The focus of controversy in the RPT State Convention has been and continues to be the Credentials Committee, with more challenges at any time since 1976 when the Reagan conservatives came into the party and asserted their right to participate. In spite of that record number of challenges, the committee did not convene until Wednesday while other substantive committees began on Monday.
The focus of the committee continued to be the egregious actions of Nueces County Party. The Credentials Committee chairman, Judge Diaz, offered his committee's report during the general session of the Convention on Thursday afternoon after the convention was called to order about 4pm. When members of the Credentials Committee presented a minority report to the chairman, seeking to bring the issue of the rump convention and the challenge regarding Nueces County Chairman to the full convention under RPT Rule 24, he decreed it not a valid minority report and thus the convention was not allowed to hear the issue.
The Permanent Credentials Committee, of which I was a member, asked the chairman for an explanation. He said that a minority report must be presented before the end of the committee meeting, which is not supported by the text of Rule 24. He also stated that it could not be valid because the report included the rump convention of Nueces County, which the Credentials Committee had no authority to address. How is it the Credentials Committee had no authority to even hear the case of the delegates who had determined that the original Nueces County Convention was illegal because of rules violations and thus held their own convention? It was, the chairman explained, because he had determined that the Credentials Committee had no "jurisdiction" to hear the case. The Credentials Committee had no jurisdiction to hear the case of a rump convention and determine if their reasons for doing so were legitimate?
The Chairman explained that he was "a gatekeeper" and he listened to the preliminary testimony of the rump convention delegates and determined that it should not be heard! His reasoning was the delegates of the rump convention had not notified each member of the original delegation that they were being challenged. This, indeed, is the rule for individual challenges, but in the 20 years of my experience in the party, this has never been the case for dealing with a rump convention. Such challenges are usually resolved by hearing the testimony of each group and then making a determination of which group should be seated, based on whether or not the original convention was illegal because of rules violations.
So the challengers were denied an opportunity to even present their case because of what can only be described as a technicality, while the delegation - which, by undisputed testimony, added 35 delegates to their roll illegally, denied the participations repeated requests for points of order and were given minutes of the precinct conventions to prove this only after forced to by the Thirteenth Court of Appeals - were all seated with the exception of the credentials committee chairman of the county convention. In fact, a former county chairman from Nueces County testified to the committee that the party had been operating in this manner for over 20 years.
For the first time in my experience in the RPT, a difference was articulated between a "contest" and a "challenge," which heretofore, in my experience, have been used interchangeably. This artful creation was also used to "resolve" many of these rules violations without the final dispostion being made by the delegates at the convention.
The "gatekeeper" made his final ruling in the Permanent Credentials Committee when he decreed that it was not possible for the permanent committee to address anything other than what the temporary committee had reported based on RPT Rule 34a. In other words, it was out of order to discuss Nueces County rump convention or the credentials of the Nueces County Chairman. Nor was it possible to have a minority report on those issues. A motion to appeal his ruling was offered, and the committee upheld the chairman by a vote of 18-12. In subsequent discussion it was pointed out that other subsections of Rule 34 gave the same direction to the Platform Committee and the Rules Committee, and the long time practice of those committees was not to limit the permanent committees only to the work of temporary committees. When the chairman was asked his opinion of whether those committees were likewise limited, he explained that he did not have an opinion on those committees, and it did not matter. It is the view of many members of the credentails committee that the chairman created interpretations of rules to accomplish what he and the Chairman of the RPT desired from the beginning.
This is more evidence, in my opinion, of the reason we need new RPT leadership.
Tim Lambert
President, THSC
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Subscribe via email
Blog Archive
-
►
2010
(16)
-
►
January
(12)
- Home School Hero at the Super Bowl
- The People's Republic of New York
- Who is the True Conservative?
- Health Care Reform Dead?
- The Ongoing Battle for Life
- Perry Says No to the Feds - Again!
- Game Changer?
