Local GOP Committee Urged To Investigate

Slimy

After accusations of mishandling of funds, and the disbanding of a local conservative group, the GOP Central Committee was asked to investigate allegations of wrong doing.

Breaking:

Martin Bertram, immediate past president of the Republican Assembly of Kern County, has asked the Kern County GOP Central Committee to investigate the actions of prior president Ken Mettler. Mettler has been accused of misusing group funds to pay for non-club related expenses. Mettler, who was reportedly in attendance, objected to the calls for investigation citing the Bakersfield Police Department's announcement that it would not pursue criminal charges, and the California Republican Assembly's internal investigation which cleared Mettler of wrong doing. In response, Bertram pointed out that the BPD investigation cleared Mettler of wrong doing, but made no determination whether civil charges should be filed, nor whether Mettler violated the group's bylaws.

Martin Bertram, and other now former RAKC board members allege that the CRA had no interest in determining the specifics of the case, only clearing Mettler, and attempting to save the name of the group from further controversy. It's been alleged that the state group will reconstitute the local club, but fill the board with individuals who are sympathetic to the state group and Ken Mettler.

Reportedly there were not enough executive committee members in attendance at the meeting to vote on whether or not to move forward with an investigation. The executive committee has agreed to review evidence presented by Martin Bertram to determine if there is cause for an investigation.

It's this blogger's opinion that Mettler's dirtier than cattle trailer after a visit to the slaughterhouse. I've posted my account of his behavior previously. It's my hope that the Central Committee decides to move forward, and that Mettler is forced to give up his run for office.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Shocker: Unions Miss Point

Zack Scrivner is a local City Councilman who is running for County Supervisor. He has an uphill battle before him because, as a taxpayer advocate and fiscal conservative, he chose to take on the Police and Fire Unions. Recently, the Fire Union began an attack website and will soon be airing an attack commercial, in an attempt to prevent Scrivner from being elected. Here is my take on the situation and some facts which are not being reported by the local malfeasance media. It's a chunk to read, but you'd be doing me a favor if you could read through it, and point out any areas which are not clear, or difficult to understand. It's been a while since I took a writing course, so thoughts in my head just spill out. If you think that paragraphs should be rearranged, feel free to let me know.

Lois Henry posted an opinion piece this weekend discussing Zack Scrivner’s fight with the local Fire and Police Unions, a fight which has gotten really ugly. Let’s wipe away the mud for a moment to determine what caused this battle and who’s right, if in fact either side is?

Before we dive too far into this issue, can we acknowledge that each party within this dispute is self interested? Zack Scrivner, who is running for Kern County Supervisor, is interested in preserving his fiscally conservative record, in an effort to convince voters that he is the best candidate for the position. Zack will fight to act in a fiscally conservative manner to improve his chances in June and again in November, as he should. The Bakersfield City Police and Firefighters are interested in securing the best employment compensation and retirement package that they can. They will lobby and fight to get the best deal that they can, as they should.

Now, let’s take a little trip through history to discover how we got to where we are today.
In the early 2000s under the leadership of a Democratic Legislature and a Democratic Governor, California State approved a change in the pension formula for employees of local governments:

"In 2002, the state’s Democratic-led Legislature authorized local government entities — such as cities, counties and school districts — to change their pension formula from 2 percent-at-50 to 3 percent-at-50, meaning that public employees at least 50-years-old can get retirement pay equal to 3 percent of their best year’s salary for every year they worked, to a maximum of 90 percent."

The maximum benefit which a retiring employee could receive each year was bumped from 60% prior to the Legislature’s action to the 90% reported here, which is actually 98%, but I will explain that further below. While a change of a single percentage point 2% to 3% may not seem like a lot of money, to local government entities this represents a 50% increase in retirement benefits to be paid out. That 50% increase in retirement benefits coupled with the jump in the maximum, 98% of highest pay earned while working, had the potential to create a massive unfunded liability.

When financial circumstances were much better, the Bakersfield City Council, under lobbying pressure from the local employees unions, locally approved the change in retirement benefits which the state had amended previously. The change in benefits was enacted retroactively, which entitled all employees to a 50% increase in retirement benefits, as soon as the legislation was enacted.

It should be noted that there are three major unions which lobby on behalf of city employees: the Bakersfield Police Officers Association which represents the police officers; the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 246 which represents the fire fighters; finally the Service Employees International Union Local 521 which represents most of the non emergency city personnel.

