20110920 Delegate allocation debate

This was held at Novell’s cafeteria in South Provo. There were only around 28 people there in the end. Either everyone is too busy to give time to debate and understanding this issue OR they have their positions and don’t feel the need to hear/learn anything more.
Discussing the 78 out of 687 delegates who are “automatic delegates” (11.3%)

@1907 Ivan Keller (who is hosting)
Welcome and Prayer then turns time to
Andrews Holmes moderator
Explanation of Format
Affirmative(change) and Negative(no change) side
7 minutes intro
Questions
3 minutes each side
1 minute rebuttal
Conclusion

Representing No Change to current system
Don Garlitz (Leg Chair 64)
Wendy Baggeley
Mike Terry (precinct officer in Lindon)

Representing Change to current system
Lisa Shepherd (national association of parliamentarians)
Dave Duncan

*Change opening
Tim Bridgewater video:
No automatic delegates because simplicity and transparency should rule the day. You should have the full faith of the neighborhood. If we do away with automatic we would not lose anything. The elected officials should be able to get elected in their own caucus on caucus night.

*Change: Dave Duncan
As you can see the signatures of Tim Bridgewater and Chaffetz and Stephenson are on the statement we handed out. “We recognize the hard work by many hard workers. They should all become delegate with the active party. We should not give them unelected powers.
We should not give privileges for those who are in power. To volunteer is to protect the rights of individuals and not to preserve power to those who are in power.
There are two sides. Are the automatic delegates allowed according to the rules. And we say that they are not.
But there is also the idea that they are not the right idea. In order to clarify the ambiguity they did something that was not right and did not make the change to the party Constitution. Then in 2006 they tried to make a rule and failed to get 2/3 at convention. The delegates don’t want it.
This letter addresses whether it is a good idea, if it were allowed.
*Change: Lisa
In this argument I speak with some experience. I have at least been a county delegate and I have been a candidate even. I understand from a different perspective this issue.
This is not a personal issue. We do not want certain people’s rights taken away and we don’t believe this is a minority issue. I believe that education is a key.

*No Change Opening
Mike Terry – Right off I think we can say that we agree on one thing and that is education. That is why the C&B committee came up with idea of this panel to raise the arguments on both sides and get the education out there to those who will make the decisions on this.
They first stated that we give power to unelected people. But you will see when you see who the automatic delegates are, they were elected. If not by the grassroots, then they were elected by those in the Central Committee of the Utah County Republican Party.
They question whether this is allowed by the party rules and we will show that they are.
Whether it is a good idea, then we can go back to the early 1990’s, prior to having automatic delegates things were not working well with the party and their elected representatives. The two sides were not working together and the Utah County was the red-headed step child.
We have heard from Gary Ashby, who was chair in the 1990s that once they made the change there was much more unity. There was also unity with the elected officials and Utah County was able to stand up against Salt Lake and Davis Counties. So we got our transportation needs met.
We look back to then and we see that many Democrats had offices in the Party. We are now one of the few counties that can say that the offices are held now by Republican party members.
To Lisa’s final point, the 2006 amendment that was not approved at the Convention. Clearly the failure of adopting does not mean the adoption of the opposite.

*No Change: Don G
As this debate has gone forward during the last couple of years, it seems that there is a faction of people that argue that our current practice is not allowed.
I am involved in the health care debate and this issue is not decided. This will go to an appellate court. There is more than one way to interpret the rules. Our current system is not just overlooking automatic delegates, the constitution does allow this current practice.
The notion that an elected representative needs to be elected by the most grassroots is one idea. If you look at the original Constitution you see that the Senate was elected by Representatives because it is a protection of states rights. This was not a bad idea then or now.

QUESTIONS:
What does the Utah Republican Party Constitution say on this?
*No Change: Wendy
I have looked in depth in to this issue. It is easy to see the same thing in two different lights. We are a group that decided the rules on the majority view point. I don’t think we need to wait until everyone is educated.
In Article 12 in Utah State Rep Party Section I paragraph A.
They make the argument that 100% of the delegates be elected at the precinct level. They say that if they are not elected at that level then it is illegitimate.
“The Count Party shall designate, based upon relative Republican strength … the number of delegates to be elected in each individual caucus meeting”
We follow the relative Republican Strength principle. There is a fair procedure that we set out. When I read this even to the 100th time, the County party can choose what the number of delegates can be.
Section II paragraph B
“The number of delegates…”

*Change: Dave
It does not say that 100% is what they say. But the Constitution does not give any other form of assigning delegates. In Robert’s on page 571 there is a principle of “the express mention of one is the exclusion of all else.” You don’t have to define it to detail.
If the Bylaws allow you to elect specific officers, then you may not just create a new office, like a Sergeant of Arms. All of the specific details go back to this point of reference 100%. You can replace if people become ineligible. You can also fill if there is “underfill” (a precinct not voting all of theirs).

