1- Would you eliminate ex-officio delegates?

Automatic delegates are not allowed by the current Utah Republican Party Constitution. I respect the rules. As party chair, I would give the counties plenty of advanced warning that they need to comply with the rules, or risk challenges to the credentials of those delegates who were not elected in compliance with the party constitution. This is an important point on which the incumbent and I are divided. He excuses ex-officio delegates saying that is a county issue. But the state party constitution is clear that it has precedence over county party rules, declaring them “null and void” (Article VII.A) where ever they conflict the state party constitution.

The only other remedy would be a constitutional amendment that allowed delegates to be allocated somewhere other than the precincts. But an amendment to that effect was put before the delegates in 2006, and failed miserably. Chaffetz’s (et. al.) letter helped to defeat that proposal at the convention.

Article XII.1.A of the URP Constitution says that county parties are supposed to allocate the delegates to the precincts based on the relative Republican Strength of the precincts. That means no delegates may be stripped from the precincts, as is the current practice, in several counties. Some counties designate over 20% of their seats as automatic delegate positions for party insiders. In Utah County, where the percentage of automatic delegates is 11.5%, one out of every three precincts is cheated out of an additional state delegate position that they earned, according to Article XII.1.A of the state party constitution. And those precincts never even knew that they deserved another seat.

I stand in defense of the voice of the grassroots–delegates chosen by their own precinct. The incumbent stands for diluting the voice of the grassroots by withholding delegate seats from the precincts, and giving those seats to party insiders.

2- Would you oppose the SCC Veto power?

Yes. In fact this is another area in which the incumbent and I are divided. He voted in favor of the veto power proposal on December 4, 2010. In the January 22, 2011 meeting, he voted down the Delegates’ Rights amendment, which would have clearly RESTORED the right of the delegates to amend the party constitution without the SCC’s interference.

After the uproar surrounding the SCC Veto power-grab, they realized their tactical error, and violated the rules in referring it to the C&B committee, rather than having it come up during the convention. However pulling it from the convention did not significantly change the shift of power that Wright sought  with his veto power vote. The SCC Veto Power is essentially already in effect, since the SCC’s C&B Committee can keep any undesirable proposals from coming before the convention.

Witness my Proposed “Delegates’ Rights” Amendment which would ensure that the delegates proposing amendments could choose whether the proposal is heard by the SCC first or goes directly to the convention. The SCC voted it down overwhelmingly, realizing it gives power to the grassroots, and bypasses their control over the party.

I resubmitted the Delegates’ Rights Amendment for the convention, with a minor modification, addressing some supposed concerns that the SCC had. But the SCC’s C&B committee did not forward it to the convention, where it would undoubtedly be approved. Instead, they sent it to the SCC, where it will BE KILLED. Five years ago, the delegates overwhelmingly passed a resolution, demanding that their right to propose amendments to the constitution be restored. (It was seized the prior year by a reinterpretation of the rules by the SCC, and a party chair who upheld that interpretation.)

Instead of complying with the clear will of the delegates on this issue, the SCC simply made a bylaw that gave their own C&B committee authority to decide whether proposed amendments would go to the convention or to the SCC, first, where they could be sidelined and killed.

These are very important issues. They are at the heart of the question of who should have the ultimate say in party affairs–the delegates or the power-brokers. But there is much more at stake, as well. You can find out more about me at my very-informative website: http://dave4chair.com

Saturday, you have an important decision before you. Will you choose leaders who are backed by the power-brokers of the party? Or will you choose leaders that have avoided entangling endorsements, and are simply committed to the principles of the party, and to enacting your will–the voice of the delegates?

In the past, our party leaders have been more about protecting the incumbents, whether they are really conservative, or not.

I have faith in the delegates that they will choose wisely. Past leadership has not demonstrated that faith in the delegates (the SCC Veto amendment is evidence of that).

If we want the same old party politics, we should elect the same old leaders.

If we want true commitment to the party’s principles, then we should elect new leaders.

If we want to continue to have “automatic,” “ex officio,” or “super” delegates diluting the voice of the grassroots-delegates–the ones chosen in our neighborhood caucuses–then we should elect the same old leaders.

If we want leaders who believe in the grassroots delegates, and don’t seek to stifle, or dilute their voice, then we need new leadership.

If you choose new leadership, there are good options, and I would be happy to serve you as party chair. If you choose to continue the same path, then I think our party will continue to flounder… electing plenty of Republicans, a few of whom are good conservatives, and the rest of whom are simply capitalizing on the Republican Party name.

I believe in the platform of our party. I hope that you will let me lead the party into an era of renewed commitment to the voice of the delegates, to our platform, and to its conservative principles.

Dave Duncan
Candidate for Chair
Find out more at www.dave4chair.com

Constitution and Bylaws Committee Report (a subcommittee of the State Central Committee)

For the most part, the votes were 5-2, with 2 grassroots/delegates’-rights oriented voters, Lisa Shepherd and Kurtis Constantine, and 5 elitist voters, Clair Ellis, Stan Lockhart, Jack Powers, Shawna Jo Larkin, and Julie Dole (who seemed the most on-the-fence, but usually caved in to arguments from Stan, Jack and Clair). There were exceptions to the rule by almost all of them, at one point or another, but the clear trend throughout the meeting was a persistent 5-2 vote in favor of elitist politics as usual..

Here is the disposition of each of the main agenda items from the meeting. Remember that all of these issues were submitted to the convention where all of the delegates could consider their merit.  But a vote to re-route the issue to the State Central Committee is just a way to kill the issue for at least a year, and it will definitely keep the issue beyond the reach of the grassroots delegates, probably forever.

