.
.
.
Baugh temporarily shifts the focus of his wrath from public employees to his own Central Committee members.
You’ll probably react the same way I did – that if you choose to be part of a Party whose philosophy is Authoritarian, then why so outraged when your leadership attempts to consolidate its power at your expense? But a lot of folks we know, who have risen into the ranks of the OC GOP Central Committee in recent years, and identify more or less with whatever the “Tea Party” is today, are understandably taking great exception to some bylaw changes being voted on tonight which appear aimed to marginalize their dissenting voices even further – in brief, preventing them from speaking to the press without Chairman Scott Baugh’s permission, and continuing to shield Baugh’s financial decisions from scrutiny and criticism.
This motley group of OC GOP “Tea Party” insurgents includes in its ranks our County’s most notorious and outspoken racists, gay-bashers and Islamophobes, side by side with nice Ron Paul Libertarian types as well as moderates like Wendy Leece who don’t totally subscribe to Scott Baugh’s all-out war on public employees. Basically, everyone that the Baugh cabal perceives as a threat to its ongoing unchallenged power.
The wretched Liberal OC blog (which, you should know, is still trying to destroy this blog financially in its unquenchable hatred of Pedroza – more on that soon) posted an article on these proposed bylaw changes which typically raises more questions than explanations, leading one smartass Baughpologist commenter to respond:
Where do you get your information? There is no such by-law amendment being considered. The entire package of proposed by-law amendments was sent out over 2 weeks ago to EVERY member of the central committee. I dare you to go through that package and find ANY proposed amendment that proposes a new rule which “would bar members of the GOP Central Committee from speaking with the press.”
Well, this blog DOES have a copy of the proposed bylaws, and rather than respond to “John Browntruck” at the LOC and bring that blog more traffic, we’ll look at the objectionable passages here.
Cracking Down on who gets to speak to the press (for the party)
“Browntruck” is right that no language specifically forbids members from speaking to the press. What the proposed by-laws do include is:
- Language providing censure or “reproval” for any member who “intentionally causes the embarrassment of the Central Committee and/or the Republican Party, or c) Represents his/her views as being those of the Central Committee when not authorized to do so.” (Article IV Membership, J. Discipline of Members)
- Language strengthening the ethics/removal and disciplinary sections, (Article IV Membership, K. Procedures for Removal and /or Discipline) making it easier to remove, discipline or censure an offending Member. Also, under the new bylaws the complaint must go through Chairman Baugh. (Previously, the wording was that charges would be brought by a majority of Members of the Central Committee.)
- Language specifying that Chairman Baugh will now serve as the “Chief Spokesperson of the Committee.” (Article VI Powers and Duties of Officers A. Chairman) It is observed that “this is brand new, and, combined with the strengthened disciplinary procedures is an obvious effort to muzzle any dissident voice.”
- In addition, later on (Article VII Committees) is a requirement that ALL public information from a standing or ad hoc committee MUST be approved by the Chairman. As one member protests, “For those of us who are elected by our constituents largely based on our reliable communication with them, this will have a horrific chilling effect.”
2. New Ploys to avoid Financial Transparency
Treasurer Mark Bucher, tireless resister of transparency.
Under Article VI Powers and Duties of Officers, E. Treasurer, the requirement for CPA review of the books has been eliminated, and a Bylaws committee recommendation to have the treasurer prepare financial practices and procedures that are available to the Members has been PULLED by the Executive Committee.
You should know that many members of the OC GOP have been, for six years now, fighting unsuccessfully to make the Party follow its by-laws and produce a CPA review of its books and accounts. As they explain on this site, they are simply “trying to clean house in our own party first, but until now the people have been ignored.”
The Treasurer of the OC GOP is bulldog attorney Mark Bucher, whose name just keeps popping up on the Orange Juice Blog, and hence now has his own category here. (And an epic article upcoming.) Known to the insurgents as “Scott Baugh’s water boy,” Treasurer Bucher has been dragging his feet on this review for six years, and now he and Baugh are pushing bylaw changes to postpone the review INDEFINITELY, leading folks of ALL political persuasions to wonder what they have to hide.
