Delegate History

The following is from an email response I sent today regarding recurring confusion about how much leeway county parties have in allocating delegates. It is followed by the original message I responded to.

—–

This is an issue that came up (again) when I was running for Treasurer. I did quite a bit of research into it and came across the attached file that provides a fairly comprehensive history of how we arrived at today’s process, dating back to when such things were regulated by state law.

In summary, the state party adheres to the principle of letting each organization govern itself without dictating a “one size fits all” solution from on high. There was some disagreement regarding what the language meant, and this dispute was resolved by clarifying the language through a standing rule. The argument that the standing rule is void because it violates the constitution fails to acknowledge the purpose of a standing rule (or its role in this case), or the notion that there could be any ambiguity in the language (which the authors acknowledged as a possibility in Article XII, Section 9).

While the argument attempts to increase its credibility by citing “legal principle” and using some Latin, there is a rather glaring hole in the position. Without the effective parenthetical note in the commas, the sentence reads “The County Party shall designate… the number of delegates to be elected in each individual caucus meeting.” The method for making that designation was inserted into the middle of the sentence, which is “based upon the relative Republican strength of each precinct.”

If the presumption was that ALL delegates would be elected at caucus meetings, the language could have simply said “All delegates will be elected in each individual caucus meeting, and will be allocated among precincts based on relative Republican strength.” Instead, the method is left to each county party to decide. The only restriction is that, for those delegates that will be elected in the caucuses, they must be allocated in a specific way.

So, the legal principle cited does actually apply, but not in the way argued. It applies in that, for those delegates elected in the precincts, no other method may be used to allocate those delegates than by relative Republican strength. However, it still allows the central committee in each county to determine how best to assign delegates in their own county, and does not prohibit methods in addition to caucus elections.

United in Liberty,
Lynn

=====
And the original message I responded to:
—–
Article XII Section1.A (12.1.A) states: “The County Party shall
designate, based upon the relative Republican strength of each
precinct, the number of delegates to be elected in each individual
caucus meeting.”

The express mention of one thing excludes all others of that
class–the legal principle of “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius”.
Since that is the ONLY allocation of delegates specified in the state
party constitution, no other allocation would be appropriate.
There is a standing Rule, which “overrides” this. It came from the
SCC, as I understand it, which is mostly party-stablishment hacks. But
the fact is, a standing rule cannot overrule the constitution, so it
is utterly invalid.
Recognizing this, at the 2006 State Convention, party leadership tried
to pass an amendment that would gut article 12.1.A, and allow counties
to allocate delegates as they wish. It needed a 2/3 majority to pass.
It only got 40% (not even a simple majority–and that was with the
unconstitutional delegates included among those voting on it!).

Even though the amendment failed miserably, the state party leaders,
and our county party continued to ignore article 12, and not enforce
it on counties that violate it.
Our county C&B, which assign ex officio delegates, are in blatant
violation of article 12 of the state party constitution.
Article VII.A (7.A) of the state party constitution states “Any
provision of those documents that is contrary to state law or to a
specific provision of this Constitution is null and void.”

All of Utah County’s ex officio delegates (other than the precinct
chairs and vice chairs, who are allocated to the precincts, and
elected there) are thus unconstitutional delegates.

Since the process to address that failed, we need to follow the rules,
and get rid of them. The first step to that is education of the rules.
The second is probably getting people to believe that the so-called
justification “we can’t get people to work unless we grant them
unconstitutional delegate status” is a fallacy. I think that if we
return to being a party of principle, rather than a party of
protecting incumbents’ power, we will generate all kinds of
enthusiasm.

There are some principles in Robert’s that point out that the way we
combine the delgate status with precinct chair and vice chair is also
inappropriate. However, that is a little more subtle. I think it
should be the final effort of rectifying the current travesty, and
that we should fight this battle in increments. As was demonstrated
today, the CCC is not yet familiar enough with the issues to make the
right calls on all of this right now.

Deadlines – Another Perspective

The following is in response to a post by Holly on the Hill about the July UCRP Executive Committee meeting. I consider Holly a really good friend, but it was inevitable that we’d disagree on something eventually. She’s still the greatest! Check out her blog!!

---

As someone who argued against a deadline, a little more explanation on that and other matters seems in order.

DEADLINES
My position on the deadline issue comes down to two items:

First, neither the Executive Committee (EC) nor Steering Committee (SC) have been delegated the power to set filing deadlines for Legislative District caucuses. The Central Committee (CC), which is THE governing body, and from which all SC and EC power is delegated, has also not set a deadline. This is especially apparent when contrasted with the Constitution & Bylaws (C&B) and Audit committees. The EC doesn’t have the authority to set a deadline for that, either, and the CC has codified it as one week prior to the election (Bylaws 9.D.8.a & 9.E.7.a).