1. Final delegate listing deadline changed from 8 days before convention to 5 days before
   1. Sent to the convention by a unanimous vote.
   2. This is probably a bad idea. This leaves only a few days for candidates to campaign to the new delegates. The previous deadline was probably too short, already.
   3. Keep in mind that campaigns have been going in earnest for four weeks before the convention for party officers, and for much longer than that by candidates for public office.
2. Appointing replacement delegates
   1. Sent to the convention.
   2. This is a terrible idea. It takes the ability to replace delegates out of the hands of the local precinct chair, and gives the county parties the ability to replace delegates by whatever process they determine. This is anti-grassroots. If this passes, delegate replacement will be another tool by the power-brokers to slant the election toward preserving the current power structure.
3. SCC Disclosure and Accountability
   1. Killed, by sending it to the SCC, 4-2. Lisa and Kurtis were the dissenters. Julie Dole abstained.
   2. Would require the SCC, in some cases, to have roll-call votes, which would be published. Accountability is good. But the SCC will not vote for their own accountability. This needed to be sent to the convention.
   3. Arnold Gaunt proposed that this be sent to the convention. He followed the steps, in good faith, but was thrown under the bus by party leaders.
4. Delegates’ Rights to Amend C&B
   1. Sent to SCC, where it will again be killed, by a vote of 4-3. Julie, Kurtis and Lisa dissented.
   2. This was my proposal, along with 40-50 other delegates as co-sponsors.
   3. This is why there was no need for the SCC Veto power. THEY ALREADY HAVE IT! This killed your right to propose changes without the SCC approval.
   4. We should add this item to the convention agenda, and ensure that they can never do this to the delegates again.
5. Changing the Republican Strength calculation
   1. Sent to SCC
   2. This was probably a bad idea, except for precincts with changed boundaries, since the last gubernatorial election, since there is no way to apply the current calculation in those cases.
6. Prohibiting the “Banning” of Party Members
   1. Sent to SCC, 4-3. Lisa, Kutis, Stan Lockhart dissenting.
   2. In the last SCC meeting, there was an UGLY resolution to ban a member from the party. This seems to be in violation of state law, requiring the allowance of “active participation” in the party by those registered to vote as Republicans. If there were legally valid reasons to preclude someone, it should be handled by legal proceedings such as restraining orders. As it is, this is being used as a weapon against those who stand as effective voices against corruption in the party.
7. Requiring Prior Registration as a Republican for Caucus Participation
   1. Killed by sending to SCC, 7-0.
   2. We face one of the largest threats ever to the integrity of our party system, at the hands of the current party chair, Thomas Wright. For the first time ever, Democrats will be allowed to attend their caucuses and then, two days later, attend our caucuses, and dilute our voices in electing precinct officers and delegates.
   3. This proposal by Secretary candidate Drew Chamberlain would have required caucus participants to be “Republicans of Record”, meaning that they couldn’t just show up at the caucus, and fill out a form (which may not even have their valid information on it) and then participate as if they were a party member.
   4. The reasoning for Thomas Wright WANTING to enable Democrats to so easily crash our caucuses may have something to do with wanting to protect Senator Hatch from conservative delegates.
8. Electronic Voting in the SCC (and publishing the results for accountability
   1. Sent to the SCC to die, 7-0
   2. This was proposed by Vice Chair candidate Lowell Nelson as another way of requiring accountability on SCC votes. All votes would be recorded and published, so that county delegates would have something objective to base their SCC election votes on.
   3. Sending this to the SCC makes no sense. They won’t support accountability for themselves. They have proven that in the past on similar votes.
   4. In fact, on the SCC Veto vote, one member proposed a roll call vote, but that was soundly defeated by a voice vote. They wanted to be able to veto YOUR voice, as a delegate, but they definitely didn’t want you to see how they voted on that measure.
9. Designating the date of the caucuses
   1. Sent to convention, by a vote of 7-0
   2. This would clearly put the date of the caucuses under the control of the SCC, rather than just the party chair, as it is now.
   3. This is an attempt to address the aforementioned problem of the chair desiring to allow Democrats to crash the caucuses in order to protect Senator Hatch.
   4. It was almost humorous watching the SCC’s C&B committee salivate at taking more power to the SCC, on this one. Many of the members’ arguments seemed to reverse previous arguments about why things should or shouldn’t go to the convention.
10. Multiple Round Voting refinements
    1. Sent to convention unanimously.
    2. Some voting refinements proposed by Lowell Nelson to streamline Multiple Round voting, without affecting its fairness.
11. Platform Amendments in the Organizing Convention
    1. Sent to convention, unanimously.
    2. This is mildly troubling to me, in that it requires a majority of the TOTAL number of delegates, rather than a majority of those attending the organizing convention. We often only get about half of the total delegates at that (odd-year) convention, so this would essentially require a unanimous vote.
    3. The premise is that platform amendments are currently not allowed at the organizing convention, because they are not mentioned in the rules for that convention. This is probably accurate, but neither are a lot of other, less important things (like elected official reports) that the leadership does, without concern for the rules, simply because it is free campaigning, which gives an advantage to those in power over potential challengers in future conventions.
12. Motion to kill the SCC Veto (Lisa Shepherd), in accordance with Thomas Wright’s express desire at the last SCC meeting.
    1. It was put off. They declined to kill the SCC Veto Power amendment at this time.
    2. The motion was opposed by the current C&B chair, Clair Ellis (original sponsor of SCC Veto amendment), and he refuted the notion that Thomas Wright had a desire to permanently kill it, claiming he had an email from Thomas stating that he just wanted to deal with it after this convention.
    3. This begs the question, why does Thomas Wright, who originally voted “FOR” in the 50-25 vote that got the SCC Veto to “pass” in the SCC, only want the amendment to go away for this convention?
    4. Is it because he doesn’t want it to be an issue getting in the way of his re-election?
    5. Does he want the “new” crop of delegates (which the Hatch campaign is even now working so hard to recruit for the next caucuses) to vote on approving it, instead of the current group of delegates–those same delegates that relegated Senator Bennett to third place in his re-election bid?