Starting three years ago in 2007, during their annual negotiations for city employee contracts, the City proposed a contract which would provide each employee a 4% raise in 2008, 2009 and 2010 (for a total of 12%), but in return requested retirement reform. The SEIU accepted the contract; however, the Police and Fire Unions rejected it and the retirement reform that it required. Since that time, the SEIU has been operating with a contract, and their employees have received a total of 8% in wage increases. Due to the economic downturn in Kern County, the City has asked and the SEIU has agreed to defer the 2010 wage increase until the end of 2011. Again, the SEIU has complied and continues to operate under a contract. The police and fire bargaining groups, however, are another story.

There exists this mentality that because the BPOA and IAFF unions are made up of local cops and firefighters, that they are immune from being wrong on this issue. I’m not insinuating that they are wrong in seeking the best possible deal for themselves, but to be objective in judging this dispute, you must at a minimum acknowledge the possibility that the Police and Fire Unions are fallible. I have the utmost respect for our first responders. We ask them to do things that a great many of us are unwilling or incapable of doing ourselves. Justifiably, they should be compensated for what it is that we ask them to do. However, when you allow personnel who are otherwise completely healthy and capable of performing functions related to their jobs to retire at the age of 50 with 98% of their maximum salary, you’re creating the potential for a massive unfunded liability. Unfortunately for the taxpayers of Bakersfield, that potential has been realized as a result of our current economic downturn.

Now, just how exactly did the 90% reported earlier in the article turn into 98%? Employees pay into what is called an Employee Paid Member Contribution, which is a percentage of pay for which the employee is responsible (9% for safety personnel and 8% for non-safety). However, after 5 years of service the contribution is paid in full by the city. The EPMC then gets calculated as pay when the pension tabulated, which essentially provides the employee with the 90% reported above of the 9% contribution they/the city was making. Therefore, in actuality, the 90% turns out to be more like 98%.

The important thing to remember is that the retirement reform which Scrivner is proposing would not affect current members of the police or fire unions. The reforms Scrivner is working for would only affect future hires. Police and Fire Unions are fighting hard to maintain a retirement benefit which they, themselves will not lose. Specific details are not available, but TBC is reporting that Fire has offered to take the previous deal resulting in 8% raises and some manner of retirement reform. However, the Police Union has refused to make any concessions on the retirement package and demands the raises as proposed in the original contract. Unfortunately, since 2007 the City’s financial situation has changed dramatically.

The Police and Fire Departments are paid for out of what is known as the General Fund. General Fund Revenues are generated primarily from Sales and Property taxes as well as development, building and several other fees. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine what has happened to Sales and Property Tax revenues over the last three years. According to City Manger Alan Tandy:

"General Fund Revenues are projected at $165,296,100 (including $17,328,650 in beginning fund balance and transfers). This is a decrease of $15,878,555, or 8.8%, as compared to the FY 2008-09 Adopted Budget revenues and reflects the economic slowdown. Items contributing to General Fund revenues include: $55,030,300 in sales and use taxes (down from $62.2 million from the FY 2008-09 Adopted Budget budget [sic])…"

"Other General Fund revenues, such as charges for services, reflect decreases due to the slowdown in building and construction activity and reduced services provided by the City with those user fees…"

"Sales tax receipts are down, reflecting the general economic downturn. Revised revenue projections for FY 2008-09 are about 7.0 percent lower than prior year actuals [sic]…"

"Property taxes also reflect the slowdown in development activity. Property tax revenues are expected to decline by 11.0 percent for FY 2009-10 based on information from the Kern County Assessor…"

The Police and Fire Unions have argued that the 3 at 50 retirement benefit is necessary to attract new recruits to the Bakersfield area. What attracted people to be firefighters and cops before the 3 at 50 deal? They also insist that Bakersfield has some of the lowest paid officers and firemen in the state. However, it’s important to remember that the Bakersfield median income is lower than the State's, $50,409 versus $61,021. Bakersfield median home values are 47% lower than the State's, and city and county taxes are also lower than most other metro and county areas in the state.

I believe that the City Council is acting in a fiscally responsible manner, and that they are requesting that the Police and Fire Unions recognize the economic situation which we are in. Police and Fire Unions had the opportunity to accept a contract which would have provided them with guaranteed 12% in raises, but rejected the deal. Now they want a second shot at that deal, and Bakersfield just doesn’t have the financial ability to extend that deal. Fire and Police unions claim that Scrivner was out to get them before the economy turned sour, back when Bakersfield was flush with money. Unfortunately for the Police and Fire Unions argument, it was they who walked away from the negotiating table, not the city. Further, the Police and Fire Unions miss the point. This was never about 'screwing' the public servants, but reforming a system which created a massive entitlement which would cause massive deficits or huge increases in taxes. How easy will it be to attract new recruits when the city is completely broke, or tax rates are 25%?

