SCC Conflicts of Interest

The State Central Committee held a special phone meeting on Wednesday June 1 to deal with the issue of potential conflicts of interest. The issue was brought up by  my friend Art Smith at The Conservative Reader and Kevin Hall at the Iowa Republican. The issue is State Central Committee Members serving on campaigns and endorsing candidates in the Straw Poll and Caucuses.

Most readers know my personal position. I promised to not accept a paid staff or consultant position with any campaign, nor to endorse any candidate in a contested GOP primary or caucus while serving on the SCC. When my friend Christian Fong ran for governor, I resigned in order to publicly endorse and work as a volunteer on his campaign.

During the meeting, John Ortega made a motion to ask those members who were working for campaigns to re-affirm their commitment to represent their districts and to recuse themselves from votes that would benefit their candidates. I believe that Jeremiah Johnson moved to amend and Ortega's motion. Ultimately, I made the motion that the committee passed. the motion read:

Those State Central Committee members with paid staff or consultant positions on campaigns in contested primaries or caucuses are required to disclose those relationships to the State Central Committee.

I know that at least in the old 2nd district the sentiment has been that SCC members hould be prohibited form serving on campaigns and advocacy groups altogether. However, not wishing to pass an ex post facto law,  no one on the committee advocated such a measure.

My purpose in crafting the motion was to shine light on the issue through disclosure without punishing anyone. Those members who currently serve on campaigns are not in violation of any rule, bylaw or provision of the RPI constitution. Further, I have no concerns about the integrity of these members, I believe that they will carry out their duties keeping the best interest of the party in mind and will recuse themselves voluntarily when necessary.

By way of disclosure, Tim Moran works for Congressman King, Wes Enos is on Michelle Bachmann's staff, Drew Ivers, David Fischer and AJ Spiker are on Ron Paul's staff. And this evening when I visited the Dubuque County CC meeting I learned that Jeremiah Johnson has publicly endorsed Ron Paul.

When the vote took place, Wes chose to abstain. Art Smith reports that the motion passed 10-4 with one abstention. According to Art one "no" vote came from a member who wanted stronger action. The other three votes took me by surprise. Ivers, Fischer and Spiker all voted no.

Recently I was told that there was a perception that this was an anti-Ron Paul effert. The person who told me this suggested that since historically many SCC members have served on campaigns but there has never been any concern until now when three members were working for the same candidate. This is not the case. There has been concern about SCC conflicts of interest for many years. The concerns have largely arisen out of my district, the old 2nd District. In fact in our first district convention 2002 passed a rule prohibiting just such behavior. The measure went on to defeat at the state convention. This is not new and is not anti-Ron Paul.

In his blog Art Smith suggests that a stronger measure may come before the State Convention. I know there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, I suspect that Art is right.

Comments

[NickyB]

David,
In my time away from volunteering in the political sector, I have been studying nonprofit organizational leadership at the University of Iowa. While my studies centered on CHARITABLE nonprofits, many of the principles can be extrapolated to fit the POLITICAL nonprofit sector.
Specifically, the issue you address here in your blog, regarding conflicts of interest, there are principles and practices that are recommended by the secretary of state's office. This document can be viewed at: http://nonprofit.law.uiowa.edu/AboutUs/inrcpubs.asp
I would recommend that the SCC review section V, Board of Directors. In that section it talks about the duties and responsibilities of board members. The standards of conduct and skills, knowledge and abilities by which we should judge the effectiveness of board members.
The most importance heading to consider under Section V is Paragraph F. Principle -- Board's Fiduciary Duty. This paragraph outlines the legal duty of the board members, particularly the board's Duty of Loyalty; directors MUST place the interests of the organization before the director's private interests. The document suggests that conflicts of interest should be managed rather than entirely avoided; to do so a conflict of interest policy should be written to include:
a. An annual written conflict disclosure by all board members.
b. Another disclosure process as particular conflict of interest situations arise for particular directors.
c. Provisions for the individual board member to not be involved in the board action on matters in which that board member has a conflict of interest.

I hope that this information helps you in your quest to strengthen our organization and make it more effective as we progress.

Nicky

[NickyB]

I have tried to post the rest of my thoughts on the other blogs you have mentioned... but their sites think I am a spammer, oh the irony :)

For the Iowa GOP to succeed in the future, we must adopt standards of excellence that keep us above the fray, above any accusations of impropriety or conflict of interest. Adopting a standard such as the Iowa Principles and Practices for Charitable Nonprofit Excellence is a step in the right direction.

It is time that we hold our leadership accountable to accomplish our mission; to develop and train leaders of our party, so that they may develop and train the local leadership; so that we may all together find and train good candidates for office and get them elected; so that those elected may serve the people in an ethical and effective manner based upon Republican principles outlined in our party platform. This is our purpose, we must not let it get bogged down and convoluted by personal power politicking.

Thank you David for your integrity and perseverance on this issue.

[William Dahlsten]

Years ago, this was not a problem. Then, a new morality sprang forth from tithes to cable television messengers. The ends justified the means.
It starts with a single issue group. The single issue group provides you with a job. It leads a position on RPI's Central Committee. It gets you a paying job with a primary candidate(s). It gets you a spot on the Republican National Committee.
Woe be to those who would go to Des Moines and demand corrective action. For they who so profit shall call forth their followers in your county. Claim it is righteous to obtain vengeance by any means, or individual leadership impaired.
What is to be done with those who denounce Republican candidates who be not David Dukes, but those whose stand on issues conflicts with the accuser's cash flow?

Rudy, Iowa Christians, a tough sell
Dec. 1, 2007
Domenico Montanaro writes:From NBC/NJ's Carrie Dann
DUBUQUE, IA -- It's no secret that Iowa Christian Alliance president
Steve Scheffler isn't a Rudy fan. But tonight, within spitting distance
of Giuliani's rival GOP candidate Romney, Scheffler
explicitly urged Iowa Christians to oppose Giuliani in the race for the
nomination. "If our party nominates this guy," he told a crowd at a
Dubuque gathering of the ICA, "we will see a bloodbath at the polls
like we've never seen before."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/12/01/4431554-rudy-iowa-christians-a-tough-sell