The SCC Meeting - Censure

Bloggers and commentors (mostly anons) have been posting about this weekend's GOP State Central Committee meeting. I would like to share my perspective. Of course the burning issue was the censure of National Committeewoman Kim Lehman.

In the weeks leading up to the meeting, several county central committees from the Second Congressional District had passed resolutions calling for Lehman's censure, removal or resignation. This week some county chairs and legislators from the 2nd District put out a press release calling for the same.

So, it was no surprise when several people showed up at the meeting to air their views on Lehman. RPI Chairman Stewart Iverson told visitors that they could address the committee around 1pm. I did not keep track of who spoke but all the speakers urged the SCC to act and/or Lehman to resign. Iverson did a good job of allowing people to speak without letting things get out of hand. Well done Stewart.

After it appeared that everyone had spoken, I introduce The following censure motion: 

Whereas National Committeewoman Kim Lehman is also President of the Iowa Right to Life Committee, and

Whereas the Iowa Right to Life Committee, in their pre-election newsletter unfairly attacked and distorted the pro-life position of our Second District Congressional candidate, Dr. Marianette Miller-Meeks, and

Whereas this newsletter has caused many to question whether the National Comitteewoman and the Republican Party of Iowa support all of our candidates, and

Whereas Ms Lehman failed to adequately respond to this issue before the election by apologizing and declaring her unqualified support for Dr. Miller-Meeks, and

Whereas Ms Lehman's actions have affected both her credibility and the ability of the Republican Party of Iowa with activist in the Second Congressional District and throughout the state, and

Whereas the Republican State Central Committee lacks the authority to remove Ms Lehman from her position:

Be it resolved that State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Iowa hereby censures Ms Lehman for her actions in both failing to support and acting in opposition to the winner of our Second District Congressional Primary. This censure motion is a vote of no confidence and a call for Ms Lehman to resign from her position as Iowa's National Committeewomen.

While I informed other members that a censure motion would be introduced, I did not lobby any members to support it.

During the debate, Kim expressed regrets over her actions and stated that she was stepping down from her position as president of IRLC and that should prevent any further conflicts of interest. She said that there would be a transition and a new IRLC president would likely be introduce at their Spring event. 

I need to make two corrections.

1) Kim did not express regrets over her actions. Rather she expressed regrets over what happened.

2) My previous post implied that Kim was stepping down from IRLC as a result of censure. That is simply not true. Kim had been working toward a new job for some time and let us know at the meeting that she will be moving onto her next position and is hoping to announce the new director at Iowa Right to Life's banquet in the spring.  What I meant was that given that Kim would no longer IRLC president - there would be no further conflicts of interest.

Ultimately the censure motion passed 8-7.

I know that many in my district wanted this vote to be by roll call. They wanted members to go on record as to how they voted. Originally, I had planned on abstaining on any procedural votes to either vote by ballot or roll call. When a motion for a vote by secret ballot was made, I decided to speak in favor and the censure vote was taken by secret ballot.

To those in my district who wanted a roll call vote — you know how I voted. I wrote and sponsored the censure motion. I spoke for it and I voted for it. But I voted for a secret ballot for two reasons. First, I wanted people to vote their conscience. I did not know whether a secret ballot would help or hurt passage of censure. Second, my purpose in censure in the first place was to put and end to this. I still believe every word of the censure motion and everything I said about it in debate. But whether Kim were to resign or not, I wanted us as a party to put this behind us. I was afraid that by making the vote public, those who voted against censure (and as I have discovered personally, those who voted for censure) would become targets themselves.

The issue is GOP leaders supporting our candidates. Stryker over at Flyover Country and others are asking who the no votes were.  It is one thing to punish someone for doing wrong, it is something altogether different to punish other SCC members for not agreeing on the degree of the wrong done or the appropriate response.

It is time to put this behind us. The Iowa House, Iowa Senate, Terrace Hill, the US House, US Senate and White House are all controlled by Democrats. Now is the time for us to work together so on Tuesday, November 2nd 2010, when we get to gather all across the state for Victory Parties — we will have victories to celebrate.

Comments

[IowaFan]

A difficult job done well, David. Thank you.

The secret ballot was the right move.

[David is a LIAR]

David Lies.

What happened to you promising openness? All talk, aren't you? What a joke.

April 2010 is the end for you, I pray.

[Andy Cable-]

Having attended the meeting David did not lie. He did not make the motion and it was ultimately voted for unamiously.
While I was disappointed that there was no voice or hand vote I might also had there was no request from any on the Committee for a Roll Call after the vote. The general opinion seems to be the vote was taken- it shows their true feelings without being affected by public opinion and afterall they all still have to work together in the future.
The VOTE was taken- it is now history and lets get on to the real bsuiness at hand- rebuilding the party and winning elections.
I was very impressed with David and his ability to present a difficult situation with clarity and represent his District's feelings. I think also if you reread his promise to have an open vote which I presume is your basis for calling him a liar- it was a promise of an open Roll Call on the vote for State Chair.
The State Central Committee is well represented by members like David that understand they are elected to work for their Districts at the state level and not just some single interst group. RPI would be much better off a few more like him on the board.