For us to assume the authority to set a deadline, no matter how good an idea we think it is, oversteps our bounds. I also haven’t found anywhere any language that speaks to it in general terms where we have the discretion to make decisions like that in Leg elections. Unlike Congress, we don’t even have a “commerce clause” through which we can justify all sorts of overreaching actions. Constitution Article III.C defines who the Leg officers are and how they are elected. Article IV.K.3 assigns to Leg Chairs the authority to preside at their Leg caucuses. Bylaw 7.B addresses when the Leg caucuses will be held.

Second, not finding any authority for the EC to set a deadline, any vote to have a deadline is automatically void. I’ll use a more clear example. What if the EC had decided that the Leg Officer positions are *so* important that we want to make sure that we have people who know what they are getting into and have some experience? So, the EC votes that only existing members of the CC could run for a Leg officer position, just like the C&B and Audit committees (as in Bylaws 9.D.8.c & 9.E.7.c)? There is a precedent to do that with the C&B and Audit committees, and neither the constitution nor bylaws prohibit or address it.

So, what prevents us from having such a vote? Nothing. We could have the vote, and we could tell the world “but that’s what we voted to do,” but the vote wouldn’t mean a thing… because of the fact that we don’t have the authority to lay a restriction on the Leg caucuses, either by limiting who can run, or when they can decide to run.

Obviously, if we voted to limit who could run, it would never fly and would be completely disregarded, even if the EC vote was unanimous… and rightly so. The fact that we held a vote wouldn’t change the fact that we have no authority to make such a restriction. Even if there is a precedent, a precedent with no authority does not justify or enable a subsequent act that also has no authority.

My position simply comes down to this… we’re overstepping our bounds if we set a filing deadline. To me, that’s a big deal. As soon as someone can show me where we’ve been granted the authority to set a deadline, I’m happy to change my position. If there’s even a vague, blanket “the EC shall direct the legislative district caucuses” or something similar, I could call it good. I’m not even necessarily opposed to the idea of having a deadline, but we can’t arbitrarily make that decision… the Central Committee hasn’t given us that power, and also hasn’t decided to establish one… yet.

DELEGATE INFORMATION PAMPHLET
As for the question of a “delegate information pamphlet,” my experience in the debate was quite different. While a couple members of the EC were concerned about any document that went out being an “official county party document,” the majority of the concerns centered around how to provide a truly fair and neutral assessment.

It is also important to note that this was one of at least five items considered that night. The purpose of that part of the meeting was to consider and address a variety of proposed changes to the Bylaws. One of these suggestions would modify the actual Bylaw change procedure, and would have added the language “Each proposal shall be prefaced with a descriptive summary, and followed by arguments in support of the proposal and arguments in opposition to the proposal.” It didn’t say who would write the arguments, or who would pick which arguments were presented.

As the discussion got rolling, I don’t recall anyone being against the principle of providing a pro and con format. As mentioned previously, the concern was how to provide one in a way that would be fair and impartial to both sides. If anything, there was a hypersensitivity to being fair.

I would expect that any group that was truly interested in “controlling the message” in an underhanded way would jump on the opportunity to present both sides of an argument. If you truly want to “control” a message, you not only tell your side, but the opponent’s side, too. More than anything else, I believe the reluctance to wield that kind of power, and the lack of checks on that power as proposed, is what sent the proposal back for more work.

As was mentioned in the meeting, we’re hoping this need will be met with forums on the new website that is in development. (Expect a calendar with EC meetings on it, too… yes, please come and listen in!) In any case, it’s not something that is so cut and dried that we can come up with a good, long-term solution as one item on an already full agenda. Especially when it’s the first time it comes up. The idea isn’t dead, it just needs a lot more work to be fair to all sides.

“TABLE” IN THE EC
One last point of clarification. The EC uses the word “table” incorrectly (though I don’t think this will ever change). In parliamentary terms, to table means “to remove from consideration indefinitely” (m-w.com). What the EC did with four of the five proposals was refer them back to the C&B committee for clarification or revision with the author to better meet the intent of the proposal. (The fifth was great as written and moved forward unanimously.)

In every case, the person that submitted the proposal was invited to give input on the discussion several times. As far as I could tell, in virtually every case the submitter acknowledged that the recommended revisions were good ideas, and the only “regret” (if you can call it that) was that the C&B committee didn’t go through the same process with the submitter before it came before the EC so as to iron out these sorts of details sooner. Not a single proposal was “tabled” in the sense that it was removed from consideration indefinitely. They’ll all be back, and better for the extra effort.