*Change: Lisa
The specific outweighs the general. When I was on the committee I mentioned at C&B that they present a motion to confirm delegates. The committee voted this down because, “it won’t pass.”
Appointed people are not elected. Elected people are those who are voted for. There is no ballot. In Weber County they got rid of it and they now have more active participation. They eliminated a lot of problems.

*No Change
Article VII – A opens the door for appointment. Each County shall …. “including the selection of those party officers, delegates, and representatives…”
They have cited Robert’s Rules but State Article XIII states that Robert’s is for meetings not generality. If there is an ambiguity then the State Central committee would need to rule.
Lisa said that Weber County eliminated and liked it. Of the 7 counties Weber and Washington are the only ones that do not have automatic.

QUESTION
State the other side without using “but, however etc.”
*Change: Lisa
I used to hold this position. I was the elected secretary and deserved to be rewarded. I was an appointed leader and understand all of that. I could not get to my caucus.
*Change: Dave
I think that what motivates you is participating. I don’t think anybody needs an ill-gotten reward to success….I am confused about this question….
*Change: Lisa
An elected officials voice is an important voice to be heard. I am a very smart delegate and like a super delegate and know better.

*No Change: Don
Our state party documents prohibit this practice.
If the party document did allow this then we shouldn’t do this because all the representatives should be voted in at the grassroots level.

QUESTION:
Does the existence of the automatic delegate degrade the role of grassroots delegates?
*Change: Dave
Yes. I think that the root and the whole notion of a delegate is that people come together in a neighborhood and then those people get to be specialists on the candidates. Then the candidate can focus on a fewer number of delegates.
It helps to foster the grassroots delegates.
We don’t have a primary in many cases, so it keeps the process intact. If we continue to take away more voice from the grassroots, then we will further jeopardize the system.
*Change: Lisa
Local control is about how much more can you get than in the precinct. When you actually take our 81 state delegates that are not elected in their precinct that is abdicating control to other people.
Who can vote in your precinct? Those who are Republican and on record. How do we turn over that precinct caucus attendee to someone else.
In Provo 20 they may not want to hear from a couple of us. I believe that when you take the general public vote you are not informing them that they are electing a delegate to the party. Why do we give a position to another body?

*No Change: DonG
I was on the website today. Someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and not a 20% enemy. I did support Chaffetz and Bridgewater, but I think they are wrong on this issue.
It does not degrade the system to have some select others to represent you. That notion did not offend our founders principles when they said that the Senate should be voted for by Representatives.
*No Change: WendyB
In choosing candidates and nominees in our party. At one extreme is direct primary and it becomes a race of mass media and who can get the most popularity. The other extreme is the Party Bosses with a very small group of party leaders that decide who is on the ticket. We have a right in the middle position.
We don’t want to do 100% direct primary. We feel that our delegates help hold our representatives accountable. Why is it so bad to have 10% of the delegates who have been in the party for a long time, have experience and a perspective.
If I had a business I would get on my team those from a variety of perspectives. We are benefited with new delegates and also a county party chair and legislator who could help weed out some candidates.

*Change: Lisa
First of all in responding to elected officials they don’t want to come out and say what they really want. They might offend constituents and colleagues.
Why do we allow the one vote? Think about 2008 in the party. There were a number of races that did not go to a primary because of One vote. Because we allocate this to elected officials, that one person decided whether it would go to primary or not. I think we should allow the one vote to be a direct delegate.

QUESTION
Given we have the same goal to advance the platform, be specific on how this can advance this goal.

*No Change: Wendy
I lived in Salt Lake County for a while. It was interesting to me that up there they do not allow their precinct chairs to serve as delegates. When there was a candidate for office the structure was not there. The people would not run for the county party positions because they did not have a vote. Why would you spend so much time, working and spending time but would not get a vote. That goes contrary to human nature.
By having the Ex-Officio we are able to strengthen the party here. We have individuals who have an vested interest because they get to talk to the candidates.
The idea of Unity is important. You can alienate elected officials if they don’t get a voice in the principles and bylaws and who is going to run.

