.
.
.
And we wonder why we have trouble moving issues forward through the government . . .
FROM NEWBIE
I wouldn’t want to disappoint the good Sgt., so here’s my take/rant on the joke that was the CRA convention (you’ll love this Vern):
For the record, I supported Karen and her slate going into the convention, and any question I had of whether I was supporting the right side was dispelled within minutes of Saturday morning if you care to read my tome below.
I got in line to get my delegate badge on Saturday morning. When I gave my unit name, my name was highlighted in scarlett red. The gentleman at the table told me I had been flagged and I could not get a coveted delegate badge at that time. When I asked him why I had been flagged, he did not know. When I asked him how I could find out, he told me to find George Park. However, since Mr. G. Park was currently inside the conference room, that was rather difficult. You see, the agenda I was given when I registered (I had previously paid my $200+ registration fee) said that Saturday morning’s session was a “General Session.”
When I tried to enter the General Session, one of the two large men stationed at each of the two entry ways to the conference room, informed me that I was not able to enter because I did not have a badge (either delegate or Board member). When I told him that I was trying to enter the General Session as advertised, I was refused access.
After another hour or so of waiting in the lobby of the hotel (many shenanigans went on from both sides during the entire conference, too many to address here), I finally got to address Mr. G. Park, still outside the conference room because I was barred from the General Session, to his credit (one of the few times I will ever give him such), he gave me actual information. He told me that I was flagged for some reason, that the flagged delegates were being called into the conference room and told the reason they were flagged. They would then be given a chance to explain or defend their delegate status, at which point the current delegates would be allowed to vote on whether to seat the flagged delegate or not. I asked Mr. G. Park why I couldn’t enter the General Session and he told me it was a closed session. I must’ve missed the secret agenda his side handed out changing the General Session to a closed session, but I digress.
A quick note on Saturday’s General Session. I talked to know less than 5-10 CRA members at the convention who told me that they had never had a closed session to seat the delegates before. As I understand, they had an area reserved for delegates and placed other viewers in a separate area to prevent non-delegates from illegally voting. This will be important later.
Back to my fine Saturday. The morning came and went, and still I sat. Lunch passed. The afternoon came and went. Finally, some 10 hours after I started waiting, I was given that magic pass to enter the hallowed hall. I was paraded up to the front, the charges were read against me, and me and my group pled our case to the jury. The vote was cast and we were given grace and seated. Huzzah!
Since I was now one of the “Inner Circle” I was given a beautiful blue delegate badge (that’s going on my mantle) and actually allowed to stay in the room. Imagine that! Not only that, but I was allowed to vote on the handful of remaining challenged delegates. What do you know!
As I actually saw it, the process went like this – delegate(s) marched up, charges read, case pleaded, vote taken. Just like me. The votes I saw were quickly counted, half of the room by Mike Munzing, and half by the good Sgt. Hmmmmm, the Sgt.’s running for a CRA office and he’s counting to see whether the delegates should be seated – no conflict of interest there. Oh yeah, and his brother was running for offfice too, while running the Kangaroo Court deciding on only some of the delegates fates. Yeah, totally on the up and up.
I forgot to mention, 300+ delegates were submitted by the various units. The Credentials Committee, which was led by Mr. G. Park, included several people running for office. Again, no conflict here, right? On Friday night, I was told the Credentials Committee abandoned the conference room and barricaded itself in one of the hotel rooms to go over the submitted delegate list. By the time the next morning dawned, the CC had flagged over 1/3 of the delegates (an unprecedented number I was told by more than one person who had been to many past CRA conventions). Only those delegates blessed by the CC were initially allowed to get badges and enter the sacred conference room.
And since the farce lasted all day, the breakout sessions (one of the reasons I was attending the convention) were cancelled. So the only substantive sessions of the weekend fell victim to the joke happening behind closed doors.
That was my fun Saturday. 10 hours in a hotel lobby, criminal line up, bed time.
Sunday was more subdued. I think everyone was tired from the implosion of the CRA that had happened the day before. Armed with my magic badge, I confidently strode into the conference room. Sadly, the doors were now opened to all and I was relegated to commoner status like everyone else.
Sunday’s session began at 10:00 am because someone screwed up and put that on the agenda rather than 9:30 am like it should have been. So the session really started at approximately 10:20 am since Mr. G. Park, Celeste Grieg and her crew were apparently too tired from their hijinx the days before.