The convention chair has shown that she is insistent on enforcing unauthorized rules that favor the SCC-elected (virtually appointed) incumbents.  These rules were set up by the SCC-designated incumbent chair, vice-chair and secretary. These particular incumbents were elected by the SCC–not the delegates. These incumbents also got to select the convention chair–the one who is enforcing these rules that they created.

It is very important that people are able to evaluate and criticize those in power. That is the very essence of the First Amendment. Do we believe in the Constitution? Well, yes, the grassroots types among us certainly do. But those in power usually just seem to give lip-service to the constitution, and instead do whatever it takes to maintain their hold on power.

As for whom I would recommend that you vote for in this election, there are two very principled, grassroots-oriented candidates in the race for Party Chair, Arnold Gaunt, and Dave Duncan. I believe that either of us would make a far better chair than the designated incumbent Thomas Wright.

Mr. Wright is wrong for this particular position.  He was selected by the party elite, and is now beholden to them.  And he has consistently shown his contempt for the rules (rules that protect the rights of us little guys) and his contempt for your voice as a delegate by voting FOR the SCC Veto power, and AGAINST the Delegates’ Rights amendment. He does this pleasantly, while spouting the typical GOP platitudes, but when the rubber meets the road, he comes down on the side of the party power-brokers who chose him.

Arnold Gaunt, however, is a long-time defender of the delegates’ rights, and the interests of the grassroots. I have been tempted to withdraw and instead help with his campaign, and have spoken with him about that possibility. In the end, there are reasons for both of us to stay in the race, and there are differences between us, even though either one of us would gladly champion the rights of the delegates, and recognize that they are the ultimate voice in the party, once their precinct caucuses have elected them.

Likewise, for Vice Chair, there are two very good candidates, Lowell Nelson and Brandon Beckham. I would be pleased for either of those two candidates to win. Lowell has been a long time activist in the party, standing up for the grassroots, the platform and conservative/liberty-oriented principles. Brandon is a newcomer (to me, at least), but he has proven to be a dynamic mover and shaker who can get things done in the cause of liberty and conservative values.

The incumbent, on the other hand, seems beholden to the current power brokers in the party, and seems very dedicated to preserving that power structure. Oh yes, and she was one of the 50 votes that helped the State Central Committee (SCC) pass the SCC Veto amendment which has caused so much delegate consternation.

There were two very good candidates for Secretary, Drew Chamberlain and Nancy Lord.  Nancy Lord has since withdrawn from the race to throw her support behind Drew Chamberlain.  . Both Drew Chamberlain and Nancy Lord have fought for your rights, as delegates, for much longer than I was even aware of the issues. Nancy was even removed from all of her positions in the party at the hands of Thomas Wright and Dana Dickson (the current party secretary incumbent).  Her removal was in violation of the party rules, and all standards of decency.  And what was she removed for? For having the “gall” to stand up for your rights as delegates, and trying to get the party to respect its rules, rather than to continue to violate our party constitution and dilute YOUR VOTE as a delegate chosen by your precinct, with the votes of super delegates (sometimes referred to as automatic, ex officio delegates). These super delegates are party insiders who dilute your grassroots-oriented vote with their insider-oriented vote.

Nancy was “suspended”, in violation of her rights to due process. She was denied the right to even speak in her own defense. Who would perpetrate such acts of tyranny? None other than the current party chair (then Salt Lake County party chair), Thomas Wright, and his close adviser, the current party secretary, Dana Dickson. Yes, the same Dana Dickson who was formerly the chair of the SCC-C&B committee–the committee which, under his leadership, voted unanimously to approve the SCC Veto power amendment over your voice as a delegate.

The choice for party leadership has never been more clear.

Choose the incumbents, and we will have a party led by those who back the incumbents and are beholden to the party power brokers.

Alternatively, we can choose leaders who have demonstrated their willingness to stand for the principles of the party, and defend the voice of the grassroots, empower the delegates, and protect the delegates’ votes on the issues and conduct a transparent election process for all potential candidates.

Dave Duncan’s recommendations for Party Officers

For Chair: Arnold Gaunt or Dave Duncan

For Vice Chair: Lowell Nelson or Brandon Beckham

For Secretary: Drew Chamberlain

Note: I don’t back Hatch, or any other individual who will come before the delegates and ask for their nomination. The role of party officers is not to pick a winner and give that candidate an advantage in the caucus-convention system. The role of party officers should be to facilitate an informative and fair environment for the delegates to make their choice. And then it is the duty of those officers to act on those choices in good faith, even if the officers personally prefer a different choice.

The following is an excellent message from Lowell Nelson, one of two EXCELLENT challengers for the Vice Chair position.