*Change: Lisa
In Bylaw 2 Precinct Chairs are not mentioned. The people can get elected if they show up and they want to be a delegate and they will get voted in. I know that from experience.
I am willing to abide by the current rules. I agreed with the other side until I saw the effects. I believe that the control has been taken.
What about the delegate that ran and lost by one vote. I want to ask them to see if they agree with the practice.
The standards that we hold others to we must hold to ourselves. Local control is the Republican principle.

*Change: Dave
Often you hear about Salt Lake county. I would like to point out that it is a matter of demographics. That is the difference that I see. I don’t believe that we need to give them ill gotten rewards. We ought to follow that process.
Any one who says they won’t do their job unless they get a vote is the wrong person. I want them to do it even if they don’t get the vote.

*No Change:
For the benefit of the party I have been involved in the Lindon precinct for a number of years. Our precinct has chosen to serve.
What has happened every year is that the delegate goes to the nominating conventions but not the organizing conventions. There were several hundred that did not show up.

QUESTION
Please describe for us the principles that drive your decision or side?

*Change: Dave
I believe that everyone is protected by the rules. I believe in the Rule of Law. That is important to me. If we think they are bad rules then we should not ignore them we should fix them.
I also think about, “what is good for the party.” I believe having the right people for the right reason is much better. Versus people that only do it based on the principle of power.
I think we need to clarify here when we talk about delegates we are not counting the precinct chair and vice chair. Those positions are delegated to the precinct. It may not be entirely proper that we bundle some of them together. We are not counting them
*Change: Lisa
Including what Dave has said, I ask, what gets people involved?
I want us to allow many more voices to be heard. The one party officer was precinct chair, leg officer and other positions and only retained one vote. Then the person became a committee member. There is a big map that designates where delegates are.
How did we re-allocate the extra seat to the person I am describing so that the two delegates could vote in convention. Re-allocating is a constant fluid method. It is not an easy method. I understand the application. You can not just create a seat.
These are peoples voting rights.

*No Change: DonG
3 things
1) If we have this notion of strong leadership from the precinct on up, then if we did not have the ability to grant delegate status to Leg leadership and others. I think many of the precinct leaders would likely be the ones who would run for the higher party leadership. That way the precinct would not get their people in.
2) The current practice we have keeps our elected officials tied more closely to the party so our caucus is more effective.
3) The incentives that drive people can not be ignored. As you get in to more leadership it creates the incentives to participate.
*No Change: Mike
The practical actuality is that when we hold our precinct caucuses, the Leg ordinarily are responsible to help hold the caucuses. They are totally tied up in running those. There is no way they can go to their own caucus and be considered there.
*No Change: Wendy
I was a leg officer in 56. We had 3 buildings and 36 precincts. The people we asked were not willing to help because they had to show up at their precincts. Possibly I could have popped my head in and asked them to give it to me. That was the one night that I could serve all the rest of those precincts.
Maybe it worked in Lisa’s district but that may not work in all districts.

*Change: Lisa
For 12 years I was able to make my meetings. I can train if the Leg leaders need help. It happened not only in my district but in others.
*Change: Dave
I was able to attend my own caucus as well. We have other officers who can attend.

QUESTION
Are all current delegates, that are Ex-Officio, are they all the same or can we do away with some?

*No Change: Mike
I am a member of C&B and we have proposed some amendments to the bylaws. Kristin has proposed 3 alternatives. Each would eliminate some, a little more or all. We do recognize that we can look at each different category and possibly eliminate some. For those of you who are Central Committee members we will be polling on this.
*No Change: DonG
There are in fact some delegates in the system right now that are not elected. In Leg 64 we have a Chair and Vice and Education Chair. We also have 2 members of our committee that are appointed by me. Maybe those delegate status could be toyed with. It would make it very difficult to recruit people who may not be elected delegates is not easy. Without the incentive. It is possible to maybe recruit from the delegates.
*No Change: Wendy
County Delegates only from Leg Chair. Otherwise the County Appointed leaders.