- Then There Were Three
- Live Free or Die
- Miracle in Massachusetts?
- It Ain't Over Till It's Over
- Who Owns the Children?
-
►
January
(12)
Followers
13 comments:
Just wow. Thanks for taking the time to document this. I still can't believe that there are 35 people on the floor of our convention who did not vote in the primary, were not selected as at large delegates and were not selected as delegates at their precinct convention. And the leadership upholds this.
"grass roots" indeed.
Having read your post, and in full favor of the philosophical and practical rules based approach which you offer, and also not at all accepting the down and dirty tactics of the current leadership, I would like for you to distinguish the "rules-adherence" position for which you advocate with you complaint about the rule which Judge Diaz used to deny the challenges because they were not individual challenges. Shouldn't they have been, if it is a valid rule? And if the rule is valid and wasn't followed, does it even matter that we are in an overall position of "right". Shouldn't it make us do exactly what we want them to do: follow the rules and if we violate one then say to ourselves, "Well, there is a 'heads up' for next convention which won't bite us again because we will pay attention." Sure there is momentum, but technicalities are exactly that: technical aspects of the rules that exist for a reason. They violated technicalities in their eyes and want us to swallow the disparity. Can we expect less from ourselves?
Please clarify the distinction.
Please keep pushing this issue. You are on the side of history. Thank you for what you do.
To Stephen
Even though they are public records Bertuzzi refused access to precict convention records until way after the deadline for filing individual challenges. The records he did release pusuant to court order were altered and not in the form submitted by precict chairmen which he was obligated by the election code to preserve.
Is this a violation of criminal law? Since Bertuzzi is an attorney --an officer of the court sworn to uphold the law and obey state statutes such as the election code--can he be charged with violating bar association ethics code?
Jack
Also, if I'm correct - and let me know if I'm not - Diaz denied the rump convention, and refused to even listen to why they held a rump convention, on the basis that they did not notify individual delegates. The two things are not related.
Challenging delegates is one thing, where notification of those delegates is required. (Which goes to show that those precinct records ARE public - otherwise, how would you be able to challenge a delegate if you didn't know who they were?)
Holding a rump convention is a separate thing. Notifying each individual delegate is not required in that case. You are required to announce you are holding a rump convention, at the time you are leaving, which the Nueces County audio proves was done.
When two conventions are held, the credentials committee is supposed to hear BOTH sides and THEN determine which is the genuine convention and which delegation will be seated. The dear judge refused to even allow those sides to be heard. He threw the whole thing out based on a technicality which didn't even apply to rump conventions.
He only did the bidding of Benkiser the Brutal, who is taking her marching orders from who knows how far up the ranks of the GOP. He did not follow any sort of rules or provide any sort of truth or fairness to the situation.
brandynn,
Thanks for the distinction.
I sat in on the Permanent Credentials Committee meetting and I am astonished that the sham of a committee meeting occurred at the Republican Convention. The committee members were given no option by the chair except to accept the temporary roll without discussion!
Before the General Session was adjourned, we were told if we had additional platform planks we would like heard, we could present them to the Pemanent Platform Committee for consideration. This tells us 2 things: 1) points could be raised and considered from the gallery and 2) the Committee could consider new business. Neither was allowed in the Perm. Cred. Committee.
If a delegate from the gallery wanted to be heard, we had to write a note, give it to the Sargeant at Arms and ask it be given to a committee member. To clarify, that's what we came up with - not what was offered to us. The Chair specifically said it was out of order for a Perm. Committee to recognize a member of the gallery. If that is correct, how is it the Perm. Platform Committee could hear and consider new planks?
Even objection and discussion from the committee members was ruled out of order. Several of them wanted to discuss Bertuzzi and Nueces but were gavelled down and told they were out of order because the only business of the Committee was to recommend the permanent roll of the Convention. It is the Chair's contention that the only purpose for the Permanent Credentials Committee is to rubber-stamp the Temporary Roll without discussion. In fairness, he did say he would hear discussion, but could not imagine a question that would be in order!
