Stephen Frank, California Political News and Views, 9/22/22 .
VERY BIG STORY!!!!
Matt Shupe in Contra Costa is asking his central committee, as Chair, to approve the following bylaw change at the Tuesday, a couple of nights ago. Central Committee meeting.:
“Republican nominees and incumbents for the following offices shall also be Ex-Officio Members if they reside in Contra Costa County and received the endorsement of the Contra Costa Republican Party.”
Below is the Elections Code Section 7404 which requires only nominees or incumbents *not necessarily* endorsed candidates. Also, they do not have to live in the County, but the district they represent has at least one precinct in the County)(Regarding the morality, nominees are chosen by the primary voters, who are a higher authority than merely central committees voting on endorsements.)
The good news is that he postponed the vote based on what he said was legal issues that were brought up. No, not during debate on these issues—he refused to allow ANY discussion, debate or even MEWNTION of his proposal to violate the State Election Code. He knew about the legal opinion given the San Fran GOP—this this by law change was illegal. But, only because it , and he, was exposed statewide did he agree to table his by law change.
NOW THE BAD NEWS
He still refused to allow ex officious to vote on anything. In fact, at least four, illegally, were NEVER notified of the Committee meeting. Then when items like the minutes, treasurers report and other routine business the ex officious present were FORCED to leave the room—not allowed to vote or even see the vote on anything.
Matt Shupe spent almost three hours in a monlugue running the meeting. Even Fidel Castro would be proud of his filibuster!. They only thing Matt was lacking was a beard and wearing a funny hat.
Now, for the really bad news of the Contra Costa Central Committee. If they are sued for a Civil Rights or Election Code violation, the insurance company that carries their Errors and Omission policy will NOT pay for the defense or the settlement, In the insurance policy there is a section that says that if those covered INTENTIONALLY violate the law, the policy will not cover them—they will have to pay for attorneys and fines themselves. This could be a major expense for many of the members. If I were on the Committee, I would leave immediately and cooperate in the investigation. Do you want to be on a Committee and pay for attorney fees and fines personally? By not appealing the decision of the Chair to allow the ex officious to participate an vote on Tuesday night, each member is individually liable to the violation of the law,
BTW, the same situation is happening in the LAGOP and I expect complaints with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State—the LAGOP is also a corporation—to be filed. Those committee members may have to put their Christmas fund aside and use it to hire attorneys. At least John Dennis in San Fran GOP had the smarts to ask the CRP attorneys for advice—and then follow it.
TALKING POINTS
- Want to know the type of person CRP Chair Patterson is promoting? This is from a CRP newsletter sent on 9/21/22 promoting the organization founded by Charles Munger, Jr.—and now is part of the California Republican Party. This is how they define Greg Wallis to Republicans:
- “Mr. Wallis is also the Chief District Advisor to his local Assemblyman. Seeing how COVID-19 policies negatively impacted his friends and neighbors, he decided to run for office.”
Note they do not say who the Assemblyman is. So, here is the name:
Gregory Wallis – District Director for Assemblyman Chad Mayes
https://www.linkedin.com › gregory-wallis-75211846
La Quinta, California, United States · District Director for Assemblyman Chad Mayes · California State Assembly
View Gregory Wallis‘ profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Gregory has 4 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile ..
Why isn’t the CRP and Patterson being honest with us?
BTW, this is the same California Republican Party/California Trailblazers that has been using your donorations to use staff to fund raise for Matt Rahn in the 71st AD—he is the candidate they support that was an eight time donor to Obama for President and supported Kamala Harris for the U.S. Senate—he is running against a Republican, Katie Sanchez,
2. The California Republican party has been raising money for “Parents Revolt”. They claim the money would be used to help candidates. But, according to the CRP by laws, the party can not assist candidates until they are endorsed. So, when is the CRP Board going to vote on the endorsement of School Board candidates?
THE ENDROSEMENT VOTE WILL BE ON OCTOBER 22—12 DAYS AFTER THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS GO OUT AN 16 DAYS BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 8 VOTE. IN OTHER WORDS ALL THEY ARE DOING IS CHECKING A BOX, WITH NO REAL DESIRE TO HELP THESE CANDDIATES.
Also, under the CRP by laws, a candidate can only be considered for endorsement if the County Central Committee in which the district appears, has endorsed them. Almost nobody , certainly NOT the Counties have been informed fo the October 22 Board meeting. Another example of taking the most money for the least amount of effort—then claiming they did “hard work:.
(Periodically the California Political News and Views will publish tidbits of political news, to
keep you in the loop of what the pooh bahs know. The phrase “tom/tom’s” comes from my
mentor, Lorelei Kinder who never passed a rumor, just called to tell me what she heard on the
“Tom/Tom’s”. This column is named in her honor.)
