My Republican Party

Being a Republican means you believe that the American Dream is still possible. A Republican supports creating a system that embraces the risk-taking entrepreneur and the fair and responsible use of land to build wealth.

Hard work and innovation is the path to return America to greatness. But Republicans believe government is too big, too expensive, and too intrusive into the lives of hard-working families and small business owners.

Republicans believe we need new taxpayers and not new taxes. We are Taxed Enough Already.

Raising taxes is a bad idea, especially in a time of economic uncertainty. The bail-outs and bloated spending bills must stop. The growth of government and the debt and deficit of this nation is unacceptable and unsustainable. Our future financial stability is at stake.

Confidence in the ability of government to rein in spending has been shattered these past three years and for the first time, the rising generation may not enjoy a higher quality of life than before. Confidence must be restored by returning to proven principles of fiscal discipline, individual responsibility, moral courage, government accountability, and the safety of our people through military strength.

Another reason the American people have no confidence in our national leaders right now is because they seem unwilling to acknowledge and appreciate the value of taking risk to build a prosperous future. Our Founding Fathers took enormous risk to overcome tyranny. They recognized then, and hard-working Americans know now, that risk is vital in creating jobs. Republicans believe government should get out of the way of risk-taking entrepreneurs and allow the spirit that built this nation to thrive.

As an idea takes hold and the product or service goes to market, jobs will be created and confidence restored. But this is not possible when regulation, fear of increased taxes and fees, and potential litigation is looming over head. Government must stop punishing risk and instead encourage it with lower fees and reduced regulatory burdens.

Once the spirit of innovation is unleashed, our economy will recover and a rising tide will lift all boats. That was a favorite saying of former President Ronald Reagan; who also talked about America as a light on the hill. The American Dream will be possible once again but only through recognizing and encouraging working Americans to once again take risk to build a prosperous future.

Being a Republican also means that you respect the land and recognize that much of our wealth, both individually and as a nation, comes from the land. Agriculture, energy, and textiles are a few vital aspects of everyday life that requires responsible but unfettered access to land. Republicans believe that government must also get out of the way of our growers, producers, and energy developers. In addition, States should have the right to use their land to support education and build wealth and a prosperous economy.

The growth of the debt and deficit of this nation is only rivaled perhaps by the growth of regulatory red tape that acts as another hurdle for businesses and families. Few places have this burden been more apparent than on managing our lands. Republicans want to rein in the liberal environmental extremism and legal system that punishes those that responsibly use the land to grow and feed the world. Local ranchers and County Commissioners know and love these lands more than Federal bureaucrats and Hollywood liberals. Green is not the new gold and government should recognize that America’s producers and growers deserve to operate free from burdensome regulations.

America will be great again when we support the fair and responsible use of land to build wealth and create a system that embraces the risk-taking entrepreneur. Confidence will be restored when government supports a robust private-sector where innovation and competition will lead to generations of prosperity.

A republic if you can keep it

We need to increase our perspective and appreciation of the Constitution through study, meditation, and experience so we can take needed steps to help defend the divinely inspired Constitution and protect the family.

Without a declaration of Independence and the establishment of this great nation, the world is without hope, liberty, and freedom. America is freedom's strongest advocate but I am concerned that we are asking too much of our government because maybe we have forgotten what form of government we have and the tremendous sacrifices made to achieve it.

The Second Continental Congress met in May of 1775. Debate continued even after the Declaration of Independence was accepted in July of 1776 and continued for another year when Congress sent for ratification of the Articles of Confederation; it took four years to be ratified by all states. The Articles of Confederation however had some weaknesses so debate continued into the 1780s.

Then on a day in 1787, 56 delegates walked into Independence Hall in Philly as visionary risk takers and walked out forever to go down in history as patriots; citizen statesmen who sacrificed much and demonstrated wisdom beyond this mortal life.

As they exited from their grueling experience, an aging Ben Franklin was asked by Mrs Powell, "Well Doctor, do we have a republic or a monarchy?" His reply is worthy of telling over and over again. "A republic if you can keep it."