Fellow delegates,

Most of you were elected in your precinct caucus to serve as state delegates.
Some of you were given a state delegate seat by virtue of your public or party office.
But regardless of how you became a state delegate,
yours is now the opportunity and the responsibility to serve the Utah Republican Party.

Specifically, you are expected to interview the candidates for party office,
and to study the issues that will be considered at the organizing convention on Saturday, June 18, 2011.
Below is information about several important issues you may be asked to consider.

Problem Statement

Our caucus/convention system is under attack.
It is threatened both from within the party, and from without.
And the former has precipitated the latter.

• From within the party, slowly but steadily,
  leaders have been arrogating delegate authority unto themselves:
  • refusing to allocate all delegate seats to voting precincts as specified in the party constitution;
  • diverting delegates’ rule change proposals to the State Central Committee where they can be killed,
    instead of placing them on the convention agenda where delegates can consider them; and,
  • prohibiting Republicans from recording the meetings of the State Central Committee,
    and refusing to take roll-call votes, so you cannot know how they voted individually.

  As party leaders have violated party rules, and have hidden behind cloaks of secrecy,
  they have unwittingly been pushing the party toward the brink of destruction.

• From without the party, slowly but steadily,
  activists have been growing tired of the corruption within the party.
  Some believe that the caucus/convention system has been corrupted beyond repair.
  Their solution is to eliminate it entirely, launch an initiative petition,
  and embrace a democratic primary system like that employed in most
  other states–one that would allow all Republicans to choose party nominees.

There is serious danger from both sides.

Eroding Delegate Authority

Let’s examine the danger from within.
First, the failure to allocate all delegate seats to voting precincts.

When a precinct caucus does not get its full allocation of delegate seats, its voice is muted.
Instead of three delegates, for example, it might get only two delegates.
What happens to the missing delegate seat? It goes to a public or party elected official.

But the state party constitution simply does not permit county parties to deprive precincts
by “scooping seats off the top” of their allocations and awarding them to public and party officials.
The Utah Republican Party (URP) Constitution, Article XII, Section 1, Paragraph A, says:

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.

And because another method of allocation is not specified in the constitution,
no other method of allocation is permitted
(See Robert’s Rules of Order, Tenth Edition, page 571, lines 24 – 35).

Are we not a party that believes in the Rule of Law?
Do we not believe in following the constitution?

Fortunately, not all public and party officials go along with automatic delegates.
Representative Jason Chaffetz, notably, refused an automatic delegate seat this cycle.
In fact, in a letter dated 4 May 2006,
Jason Chaffetz, Tim Bridgewater, Senator Tom Hatch, and Senator Howard Stephenson,
clearly stated their opposition to automatic and appointed delegates.

In principle, we are opposed to allowing party insiders, the establishment, and others in position of power
being granted additional voting power and therefore diluting the votes and will of the people. …
Our party will be stronger and the process will be more legitimate, fair and transparent
by having all Delegates elected at their individual caucus meetings.

You can read this letter for yourself by clicking here.

So what can you do about this erosion of delegate authority?

You can vote for party officer candidates who will insist that
all of the 3500 delegate seats be allocated to the voting precincts.
Yes, in smaller counties, unfilled delegate seats can be filled by the county central committee.
Such is permitted by the constitution. But the initial allocation is made to the precincts.

Electing leadership that is committed to the constitution will increase the number of precinct-elected delegates,
and weaken the cause of those who wish to eliminate the caucus/convention system.

Smothering the Voice of the Delegates

Let’s examine another danger from within–diverting delegates’ rule change proposals
to the State Central Committee where they can be killed, instead of placing them on
the convention agenda where delegates can consider them.

In 2005, the party chair Joe Cannon, for the first time in our history presumably,
refused to consider at convention any of the rule change proposals submitted
in good faith by the delegates. Instead, he commissioned the seven-member
Constitution and Bylaws Committee to review each of the proposals,
and to decide which of them would be advanced to the state convention.

This was censorship–plain and simple–which effectively smothered any proposal
that party leadership did not want the delegates to hear. Such is contrary to
the URP Constitution, Article X, Section B:

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.

Notice that the second sentence says nothing about filtering the amendment proposals through some committee.
This tyrannical practice enables four people–a simple majority of the seven-member Constitution and
Bylaws Committee–power to deny 3500 delegates an opportunity to consider an amendment to party rules!

The following year, a state delegate from Salt Lake County, Nancy Lord,
submitted a resolution affirming the authority of delegates to submit rule change proposals
directly to the convention, and directing the Constitution and Bylaws Committee
to draft language in our bylaws in accordance with this authority.
This resolution passed almost unanimously!

But the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, with the approval of the State Central Committee,
failed to institutionalize this delegate authority. Instead, they inserted into Bylaw 7.5,
Standing Convention Rules, Section H, language which arrogated to themselves the power
to determine which submissions would go to convention, and which would be referred
to the State Central Committee. Of course, routing a submission to the State Central Committee
effectively prevents its being heard at the convention, which smothers the voice of the delegates.

Then, on December 4th of last year, the State Central Committee approved a measure that,
if ratified by the convention, would have effectively given the State Central Committee “veto power”
over the delegates of the party with regard to constitutional amendments!
Utah County member Lisa Shepherd moved that the vote be a roll-call vote,
but the body–wanting to avoid accountability–said no.

Several members spoke against the proposal, but the proponents prevailed.
Incredibly, 50 members of the SCC voted for it, and 25 voted against it!
Thomas Wright, Christy Achziger, and Dana Dickson, who are running for re-election,
all voted for this “veto power” proposal!