BPOA and IAFF, the best possible deal for your employees is 2 at 50 with a maximum of 60% and with deferred raises. Take the deal and run for the hills! Besides, you’ll be back in front of the City Council in a matter of months renegotiating for a new deal, anyway.
In the private sector, many have had their base salaries cut, benefits reduced, and retirement contributions slashed. Granted, in the private sector, most of us do not often place our lives in danger while performing our job duties. I have yet, however, to locate a private company which offers it’s employees the option to retire at the age of 50 with 3% of their highest annual salary for each year they served the company as annual compensation until they die. Did I mention that each retiree receive a 3% cost of living increase each year to offset inflation? Sounds like a sweet deal, if you can get it.

What do you think? Should this, as Scrivner has suggested, be placed on a ballot for voters to decide?

• PS, Did you see that the Firefighters have started an attack campaign TV commercial and website against Scrivner? Money must not be that tight if they can buy a website and a TV commercial.

• As a side note- An officer who entered the force at 22, retiring this year as a Sergeant from the force at age 52 with an $80,000 annual salary, will receive a total of $78,400 annually in retirement benefits. If that man lives to 67 (the life expectancy of a man born in 1958) he will receive more than $1.17 million dollars in retirement from the city, not counting the 3% bump for inflation each year.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Why Republicans Are Subject To Wandering In the Desert

From my recent blog post at the Bakersfield Californian.

Why you should not support Ken Mettler in his campaign to get elected to the California Assembly, 32nd District.

I began hearing about Ken Mettler a few years ago, and liked some of what I had heard. He was passionate about Proposition 8, even getting physical defending campaign signs from an opponent who was stealing them. I’d also heard him on the radio, and he really seemed to be a strong conservative with a passionate message. Recently, however, several things that Mr. Mettler has done or said have concerned me greatly, so much so that I am reaching out to those who support him.

Mr. Mettler has been at odds with some of the members of the local conservative community, even choosing to conduct opposition research on Zack Scrivner whom Mr. Mettler believed would run against him for the Assembly Seat. Mr. Scrivner ultimately did not run against Mr. Mettler . As you may have read in the paper, Mr. Mettler is now being investigated for improperly using Republican Assembly of Kern County (RAKC) monies to conduct that research. Mr. Mettler is also accused of improperly using RAKC monies to pay for his defense in the civil suit brought by the individual who was assaulted during the Proposition 8 scuffle.

That's right, Mettler, hide behind your kid...

It has been revealed recently, Mr. Mettler encouraged candidate Shannon Holloway to enter into the race for the 32nd Assembly as ‘political strategy’, a charge which Mettler has both denied and then more recently confirmed. Holloway recently dropped out of the race, however, her name will still appear on the ballot. Apparently, Mr. Mettler is incapable of winning on his message alone, so he must use the political strategy of adding another person with the name of Shannon to the race, in the hopes of drawing votes away from his opponent Shannon Grove. Mr. Mettler's response was not to defend his actions, but instead attempt to refocus the conversation from his highly questionable tactics to the actual leaking of the emails which broke the story. If you can't defend your actions, diversion is always a good second option.

I have been friendly with members of the Kern County Young Republicans (KCYRs) for just over a year. Since befriending those individuals, I have in turn met many more great YRs including christians, young professionals as well as upcoming community leaders. They are hard working young people who seek to advance conservative principles in Kern County, the state and across the nation. In December of 2009 an election was held within the California Young Republicans (CYRs) causing a dispute over the proper leadership of the group which has now led to arbitration. When Mr. Mettler addressed the KCYRs during their April meeting, he was made aware of the leadership dispute within the California club and asked not to accept any endorsement by the CYRs, as it was also a violation of the club’s bylaws for the state group to endorse a local candidate. Mr. Mettler, however, refused, announcing the same week, via his Facebook account, that he’d received an endorsement from the CYRs.

"The California Young Republicans have endorsed Ken Mettler, Conservative for Assembly."

