Saturday at the Convention was unreal.
We knew to expect disruptions, but what we saw on Saturday was beyond the pale.
There were multiple threats of lawsuits – Tim LaFever was lurking around and several times I observed him calling someone I believe to be the attorney that was used to sue CRA. He was also soliciting clients to sue CRA on other grounds. It may have been an act – but Mr LaFever deserves some notoriety for being in the middle of the absurdities on Saturday.
We adopted a convention rule against filming – but that didn’t stop a whole bunch of capitol staffers and consultants from using their phones to film parts of the convention.
Paul Dillon of the Stanton “Unit” of the CRA was responsible for the Cops coming to the convention. He bum-rushed the door of the convention session multiple times. I found out later that Dillon himself admitted the whole stunt was pre-planned to another deputy Sgt. at Arms.
I was inside the room and did not see who called the cops.
Several of the “delegates” that ultimately were disqualified in the credentials committee were outside chanting, yelling etc and did so for several hours.
The deputy Sgts did an incredible job keeping people out of the room that should not have been in the room all morning.
While I was railed on and our team were railed on with bogus arguments over “transparency” (a buzz word of the left when they don’t get their way) – there were 300 people in the morning session.
It was punctuated by now former membership secretary Peggy Mew attempting to take out Bakersfield, Brea La-Habra and Kern River Valley basically to settle scores against Ken Mettler and Richard Rios. Once those challenges were shot down, it gave former CRA President Mike Spence a hammer to attempt to use against the challenges that occurred in the afternoon.
A very interesting subtext was that former CRA President Mike Spence (the other side’s biggest advocate) appeared to be familiar with the By-Laws of all the units of CRA. One of the main issues was the lack of information and the patent refusal to provide information – but somehow, Mike Spence had that information.
The afternoon session was in a different part of the hotel that was much easier to control.
The Afternoon session was where several units were challenged for multiple violations of CRA By-Laws. (Due to the threat of legal action – I will omit details)
In one case, a woman defending her unit could not pronounce the name of the unit.
In other cases, people speaking could not answer basic questions about how they got appointed. (again, I am omitting key details due to threatened legal action)
The entire CRA delegation got to see for themselves what the Credentials Committee saw.
When the 9-hour Credentials Committee Report was concluded – there were several units disqualified entirely.
For my part – I got blisters on my feet from having to run around the room counting standing vote after standing vote all day.
There were some other subtexts – and I will address the Sac RA vs Placer RA subtext in a later post 100% about that fight.
The only thing the CRA did on Saturday was the Credentials Report.
By the evening of Saturday 4/16 – the convention was quiet again.
I attended the CRA convention, and I find the information above to be completely accurate. The phony units have existed for years, and the current board finally had the courage to draw a line in the sand. Thank you!
I am in awe of Celeste Greig, George Parks, Craig Alexander, Tom Hudson and several others who had the courage to defend and preserve CRA principles. If the corrupt process had continued, CRA would have no clout or meaning. I would suggest the opposition should form their own organization in which their endorsements, votes and the use of their group’s name can be bought by the highest bidder.
I would like to know who paid for the opposition’s assault against CRA — their lawsuit, creation of phony units, costs of signing up “members” and getting them to a convention.
High,
You do realize that the lawsuit was successful because your side blatantly violated the bylaws in an attempt to exclude delegates, don’t you? And I hope you also realize that your side uses paper units just as the other side does. But I don’t expect facts to matter much to you.
Ironically, you mention the opposition should form a new group so, “their endoresements, votes and the use of their group’s name can be bought by the highest bidder.” Well, Chuck Devore has gone on record stating that the good Sgt. (Aaron Park) tried to sell him an endorsement but Chuck refused. So you are part of a group with at least one officer who tried to sell an endorsement. How do you like them apples?
Newbie – so we’re back to the cheap personal attack by Chuck DeVore. For the record, his assertions are libelous. Chuck has a trail of people he has alienated with his award-winning personality and arrogance. I am no different.
Chuck has a trail of people he has alienated with his award-winning personality and arrogance. I am no different.