Should more power be centralized in the hands of the State Central Committee,
or should we leave it in the hands of the delegates?
Who should have the final “say” on the party’s highest level of governing rules,
the State Party Constitution?
Are the delegates not qualified or well suited to amend the constitution?

So what can you do to amplify the voice of the delegates?

You can elect candidates who will empower delegates–not silence them.

You can amend the proposed agenda at the beginning of the convention,
and add the following constitution change proposals–submitted by delegates
in good faith for consideration at this convention:

• Article I, Section C, Membership:
  Prohibit the banning of party members.
• Article IV, State Central Committee:
  Allow audio/visual recordings.
• Article IV, State Central Committee:
  Publish votes on the party web site.
• Article XII, Caucus and Convention Procedures:
  Allow only Republicans of record to participate in precinct caucuses.
• Article X, Modification:
  Constitution amendment proposals endorsed by 35 state delegates
  shall be heard by the convention.

Specifically, after someone moves the adoption of the Order of Business (the agenda),
you must vote NAY on its adoption until it has been amended to include the above proposals.

Successfully adding these proposals to the agenda will strengthen the voice of delegates,
and will weaken the cause of those who wish to eliminate the caucus/convention system.

Avoiding Accountability

Let’s examine one more danger from within–prohibiting Republicans from recording the meetings
of the State Central Committee, and refusing to take roll-call votes,
so you cannot know how committee members voted individually.

For years, whenever a republican has attempted to record the proceedings
of a State Central Committee Meeting, the party chair has declared that
meetings are not to be recorded, and has threatened to remove the person
with the recording device if the person does not voluntarily turn it off.

What does the governing body of the party want to hide?
Is this the kind of openness and transparency you would expect from your party leaders?
I think not. Delegates who cannot attend these meetings because of travel schedules
or other conflicts should be able to review the proceedings on tape.

At least this is what a delegate from Weber County, Arnold Gaunt, believes.
Arnold submitted a rule change proposal that would make electronic recordings
of these meetings both permissible and available. But this proposal will not be heard
unless you, the delegates, put it back on the agenda.

The Constitution and Bylaws Committee did not route it to the convention; instead,
they routed it to the State Central Committee, where they can more easily kill it.
Do you think a committee which for years has refused to allow recordings of its meetings
will suddenly decide to allow them? I didn’t think so. Most members of this committee
want to avoid this kind of accountability.

Would you like to know who on the State Central Committee votes to hide behind its cloak of secrecy?
Well, you cannot know for sure, because the State Central Committee does not keep a record of individual votes
on any given issue, nor does the committee publish its votes.

A delegate from Utah County, Lowell Nelson, submitted a proposal
that would require the State Central Committee to record and publish every vote
on the state party web site, beginning in January of next year.
He believes that delegates have a right to know how their representatives
on the State Central Committee are voting–how they are representing their constituents.

We insist on knowing how our legislators vote on bills on Capitol Hill.
That information helps us know whether they will get our support at the next election.
It makes them accountable to us. Likewise, we should insist on the publication
of the votes taken in the SCC.

Unfortunately, the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, which has a choke hold on delegate submissions,
routed this proposal–not to the convention where you could hear it–but to the State Central Committee
where it could be killed without fanfare.

So what can you do to enhance the accountability of your party leaders on the State Central Committee?

You can add these “sunlight” proposals (given above) to the convention agenda
(as indicated earlier), and then support them when they are voted upon.
And doing so will improve the accountability of our party leaders,
and weaken the cause of those who want to eliminate the caucus/convention system.

Party Primaries

Now, let’s examine the danger from without the party.

There is a group of citizen activists who are pushing the idea of an initiative
that would render the caucus/convention system irrelevant.
If an initiative petition is successful, a proposed law would be placed on the ballot
for Utah voters, and Utah voters would then decide between a caucus/convention state
and a democratic primary state.

Resorting to a democratic primary places too much power in the hands of the media
and the candidates with lots of money. Those with the best radio sound bites
and TV ads would win the elections. Lost would be the incisive interviews of candidates
conducted by delegates at close range. Lost would be the opportunities for delegates
to discuss substantive issues with candidates at close range.

But, if party leadership continues to usurp authority, smother the voice of the delegates,
and avoid accountability, and thereby arrogate to themselves so much power that delegates
are effectively neutered, then we may have no choice but to seek a legislative solution
from without the party.

Solution Statement

Here is what YOU must do!

1. Attend the convention.
   Do not leave your seat vacant, or allow it to be filled by the appointment
   of someone who does not have your passion for the caucus/convention system.
2. At the beginning of the convention,
   support the amendment of the convention agenda
   with the proposals submitted by grassroots delegates who seek delegate empowerment
   and party leader accountability.
3. Vote for party office candidates who support the constitutional
   allocation of delegates to voting precincts, who support delegate authority to submit proposals
   directly to the convention, and who support openness and accountability of the State Central Committee.
4. Vote for rule changes that will enshrine the authority
   of delegates to submit proposals directly to the convention, and that will
   put sunlight on the State Central Committee.
5. Do not leave the convention until all proposals have been considered.
   Once half of the delegates leave the convention, a quorum (which is necessary
   to conduct binding business) is lost, and any remaining proposals will be lost.

Your taking these steps will strengthen the caucus/convention system,
and weaken the cause of those who wish to eliminate the caucus/convention system.

Thank you for your service to the party. I hope we can save it.