When Andy Stanley, the recently elected Chairman of the CYRs questioned and attempted to correct the announcement, his comments were deleted from Ken Mettler’s Facebook page. When another Kern Young Republican asked Ken what was going on, their comments were deleted as well. The Young Republican is reporting that they were subsequently ‘unfriended’ by Ken Mettler who later went on to describe the endorsement as being from the ‘legitimate CYR group’.

The Announcement of the Improper CYR Endorsement

During his address to the Young Republicans, he was also questioned over the statement that he was ‘embarrassed’ of the Kern club (see his March 14th Facebook post).

"The GOP state convention. Lots of good work uniting volunteer groups (though opposed by a few GOP staffers from Kern Co..... embarrassing)"

No, Mettler, it's you who's embarrassing.

The "GOP staffers from Kern County" are members of the KCYRs. Mr. Mettler first denied that the comment existed, then when pressed, denied writing the comment but instead claimed was written by someone else. So concerned with this message on his Facebook wall was Mr. Mettler that he went right back to his office and took no action regarding the post. The comment was still up as of the writing of this post.

Mr. Mettler has engaged in talking out of both sides of his mouth, questionable financial dealings and questionable ethics. What does it say about a man who cannot address dissent and correction, but must instead cover them up and act as if they never happened? If this is the type of behavior that Mr. Mettler is engaging in prior to the election, just what is he going to do when he’s in office?
I do not know, nor have I ever met Shannon Grove, and I am not asking you to vote for her. You must judge her record and her actions for yourself. I am, however, asking you not to vote for Ken Mettler. California cannot abide another politician in the mold of Mr. Mettler.

Ken Mettler is one of two candidates running for California's 32nd Assembly seat. He is seen, at this point, to be the leader in the race. Since the end of March, however, several damaging stories including some of those above, have come out. Ken Mettler is a politician of the worst kind, using undue influence to sway the outcome of his political race and being caught recklessly using PAC funds. Shame on Ken Mettler, and anyone who votes for him choosing to overlook his failings.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

His Hands Were Tied UPDATED Opponent Information Added

Last week there was a stunning bit of honesty from Tom Perriello (D-VA) regarding the power and money grabbing tendencies in Washington DC.



Any guesses as to who voted for another power/money grab? You guessed it, Tom Perriello. Listed below are the 36 Democrats who opposed the 'health care reform' bill, and absent from the list is one Tom Perriello.

Rep. John Adler (N.J.)
Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Rep. John Barrow (Ga.)
Rep. Marion Berry (Ark.)
Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)
Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.)
Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Rep. Ben Chandler (Ky.)
Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.)
Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.)
Rep. Lincoln Davis (Tenn.)
Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
Rep. Tim Holden (Pa.)
Rep. Larry Kissell (N.C.)
Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.)
Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.)
Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.)
Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Rep. Glenn Nye (Va.)
Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.)
Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.)
Rep. Zack Space (Ohio)
Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.)
Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Rep. Harry Teague (N.M.)

Anyone in Virginia have something to say about that?

---

Update:

There are several candidates running in the GOP primary for this seat. Although there is no definitive leader as of yet, Robert Hurt is polling ahead of the pack.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

The White House Bribes Another Congressman

Bart Gordon and friend check out Bart's new digs.

And in other news, grass is, in fact green.

Via Instapundit:

Bart Gordon promised a job as NASA Administrator for Health Care vote?

Rand Simberg is not a Bart Gordon fan.

If true, this has at least two implications. First, the administration is willing to throw Charlie Bolden under the bus. Second, they’re also willing to throw the new plans for NASA under the bus for health care, because Gordon (who just happens to be the relevant committee chairman) has expressed skepticism about them.

There’s also a rumor that another retiring Tennessee Rep., John Tanner, has been promised a job as Ambassador to NATO. I wonder if Republicans in the Senate will interfere with appointments like this? I’d say so.

The Transterrestrial Musings post quotes from this Human Events Post.

Most interesting rumor from the Hill yesterday: Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) who announced his retirement from Congress has been promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote, and Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), another retiring Democrat, has been promised an appointment as U.S. Ambassador to NATO in exchange for his vote.

Glenn is reporting that Gordon has announced he is now a 'Yes' vote on the bill.

But shhhh! It's a secret par for the course. So much so, that no one is even attempting to hide it.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Truth From An Elected Democrat

Stop the presses! We've got an amazing nugget of honesty from an elected official regarding thieving politicians. While meeting with some Tea Party activists on March 16th, Congressman Tom Perreillo admits to what everyone already knows. Unless you tie the hands of politicians, you cannot keep them from raiding entitlements to fund pet projects. Take a listen for a refreshing bit of honesty from Washington DC.



Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

1st Amendment Rights For Me, Not For Thee

New York Institute for Special Education, Class Picture 2009

Surely if you've been living above ground for the last three weeks you recall the utter conniption the lefties had when the Supreme Court overturned the McCain Feingold legislation banning unregulated donations to the national parties. The law also explicitly denied the ability of large corporations to directly donate to candidates and advertise in an election for or against any candidate or issue. Democrats decried the court's decision as allowing corporations (including foreign) to spend without limit to influence elections here in the United States. This is of course a claim which has no basis in the actual understanding of law. Quoteth I from ABC News, emphasis mine:

Under current law, foreign nationals cannot donate to political candidates or pay for campaign ads. Concerns that other countries might try to influence American elections are not merely academic. In the late 1990s the Justice Department and congressional investigators uncovered efforts by foreign donors to infiltrate the American political system through donations to the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton. Among those implicated was Johnny Chung, a Clinton fund-raiser who told Federal investigators that a large part of the nearly $100,000 he gave the Democrats in the 1996 campaign came from China. According to published reports, Democrats had to return another $1.6 million brought in by another prominent Clinton money man, John Huang, after questions were raised about the source of the funds.

So, you're saying that the only ones to ever exploit the system in place by accepting donations from foreign companies was the Democrats?! Say it ain't so! Anyhoo, looks as though the party of law breakers found another loophole to exploit. From Hot Air:

"...the New York Times reports today, one select group of Democrats have had no problem cultivating corporate influence, and doing so by working around the McCain-Feingold restrictions their party claims to champion:

When the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to pay off the mortgage on its foundation’s stately 1930s redbrick headquarters on Embassy Row, it turned to a familiar roster of friends: corporate backers like Wal-Mart, AT&T, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company.

Soon enough, in 2008, a jazz band was playing at what amounted to a mortgage-burning party for the $4 million town house.

Most political groups in Washington would have been barred by law from accepting that kind of direct aid from corporations. But by taking advantage of political finance laws, the caucus has built a fund-raising juggernaut unlike anything else in town.

It has a traditional political fund-raising arm subject to federal rules. But it also has a network of nonprofit groups and charities that allow it to collect unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions.

From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions, according to an analysis by The New York Times, an impressive amount even by the standards of a Washington awash in cash. Only $1 million of that went to the caucus’s political action committee; the rest poured into the largely unregulated nonprofit network. (Data for 2009 is not available.)

Now, consider that $55 million in light of the outrage expressed over the last few weeks over the court’s Citizens United decision.

Color me completely shocked. Be sure to read the rest and watch the attached video. The effort here is to keep the status quo, in other words allow Democrats to continue to collect large sums of money from corporations to fund their political activities, while explicitly denying corporations from donating to groups and individuals with differing ideologies. Keep in mind that the Congressional Black Caucus is the same group of morons who visited Fidel Castro in Cuba last year and proclaimed him a great and compassionate leader.

Please take the time to comment!

Fat Blonde Puts Foot In Mouth; Begins To Chew

Also Known As

This morning on The Spew, Meghan McCain aka Young Sally Struthers, pontificated on 'exactly what's wrong with politics.' At issue is Sarah Palin's call for Rahm Emmanuel to be fired while simultaneously finding nothing wrong with Rush Limbaugh's use of the word 'retarded' when used in as satire aimed at Rahm Emmanuel. Rush's point, which was obvious to anyone in his audience, was that a Republican under the same exact circumstance, would be run out of town on a rail. However, the POTUS' chief of staff just has to act like he's sorry, then all is forgiven. So, since Rahm can say it and get away with it, then it must be okay to do now, right? When Bawbawa Wawa questioned Rush's use of 'satire,' Whoopi Gasbag chimed in saying:

"Yeah, well, when he appears at Caroline's, the comedy club, I'll believe it was satirical. "

You see, only comedians in comedy clubs can use satire. Everybody knows that.

Also on the firing range for Young Sally Struthers, Tom Tancredo's Tea Party speech. Apparently Y.S.S. no issue with uninformed voters and illegal aliens voting in the election. Fucking Brilliant. She also accuses Tom Tancredo of racism. Here are the two remarks of Tancredo's which are racist, as determined by Y.S.S.:

"People who could not spell the word 'Vote' or say it in English, put a committed Socialist Ideologue in the White House, who's name is Barrack 'Hussein' Obama..."