A republic was the goal because it is the form of government where the power rests with the people. It seems almost academic now as nations across the globe seek freedom but at this early stage in our history, this was a bold and risky goal.

The answer of why a republic is worth fighting for is a personal one but a big reason for me is without our involvement, government will continue to grow and a government big enough to do everything for us is big enough to take everything from us. I am deeply concerned with the direction we are headed as a nation. I believe we are in need once again of citizen statesmen willing to acknowledge the divine and willing to make the hard decisions to preserve our liberty.

When the founding fathers appeared at loggerheads over perceived critical issues, they turned to their maker for inspiration. Their prayer was simple and it worked.

So because I believe the foundation of this nation was divinely inspired, then I believe that our role today is to fight to preserve the republic.

How we keep a republic is not rocket science but it takes action. How we maintain a republic starts with voting. I'm afraid the apathy and complacency of the public is the biggest threat to a republic. With our financial and moral future at stake, there is no room today for the cynic sitting on the sidelines. It pains me to read the voter stats from our community; they're not high enough. We need to be willing to engage, kick the tires, and make things happen; even if we are criticized along the way.

One of my political heroes Ezra Taft Benson quoted another political giant, Thomas Jefferson, in his book An Enemy Hath Done This, when he encouraged participation: "He who fears criticism is hopeless. Only those who do things are criticized. To hesitate for fear of criticism is cowardly."

The Constitution is worth fighting for; we should never take for grated its great principles: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, the principles of the rule of law.

Don't let others action disenfranchise you from the process. Because the system only works if we stay involved. Daniel Webster wrote, "I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe...our destruction, should it come at all, will be from the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence." he continued, "I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct..."

There are many ways to be involved...and to teach our children that they must become educated and involved. Harvard recently published a study that says families attending July 4 celebrations boosts their voter turnout and increases their political contributions later in life. It is unacceptable to attend July 4 celebrations but stay home on election day. Anyone that places more energy into preparing for the July 4 BBQ than researching political candidates and issues is missing both the spirit and the letter of the law of what it means to live in a republic.

Each of us must commit to never miss voting on election day. Commit to research the issues and the candidates. Commit to participating in the process of public policy because this process can and has taken away some freedoms. And lastly, live a moral life because James Madison said that, "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

We live in a republic, if we can keep it. Only through our actions and contributions do we contribute to keeping it and defending the constitution and protecting the family.

More thoughts on SCC Amendment B

Dear delegates,

Much of the information you have received about the State Central Committee (SCC) Amendment B has been a blatant mischaracterization of the proposal. Here are the facts:

We are all on the same Republican team, both the SCC and State Delegates. Our goals are to get Republicans elected and promote the principles in our platform.

The SCC is made up of representatives of County Parties around the state and it gives you the County Delegates representation at the state level. This maximizes your influence in state Republican Party politics.

SCC members meet once a quarter, while conventions only happen once a year.

The SCC already approves any constitution changes that the Convention hears in advance of the Convention.

There are three principles at work with the SCC Amendment B proposal:

1. You must be able to reconcile constitution changes with existing constitution provisions. Many times, there are amendments and substitutions during a convention. It is difficult to wait for a full year until the next convention to reconcile any conflicts in the constitution that arise.

2. Much as our federal government and state government constitutions are difficult to change, so should our party constitution. An additional group of eyes looking at the product of the Convention can be helpful.

3. As a County Delegate, you should want the SCC involved in as much decision making as possible because they are your representatives in state party governance. This proposal is a way to preserve the independence of county parties against hasty and irreversible changes that many times affect our county party governance.

This proposal was recommended unanimously by the State Constitution and Bylaws Committee and was advanced for Convention consideration by a 2/3 vote of the SCC in December. Remember that this proposal has to be approved by the Convention delegates. If they think there is a higher principle at work, then they will reject the proposal.

