Clarification of the Facts – December CC Meeting is Valid

At last Thursday’s UCRP Executive Committee meeting, 10  members (all ex officio state delegates) voted to recommend invalidating and overturning the Central Committee’s recent vote to allocate all state delegates to the precincts that earned them.  Following is an excellent email sent to Central Committee members by Kristen Chevrier, Constitution and Bylaws Vice Chair, refuting the assertions of those automatic delegates who are struggling to retain their automatic status:

Dear Central Committee Member,

Thank you for your service to the party. I hope you will attend the Central Committee meeting this Saturday, January 28, at Dixon Middle School, from 9 am to noon.*
I would like to clarify a few things in regard to this meeting.

First, there is not supposed to be any bylaw discussion. Accordingly, the Constitution and Bylaws Committee is not introducing any business. The main focus of Saturday’s meeting is training and elections. Let’s stay focused.

Second, some inaccurate assertions have been made in regard to the December 10th meeting. As a former and current member of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, one of the drafters of the two B114 proposals, and one of the petitioners for the December 10thmeeting, I would like to respond.

Assertion #1: The Bylaw 1 (B114A) change was rushed through.

Fact: The Constitution and Bylaws Committee has been actively working through this issue for over 2 ½ years.

  • We hosted two panel discussions: one on 1/30/10 and another on 9/20/11. Both were advertised by email to all Central Committee members.
  • We have done a survey of the Central Committee.
  • Multiple members of the CBC have written proposals.
  • These proposals have been discussed extensively in our committee.
  • The issue has been a main focus of the CBC and the CC for several years.
  • The proposals we finally introduced gave the Central Committee full latitude to go incrementally from no ex officio state delegates at all to preserving the status quo.
  • The issue was discussed extensively at the November 17th meeting, where we had ballots in-hand when the clock ran out.

After all of this, the CC voted, at the December 10th meeting, to retain NO ex officio state delegates.

Assertion #2: Notice was insufficient. An old list was used.

Fact: The notice for the December 10th meeting was more extensive than for any previous meeting. One observer noted, with a smile, that it was “over-zealous.” Attendance was the second highest ever.

  • The list used was the most current official list.
  • Postcards are a courtesy, not a requirement, but they were still sent to all 548 members on the list.
  • Emails were sent to everyone who supplied an email address.
  • Those who did not supply email addresses were called individually and either spoken with directly or detailed messages were left.
  • If emails bounced, either correct email addresses were found or the members were called.
  • Detailed records of those calls were kept.
  • The EC members who claimed not to have received notice meant, as they later clarified, that they had not seen the postcard, but they had received emails.
  • The VC who did not receive notice was Barbara Petty’s new LDVC, whose name had not been given to those compiling the list. Barbara failed to make the correction, even after being asked twice by Cory Maloy to update her LD list.

Assertion #3: Bylaw change B114A violates RNC rules.

Fact: A majority of the members of the County Constitution and Bylaws Committee, members of the State Constitution and Bylaws Committee and multiple parliamentarians say that RNC Rule 15 (c) (12) does not apply to this bylaw change.

Assertion #4: The Central Committee can invalidate any meeting it wishes to invalidate at any time.

Fact: The Central Committees does not have the authority to invalidate a meeting.

  • A point of order is only in order if it is timely. Forty days after the meeting in question is not “timely.”
  • There is a provision in our bylaws for challenging decisions made in a given meeting, within 7 days of the meeting. That deadline has passed. (UCRP Bylaw 8, A,1)
  • Changing a bylaw already adopted by the governing body requires a bylaw amendment proposal, which would go through the process precribed in the bylaws. (UCRP Bylaws, Article 1, C)
  • Correct procedures should be followed.

The delegate allocation issue has finally been voted on, after years of argument and delay. It is time to put this fight behind us and move on so that our party can make a difference in the larger scheme of things.

Thank you, so much, for serving on the Central Committee. We need you to come and represent your precincts, be trained and VOTE for new Legislative District Officers. Let’s work together to make this the best caucus/convention season yet!

See you Saturday.

Kristen Chevrier
Legislative District 27

Central Committee Meeting details:

Saturday, January 28, 2012
Dixon Middle School (NE Entrance)
750 West 200 North, Provo
9:00 a.m. to Noon
Credentialing opens at 8:30 a.m.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Republican Party. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s