"...People at the convention should have to pass literacy tests in order to be able to vote in this country..."

Y.S.S. compares Tancredo's statements to the 1960's and the excuses used to deny African-Americans' the right to vote. Either Y.S.S. is extremely ignorant, or she's as retarded as Rahm Emmanuel. Citizens of the United States who'd been granted the right to vote by the Constitution were being singled out and refused their right to vote based solely upon the color of their skin. The charge of illiteracy was a canard floated as a legitimate disqualifier by racists to prevent blacks their rights. Fast forward to November 4, 2008. It is known that there are somewhere between 12 and 40 MILLION Illegal Aliens residing within the borders of this nation. Illegal Aliens, are by definition NOT citizens of the United States and are therefore legally disqualified from voting. The other burr under Y.S.S.'s saddle is the fact that Tancredo used Barry's middle name which is a McCaniac no no. I'm sure when Y.S.S. got home, John grounded her for a week just for mentioning PeeBo's middle name, regardless of the context.

If you can stand the idiocy, here is the video:




Please take the time to comment!

Republic Not Dictatorship

Tonight I received a copy of the California Young Republican's by-laws. The by-laws are the governing dictates, by which the CYR members conduct their meetings, choose their leadership, open new clubs and determine what clubs are in good standing. I am reading through the by-laws currently and will post the relevant sections concerning elections, circumstances and procedure for removal of an elected official.

However, I have had opportunity to speak directly with Bryan Williams, the Chair of the Kern County Young Republicans. During our conversation, Mr. Williams discussed the current 'controversy' which is nothing of the sort.

While speaking with Mr. Williams he pointed out that all of the chartered, and in good-standing, clubs of the California Young Republicans, Inc. were represented according to proper noticing procedures laid out in the CYR by-laws. He also stated that the two clubs which are not in good standing, Silicon Valley and San Francisco, were also invited to take part, but chose not to attend. Finally, and possibly most damningly, Mr. Williams said that Jenniffer Rodriguez herself was invited to take part in the election, but chose not to attend.

Mr. Williams emphasized that the CYRs are directed by an elected board and not solely by and elected Chair.

After speaking with Mr. Williams, I discussed the goings on within the California Young Republicans with some individuals in a position to have direct knowledge. It was made clear to me that in Jenniffer Rodriguez's actions to unify the Young Republican Federation of California and the California Young Republican's, Inc. were not sanctioned by the board, and were in many cases outside of what the by-laws allowed. Ms. Rodriguez attempted to recognize Young Republican groups as voting members of the California Young Republicans, Inc. which were not chartered members and were not eligible to contribute to CYR activities and procedures. In this manner, Ms. Rodriguez hoped to create a majority of 'CYR's' which would vote in favor of uniting the YRFC's and the CYR's. It is these actions which cost Ms. Rodriguez the support of the board of directors of the California Young Republicans. It is worth pointing out that Ms. Rodriguez is not new to controversy, she and her predecessor Catherine Brinkman had a dispute which involved the CYR, Inc. website. As a result of this dispute, Ms. Brinkman held onto the website and ultimately passed control of it to Ms. Rodriguez's successor, Andy Stanley.

The bottom line is that Ms. Rodriguez was operating outside the CYR by-laws and the CYR's had no recourse but to remove her from her position. As I stated at the opener, I am reading through the CYR by-laws and will report what I find. If the CYR's operated outside of their by-laws, I will report it, right here.

Please take the time to comment!

Hate To Do This...

After stating that I would never, ever post at Bakersfield.com, I have started a blog specifically to cover this local CYR issue.  The comments have been coming in, hot and heavy.  Be sure to visit and comment if you wish.  I'd love to have your support!

The blog that's getting all the attention is Who's Reporting On the Contested Young Republicans Election?

Please take the time to comment!

Awaiting A Statement From the Chair of the California Young Republicans

Be sure to read the back story, here!

Today has been an interesting day. I've learned quite a bit about local politics and the players within. After reading a simple post on a local radio personality's Facebook page, I began to fall head first into what, at least in the world of California Young Republicans, is a big story. The first link I followed was to the Young Republican National Federation statement on the California Young Republican's recent elections for state office. The statement started of well enough, but ended with a statement which seems fishy to me. The section in question is:

"We are very hopeful that this matter will not further devolve into yet another example of YRs beating each other over the head with bylaws and rules..."