It should be noted that under Chairman Baugh’s predecessor Tom Fuentes, the OC GOP went above and beyond the bylaws and had an actual AUDIT of itself conducted every year.
3. Where’s the meeting tonight?
And that’s another thing! As a certain blonde shrew we won’t name rightly points out, “Over the years, I have seen a pattern where the regular meeting location is moved when there is a proposed controversial action. You’ll remember the same maneuver was implemented during the January re-oganizational meeting, when the ‘regular’ meeting location was moved to the Irvine Marriott. So, it is up to us to get the word out.”
And for all you members out there whose guilty pleasure is reading the Orange Juice: Tonight’s meeting (which is a regularly scheduled meeting) has been moved to the Costa Mesa Ayres Hotel, 325 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, instead of the Hyatt Regency Irvine. Action starts 7PM! Break a leg! And make it one of Scott’s or Mark’s.
Report from the meeting:
“We won a tactical victory tonight… Motion to postpone pulled items regarding Bylaw changes is successful 28 to 22. The Tea Party coalition prevailed tonight.”
Way to tone down the rhetoric Gabby Giffords! “Break a leg! And make it one of Scott’s or Mark’s.”
And maybe you like racists, but the ethics change and Chairman as the spokesperson seem to be a result of Marilyn Davenport posting a picture of a black guy superimposed on a monkey and then doing a media tour saying it was no big deal.
I don’t want that racist idiot saying she represents the Republican Party and if she does, I want a way to throw her out.
Our party was founded by opposing racism and I am glad the body is moving to get rid of idiots like Marilyn Davenport.
Howdy hypocrite!
I was never really one of those “tone down the rhetoric” people. Of course, I hope people realize that I don’t really wish any physical harm on Scott or Mark, I was just trying to twist an old cliche in a clever way. Trying to, at least.
No, I don’t like racists, such as old Marilyn or young Deb. That’s why it’s hard really to choose sides here. But my perception (as an outsider) is that Baughpologists (such as yourself) use incidents such as Chimpgate as an excuse to clamp down on other, more noble, free speech that discomfits them. And what does Davenport have to do with SIX YEARS AND COUNTING of avoiding financial accountability?
“posting a picture of a black guy superimposed on a monkey”…….. Hmmmmm
Perfect political satire, only moron mongoloids would dissected it into a racism.
With Matt “Jubal” Cunningham retired and Chip Hanlon sold the Red County Blog to congressman Ed Royce (who will soon rename it ED COUNTY) the only one GOP talks to is the OC Register, which as any sixth grade journalism student can attest, is failing miserably.
I was joking about the Ed County thing, but it sure looks like the Liberal OC over there with the dwindling readership/interaction: DEAD.
So, you’re NOT joking about DEAD County.
All I was doing here was trying to pick up the slack! I like watching groups like the OC GOP or the Tea Party, as a wry unbiased outsider.
But it begs the question: Where will the mindless go to read the local GOP news/scuttlebutt (sp)!
Why, that’s always what the REG was for, kenlaysnotdead!
Hey I forgot to tell you, I was looking for an apartment for Kenlay Jr. in Berkeley last week, took a side trip to the Russian River, where a couple of Hipsters were pounding keys on a Milton upright (circa 1921). ON THE BEACH.
1950’s Family Resort
Hell’s Angels
Hippies
1970’s Family Resort
GAY Resort
Dot-Com Retreat
A dribbling of each catagory was present making it the most ellectic group ever!
hmm, given how few posts there have been here this week, I’d say this blog is tanking too.
Truth be told, all three OC blogs look to be sucking this week. Is it the recession making people too depressed to read and bicker? Come on, people. Do not go gentle into that good night / Rage, rage against the dying of the light!
Vern,
I know that real facts do not matter to you when it comes to the OCGOP, but I will set the record straight in any event:
You are wrong about your claim that the proposed bylaws provided for censure or “reproval” for any member who “intentionally causes the embarrassment of the Central Committee and/or the Republican Party, or c) Represents his/her views as being those of the Central Committee when not authorized to do so.” (Article IV Membership, J. Discipline of Members) – in fact, those provisions are part of the existing bylaws. Apparently no one had any problems with them in the past, and they are not part of any proposed changes.