Careful with your sentence order, Sarge! I think you said something you didn’t want to say.
LOL – I am at the office today trying to work…
I can’t resist challenging the good Sgt. on several of the lies and mischaracterizations, so here goes:
“There were multiple threats of lawsuits – Tim LaFever was lurking around and several times I observed him calling someone I believe to be the attorney that was used to sue CRA.”
The good Sgt. forgot to mention that the CRA made their attorney a delegate that allowed him access to the conference room. I participated in one conversation with Mr. Icaza (the CRA’s counsel) and asked him how he came to be named a delegate. I asked him if he was submitted on the list of delegates at least 20 days prior to the convention as was required of CRA units and he had no answer. I was also there when Mr. LaFever asked Mr. Icaza to let him in the room as the opposing side’s counsel and Mr. Icaza claimed there was nothing he could do. Since only people with the magic delegate (or Board) badges were allowed in, I ask the good Sgt. whether Mr. Icaza was made a delegate properly under the bylaws (I doubt that was the case, but I am open to the facts).
“Paul Dillon of the Stanton “Unit” of the CRA was responsible for the Cops coming to the convention.”
I don’t know if Mr. Dillon was responsible was the police coming to the convention, but it was likely as the good Sgt. accurately describes – he was trying to force his way into the conference room. Personally, I didn’t support those actions and having the police show up was an embarrassment. I will commend the Sacramento police officers who came for maintaining order, despite the fact that people were shoving TROs, bylaws, and other documents in their faces. I had a chance to speak to one officer and she was nothing but professional.
“Several of the ‘delegates’ that ultimately were disqualified in the credentials committee were outside chanting, yelling etc and did so for several hours.”
This is more of a mischaracterization rather than a lie. Since I was kept out of the conference room for approximately 10 hours and spent the entire morning session right outside the doors (in case my name was called to be hailed before the Kangaroo Court), I know exactly what happened. For a time, some of the folks forced to stay outside would shout into the conference room every time the door was opened. I heard no expletives, but they were definitely loud and angry. That lasted for maybe 20-30 minutes. Later, a group of 15-20 outside began chanting loudly. However, that lasted less than 5 minutes because a hotel representative told them to stop because there were other guests who would be bothered by the noise. After that, there was no further chanting. So, we’re looking at 30-35 minutes of periodic chanting and yelling, hardly the “hours” the good Sgt. describes.
“The entire CRA delegation got to see for themselves what the Credentials Committee saw.”
This would be the biggest lie. I was ultimately part of the CRA delegation. However, it took 10 hours or so to get me seated, and before that, I was not allowed to see for myself what the CC saw. Dozens of others who had to plead their case had the same experience I did. Transparency (which is not a liberal word) was not on the CC’s minds this weekend, I can assure you of that.
Since I was barred from the room for most of the day, I can’t speak to the good Sgt.’s comments about the answers proposed delegates gave. However, if some units were going to be questioned on matters that have nothing to do with whether they were properly submitted delegates, then all of the units should have had to answer the same questions. To me, having a large number of people on the CC who were running for office is the biggest conflict of interest that could exist. These people had access to delegate names, they knew who supported and who opposed them, and they made the initial choice of challenging only a portion of the delegates. How’s that for transparency?
Newbie – it is obvious that it is extremely important to you to win the argument.
Here’s the deal – this will all be hashed out very soon and I don’t think you’ll like the results. I can not comment any further… please look for my Day three post.
To the rest of you – you can see that there are multiple views on what happened that vary widely. Since I was in charge of security for this soiree – that is my perspective.
I don’t care about winning the argument, your side already “won” the election. I care about the real facts getting out so we don’t have another joke of a convention like we did this past weekend.
I personally hope that the new leadership will really address the paper units and delegate process before next year’s elections, or the same sham process will continue. Just as when the Democrats took over every major office in the state, this is now your burden to bear. I hope you will be held accountable, for better or worse, on how you deal with it.
Regarding the fraud – yes, we will… you can make bank on that.