Maybe I am wrong here, and feel free to correct me below, but aren't bylaws the structure in place by which the YR's govern themselves? I mean if we are to throw out the bylaws in search of an 'amicable' solution, then I declare myself Supreme Leader of the National Young Republicans, and as such will be leader for the rest of my natural born life. I further decree that I and only I have the power to appoint state party chairs. This obviously is hyperbole, but you catch my drift. Of course, I do not know what the motives of the YRNF are, nor do I claim to understand why they worded their statement in such a way, I am merely pointing out the interesting choice of words.

After reading the statement from the YRNF, I did a Google search for anything and everything I could find on the contested CYR election. Inevitably I found some very inflammatory blog posts purporting to ascribe motives for the actions of the parties involved. Even more interesting is that when I contacted several members of the CYR's and the KCYR's, I found that no one contacted them before writing about this story.

The question is then begged, who is writing about this? I'm glad you asked! Follow along.

Gretchen Wenner is a staff writer for the Bakersfield Californian and is what would be called in this day and age, a real reporter. She penned this blog post, over at the Californian, covering the happenings. Wenner quotes from the YRNF, and uses statements from Jennifer Rodriguez, the current/former CYR Chair, but has made no attempt to get a statement from any of the KCYR's she mentions by name. I thought reporters were supposed to present both sides of a story? She is also sure to include the ominous 'Abernathy link.' Abernathy, more specifically, is a gentleman by the name of Mark Abernathy who is a political consultant and has worked with several high profile local politicians. He's also linked with a former Congressman from this area, Bill Thomas, who was involved in an interparty spat nearly 15 years ago which, according to this Flash Report, caused the split of the California Young Republicans forming the secondary group the Young Republican Federation of California.

Jon Fleischman is the editor of the 'Flash Report,' a conservative website covering California Political News and the "elected Vice Chairman, South of the California Republican Party." He is also head of the Fleischman Consulting Group. Jon was affiliated with the Don Rogers group which waged a bitter war with the Bill Thomas camp for the control and direction of the YR's and CA state GOP back in the mid 1990's, see the appropriate comment by Vic Pollard at this post. Apparently, Mr. Fleischman still holds a grudge against Kern County, and the members of the KCYR's. I wont make any statements as to Mr. Fleischman's character, but you can learn more about him from his websites, which are linked, as well as the Orange Juice blog, linked here.

Bill Lind is the head coordinator of the Bakersfield/Kern County Tea Party Patriots. You can read more about Bill in this article from the Bakersfield Californian. From reading through Bill's blog postings strewn across the internet, Bill has a problem with those he deems to be 'Moderate Republicans.' He claims to be concerned with the 'self serving Kern County Young Republican Leadership' getting in the way of reuniting the two Young Republican groups within California in the interest of forming one strong conservative group of young activists. Bill points to a statement from the recently elected chair of the Young Republican Federation of California, Adam Abrahms, which states that the CYR's and the YRFC's have been in discussions to reunite the two groups. However, seemingly unable to let the past differences go, Mr. Abrahms again points out that his problem is with some 'self serving moderates' in Kern County.'  Sounds like he really is striving for reunification, no?

The Bloodhound is a blogger at Red County and has a similar disdain for those they see as moderates. The Bloodhound has gone as far as to accuse Congressman Kevin McCarthy of having been behind the recent elections, which they proclaim to be 'immature and disloyal actions.' I am not sure what the identity of The Bloodhound is, but they seem to have very similar interests and biases to those of Mr. Lind.

Okay, so now that we know who the players are on the 'media side,' let me ask some pointed questions...

• What makes the actions of these CYR's wrong? 
•  Do any of these 'media' personnel have a copy of the CYR bylaws?  If not, how do they know the actions of these clubs and members were outside of what the bylaws allowed?
• Why has no one involved in reporting on this story, other than myself, attempted to contact any members of these organizations?
• Why is there a rumor floating around within the CYR ranks that Jenniffer Rodriguez has lost the support of a vast majority of the CYR Board?  Why hasn't anyone else reported this?
• Kern, Kings, Fresno, Monterey, Sacramento, Tulare and Los Angeles County clubs were all represented at the recent meeting in Sacramento; what legitimate CYR groups were not represented there?  Why?
• How many clubs and/or members must be present to have an election qualify as legitimate?
• It's been asserted that Jenniffer Rodriguez has been operating outside of the CYR bylaws.  If this is the case, what is the procedure for removal of her title and position within the CYR's?