Lowell Nelson

Candidate for Vice Chair

Inappropriate Endorsements?
Endorsements are kind of the easy way out. If someone we respect endorses another person, that gives them a degree of credibility. Ideally, we would all come to our own conclusions–and we should–even if the endorsements help get us started in the right direction.

But endorsements take on added significance when the flow of information is restricted. Your recent call to convention mentioned that it would be the only official communication from the party to you regarding the convention. That seems a shame. Informed delegates are the heart of this party. Keeping them uninformed on the issues they decide serves only those who want to maintain the status quo.

But there is one kind of endorsement that seems totally inappropriate. Some public officials (or those who intend to run for public office) will be running, a year from now, at the next State GOP Nominating Convention. The party chair that you elect a week from Saturday will control that nominating convention.

Is it right for those who will be candidates in that convention to endorse someone who might be chair of that convention? Is there an implied quid pro quo in doing so?

Furthermore, do those who wish to be considered as serious candidates in that nominating convention feel like they HAVE to endorse the presumed next chair, in order to have a fair shot in the convention?

Though I have my suspicions, I admit that I do not know the answer to all of those questions. BUT, I DO think it is wise to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest! That is why I believe it is inappropriate for me to accept nominations from those whose nomination I would preside over, if elected chair.

I have avoided that in the past, and commit to continue to do so, so that you don’t have to wonder if my loyalties lie anywhere other than with the party platform and the voice of the delegates.

Find out more at http://dave4chair.com

Censorship?
If I say something irresponsible, I would expect you to hold me accountable for it at the ballot box.

So why does the party need to limit what I say about other candidates? The rule that we cannot mention other candidates in these emails seems silly and dangerous.
“Silly,” because I would mention some candidates in a positive light, but am forbidden to do even that.

“Dangerous,” because if some people were doing underhanded things, it would be very hard for me to make you aware of them. Who does it serve most to have such a rule? Only those who already have power, and wish to protect that power from criticism.

I believe that a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment is to insure the right to criticize those in power. It is theoretically possible to criticize the party leadership through other means, like expensive mailers and phone dialers, but as long as access to the emailing list is restricted, we will not have the free flow of information–information that is important for you to consider as you choose the next round of party leaders.

As one who believes in the merits of the party platform, AND our United States Constitution, I commit to you, that I will not impede the delegates from getting the information they need–even if it is critical of me. In fact, I welcome criticism. Well-founded criticism has served to make me aware of things I need to work on, and I have been a better person for it.

Dave Duncan

Candidate for Party Chair

Find out more at http://dave4chair.com

Last Friday night, the State Central Committee’s (SCC) Constitution and Bylaws subcommittee (C&B) voted to not let the Delegates’ Rights amendment go to the convention. Instead, they sent it back to the SCC (where it was already soundly defeated, in January) to keep you (the delegates) from having any chance of amending the party Constitution without SCC approval.

You see, the SCC Veto amendment, which was widely decried by the delegates who were fortunate-enough to be able to hear about it, was just an effort to squeeze the last breath out of the delegates’ having the ability to change the party’s rules without the SCC’s permission. Effectively, the SCC had already accomplished their veto power over the delegates, by putting their own C&B committee in charge of deciding whether a submission should go to the SCC, or directly to the delegates, in convention.

As it is now, the insider-dominated SCC can effectively kill any grassroots-oriented initiatives before they got to the convention–where the delegates would easily pass them.

Article X (10) of the state GOP constitution clearly gives the delegates authority to amend the constitution by a two-thirds vote at convention, without the SCC’s interference.

“This Constitution may also be amended by 2/3 vote of Delegates present at the State Convention.”

But by inserting themselves into that process 4-5 years ago, the SCC essentially quashed any possibility of the delegates passing an amendment which the SCC dislikes.

The Delegates’ Rights amendment would securely ensconce the delegates’ rights to amend the constitution without the SCC’s approval and is therefore an amendment that the insider-laden SCC certainly dislikes.

So where does that leave us–the grassroots-oriented delegates? It leaves us completely at the mercy of the SCC and its C&B committee.

Unless…

• We vote alter the convention agenda, at the beginning of the meeting, and suspend the rules and/or overrule the chair’s likely decision that it is out of order due to the decision to not send notice of this proposed amendment, or…
• We elect new party leadership that is not beholden to those in power, and will respect the rights of the grassroots (the delegates who are sent to the convention by their precinct caucuses).

Of course, as I mentioned in my first email, I am constrained from giving you the information you truly need, in this email. To get the information you really need, please visit my website: dave4chair.com

There, you can find a full report of last Friday evening’s C&B committee meeting.

Dave Duncan, Orem

Here’s the short story:

• There are less than 4 weeks until the state convention!
• The email to the delegates that this communication is based on was censored via arbitrary rules made by my opponent, which are designed to prevent even valid criticism of him.
• I’m running for chair because I actually support the principles in the Party Platform, rather than the good old boy power network of professional lobbyists, elected officials and paid campaign workers.
• Despite our successes, there are real problems in the Utah GOP.
• I am uniquely qualified to address those problems, and NOT become part of the problem, while leading the party into a new era of commitment to conservative principles.

Here’s the Longer story:

Censorship?
There are less than four weeks to the State Convention on June 18th. There will be very limited communication to you via these emails, sent out by the party. While considering your vote for the next party chair, there is important information that you need to have–information which cannot be conveyed to you via these emails. From the rules made by the current chair: “Mention of other candidates or campaigns in the messages will not be accepted.” [This web version has the full comments, including those about Thomas Wright, current party chair (via some questionable maneuvering designed to make him the "incumbent" by an SCC vote, rather than having the delegates vote on the new chair in an open race).]