I’m looking forward to seeing a proposal that the Central Committee approve a filing deadline for Leg District Officer elections. I think I’d be in favor of it.

Lynn Taylor
UCRP Treasurer

From Russia With Love…

It’s interesting to see what comes out about the US from other parts of the world. While press reports often recirculate news from overseas that condemns the US in some form or another, that same press seems to overlook pertinent articles that point out the foolish policy decisions of a press-popular president when those policies are, in fact, foolish.

I know I’m a bit late posting this one (it came out over a month ago), but it’s still relevant… and well worth the read.

As posted in Russia’s Pravda, here is American capitalism gone with a whimper by Russian blogger Stanislav Mishin.

Consecration vs. Confiscation

“But it’s just living the law of consecration.” As our state and federal government lurches forward in an inexorable march towards more and more socialism, I have been increasingly confronted with the claim that socialism is simply the righteous way of living commonly referred to as the law of consecration. Such a claim demonstrates a misunderstanding of fundamental elements of the law of consecration, leading instead to its counterfeit which we could call the law of confiscation.

I will assume reader familiarity with the existence and general history of the law of consecration. I will provide references at the end for those who want to dig deeper into the history and doctrine. Understanding the differences between “the highest manifestation of gospel living” and “Satan’s counterfeit” is critical (D&C Student Manual, p. 421, 426). This is especially true in these trying economic times that encourage knee-jerk reactions to the sympathetic urge to “do something.”

While there are several glaring differences between consecration and confiscation, I will focus here on one essential difference: agency. In the April 1976 General Conference, President Marion G. Romney said:

“Free agency means the freedom and power to choose and act. Next to life itself, it is man’s most precious inheritance.

“Free agency was operative in the spirit world. The gospel plan, as there proposed and adopted, provided that men should enjoy agency in mortality. Satan, with a third of the hosts of heaven, fought it there and lost, but they did not give up their opposition to the principle.

“In the Garden of Eden, God endowed Adam and his posterity with free agency. Satan and his followers have, from then until now, sought directly and in every conceivable indirect manner to substitute the principle of force for the principle of free agency…

“I suggest we consider what has happened to our agency with respect to contributing to the means used by the bureaucracy in administering government welfare services.

“In order to obtain these means, one head of state is quoted as saying, “We’re going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have nots’ that need it so much.”

“The difference between having the means with which to administer welfare assistance taken from us and voluntarily contributing it out of our love of God and fellowman is the difference between freedom and slavery.”

Socialism, and its more aggressive twin, communism, necessarily removes agency to accomplish its purposes. It enslaves the laborer from whom the property is forcefully taken. It enslaves the recipient, who is given a dole in a way that too often encourages indolence. The fact that this occurs through legislation in a democratically elected republic makes no difference. To quote President Romney again, “Slavery entered into by one’s own choice is no less slavery than that imposed upon him by external force” (Romney, 1976).

Any claims that the Prophet Joseph Smith attempted to create a socialistic or even communistic system with the United Order demonstrates a lack of understanding of the operation and underlying principles of the law of consecration. Joseph Smith, after attending a presentation on socialism, declared he “did not believe the doctrine.” In the 1977 General Conference, President Romney also outlined six characteristics of the united order of which agency is just one. Every one of the six characteristics are notably absent in socialism. (See D&C Student Manual, p. 425)

The first great decision commonly known as the war in heaven was not a war of weapons, but of words. It was a conflict of ideas; of philosophies. The conflict, of course, did not end there. It continues today, and there is no guarantee that those who chose agency before will do so again. We were not fooled by counterfeit salvation, but it remains to be seen which of us will be fooled by counterfeit consecration and choose instead to embrace the law of confiscation.

SOURCES
Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Enrichment L-6

To Prepare a People, William O. Nelson, Ensign, Jan 1979

Church Welfare Services’ Basic Principles, President Marion G. Romney, Ensign, May 1976

The Purpose of Church Welfare Services, President Marion G. Romney, Ensign, May 1977

“Liberty & Tyranny” by Mark Levin

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark R. Levin

My review

rating: 5 of 5 stars
Mark Levin has crafted an outstanding summary of the heart of conservatism. Possibly the most striking approach is that he does not identify “liberals” as the antithesis of conservatives, but rather Statists. In doing so, he frames a poignant argument that provides a valuable yardstick to identifying Statists dressed in conservative clothing.

