The SCC Meeting - Correction
In my previous post I wrote:
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.
"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.
Your correction is a revealing one. As I have expressed elsewhere (see Krusty) the reasoning used in defense of and glossing over of our Republican National Committeewoman's actions regarding Miller-Meeks have been a huge embarrassment to right-to-life interests and conservative credibility within the Republican Party. And of course it hurt the Republican Party and a decent candidate. It was not an innocent mistake because it was not balanced and corrections have been nonexistent.
Your correction points out that our Committeewoman is not clearly sorry for her failures in this matter. Adding to that is the fact that the offending newsletter is still posted on the IRLC web site and no balanced information correction or apology has ever been posted. She is still in control of the situation and the obstinacy and conflict of interest continues. Nothing prevents her from adding information or archiving the offending newsletter.
You have corrected the record regarding her non-apology. The essence of the corrected statement is that she is sorry we were offended (apostasy mongering dolts that we are), not that she was sorry about any action or failure on her part. According to your corrected report and the lack of corrective actions, the offense continues, some seven weeks or more after the furor erupted. Regrettably a censure means nothing to an obstinate person.
Posted by: Roger Mall | Dec 10, 2008 5:10:08 PM