You are wrong that the proposed bylaw changes include wording making it easier to remove, discipline or censure an offending Member and that the complaint must go through Chairman Baugh, rather than charges being brought by a majority of Members of the Central Committee. In fact, the proposed changes simply add a provision where a member of the Central Committee can make a complaint against another member. And while the complaint must initially be filed with the Chairman, the Chairman must refer the complaint to the Executive Committee for action. A formal hearing still must be scheduled for the entire Central Committee, where the accused gets due process through an opportunity to appear and defend himself or herself, with a vote by the entire Central Committe, just as it has been under the prior bylaws.
You are correct that the proposed bylaw changes contain language specifying that the Chairman will serve as the “Chief Spokesperson of the Committee.” (Article VI Powers and Duties of Officers A. Chairman) However, your unaccredited quote has no basis in fact as Chairman Baugh and the head of the Bylaw Committee made it clear at the meeting that Scott never proposed a single bylaw change. If you have real proof, and not the unsupported and false (I say false, because there are no “strengthened disciplinary proceedings” in the proposed bylaw changes, as I explained above) musings of an unnamed Committee member, I will be happy to listen.
You engage in the classic “failure to provide all information” lie when you claim that “later on (Article VII Committees) is a requirement that ALL public information from a standing or ad hoc committee MUST be approved by the Chairman.” In fact, the proposed bylaw change requires public communications from any standing or ad hoc committee must be approved by the Chairman OR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. You must have an incorrect copy of the proposed bylaw changes as I’m sure you would have put the entire proposed change up there if you had the correct one. Your quote from one of the elected Committee members is puzzling since this proposed bylaw change only impacts statements from committees, but says nothing about them being able to communicate with their constituents about their positions on matters.
As for your claims about the proposed bylaw changes to the treasurer, I expected that would be one of the more controversial changes. I am fine with the bylaws remaining with a requirement for CPA review every two years. However, in your zeal to attack Mark, you conveniently ignore the fact that the proposed bylaw changes create a Financial Review Committee that will be required to prepare annual reports, even quicker than the existing bylaws. Accordingly, your claim that Scott and Mark are trying to postpone review of the financials indefinitely is patently false. I would definitely support a requirement that at least one CPA be a member of the Financial Review Committee to maintain the integrity of the reporting process.
As for the black helicopter gang fretting over the location of the meeting, I have no idea why it was moved. I do know that ample notice of the new meeting location went out to Central Committee members, and, apparently, the woman you referenced in your post Vern had ample time to rally the troops as there was a standing room only crowd on hand.
Let me reiterate, lest it get lost in the length of my post, Scott Baugh did not recommend any of the proposed bylaw amendments. Until someone has real proof otherwise, I suggest they leave their conspiracy theories and smears to Vern and the left.
A lot of words for a few quibbles there, Newbie. I should have been more clear that the “intentionally causes the embarrassment” etc. passage, while part of the bylaws, is not new – but that together with the new parts it does add up to a construction that many of your colleagues feel will make it much easier to remove or punish them for speaking their minds and questioning the leadership.
Of COURSE Baugh didn’t personally “recommend” these amendments to consolidate his power. A smart, skillful chairman wouldn’t do that. He has plenty of loyalists who are happy to.
Thanks for some other of your clarifications. I am mostly passing along the concerns of many of your fellow activist Republicans.
…And a majority of them were obviously concerned enough about these changes to at least postpone the vote on them.
I always like to get the record straight with facts, rather than unsupported speculation and outright lies, and I don’t care whether it is a conservative or a liberal saying it.
I would prefer to have the debate with the Committee members during the discussion of the bylaw changes, but when misinformation gets out there, I’ll take the time to correct it.
Misinformation gets out there because of people like Kenlay who has posted several doozies that are complete fabrications. Must be bored sitting in that office in Orange wondering which co-worker to shag next.
Talk about Mis-info, KLND has no connection to Orange. Thats why he stayed absent in the land fight issue, which he had no skin in the game.
Other than watching Mr. & Mrs. Whitehorse shill again.