul of the party.
The fundamental disagreement we have is whether power
should be concentrated at the top or the bottom. Our constitution and our
republic have set up the rules to favor local rule and individual rights.
Yet within our own party we have allowed power to concentrate at the
top.
A good example of this attempt to consolidate power was
presented in the proposed changes to the constitution of the Republican
Party:
“If the State Executive Committee determines a BPOU is not
fulfilling its responsibilities the State Executive Committee shall have the
authority to take all actions it deems necessary or proper to fulfill the BPOU’s
responsibilities”.
This change would essentially allow the party leadership
to remove any BPOU leader that did not conform to the party line or change
delegates or really do whatever it deems necessary or proper! This was a
gross grab at power and was not ignored on the floor. Many delegates spoke
out against this change and questioned why these changes were necessary.
At one point Ron Carey descended to the convention floor and took up the
mic indicating that this was an attempt to give authority to the party to remove
rogue BPOU leaders that refused to comply with party demands. Does this
sound like the fight between the federal government and the states to you?
It should! This resolution was defeated (garnering only 33.9% of the
vote) but even that is frightening. Why would we want the State Executive
Committee to have such power over the local BPOU chairs?!
On Saturday we were presented with another interesting
development – we would be hearing from the contest committee. This
committee was convened to review the findings of the CD1 convention where Jake
Dettinger was voted in as National Delegate. The rules of the convention
indicated that an individual must receive 40% of the convention delegation vote
to take the position. It was found that in the first vote two of the
initial “winners” did not receive that amount. So the convention re-voted
and Jake Dettinger took a slot. This was the published result of the
convention and was the final decision of that body. The state party
decided to step in and overturn the will of that convention by convening the
contest committee.
The contest committee report indicated that the rules were
misunderstood by the CD1 convention and that Jake Dettinger should be stripped
of his delegate status. They presented these findings to the convention.
Jake stood in opposition to this ruling and humbly asked for 4 minutes for
he and his opponent to present information to the body. He was denied.
He used his mic time to indicate how unfairly he was treated – his
opponent was given a month to prepare arguments and collect evidence while Jake
was given only one day. He was not even made aware of the challenge until
the day before he was to appear in Rochester before the conference committee.
Even though this was a challenge to the findings of the CD1 convention the
onus was put on Jake to defend himself and the finding of the
convention.
A motion was made to exclude the convention from voting on
the matter and limit the vote to only those in CD1. This was denied as
well. Eventually the convention voted and overturned the will of the CD1
convention, stripping Jake of his delegate status. Does this sound like
the fight between the federal government and the states to you? It should!
This is the exact same thing that is happening in California and
Oregon.
Through our defeats we learned. Through our small
victories we rejoiced. Overall we left the convention with a strong
feeling of encouragement and strengthened resolve. We will sharpen our
skills with parliamentary procedure. We will seek leadership positions.
We will not be shut out or marginalized."
No comments:
Post a Comment