Continue to tune in! As soon as I have statements from those involved, I will update the story.  If you have something to add, or if I am in need of correction, please feel free to notify me either through the comments below, or via email.

Please take the time to comment!

Controversy Within the Young California Republicans

Back at the beginning of December, the California Young Republicans gathered at their annual convention in Sacramento, California in order to elect their State Officers. The following YR's were elected to the following positions:

Chairman Andy Stanley (Kern County)
Executive Vice Chairman Amanda Richardson (Monterey County)
Administrative Vice Chairman Tal Eslick (Fresno County)
Treasurer Ryan Dixon (Kern County)
Secretary Scott Raab (Sacramento County)
National Committeeman Zack Scrivner (Kern County)
National Committeewoman Dana Culhane (Kern County)
Communications Director Karen Elizes (Los Angeles County)
Finance Director Joan Silva (Kings County)

There's only one problem... the Chairman from 2008-2009, Jenniffer Rodriguez, has not conceded and goes a step further stating that no election has occurred. She goes on to say that no elections are scheduled until next year. Therefore, the CYR's have two individuals, both representing themselves as the duly elected Chairman of the California Young Republicans. The Young Republican National Federation posted the following message on their website on December 8, 2009:

This morning, members of the National Committee may have received a release from Andy Stanley who has represented that on Saturday, December 5, 2009, he was duly elected Chairman of the California Young Republicans, Inc. (CYRs) at that organization's annual convention. Jenniffer Rodriguez, who prior to Saturday, was unquestionably the Chairman of the CYRs, represents that no convention, and thus no election, of the CYRs has occurred. She further represents that the duly called convention for the election of CYR officers is not scheduled until next year. Both Mr. Stanley and Ms. Rodriguez represent that different persons now hold various offices within the CYRs. In support of their own legitimacy, and the illegitimacy of the other camp, both sets of individuals maintain they have each followed the rules of the CYRs and, predictably, that the other set has not.

The fact that there are now two sets of individuals who purport to be the leaders of the CYR organization is troubling and an unnecessary distraction leading into the critically important 2010 election cycle, particularly since California will elect a Untied States Senator, a Governor, and numerous members of Congress in closely contested districts. It is an unacceptable situation which will also distract from the work of the YRNF and undoubtedly trigger countless blind carbon copy e-mails to the entire membership list of the YRNF and likely well beyond memorializing every minute detail of the dispute. It will further provide opponents of the Republican Party ample fodder to suggest that members of our party are incapable of coming together to achieve victory. The leadership of the YRNF strongly urges the CYRs to resolve this matter quickly and in accordance with its rules, the rules of the YRNF and with Californa law.

Because the legitimacy of what occurred on December 5, 2009 is in dispute, until there has been a resolution, the leadership of the CYRs as it existed prior to December 5, 2009 will continue to be recognized by the YRNF until or unless there is further action by the National Committee or until such time as the matter is resolved by the CYRs. The YRNF will continue to recognize the Chairman, National Committeeman and National Committeewoman of the CYRs as it did prior to December 5, 2009 and no changes by either alleged leadership team will be accepted. Should any of these individuals resign, their replacement on the National Committee will not be seated until the matter is resolved. Further, if this matter is not resolved by the spring, it may be impossible for the National Committee to determine whether the CYRs have submitted a full and complete state survey and ultimately compromise their charter as the recognized organization of Young Republicans in California.

We are very hopeful that this matter will not further devolve into yet another example of YRs beating each other over the head with bylaws and rules - and also that the spirit of the holiday season will encourage all sides to come together and reach an amicable resolution.

For it's part, the California Republican Party website recognizes the CYR organization and has Jenniffer Rodriguez listed as Chair. The CA GOP website also links to the CYR website which outlines the recent election of the new officers. The state party, however, has made no statement regarding the election, and contested leadership within the Young Republicans.

In my searching for information on the topic, I have found only one 'article' relating to the subject, which accuses the members of the Kern County Young Republicans of attempting to hijack the organization and consolidate control within their local chapter. One prominent politician, Congressman Kevin McCarthy, and a politically connected businessman, Mark Abernathy, are also said to be involved in the 'attempted coup.' I have personally requested a statement from three members of the KCYR's; Chairman Bryan Williams, NME Chair Andy Stanley, Vice Chair Dana Culhane, and am currently awaiting a response. I will update the blog as soon as I have more information.

Please take the time to comment!