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.
