The View From The Cheap Seats
If you’re anything more than a casual observer of conservative North Carolina politics, you know that this past weekend saw the 2010 NCGOP State Convention in Winston-Salem. As the marquee Republican event in the state leading up to what could be a historic mid-term election, most of the official attention paid to the event was focused on the party’s determination to re-elect Senator Richard Burr and what role (if any) the Tea Party movement will play in November.
Unless you’re comatose, you know that the big political story over the last couple of weeks has been the unprecedented move made by NCGOP State Chairman Tom Fetzer in inserting himself into the 8th Congressional District’s Republican primary runoff between Tim D’Annunzio and Harold Johnson. Fetzer’s public denouncement of D’Annunzio as “unfit for public office at any level” led D’Annunzio to call for Fetzer’s resignation and hint at possible legal action. D’Annunzio had a legitimate reason for demanding Fetzer’s resignation; the chairman’s action was a flagrant violation of the party’s governing document, the NCGOP Plan of Organization. The P.O.O. prohibits party officers and members of the State Executive Committee from using their offices to influence Republican primary races. D’Annunzio’s justification for a lawsuit was somewhat less clear, but no less adamant.
People have staked out different sides in that debate, with a loose consensus developing that Fetzer may have had valid reasons for involving himself in the race, but nevertheless should show respect for the party’s rules and step down. Speculation was rampant that D’Annunzio would come to the NCGOP convention with a large contingent of delegates to force a showdown.
Well, I was there, and I can tell you there wasn’t just one showdown, but several. None, however, involved Tim D’Annunzio or the 8th District Republican Primary. Instead, the 2010 NCGOP State convention involved battles that revolved not around personalities or congressional races, but rather competing principles and visions for the future of the Republican Party.
As at past state conventions, there were two business sessions where debates were conducted on the convention’s rules, the party’s Plan of Organization, Platform, and Resolutions. The action started during the Friday business session with the adoption of the convention rules. These were the rules that would govern the way the convention would conduct its other business. A dust-up occurred almost immediately, when a rule was proposed by the Rules Committee requiring that any resolutions offered from the floor (as in, offered by ordinary delegates not already on the Resolutions Committee) need to be accompanied by no fewer than 1,000 copies, which had to be passed out to attendees in advance.
A few delegates offered protests, saying that producing 1,000 copies was cost-prohibitive, and a motion was made to reduce the requirement to 250 copies (said motion didn’t get far, as the delegate count on Friday was already 347). An amendment to that motion raised the total to 350. However, before too long, a delegate called the question, and the amendment was defeated, leaving the required number of copies at 1,000.
This challenge was seemingly mundane, but its significance was underscored when I overheard a longtime convention attendee comment that he’d never seen a debate over the convention rules before. It spoke of distrust of the motivations of the rule-makers, and it set the tone for the day.
The major fight of the Friday business session was over a proposed change to the party Plan of Organization. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m the person who made this motion, so I can’t claim to be an impartial reporter here. The motion was to declare that no member of the NCGOP Executive Committee could be barred from any meeting of the NCGOP Central Committee.
A little background: a frequent complaint made by some members of the NCGOP is that while the Plan of Organization states that the Executive Committee is supposed to be the final authority in the party, the Central Committee actually runs the show. The Executive Committee is made up of hundreds of county-level activists from all over the state. The Central Committee, a much smaller group, consists of the top-level party officers. The accusation is that the Central Committee has a tendency to duck into closed session to make all the really important decisions. I made this motion with the intent of bringing about greater transparency and dispelling that mistrust.
Unfortunately, another Mecklenburg delegate, Carson Daves, made a motion to prevent consideration of the amendment. This motion was meant to kill my amendment without even allowing the delegates to debate and vote on it. As a result, the idea of greater transparency was debated anyway, as delegates argued whether or not to allow consideration of the amendment.
Those against increased transparency argued that since the Central Committee hires, fires, and sets salaries of party employees, private sessions are vital to preserve confidentiality. Those for greater transparency (myself included) argued that while such a policy might be fine for a private company, the hiring of employees (paid entirely from activist donations) and the power those employees are granted affects all Republicans, and the citizens of North Carolina at large. As such, those decisions, which are the most important ones the Central Committee makes, must be subject to absolute transparency above all.
In the end, it was a mixed bag. Two votes were held: the first defeated Mr. Daves’ motion to kill debate, and the second defeated my motion to open the Central Committee meetings. The vote results were interesting and enlightening: Out of 347 delegates, 126 voted in favor of greater transparency, and 114 voted against it; 107 abstained, refusing to vote either way.
Essentially, the process revealed that one-third of the delegates wanted to keep an eye on party officers, another third didn’t, and one third was simply too afraid to publicly take a stand either way.
1 2
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=2266