*Change: Lisa
Ratified is not elected. It is like Sunday.
Allow the people who are in the precinct to cast the ballot. I greatly respect the voice of the majority. We can make the decision then I would say past party leaders should lose their delegate status. They can return to their precinct.
Ratification is not election.
I think the elected officials should be able to show up at caucus.
We have officers that can help in the process and there are those who don’t want to vote but will participate.
*Change: Dave
Elected versus appointed is a question. There is a possibly to appoint replacements. It is not really a question of election or not. It is whether you follow the process.
In the case of under fill situations you can appoint. There are restrictions on that where they have to be in the same precinct. It is not about being elected or appointed.
Being elected to one thing doesn’t mean you should get this extra thing from somewhere else.
*Change: Lisa
There are 9 instances that we have violated.

*No Change: Don
I disagree with my friends on this issue. The notion that the Constitution requires election. I don’t believe that is what the language says. I was elected by members of the Central Committee according to the rules. The notion that I am illegitimate is false.

QUESTION:
How would you explain to a party volunteer how they have worked for all the hours and do not warrant a delegate slot?
Explain to a Leg chair specifically why they should lose a vote.

*Change: Lisa
While I was party secretary I was full time. I was not the secretary to have a voting position. It is so important that the service is supporting this organization. The voice of the precinct is up to them to make the decision.
I could walk up and ask for a delegate position by telling them that I spend hours for the party. I pick up signs, lists or talking with delegates. I want to allow the voters to have their decision.
Maybe they agree with me or they don’t. This is what allows your caucus to make the decision.
*Change: Dave
I would come back to the Constitution. There is a way to become a delegate. We should follow that process. I don’t think we should get something that we don’t deserve. I would never promise something that was not appropriate.
Although I am an automatic delegate now I would have given up my position if it had been given to precincts. The County party members are the most appointed. I am not doing this job because of the vote.

*No Change: DonG
Heidi is a precinct officer in the position that I live. We have 16 precincts in my leg district. Heidi may only get one of our positions. There is some probability that one of the people that goes back to the precinct may be taken back from a Chair.
*No Change: WendyB
If I heard the problem. I would encourage them to read the Constitution and Bylaws and we have a way to choose. The vast majority of our spots are based on relative Republican strength. Let’s go to work and get more people involved . This will get more people to come to our precinct. All of us can have a larger voice.
To what Dave said, if there is a delegate position that is not filled at caucus night, then it can be filled by the County. I think that should change.
That is one of the many issues that should be looked at.

*Change: Lisa
We were both leg leaders. Our precinct had our two voices. We were able to get two more spots in Provo 20. Those two spots came from Lehi or Eagle Mountain. We should give the votes to the highest strength.
*Change: Dave
In my analysis there was a precinct that had 11 delegates versus just 5.
Any provision that is contrary to state law or a specific provision in the Constitution is in violation.

CLOSING
*No Change: DonG
I appreciate the time and your attention. I just want to sum things up from our perspective. I believe our current practices are legitimate.
They are consistent with our current documents. and I believe they are effective. It is widely recognized that our Delegation is the most conservative and we are getting great results.
I kind of feel the way Mike said, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
The idea of representative is not a bad way to go. Our founders envisioned this. We ought to continue this practice.
*No Change: Wendy
One point was made about 2006 convention. According to those who didn’t like Ex-Officio say that is proof. There was not good education. THere was a lot of negative rhetoric at the meeting. When they are confused they tend to vote No. It does not mean the idea is bad.
I am so grateful for you being here to learn.
*No Change: Mike
The State Central Committee holds standing rule. 5 of 7 counties still provide for this.

*Change: Lisa
Direct representation. I believe that the correct body is the caucus. I understand and respect that we elect these people and we need them. As far as from a delegate position what happens when Bruce moves. There is no way that we can reallocate those positions. There is no way through our documents since we have 9 ways to conflict. We need to work this through. We lose representation because we have no way to allocate the chair.
*Change: Dave
The current system is that we are taking away delegates from precincts that need them. We think about 10% is not so bad. A lot of the most divisive issues are decided by 10%.
What happens when there is too much allocation in one districts. Some had 30% over allocated and 17% over allocated. We have a Constitution. Article 12 lays out allocation. Article 10 says Standing Rule is not a way to fix.

@2038 Ivan Keller
Thanks for coming. You are welcome to mingle until 9:00 pm if you wish. Thank you for coming.