Remember what I suggested at the beginning. We are all on the same Republican team. There is no desire on the part of SCC members to override the will of the delegates, in spite of the mean spirited accusations by opponents of this proposal. The SCC members understood perfectly well that State Delegates will decide if they like this proposal or not. Only as we work together as a Party will we continue to get Republicans elected and promote the principles in our platform.

Proposals considered first at convention are final. I like having the SCC vet and approve them, essentially strengthening them and also catching other possible unseen problems. Why fear an added set of eyes on any good ideas?

Thoughts on Amendment B

I have been questioned about my views about a proposal previously considered at SCC. Here is the proposal: “The Constitution may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the members at a State Central Committee meeting if subsequently ratified by a majority vote of the Delegates present at the State Convention. This Constitution may also be amended by 2/3 vote of Delegates present at the State Convention, if subsequently ratified by a majority vote of the State Central Committee.” (Utah Republican Party Constitution, Article X.B)

I support a few concepts with this and am interested in further and more robust discussion about this proposal. I recall the author said he was introducing it for discussion purposes and I think many voted for it to keep the discussion alive. I welcome the discussion and think this idea has merit but is not perfect by any means...in fact I hear that it may not come up in June (the author is reconsidering, I guess from feedback he's received).

At any rate, I think that we need to make it difficult to amend our party governing documents. I have seen too much time spent (wasted) in crazy ideas that really don’t build for a stronger party. I like the concept that if it's not broken then don’t fix it. Some like the constant tampering and fiddling. I don’t think it is productive.

This change will make it more difficult to amend the Constitution than the Bylaws “It formerly was common practice to divide the basic rules of an organization into two documents, in order that one of them--the constitution--might be made more difficult to amend than the other, to which the name bylaws was applied. In such a case, the constitution would generally contain the most essential provisions…” (Roberts Rules, pages 13-14).

One other key point is this in NOT a power grab because the SCC already has the ability to prevent a convention from amending the constitution. Under the Bylaws, the C/B Committee decides whether proposed constitutional amendments go to the convention or to the SCC. The controversial amendments are going first to the SCC, which has more time to deliberate on them and make improvements, before they go to the convention. (Bylaws 7.5.H)

Proposals considered first at convention are final. I like having the SCC vet and approve them, essentially strengthening them and also catching other possible unseen problems (like what happened in 2006 when a long amendment was adopted on the first reading and now many wish they had read it closer).

Why fear an added set of eyes on a good idea?

Thoughts on Convention & Future of GOP

The 2011 Organizing Convention is fast approaching. Now is when delegates start taking a deeper look at the candidates for party officers and the State Central Committee.

As the out-going Chair, I have a unique perspective on issues and many of these candidates. I hope you will read this post so you will be better informed about why I am running for the SCC and feel free to call me to hear how I stand on the candidates. My other recent posts will give you a chance to understand where I stand on other topics.

The Republican Party is the best vehicle to ensure that America remain morally strong and economically prosperous. I have been involved in the GOP since 1991 and believe that through active participation we can protect our Liberty. I got involved in the GOP because our principles are the path to prosperity and strength. When interviewing other candidates, make sure you ask them why they are involved because these past two years I have seen many that don’t share this view. I am concerned with the attitude that is causing the Party to be angry and full of infighting.

We have great days ahead of us but this path is not sure and vision and vigilance is required.

I have been a fighter for conservative principles all my life. I don’t back down from advocating for adherence to Constitutional principles and protection of the family. But not all share these ideals and so I will fight everyday to ensure a brighter future for our children.

That is why I want to continue to serve as a member of the SCC. Thank you for your consideration. If any want to learn more please call me directly 801-404-8635. I also have relevant insight into all the races that I am happy to share so call anytime.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve as chair these past two years and I appreciate all you do.

Taylor Oldroyd

Responsibility of SCC:

The SCC is similar to our county central committee and members need to be prepared to advocate for our platform. I take this responsibility very serious and that is why I have attended the meetings and never passed up an opportunity to protect the process and our platform.

One of my heroes is Ezra Taft Benson and he said we should never be afraid to advocate for conservative principles because of fear of criticism. I agree.