Further, the 12 Committee Members who were interested in submitting a Minority Report were told that a Minority Report would be rejected if it contained any mention of Bertuzzi or Nueces (or any other challenge) since that was not the business of the Permanent Committee! It is noteworthy that he also had a Parlamentarian that twisted rules like pretzels to uphold whatever Diaz wanted to rule - and RULE is the correct word here.
The 18 members of this committee who went along to get along epitomize to me the problem with this Party. Obviously, there was a majority of delegates at this convention who were more interested in the party than the Party.
I would like to submit a motion that all such delegates be given VIP passes to the next convention so they may continue to feel important, attend the festivities and shop the trade show while being stripped of their voting rights so those of us more interested in Party business than dinner parties may attend to the business at hand. Do I hear a second?
I second that!
On the floor of the convention, I could not believe how many sat on their butts for nay votes because they just wanted to get "business" over with and go have fun, listening to them rumble about "just getting it over with". I came to work and do the work my county sent me to do, and represent the republicans of my county. I declare the convention majority LAZY!
I too was astonished by the activities involving the Nueces rump convention. This being my 4th state convention to attend I was disappointed in the lack of consideration given to objections to the credentials committee. It seemed that the temporary committee would not take up the issue because it was the responsibility of the permanent committee and the permanent committee would not take up the issue because the temp committee didn't take it up. And not even allowing the issue to come before the full convention was flat out wrong. Altogether it was a rather pathetic convention. The party seems incapable of admitting to the real problems and so I fear the November elections are going to be real ugly.
I believe this convention showed how irrelevant our state party has become. We have lost seats in the Leg. during the reign of Benkiser the Brutal; she usually keeps about half of the SREC disenfranchised and in the state of Texas right now, Harris County rules (Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, etc). Let's take what we learned back to our own districts and work to have victories in November. Let's reach out to the new people and work with them to redefine the Republican Party in Texas and be ready for 2010 in Dallas. Let's learn the rules, follow the rules and be ready defend the truth at all times. The Brutal is term limited, we'll be electing a new chairman in 2010...there's something to live for!
To All:
I wish to thank Mr. Lambert for working as hard as he did.
As someone who really had no idea who he was, my initial thought when I walked in to sit down and saw him at the seat of the Temporary Credentials member whom he replaced, I figured she had been tossed for being such a strong supporter of the rules and doing the right and just thing.
Mr. Lambert introduced himself to me and I asked what had happened to the previous delegate wherein he very graciously told me who he was and why he replaced that person. Once this was done, I was very happy to have him there and to have met him. Since then, upon returning home, I have spent a bit of time researching Mr. Lambert as I really did not know who he is.
For those reading this, understand that there were many who fought for the right and just thing. Even those whom did not seem to at first, when realizing the scope of what had happened, fought for the right and just thing and at the end, there were twelve of us- including Tim Lambert.
I wish that the outcome had been different and that the RPT would not have made such a foolhardy mistake in the way that they treated the challengers, contestants, and those appealing, but they have and will regret it in my opinion.
Respectfully,
Denny Church
SD27
Permanent Member Credentials Committee RPT Convention 2008
Mr. Church-
Thank you for your hard work as well. I know you were very frustrated with the Chair as we all were. I don't think I would have made it through one day on the committee myself. We appreciate your attempts at fairness.
It baffles me that Renee Diaz is a Republican Judge, but I guess that's a good insight as to the state of the Party in Texas. If he is representative of our "leaders" it's no wonder we have the legislation we do coming out of Austin and Washington.
Rest assured, we will see you in 2010 and look forward to standing with you on the side of right!
Judge Rene Diaz is the epitome of the Philadelphia lawyer with absolutely no scruples or conscience whatsoever. He was Benkiser's hatchet boy and he wielded his hatchet well as her boy for Chair of the Credentials Committee.
Portia
Post a Comment