We – as in You and I should sit down for a cup of coffee the next time you come to a CRA Convention.
BTW – I will be posting the real facts once the gag of this current litigation is lifted.
Sgt.,
I will sit down with anyone, particularly a conservative, to discuss important issues. Hopefully there is another convention in my future to chat. And I will definitely hold you and the other Board members to the fire in cleaning up the delegate selection and nomination process.
I went to the CRA convention as a delegate, and I observed ugly and belligerent behavior from those supporting Karen England. A CRA delegate who accompanied me had no prior information about either side, and she drew the same conclusion I did.
Many of Karen England’s supporters had been CRA members only a matter of days — rent-a-mob screamers and hecklers. Their remarks showed such ignorance it was laughable. The winners stood their ground by citing bylaws, and the losers used personal attacks. The losers are now sore losers.
Right, and Ms. Grieg’s side were complete angels. That’s why they lost the lawsuit and had to resort to Plan B to disenfranchise delegates. Typical response from those with their head in the sand – the other guys was bad. I see that you make blanket statements with absolutely no facts – another typical response from someone with no real argument. Look at my other post – I give facts that I personally got from delegates and convention attenders. Were Karen’s supporters perfect? No. Did she benefit from paper units? I suspect she did. But so did Ms. Grieg’s side. And the way to fix that is to have the election as the CRA has always conducted the election and then address the problems (something Ms. Grieg has ignored during the time she has been President). It’s not by stacking the Credentials Committee with people from Ms. Grieg’s side (people who were running for office), disenfranchising enough delegates you know support Karen’s side, then claiming the high moral ground.
No Laughing at them, I suspect you have no idea what was going on and are simply drinking the Kool Aid.
By the way, the bylaws your side were supporting had nothing to do with delegate selection, and everything to do with gaming the system to sit more delegates from their side than Karen’s.
Newbie – sit tight sir. Once the legal gag is lifted, you’ll get a chance to see a ton more… you may even change your mind on some of what you just wrote.
Aaron Park, you are a joke. Selectively counting votes, skipping over delegates, and giving a thumbs up or down on delegates in question is union thuggery. There is no place in politics of any kind for folks like you. Your assertion of the convention was insulting, and lacked substance of any sort. If I were you, I would tend to your blisters, and spare readers the misery of reading your opinions.
Laughing at them — Obviously you have not been receiving the barage of emails from btoh sides prior to this convention. If you had been receiving the allegations from both sides, you would know what you were talking about. Obviously, thats not the case.
.
The Judge’s ruling was all about violating the by-laws of the CRA.
The Credentialling was all about violating the by-laws of the CRA. Some units that violated were still seated by the convention… I can’t comment further until the legal action has concluded.
That’s right – you guys violated the bylaws by trying to implement a new policy that was not included in the bylaws, and lost in court. When that failed, you selectively used the bylaws that had nothing to do with whether delegates can be seated, and picked your delegates.
According to the bylaws, if the delegate was a member in good standing, selected by his or her unit, a member of only one unit, paid the registration fee, and that delegate’s information was timely submitted to the CC or Membership Secretary, that delegate was required to be seated. If any delegates violated those bylaws, then I agree they were properly excluded. Otherwise, the delegate should have been seated. All of the questions about who their unit president was and the like related to paper ballots have no impact on delegate seating. (I was only able to get in the room for a very short time, so I can only report what I heard second-hand about the types of questions that were asked.)
Of course, there was also the problem of selectively enforcing the bylaws. I know of one instance where I was told that a unit failed to follow its bylaws regarding delegate selection, but the delegates were still seated because the unit president supported Ms. Grieg. That’s what you get when those who want to keep their power are the ones who are selecting the delegates.
One thing for all of you to know – I had three of Karen’s supporters – including my opponent in the room counting ballots on Sunday.
I haven’t heard of any shenanigans on counting ballots (other counting issues are more in doubt). But that’s irrelevant because the die had been cast on Saturday night when you sat a majority of delegates that supported your side by excluding many of Karen’s supporters.