Since everything at this convention took forever, why not take an hour to approve the rules, several of which were now moot. Kudos to Mike Spence for proposing an amendment that required a refund for all convention attendees who were not given a delegate badge and were denied access to Saturday’s charade. Shockingly, it was overwhelmingly approved. Apparently, a vote was held early Saturday to open the General Session, I mean secret closed session, to all convention attendees, but it was defeated [Note to the geniuses who voted to keep the session closed on Saturday, but then voted to refund the money of those shut out, and there had to have been more than a few, if you had simply opened the Saturday session as advertised, you still would’ve had a lot of ticked off members, but you would’ve saved the CRA thousands of dollars in refunds – rationalize that for me, please.]
And a special shout out to Craig Alexander, attorney at law. He went to the mike to “reluctantly” oppose the refund motion. His stated reason was that there was a class action threatened against the CRA. That puzzled me, because if you refund the members their money, you pretty much eliminate their standing for suing you for keeping them out of the top secret closed session. But that’s just me.
Sadly, I had relied on the representation by the CRA that the Sunday session would end at noon, and I had to get to my rental car location, so I was unable to stay around for the “vote” that occurred.
Now my random thoughts:
I understand that both sides use the so-called paper units to their benefit. But that’s operating within the bylaws. Eliminating delegates for any reason other than failure to pay dues, failure to be a CRA member (registered Republican), failure to timely submit the delegate list, or failure to timely transfer to another CRA unit, is not in the bylaws. I actually spoke to one delegate who told me that both sides abused the system, but since Karen’s side gamed the system better, it was ok for Ms. Grieg’s side to effectively chuck the bylaws out the window to rig the election.
I am all for fixing the elections and endorsements problems with the CRA. Ignoring the bylaws and effectively rigging an election is not the way to do it. I would be in favor of geographic restrictions on delegates. And I would love to get rid of paper units who exist solely to get people elected and endorsed. But you cannot selectively apply the bylaws to exclude delegates from your opponents to win an election. My evidence for that – I was told by a delegate that their unit failed to comply with the bylaws on selecting delegates, but that it did not matter because the head of the unit was voting for Ms. Grieg and her slate. Yeah that’s the moral high ground.
I also find it ironic that there is some question as to whether the Park brothers’ own unit (Placer County) is a paper unit or not. I heard from at least 3-4 delegates from that area that Placer never had meetings, or they combined the CRA meeting with the Central Committee meeting (yeah, that’s proper). Yet despite these problems, they never had to account for their unit’s legitimate status. Hmmm, I wonder if it had anything to do with the Park brothers running the show? Nah.
Did Karen’s side engage in some shenanigans of their own? I’m sure they did. I wasn’t a fan of trying to rip the door off its hinges and barge into the top secret General Session, barrelling through two or three gentlemen in the process. I also wasn’t a fan of screaming into the room every time the door was opened, or chanting loudly from outside the conference room, because we were guests in a hotel, but emotions were running high. I have also read on the other side’s blogs that Karen’s folks allegedly sent hateful emails and made threatening calls to Ms. Grieg’s house. If that’s true, they should be kicked out of CRA immediately. But so should the good Sgt. (why he wasn’t kicked out when Chuck Devore revealed that he tried to sell an endoresement is beyond me – yes I believe Chuck’s word over the good Sgt.’s), and all of Ms. Grieg’s side who made the CRA a literal joke over this weekend. I understand that Ms. Grieg is a woman of God, but she didn’t do anything this weekend to convince me of that.
In sum, assuming any of you have even bothered to read my whole missive, this was my first, and likely last, CRA convention. The good Sgt.’s side made several references to us not being unions, etc. I would ask those folks this question – who locked out its own paying members from a General Session? I would love to hear the answer to that one.
So what do we do? Well, in my opinion, we should’ve had an election the way the CRA has always had an election, let the chips fall where they may, and then make real changes to prevent anyone from doing this ever again. What we shouldn’t have done was lock paying members out of the process, selectively enforce bylaws that have nothing to do with seating delegates, and try to steal an election.
It’s the first time I’ve ever been ashamed to be a member of any group. And I know I was not alone in feeling that this weekend.
Your description of this event makes a national union conference sound as pure as the wind driven snow by comparison.
Everyone should note that his comment was 1900 words – vs my original piost of 550.
This makes him – what – a bully?
It is worth noting that it took 1900 words to answer 550. That simple.
York,
.. and your point is ..?
Thanks for my first byline Geoff. As for the length, I could have spent 19,000 words expressing my disappointment at the sham of a convention I just attended.
I have been in CRA for only a short time in comparison to many, but it has been long enough to realize that the system for endorsing candidates and electing officers is broken. However, Ms. Grieg has been President for a year now and has done nothing during that time to address so-called paper units, geographic limits for delegates, or anything else related to the delegate process. It was not until the delegate lists were released and her folks got a hold of them that this whole business with the Credentials Committee flagging over a hundred delegates came up (many, if not all of them supporting Karen’s slate), as well as the illegal geographic policy.
It doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together and surmise that shenanigans were at play to insure that Ms. Grieg’s side would win. And lo and behold, they swept the contested elections. As I said, I have no doubt that both sides engaged in some unsavory practices in the weeks leading up to the convention and at the convention itself. I witnessed a lot of these action myself – from both sides. However, that does not justify rigging an election to stay in power. That’s what unions do. It’s not what conservatives do.
That’s what unions do. It’s not what conservatives do.
Haha, maybe it’s just what human beings who crave power do.
I would definitely agree to that Vern, having experienced it first-hand this weekend.
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.
Unfortunately, Newbie, I was there too and you have it all wrong; I was also at the Saturday meeting inside as a delegate. In fact, I have been a member of CRA for three years and have attended a few endorsements and conventions. This Board for the first time was determined to follow the bylaws so as to eliminate paper, i.e. fake CRA units that seem to pop up just in time for endorsements/elections. There are people/candidates/legislators that pay people to create these paper units which destroys the integrity of CRA.
I note that the Membership Secretary refused to give the membership information to the Credentials Committee as was required. How could the Credentials Committee determine eligibility then? (She was on England’s and your side.)
I note that the Credentials Committee then asked each CRA unit for which they did not have the required information for this pertinent information to decide on the credentials of the CRA unit and its delegates, they refused to do so.
I note that when a potential delegate was asked at the Saturday meeting who the president of her CRA unit was, she did not know, and when they last met, she finally admitted she did not know.
I note that another potential delegate was asked questions as to their last meeting, and he did not know, stammering instead.
I note that several potential delegates were listed as members of two CRA units at the same time which is not allowed.
I note that 4 CRA units information presented to the credentials committee (not by the membership secretary) was faxed in by the same person as faxed pages 1, 2, 3, and 4 — highly suspicious. We voted these unit delegates down. (I believe at least one of the President of one of these units came testify for the unit — sounded suspicious.)
And, there were more inconsistencies . . . . Fortunately, as far as I am concerned, we voted out these fake CRA unit delegates.
It was funny when your side started chanting “Shame, shame, shame, ” when we voted against these fake CRA unit delegates. They caught themselves pretty quickly though realizing they were using the chant of the union thugs! It made me laugh.
Karen may have been able to win on her own merit and talent alone, but her unscrupulous and dishonest ways to try to win the election is what drove the honest and sincere people to vote against her and her slate.
Newbie, as I understand it, your group was put on the challenge list only because your President turned in his delegate list late. I also note here that you changed CRA units as required by the Bylaws to be eligible as a delegate in your new Ladera Ranch CRA unit. Are you planning on staying in Ladera Ranch CRA or will you be transferring back to your previous CRA unit, transferring once again just in time for an endorsement or election convention?
CRA is suppose to stand for the conscience of the Republican party. We can hardly be that if we try to manipulate the outcome and take away the vote from the people and create fake units. I am proud that this Board stood up to the challenge and decided not to back down. It was hard work and they received much criticism and lawsuit for it. They are to be congratulated.
What true Republicans want are integrity, honesty, and determination to do what is right for the people, not the party. CRA does not want to be dictated by the Republican Party nor by people who have money nor by lobbyists or persons with extra influence. It wants to be remain the conscience of the Republican Party, i.e. endorsing those candidates that foot the platform better than the others.
For your information, I was with another CRA member whom I know you respect who has been a member for over 10 years. This person confirmed to me these fake units and was glad this was finally being addressed.
Liberty33,
“This Board for the first time was determined to follow the bylaws so as to eliminate paper, i.e. fake CRA units that seem to pop up just in time for endorsements/elections.”
Did you ever question why they suddenly decided to “follow the bylaws” only weeks before the election by passing a policy that clearly violated the bylaws (as stated by a judge), rather than during the previous year that Celeste Greig was President? Doesn’t the timing make you the least bit curious?
“There are people/candidates/legislators that pay people to create these paper units which destroys the integrity of CRA.”
Those people should be rooted out, given a fair chance to explain, and, if the evidence is there, expelled from the CRA. And this should have happened a long time ago. By the way, are you aware of the allegations against Aaron Park for attempting to sell a CRA endorsement to Chuck Devore?
“I note that the Membership Secretary refused to give the membership information to the Credentials Committee as was required. How could the Credentials Committee determine eligibility then?”
They apparently managed just fine in disenfranchising over 1/3 of the delegates without the lists.