IRV:

I do not support IRV as a general rule. I trust a system that allows for educating the delegates and an IRV limits the ability to learn in-between rounds of voting. It is possible with an IRV method that the person with an extreme voice can get elected without a majority. For example, with four candidates running and three strong candidates and one extreme candidate that the three cancel out each other and the one without the majority support can win by default.

Ex-officio delegates:

I strongly believe that when we elect our Representatives that we ask them to perform a variety of functions and one of these is to be a delegate. Most Ex-officio delegates hold much institutional knowledge and it would be a disservice to the party to widen the gap of accountability. In fact, we need to close the gap not widen it. We can’t do that by driving a wedge between the grassroots and the officials.

The argument is a veiled attempt to force a wedge between our elected officials and party members and the result will be a weaker party and eventually elected Democrats. If you don’t believe me then look at the history of Salt Lake County; they have been through this and the proof is clear.

Challenges of the GOP:

I believe the greatest threat to the GOP and this nation is the apathy and complacency of the people. I am also worried that we are turning into a party of “angry” individuals instead of maintaining our core strength as united conservatives with a clear message for prosperity and moral strength.

We are strong when we stand together and our voices must be heard to make a difference. But analyze the significant challenges I faced during my term and you can see a real and growing threat to our party.

Rather than use proven processes accepted in Robert Rules and common sense, some try to sue and complain their way into power. They would rather personally attack others leading to their disenfranchisement and inactivity so that their voice is louder, than articulate a vision. I see this tactic used by enemies of conservative principles. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush talk about this all day so you don’t need to hear it from me but our values are under attack at home and abroad and we must vigilantly defend the process of rules and laws.

That is why I reject the law suit and those defending this approach.

It has been partnership and cooperation that has forged this nation and the freedoms we enjoy. Utah has become strong this way and the US will once again return to greatness through partnership and articulating our vision and not through fighting and other militant self-righteous tactics.

Obama's Red Tape

I am glad to have come across an article titled, Red Tape Rising in the Jan 22nd The Economist...not because it is good news, because it certainly isn’t, but because now I have more information to fight in support of business and economic prosperity.

I don’t know why reading about the rise in red tape struck me so sharply but the realization of what we now face has stirred me to even further advocacy for a return to conservative principles and rejection of the slide towards socialism. This is the cause of our day.

The article begins with a summary of the future we face, "Ever since his thumping in the mid-term elections, Barak Obama has been busily mending relations with business folk. He has extended existing tax cuts, introduced new ones, completed a free-trade deal and appointed a banker as chief of staff. Now he is attending to their biggest grievance: that he has enmeshed them in stifling new rules, form health care and finance to oil-drilling and greenhouse gases."

"In his first two years in office the federal government issues 132 "economically significant" rules, according to Susan Dudley of George Washington University. ("Economically significant" means that either the rule's costs, or its benefits, exceed $100 Million a year.) That is about 40% more than the annual rate under both George Bush junior and Bill Clinton. Many rules associated with the newly passed health-care and financial-reform laws are still to come."

I personally reject the recent moderation in his actions and speeches; after all, if it wasn’t for his failed policies in the first place, we wouldn’t be in such dire straights. Frankly, the only reason he has moderated at all is because even Obama can't ignore the hard reality since the dramatic mid-term election results. But his conversion is a bit to convenient for me; I don’t trust his new found pro-business posturing.

He talks big on one hand while stepping up enforcement on the other. The article states, "Existing rules are also being enforced more keenly. The workplace-safety regulators slapped employers with 167% more violations in Obama's first year than in Bush's last, according to OMB Watch, a liberal watchdog. The FDA has stepped up scrutiny of drugs already approved. The regulatory workforce has grown 16% in Obama's first two years to 276,429, while private employment has fallen." What this means is with federal regulatory jobs have grown to over 20% of the total percent of federal employment; the number of employers has dwindled.