Thank you for taking the time to read the uncensored version of this email, and other messages here on my campaign website.

Why Run?
The first question that I am often asked is, “Why are you running for chair?”

Perhaps the best way to answer is to begin with disposing of typical reasons of why people might run, and why those are not my reasons for running. If I were to win this election, I would incur a huge penalty of time and money. I have no aspirations for elected office, nor to be a paid lobbyist or paid campaign worker. I will not trade principles for power, and I oppose those who do.

While no one wants to be negative, there are reasons why I have chose to run, rather than to just accept the default choice.

The real reason, is that I cannot sit back and just let the power brokers in the party hand-pick our next party leaders. YOU are supposed to have that choice. But they know that the incumbent has a HUGE advantage in name recognition, positive press, controlling the rules, and so on. So they kept you out of the loop in determining our next incumbent. How so?

When Dave Hansen first ran for chair, two years ago, it was an issue that he was the campaign manager for Orrin Hatch. But Hatch wasn’t running for reelection that cycle, and Hansen promised the convention that if Hatch ran again, he (Hansen) would not run for reelection as party chair. He did NOT say that he would resign before his term was finished if Hatch ran again. I think it is implicit that anyone offering themselves for office is willing to serve out their term unless they explicitly state that they intend to not finish the term, and the voters know that, before casting their votes (Hansen did NOT declare that he intended to fill only part of his term), or something extraordinary happens that is beyond the person’s control and reasonable expectations.

The decision for Hatch to run for reelection was not extraordinary or unexpected. So for Dave Hansen to resign early, in order to run Hatch’s reelection campaign is not right. Besides, though Hatch has a difficult road ahead of him, Hansen would have still had a year to be Hatch’s campaign manager before the nominating convention, had he served his full term. And if that wasn’t enough, he certainly knew it going in, and should have disclosed that fact during his campaign, two years ago.

So if Hansen’s resignation wasn’t about Hatch’s reelection, what was it about? Well, it probably WAS about Hatch’s reelection, in a number of ways. You might remember that chairman Hansen took a beating in the press for being on Hatch’s payroll his first year as party chair. He stopped accepting the money, once he was caught. After going without that $5K a month for six months (That’s $30,000 he missed out on!), you can imagine that he was anxious to start getting that income again, as Hatch’s campaign manager. But more importantly, Hatch needed to insure his control over the party continued after Hansen’s term, and an early resignation meant that the establishment-laden State Central Committee (SCC) got to choose the replacement, rather than the delegates (the same ones who ousted Senator Bennett, mind you), at the convention where there would be no incumbent.

It was interesting that at the December 4th meeting, before Hansen had officially announced his resignation (which he did at that meeting), Thomas Wright already had a campaign organization well under way. How did he know? There were only rumors reported in press at that point, and those, only as of a few days before. The answer is obvious. Dave Hansen, Hatch’s campaign manager, would not resign without a Hatch-friendly replacement all lined up. In fact, endorsements for Wright came piling in during the next couple of days, before the replacement filing period even expired, and before anyone else could put together an assessment of a credible campaign. How can anyone honestly endorse someone, before they even know who the other candidates are?

The SCC did not disappoint Hatch. In the January meeting, they dutifully elected the heir-apparent, Thomas Wright. They did this while exhibiting complete disdain for your rights and your voice as a delegate.

• In the meeting before the election, the SCC voted 50-25 for the SCC veto power–saying that even if thousand of delegates approved a future constitutional amendment by a 2/3 vote, the SCC could veto that by as few as 20 SCC members voting against it (20 is half of the minimum quorum of 40). Though the vote was not recorded, several people observed Thomas Wright stand and vote IN FAVOR of this SCC Veto proposal.
• In the same meeting that Thomas was elected, the SCC also voted down the Delegates’ Rights Amendment, which would have done the opposite of the SCC veto amendment, and would have fully restored the rights of delegates to amend the constitution, which they had up until it was taken away by leadership, by a reinterpretation of the rules, and not restored, despite the delegates’ demands to do so (via a resolution which was effectively ignored by the SCC). There were so many voting against this amendment it would be hard to single out a few, but it was clear that Thomas was not among the few who voted for it.
• The SCC also overwhelmingly voted down the candidates, for the three party offices being filled at that meeting, who clearly stood for the voice of the delegates, and their rights to amend the constitution without the SCC having veto power.

As a delegate, my opponent, Thomas Wright is not your friend. He voted FOR the SCC Veto power. He voted AGAINST the delegates being able to propose constitutional amendments directly to the convention, even with a number of cosponsors to ensure the quality of that proposal.

To be fair, I believe that the other candidate for chair, Arnold Gaunt, opposed the SCC veto power.

All is (not) Well
A phrase we often hear in Utah, among Mormons, and even others, is, “All is NOT well in Zion.” And indeed, in spite of the GOP domination of Utah politics, we still seem to end up with some very questionable policies being supported by our elected officials at the state and federal level. I suspect that this is at least partly due to a lack of commitment to the principles in our party platform. If nothing else, there are certainly those (elected officials and party officers, alike) who are willing to put the politics of power ahead of the party platform principles.

We currently have a situation where one of the powerful incumbents has essentially chosen our current party leadership. They, in turn, are inclined to do his bidding.