“I note that when a potential delegate was asked at the Saturday meeting who the president of her CRA unit was, she did not know, and when they last met, she finally admitted she did not know.”
That information is irrelevant to whether or not she should have been a delegate but is relevant to whether her unit should have its charter revoked. There is a difference between the two and I have given several examples of how the bylaws were applied inconsistently to benefit Ms. Greig’s side. For example, one unit failed to follow its own bylaws in selecting delegates, but that was ignored when it was pointed out because the unit’s president supported Ms. Greig. This was one of the inherent problems with the delegate selection process, it was selectively enforced to benefit Ms. Greig’s slate.
“I note that another potential delegate was asked questions as to their last meeting, and he did not know, stammering instead.”
Again, irrelevant to delegate selection. That should have been dealt with long ago.
“I note that several potential delegates were listed as members of two CRA units at the same time which is not allowed.”
Those delegates should not have been seated, per the bylaws.
“I note that 4 CRA units information presented to the credentials committee (not by the membership secretary) was faxed in by the same person as faxed pages 1, 2, 3, and 4 — highly suspicious. We voted these unit delegates down. (I believe at least one of the President of one of these units came testify for the unit — sounded suspicious.)”
So what? Were they timely submitted? Were they members of only one unit? Were they in good standing (paid members and Republicans)? That’s all that matters for delegate selection.
“They caught themselves pretty quickly though realizing they were using the chant of the union thugs! It made me laugh.”
I wasn’t laughing when I was locked out of the General Session even though I paid my registration fee. Who are the union thugs now?
“Newbie, as I understand it, your group was put on the challenge list only because your President turned in his delegate list late. I also note here that you changed CRA units as required by the Bylaws to be eligible as a delegate in your new Ladera Ranch CRA unit. Are you planning on staying in Ladera Ranch CRA or will you be transferring back to your previous CRA unit, transferring once again just in time for an endorsement or election convention?”
You are correct that our hands were slapped in the Kangaroo Court because we were the only unit that hadn’t timely submitted our delegate list to the Membership Secretary – we were about 16 hours late. We complied with the bylaws by requesting forgiveness and seated. Ironically, we did not submit our delegate list (I believe in a very redacted form) until the Friday of the convention, yet we were not questioned on that while other groups apparently were.
As for my CRA unit, I transferred because my old unit (SRA) has a lot of infighting that I didn’t want to be a part of. I was also somewhat ostracized because I opposed a Mission Viejo ballot measure that was an affront to property rights and I believe was put on the ballot merely to penalize the sitting council majority. Given the toxic state, when my current unit President asked me to transfer to be a delegate and to fight the Capo School District corruption, I was happy to oblige. So yes, assuming I stay active in the CRA (which I’m still mulling given the weekend), I will remain in the Ladera Ranch unit as long as it still meets pursuant to the bylaws.
“For your information, I was with another CRA member whom I know you respect who has been a member for over 10 years. This person confirmed to me these fake units and was glad this was finally being addressed.”
I have said, and will continue to say, that the endorsement and delegate selection processes need to be fixed. I would fully support a policy that places significant geographic restrictions on delegates. I also believe the CRA leadership (including Ms. Greig and all who have previously served in a leadership position) have fallen short of their obligations to insure the integrity of the processes. [I suspect it’s because both sides have benefitted from the loose processes in the past, but I can’t say for sure]. I have heard of the alleged Jeff Miller endorsement shenanigans (the CRA lost at least one very valuable conservative over that), yet we still have several Corona units in the CRA. Why didn’t Ms. Greig take care of them months ago? A pessimist would say it’s because she didn’t know she lost the delegate selection game until shortly before the election and disenfranchised a slew of delegates to make sure her side won.
My point has always been that you can’t change the rules so late in the game to win an election. These matters should have been taken care of long ago, or the process should have gone on as it always has. What is unconscionable to me is locking paid members out of a General Session, appointing the CRA’s attorney as a delegate, with voting rights, when I doubt he is even a CRA member, having any of the candidates on the Credentials Committee (explain how there’s no conflict of interest when the CC is deciding who gets to be seated while most of them are running on Ms. Greig’s slate? – to this date, no one has been able to justify that), selectively applying certain bylaws for some units and ignoring them for others, and all of the other shenanigans that went on.
If the election stands, I have already told Aaron Park I will hold all of the leaders accountable for cleaning up the mess they have created. I expect VPs and other leaders to actually monitor units to weed out the paper units. I expect some form of geographic delegate limits to be imposed. I expect that the meetings at the next convention will be public, as advertised.
I don’t think that’s much to ask for the so-called conscience of the Republican Party.