Despite the fact that some businesses concede that some new regulations were needed, the pattern of systematic attack on the job creators means that America will be facing growing debt, deficit, higher fees, increased regulations, shrinking margins, and added risks all while fighting porous borders, pandering to foreign nations, and continued deficit spending. Sounds like the rise in Obama's red tape is further evidence that we need to continue changing the names on the doors on Capitol Hill and on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Is it OK to sue the Party?

I approach my volunteer service in the Republican Party with the optimistic notion that everyone is trying their best. I appreciate anyone who volunteers their time to make the world a better place. While each of us has different goals and objectives, I suspect we all want to defend the Constitution and protect the family. We have children or grandchildren and so are willing to roll up our sleeves to create a better future for them. America is a great land and our party ideals of limited government and adherence to the Constitution are the proven path to ensure that our liberty will be preserved.

Central to our Party and efforts to protect liberty is respecting the process of public dialogue and debate. In fact, our party and most organizations operate in good faith when setting policies, bylaws, and governing documents.

The Utah County Republican Party (UCRP) doesn’t have a perfect system or perfect documents and, none of us is perfect, but we volunteer in good faith and come to these meetings to engage in cordial discussion about how to make the UCRP better.

The UCRP faces a significant question: is appropriate to use a lawsuit as part of this process? I think the answer is a clear NO. But I didn’t get a chance to make my case during the Executive Committee last night.

The law suit is supposedly trying to enforce a rule that the plaintiffs claim we are ignoring.

But as chairman of the Utah County Republican Party and a duly elected member of the Central Committee, I filed a complaint under Constitution Article III – Organizing Powers (G, 2, d) and also under Bylaw 5 – Republican Party Accountability, and submit to the Executive Committee to consider acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.

I think that using your party title and suing the party violates your obligations and responsibilities as members of the UCRP.

The substance of the Complaint is that the URP and the County Parties are in violation of the state party constitution, bylaws and other rules regarding “automatic delegates.” The Plaintiffs asked for a Temporary Restraining Order to be put into effect.

The UCRP is tolerant of (and benefits from) a diversity of opinion but following a display of wanton disregard for Party operations, policies, and procedures these three have shown in their choice to jointly file legal action against the Party that they are not fit to continue holding their positions. I believe that they knowingly chose the timing of this complaint to do the most public damage to the Party and have chosen actions that would have disrupted our grassroots party caucuses at the last minute.

Judge Sandra Peuler denied the request for a Temporary Restraining Order and listed several reasons for denying the request:

1. Standing Rule #1 (which allows Counties to allocate Automatic/Ex-Officio delegate positions) was adopted in 2002. Judge Peuler also indicated that issuing a Restraining Order on the Party has the potential to cause great harm to the State and County Parties because the Caucuses are only two weeks away.

2. Judge Peuler did not see that any irreparable harm would be done to any delegate as previous delegates have reviewed the automatic delegate issue in the past and have allowed automatics to serve.

3. Judge Peuler ruled that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the Temporary Restraining Order because it did not appear to her that they would succeed on the merits of the claim for two reasons:

#1: A very similar complaint was brought before Judge Glenn Iwasaki in 2008. Judge Iwaski denied the Temporary Restraining Order, and eventually dismissed the complaint.

#2: In evaluating the need for a Temporary Restraining Order, Judge Peuler was not convinced by her preliminary reading of the URP Constitution that automatic delegates are prohibited or in violation of any Party Rules.

The lawsuit violated the following parts of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Utah County Republican Party:

1. As Republicans residing in Utah County, State of Utah, we do hereby establish this Constitution of the Utah County Republican Party in order to support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Utah; to support local, state and national Republican Parties; (Constitution Preamble)

The Executive Committee is obligated to investigate charges of alleged malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office by any party officer; to conduct hearings and make findings thereof; to remove officers based on its findings. (Constitution Article 3 G 2 d).

Malfeasance, “intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons (dictionary.law.com).”

The Utah Republican Party and Utah County Republican Party have a clearly defined process to make changes to its Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules. Those suing the Party have participated and understand the proper procedures to make changes; and knowingly attempted to exceed authority by bringing this issue to the Courts.