Would you like some cheese with that Whine, Newbie?
What the heck does the CRA have By-Laws for? To seat anyone regardless of merit?
How long has the spokesman on this blog for Karen England’s sham group been a member of CRA? Answer the question!
How many of the sham delegates have ever attended a meeting of any unit? Why is it so many of the sham members come across as hateful and destructive?
I second that question and then ask him how long has he been a member of the unit he joined just in time to be eligible as a delegate? Ask the same question of the other 3 delegates from his newly joined CRA unit. I congratulate this Board for trying to crack down on fake units. It makes me proud to be a CRA member.
The other three delegates – one has been a member of CRA for about 14 years, one has been involved in CRA on and off for over 10 years and is currently a member in good standing. As for the third, I’m not sure how long he’s been in the CRA but I do know he made it through the inquisition with me and my fellow delegates and was seated.
I have been a member of my unit for the required amount of time to be a delegate (approximately 45 days or so). I was previously a member of another unit for over a year but transferred (by giving proper notice) at the request of the president of the unit to help with the Capo Valley School District fight which I have been involved in for some time. I’m happy to answer any other questions from the peanut gallery.
Takeover,
I wasn’t aware I was on the clock, but here are responses to your questions. If you’re referring to me as Karen’s spokesman, I have been a member of CRA for about a year and a half. I came in to the convention supporting Karen and a few other members of her slate based on relationships and conversations I have had with her and them. As to the members of her slate I hadn’t heard about or spoken to, I was open to listening to both sides. Until I got to the convention and saw firsthand the dealings of Ms. Greig’s folks and their blatant disenfranchisement of delegates. At that point, I decided to vote straight along with Karen’s entire slate. Ironically, the shenanigans went on for so long I had to leave (the pre-convention agenda indicated the convention would end at noon on Sunday) and never did get to vote.
As for the “sham delegates” you reference, I would need more (well, any) evidence of whom you are speaking. I can attest that the delegates from our unit were seated after our Kangaroo Court session.
A day later and still no response from Newbie (Geoff Willis), flame-thrower for hire.
As Vern will attest, Newbie and Geoff Willis are not the same person – I always pen my opinions without pseudonym.
yup – why are these anon-guessers always wrong? And smug – thinking they’ve really nailed someone and their arguments if they supposedly figure out their real name.
I’m going by the post “… Newby’s report” by Geoff Willis: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/04/cra-convention-farcical-chaos-newbies-report/ by Geoff Willis.
If they’re not the same person, how long has Newbie been a CRA member and how long has Geoff Willis been a CRA member?
Takeover group was a fraud
Just to set the record straight. I can tell you that “Newby” and “Geoff Willis” are not the same person. What they have in common is that they are both attorneys working at the same law firm and living in Mission Viejo.
Newby and I attended one of Vern’s piano performances that appeared on the Juice. While Newby is a CRA member I do not think that Geoff has joined that Republican organization
Actually Larry, Geoff is a new member of the CRA, recruited by yours truly, though I don’t know for how long following the CRA convention shenanigans.
Well I already answered that. To clear up your confusion, which should have been evident by the post itself, I posted a very lengthy comment in response to an earlier blog article about the CRA convention. Geoff (a friend) was nice enough to simply take that comment and post it as an article in and of itself. Hence the post with Geoff as the poster, and me as the author.
As for my time in CRA, I explained above that I have been a CRA member for about a year and a half.
Newby, just so you know, your membership is a matter of record. Your other record is one of publicly trashing the CRA.
If explaining what happened to me and my delegation (as well as many others) this past weekend at the convention – you know, the unprecedented move to bar paying members from previous public sessions for example – is publicly trashing the CRA, then guilty as charged. Maybe if more people know what went on last weekend, we can implement real changes that will prevent paper units, rigged endorsements, and sham elections.
Since Vern’s revelling in Republican on Republican crime, I thought I’d give a little reminder that even the Dems have their infighting issues:
http://www.redcounty.com/content/idiot-florida-hot-house-one-dem-attacks-another-not-being-pro-abortion-enough