Far from simply being a summary of conservative principles, Mark Levin draws from today’s national scene and compares and contrasts Conservative and Statist approaches, and looks at the hard facts of the results of each school of thought. Liberty & Tyranny proves to be a concise resource for facts and figures that illustrate how the two schools of thought function in the real world.

The only thing the books seems to be lacking is a definitive guide on how to effectively articulate the argument against the Statist agenda, and a well-described game plan for deconstructing the Statist machine that has been assembled over the past 100 years. However, this is hardly a deficiency on the part of the author. Mark Levin himself admits in the book that such a guide would be impractical to include in a book, especially in today’s dynamic information environment. Still, he closes his book by charting a course, and by providing a list of ways to get started. The rest is up to us. As Mark Levin says at the end of Liberty & Tyranny: “We Conservatives need to get busy.”

View all my reviews.

Central Committee Meeting – 23 May 09

There will be a Utah County GOP Central Committee meeting on Saturday, 23 May 2009. Details to follow as they develop. Expect to see updates on the Utah County GOP website.

Utah Young Republicans

Congratulations to the new leadership of the Utah Young Republicans. Today was the organizing convention where they voted on officers and delegates. There were also great presentations from the two groups that are vying for the national chairmanship. The national leadership will be decided at the 2009 Young Republican National Convention in Indianapolis, Indiana July 8-12.

The new leadership is:
Chair – Brian Chapman
Co-Chair – Nathan Rathbun
Secretary – Jennifer Baldwin
Treasurer – Gary Taylor
National Committeeman – Land Reay
National Committeewoman – Katrina Gubler

The delegates consist of the entire leadership, plus the following people:
Austin Smith
Keith Kuder
Bryan Thomas
Les Martin
Lynn Taylor

The two teams that are competing for leadership of the national organization are:
- Team Renewal led by Audra Shay
- Team Next Level led by Rachel Hoff

---

---

Thank you to the Utah County Association of Realtors for making their building available for this meeting.

Chaffetz – No Transportation Earmarks

Deseret News – Chaffetz says he has way around earmarks for roads – by Lee Davidson

News about our Congressman (well, most of us in Utah County). Instead of being earmarked, transportation funding will be given to UDOT as a block grant for use in the 3rd District. That will increase transparency, efficiency, and completion speed, as well as decrease the “politics” of it all. We need more people in Congress like this!

Thank You!

First and foremost I need to thank my wonderful wife, Donna, and our four excellent boys for their support, encouragement and patience throughout the campaign. A great deal of thanks goes out to my “campaign team,” Holly Richardson and DeLaina Tonks. Their endless energy and wise insights were invaluable in so many ways. Another big “Thank You” to Representative Craig Frank, who asked that I consider running for Treasurer and championed me all the way; to Deidre Henderson, who freely gave me advice and suggestions in my campaign; to Congressman Jason Chaffetz and the Independence Caucus for believing in me enough to say so to the world; and to Ben Smith and Corey Norman for their willingness and desire to serve, and for running great, clean, honorable campaigns. I hope to have the chance to work with both of them in the future.

I am also deeply grateful to all of the delegates who participated in this important process at this pivotal time in our county and our nation. The fact that over two thirds of all delegates attended the convention in an “off” year is wonderful! I really appreciated getting to know so many delegates, all of whom were engaged and seriously interested in picking the best candidate for each office. That was probably the most rewarding part of the entire campaign. Finally, I am eternally grateful to the Founding Fathers and the Source of their inspiration for this miracle that is America.

I look forward to serving you as the Utah County Republican Party Treasurer.

Convention Wrap-Up

Thank you so much to everyone who participated in the Utah County Republican Party Organizing Convention. I heard that delegate attendance was almost double what it was two years ago, with 847 attendees. That’s 69% of all delegates! I am really excited about the new leadership team and look forward to all of the innovative changes that are coming.

There have been a few news articles I’m aware of:
Deseret News – Utah County GOP Chooses New Leadership
Daily Herald – GOP Convention Swells of Attendees
Salt Lake Tribune – Utah County GOP Picks Realty Exec as New Chief
Salt Lake Tribune – Utah County Republicans Reject ‘Satanic’ Resolution

Election Results
Chair
Taylor Oldroyd – 440 (53%)
Steve Diamond – 391 (47%)

Vice Chair
Mark Cluff – 415 (51%)
Lowell Nelson – 405 (49%)

Secretarty
Lisa Shepherd – 484 (59%)
Matt Thompson – 307 (37%)
Keith Kuder – 32 (4%)

Treasurer
Lynn Taylor – 592 (71%)
Ben Smith – 236 (29%)