James V. Lacy

Weekend’s CRA convention more than a little screwy

I happened to be in Tucson for a series of business meetings this last weekend, however, I noted with interest that California GOP activists Celeste Greig, Placer County’s Tom Hudson and Orange County trial lawyer Craig Alexander were all re-elected to their positions in that volunteer organization at its Sacramento convention, by about 40 votes each, after about 125 delegates were disqualified from voting by the credentials committee controlled by the trio.  I believe there are some legal issues hanging out there about disenfranchising all those delegates, almost 40% of the total submitted, but unfortunately none of it is good for the future credibility of a CRA endorsement.  Candidates beware!

6 Responses to “Weekend’s CRA convention more than a little screwy”

  1. james sills Says:

    Jim:

    State Senator Joel Anderson of San Diego county was among those
    delegates DENIED a vote at the CRA Convention (!) per eyewitness
    Sylvia Sullivan, longtime east SD county CRA leader. She wrote
    a column about convention events today at the “SDRostra” blog.

  2. Maria Says:

    Jim:

    Not only were members of CRA like State Senator Joel Anderon denied there right
    to vote as delegates which was truly an outrage but also the committee meetings
    such as bylaws, and credentials were CLOSED to CRA members. You had to have
    been on the right “team” to gain access. In all of my years with the CRA and
    even the California Republican Party if a person pays their registration fees
    whether they are a guest, associate or member have access to the various
    committee meetings. At this CRA convention many members paid the $68.00 fee
    and could not even get into the Saturday general session if the credentials
    committee had not approved of them first!

  3. Tom Hudson Says:

    Please make a reasonable effort to get your facts straight before posting misinformation on the Internet. You are not only embarrassing yourself, but also the Flash Report.

    In the first place, I was elected to the position of CRA Vice President, NOT re-elected to the position of Senate District Director for the First District. Anyone at the Convention could have told you that.

    Only 28 people who were submitted as delegates were not seated by the CRA Convention. Many of them were not registered for the Convention and were not even present. Well over 300 people attended. Where do you get 40%?

    Your false claim that 125 delegates were not seated appears to count alternates who cannot vote as well as delegates who were unsuccessfully challenged but then seated by the Convention itself (such as the delegations from the Santa Clarita Valley Republican Assembly and the Ladera Ranch Republican Assembly). Keep in mind that several units submitted their total membership as alternates, including people who had never planned to attend the Convention. Even counting alternates and unsuccessful challenges, the number is well below the 125 that you cited.

    Many of the people who were not seated as delegates admitted in public to violating the CRA Bylaws. Karen England, for example, admitted that she was still a member of the Placer County Republican Assembly when her name was submitted as a delegate for the Yolo County Republican Assembly. That may not matter to you, but in CRA, we call that voter fraud. When Karen was asked when and where the meeting was held to elect the Yolo delegates, she said “I don’t know. I was not there.” The CRA Convention had no choice under the CRA Bylaws not to seat her as a delegate.

    CRA does not condone voter fraud, deception, or corruption of the delegate selection process, even if those things do not bother you or the labor unions that pay for your slates.

    Tom Hudson, Chairman
    CRA Convention Rules Committee

  4. Aaron F Park Says:

    We had people in two units, non-republicans, others wih dues that had expired several years ago… and somehow people think everyone should have been seated!?

    Four Units – including the one that Senator Anderson was supposed to have represented were faxed in from John Bovee’s office and all in the same handwriting!?

    Somehow – we are evil for pointing that out, and evil for asking questions.

    As to Peggy Mew – the formerly all-powerful membership secretary, she tripped over section 10.07 of the CRA By-Laws when she refused and had team Restore tell people to not forward records.

    Had the records been sent and all the units been legit – they’d have been seated. however, the fact that they fought against “transparency” (there’s that word again) so had suggests there really was something to hide!

  5. Tom Hudson Says:

    One of the other comments (by Maria) complains that some of the committee meetings, such as Convention Rules and Credentials, were not open to the public and “You had to have been on the right ‘team’ to gain access.” This is very misleading.

    In the last 25 years, I can recall only three meetings of the CRA Convention Rules Committee that were open to non-committee members. Traditionally, the Convention Rules Committee meets prior to the Convention so that they can produce and photocopy the proposed rules ahead of time, in order for them to be distributed at the beginning of the Convention. Normally, the Credentials Committee does its job prior to the Convention as well. Since they are dealing with confidential membership information, they normally meet in private. I am not aware of ANY open and public Credentials Committee meetings in the last 25 years, but (unlike Rules) I have never been a member of that committee.

    It is also important to note that the Convention Rules Committee and Credentials Committee had members who were on both “teams” (i.e. supporting different slates of CRA candidates). The same is true of the Bylaws Committee. That Committee is significant because former CRA President Mike Spence, a non-member of that Committee who was a prominent supporter of Karen England (despite all the fraud), was a very active participant in the Bylaws Committee meeting as the author of two of the amendments that were under consideration.

    Finally, with regard to Senator Joel Anderson, it should be noted that he was never accused of fraud by anyone. He is an honorable man with a reputation for integrity. He would never encourage fraud or look the other way. The Credentials Committee indicated that there were technical problems with the credentials of the chartered Republican Assembly that he represented, and no evidence was ever presented to the Convention that the club complied with the CRA Bylaws. However, it seems obvious that those problems had nothing to do with Senator Anderson, who was busy in Sacramento fighting for conservative values, while his club was causing problems for him 500 miles away. Knowing Joel Anderson as I do, I am sure that he would have fixed whatever problems existed if he had known about them in time. (I did not know about those problems either, or I would have told him.)

    Tom Hudson, Chairman
    CRA Convention Rules Committee 2011

  6. James V. Lacy Says:

    Readers may want to know that the controversy of the 2011 CRA convention elections will be before a Sacramento Judge again on April 28 on an “Order to Show Cause” if CRA leaders violated its Bylaws regarding disqualifying delegates otherwise protected by a Temporary Restraining Order. If the Judge agrees with Mr. Hudson’s and Mr. Park’s statements above, that ought to end any legal action in this case on the TRO claims. But if the judge thinks Sylvia Sullivan’s version of the truth has credibility as stated in SD Rostra, cited above, the court will order a full evidentiary hearing to get to the truth itself. And word is even more bylaw violations during the cinventiin by the incumbent CRA leaders are going to be raised with the Judge. It is all a sad mess for CRA.