[hawkeyegop]

Andy,

Actually my promise was to report the vote for chair. I never promised to ask for a roll call vote for anything.

In the past, the elections for chair have been held in such a way that not even the SCC members knew who had received how many votes. Last time they asked our auditor, David Vaudt to count the votes. Vaudt only reported who won -- not how many votes they received. Then the SCC voted to make it unanimous.

My promise is that I will fight to make the vote COUNT public and I will report the results on this blog. I have NEVER promised to try and force a roll call.

Members will still vote in secret but if the vote is 17-0 or 9-8 I will let you know. That is what I have promised.

[anon]

Well done. Yes, this part of the nightmare is over and we're full speed ahead to defeat Democrats.

With people like Dave in the SCC, we're in good shape.

[Tibby]

The reason David Chung is held in such high regard by those in the know is his reasoned, solid approach to solving complex problems. Yes, I fear we have many to resolve.
David, well done - you have delivered a strong measure of composure to proceedings that could have evolved into a disaster. It's this style of leadership we RESPECT from you...and EXPECT from the others who represent us at all levels of our party. Take note of that folks....many will have to defend their performance; some sooner, some later.
Let's also express the understated obvious; that each of our SCC members donated their weekend at the expense of family time to perform the heavy lifting of democracy. We appreciate it!

[Todd Versteegh]

Well said. The process was open..it was there for all to see. David reported the vote and the details behind what occurred at the meeting.

David, we respect and honor your service to the party. Thank you for always being willing to take on the difficult tasks that come before us as a party.

[Matt Green]

David, I really hope this will restore some balance to the Party. The social issues are very important, but so are the fiscal and national security issues, and the most important of all the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights, which are being eroded very very quickly under Democrat control.

I believe in being straightforward and standing your ground for what you believe in, but that has to be done with a degree of intelligence with some forethought toward strategy and prioritization, and overall with a boatload of common sense and a good ability to articulate. Radical, militant, purist, slogan-shouting antics make you look like some foaming-at-the-mouth rogue loon and will convince nobody but the small minority of true believers following you.

That's why I think this censure of Kim Lehman was a good thing. The more overzealous side of the Right to Life crowd had gotten a little too full of their own power after some successful moves at the state party level and were a little unhinged. They were starting on the path of the purist death spiral and needed to be reeled in before long term damage was done to the party. I hope with the SCC doing this it will send a message and right the ship a bit.

[Nicky Baker]

David-

Thank you for your service. I hope you continue to take the long view on all of the issues facing us, and continue to vote for what is best for the party in this state.

It will be good when we can expect all of our state central committee members to act in this way, instead of their own (or their other allegiances) best interests.

I think the biggest problem facing our party today is trust. Many on the SCC do not trust one another, and they do not engender trust from the counties. You have started us down a path towards changing what has gone wrong.

Thank you,
and God Bless!

[Andy Cable-]

My point had been to stress to the earlier blogger that you had not promised anything on the Lehman vote only the Chair/ Co-Chair votes therefore you had not lied.
My mistake was in assuming you were stating that you would call for a Roll Call of names on those votes. Your response does explain that and correct my mistaken assumtion. I appreciate the clarification.
Keep up the good work for Iowa Republicans!

[Darrell Kearaney]

Dave, since there has been some discussion on your blog pertaining to State Party assistance to our federal congressional candidates in Iowa, Stew authorized me to clarify the law. Under the McCain Feigold law. The RNC is prohibited from providing any funds to federal candidates thru State and County Parties. So no such funds were ever sent to the State Party to be earmarked for our Senate Candidate. The State party and county parties are allowed to provide upto $5000 in cash or inkind contributins. The State Party offered our U.S. Senate Candidate upto $5000 through providing office space, phones, email newsletters, press releases etc. As a result, the state party did forward any and all newsletters, statements and press releases we were given by the campaign. The campaign chose not to accept our offer of office space and phone service. Thanks, Darrell

[HawkeyeGOP]

Darrel,

Thanks for clearing that up. Good info.

[Grant Young]

Darrell rules! Nice work DK!

[Michael Ryan]

Either way at the end of the day Kim is still the National Committee Woman. But at least the ordeal is over. My only regret is why some people went to the press about this situation first, but not keep in in the party. But time can hopefully fix that situation.
One more point to bring to thought is this, is the only point of the Republican Party to elect Republicans? Think about this question to see how your view of the party is.

Michael Ryan