Bylaw 1 of the UCRP states: “Any member of the Central Committee may propose Bylaws. (Bylaw 1 C).” All three plaintiffs are members of the UCRP Central Committee. Article 2 of the URP Constitution states: “The State Central Committee may adopt Bylaws to govern subjects not covered by the Constitution (Article 2 A).” “Any Bylaw adopted or modified by the State Central Committee shall be binding and in full force and effect when adopted by a 2/3 vote of a quorum of the State Central Committee (Article 2 B 1).” All three plaintiffs are members of the URP Central Committee.

I see this debate, not about whether the application of Ex Officio delegates is right or if it violates our current governing documents. We have debated before and we will again debate the use and application of Ex Officio delegates. I welcome that debate; in fact, at the very first Central Committee that I chaired we changed the rules that allowed for the Chair to have 10 discretionary appointments.

We followed a good process to do that then. The losers didn’t file legal action when they lost. This is the process now. As leaders of the UCRP, I suggest we must protect the process. So the issue is whether it’s ok to sue the party during the course of regular debate. Is legal action against the UCRP to promote your side of an argument part of the established process to change our governing documents?

I adamantly suggest this is not the case and must not be, especially from those in leadership positions who are representing more people than themselves as they try to make their case.

Above all, an action like this dishonors everything we stand for. It instantly changes the nature of what had been free and equal debate, introducing protracted attorney interaction and threats of huge legal bills if one side does not cave in to the other, divorcing individuals from the organization and allowing the state’s legal system to try to finish the debate.

A lawsuit is especially divisive because it sends the message that the negotiating relationship is terminated. But it in this case it goes even farther because those bringing the suit hold positions of leadership. So, I ask you to ask Executive Committee members how they plan to protect the process of how to propose changes and at the same time make it clear that intimidating behavior that deliberately disenfranchises others will not be tolerated.

Main Arguments:

First, does the UCRP have a clear process for proposing bylaw changes? What is the proper method to change UCRP governing policies…Lawsuit or propose a bylaw change? The answer to this is obvious to me…one brings a resolution before one of the governing bodies of the Party.

Second, when filing the lawsuit, the three used UCRP titles and positions. This is clearly a violation of our rules.

Third, the three plaintiffs used a method they know has failed before –the courts have rejected it as improper procedure. The result is us taking valuable time we should be spending recruiting, training and motivating others to get involved and instead wasting it with lawsuits and complaints. The lawsuit also came just ahead of caucuses, which was viewed by many as a deliberate attempt to disrupt normal party operations and deny members of the UCRP their right to caucus.

Finally, the suit trumps the will of the UCRP governing bodies. The use of RONR is often held high by the plaintiffs and yet nothing in RONR allows for such a lawsuit. Further, this is an effort to replace the will of the CC, EC and SC.

If the suit isn’t bad enough on its face, each plaintiff used their party positions (SCC members) in their affidavit. The respondents committed misfeasance when, as officers of the party, they made public statements that injure the party and our purposes. Party office holders, by their election, have a duty to promote the party and its purposes.

RONR Page 624, Line 5 “.. An organization or assembly has the ultimate right to… require that its members refrain from conduct injurious to the organization or its purposes”.

RONR Page 630, Line 3 ““tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work.” In any society, behavior of this nature is a serious offense properly subject to disciplinary action, whether the bylaws make mention of it or not.

The respondents were party officers when they filed the lawsuit against the Republican Party, and made specific note of their positions of trust within the party as members of the State Central Committee.

Court papers are public statements, no different than holding a press conference on the steps of the capitol. When the respondents filed the laws suite they made the following statements about the Republican Party:

It does “threaten to again subvert the pact of freedom embodied in the GOP constitution.”

Is harming “many” members of the Republican Party by “depriving them of a free and fair election”

Is depriving the respondents of their “right to vote”

Is doing “immediate and irreparable harm” to these party officials

Is depriving the State Central Committee of its “lawful right to govern the Utah Republican Party”.

And Republican Party members “do not understand the principles involved in delegate selection”.