While I may have issues with some of our current elected officials, it is not the job of party officers to give favorable treatment to some Republicans over others. Once you, the delegates, have chosen a nominee, then it is the officers’ jobs to do everything they can (within legal and moral bounds, of course) to get those nominees elected in the general election. Whether the nominee is my first choice or not, I will pledge to do that for you.

But don’t all party leaders do that? The simple answer is, “No.” Some candidates are favored over others during the nomination process. That “favoring” can take many forms, most of which are very subtle, yet very effective.

Worse, once a nominee is selected by the delegates, sometimes the party leadership does not put their whole heart into getting that person elected–especially if the nominee isn’t willing to go along with the implied rules of the good old boy network.

Why Me?
I have no interest in becoming an elected official, professional lobbyist, or paid campaign worker/consultant. I simply believe in, and want to promote, the principles of our party platform. I am not tempted by the trappings of power and wealth. My children are grown, and (mostly) out on their own, so I have time and energy to devote to this role, without being dependent on the prospects of power and money that often play a part in attracting candidates for this office.

Here are my priorities:

• A level playing field on which delegates can choose nominees, amend the party platform/rules, and set the direction of our party.
• A chair that will respect and act upon the voice of the delegates in executing the duties of the party.
  • Once nominees are chosen, I will responsibly use the resources of the party and my position to assist them in their general election. Once elected, they should be held accountable to the party platform, as approved by you–the delegates. They should be servants of the public, and accountable to you. If they run for re-election, a large part of the determination of their worthiness for your support should be their past faithfulness to the party platform.
• Additionally, the party needs to be viable, and to continue to grow. We have a great platform. We don’t do much to publicize it. I think it is our best tool for attracting new people to the party. Some hold back their support from the party because they reasonably question our commitment to the platform, at times.
• We need money, to run the party effectively. Principles are the heart of what binds us together as a party, but they do not pay the bills. In addition to seeking donations from the traditional sources, I believe that we can increase revenue as we recommit to the principles of the platform. Party members will be pleased to contribute to a party that is truly committed to its principles. Sympathetic businesses will be happy to donate out of mutual respect for the principles, rather than feeling like they need to pay a bribe or protection money in order to not be targeted by government interference.
• We have been rightfully maligned, in Utah, for our poor turnouts in primaries and general elections. Some blame the caucus and convention system. I believe it is just a symptom of not motivating voters with good candidates who champion the principles of the party platform. Our principles are those that have made this nation great. Abandoning them is what has led to our recent malaise. If we start acting excited about our principles, and put forth nominees who are also excited about those principles, we will do more to “get out the vote” than by any other method.
• I also pledge to not spend a lot of money on my campaign. If you want free food or fancy (albeit vacuous) campaign brochures, try another source. If you want principled leadership, I offer my time and energy for your consideration.

My name is Dave Duncan. I am an unabashed supporter of the grassroots, the voice of the delegates, the GOP Platform and a level playing field. I look forward to leading this party into a new era. I hope that you will support me in that effort.

Today, I am officially announcing my candidacy for State Party Chair.

In recent meetings, the State Central Committee (SCC) not only voted (in December) to exert control over your last vestige of power to amend the party constitution, but they also rejected the opportunity I gave them at the January meeting to reinstate your right to amend the constitution, with their overwhelming rejection of the Delegates’ Rights proposal that Ben Smith and I sponsored.

In the last meeting (Saturday, May 14), the SCC rescinded their attempt to exert veto power over your constitutional amendment proposals. They realize that with the SCC’s own C&B committee being able to redirect any proposals to the SCC, rather than to the delegates in convention, they already have a virtual veto power over grassroots-oriented state party constitutional amendment proposals.

Let’s re-establish our right to amend the constitution. Please cosponsor the Delegates’ Rights amendment with me. It is my goal to have hundreds of delegates cosponsor this amendment, so that leadership will not leave it off the convention agenda.

Please click the link above and take thirty-seconds to cosponsor that amendment. Let’s end the domination of this party by lobbyists and party insiders. Let’s reassert the right of the delegates to have the ultimate say in the party.

Dave Duncan

Candidate for Utah Republican Party Chair

Unfortunately, he is actually a very pleasant tyrant, as exhibited by his behavior at the SCC meeting last Saturday (May 14, 2011).

• Arguing the merits of pending issues from the position of the chair (a blatant violation of Robert’s Rules)
• Stifling illegal immigration resolutions from coming before the body with his opening statement essentially begging the body not to debate the issues.
• Ruling a common-sense-amendment out of scope with a justification that is exactly opposite of the rules, obviously because it would have prevented the abuse of the proposed rule that he, and others, wanted to slip through unnoticed.
• Calling for decorum early in the meeting, yet allowing (in spite of protests) the most egregious breaches of decorum–even possibly-slanderous remarks–against an individual who he specifically disallowed to speak in his own defense (despite requests for Thomas to allow it), or even be present to face his accusers.

I will undoubtedly be accused of negative campaigning, because I point out these very-underhanded behaviors of Thomas. But I would ask, who is worse, the person who perpetrates underhandedness, or the person who calls him out for doing so?

Trust me. I have no reason to lie in this manner. I have little chance of winning against the Thomas Wright machine. I will receive nothing but a lot of grief for even challenging such a darling of the rich and powerful. And even if I did win, I would put countless hours of service into an organization without the “standard” incentive of the pathway to power and wealth that it offers those who usually occupy the office.

For what it is worth, I am also an adamant proponent of the Caucus/Convention system. Especially if the only alternative is to let the increasingly-socialistic press virtually choose our elected officials via their 8-second sound-bytes on the evening news.

–Dave Duncan