These statements disparage the party, discourage voters from membership in the Republican Party, and provide significant aid and encouragement to opposition parties.

If we look to our governing documents for guidance as to how to proceed on other violations, many removal-from-office violations are less serious than what we have here. Therefore, I suggest this egregious violation warrants removal from office.

I believe the people involved in the lawsuit knowingly used this attempt when, even with a minimal amount of research into the prior history of similar lawsuits, they would have realized it was just a repeat of a previous failed action. The timing of the lawsuit, asking for an injunction to stop the caucuses just prior to the caucuses, cannot and should not be seen as a coincidence and must also be viewed as a reason to seek enhanced penalties for this action.

Courts have stated in the past that they are not going to get involved in overseeing a private entity’s governing documents and policies. In 1994, due to a Supreme Court ruling, the State of Utah almost completely divorced itself from meddling in political parties. The real net effect of this lawsuit, possibly even the intent, will be to deter many frustrated voters who are looking for a political party that provides leadership and creative solutions to today’s pressing challenges. Nothing like that is forthcoming from this legal action.

My final point is the suit attempts to trump the will of the UCRP governing bodies.

At the last SCC, one plaintiff argued against a proposal to allow the body to act on certain proposals stating that it’s a question of numbers; the rules of the party should not be held by the fewest amounts of people but should be reserved for action by the larger body. Well, his suit is an ultimate disregard for the will of the body. The three plaintiffs are trying to force a rule on the entire UCRP by force.

I find this situation especially ironic given the frequency that the plaintiffs site RONR as the model for conduct in our party. I can’t count how many times these three chastise me and others when we have been following UCRP rules that trump RONR, but now they find it inconvenient to use RONR.

I challenge anyone to find a single reference in RONR that allows the filing of a lawsuit as an acceptable tactic for winning a debate. RONR has been adopted by our Party and I find no reference to the right of a body to sue? With no reference that allows the use of a lawsuit to prevail in a debate then I believe this effort is solely for the purpose of replacing the will of the CC, EC and SC. This is a clear violation of our rules and constitutes malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.

VICTORY for GOP in 2010 and Beyond

BIG VICTORY for the GOP in 2010...and Beyond

Being the Chair of the Utah County Republican Party (UCRP) has been a great experience; I've only got a few short months left. But we have seen some important things happen in 2009-2010 and the foundation is set for an even better 2011 and beyond. We reached our goal to elect Republicans and the stage is set for continued success for years to come. Many of our candidates increased their margin of victory.

VICTORY has been our goal but it is also our theme for continued success. As we energetically articulate what it means to be a Republican and promote our conservative Vision, we educate others and motivate them to stay involved in the process of making public policy. But as we talk of prosperity through less government we must remain Inclusive in our dialogue, events and activities. For long-lasting strength, we must welcome all voters, including those from diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds. We must never fear those with a different idea; all deserve a seat at the table of discourse and let the best ideas rise to the top.

We must not only be inclusive in our behavior but we must improve our Communication with the party faithful and the public at large to recruit, train, and motivate others to be involved in the political process. We can do this by using Technology to improve outreach and increase understanding. Technology is a tool that promotes what it means to be a Republican but we must conduct ourselves with Openness and transparency to truly increase fairness and unity. This outreach to like-minded groups, individuals, and organizations will strengthen Relationships and help expand our interaction with today's Youth, since the rising generation will be tomorrow's leaders.

VICTORY and prosperity will only be possible when all members of the Republican family join together. We invite you to join with the UCRP and put aside past differences (politics should never be personal) and focus on that which will make us stronger.

VICTORY and progress towards unity is also only possible when we respect the process of making policy and rules. Our Party must protect the process of making rules and proposing changes to those rules; we must protect the process of vigorous dialogue and debate, and then unite behind the chosen solution. We will always face factions that want to dictate what they want above the will of the majority.

We face a future full of challenges. The UCRP will continue to achieve VICTORY and show we have the solutions when we respect the process and advocate for adherence to our Constitution and Platform. This is my goal in 2011.